HerbEly

News Flash: Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals

Live Science staff writer Jeanna Bryner tells us

Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.
Stop us if this sounds familiar.

It certainly does. This is but one more example of psychology rediscovering old truths. Bryner, doesn’t refer to it, but her article reminds us of Mt. 6:4-6

So that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

and of Luke 11:37-54.

Bryner suggests why people become hypocrites:

Past research has suggested that people who describe themselves with words such as honest and generous are also more likely to engage in volunteer work and other socially responsible acts.
But often in life, the line between right and wrong becomes blurry, particularly when it comes to cheating on a test or in the workplace. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people.
In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.

People who are striving to be good can easily fool themselves and overlook or rationalize character defects and shortcomings. As my teacher, Msgr. Chester Michael has suggested in his meditation on Jesus’ temptations in the desert (Luke 4:1-13), good people can fall prey to one of the "three P's" (Pleasure, Possessions, and Power). As we enter Advent, it is time to pause, consider which of the three is tugging on us, and resolve to practice one of the three remedies (fasting, almsgiving, and prayer.) Go here for a chart on how these are related.

Advent is a time of waiting for the One who can deliver us. As we practice, let us remember with gratitude that none of these temptations need have any dominion over us.

News Flash: Old Truths are Still True

Every now and then major newspapers treat us to new discoveries of old truths. Here are three:
• Living one day at a time really works!
• Gratitude is good for you!
• Leading by example works!

It’s easy to make fun of stories like this. The headline might read: University professor discovers biblical saying is true!!! Yet, the stories reveal new information, even as they fail to mention biblical texts that make similar points.

If you are dieting, budgeting, or just trying to get your Christmas shopping done on time, you are better off to “Count today’s calories …” writes the WaPo’s Shankar Vedantam. He quotes psychologist Carey Morwedge on choosing a shorter time span as our frame of reference when deciding how much we can eat:

The deeper question, of course, is why people choose particular frames of reference. Why not choose smaller frames of reference when it comes to money, time and food, which would allow you to regulate the amount you eat and spend, and make more realistic estimates of the time you need to finish important tasks?

Without their conscious awareness, people seem to choose frames of reference that supply them with the answers they want. By telling themselves they will not overeat at Thanksgiving, but deciding how much to eat based on a weekly or monthly total of calories, rather than a daily number, they get to overeat and feel like they are making a careful decision.
"When I was thinking about eating a sundae I would think of all the exercise I would do in a week and not the exercise I would do that day" to make up for eating the rich food, Morewedge said.

My own experience with Weight Watchers reinforces this. Keeping record of each meal encourages me to concentrate on hitting the point target for each day, not what I’m promising myself for the rest of the week. The old slogan of taking things one day at a time really does work.

We could have saved ourselves a lot of effort and trouble if we had just learned it when it was first preached (See Matthew 6)

11. Give us today our daily bread (and)
34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

On to our next great discovery: Give Thanks. It’s good for you. In the Health section of the Washington Post Darrin Kolkow summarizes some of the recent work of positive psychology. Vietnam war veterans are less likely to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) if they score high on tests for gratitude. Students with high marks on gratitude are much less materialistic. (If you like, there is a test for gratitude here.)

This research, one hopes, will prove useful in treating current and future veterans. It a lesson taught in Proverbs 15:13-15

13 A happy heart makes the face cheerful, but heartache crushes the spirit.
14 The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
15 All the days of the oppressed are wretched, but the cheerful heart has a continual feast

.John C. Maxwell, in People do what People See discusses some revisions to his book, 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership

1. Followers are Always Watching What Leaders Do
2. It’s Easier To Teach What’s Right Than To Do What’s Right.
3. We Should Work On Changing Ourselves Before Trying To Improve Others
4. The Most Valuable Gift A Leader Can Give Is Being A Good Example

This is all good advice. It is all too easy for us to deceive ourselves, giving advice unaware of our own shortcomings. it is all too easy to make a catalogue of everyone else’s failures whil overlooking our own. While reading Mr. Maxwell we might also ponder James 1:22

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody. Remember, it helps to eat for today, not promising ourselves that we will make it up through exercise or diet on Friday. Cope with stress by pausing to breathe and give a prayer of thanks. Ask God’s help in changing ourselves while we let everyone else grow in their own ways and on their own time.

“Go, You are Sent Forth …”

This is the more literal translation of Latin “Ite, missa est” – the final words of mass. It is more urgent than the current dismissal “Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord” Were we to sense the urgency we might ask:

Q. “Sent forth to do what?”
A. “To build the kingdom of God.”
Q. “How should I do that? What if I fail? I’m not strong enough.”
A. “To learn that, read Gregory Pierce’s The Mass is Never Ended: Rediscovering Our Mission to Transform the World. In only 120 pages, we can see how the Mass should help us in building the kingdom both at home and at work. (The word “Mass” is, after all , derived from the “missa est”.)

Pierce writes first about our mission – what it is that we are “sent forth” to accomplish. It is not enough to say that we are “sent forth” to build the kingdom. Nor should we abandon the idea of having a vocation to those who are specifically in the religious life. Every one of us has a vocation – a specific calling to be of some kind of service to others. We should be able to see this as part of our own daily work. As one example: accountants make it possible for bills to be paid, funds collected and paychecks written. Without them it would be hard for me to care for my family – a responsibility deriving from my sacramental promise. The work of accountants, banks clerks and computer systems all help me in my vocation.

Next, Pierce reflects on the structure of the Mass and how it relates to the concerns we bring with us. Having been sent forth the previous Sunday, we come back to celebrate successes; ask God’s mercy for shortcomings and failures; experience God’s presence and instruction in the words of scripture; receive nourishment and strength for the journey in the Bread and Wine; and to be sent forth back into our world of work.

Lastly, we need to fashion a broader and deeper idea of spirituality as it relates to the working world. Pierce finds a perspective in Chevy Chase’s comedic signature line on Saturday Night Live – “I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not.” Too many of us (the laity) tend to hear the dismissal is a similar sense: “Go in peace out into the world while I remain in the spiritual realm and you don’t.” If we allow ourselves to imagine that we can be spiritual only when we are in a monastery, on a mountaintop or on retreat we will miss out on our own unique mission in the world. Scriptural writings, papal documents, the examples of saints, and current literature all point towards a spirituality of work. It is, he contends and I agree, vastly underemphasized in today’s church.

If you are looking for some more specific spiritual disciplines of spirituality in the workplace, please read Pierce’s Spirituality at Work: 10 Ways to Balance Your Life on the Job. (Go here for my review.)If you are not looking to the liturgy – and maybe this book or this blog – are you hearing the dismissal or just glad to leave Mass?

Poor Intelligence, (Un)Just War, the Bishops and Veterans

There is a just war question Bishops should, but probably won’t address in their forthcoming statement on political responsibility of American voters. Three successive columns by conservative writer George Will serve to illustrate the point that the Bishops will likely miss.

In his November 11th column on LA Times writer Bob Drogan’s book on intelligence source code named “Curveball”, Will relates how misleading information from an Iraqi émigré led us into the Iraq war:

…Curveball did not cause the war; rather, he greased the slide to war by nourishing the certitudes of people whose confidence made them blind to his implausibility.

Drogin probably overstates his indictment of U.S. officials when he says that the CIA, having failed to "connect the dots" prior to 9/11, "made up the dots" regarding Iraq's WMDs. In the next paragraph his assessment is less sinister -- but more alarming. More alarming because his formulation suggests that the problem was human nature, and there is always a lot of that in government. Calling Curveball a fabricator, Drogin writes, "implied that U.S. intelligence had fallen for a clever hoax. The truth was more disturbing. The defector didn't con the spies so much as they conned themselves."

Drogin's book arrives, serendipitously, as some Washington voices, many of them familiar, are reprising a familiar theme -- Iran's nuclear program is near a fruition that justifies preventive military action….

The Bush administration (and every major political candidate with the exception of Ron Paul and the possible exception of Mitt Romney), has indicated that will it consider a preemptive attack against Iran in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. In the abstract, a preemptive attack is likely to fail to meet several criteria of just war teachings.

Just war advocates might, with considerable effort, devise conditions under which a preemptive attack can be reconciled with the just war criteria of last resort. With more effort, they may be able to discern how Presidential authorization of a pre-emptive attack is compatible with the just war criteria that a war cannot be started without legitimate authority. In our system of government, James Madison sought to restrict this authority to the Congress, reasoning that Presidents should have less military power than kings.

Will indirectly addresses the legitimate authority question his November 4th column on the Constitutional War Powers Resolution introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC):

Jones' measure is designed to ensure that deciding to go to war is, as the Founders insisted it be, a "collective judgment." It would prohibit presidents from initiating military actions except to repel or retaliate for sudden attacks on America or American troops abroad, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens abroad. It would provide for expedited judicial review to enforce compliance with the resolution, and permit the use of federal funds only for military actions taken in compliance with the resolution.

The constitutional issues are complex. Will doesn’t even touch on the just war issues of last resort, legitimate authority, just cause and probability of success. A thorough congressional debate would improve the odds of a correct Presidential assessment on the last two criteria. It would also improve the odds of a sound strategy and victory. (See my 1991 article in Army here.) When the Bishops do discuss their document on faithful citizenship the will properly debate pro-life issues, especially abortion and stem cell research. They will, I predict, make some pro-forma statements on just war and sparing non-combatants. They should also encourage a challenge to political candidates on the just war criteria of last resort and legitimate authority as they might relate to a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

This will be unfortunate. The Bishops might have some influence by cautioning candidates about a preemptive attack. Their impact on abortion, at least as a result of presidential election, will be minimal. As Will wrote on October 28th:

So, the overturning of Roe might not result from a Republican president's alteration of the court's balance. But suppose it did.
Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation. But because Californians are content with current abortion law, their legislature probably would adopt it in state law.
It is not irrational for voters to care deeply about a candidate's stance regarding abortion because that stance is accurately considered an important signifier of the candidate's sensibilities and sympathies, and of his or her notion of sound constitutional reasoning. But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.

Public figures on the Christian right and left are likely to overlook the need to challenge presidential candidates on the issues of last resort and legitimate authority. The candidates will not mention the issues, for fear of sounding soft on terrorism.

In honor of veteran's day, we should pause, give thanks and consider the moral obligation this country owes to its future veterans. The best way to do this is to insist that our elected representatives fully consider the just war criteria before starting a war. Protesting to stop a war is a much lesser, sometimes harmful, service.

Col. Patrick Lang's article in the Jesuit weekly America is a tribute and a reminder of what we owe these brave men and women before the war starts.

CBS’s Pitch on Curve Ball Just Misses the Strike Zone

The baseball analogy is irresistible. While the 60 minutes story last night on “Curve Ball” – the Iraqi source of misleading intelligence on Iraq’s WMD programs - added detail, it missed the causes of this intelligence failure.

“Curve Ball” was the intelligence designator of the Iraqi defector – or émigré – who was the source of misleading reports on Iraqi mobile bioweapons laboratories (which CBS kept calling mobile bioweapons). These reports were used to justify the war against Iraq. 60 minutes added details including:
• The name (Rafid Ahmed Alwan) and questionable background of this source.
• The fact that German Intelligence wrote CIA Director of Central Intelligence warning him that information from Curveball was unverified.
• Repeated efforts by CIA Group Chief Margaret Henoch to discredit the Curve Ball reports. Henoch eventually compared the to the game “Whack a Mole.”

Beginning intelligence analysts and interrogators are taught that émigré’s and defectors are likely to provide information that will help them obtain a new life in their new country. Analysts and interrogators approach their task with a learned skepticism. From my former insider’s point of view, it appears that many of them were properly skeptical and warned top intelligence leaders of their doubts.

In order to throw a strike, 60 minutes should have asked why the Bush administration’s top level officials, particularly Tenet and DoD’s Office of special Plans ignored or overruled these warnings. At this point it appears that there are three possible explanations;
• A mindset fed by Saddam’s evil actions and previous pattern of deception led to a confirmation bias. Curve Ball’s information fit an expected pattern.
• A strong desire to protect the United States against another 9/11 led to intelntional self deception and confirmation bias.
• They knew the information was unreliable but lied because it supported their public case.

If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve seen this story before:
• April 27, 2007 George Tenet and the Generalized Iceberg Theorem
• February 8, 2006 Politicized Intelligence Analysis
• November 11, 2005 Did Bush Lie or Was the Intelligence Analysis Flawed
• November 10, 2005 The Emporer's New Threat Assessment
• June 16, 2005 The Powers that Be Were the CIA’s Top Three
• April 19, 2005 Could Judge Silberman Retroactively Resign from the WMD Comission?
• April 15, 2005 Intelligence Failures: Senate Investigation Continues
• April 9, 2005 Can't These People Read?
• April 6, 2005 Judge Silberman Can't Hit Curve Ball
• December 14, 2004 The Missing Weapons: Asking the Right Questions
• August 23, 2004 Right Question - 4 Years Too Late
• July 13, 2004 CIA Officials Curious Use of the Upper Case

Please don’t take all of this as meaning that I am joining the anti-war protestors. I’m not – but I do think that political leaders have a moral obligation to do their jobs properly before they send someone else’s sons and daughters into combat. There was a just cause for the war, even though the Bush administration failed to make the case. Had the intelligence been properly analyzed and the case made honestly, the war might have been fought differently – or not at all.

This is partly because the Bush administration failed to apply some of the lessons learned from Vietnam.

IMHO Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) with his Constitutional War Powers Resolution has the right approach to a solution. See George Will for details.

None of this addresses the question of what we should do in Iraq now. For that I suggest following Col. Pat Lang's blog.

If you are wondering how such an unreliable source came to be code named "curve ball", I can guess that his was part of a series all given baseball names. It would be interesting to know if there were sources code name fast ball, screw ball, etc.

Note: this post linked to Beltway Traffic Jam for 11/05/07

Presidential Candidates: the Unasked Just War Questions

Prolife supporters are actively debating whether or not they should support any of the presidential candidates based on their positions on abortion. They, and other Christian leaders are overlooking the question about the justice of a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

Every major Democratic candidate - Obama, Edwards, & Clinton – has implicitly endorsed a preemptive attack on Iran in order to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. Neither Huckabee, McCain, Thompson or Giuliani thought it necessary to obtain congressional permission prior to an attack. To his credit, Romney advocated a preliminary discussion with his attorneys in order to ascertain his authority. Ron Paul simply advocated following the Constitution.

Christians have reconciled Deut 5:17 “You shall not kill” with the necessity for defense by means of the
Just War theory.For purposes of review, the just war criteria that govern the decision to go to war are:

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Even if we give the candidates credit for the criteria of right intention (just cause), reasoning that preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is a sufficient cause, the other criteria still must be met. In order to meet the criteria of legitimate authority, a President must have a pre-authorization from Congress. (President Bush already has sufficient legal authorization.) It is possible, I suppose, to reconcile the criteria of last resort with mounting a preemptive attack. It would be a tricky argument and would have to assume adequate intelligence – something notably lacking in recent years.

My guess is that none of the candidates would be able to reconcile the notion of a preemptive attack with these two criteria. The most likely response would be total confusion.

Prolife advocates and Christian leaders should be asking this question now. They can demand answers while there may still be time. On the other hand, George Will contends that overturning Roe v. Wade will make little difference.

Richard Rhodes on the War Scare, Neocon’s and Threat Inflation

The Style section of the Washington Post features Bob Thompon’s profile of author Richard Rhodes. His just published Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race, gives an account of the 1983 war scare - the incident precipitated by exercise Able Archer 83 that might have led to a nuclear war. Rhodes apparently thinks the incident to be more important that did Melvin Leffler in his lecture at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. Leffler saw it as important, but not a turning point.

The Tompson profile also links the Neoconservative's Reagan era “threat inflation” to the current war in Iraq. (As a civilian analyst of Soviet Weapons Programs, who served through 1996, I felt that the whole neocon “Team B” approach was better described as “threat exaggeration.’) Based on this profile, and the Amazon review – I haven’t yet read the book – Rhodes connects this threat inflation to the justification for the war in Iraq. While the neocon’s and their approach certainly played a role, there were both good reasons and analytical errors that led to overstating the WMD threat in Iraq. My own view is that the administration, under fear of another 9/11 overstated the threat, and (deliberately?) ignored evidence that would have dissuaded them, or at least led them to fight the war differently.

Miller Center Forum: History of the CIA

Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes: the History of the CIA spoke at the Uva’s Miller Center on October 12 (video link) (This fifty seven minute video is well worth the time.) Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, has covered the American intelligence community for two decades. In researching his new book, he conducted on-the-record interviews with ten Directors of Central Intelligence, examined more than 50,000 documents (many of them declassified in the past five years), and drew upon more than 2,000 oral histories of American diplomats, spies, and presidential aides.”

He started out by quoting the CIA motto “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” This motto is quoted out of context. Not that I know how the CIA could live up to this biblical quote.

Weiner stated that CIA directors often lied to their presidents, damaging the Kennedy and Reagan in particular. Ethics has to start at the top

Chuck Colson on Ayn Rand

It is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Like many adolescents of my era, I was very much captured by Rand. Later I learned that one was considered sophomoric when he could explain the entire world in terms of a favorite book.

It took a few more years to realize that Rand’s version of human nature made love – of neighbor, self, God, and country - impossible. The word solidarity made no sense in Rand’s philosophy of objectivism.

Rand’s book was widely read. As Colson notes

A 1991 Book-of-the-Month Club and Library of Congress survey asked members which book had most influenced their lives. As expected, the Bible finished first. Unexpectedly, Rand’s most famous book, the novel Atlas Shrugged, finished second.

Fifty years after its publication and 25 years after Rand’s death, Atlas Shrugged is still read everywhere from college campuses to Wall Street. Given its popularity and its impact, Christians ought to be acquainted with Rand’s work and, especially, her worldview.
…
In Atlas Shrugged and her other writings, Rand articulated a philosophy she called “objectivism.” Among other things, objectivism teaches that man’s “highest value” and “moral purpose” is his own happiness. ...By “happiness” Rand meant “rational self-interest.” For her, “virtue” consisted of doing what “secured” your life and well-being....

Where did that leave altruism and self-sacrifice? As vices….But without altruism and self-sacrifice, how do people relate to one another? Ayn Rand says through exchanges that promote mutual advantage, what she called a “trade.” In other words, as if each of the parties were businesses, not people.

Many, maybe most, people do not only on rational self-interest. If they did, it would be a cold and forbidding world, much like the hellish totalitarian society Rand claimed to be refuting. Fortunately, the human heart is capable of building connections with one another, even to the point of laying down one’s life for another John 10:11 It’s is called unconditional love.. Given the demands of unconditional love, it is easy to see why many would be drawn to a philosophy which does not require it.

Hillary, Please Read FM 22-103, then Fire Sandy Berger

US Army FM 22-103 Command and Leadership at Senior Level states the following on ethics:

"Senior leaders and commanders have specific ethical responsibilities to their organizations. These responsibilities flow directly from the attributes required of senior leaders to successfully implement their vision. First, they are worthy role models. Second, they promote the ethical development of their subordinates by teaching them how to reason clearly about ethical matters. Finally, they sustain an ethical climate that promotes trust and professional commitment."

Had this principle been observed, we never would have read this in the Examiner:

WASHINGTON - Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
…
Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers.
….
Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.
….
At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years.

Those of us who spent a career in intelligence should be forgiven if we experience a certain amount of resentment at Berger’s light sentence.

Those who care about establishing an ethical climate in the intelligence community (an all of the civil service) can only oppose Hillary as a result of this action.