THE LESSONS OF MUMBAI (A Revision)

THE LESSONS OF MUMBAI (A Revision)

There are those who say that that the tragedy in Mumbai is a terrorist response to the discrimination experienced by Muslims within India, as well as an ongoing militant response to the perceived interference of India within Kashmir. Ghandi’s methods of protest against unjust policies is certainly a better global template than the methods employed in this latest round of violence. On the other hand, Ghandi was a leader of the majority of Indians in protesting and rejecting the rulership of Great Britain, while Muslims in India are decidedly in the minority. This does not justify terrorism and massacre as methods of leveling the playing field, but does raise a larger question—how SHOULD a minority which finds itself outnumbered, underfinanced and outgunned, call attention to itself and to the causes which it represents without resorting to militancy? Furthermore, in the wake of 9-11, how SHOULD a civilized society respond to assaults on its citizenry? Should we resort to tactics of war, as though the militants are speaking for the majority of entire people-groups? Shall we invade sovereign nations, assassinate leaderships, subvert authorities, or coerce retaliation by the opposition parties, by using methods which have already been tried and failed to persuade? Perhaps thoughtful nations could persuade leadership that another method is now in order—engaging in meaningful dialogue as a prologue to meaningful changes that will bring an end to discrimination against people groups and individuals. Those who bristle at the thought of engaging in negotiations with “terrorist” groups argue that this encourages them to use cruel tactics as an attention-getting mechanism because it makes world headlines. A comparison can be made between a rebellious teenager and his parents, who chooses retaliation instead of reasonable logic to support his arguments. Hopefully, the arguments and methods used by either the teenager or the parents never escalate to armed retaliation and open warfare, but can instead focus on more effective solutions. Perhaps the offending party has a legitimate concern which can be addressed in a civilized manner without either postponing or minimizing the complaint, but instead, by promoting workable solutions which will satisfy and encourage open-dialogue and long-term benefits to both parties. Recognizing the maturity of the offended party to at least lodge a complaint which is admitted by the offending party will go a long way toward the eventual path of resolution which is employed by both parties. By encouraging meaningful discussions which lead to just and sustainable solutions with minority groups, we may be able to prevent militant formulas from developing in the first place. After all, the teenager who has been encouraged toward responsible and independent adulthood is much less likely to resort to forceful objections toward his parents. Parents and governments must be more skillful in perceiving factors which indicate readiness to participate and be included in larger and more global transactions. There is always some risk that the individual will disappoint in the freedom which has been granted to him. Still, without the attempt, society can never progress toward individual or cooperative maturity. Let’s make the attempt, then to include others in this larger discussion and participation, which allow for the expansion and betterment of our individual and world cultures. Let’s learn from these lessons those larger methods by which we can grow closer as nations to resolving issues which can both divide and unite us. Rather than viewing this tragedy in Mumbai as just another example of failed negotiations, let’s avoid the double-tragedy of militancy and polarization, by seeking to promote meaningful dialogue leading to just and sustainable solutions to our civil and national conflicts and thereby creating a template that is truly exemplary.

Mark Overt Skilbred

THE TWIN TRAGEDIES OF MUMBAI

THE TWIN TRAGEDIES OF MUMBAI

I have heard it said that this latest massacre in Mumbai is an orchestrated reaction to the discrimination experienced by Muslims within India. Ghandi’s methods of protest against unjust policies is certainly a better global template than the method employed in this latest round of violence. On the other hand, Ghandi was a leader of the majority of Indians in protesting and rejecting the rulership of Great Britain, while Muslims in India are decidedly in the minority. This does not justify terrorism and massacre as methods of leveling the playing field, but does raise a larger question—how does a minority which finds itself outnumbered, underfinanced and outgunned, call attention to itself and to the causes which it represents without resorting to militancy? In the wake of 9-11, how should a civilized society respond to assaults on its citizenry? Should we resort to tactics of war, as though the militants are speaking for the majority of entire people-groups? Shall we invade sovereign nations, assassinate leaderships, subvert authorities, coerce retaliation by the opposition parties, or any other methods which have already been tried and failed to persuade? Perhaps thoughtful nations could persuade leadership that another method is now in order—that of meaningful dialogue as a prologue to meaningful changes that will bring an end to discrimination against people groups and individuals. Those who bristle at the thought of engaging in negotiations with “terrorist” groups will seek to argue that this will send a signal that in so-doing we send a message to terrorists that their cruel methods are now justified in resolving any given dispute. When a parent resolves a conflict with a rebellious teenager, similar arguments may be used to persuade either party that a given situation is unjustified for various reasons. Hopefully, the methods used by either the parent or the teenager never escalate to open warfare and retaliation, but can instead focus on more effective solutions. Perhaps the offending party has a legitimate concern which can be addressed in a civilized manner without either postponing or minimizing the complaint, but rather dealing with and promoting workable solutions which will satisfy and encourage open-dialogue and long-term benefits to both parties. Recognizing the maturity of the offended party to at least lodge a complaint which is admitted by the offending party will go a long way toward the eventual path of resolution which is employed by both parties. By encouraging meaningful discussions which lead to just and sustainable solutions with minority groups, we may be able to prevent militant formulas from developing in the first place. After all, the teenager who has been encouraged toward responsible and independent adulthood is much less likely to resort to forceful objections toward his parents. Parents and governments must be more skillful in perceiving factors which indicate readiness to participate and be included in larger and more global transactions. There is always some risk that the individual will disappoint in the freedom which has been granted to him. Still, without the attempt, society can never progress toward individual or cooperative maturity. Let’s make the attempt, then to include others in this larger discussion and participation, which allow for the expansion and betterment of our individual and world cultures. Let’s learn from these lessons those larger methods by which we can grow closer as nations to resolving issues which can both divide and unite us. Rather than viewing this tragedy in Mumbai as just another example of failed negotiations, let’s avoid the double-tragedy of militancy and polarization, and seek to promote meaningful dialogue leading to just and sustainable solutions to our civil and national conflicts and create a template that is truly exemplary.

Mark Overt Skilbred

RAP AND LESS-MUSICAL MUSIC

RAP AND LESS-MUSICAL MUSIC

Adherents to rap and other less-musical forms of music prefer lyrics, rhythm and repetition to traditional music. Their format emphasizes words more than melody, and they seek to persuade others that the content is emphasized more in this effort. Others who may not be so easily persuaded that traditional music has “seen its day” and can no longer be relied upon to dispense a message respond that rap and other less-musical forms rely more on repetition and shock-value to deliver the message. Rapsters and less-musical artists of every conceivable persuasion insist that traditional music lulls one into an apathetic posture-of-indifference that misses a vital ingredient of communication—the message itself. In other words, the meaning of the lyrics is lost in the beauty of the music. Those who promote less-sing-able songs and rhythmic/repetitious sounds would have us believe that there can be no common ground between these two opposing factions. Many churches have abandoned traditional music completely, in favor of its less-musical counterparts in hopes of attracting younger, more contemporary worshippers. Does any common ground exist between these two factions, or are we doomed to alienating traditionalists from these less-musical versions? Should the drumbeat of vocal and percussive repetition be allowed to silence beautiful harmonies forever? I respond that silence is oftentimes preferred to disharmony.

Mark Overt Skilbred

NATIONAL VS. PRIVATE SINS: Twisted Theology and Misusing Our Bodies

(In this election, remember that voting for Barack Obama is a vote for abortion and homosexuality! Barack Obama votes against all legislation that tends to undermine Roe v. Wade—even partial-birth abortions, late-term abortions and children who live despite attempts to abort them! He supports abortion for any reason whatsoever! Let’s vote for McCain/Palin and overturn Roe v. Wade! Let’s pass an amendment to the constitution making marriage between a man and a woman the only legally recognized partnership, and making all homosexual relationships immoral and illegal!)

NATIONAL vs. PRIVATE SINS: Twisted Theology and Misusing Our Bodies

I love the line from the musical, Fiddler On The Roof, which says, “Send us the cure! We’ve already got the disease! God has already given us the cure—repentance! The result of the misappropriation of our desires and bodily functions results in disease and functional loss in the human family. Haven’t we realized that all of God’s laws are designed to promote and restore life? When we sin and fall short of God’s Divine plans, we rob ourselves of the perfection that living in harmony with God’s Laws provides. We settle for less than God’s best for us, and in so-doing set bad examples for those who follow after us. When our children follow our sinful lead, this becomes a generational problem that leads us farther from the path of life and light. Abortion destroys life, and homosexuality distorts our desires and normal bodily functions, to our own detriment. Whenever we deny God’s Laws in favor of our own desires, we risk punishment and death. “A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand,” and we as individuals and nations ignore this Biblical principle at our own peril. National governments are appointed by God to uphold the Laws which He has given to us in the Bible and through His Holy Spirit. Some non-Christian governments actually do a better job of upholding God’s Laws than so-called “christian nations”. Some non-Christian nations can still be under the power and influence of God’s Holy Spirit, which prompts them to obey God and His Laws. When we see that God’s Laws are not being upheld, it is our duty to warn those in power of their disobedience to God and His Laws. God is no respecter of persons, and He will punish all of us for our disobedience. We are not doing the world and our governments a favor when we refuse to warn them of their folly. All who live within these disobedient nations suffer as a result of the government’s disobedience and dereliction of duty. God will punish the judges, senators, representatives, presidents, dictators, kings, counselors and rulers of every stripe who refuse to uphold and enforce His Laws! Even if the majority favors disobedience to God’s Laws, we as Christians “must obey God rather than men.” THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEANS THAT WE ARE FREE TO BE IMMORAL. THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL SIN. INDIVIDUALS MUST BEAR THEIR GUILT AND PUNISHMENT INDIVIDUALLY, BUT SINFUL NATIONAL POLICIES DESTROY WHOLE CIVILIZATIONS! WHEN OUR NATION’S LEADERSHIP PASSES LAWS THAT PERMIT ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY, GOD’S JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE SURE TO FOLLOW! We cannot ignore the divisive issues of abortion and homosexuality. We must deal with these sins individually and as a nation. Our avoidance of these issues is our tacit approval of their existence. God will NOT ignore these issues, but will punish us individually AND as nations, for refusing to denounce these practices. Until recently, abortion and homosexuality were closet issues. That is because these practices were not only immoral, but they were illegal. Here’s a question for you: Since abortion and homosexuality have come out of the closet, has there been an increase or decrease in abortion and homosexuality? There have now been nearly 50 million documented cases of abortion since Roe v. Wade, and homosexuality has resulted in the pandemic of AIDS. It is often stated that women will still have abortions no matter what laws are passed. In the same way, the argument is made that prohibition won’t stop homosexuality. Nevertheless, by passing laws that make abortion equal to murder and homosexuality immoral and illegal, we uphold God’s standards and establish a legal framework for the morality of our nation. Before women have abortions and people engage in homosexual relationships, they are first given warning by the Laws of God and the laws of our nation that engaging in these practices is immoral, illegal and will be punished. Then if these individuals decide to disobey God’s Laws and the laws of our nation, then God and the nation are free from guilt when these individuals are punished. They have done what is required and warned them to stop doing evil. Here’s something else that I have noticed: Since abortion and homosexuality came out of the closet, other immoralities have skyrocketed as well! It is no coincidence that murder, rape, adultery, witchcraft and many other forms of criminal behavior have increased exponentially. THERE IS A PATTERN HERE THAT WARNS OF AN ENORMOUS BREAKDOWN IN MORALITY. Abortion and homosexuality are the crack in the dike, which have now become a river of dissipation. WHERE ARE OUR LEADERS? Have you noticed that those who support abortion and homosexuality are not silent about their views? They are proud of their beliefs and proud of their leaders. Are we ashamed of our Christianity and of our God, Who gave us His Laws to protect us from self-destruction? Do you really believe that these two issues are the only tests we will face as Christians? God has warned us in the Bible of what we can expect to happen in the final days. If we as Christians, citizens and voters in a Christian nation cannot even pass this rudimentary test, what will happen when the real testing begins? If we deny our faith now, we will JOIN the enemy later! We must prepare now to battle the forces of Satan that are arrayed against us. We are not alone, and with God’s help we can overcome not only these immediate dangers, but other future dangers as well, if we are willing to choose God rather than men. Let us unite as Christian brothers and sisters with one voice in opposition to these grievous sins. Let’s stand up for God and His Laws and show the world that our God and His Laws are not to be ignored. Why are so many silent on this issue? Do they fear men more than the God Who made us all? We Christians have eternal life to look forward to, as well as the reassurance of the Holy Spirit Who dwells within us, and yet we act as though our primary loyalty belongs to the sinful societies wherein we dwell. WHERE ARE OUR CHRISTIAN POLITICIANS? WHERE ARE OUR CHURCHES AND PASTORS? WHY ARE OUR PULPITS SO SILENT ON THESE PRESSING ISSUES? God’s prophets proclaimed His Laws and His judgments loudly and boldly enough for all to hear, whether they listened or not. The church leadership of some denominations has actually denounced Biblical doctrine openly and denied the faith of those who protest otherwise. They have expelled some leaders for upholding the faith and denied admission to those who do not conform to their twisted theologies. God will judge these leaders and denominations more severely for their disobedience and for teaching others to deny the faith. We think that we are showing solidarity by remaining silent and refusing to oppose these rebellious factions to their face. Instead we are actually allowing a cancer to spread through the church. God reserves some of His harshest criticisms for those in church leadership. He says of them that “it were better that a millstone were hung about their necks and they were drowned in the depths of the sea, than that they should cause one of these little ones to perish.” I really wonder if they are still teaching the Bible in some of today’s seminaries! Answer me this: What sort of perverted theology would say that God permits abortion and homosexuality? I fear for these shepherds who refuse to warn their flocks about their sins, and instead they themselves become the wolves that devour the sheep they are told to protect. God will hold all of us guilty of the blood-death of those that we fail to warn of their sins. “He who knows to do good, and doesn’t do it,” is guilty before God, but especially those in church leadership. Pastors and denominations are not the only ones responsible for allowing the sins of abortion and homosexuality to be spread unopposed. Some would have us believe that confrontation is unloving and actually worse than the sins we oppose, because it spreads disharmony and discourages church membership. It has been well-said that “those who stand for everything will fall for anything!” Who would want to be a part of such a church? Why not just turn church into a social club and skip all the pretensions of holiness: “Come one, come all—there are no conditions for membership, either now or later. Enter into this wide gate that leads to destruction—at least you’ll have lots of company!” Those who are familiar with the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer will recall that he and a few other German pastors formed an underground church that fought against Hitler’s ungodly and totalitarian Nazi regime. He was eventually hanged for his efforts, but not before reminding his readers that “when Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die” to himself for the sake of God’s Kingdom. God is watching our struggles and making note of our loyalties and devotion to His Truths. I am only a layman, but I have read my Bible for many years, and I know that God is calling us to be faithful witnesses to His Truths found in scripture and revealed to us through His Holy Spirit. If our pastors refuse to denounce abortion and homosexuality, in favor of less-controversial topics, then it is up to the rest of us Christians, “who have less to lose,” by stating our beliefs loudly and clearly enough to be understood by those who are perishing all around us. May God help us all to do our Christian duty as good and faithful soldiers in His army and help us to repent of our sinful ways and return to the reading and practice of God’s Word and the enactment of our faith in our everyday walk. “By ourselves we can do nothing, but we can do all things through Christ, who strengthens us.”

Mark Overt Skilbred-Christensen

SCANDINAVIAN AND AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT: The Island of Hispaniola

SCANDINAVIAN POVERTY? (Background Information)

I was curious if there was poverty in Scandinavia, because it has now been exactly 31 years since I visited there, and I don’t recall seeing any evidence. My grandfather Overt Skilbred came to the United States from Norway in his early twenties and his wife was a second-generation Norwegian-American from Iowa. My mother’s father, Martin Christensen was a second-generation Danish-American from Minnesota and his wife Christine was a second-generation Norwegian-American, also from Minnesota, although they met in North Dakota, where they raised their family of 15 children. I traveled through Denmark, Sweden and Norway in September and October of 1977, having just spent the prior four years working on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline project. I was impressed with the peoples and lands of my origin, and met several Finnish citizens in Germany and Sweden who greatly impressed me with their intelligence and character. I also met an Icelandic citizen in Oslo who was very cosmopolitan and urbane. It appears that the Scandinavian economies are strong and supportive of their citizens. We in the United States could learn a lot by studying the Scandinavian cultures and attempting to emulate their systems of governance.

SCANDINAVIAN AND AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT: The Island of Hispaniola

I realize that the Scandinavian cultures are ancient civilizations which have made wise use of their time in strengthening and developing themselves into economic and social powerhouses. As young and developing nations, the North Americans would do well to model themselves after the Scandinavians. Indeed, the whole world could profit through closer partnerships with Scandinavia, especially when considering social and economic development and human rights. For example, what if Scandinavia and North America were to partner with the island of Hispaniola in the development of the two nations who currently share that island? The Dominican Republic and Haiti have been hit hard by successive hurricanes of economic, social and political origin. This could serve as a test-case in regional and world development. Those nations who are still struggling with social and economic issues would be watching this experiment with great interest and desire that partnerships of this nature could be implemented in their nations. When the costs of the project are spread out among the nations of Scandinavia and North America and the longer-term economic benefits to trade and tourism are added into the equation, I believe that the advantages not only outweigh the risks, but could serve as a template for future development projects.

Mark Overt Skilbred-Christensen

COME ON MCCAIN/PALIN!

COME ON MCCAIN/PALIN!

Let’s take it to the Democrats over the issues of abortion and homosexuality! We have nothing to lose and a great deal to gain! Let’s stand up and be counted! Let’s be remembered as the party who defended the rights of the unborn, who have no other way of defending themselves! Let’s be remembered as the party who confronted homosexuals with the truth about their immorality! God is on our side! Be strong and courageous!

Mark Overt Skilbred-Christensen

LET'S TALK ABOUT MORALITY!

ELECTION 2008: LET’S TALK ABOUT MORALITY!

The economy and political missteps are the most common topics of the day, partly because of their perceived urgency, and also for their generally non-moral nature. By avoiding morality issues, John McCain and Sarah Palin are missing an opportunity to appeal to the broad base of support which is generated by morality issues among Republicans and other Christian voters. Voters need to hear from McCain/Palin that this Republican platform rests on a solid bedrock of Christian morality. Let’s take off the gloves and drive a wedge right down the middle of the fence that uncommitted voters and unconvinced Christians are sitting on. We can catch the liberals napping while we provide convincing evidence that a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for morality. I know that John and Sarah are on the right side of this issue and will provide the moral leadership that our country needs. The problem is that the voters need to HEAR them declare their moral positions LOUDLY and CLEARLY! What we will discover by doing this properly, is that the Democrats are UNWILLING and UNABLE to respond effectively to a frontal attack on these moral issues, because their foundation is built on the sandy soil of compromise which reveals a humanistic and self-centered approach to life, rather than a God-centered reality. Let’s hit them hard and fast on the issues of abortion and homosexuality and watch them fall off that perch they have been sitting on. Let’s watch them as they struggle to defend their moral positions based on their own situational ethics, rather than on God’s Unchanging Word! Time is running out for those who want to sidestep and compromise on morality. Let’s show the Democrats and the rest of the world that the Republican Party of the United States of America is willing to take a stand for morality in this election!

Mark Overt Skilbred-Christensen

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

McCain/Palin: THE HEART OF THE MATTER

Did anyone else hear the interview with Hillary Clinton today? She was asked by the reporter about the progress being made by the Democrats in this election in light of the economic downturn. Her response was to lump gun control and abortion into the same phrase, as being of lesser importance than the broader issue of the economy. This is the heart of the matter for Christians. Liberals want us all to place less emphasis on morality and to focus more on the economy and other mistakes in judgment by the previous administration. When will people wake up and realize that God’s Laws are THE issue in this election and any other election that we face. There may be other important issues, such as the economy, which demand our attention, but ultimately, what will decide our fate as a nation are issues of morality, such as our responses to abortion and homosexuality. Let’s not allow our politicians to sideline the most important moral issues of our time. Let’s not let them sweep these issues under the carpet of the latest fiscal crisis. God cares very much about the moral issues of our day, and about the concern that we have to uphold the morality of our nation. Vote McCain/Palin!

Mark Overt Skilbred-Christensen

SOCIOLOGICAL REFORM: What's It All About?

SOCIOLOGICAL REFORM: What’s It All About?

All governments deal with sociological breakdown in varying degrees. Those who choose to respond to negative challenges with a positive plan-of-action have begun to properly address concerns that plague individuals and society as a whole. These include poverty, illiteracy, disease, crime, environmental degradation, dysfunctional homes, alcohol and drug problems, substandard educational practices, poor communication, inadequate housing, mental illness, prejudice, segregation, racism, caste-systems, age and gender discrimination, lack of opportunity, disabilities, handicaps, lack of infrastructure, etc. Those societies which recognize the importance of solving these shortcomings and begin to promote the prevention, treatment, cure and safeguarding of those areas which are most at-risk and implement programs with ambitious short-and-long-term goals whose timetables and fulfillments can be accomplished, have discovered that by building a strong foundation of prevention, and proactively reaching into the community to correct the shortcomings before they spiral out-of-control, stand the best chance of maintaining the equilibrium that describes a vibrant society. Those who have experienced the benefits of living in a harmonious culture are reluctant to slip back into dysfunctional systems. Government intervention is necessary to guide and aid those in leadership roles whose suggestions and implementations satisfy the requirements and provide solutions for the social problems being addressed. The planners, architects, teachers, engineers, counselors and technicians who accomplish this shaping process are greatly aided by having observed other successful models such as job training and placement, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, mental health clinics, counseling programs, education, health evaluations, job corps programs, intervention in economically depressed communities where job losses due to changes in supply and demand or environmental degradation have been a part of job-loss and health and safety issues, proactive family counseling, bilingual education programs, judicial intervention when required to prevent discrimination and the entrenchment of vested-interests and class-warfare, to promote equal opportunity for all races and classes, regardless of disabilities, backgrounds and limitations associated with poor infrastructure and other shortcomings, alcohol and drug programs which are based on top-down education and prevention, as well as bottom-to-top intervention and rehabilitation, health programs that emphasize wellness, discipline and long-range health maintenance, etc. Every nation has certain individuals and sometimes large numbers of exemplary individuals who have achieved high standards of excellence in many areas. These individuals are best prepared, with the governments’ help, to furnish the templates needed to bring about the changes in education and the accomplishment of sociological advancement. Why is it that a country like the United States has such enormous and ongoing problems with poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, sexual addiction and perversion, mental illness, lack of sufficient education, deterioration of overall health and well-being, apathy, malaise and the downward-spiral of quality-of-life issues, generally? There is an overall feeling that things are not as good as they once were, and that they are getting worse-by-the-minute. Everyone wants the government or SOMEONE ELSE to step up and solve these pressing issues, and no one seems to think themselves or anyone else capable of accomplishing the task. Here’s a great question for all of you procrastinators out there: How much longer should we wait before we start doing something about it? Shall we wait until we all experience another great depression? How about our own version of a Bolshevik Revolution? You do realize that it is much easier, cheaper and quicker to solve our social problems before they start, than wait until the whole world has noticed and demands an improvement? Well I, for one, do not believe that things are so hopelessly out-of-control that we should just drop-out, give-up, move to another country, or crawl-under-a-rock until things improve! We can begin, like any family, by addressing the chief concerns in a meaningful way, by having a round-table discussion for the purpose of prioritization and strategic planning. We say that these goals are too lofty and unreachable, when we haven’t taken the first step toward solution! This country was built by pioneers who had experienced failure, hardship and lack of opportunity in other countries, and who were determined that their children would have a better life with more opportunities here. Maybe what is lacking is that pioneer spirit which sacrifices comfort and convenience for the hard work and determination which is necessary to move us to the next level. Don’t tell me that this is impossible, when there are other countries that have solved a large portion of these sociological problems in-part or in-full. What we lack is the willingness to act. The conceit and buck-passing reminds me of Nero playing his harp while Rome burned. Oh, there will be lots of finger-pointing, when and if our country collapses, with no one willing to take the blame for allowing it to happen. Is anyone else concerned about all of this, or have you all gone to sleep, convinced that there is nothing more that can be done? Wake up! Let’s get organized and convince others to do the same. Don’t give up without a fight! This is our life, this is our country, and this is our time to make the most of every opportunity to improve our nation and set a good example for other nations. If we can’t get the job done, then we should get out of the way and let some other country shoulder the burden. Let’s just give up, and let some other country tell us how to live a proper existence. Let’s just give up and sit in our own stink, until we all get depressed and move somewhere else. Does this sound familiar? It should, because this is exactly the situation most of our relatives faced before they moved here! So why have we given up on our country? Don’t we have the means to improve it? Doesn’t our humanity have within it the same seed that enabled our forebears to build the nation we inherited? Why have we given up the dream and pursuit of excellence? Is life only about self-fulfillment? “Are we meant to get more than we give?” as the song says, “What’s it all about?” Come on! This isn’t good enough! We can do a better job here! We have to stop settling for less-than-the-best with our social problems. We need to pitch-in and help solve these problems while we still can, before we all move away, or are overrun by our betters! Are we a nation of has-beens, content with yesterday’s accomplishments, or will we discover a way to respond to these sociological concerns that will create a conscientious and enduring example for our children and world-neighbors? Let us decide that WE are the “someone else” that needs to approach these problems proactively, in a way that prevents their occurrence in the first place and treats their symptoms effectively and promptly. The sooner we get started, the more-likely we are to achieve our aim of a harmonious and beneficial society.

Mark Overt Skilbred

THE AMERICANS

THE AMERICANS

Why do nations south of the U.S. border harbor grievances toward their North American counterparts? Do they perceive a haughty attitude that is unwilling to cooperate with them in the development of their nations? Why do some of these nations refuse to dialogue and exchange diplomatic relations? Is it because they perceive that we disregard their interests in favor of our own? Must every agreement heavily favor U.S. interests and largely ignore the health and interests of those who live south of our U.S. borders? If this has been our policy, at what point can these nations who share our Western Hemisphere look forward to mutual benefit? If the U.S. desires a friendly neighborhood, then it must begin by being a good neighbor. No one likes a bully, and if our policies have tended to compromise the integrity of our neighbors to the south, then we need to begin fresh dialogues that consider the needs of our partners, and not just our own. Let us renew those relationships which show the most promise, and welcome suggestions for how to develop and strengthen our other partnerships. We cannot expect other nations who share our hemisphere and the world around us to respond favorably to one-sided agreements which give one partner unfair advantages and offer the other partners very little in return. If what we offer is little-more than survival-benefits without long-term partnership considerations, it is no wonder that our promises and dialogues are largely ignored! If the European Union unequally rewarded its member nations, it would soon lose its credibility and strength. We should learn from those unions which have proven their ability to prosper and endure and accept their diplomatic advice when it is offered. No one expects the unification of the Americas to happen anytime soon, but we can promote the development of inclusive dialogue by suggesting ways in which we can mutually benefit from our relationships. Why should other global regional-partnerships achieve such remarkable success in their trade relations, while the Western Hemisphere struggles to survive? Do our European and Far-Eastern neighbors have goods and services to offer that we in the West do not? We are being outmaneuvered in our own backyard! If we refuse to develop our own neighborhood, we encourage other nations to do it for us, on THEIR terms. The United Nations was established in the West because the world relied on us for leadership at a time when former global templates had dissolved. It’s time that we begin to unite with our world partners instead of persisting with our go-it-alone mentality. The urgency of responding to the events of 9-11 created a perception in the eyes of some that our world partners could no longer be relied upon for guidance and support. Perhaps we should revisit that perception long enough to recall that these same partnerships have endured the test of time for many generations. In addition, we in the West have formed other strategic relationships in the Far East that require patient nurturing so that the seeds of global cooperation can mature. The Americans, like any other global-partnership, can only be as strong as their weakest link. We need to examine the relationships we have in our own hemisphere before we can promote diplomacy in any meaningful way in the global community. Let’s encourage each other to be more willing to help than to offend, more ready to develop than to be enriched ourselves. We can show the world that Americans are united in goodwill and dedicated to the success of our Western Hemisphere. If we treat others as we would like to be treated, others will respond in-kind, and reciprocate with diplomacy that is worthy of the name. Some would argue that our creative manipulation of the Monroe Doctrine has resulted in damaged relationships that are too broken to mend. There is no time like the present to discover the cracks that need mending and resolve to perform the needed repairs. Some of our southern neighbors are in need of a great deal more than charity can provide if they are to be brought into the 21^st century. Should we watch silently while others make the necessary investments in infrastructure with our American neighbors, and be content only to make commentaries on the latest political and economic developments south-of-the border, or should we proactively seek to be instrumental in guiding and shaping this development? This marathon of diplomatic effort in the Americas is in need of a fresh infusion of hope and determination from both the public and private sectors in order to respond effectively to all of the educational and developmental requirements. Rather than developing the Americas from afar, our policies must include a blueprint of inclusiveness that establishes southern leadership positions where they are able to influence and determine paths-of-development for their future. Corporate America is ideally positioned to share both decision-making and developmental strategies with their counterparts in the south. This strategy will come as welcome news to those who struggle to overcome the perception of non-inclusiveness in the present diplomatic formula. When we approach our neighbors with a developmental plan that includes them in the decision-making process as real partners who enable their own transformation, we enlist their cooperation to realize its actualization. When we perceive that our relations with some partners have been damaged either by our own policy errors, or as a result of misperceptions caused by forces within or without their own borders, our response must persuade using the most attractive and inclusive strategies which we are able to provide. When our southern neighbors realize that we, as Americans working together, can truly accomplish changes that will empower and uplift our Western Hemisphere, they will be less likely to engage in primary relations with another hemisphere. The best guarantee for our reluctant partners that diplomacy with us will yield results, is the success of our neighboring partnerships. We will experience other global economic challenges in the future which require strategic partnerships similar to that of the European Union. Let’s not be caught unprepared for the next crisis, but instead prepare our hemisphere for the requirements needed to prosper in the new millennium. Our inevitable struggles equip us for the eventual challenges we face in the global community. Our union strengthens our leverage and impact with other world communities. Does the West still possess the formula and the ingredients for success? Can we motivate others in our own hemisphere and those of like-minds throughout the world, that our methods are correct, practical and transformational? Is it true that following the model we provide will help our global partners to succeed? We have led by example in the 20^th century, and I believe that we can inspire the Western Hemisphere and the world to respond to our example and follow us into this new millennium. In order to accomplish this, we must first trust each other enough to cooperate in the relationships that will transform the West. As a cohesive unit, we can present a united and compelling hemisphere to our global neighbors. Good governance must supply the blueprint and the leadership necessary for success. We have the manpower, energy and diplomatic willingness to accomplish the unification of our Western Hemisphere. Let’s not let policy failures and short-sightedness deter us from accomplishing the union that we seek. Our failure at this task will only encourage others to attempt what we have failed, and result in further diversions and delays to our eventual unification process. It is inevitable that we will either work together in goodwill and harmony, or settle for yesterday’s uneasy alliances and postponed dreams. Let’s make plans now to create a Western Hemisphere and world where all of us can participate equally and enjoy the benefits of our shared cooperation.

Mark Overt Skilbred

OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD

OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD

Shall we follow or shall we lead? There are those who do not welcome the changes of the 21st century. For some, the good-old-days summon up familiar memories of a time when boundaries were clearly drawn and positions were firmly held. We had problems and we had solutions for those problems, and as time progressed, we made plans for our futures based on historical events. How has our perception changed toward this pattern, as we feel our way forward into this new century? Are the old alliances working, or do we allow larger, better, more inclusive and appropriate agreements to take their place? Is it practical to use a 20th century template to solve 21st century problems? Many are reluctant to lead, fearing to take those steps which mark change, and fearing to sponsor those who do. For some, the cold-war mentality has scarred their outlook to the point that all gestures of cooperation towards others are viewed in a hostile light. Olive-branch diplomacy risks accusations of pandering, weakness, and traitorism. Others proclaim that a new millennium has begun, full of opportunities that must not be squandered through policies of non-inclusiveness and fear-mongering. From what viewpoint do we choose to obtain our world perspective? As individuals, we understand and embrace those technologies and policies which enhance our lives and move us forward. As countries, we recognize those who are most adept at promoting solutions and setting good examples for others to follow. Cooperation between those who lead by good example magnifies the effect of the results and encourages further partnerships. The world of change begins at our doorsteps, and leads to many other changes that are developing all around us. How we choose to respond to these invitations and opportunities defines us as individuals, nations and humanity. Should we wait, while others shoulder the responsibilities of leadership? Should we be reluctant participants, who respond only to events that we perceive as intrusive and harmful to our established standards? Or should we establish a new-millennium diplomacy which seeks common agreement on issues that affect and benefit us all? Adoption has shown us how individuals can be changed through a healthier family and social environment. I believe that every human on our planet would benefit from adoption into a new global family, which can supply the ingredients which are lacking in our separate lives. Enlarging our view-of-the-world to include a full spectrum of nations united in purpose and direction will continue this process of education and social development that will enrich and enable succeeding generations to develop and encourage each other. Instead of an “us vs. them” mentality, which pits nation-against-nation, and presumes that only one nation is capable of deciding what is beneficial for all, why not acknowledge our differences and move beyond them to create bridges that unite us in our common endeavors? Perhaps we will discover that there truly are more issues that we agree on, than those which divide us. The rich tapestry of our humanity must be woven with the skill of united effort, less-mindful of our differences, and more-thoughtful of our shared aspirations. We realize that certain individuals are wonderfully gifted in some areas, and yet depend on others to supply those talents and energies which they lack. When we consider the world, this same principle must be acknowledged and promoted so that equal opportunity is offered to everyone to develop the talents that God made uniquely theirs. Who knows how many bright minds and able bodies have been exempted through policies of non-inclusion and denied opportunity? When these barriers are allowed to continue, we only cheat ourselves and our earth of the innovations and industry that would result from inclusion. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” and so is the human energy that depends on a beneficial and humane society for its development. We feed our animals and water our plants, but we deny our fellow humans the ingredients they so desperately need for a successful life. Shame on those of us who lead and follow, who selfishly put humanity in jeopardy and deny the dreams and accomplishments of those who are potentially our betters, through policies which deny entrance and opportunity to all but the “chosen few.” We can do better than this, and we must! We must begin to view everyone as a part of our world family, and no longer just as separate individuals and nations. I have faith that when we cooperate with each other, and promote the general welfare and advancement of all of our neighbors, that our entire planet will benefit. Our earth and its inhabitants are depending upon our united efforts to accomplish this transformation. Selfish ambitions must defer to those policies which enable every person to succeed. Yesterday’s political categories no longer suffice to bring about these changes. Our new family must decide that we prefer unity to individual desires. Should our individual wishes deprive others of their dreams? Consider how many countries have risen to power in the past, only to fall victim to the axiom that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!” How many countries bitterly regret that their power was not kept in check by the voices of moderation who pleaded with leadership not to plunge themselves and their nations headlong in the pursuit of global domination? Their power was wasted in the destructive efforts of wars which only increased suffering and deprivation in their own countries and in the world around them. Instead of being a force for leadership and peace, they became perpetrators of greed and violence who sowed the seeds of disharmony and hatred that we carry with us to this day. We need leadership NOW, more than ever, that is willing to put the general welfare of every individual and political entity on the planet ahead of their own selfish desires. Does this world need to be a “dog-eat-dog” kind of reality? Are there really a lack of abundant resources available, or have we refused to do what families are supposed to do—share? As individuals, we each contribute our efforts to our family, so that our family can move forward together and accomplish what we as individuals might never achieve. Let us as individuals, embrace our world-wide human family in this same way, and help each other to develop individually, so that we can move forward together as one WHOLE family. In this process, we will discover that our own happiness depends more on helping others than it does on helping ourselves. Let us move toward leadership by example, promoting those who prove their willingness to sacrifice their own power and wealth for the greater good of all, and trusting that the One God Who made us all will provide the skill to accomplish this great task.

Mark Overt Skilbred

JOHN MCCAIN: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

A soldier, p.o.w., decorated war hero, with a proven voting record on issues that matter, yet unafraid to oppose prevailing opinion when principles are at stake, John McCain is truly a man for all seasons, who appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. Some would argue that the November 2008 election is more about personalities than about issues. John McCain is the candidate who satisfies both demands and still retains credibility, poise and leadership. Casting your vote for McCain/Palin in November will ensure a balanced and responsible record on issues-that-matter. Trust the “man for all seasons”—vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin in November!

Mark Overt Skilbred

John McCain and Sarah Palin: REPUBLICANS FOR A REASON!

John McCain and Sarah Palin: Republicans For A REASON!

Christians should vote for McCain/Palin in November based on several sound and reasonable Republican positions. My two favorite reasons, and the primary motivation for those of us who call ourselves Christian, are the positions that McCain/Palin have taken on the wedge-issues of abortion and homosexual rights. These are far more than political issues, as a true Christian will tell you! Some “believers” have bought-into the humanistic notion that we as mature adults should be allowed to choose our own best-course-of-action, and that religion and morality should have no place in politics and the establishment of laws. Some Christians are closet-believers who support God’s laws privately, but are unwilling to discuss wedge-issues such as abortion and homosexual rights for fear of offending others. Jesus says that if we fail to acknowledge Him before men, that He will disown us before His Father in heaven. The primary reason these Christians are unwilling to openly discuss their faith and beliefs in a public forum, blogsite, or from friend-to-friend, is that they fear men more than God. I, for one, would rather run the risk of offending men, who can do very little to help or harm me and my future, than to jeopardize my eternal welfare by denying my faith and my God. I praise God that John McCain and Sarah Palin are not afraid to boldly affirm their faith in Republican principles and the God they serve. They are willing to stake their hope of election on the stand they have taken on the highly-controversial issues of abortion and homosexual rights. They are not afraid of what men-may-say, but rather are committed to what God says so clearly in the Bible and through His Holy Spirit. May God help all of us to be bold in our declarations of God’s truths in our interactions with each other, and especially in our politics, as this November election draws near. Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark Overt Skilbred

ALL-INCLUSIVE POLITICS

ALL-INCLUSIVE POLITICS

As we examine the electorate, it seems only natural to categorize voters along party lines. Republicans in 2008 tend to be the more conservative of the two-party system, and Democrats tend to be the more liberal party. We realize that there are many different viewpoints within each party that define the degrees and kinds of conservatism and liberality. Just as it is unusual for any two people to agree on all the issues, so it is even more unlikely for all members within political parties to completely agree. The inevitable compromises are predictably along “party lines” that have been established historically by the parties-in-question. The issues that are chosen for consideration then become a focal point for those seeking to move the party into adopting certain issues into the party platform. There are issues chosen for their universal appeal, such as national defense, where both parties favor a more-or-less strong national defense, but may disagree on its implementation. The methods of implementation may then become the “wedge-issue” that divides the two parties along party lines. Once these “wedge-issues” have been clearly defined, the electorate proceeds to vote for the candidate that they trust will best-be-able to implement the party platform. There are, however, certain issues that have not been chosen for their universal appeal, but have been formulated to persuade skeptics that their opposition is based on certain groundless and unsubstantiated fears and prejudices. Two such issues confront the electorate again in November of 2008, and they are “abortion-rights” and “homosexual-rights.” Advocates for these positions appeal to the electorates’ sense of fairness, justice and legitimacy. Arguments include the contention of Roe v. Wade that a mother has a “right-to-choose” life or death for a developing child. “Homosexual-Rights” advocates contend that individuals have the right to choose sexual partners from the same gender, enter into domestic partnership, and be recognized by the state and society as married in the same sense as heterosexual couples. Both of these issues have gone from being closet issues in the ‘50s and ‘60s to becoming “wedge-issues” in the ‘70s, ‘80s, ‘90s, and now into the 21st century. Proponents argue that justice demands that we legitimize freedom on behalf of pro-abortionists and pro-homosexuality advocates. The “umbrella of democratic principles” we are told, must protect these “minorities” from infringements that obstruct their exercise of freedom and its legitimization. There are some advocates who view questions of morality on their face-value, reasoning that “as long as no one gets hurt, what’s the difference?” Others seek to persuade us that we must choose “the lesser of two evils” and permit the mother to choose life or death for her child. Still others reason that no government, person or power has the right to dictate sexual rights and prohibitions to any human. These viewpoints can all be categorized as humanistic in the sense that their advocates represent the view that humanity can best determine the most legitimate course of action for its members. Some who hold these views claim that religion and even morality have no place in politics and the establishment of the rule-of-law. They reason that humanity can decide on a case-by-case basis what course-of-action should be taken. They argue that, as times change, so our public policy must change, in the same way that we set traffic laws and curfews. The impression has been created that religion and morality itself are the results of the evolution of codes-of-conduct that shelter us all under a common umbrella of shared protection—sort of a “you-don’t-bother-me-and-I-won’t-bother-you” mentality. The church is viewed as an enemy of those who would seek to implement moral self-determination. Governments and law enforcement bear the brunt of individual objections to the rule-of-law. The church boldly stands in contradiction to this self-deterministic attitude by stating that we are NOT the source of our own rule-of-law. The church says that laws and rules of behavior were given to us by God, that He expects these laws to be respected, obeyed, enforced, and lived-out in our daily lives. Furthermore, God expects us to be perfect, (since He is the One Who enables us), and to love His Laws, and to hate when His Laws are disobeyed. There are some “christians” who choose to ignore some of the commands of God, to their discredit. The best source of Truth is found in the Bible itself which will lead you into a relationship with God Himself, through the person of the Holy Spirit: “For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to Him.” II Cor. 16:9. American law is founded on Biblical principles. God does not permit “killing-for-convenience.” Life is sacred to God, and those who deliberately take-a-life without legitimate cause risk God’s judgment of death for breaking His Law. Similarly, God’s penalty for practicing homosexuality is death. I am well-aware that reminding you of how these things stand with God is a bit old-fashioned, but I, like all Christians, have been told by God through the Bible and the Holy Spirit, that practicing and advocating abortion and homosexuality are both prohibited by God and punishable by death. You might ask, “well—who is this “god,” that we should fear him or pay any attention to him?” This was the same question Pharoah asked Moses and Aaron before the ten plagues of Egypt descended. Again, regarding homosexuality, you might ask, “who is this fellow, trying to tell us what to do?” This was the same question asked by the men of Sodom before God caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone that created the Dead Sea and the lowest point on the surface of our planet. Consider the following: Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against His Anointed One. “Let us break their chains,” they say, “and throw off their fetters.” The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Then He rebukes them in His anger and terrifies them in His wrath, saying, “I have installed My King on Zion, My Holy Hill.” I will proclaim the decree of the Lord; He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become Your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; You will dash them to pieces like pottery.” Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for His wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in Him. Psalm 2:1-12. So I have some advice for you who call yourselves liberal, conservative or independent in the election which is fast-approaching: Consider wisely the issues before you. There is a God in heaven Who cares very much about the choices we make. Think about your children and those who share the planet with us. Don’t snuff out the beacon of God’s Love that has been present in America since its foundation. If you think that your independence is worth more than God’s kingdom, you are mistaken! Kiss the Son! Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark Overt Skilbred

God is Truth

After all, does truth "need to be
defended?" Isn't truth its own
defense? The same can be said of
God. Isn't God His OWN defender?
He is, after all, an unstoppable
force, that is VERY convincing!
I choose to ally myself with God.
God IS the truth that wise men seek!
May we all seek Him diligently!
Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark Overt Skilbred

The Pursuit of Truth

Science and Theology share a common task--how to seek, defend and preserve truth in the midst of a storm of theories that often conflict and agree in part or in full. The degree of discomfort created by this tension frequently causes confrontations between antagonists who are easily diverted from the pursuit of truth. Both sides are equally guilty of participation in these diversions, so there is no need to prolong this discussion with finger pointing. However, there is a better, more expedient, and much-less-costly method that can be used to resolve these conflicts. Jesus said that we should "turn the other cheek." As a parent, we learn to overlook immaturity in our children, choosing rather to shape our progeny with a less confrontational method. God has taught us this method with the patience he has shown towards us. He knows that "we are but dust" created in His image, that needs patient and diligent effort before the Good Potter finally molds us into His heavenly creations. By following God's patient example, and overlooking those more obvious points of contention in whichever camp you happen to identify with,you stay focused on your primary objective of pursuing the truth. Let's not get weighed-down with unnecessary battles that concentrate on our perceived differences, and instead devote our energies to discovering the truths that lie within ourselves and in the world and universe around us. Our combined efforts will be rewarded with harmonious relations between Science and Theology that will point other children in the right direction, instead of discouraging further discovery. The good examples we set for others advance the Kingdom of God AND the pursuit of science.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark Overt Skilbred

Agricultural Zones

In a previous article called “Greed and Poverty,” I referred to agricultural zones as being a partial answer to solving our global food shortage. Although there could be many variations of agricultural zones, they will have certain shared characteristics: They will be a part of a global set-aside program supervised by a variety of government entities. These will exist alongside other agricultural production and will resemble the other programs in every respect except that of free-trade. Free-trade carries with it a competitive nature that is not present in an agricultural zone. The purpose of the zone is to allow for global accumulation, storage and distribution of agricultural products that is kept separate from the supply and demand sector. The immunity from competition enables the exchange of agricultural commodities on an even-par basis that recognizes costs-of-production and distribution, but avoids the negative hoard-and-scarcity cycle that characterizes free-market tactics. This method allows the accumulation of staple agricultural items to proceed to sustainable levels of storage and distribution and limits the effects of hoarding and scarcity. Overproduction can also be more easily absorbed with improved storage capabilities and better methods of distribution. As these various cooperating governmental entities increase their interdependence and global cooperation, and as efficiencies are improved, other projects will be implemented to increase arable acreage, while respecting environmental-impact globally. Various lands which may already be included in set-aside programs as prudent conservation efforts, can now be included as a part of this increasing arable acreage. Techniques which have been in widespread use in various areas where arable land is at a premium, can now be implemented to transform these less-desirable, but nevertheless usable areas into productive cropland. Measures such as desalinization, irrigation, terracing, greenhousing, trellising and canopies can be further augmented with state-of-the-art mechanization and transportation infrastructures to integrate with the existing global networks. At the same time, individual efforts at personal gardening should be increased. As we each do our part to supply ourselves and our neighbors with fresh fruits and vegetables, the effect will be the stabilization of local demand and an increase in available global supply. Global nutrition and abundance begins at home. When these agricultural zones are implemented globally, each governmental supervisory unit will facilitate the proper production, storage, receipt and distribution of these agricultural products in-keeping with per-capita guidelines based on available nutritional recommendations. Global storage data will constantly monitor existing planting, production and harvesting schedules worldwide and provide supplemental climate and weather-related information that will affect the scheduling, storage and availability data. Scientists, engineers, planners, logisticians, experts in production and storage techniques can regularly exchange vital information that will enable more efficient global-monitoring, disaster-preparedness, production, storage, transportation and receipt of agricultural items. The goal of such a management system is to prevent starvation and malnutrition. As such, it will emphasize the burden of responsibility that all of earth’s citizens share. We are each responsible to do our part to provide for ourselves and others. None of us is able to see what the future holds for us individually. But all of us can do our best today to contribute to the general welfare of our planet’s sustainable food supply. We now have the capability of increasing food production exponentially on a global basis. Our techniques of greenhousing, terracing, irrigation, crop-rotation, planting, increasing yields, harvesting, storage and transportation have never been so efficient. We have the accumulated, documented wisdom of many generations to guide us in this task. What we have lacked heretofore was the will and the leadership to move forward. WE ARE ALL ONE PEOPLE. Those of us who have not recognized this yet will rely on those of us who HAVE to show us the way. So let us begin now to educate and empower those most qualified to lead us forward. Not only are we able to influence existing governments, but WE LITERALLY ARE THE GOVERNMENTS that will accomplish this great task of eliminating starvation and malnutrition globally, and within our own lifetimes. Let us resolve to make sustainable and nutritional food a priority for the planet and all of its inhabitants.

Mark Overt Skilbred

The Mideast and Tony Blair: Self-Governance and the Global Empire

As we work our way into the 21st Century, some of us wonder how our systems of governance can best be integrated to optimize the areas of local, county, state, federal, and international jurisdiction which are already in place, so that a more harmonious relationship can develop amongst these various agencies. Mutual respect for each entity’s importance in the governing process will lead us toward gradual unification of vision and implementation of our various programs. When conflicts arise, refocusing our attention on those broad areas of agreement increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome for all participants. How might this approach aid governmental development in the Mideast? A search for areas of commonality reveals surprisingly few areas of disagreement—mostly territorial in nature, compared to a much larger area of shared vision for development. When viewed through the lens of commonality, borders become less of a wedge issue and areas of mutual benefit emerge. Similarly, NAFTA agreements benefit all party’s shared vision of a brighter tomorrow through cooperation that is able to springboard over boundary issues. As the various governing entities work together on common unifying themes, age-old barriers give way to more constructive and hopeful agendas. Examples abound, but a comparison between Canadian, Mexican and US border issues will suffice to illustrate this principle. The overarching reason behind Mexican-US border disputes is economics, which almost is not an issue on the Canadian-US border. Can anyone seriously dispute the contention that Mexican-US border clashes would fade to insignificance, were the economics to resemble the Canadian-US border? Certainly this all takes time, but the truth of this principle is obvious. Ignoring all the history of territorial disputes, and focusing on economic solutions for all parties should then be the central and unifying theme, not just for North and South America, but for the Mideast, Africa, and other negatively-charged political regions. Dialogue and zones of economic cooperation should perhaps be attempted first at the local level between area bureaucrats and business leaders. Surely there are enough shared interests in common achievable programs such as agriculture and fair-exchange trade agreements, shared transportation links, and other border-neutral pursuits. News agencies can help to encourage this process by refusing to publish hate-mongering interviews, and by focusing instead on unifying themes of a human-interest nature. Tony Blair’s patient resolve will bear fruit that will be remembered long after his terms as prime minister have faded into history. Unity, solidarity, shared faith and a determined hope for a brighter tomorrow will produce a bountiful harvest of Mideastern peace. Great Britain is famous for fostering and maintaining trade and diplomatic relations with a diverse group of nations long after other relationships have soured. Best wishes to Ambassador Blair in his continuing efforts of goodwill in a troubled region. When great minds unite to maximize the common benefits, lesser minds are subdued by the force of the new reality implanted.

Mark Overt Skilbred

Yes! We Serve A God Of Free Will

Yes! We serve a God of free-will! Does this mean that He will allow us to see His blueprint or that He has already told us everything that He will be doing in our future? That would limit His freedom. I am happy for everything we have been told in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, and I trust that the One Who made us will continue to do everything perfectly, with or without our help. I am not comfortable with God-in-a-book types of theology, that seem to presume that we have been privy to all that God has been about and everything that HE WILL BE about. That sort of God-on-a-leash or God-in-a-box thinking relegates Him to a very man-centered and small-time-god status that only a humanist could appreciate. Just as only God could make order out of chaos, He will graciously lead us out of our chaotic ways of thinking when we humbly ask for His help. "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you." Creation is not just in the past, but is also in the present and in the future! What we are observing is the "eternal fingerprints of God" as we follow in His wake, as we walk in His presence and as we look forward to living with Him in future glory! May God help us to
be the kind of companions that God desires us to be and that He truly deserves us to be--creatures AFTER HIS OWN HEART! Soli Deo Gloria!

Mark Overt Skilbred

Greed and Poverty

Imagine a world where stability is the norm and instability is the exception. In this world we are imagining, there are no shortages of life’s basics: food, clean water, shelter, and a healthy environment. Although competition may still exist on many levels, it is no longer concerned with life’s necessities, but only with the non-essentials—those extra things that make life more fun and exciting. But this time, these non-essentials are no longer allowed to have priority over life’s essentials. Instead, life’s essentials are a part of a globally-protected agriculture zone. How can this imaginary existence become a reality? Let’s look at our situation and see: If every square mile of land were occupied, there would be around 5 acres per man, woman and child. That seems like plenty of land until you factor in climate, terrain, deserts, swamps, pastures, infertility, forests, barren rock and general misplacement of buildings on top of agricultural lands. That reduces the available arable land to only about half-an-acre per-person-on-the-planet. Again, half-an-acre of usable gardening space/farmland per person still seems like plenty of room until we consider various environmental abuses, incompetent soil management, government interference, inequitable land distribution, laziness and greed. Hopeless, you say? Perhaps—but maybe not insurmountable. When nations unite, great things are accomplished. This world has been given so many bright minds and abundant natural resources. I really believe that we have the ability to change this world into the kind of place that God originally intended. There have been times of relative peace and prosperity when nothing seemed impossible. Consider the years of post-World War II, when the world seemed to awaken from a nightmare to discover life anew. Then our dreams were golden, when no dreams were too large, and life was fresh and hopeful for millions of people all over the planet. Surprisingly, those countries which had suffered some of the greatest losses were among the first ones to rebuild. Their tragic memories were changed from sorrow to renewed vigor, a zest for living, and ultimately the rebirth of civilizations that had been destroyed by war. This rebirth sought a new world full of opportunity and fulfilled dreams, where everyone had a chance to build a life of hope for their family. These were not idle dreams, but were instead realities that were achieved by millions of families throughout the world. We are once again poised at such a crossroads. Will we, as citizens of the world, make a decision to seize this opportunity to fulfill our destiny and our dreams, or will we be satisfied to live in the shadow of former greatness, under of a cloud of disillusionment and shattered hopes? How can we begin to realize these hopes and make them our realities? We need to unite globally with others who share our vision of an achievable, prosperous and fulfilling life for all of our citizens. One good place to begin is by supporting efforts to reclaim arable land for agriculture. These are lands that have long remained unused through misappropriation and neglect. Let’s insist that cropland no longer be used for building construction sites. Let’s further insist that every vacant lot be made available for shared green spaces in every city and town on the planet. Let’s remove all unnecessary buildings which are mislocated on arable land, and finally let’s insist that cities, towns, industrial sites and other infrastructures be placed on sites which are unusable as arable acreage. When this has been accomplished, we will notice a startling thing—we have now increased our arable acreage to between 1-2 acres per person globally. When these crops have been planted, harvested, and properly stored, transported, sold at a reasonable profit and consumed by a thankful public, we will have achieved an economic substrata that is immune to inflation. Think about it—all the efforts to increase our available arable acreage, plant, harvest, store, transport and sell these agricultural commodities globally, will now be standardized into an ever-increasing quest for a sustainable and globally-affordable food supply that is no longer dependent on the former conditions of supply and demand. Our food supply will no longer be held hostage by the highest bidder and warehoused for the purpose of price-gouging and price-fixing. Alarmists will squeal that this will remove any incentive to sell agricultural products. They base this argument logically on other failed attempts at agricultural utopias. But they have forgotten that we now have the available ingredients for success at our disposal. In addition to all the bright minds, we have unprecedented infrastructures in place for communication, transportation, storage, preservation, security, fertility, nutrition and mechanization, in addition to a protected global agricultural zone that is immune from fluctuations that affect non-essential items that are a part of the supply and demand superstructure. We
know, and have known for a long time, which agricultural items have proven to be successful in the past, which are high-demand items versus low-demand, nutritionally-superior, practical and sustainable. We also know quantities and calories of consumption based on current levels, and which supply levels fit the ever-improved global diet, which includes a much-wider spectrum of all basic food groups. What then remains for us to accomplish these goals in our lifetime? First, we need the shared vision of ending hunger and reducing poverty. We may never succeed in eliminating poverty, but we are on the verge of at least ending starvation and malnutrition. These are achievable goals which need only proper planning by the greatest minds on the planet, the investment of time and energy necessary to accomplish them, and the agreement to global cooperation and mutual aid that befits a committed and humanitarian society. Let us begin now to move in this direction, trusting that God will empower us to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over all” that God has placed under our supervision.

Mark Overt Skilbred

Arable Land vs. Building Placement

One green-responsible subject I never see addressed is that of building-placement. To wit: Why are dwellings and buildings of all types placed atop arable acreage globally? Less than 10% of land is currently considered arable. An inclusive global-green plan must include proper placement as one of its foundational pillars. Poverty and infrastructure are frequently cited as reasons for disasters like Myanmar. Historically, floodplains like the Irrawaddy, Nile , Mississippi , and others have cost humanity staggering losses resulting from improper usage of arable acreage. With the ability to predict typhoon/hurricane/floods and high-speed transit modems, we must insist that a proper plan exclude all non-essential infrastructures on flood-plains and encourage residential and business development on lands better-suited to that purpose. We can conservatively double our arable acreage globally if zone-planning is properly implemented.

Mark Overt Skilbred

Prison Reform: A Vision of the Future

Like many others, I would like to see prison-reform head in a refreshingly-new direction: toward public service, specifically. Eventually, as the model becomes a working-reality for those most-eligible for the program, others can increasingly be added to the program. As the percentages increase and increasingly-positive results are verified, new more- attractive programs can be added to those already in place, as well as proper incentives to encourage other inmates to apply for the programs being offered. Just as prison camps and penal colonies became institutional prisons, and just as chain-gangs became license plate factories and litter-removal crews, this program would elevate community service to new, more far-reaching levels. Some of those I envision would include: road-building, agriculture infrastructures such as irrigation projects, terracing, reforestation, and some eco-friendly land eclamation, recreational infrastructures: parks, hiking and bicycle trails, picnic areas, camping areas, building and maintenance projects on a national, state, county, city, and local level, solar-projects, etc. Inmate housing can become permanent infrastructure within the setting of each project. As inmate work increases in diversity and complexity, and incentive is created inside the prison system to be a part of this
proactive community-building program, overall morale will also improve. Physical
work increases body function, appetite and healthy brain-function. Prisoners are thereby encouraged to do well for themselves, their fellow prisoners, and society in general. When a job is well-done, these prisoners may well look back some day on a project they were involved with, and tell their families with pride, “Do you see this campground here in Yosemite? I helped build it! Do you see those cabins over there? I did the roofing and the drywall.” Contrast this positive outlook and new skill-sets with the average current morale and recidivism that describe today’s outlook, and you catch a vision of what our future could be like. Instead of “Do the Crime, Do the Time,” the new slogan could be “Let’s Build Our Future.”

Mark Overt Skilbred

Level Playing Fields

There is no such thing in life as a level playing field. We are unequal individuals competing for our slice-of-life with other individuals who may have more, less, or similar advantages and disadvantages. Even individuals with similar circumstances may still have different opportunities presented to them, which creates an advantage for one and not the other. Perhaps a person has golden opportunities early in life, but not later. When government attempts intervention in this leveling process, it becomes a subject for public scrutiny at all levels of society. How might this supervision escape common criticisms and gain more widespread public and private approval? Methodology is the key to acceptance, when coupled with a keen awareness of perception and historical perspective. Judicial intervention risks initial charges of unfair advantage followed by countermeasures intended to thwart end results. Framing the case properly results in beneficial guidelines for future leveling measures. Ultimately, society rises and falls based upon our progression towards our ideals of justice and equality.

Mark Overt Skilbred

High Expectations, Technology, and World Hunger: Avoid Victimization By Being Proactive

Market-driven agriculture is wrong-headed. Waiting to grow crops based on speculation about market-return overlooks the needs of the global community. Much is known about the nutritional needs of humanity, yet we base our assessments of agricultural output on market-economics. If we are considering non-essentials, the law of supply and demand SHOULD be considered when regulating quantities of goods and services, but what is there about human nature that wants to take chances when it comes to food and shelter? Do squirrels really have more sense than we do, when it comes to these issues? Why do we wait for calamity to occur before considering our options? It is often said that we don’t produce enough food to feed the world. Close behind that statement is this one: overproduction causes prices to fall. Here we have the classic law of supply and demand. BUT THIS LAW CANNOT BE USED WHEN CONSIDERING FOOD AND SHELTER! If there isn’t enough arable land to grow enough food for the planet, then we need to add to our arable acreage by refusing to build on top of cropland, by turning more grazing land into cropland, through improving irrigation, desalinization plants, crop-rotation, terracing and trellising, green housing, and improving our distribution networks. Methods of storage must also be improved with grain dryers, proper packaging and warehousing. Distribution must be uniformly-based upon nutritional needs, and this must be done globally. The inevitable droughts, floods, hailstorms, and other weather-related issues must be counterbalanced through careful storage and stockpiling techniques. Irrigation solves many drought issues; green housing and proper warehousing solves many flood-related issues; and research is being done globally to resolve many other weather, pest, rust, mildew and other issues. World seed banks perform a valuable preservation-service. Storage in particular can be improved exponentially just by employing current technologies of dehydration, air-tight containers, waterproofing, canning and packaging, proper labeling and warehousing and reliable transportation. Mainly, we need to reverse the trend of waiting for a crisis to occur before seeking a remedy. During World War II, in particular, gardening got a boost through implementation of personal “victory gardens.” Although nice-to-look-at, much landscaping is done for aesthetics and erosion-control. A large percentage of these parkways could be devoted to cropland. If everyone would plant a victory garden, or help others who did plant one, the quality of fresh produce would improve and everyone’s independence would also improve. The stress experienced through not knowing where your next meal is coming from causes unnecessary anxiety, when solutions are usually close-at-hand. There are endless possibilities available globally, through the use of greenhouses, canopies, roof-gardens, terrariums, personal gardens, raised-beds, grain-sprouting, etc. So how would this new attitude toward our food supply affect business-as-usual? If handled properly, it would create the following desirables: stockpiling of essential foods—up to a 10-year supply, vastly-improved sources of fresh fruits and vegetables from home-grown sources, economical improvement in the living-wage for individual workers, farmers, and large-scale farming ventures. This can be achieved through price-stabilization globally, which seeks to establish realistic pricing for the consumer AND the producer, based on need-rather-than-greed. No one needs to get hurt if a fair assessment is made of needs, and an ever-increasing supply is achieved. When the value of agriculture is determined by supply, prices fluctuate, so every effort must be made to ensure fair profit-margins for producers as they increase their supply output. Those who gauge prosperity based on market-analysis, goods and services, the commodities exchange, stock-market volatility, various competitions involved with currencies, the global economy, GDP, and other economic indicators, overlook the essential truth that the only physical essentials are food and clean water, shelter, and a healthy environment. All the rest are non-essentials competing with essentials for a larger share of the planet and a larger share of our time and commitment. Let’s get our priorities straight and help to fix our planet while there is still time! I enjoy leisure as much as the next person, but there is a point that has been reached already, beyond which we dare not venture—that of our pursuit of non-essential distractions at the expense of life’s essentials. Stop the madness, folks! Return to sanity and the main ingredients of civilization.

Mark Overt Skilbred

Faith and Science

Why is it always us vs. them, when it comes to faith and science? During the last generation and earlier, there was a war between creationists and evolutionists that bordered on hysteria. One got the feeling that God needed some help defending His creation from attacks by science and evolutionists bent on destroying the whole faith community. I know that God is well-able to defend His creation from attack single-handedly, and the worst that pseudo-science throws at Him will not so much as raise a Divine eyebrow in response. Still, for the sake of argument, I suppose it doesn't hurt to postulate a scenario where God is a nail-biter who has now been backed into a corner, and is defending His territory like a wolverine-at-bay. Imagine, if you will, those pagan scientists gleefully bludgeoning our Creator with "scientific" questions and paraphernalia designed to bring Him to His philosophic knees and cause Him to recant His entire legacy. What, after all, are we left with then, after the Creator has been put-to- the-sword and His death knell has been delivered? Will scientists proudly deliberate the death of yet another theory? What then is there left for them to make sense of and legitimize, when the only response they receive from the Creator of the universe is a most-profound and Divine silence? The answer will come slowly and by degrees--that God's existence is verified by His perfection. Only the Divine Mind could ever envision and carry out creation. As I travel, I take notice of my surroundings, and here is what I have discovered, quite independently from all those theories and theologies that I grew up listening to and attempting to assimilate: This planet we know as earth is extremely old—scientists tell us around 4 1/2 billion years or more. The last generation told us that the earth was no more than 6000 years old. They based this theory (oh yes, Christians also have theories) on the basis of biblically-recorded history. There is no doubt that the Bible is 100% true and verifiable as a historic and scientific document. Archeology is one of the Bible's most ardent supporters--one might say it is scientists' blueprint of the historical timeline. What scientists and theologians agree-on however, becomes a point of departure, when it comes to extra-Biblical theorizing. Christians admit that God has not told us everything about our history on the planet, and perhaps has no intention of clarifying the finer points of creation for us. That intriguing comment at the beginning of scripture is a puzzler for thoughtful theorists--that part that says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gap-theorists will ask this question: When is the beginning?-- 6000 years ago?--only to be answered with another question-- how old is God?--to be further answered: that God has no ending and no beginning! So then, how old is the world, if it was created "In the beginning?" My answer harmonizes Christians, scientists and thoughtful people of many persuasions: The world is extremely old, and so is the universe. Just as God has no beginning and will have no ending, God's creation is as timeless as God Himself. Creation is as old as the moment when God spoke it into existence, and creation will last until God says so! How long of a time-period is that? How long is eternity? Why do science and small-minded Christians insist that "god" is finite, predictable, definable, inept, error-prone and incapable of carrying out His plans? I have a message for you: Your "god" is too small! The God Whose I AM is too large for the universe to contain Him is timeless and fulfills all His purposes! After all the banter of what, where, why and when, God is still on His throne, high and lifted up. Theories abound, but God's reality never changes. Soli Deo Gloria

Mark Overt Skilbred