While speaking to a group of high school students last month after the Ft. Hood shooting, our discussion touched on the volunteer nature of American armed forces.  When someone mentioned how much soldiers have to sacrifice in order to join up, I brought up the professional sacrifice of Pat Tillman.  To my shock and amazement, none of the students had ever heard of him.

While sharing Pat’s story with this group, my own personal emotions regarding Pat’s decision and death came surging back to me.  While I’m definitely more of a pacifist now than at any other time in my life, I can still draw strength and inspiration from his decision to give up his high paying and high profile position as an NFL player.  The act of temporary sacrifice for the sake of a greater good has not been exactly been a hallmark of my own life.

Trying to find a balance between striving for what I want, and denying myself those same desires has been the unresolved theme of my life.  In an effort to “die to self” in an aim toward virtue, I often times sabotaged myself (and my family, as a result) as I came too close to reaching my desires.  I began to expect failure like a musical virtuoso expects applause. I couldn’t believe Gene Wilder’s Willy Wonka when he remarked that the man who suddenly got all that he wanted, lived happily ever after.

I’m not sure that I can say that I completely understand Pat’s decision, but recently, it has taken on new meaning for me.  From everything that Pat accomplished (3.84 GPA in 3 1/2 years at Arizona State University, while being named Pac-10 Player of the Year, as a 5 foot 11 inch linebacker) to what those close to him said about his drive, it seems clear that he didn’t do very many things half-assed.  So how does someone with that kind of focus and resolve just change his path so drastically mid-course?

What if he didn’t change his mind?  What if his decision to enlist was completely in line with his personal goals and desires?  If becoming a successful professional athlete was Pat’s supreme goal, then yes, he did make a wholesale change to his values and desires.  But if his desire was to be a great man, then it was just his definition of what makes a man great that changed.

It’s another variation of the discussion on life as more of a journey than a destination.

I now understand desire as a virtue.  As long as that desire aligns with the ultimate principles that govern life. A desire that leads to a full stomach, an escape from reality, or an orgasm is not one to embrace as life-giving or virtuous.  But a desire that leads to a peaceful resolution, a restored relationship, or the benefit of others may be.

Desires and choices come from our goals.  When we are immature, we can only see a short distance into the future.  As we grow, we can see farther and our goals reflect longer term aims.

Pat’s goal was to be a great man.  My goal is the same.  But how I’m defining great has changed.  A great man doesn’t deny fulfilling his desires for the virtue of denial itself.  A great man aligns his goals with the most virtuous truths on the highest level of abstraction that he can reasonably comprehend.  Now, if I miss a meal, miss a nap, or avoid romance with other women, it may seem seem like some sort of denial of desire, but it is what I want.  And I’m finally OK with getting what I want.

Before reading on, I would really encourage you to read the entire speech online at www.whitehouse.gov.  Many people have accused the President of being a skilled orator, with a dynamic speaking presence that can mesmerize an audience, whatever the subject matter may be.  So please, take the time to read it yourself, so that you are not hearing his voice or seeing his actions, but just the content of his message.

Well…. what did you think?  Pretty chalk-full of liberal propaganda right?  Most of the uproar about this speech has come from Americans who do not believe that a (insert adjective here) President should have an audience with young, moldable minds.  Is it because he is a Democrat?  Is it because he is young?  Is it because he is (gasp)… black?  I really don’t know.

I really believed that the President has the right to such a request to speak to the nation’s youth.  I wondered why people would be against it.  After reading the speech myself, I am even more convinced of his intentions to encourage America and promote American ideals.

Having some background in preaching myself, I was reminded of some of the better sermons that I have listened to in my life.  His call was not to judge the world and everything that is currently besetting our country.  He didn’t bemoan the financial crisis or speak ill of past leadership.  He spoke directly to the student, and put the responsibility right on the individual to take charge and make right the world in their own unique way.

Encouraging kids to continue their education to reach their dreams?  Propaganda!

Sharing stories from his own life to illustrate what perseverance can result in?  Brainwashing!

Building up children to set high goals and understand the work needed to achieve them?  He is the antichrist!

Now, these answers have come from people of varying degrees of political extremism.  But they are real responses to the idea of the President speaking to America’s children.  If you have a problem with the speech, is it because you are an American, or because you are a Republican?  Would you be opposed to a speech made by John McCain (whom I voted for….TWICE!) under similar circumstances?

It’s almost been a year since we officially voted a young, black, democrat with a background in Islam to the White House.  When will more of us treat him with the respect that his office commands?

Thank you for your investment in today’s American youth, Mr. President Barack Obama.  You have earned these 15 minutes with my children.

In an attempt to comment on this book, but not spoil things and discourage another from reading, I will do my best to straddle the line and be more or less vague about the details. In essence, this book is about what happens to a society that gives everyone what they want. Wars are abolished. Crimes and murders are more scarce than scruples at a Bluth family picnic. The society is, in many ways, perfect. The end is finally achieved from so many of the efforts of civilization over history.

The main tool for the success in this system is a system for everyone receiving their desires (which seems so incredibly distasteful to those who choose to “die to self”). Pre-natal and early childhood conditioning facilitate this. One’s natural urges are changed so that society can meet everyone’s desires. Humans are created in such a way that no one has a relationship with the original owner of the sperm and egg responsible for one’s genesis. In fact, the concept of a mother and father is a type of vulgarity.

Breaking this bond is paramount in the system of human reproduction in “Brave New World”. Babies are hatched in a lab, and not born of a woman. Familial connections are wiped out. This greases the rails for a series of chemical and behavioral modifications, that effectively change the response habits of each person. In a very real way, what is desirable to someone is the choice of the leaders of society. If they do not want someone to like puppies, they will bombard a young child with electric shocks, deafening alarms, and painful strobe lights while in the presence of a puppy, until any desires associated with a puppy are destroyed. Natural urges and desires are placated by a psychotropic drug called soma (Interestingly, a muscle relaxant drug called Carisoprodol is sold under the name “Soma” in the USA, even today). Soma makes everything that is uncomfortable just go away. Essentially, the world is full of drug addicts who vacillate between acquiescence and oblivion.

As I grew up, I was constantly chided for misbehavior and rewarded for compliance. I do the same today with my children. It’s a basic pattern of parental behavior. I know that it is different for some of us, but for me, the desire to please others was extreme with me, and still is. I felt validated when I was loved and praised, and disablingly low when I was ignored or banished. It’s not that I didn’t rebel against certain people, but my overriding desire in most situations was to please others and gain or keep their acceptance. In later years, this turned into a desire to be accepted because I wanted to be a good example of a Christian to those around me. In high school, I wanted to please people so that I could be popular and accepted by the “cool” kids.

After that, I can’t really say why I wanted to please so many people. I just… did. Even today, if there is a room of people, I want everyone to like me. Everyone. This is my desire, and I can’t really say why. I believe that it is at least partly a result of the conditioning that I began with myself at a young age and grooved into a deep gorge over the years.

Is it my fault? Probably. Is it my responsibility to deal with any consequences of this behavior? Of course. Was I born with this desire? Is it natural? That’s where my answers get fuzzier and fuzzier as I examine my own life and the behaviors of those around me. It’s the nature vs. nurture debate.

The son of an alcoholic who finds his first taste of beer much smoother and more pleasant than his friends. The woman whose dad never hugged her who now enjoys having men explore her body. Any number of situations can be shown to relate either back to childhood or earlier. But, which is it? In a lot of cases, our desires are not matters of choice, but of situations that are clearly out of our hands. And if you believe in God (which I do), does responsibility for our desires have any dividing line? If it is human nature, who’s fault is that?

Am I innocent to purchase an iPhone made in China if I am ignorant that life was lost during its production as the result of an effort to keep trade secrets safe? Does my knowledge of any product’s origin make me complicit in any moral or ethical failings that occur on the journey to my consumption of the product? If so, do I blame society for influencing my desires for these products? Do I blame my nature for having the desires? Or do I hold the blame to myself and just wish for the blissful ignorance of childhood?

I’m 29 years old, and I hold no answers. I may never. Is it wrong of me to be skeptical of those who do claim to know?  Are you?