The Power of Being Correct
4/11/13
It is not in the human mentality to believe that one’s actions will be considered a failure. How dare someone suggest that we did things inaccurate or incorrect in such a manner as to provide instability to any situation? Yet, it is hard for humans to acknowledge these errors even if human history points totally against their judgments. We are all humans and we will make errors in our decisions along the way; however, when one relies on the truth a selfless and honest person will take a stand of good faith even in times of death to make things right and not further divide the compatibility of mankind.
I am going to share a couple of thoughts concerning the passing of a great leader and these words are of my own opinion. This week we lost a person that had much to do with the guaranteed safety of the world. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher passed away earlier this week and for the most part the majority of the world has mourned her passing. President Reagan and PM Thatcher were the first leaders that I knew about when I was growing up. The height of the Cold War was raging and other regional conflicts were igniting as well. I know that I do not agree with everything that both of these leaders did while in their respective offices, but I do understand that both of them wanted their countries to be the best places to live in for the people that they loved. That is the end of my opinion on her life and reign.
“Can’t we all just get along?” is a famous saying from a man that faced horrible accusations and beatings over a course of several years. Many people did not like him, that was obvious but the ways that some displayed their attitudes towards him were just simply irreprehensible. Whether a person likes another person or not should not be the foundation for added turmoil in times of grief. The person who said this quote is no longer with us, and that is a tragedy. But the same attitudes towards him still exist in some people who refuse to let go of certain actions.
We are witnessing some of these same hateful conditions in the leadership realms of our world as well. I was really not going to address this setting but after what I read in today’s headlines and given what is about to occur in our world I have no choice but to address the issue and try to convey what kind of examples we are leading, living and leaving are not satisfactory to for our children to witness. However, by no means am I advocating that kids should not be made aware of these types of events they should know what is transpiring in the world around them for it will be their generation that will inherit our future.
I am going to lay out a simple scene that carries over into another scene a few hours later. These two scenes will simply direct your attention to how a person makes a decision and then others may or may not have the opportunity to react about it later. Let’s say I am walking in between our buildings as I do every work day. And on one of my trips across the pavement I notice that there is a fairly large rock that is in the middle of the road. I walk over to it and kick it out of the road for I know that if someone ran over it that the rock could pierce their tire and cause them a flat tire. In other words, I potentially saved someone some money if the conditions were right.
Now, a few hours later the people that are in charge of keeping the hospital grounds arrive to mow the grass. Since there is a large amount of grass that needs to be attended to the company brings out riding lawn mowers in order to get the job done in a timely manner. As the person who is riding the lawn mower approaches a specific spot on the grounds it requires that person to change directions and leave the cutting surface of the grass for a few seconds. As the person riding the lawn mower reaches this point he notices that a person is also approaching the same area from another direction and wants to cross in front of him.
The person then stops the lawn mower and allows the person to walk by, waving and smiling at the same time, just to show a friendly acknowledgment to her. After the lady has passed the person on the lawn mower and was a safe distance away but still close by, the person on the lawn mower resumed his turn and approached the grass again, but unknowingly ran over the rock that I had kicked into that position a few hours ago. With the speed of the cutting blades and the direction in which they were going, when the blades hit the rock it throws the rock into the air right towards the lady that had just passed. The rock is traveling at a high rate of speed and makes a direct hit on the mid back area of the lady. The rock embeds into the lady and the lady drops in agony.
Now this presents a huge legal issue and many hours of pain and agony on all sides involved, and is there any one to blame? If there were people who saw me kick the rock into that position they might say it was my fault, surely the driver of the lawn mower is going to get blamed along with the lady for not using a marked crosswalk. No matter what the issue might result in, I made the decision to kick the rock out of the road, the driver did his job by mowing the grass and the lady was in the wrong place at the wrong time, so is that any place to accurately place anger and malice towards anyone of these people? The honest answer is no and if need be the correct things would be administered in order to make things right.
As mentioned above, earlier this week former Prime Minister Thatcher passed away. Of course there will be a State service in which leaders of nations, Heads of States, and distinguished dignitaries and other foreign diplomats will be in attendance. This pomp and circumstance procedure has been a common theme for centuries when a leader has passed away. For the most part there might be some cheering in very small number about the loss of this person but for the majority of the time this type of activity is silent. However, it is not the case for this person’s death.
We all understand that politics can be nasty and the parties involved in mediating differences and opinions can become quite rude at times. This too is a common practice that can be traced by millennia, not just centuries. But when tragedy strikes these opponents respect is warranted on all sides during the formal grievance period. If anyone has ever had the opportunity to watch the British House of Commons conduct business you will agree that it is a sight to see. For those of you who have not witnessed that atmosphere, please try and do, it is a sight where a person can learn a lot about humans.
The other night I was scrolling through a media sight and saw a headline that stated something like this: MP berates Thatcher’s Character. Now, being a curious person of course I clicked on this video not expecting to see too many harsh words but a headline to get my attention just to be disappointed. What I saw was pure hatred for a person by another person. For over nine minutes the MP that had the floor criticized everything about the former prime minister. Not many aspects of her governmental positions were left out during this speech of hers. Now, not all of the things a person who is on the opposite side of a debate should agree with others, but nothing good was said about her at this time.
I found it interesting that the person making the speech was ripping Thatcher for her divisive tactics and how much Thatcher did to divide the country. Yet, this person stood up and thrashed Thatcher’s name on every level. Does she not realize that she did the exact same thing that she claimed PM Thatcher did during her term as prime minister? It is evident that she did not agree with the policies that Mrs. Thatcher put into place, that is ok but to tear down a distinguished person’s name when said person has just died? This is an example of why our world is at a cross roads and is about ready to fall apart. It is people like this who refuse to cooperate in these types of situations that intensify this division among people.
The second example I would like to present relates to the same current situation but on the other side of the person who passed away. Anyone person who is above the age of 35 years old will remember the war that Britain had with Argentina over the possession of the Falkland Islands. The actual fighting in this war was quite fierce at times but it did not last too long. There were some awesome naval clashes between the two countries but in the end the British retained their claim on the Islands which they hold onto as of today. The entire saga is still an eyesore to both sides and carries a national pride issue to the highest stress levels.
Recently in the news the Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner reignited controversy when she once again staked claim to her country’s provincial authority over the Falkland Islands. Of course this proclamation did its job in riling the British government. This is a normal stepping stone procedure that everyone knows will not come to pass anytime soon, if ever. However, her words did strike anger into the hearts of those past leaders who were in charge during the hot portion of this war was occurring. This statement sprang up the war of words between the two countries once again and calls for peace, war, and everything in between rose up in both countries. But what kind of example does it set for the future of our world and the human race and will the actions of this speech be worth the possible retaliatory measures taken in the future?
As with any modern State funeral invitations are sent out on a routine basis to countries via the embassies that each country harbors within their borders. Argentina and Britain have been at war and have a currently moderately strained relationship with each other but there really should be no reason of furthering the separation by ignoring their request to attend the funeral. But this is exactly what the family of former Prime Minister Thatcher did, and according to the news report that surfaced today they British government will honor the Thatcher’ request and refuse to allow Argentina to send their presidential representative, instead only the Argentine Ambassador will be invited. Really? Is this the way modern countries deal with those who they have issues with? And if so, what will they do when their own people, which outnumber the government personnel, begin to disagree with what they are representing? It is a process that should cause more fear into the minds of people than the actual threat of war between the two countries.
The third example that I would like to mention is kind of interesting, ironic and funny if you ask me. We have all read about the Cold War and how much of its history dominated the 1940s till the early 1990s. We all know that the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain was posed as the invading force that would destroy the entire world if allowed. The other side of that saga was the Allies which included the USA and Britain and the Soviet Bloc nations also did their best to portray the Allied nations as blood thirsty warriors who too wished total control of the world and to destroy the Soviet way of life.
The modern leader of the Soviet Union during the late 1980s and including when the Soviet Union collapsed was a man by the name of Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr. Gorbachev’s ideas presented a long overdue Soviet concept that all was not right behind their curtain and that changes needed to occur. These changes came to their way of life whether the people were ready for it or not and in 1992 the Communist era of the USSR broke and the world had a huge party on their hands. This event was heralded across the world as a positive step for global peace and was widely accepted by many leaders as the best move between two ideologies that had ever transpired.
When the funeral invitations were sent out, Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the people who received an invitation with full honors. This is a great gesture since Mr. Gorbachev received and accepted the invitation to President Reagan’s funeral. So, let us review for a moment. The person who you considered one of the evilest men ever to walk the earth you invite to the funerals of both the main leaders that marked this time period, but refuse to invite a president of a country that you have no war with or ongoing actions for a time period greater than the end of the Cold War? This really does not make sense to me and it represents the same kind of attitude and division that is beginning to put on display in many of the countries around the world. It is this part that I find funny and ironic at the same time.
Are these examples a real reflection of how our governments feel towards not only people in the same government but other governments as well? If so this is a very dangerous position that we are in and if it is then our grandchildren’s futures are not going to be very pretty, if they have any at all. I can understand taking sides on issues and arguing about territories but to voluntarily withhold a diplomatic invitation on the account of “my feelings are hurt and I did not get my way when that person was in charge” attitude, we are further down the road to destruction than I actually believed. I cannot stress enough the seriousness of our world if this is the case and our selfish motives have overtaken not only our personal feelings and beliefs but also our national governing abilities.
In other words, it looks like another avenue that man has taken to try and fix things with human ideas has failed. It also adds to the examples that point straight back to God and screams to us that He is the only way possible for personal peace and perfect peace within governments and with foreign governments. If we cannot realize this aspect and truth, maybe we need to have wars to convince humans that God is the best and only answer to get things accomplished. Maybe that was what was meant when the Bible says that there will be wars and rumors of wars because humans just did not get the truth. All of us have the ability to get along with each other, but our selfish ways must be placed second and God first before this can occur.
DLB
No comments:
Post a Comment