The following is an exchange between Kitty Antonik Wakfer and her, nephew Aaron, an Air Force officer and pilot, following the email she sent him that is at the end of her essay, "Social Preferencing - Evaluation and Choice of Association; A Method for Influence". Aaron's replies (all in essay form without any inline quotes of previous text) to her messages are contained in full within her responses to them below; nothing in the content of either his messages or hers has been altered, except for the exclusion of Aaron's last name and email address. Kitty's summary comments follow the email exchange.
3/16/07: Since the 4th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq comes within a few days, I thought it most appropriate to tie an improved message to Aaron with this date. The essay, which includes the alternate and improved message to my nephew, is entitled "Incremental Approach - A Better Method for Effecting Change". The file itself has the name "smallsteps" - something I realized, belatedly in regard to approaching Aaron, is very necessary for many people all of the time and likely all people some of the time when faced with ideas that are radically different from what they hold to be true of reality.
NOTE: A related dialogue with the wife of a soldier in the Iraq military action, most of which followed the one below, provides more discussion on the subject of social preferencing versus the common connotation to the word "support".
-----Original Message-----
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:02 AM
To: aaron.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxx.af.mil
Cc: Graham; Mary; Paul Wakfer
Subject: RE: inappropriate
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aaron.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxx.af.mil
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 6:09 AM
> To: kitty@morelife.org
> Subject: inappropriate
>
>
> Kitty (and Paul),
>
>
> I respect the fact that you have your own views on what makes for an
> orderly society and a happy life. You are also entitled to socialize and
> spend time with whomever you want. But I find it offensive that you see
> fit to slap a label on me, presuming you know who I am simply because
> you know what I do.
Aaron,
All those who directly enforce laws, rules, regulations, decrees - actions specifically of governments since they have, by force, created a monopoly right to act and control, again by force, the actions of others - are in fact enforcers. To the extent that others employed by government and contractors actively provide support to the enforcers, these supporters aid and abet. If your Air Force duties as a non-combat pilot and other functions are in any way a support to enforcers or enforcement action, then to that degree you are aiding and abetting activities that are counter to my lifetime happiness - and I contend to that of anyone else who is using widest view longest range thinking. That statement of fact is the only "label" that is being attached to you. It presumes and implies nothing else about who or what you are.
To simply "find it offensive" that I use this reasoning is without substance - I did not *not* "slap a label on [you]". I did not refer to *you* as an enforcer of the US government's orders to do harm; I recall your statements at the time of your Air Force Academy graduation that you did not want to be a fighter pilot, despite your love of flying. My (although rare) observations of you in person, together with your mother's periodic descriptions of you and your actions, supported my conclusion reached at Colorado Springs that you would not likely be an Air Force officer who would personally initiate harm to others. (I could not and never did picture you firing bullets at/on or dropping explosives on people or their property.) I identified your periodic non-combat piloting actions in the Middle East as what they are, supportive to a grossly wrong military action, and I gave you reasons why that is so. You have not given any reasons why you think those actions of yours are correct.
If you have consciously avoided "opportunities" to be more supportive of US military actions in the Middle East (and elsewhere), that is to your credit. However, within the US military environment of approximately the last 40 years - and *much* more so in the past 2.5 - all military personnel can be required to be either a direct initiator of force or a physical supporter of those direct enforcers. Many participate for years in the military, even during times when troops have been ordered into other countries, and are never given an order to directly harm any person or property and so never face the requirement to decide whether to obey or refuse. While there are some who wouldn't have any hesitation, I think most who actually inflict harm suffer emotional /psychological distress due to the philosophical conflict that arises. (I voiced this opinion in a response I made to the June 14 2005 blog entry at http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_misoldierthoughts_archive.html I have today (9/28) made my second comment to this same Sgt's blog on an entry for September 20 2005, specifically in response to the entries there by some others regarding responsibility and what more they could do to "get the troops home". http://www.misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com/ ) Those who provided support activities during those times prior to the US entrance into Iraq (the first time) could more understandably justify their roles; since Viet Nam, military actions by the US had been small and brief. Harm to others was *relatively* minor, though never minor to the recipient of the harm. The entire role of the US military has very clearly become in these ~40 years not one of defense of the US border and territorial waters, but instead offense for whatever the power purposes may be of those who legislate in and give orders from Washington DC. Support personnel for actions in Iraq (and Afghanistan) can not evade the fact that the enforcers could not carry out the orders to do harm if the physical support was not there.
My full essay, "Social Preferencing - Evaluation and Choice of Association; A Method for Influence", of which my email to you was but a closing addendum to demonstrate that I don't just recommend actions to others, presented the argument in a well reasoned manner. You may get a broader and deeper view by reading it in its entirety. http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html
> If not seeing or contacting me is some form of protest then you are
> welcome to do it. But to write such a hateful email out of the blue is
> completely uncalled for.
Your conclusion that my email was "hateful" is absolutely mind boggling. My email to you was very carefully constructed with all of my reasoning following a sound logical train from its foundation (the full body of which would require reading of the Social Meta Needs theory - link provided - but which it appears that you did not do) to the consequences of those ideas, my email to you - and similar action for any other government enforcer or enforcement supporter I know. This was not a spur of the moment, lightly pulled-together message equivalent to participating in an anti-war protest rally. I have never been a part of such a mob-like activity, which I consider of much less value than reasoned attempts to influence. And most of all, there was no emotion of hate by me at any time in writing any portion of my email to you or any of the writing that I do. Hate is a wasteful emotion. Quite the opposite in fact, I want no harm whatsoever to come to you - by what others may do or by what you might do yourself.
> I did not wonder why you had never stopped by to visit. I took you
> at your word the last time we spoke; that the timing of your drive didn't
> work out. I also had no idea you made regular trips by St. Louis.
My statements to you in my previous email and on the phone to you while enroute to St. Louis re. inability to reach the airport there in time to see Mary on her arrival was entirely truthful. Had you verbally extended an invitation to stop at your house, however, I would have been faced with whether to be frank with you then on the phone or evade temporarily the reason why we had not stopped on earlier drive-thrus. If you were unaware of the fact that our 3 roundtrips yearly between Arizona and Ontario take us right through St. Louis, it is only because Lindsay did not share the information that I included in a response to her announcement a year ago about your move from New Jersey. (I also had thought that Mary would have mentioned the fact of Paul's and my periodic drives through St. Louis. At least I expected that she'd have supplied the reason for why we were driving through St. Louis at the time of her arrival to visit with you.)
A year ago I had not fully determined how or at what level to implement Paul's and my social preferencing ideas with respect to those in *support* roles for government enforcement activities, and so actually considered that a brief visit with you and family would still be appropriate. However, I did not engage in email discourse with you since the time of Madison's christening and only made limited response at most to any information/photo emails until I had (with Paul's lead) well defined the correct reasoning and method for social preferencing with respect to direct supporters to government enforcers as well as the enforcers themselves. Until then I was only *uncomfortable* with such continued association, but I was without a clearly explainable (to others) reason. In the year since my email response to your (Lindsay's) announced upcoming St. Louis move, Paul's (and my) spiraling in on the truths of reality in the sphere of human interactions, has made it very clear that toleration in the face of evil is no virtue. And the vast majority of what governments do is evil when viewed in respect to the goal of maximizing the lifetime happiness of an individual, as judged by that individual. (In Paul's more abstract and generalized long range view, absolutely *everything* governments do is evil, because it is a compulsory alteration of free choice).
> Going out of your way to share how you're purposefully shunning
> family is rude. An unsolicited, proselytizing email serves no purpose,
> except maybe to show the people who share your views that you see
> your family ties as extremely disposable if a family member does
> anything that conflicts with your views.
Telling and explaining the truth determined by the facts of reality is never going "out of [one's] way", particularly when the issue is of vital importance - as opposed to voicing one's opinion on matters of taste or social/ethical insignificance. "Rude" per Webster's Unabridged Dictionary is "ignorant", "inelegant", "uncouth", "unpolished", "discourteous", "impudent", "unmannerly", "guileless", "uncivilized", "coarse", "vulgar", "impolite", "ill-mannered", "rough", "imperative", "abrupt" and a few more. However, the only way in which my email can reasonably be described as "rude" by the definitions of that word, is "abrupt" - "sudden and disconcerting or unpleasant", but then that is your reaction. There was no intention on my part to be unpleasant, offensive or discourteous; quite the contrary I wanted to reason with you even if that shook possible complacency (disconcert). I would not have written the email at all if I did not have some esteem for you. In addition, were I to refuse invitations to visit you without telling you why or continue to periodically drive within a few miles of your home without notice to you, *that* would be "rude" (discourteous, impolite). I used tactful words and phrasings in my email and never resorted to emotional non-thinking terms. The fact that you did not first ask for my opinions (?"unsolicited, proselytizing email"?) as to your continued military participation is a red herring. I was taking an action in regard to you (actually a "non-action" by not visiting when we easily could), and you deserved an explanation of why - it was *quite* appropriate, as opposed to your message subject "inappropriate". In fact, it has been bothering me for some time that I had not given you any explanation and thus, this message was not only appropriate, but long overdue.
Ah, "family" - the concept by which so much is justified without fully detailed consideration of all the bases and consequences. The fact of biology - another person being a parent, child, sibling or other "blood" relative - is no assurance that ideas foundational to the interactions of human beings and the conclusions that follow from that basis will be agreed to by the parties. And *real* friendship is based on deep values - not on taste in clothes, music, food, recreational activities; nor on residence location, age, gender, employment type or locale; nor is it based on number of genes in common. *Real* friendships don't occur "in spite" of foundational idea differences; while not abandoned at the first showing of a variation, the parties can not maintain the same degree of friendship when major significant differences remain. Attempts by each to show the correctness (in accordance with reality) of hir (his/her) position would be the appropriate course in a friendship. However, it is only reasonable that the parties can not hold the same esteem for each other if their differences remain in clear conflict. To ignore a major difference is to deny reality, to pretend that the difference does not exist. If I can be shown that my thinking is contrary to my stated goal of maximizing my lifetime happiness, then I change my thinking and actions. I highly value true friendship, with the origin of no consequence - and I do not "dispose" of such friendships. A few individuals had been significant in my life 6 years ago by way of biological connection but were not true friends, the vast majority were people who had always thought quite differently than I did (and do) and with whom relationships were "tiny perfect" - limited in scope and depth and problem-free only because they never went outside those narrow limits. I have not "disposed" of these people (or any other for that matter), but rather have kept my association with them to the areas on which there is some value for me. In a few cases that means no communication except in response to them and if the purpose is of value to me. But I am always open to reassess these individuals in the future based on perceived change.
> Assuming I left the military, do you honestly believe we could have
> a relationship after what you have written? What good did you think
> would come of that
If you left the military (and did not pursue any government enforcement or support role position) because you came to the conclusions that to remain was supportive of initiating force, I don't understand why you would harbor any dislike for me. You would under those circumstances be in agreement with what I have written you (and published elsewhere). The fact that you would not have taken the action to leave the military until after I'd made my thoughts known to you should make no difference to you - it wouldn't to me. It is your action that matters, not specifically when you take it, although sooner is better than later when one considers the clear actuality of continuing to aid and abet the current harming actions and the added risk with delay of actually doing harm or being harmed one's self.
> You have insulted me, my wife Lindsay and my daughters.
This is a highly emotional response and can only be interpreted as being made without much real thought on the substance of what I wrote. My message was directed towards *your* actions and can in no way be construed to reflect on your daughters - they have no responsibility for your actions. Even Lindsay is not responsible for your actions, though she can be highly influential to the positive and negative ones you take (as you evaluate your own lifetime happiness using widest view and longest range thinking). For a more detailed presentation of human responsibility I recommend Paul's essay The Rational Individual - Agent of his Actions, Creator of his Happiness
> It's a shame you feel the way you do.
You have given no reasons why you think "it's a shame I feel the way [I] do" - though "think" is the appropriate word. I do not "feel" except in regard to my tactile senses and emotions. I evaluate using reasoned thought and I can assure you that my email to you was *all* evaluation.
> It really meant a lot to me that you, Ed & Andy [Kitty's former
> husband and her son] all came out to my Academy graduation. I'm
> sure you held no such views then.
I was very pleased to be at your Academy graduation and I still have very pleasant thoughts of it. My ideas regarding the harm created by governments were limited and not fully formed at that time. I was at that time what is described as a "minimal governmentalist" and considered the only proper functions of government to be the armed services, police and courts, and then only for protection against and resolution of acts of violence. In the past 5 years I have concluded that restricting governments is an impossibility because their very nature is to control the individual and to constantly increase that control. The views I hold now - and they are never cast in concrete but always open to change based on my constant seeking to understand reality - can be read within the Self-Sovereign Individual Project and MoreLife. Paul and I don't anonymously voice our opinions online or simply grumble to whoever might listen; we stand up and expect to be assessed by others based on what we write, say and do. Together we wrote an essay in July on that very idea: Personal Characteristics as Market Commodities
> If this is what you need to be happy then by all means have it.
> It just sounds lonely to me.
What I need to maximize my lifetime happiness is an environment in which I can produce value, as I appraise it, that others will seek and for which they will return value (as assessed by me) to me. This can not take place without considerable risk of harm from government actions in today's society (in the entire world, not just the US). The most blatant form of harm being done currently by the US government is the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the method of social preferencing, which will be a major component of a far freer future society, can be used to influence those who really make the harm possible. It is my plan and current action to make this known to as many people as I possibly can.
I am far far from lonely. I may not chit-chat on the phone or over coffee or at parties like most 60 year old (and much younger) women, but I have many meaningful discussions with young people in their 20s and 30s (and a few older) inside the US and abroad who want to obtain value in their lives while creating no harm to others - maximum lifetime happiness for themselves and the possibility for others to do the same. At the same time I am in the physical condition of a woman of 40 enjoying high energy dancing whenever the mood strikes, which is often each day. And of course I have the constant company of my partner - in ideas and all actions, including dancing - Paul. So lonely I am not - but then you don't really know me, do you ;>) I would like it if that situation were corrected in the future. And for emphasis I repeat, I want no harm whatsoever to come to you - by what others may do or by what you might do yourself.
**Kitty (and --Paul, since he reads and edits what I write as I do for him)
> Aaron
PS This message (without your email address) will be become a page at the Self-Sovereign Individual Project in the Dialogues section under Miscellaneous (http://selfsip.org/dialogues/misc/) and be linked to and from Social Preferencing - Evaluation and Choice of Association; A Method for Influence
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
-----Original Message-----
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 7:26 PM
To: aaron.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxx.af.mil
Cc: Graham ; Mary
Subject: RE: inappropriate
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aaron.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxx.af.mil
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:47 AM
> To: kitty@morelife.org
> Subject: RE: inappropriate
> Kitty,
>
> I was not trying to get into a philosophical debate with you.
I have no interest in debates - contests to win points and impress audiences/judges. I am interested in the truth of reality and always seek it out, and I welcome it no matter who arrives at it first. It is unfortunate that you look upon a discussion and examination of ideas to be a contest of points (debate). It is obvious from the swiftness of your response that you took no time to read any of the added items I sent or likely did anything at all other than skim my message.
In addition, if you had responded inline (comments placed directly in breaks at points in my email) from my first message, it would have been clear to exactly what I said that you took exception - but then that would have necessitated more in the way of actual specific reasons from you. Opening and closing remarks would still be quite appropriate, but forthrightness and pointedness would be present.
> I was only trying to express how your email was received. It was
> hurtful for Lindsay and me to read. Despite being as "logical",
> thoughtful and as careful as possible, it is still possible to do
> things that are mean, hateful, rude, offensive, pick a word. It
> happens every day. Just because it wasn't your intent and you
> don't feel the emotion, doesn't mean the results aren't the same.
It is noteworthy that you (and Lindsay) responded to my original email by being "hurt" and think that what I said was "mean, hateful, rude, offensive, pick a word". It would only be reasonable to be "hurt" (offended) if someone for whom you had significant esteem had written/said something untrue about you. However, you have not replied with any explanation of why my reasoning to not associate with you because of your actions (in direct support of a military offensive action in Iraq/Afghanistan) is faulty or why your actions are actually correct. You merely again state that "despite being as 'logical', thoughtful and as careful as possible" I was still "mean, hateful, rude, offensive, pick a word" - no substantiation for your feelings, just that you (and Lindsay) *have* these feelings. It is truly disappointing to see that you and Lindsay have not introspectively analyzed these emotions to determine *why* you have them, or at least not sufficiently so that you can communicate them and recognize the value in doing so. (Very often the process of formulating an explanation to others broadens and deepens one's evaluation process and requires additional thought not previously given.)
In contrast, it would be reasonable for you (and Lindsay) to be disappointed in learning that certain others - ones you assumed thought as you did or you assumed used careful reasoning - had failed to follow your explanation for your significant actions (ones that impacted on others) to the same conclusion. In that case, where you were convinced by your own conscientious well reasoned evaluation of the situation communicated to others and some still did not agree, disappointment in their inability or unwillingness to see the facts in the same light would be reasonable. It would also be expected that your previous esteem for these others would diminish. How could it be otherwise as long as you were convinced that your thinking (on the issue in question) was right and theirs was wrong?
> I understand people fall out of touch for a multitude of reasons;
> time constraints, changing views/priorities, etc. I don't need an
> explanation from each of those people every time that happens.
Not to "need an explanation" for no longer being in contact with people is quite reasonable - when their company is of minimal importance in one's life. Few relationships (if any) that most people have are more than superficial in nature and easily fall prey to "time constraints, changing views/priorities", change in tastes/life-styles, change in locale, etc. Most such relationships are not based on foundational ideas (as opposed to "views" on current topics of interest/concern, which rest upon foundational ideas, but that connection is usually not made explicit.) But when a person *purposely* decides not to contact someone, for a reason directly related to that person with whom s/he previously did communicate, it is only forthright and open to let that reason be known - at least to the person hirself. But then many (?most?) people do not really have good reasons (or at least not well considered) to the point of being confident in the their rightness sufficient to be able to explain them to someone else. This I contend comes not from a physiologically limited cognitive ability but rather from a failure to recognize the importance of assessing and evaluating one's choices and actions. There are also the instances when this importance is actually known, but the practice is avoided for reasons such as laziness and greater desire to simply be accepted in some group.
> I place high value on family; immediate and extended. Friends come
> and go.
Friends who "come and go" are not what I consider "friends", but rather well known acquaintances. I have for many years (long before I knew Paul) reserved the word "friend" for those very few people with whom I had significant philosophical ideas in common. I use the word schoolmate, co-worker, neighbor, relative, etc. when referring to someone I know/knew but who does/did not fit the category "friend". That word is special and I use it only when I think it is deserved. Many (most?) people appear to use the word "friend" for anyone they know better than a passing acquaintance and who is not a declared enemy. So yes, well known acquaintances "come and go" but one's real friends - to the degree that the basis of that friendship is foundational - will change only when both do not change their foundations in the same direction to relatively the same degree.
> But, you cannot change who your family is. While you may not always
> be close or even friends with your family, they are people who are
> supposed to stand by you (actively or passively) despite petty (or
> even not so petty) differences. This is an ideal, and reality is
> often different than this. But it's an ideal worth striving for.
> I believe more harm is done by not making the effort.
No, one can not change the fact of a biological/genetic connection. But why does that biological relationship impose a "stand by you (actively or passively) despite petty (or even not so petty) differences"? This is not a rhetorical question but a very real one that I suggest you (and others) think about deeply. Why do you write "this is an ideal"? What makes this ideal? Why is it "an ideal worth striving for"? To attempt to practice "ideals" without an ability to explain why it is in the widest view, longest range best interest for a person to do so is without substance. It is merely a repeating of some formula without understanding how it relates to reality - specifically to the nature of human beings. And if, upon analysis, an ideal is seen to be inconsistent with the reality of human nature, then it must be rejected, because otherwise most certainly *more* harm will be done by practicing its principle and striving to reach its perfection.
> My foundation and purpose in life is rooted in my faith in God. You
> may say this is illogical. In some respects you may be correct.
> Faith can be viewed as illogical by some. But when the facts are laid
> out, there is only one truth.
Faith/belief *is* illogical - the acceptance as fact that for which there is no evidence. You don't provide any explanation of how you think I "may be correct [in some respects]" - in actuality all respects. The fact that some people who are quite logical and would not ever think of performing their jobs (such as performing surgery or flying a plane) based on faith (expectations/assurances without any evidence) or obtain services (such as a surgical procedure or an airline flight) based on faith, but will hold other claims/statements as true based on faith, demonstrates the capacity that these individuals have for operating under a dichotomy - a system which has two parts that are mutually opposed by contradiction. It is only by *not* facing the fact of this contradiction, that these individuals can function at all. I have known a few engineers who compartmentalized their lives in this manner and to that degree are less effective than they might otherwise have been.
Yes, there is only one truth of reality - the word to name all that exists. And It is within the capability of human beings to discover that truth. Believers in the idea that something can exist outside of reality and can not be known by humans is a contradiction in itself - how do they know this?? There is far more that can be said on the subject of reality and knowing; much is contained in Paul's essay on Social Meta-Needs theory; some day he will do far more writing on epistemology - the study of the acquisition of knowledge.
> You believe your view of life is correct. I respect you for that.
> That's what makes the gift of free choice so beautiful. But my
> convictions run deep as well. And the lifestyle you describe holds
> nothing for me. You may dissect my words all you like, but you miss
> the over all meaning when you do.
If your words held truthful meaning (consistent with evidence from reality, as opposed to what you "believe"), then they could be examined without losing that meaning, as long as they were quoted in context; you have not suggested that I have used your words out of their intended context. Once again, Paul and I do not "believe" (accept as fact without evidence) anything. Our conclusions are based on careful reasoning of facts. You have chosen to "respect [me/us] for that" - whatever that means? you give no explanation; obviously you are not going to employ any force to attempt to get us to alter our words. (Just as I am not using any force to stop your actions as long as they are not directed at me/Paul - only intellectual persuasion and avoidance of further contact, which we call social preferencing, as long as your actions are of the voluntary harming/harm-supporting nature.) However, that choice of yours is not a "gift" but rather a decision of yours based on whatever manner of thinking you are using on this matter.
It is a fact of reality that humans (and many other lifeforms) choose actions based on what they think/conclude is in their best interest at the time. Only humans - as far as current scientific studies show - are capable of extending that best interest to extremely wide view and very long range. The fact that this capability is in the genotype of homo sapiens sapiens does not mean that it is in the phenotype of all homo sapiens sapiens - in other words, just because it is a capability by one's genes does not mean it must be demonstrated by the actions of all humans. Avoidance is a choice open to all humans, but not the consequences of this action/inaction, or any other.
> You are welcome to write back if you like. But I won't discuss this
> topic any more.
My response is meant to not let you think that what you have written is "an answer" with a sound basis. I would have made it even if I were not already in the process of putting this entire exchange into a Miscellaneous page for the Dialogues section of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project. It is disappointing that you think a society of maximally free minimally restricted individuals "holds nothing for [you]". My previous esteem for you was apparently unfounded. However, I will not "dispose" of you, concluding that you will forever make your choices/decisions for ideas held and actions taken based on your current methods. Humans are not leopards (that cannot change their spots); humans *can* choose how and what to think.
**Kitty
> Aaron
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
[original text snipped by Kitty - left in place with no inserted comments by Aaron]
When I sent the original email to Aaron, I did not expect initial agreement with my thinking, otherwise he would already have resigned his Air Force commission or be in the process of doing so. I expected to likely receive some of the well used excuses for the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. To his credit, Aaron did not parrot any of these, possibly because I made it quite clear in that initial message that I had made a thorough examination of the underlying factors and evidently would not be swayed by the current US administration and news media line of "fighting terrorism". But what did surprise me was an inability and/or unwillingness to express his ideas, beyond stating that they are "rooted in [his] faith in God" - which is in essence saying that he does not use logical thought based on facts (except of course in regards to piloting a plane and possibly in other technical areas). If Aaron does not agree with the US military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, then he should resign, otherwise he is not "doing the right things despite pressure or temptations to the contrary" as the Air Force Academy describes a person with character. (What is noticeably missing on this website page, however, is any description of a method for determination of "the right things", merely a prescribed list of "right things".) In retrospect I should not be surprised by this type of thinking in a US (or other government) military academy graduate. What better follower of orders (including the giving of orders to those of lower ranks and the enlisted personnel) than an officer who is sharing hir (his/her) unquestioning allegiance to a god with that required by the US President, Congress, Department of Defense, and the Constitution (pick a preferred order of precedence or insert another government agency or two).
At the time I attended Aaron's Air Force Academy graduation I did not consider whether those young men and (few) women at any time were actually taught how to think, evaluate and assess - beyond the strategic and tactical situations presented to them in the context of "defending the country". Of course "thinking outside the box" related to military skills would be highly prized in an officer and strongly encouraged. But determining what is in one's best interest starting from first principles - the nature of human beings - would not be in the standard curriculum of any government's military academy or in that of any educational institution operated by government at any level.
The very heavy role of government (at all levels) in the education of children, adolescents and young adults is a reason for serious concern by every parent and, in fact, for every tax payer in a country since hir appropriated money via taxes is used to fund public (government funded) schools. What the leadership of various education related government agencies want to be taught (or not taught) is directed by those in this overseeing role. The pressures by different levels of government agencies of withholding operating funds from those below in the "chain of [educational] command" - individual schools (from primary to university), school districts, and even whole states - makes for a very effective stick on those who would defy the mandated legal requirements and the "guidelines" of general and specific programs or for grant recipients. Even non-publicly funded education is prevented from any creativity and progress by governments mandating their own legal requirements for what constitutes education. What has been removed over time is the direct consumer-provider link that exists with (most) other products and services that an individual procures for hirself and/or family. The ability to choose the educational institution or method that one thinks is best for oneself or one's child is effectively gone at the primary and secondary grade levels and greatly distorted beyond that. Instead, those who are elected and appointed to government positions have in the past 100 years been granted, by virtue of their ever enlarging roles, the ability and the means to decide what and how children and youths will be taught. As a result, the information made available to these impressionable minds in the vast majority of schools in the US has largely been a distortion of reality - specifically as that information relates to the interactions of human beings. (More on the very broad and deep subject of learning and education in a future essay.)
The ability of an individual to influence others encompasses not only the words that s/he uses but the actions that s/he takes. In fact, if one's actions do not reflect the ideas which s/he has expressed (or merely thought to one's self), then the words are greatly diminished in value to hirself and reasonably to others. I have demonstrated in my actions in the area of social preferencing against enforcers of initiated force and direct supporters of these enforcers, the thinking and behavioral integration that is sorely missing from most others. However, such integration can be attained and increased to provide for a more effective and happy person - and with time, a society whose members have the most possible available actions (maximal freedom) and the least possible restrictions (maximal liberty) who interact on the basis of mutual self interest.
NOTE: A related dialogue with the wife of a soldier in the Iraq military action provides more discussion on the subject of social preferencing versus the common connotation to the word "support".
