Many Moose, New York? Not me, I'm mountain raised and, except for my time in college and in the service, I've lived in the mountains most of my adult life. My nearest neighbor now is about a mile away. In three directions I have no neighbors for miles. If you're near Crater Lake then we've walked some very similar country.
So, coming from a very similar background to yours, I've learned that you don't have to be rule keeper to gain the trust of people. Although I've often been dismissive of rules I've tried to be true to a code of behavior based on doing the right thing. Most people have trusted me, including my dad who gave me a 22 rifle for my 9th birthday and, after getting walked over some pretty steep country for a day and showing me the ropes, said, "be careful," and that was it.
I carried a 22 with me almost every day of the summer for the next few years, getting so familiar with it that I almost didn't realize I was holding it. That 22 and I saw a lot of country; old mines, old miner's and recluse cabins, clear springs, bear, mountain tops, lightning struck trees, rattlesnakes and just about every type of bird, lizard and small animal that made a living in the woods and it didn't shoot anything I didn't want it to shoot.
I had a lot of time to think sitting on top of a mountain or sitting in a meadow listening to the sounds come alive after I'd settled in. That's when I figured out what was important and, later, whenever I made decisions I made them based on my view of right and wrong and how things worked, not simply based on the "rules."
The problem with rules is that rules, no matter how wise, are not smart enough to comprehend the myriad complexities of the real world. That failure means that on the margin the rules will fail.
So in order to do the best thing I've found it's often necessary to understand rules, recognizing their purpose and their limitations. When following the rule furthers its beneficial purpose then we should adhere to the rule but when following the rule does not, or when following the rule damages a more compelling good, then we should refuse to follow the rule.
That's what intellect and judgement are for. If life has taught you to distrust your intellect and judgement then you should be very hesitant to deviate from the roadmap of rules but if you're confident in your comprehension of the rules and your judgment then there will be many instances where you may decide that following the rules is a poor choice.
Of course you take the risk of paying a penalty if you're wrong, or even if you're right at times, but I've always been a risk taker. Those who are risk aversive would probably choose to find comfort in a safer course.
As for your statement that, "Being able to say no to drugs and bad behavior does not necessarily mean you can't think outside the box. On the contrary, I view it as a necessary survival skill," I can agree with that at the extremes. Short of that point, however, a person's testing of the limits can be a sign of life, risk taking, self exploration and part of the path to wisdom and self confidence. That's especially true for young males.
New research seems to indicate that young men physiologically complete the development of the part of the brain that governs self regulatory abilities into their 20s. Prior to that point their brains are not fully formed.
For you to judge the fully developed brain of Obama based on what he did in his teens and early 20s seems unfairly harsh. I'd say that doing community work, raising a family, excelling at Harvard Law school, serving in the senate and running for president for the last year under a microscope would tell us a lot more about the judgment of the man than his experimenting with drugs for a short time 3 decades ago.
In life the truest test of us all is not where we start out, and less how we got there, but rather where we end up. I'd say Obama ended up pretty good. Ed |
