I am a man, I am a country

In the battle between human rights and capitalism, I'm on the side of human rights. 

Plain and simple, the purpose of government is to maintain a peaceful society. A libertarian might say that the government shouldn’t poke its head into anything unless it’s necessary. The problem is that everybody thinks that exact thing. The issue is we don't agree on what is necessary. To be completely honest, we all need the government. However cozy you think your life is, the government is what’s keeping it afloat.

Our nation has a very strong rule of law. That means that the laws in our country are obeyed and enforced. If somebody burgles my house, the police will try to nab the perpetrator and the courts will bring them justice. The legislators will write laws that can then be broken. Our nation also has a strong sense of freedom. If I want to do something, anything—I can do it. The balance of these two ideals can be summed up thusly: I can start a business (capitalism), and the government will make sure that I’m playing fair (human rights). The government needs to maintain the safety of the populace (human rights) while allowing as much free reign as possible for businesses (capitalism). Some meddling is necessary in order to keep us free from threats such as monopolies, counterfeiting, unsafe products, swindlers, and unsafe working environments.

When it comes to politics, the media (and politicians) stick to hot-button issues on the whole. These are questions in the running of our country that stir up emotions: birth control, taxes, wealth, unemployment, healthcare, terrorism, etc. These issues have to do with opinions as well as facts. The facts, by the by, are often blurred by statistics, which the average person is unlikely to interpret correctly. This means that each side can blur what actually happened to promote their cause. Take for example the following statements: “Nearly 3,000 people died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. It truly is a sad day for our country.” On the other, hand: “Only 3,000 people died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Considering the population and the severity of the damage, it is a miracle that figure is so low.” Both of these statements use the same numbers, but you can see how we can be bamboozled by the way the numbers are presented. Politicians lean on the emotions of their followers rather than on the cold hard facts. In the same year as 9/11 there were 37,795 deaths related to police reported traffic accidents according to the NHTSA: more than ten times the deaths in the terrorist attacks. How many politicians used traffic safety as a platform in the coming elections?

The point is, we really paid for our emotions with 9/11. The war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq were started based on national sentiment rather on actual need (and possibly on racism), even though Al-Qaeda is based and funded in Saudi Arabia. The thought of the United States going to war with Saudi Arabia is laughable, considering our dependence on Saudi oil, because of course, besides emotions, politcs is money. Politicians talk about money because they have money, and because we have money and we want more. We want our money protected. We don’t want to spend money (capitalism), but we still want stuff (human rights). This is never going to happen because it just doesn’t make sense. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is paying for food stamps (hint: it’s all of us).

Capitalism is always going to be at odds with human rights. Human rights cost money and very rarely give a return investment. Capitalism often skates over human rights for this very reason. The problem is that those with enough wealth to even think about running for president of this country are capitalists. These are men and women who got to where they are by preserving their own capitalist interests. I can only try to side with those with enough mercy and grace to also promote human rights. It’s a narrow balance. How do you preserve freedom for businesses as well as for individuals?

It may not even matter in today’s political atmosphere. A politician is going to say whatever it takes to get votes. The problem is that the nation on a whole has a very simple mindset. Individually we may have great ideas, but what is going to get votes is simple, psychologically important issues that affect all of us—instead of societally important issues.

It also may not matter because the president doesn't run this country—we do! If you think the 99% don’t have any control in this country, think again. I may not be in a big room full of legislators, but I know that I can write to Carol Shea-Porter (my house representative) and tell her what I think. But still, I’m not thinking big enough. The country does not reside in a single room, or in a single government entity. The government may be the binding force to the country, but it is not the steak and potatoes between two oceans. I am a part of this country and I’m going to do my part. Like Kennedy said: “It is not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!” Not for your government, but for your country. What does it matter who is leading us? We are a democracy—ruled by the people! We rule ourselves. We have enough free reign to do what is necessary in order to bring about our desired ends.

It is up to ALL OF US to bring the economy back to where it needs to be. It’s going to take ALL OF US to promote education. ALL OF US need to be honest when it comes to welfare. We don’t need a government to tell us what to do—we just need the government to maintain what we have worked so hard to produce. So vote! Not just for the president, but for our actual lawmakers—the congressmen. Don't listen to a millionaire tell you what he'll try (And mostly likely fail at) doing. Tell them what we want! And they're more likely to make it happen.

DNA v. Needles

We all have the ability to exercise self-control. The problem is, we often don't. At some point, when we have a problem we start asking the question "Why am I like this?" It is tempting to blame others, not taking responsibility for our actions. We do this because we prefer to view ourselves in a positive light. If we admitted that it was our own actions that led to a bad situation, then we must be a bad person.

I don't think so. Everybody makes mistakes that lead to bigger problems than they imagined. But at the same time, how did we get this way, and how can we prevent that same future in our children?

Alcoholism is a temperamental condition. If you never consume alcohol, you will definitely not become an alcoholic. However, the vast majority of people who do consume alcohol never become alcoholics. It is hard to say if a person will become an alcoholic after consumption. If a man takes his first drink on his 21st birthday, and becomes an alcoholic, has children, abuses them, submits his children to a greater likelihood of becoming an alcoholic; should he be held responsible for his children's choices? So a man decides to have a drink. He didn't decide to become addicted. It would hardly be fair to blame him for becoming an addict. It would be fair, however to blame him for staying in addiction because it would then affect his children. It is a moral obligation to seek help once someone realizes they have a problem, especially if they have children.

Quite often, the children of an addict also become addicted. On some level, an addict is responsible for the actions of their child. However, how much of that responsibility falls on the parent? If the cause of the correlation is based in environmental triggers, then it is certainly the fault of the parent. If the correlation comes from genetics, then the children are at a risk for compulsive behaviors already whether or not the parents actually engage in the compulsive behaviors. That, of course, is a centuries-long debate. It is part of the nature vs. nurture dialogue.

That doesn't change the bottom line, though. We set an example for our children. They learn from what we do. They want to be like us from a very young age. If they see mom and dad drinking, they'll pretend to drink when they play house. If they see mom solving all her problems by drinking alcohol, then when they grow up, have their own problems, they are likely to do the same thing. Compulsive behaviors, especially from parents, affect the rest of the family. Children are much more likely to adopt those behaviors. Siblings are affected with their concentration at work and making proper choices.

Compulsive behaviors are just that—behaviors. We can decide what to do with our lives, whether or not we are "genetically pre-disposed" to compulsion. As Dr. Laura Schlessinger says in her blog, "Life situations are largely out of our control, but the decisions we make and the steps we take for responsible action are in our control." If a child is genetically pre-disposed, or in an environment of compulsive behaviors, they still have the decision whether or not to engage in those behaviors. That’s what makes us human.

A teenage mother in Sweden gives birth to twins and gives them up for adoption. The brothers are separated from each other and monitored by the state. Out of a potentially hazardous situation for the children, a research opportunity becomes available. A study using pairs of twins in this exact situation found 6 sets where one of the twins became an alcoholic. In 5 out of the 6 pairs, the co-twin was found to also be an alcoholic. This clearly shows a genetic pre-disposition towards compulsive behaviors. Twins that were never in the same environment were still found to have similar compulsive behaviors.

What Does It All Mean?

Addiction, compulsive behavior, alcoholism...what do these words mean?

Well it just so hapens, that over the years, I have gained quite a lot of information about these terms. Here is what I've learned:

I heard a quote from Stephen Tyler when I was a teenager: “Addiction is continuous use despite adverse consequences.” Addiction occurs when a person uses a substance or behavior to the point where it causes major consequences in their life and they continue to use. I don’t know if it’s a real quote or if my health teacher made it up, but it has nevertheless stuck with me.

Keep in mind that any addiction is difficult to discuss because of how complicated it is to define, diagnose, to treat, to heal, etc. Because of this fact, most statements about addiction tend to be opinion. One reason the subject is hotly debated is that addiction takes away a person's God-given ability to choose for themself. In addition to that, every addict’s story is different. One person’s addiction might be a crippling disease where they simply can’t function without their addiction or hospitalization. Others might need exactly one Diet Coke With Lime every day in order to function normally. Clearly, any statement made about one of these examples probably won’t apply to the other.

So what's the big deal with alcoholism? Plainly put, alcoholism is an addiction to alcohol. The relevance with alcoholism is that it is essentially the most widely documented, studied, widespread, and scientifically understood addiction. Therefore a lot of research that is referred to has to do with alcoholics. Alcoholism is a case study for addiction in general. Anything said, by me or by anyone, about alcoholism is relevant to all addictions.

Perhaps the most important term to understand is compulsive behavior. Compulsive behavior is very common and covers a broader area than addiction. In simple terms, compulsive behavior is when an individual practices an unhealthy behavior as a substitute for filling some kind of need. The best way to understand this is as a process. A need is presented to an individual; they’re lonely—they need companionship; they’re tired—they need sleep; they’re stressed—they need to relax, etc. A mentally healthy and secure individual will fill their need by seeking companionship, sleeping, or relaxing. However, a person with a compulsive behavior will attempt to fill that need with their behavior. Examples of compulsive behaviors run the gamut from eating, consuming alcohol, pornography and masturbation, video games, taking hard drugs, smoking, etc. An important thing to consider with compulsive behaviors is that they are interchangeable. A person with an over-eating problem may stop over-eating, but start smoking instead. The problem of compulsive behavior isn’t solved.

You can see how easy it can be to start with a compulsive behavior and end with a dangerous addiction. For example, alcohol use would not lead to addiction if it weren’t ever a compulsive behavior. If an individual only drinks when reason presents itself, they are unlikely to become dependent on it. However, if somebody drinks instead of solving their problems or filling their needs, they are very likely to become dependent on alcohol.

I'm sure that many of you are thinking "Oh, no, I think I have a compulsive behavior!" But not to worry, you're right! Most people have some kind of compulsive behavior. It's normal. Most of the time, it's not a big problem. It can lead to problems like addiction, certainly, but in general you are unlikely to develop an addiction from a compulsive behavior.

So what compulses you?

Ancestry Matters

As an American, my ancestors came to America from somewhere else. Only 1% of Americans live in their ancestral "homeland." This is actually one of my favorite parts of being an American. We all come from a richheritage of adventure. Whether it was for reasons of religious oppression, slavery, capitalism, potato famine, or employment; we all have an ancestor who made the journey.

I believe that where that ancestor came from is not nearly as important as are the reasons why. Nearly all of my ancestors, for example, were Mormon Pioneers. Many of their stories are very touching to me because of thesacrifices and hardships that they endured for religious freedom. One branch of my family built ships. For centuries, Carlings have been ship's carpenters, up until the time they headed west to Utah. This adds a little bit to my identity in that I love being on the water. I love the ocean, and I can only imagine how long my family has been connected to it.

However, these matters seem inconsequential when compared to the part of ancestry that really matters: Who were these people? Look first at the closest ancestor: our parents. We live in their house, we eat their food, they taught us to read, to put our clothes on, to walk, to speak, etc. Who our parents are affects us more, perhaps, than any other environmental factor.

Well our parents had parents, and their parents had parents. Our ancestors affect us as well. Take my family for example: In 1952, my great-grandmother, Dawn, left her husband and three children. She "runnoft" with the bus driver and moved with him to Reno, Nevada where she pursued the glamorous lifestyle of a performer. My grandfather, John was ten years old. Within 6 years of that event, my grandfather left the Mormon Church, started smoking, became alcoholic, abusive and got his girlfriend, Barbara Ashman, age 15, pregnant. Those actions resulted in my uncle Chris, who, ironically, now lives in Reno. My grandfather married Barbara. Fast-forward 18 years and we see an abusive alcoholic father, two teenage boys and two small children. The whole family is beaten on a regular basis. My father started developing his own damaging compulsive behaviors. Protecting the privacy of those currently living, the nexttwo generations have major problems with compulsive behaviors and addictions.

Just a few weeks ago, I discovered that my 5th great grandfather, Abraham, in 1809 left his wife and infant children--perhaps never to return. At that moment, my whole concept of who my family was changed. I could suddenly see how every single generation since 1718 had problems with compulsive behavior:

James Carling, 1718, moved to America

Gabriel Carling, 1748, had an affair with a married woman

Abraham Carling, 1779, left his wife and children

John Witt Carling, 1800, joined the Mormon church

Abraham Freer Carling, 1837, Backcountry expert; lived in the wilderness for 10 years

John Carling, 1863, Gave away all his money to charity (all at once)

Merrit Carling, 1889, Ran alcohol in from Mexico during prohibition

Fredrick J. Carling, 1915, married the wild child in town because she was pretty. She left him.

F. John Carling, 1942, Alcoholic, abusive (Married his second cousin (oops))

Ben Carling, 1961, Multiple careers, other compulsions

G. Ben Carling, 1989, 3 college transfers, other compulsions, hands in papers late, etc. ;)

One Carling passing on compulsive behavior to the next Carling. Some of you might read this and think, "interesting!" and it certainly is. But, from my point of view, I see a pattern that has been perpetuated for three centuries. I lack self-control. So does my dad and his dad. et-f^&king-cetera. Then I think, what are the chances that my son is going to grow up and lead a healthy life? That he'll make good choices? That hasn't really happened in 300 years.

So then, let me ask you this: Does ancestry matter?