Every summer, wise Floridians (and residents of other subtropical nations and states) become very familiar with the National Hurricane Center website (www.nhc.noaa.gov), with daily (or multiple-times daily, depending on how grim the situation is) readings about which tropical waves could develop into hurricanes and which hurricanes threaten the flat, reclaimed swampland where I reside. Having recently moved from a rare area in my city not in any evacuation zone to somewhere in Evacuation Zone A (meaning I may be particularly itinerant this hurricane season), I will be paying even more attention (if that were possible) to the business of hurricanes and tropical storms as I go about my affairs in work and school.
This particular year has started early with regards to tropical storms. Despite it being only the beginning of May, on May 9th Subtropical Storm Andrea formed in the Atlantic just off the coast of St. Augustine, slowly drifting west towards the state in dry, unfavorable atmospheric conditions. This brave little storm is already dissipating, but it marks the first storm of what could be a busy season. Ironically enough, some people (including Florida's Governor) were hoping that the tropical storm would bring some much needed rain to Florida. No dice.
What could drive people to wish for a tropical storm to hit Florida when the last few years have been less than kind to Florida in that regard (lest anyone forget, during the 2004 Hurricane Season, Florida was hit by four major hurricanes, the last two of which knocked out power where I lived for over a week)? In 2005 Florida was hit by another three hurricanes, one of which destroyed part of Miami International Airport (and delayed my flight back to Tampa from New Jersey, though it indirectly gave me first class tickets, so I suppose I can't complain too much). The reason is that Florida is as dry as my sense of humor right now.
Florida and Georgia are so dry right now that a swamp is burning (!) and the air quality earlier this week (thanks to a fire near Gainesville) was so bad it reminded me of the smog in Los Angeles (as well as my experiences with fires out there, which threatened Griffith Park Observatory earlier this week, one of my favorite spots in LA). One fire, the aforementioned fire on the GA/FL border, has burned over 100 square miles of land and is now threatening towns on the stateline. Another fire has burned part of northern Minnesota and is now heading into Canada. Drought conditions have prevailed over much of the United States, and the droughts are turning quite ugly as hotter weather has turned dry grass into a tinderbox.
However, other parts of the United States (like Kansas and Nebraska, and other parts of the midwest) are having floods right now from rather severe rains, the worst floods since 1993. Those floods, by the way, were so severe that they forced some towns close to the rivers of the midwest to move further away from the river to avoid being in the floodplains. If cities and towns in Florida were moved away from the floodplains to avoid damage from flooding, there would not be much of Florida left suitable for habitation, but I suppose that is another subject for another time.
It appears that, however you look at it, this year already is shaping up to be a wacky one with regards to the weather. A late start to winter in Europe created serious problems, and the end of winter featured dramatic temperature swings from spring-like weather to late blizzards. No matter what reason one uses for the weather being as it is, the weather is truly bizarre, clearly not right. While it may keep some of us glued to the weather channel (or various other equivalents), it should force us to think as well how much our lives and livelihoods depend on the fickleness of our increasingly erratic weather.
It would not surprise others to know that my life and livelihood, like everything else in my existence, has an ambivalent relationship with the weather. For one, I live in an area rather vulnerable to hurricanes, living near the coast (a bay, to be precise). However, as a reviewer of modular building plans, I get more work when modular buildings need to be built as replacements for destroyed buildings as well as construction trailers for building sites post-disaster. So, while I dislike disasters, and the stress that hurricane season brings for me as I stare at menacing looking storms in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, I profit off of the same. Like the ironies of the weather, the ironies of my life are many.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
On The Sinister People
I have a confession to make: I am a sinister person. I say this somewhat jokingly, but truth be told, as a left-handed person, I am a sinister fellow. Sinister, a word with nearly uniformly negative connotation and denotation, comes from the latin word for left. In Latin, as in Hebrew and Greek and many other languages, left is given a host of negative meanings and right is given a host of postive meanings. The word left even comes from the Old English and means "weak." It is worthwhile to note some of these relationships first before I go on:
Left/Sinister:
Bend Sinister: signifies the bearer of the coat of arms is an illegitimate child
Sinister is also contained in the names of villians in Marvel Supercomics as well as the Underdog
Sinister is also used as a synonym for evil.
Left does not only refer to the direction, but is also the past tense of "leave" in such expressions as "left behind."
The word left in French, gauche, means awkward or clumsy.
Right/Dextrous:
Dexterity, from the Latin word for right, refers to manual ability, as the opposite of clumsiness, and is often used in role playing games for statistics related to skill in tools and weapons.
Right is not only used for the direction, but is also a positive expression used in "right brain thinking" (referring to creative thinking as opposed to the narrow quantitative thinking known as "left-brained thinking").
Right is also the name of those freedoms which are most treasured and sought after (such as "The Bill of Rights" or the "Civil Rights Movement") and is used to refer to something which is correct and proper as opposed to something which is wrong.
Perhaps these are not noticed very frequently because most of the world is right-handed (different estimates figure the proportion of right-handed people to be about 85-90% of the total population), and it is easy to ignore what is common and obvious. In an entire semester of watching movies, I saw exactly one person writing left-handed, and he happened to be Marshall Mathers, better known as Eminem. When I saw Shawn Mullins write left-handed in the music video to "Everywhere I Go," I was pleased, because it is unusual to see people writing left-handed on-screen. Even had I not already noted that I am left-handed, the fact that I even bother to notice what hand people write with should give away that fact, because right-handed people are not prone to notice what hand anyone writes with at all, while left-handed people like myself are always seeking out allies in our battle against a world designed hostile and backwards for the sinister people.
During the Middle Ages, left-handed people were considered tools of the devil and were burned at the stake (I would not have survived in the Middle Ages for other reasons, notably my intelligence, my intolerance for unjust hierarchies, my outspokenness, and my religious beliefs, but being left-handed would have added to the reasons why I would have received the death penalty in those dark times). Even in the United States in the 20th century, left-handed students were beaten on the wrist until they wrote with their right hand--this happened to my father as well as my mother's father, both of whom were born left-handed but who had it beaten out of them rather literally in school.
Left-handedness plays a role often unrecognized in military history as well. In the Bible, Ehud, a left-handed Benjaminite, used his left-handedness to slay Eglon, king of the Moabites, by sneaking a weapon on the right side of his body, where the guards did not check. Later in Judges, the notably left-handed Benjaminites dealt two defeats to the rest of the Israelites before being nearly eliminated as a tribe. Many fortresses in the Middle Ages were built with towers with stairs ascending clockwise, which would allow a right-handed person to defend them easier.
The Bible even adds to the general hostility towards the left-side in Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats--the goats (symbollizing those who are not to be saved) are put on the left side, and the sheep (symbollizing those who are to be saved) are placed on the right-side. Yet, despite the often negative connotations of the word left (and the awkwardness in writing and drawing left-handed), and even the various hostile theories about the origin of left-handedness in people (including high amounts of stress at birth and brain damage), left-handedness endures and even has some positive connotations--including a prediliction for high intelligence and creativity.
So, in the end, perhaps the sinister people of this world like myself can have the last laugh--left-handed people are likely the only ones who even notice what kind of handedness most people have, and they are better at tennis and other one-on-one sports (like boxing) due to the assymetry of handedness. Living in a hostile world does have its advantages after all.
Left/Sinister:
Bend Sinister: signifies the bearer of the coat of arms is an illegitimate child
Sinister is also contained in the names of villians in Marvel Supercomics as well as the Underdog
Sinister is also used as a synonym for evil.
Left does not only refer to the direction, but is also the past tense of "leave" in such expressions as "left behind."
The word left in French, gauche, means awkward or clumsy.
Right/Dextrous:
Dexterity, from the Latin word for right, refers to manual ability, as the opposite of clumsiness, and is often used in role playing games for statistics related to skill in tools and weapons.
Right is not only used for the direction, but is also a positive expression used in "right brain thinking" (referring to creative thinking as opposed to the narrow quantitative thinking known as "left-brained thinking").
Right is also the name of those freedoms which are most treasured and sought after (such as "The Bill of Rights" or the "Civil Rights Movement") and is used to refer to something which is correct and proper as opposed to something which is wrong.
Perhaps these are not noticed very frequently because most of the world is right-handed (different estimates figure the proportion of right-handed people to be about 85-90% of the total population), and it is easy to ignore what is common and obvious. In an entire semester of watching movies, I saw exactly one person writing left-handed, and he happened to be Marshall Mathers, better known as Eminem. When I saw Shawn Mullins write left-handed in the music video to "Everywhere I Go," I was pleased, because it is unusual to see people writing left-handed on-screen. Even had I not already noted that I am left-handed, the fact that I even bother to notice what hand people write with should give away that fact, because right-handed people are not prone to notice what hand anyone writes with at all, while left-handed people like myself are always seeking out allies in our battle against a world designed hostile and backwards for the sinister people.
During the Middle Ages, left-handed people were considered tools of the devil and were burned at the stake (I would not have survived in the Middle Ages for other reasons, notably my intelligence, my intolerance for unjust hierarchies, my outspokenness, and my religious beliefs, but being left-handed would have added to the reasons why I would have received the death penalty in those dark times). Even in the United States in the 20th century, left-handed students were beaten on the wrist until they wrote with their right hand--this happened to my father as well as my mother's father, both of whom were born left-handed but who had it beaten out of them rather literally in school.
Left-handedness plays a role often unrecognized in military history as well. In the Bible, Ehud, a left-handed Benjaminite, used his left-handedness to slay Eglon, king of the Moabites, by sneaking a weapon on the right side of his body, where the guards did not check. Later in Judges, the notably left-handed Benjaminites dealt two defeats to the rest of the Israelites before being nearly eliminated as a tribe. Many fortresses in the Middle Ages were built with towers with stairs ascending clockwise, which would allow a right-handed person to defend them easier.
The Bible even adds to the general hostility towards the left-side in Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats--the goats (symbollizing those who are not to be saved) are put on the left side, and the sheep (symbollizing those who are to be saved) are placed on the right-side. Yet, despite the often negative connotations of the word left (and the awkwardness in writing and drawing left-handed), and even the various hostile theories about the origin of left-handedness in people (including high amounts of stress at birth and brain damage), left-handedness endures and even has some positive connotations--including a prediliction for high intelligence and creativity.
So, in the end, perhaps the sinister people of this world like myself can have the last laugh--left-handed people are likely the only ones who even notice what kind of handedness most people have, and they are better at tennis and other one-on-one sports (like boxing) due to the assymetry of handedness. Living in a hostile world does have its advantages after all.
Monday, April 16, 2007
On The Collatz Conjecture
Yesterday, during the monthly Florida Bibliophile Society meeting, a book collecting former math teacher with a profound interest in Lewis Carroll (of Alice & Wonderland fame) made some interesting comments on an area of mathematics I find quite intriguing. He spoke in particular on the Collatz Conjecture. A conjecture, in mathematical terms, is a supposition that appears to be always true but is not rigorously proven. There are, of course, several ways to prove a statement, which would change the conjecture into a theorem (which is rigorously proven and is followed by three of my favorite latin words--quod erat demonstradum, which mean "it has been demonstrated/proven."
Logic gives us several ways of proving a statement. One is a proof by contradiction. In this proof, we assume that the theorem is not true and then demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction with what is known to be true. For example, if we assumed a theorem was not true and then showed that if this was the case then 1 = 0, then we would prove by contradiction that the theorem was true. This is a particularly elegant form of proof, and I quite enjoy that as well. Other proofs seek to demonstrate that a statement boils down, eventually, to already proven statements, so that the theorem rests on the shoulders of prior statements (standing on the shoulder of giants, as it were). The immediate implications of a given theorem are considered corollaries, and are added to the pool of proven statements as well. Alternatively, theorems may be proven exhaustively, such that within a given range one can demonstrate that the theorem is true because one has exhausted all of the possibilities. I dislike this manner of proof because I tend to get rather bored of calculating algorithms and my attention has the tendency to wander, leading to mistakes in arithmetic. Since this is apparently a common affliction, generally computers are used in this form beyond the simplest of cases, because their attention does not wander (unless they use a Microsoft operating system and have a blue screen error, but that is another subject entirely).
I particularly enjoy conjectures because they are often composed of rather simple statements and can be verified to very large numbers, but because they resist proof by contradiction or traditional methods of proof, and because they make such grand claims that they cannot be proven exhaustively. One such example of this sort of conjecture is that the digits of pi and Euler's constant do not have a repetitive pattern, making them transcendental numbers. Well, this has not been proven (or disproven, for that matter) despite the fact that computers have calculated pi and Euler's constant to extreme lengths and have found (in the case of pi at least) that there are roughly equal numbers of each digit despite no discernable pattern.
Collatz's conjecture is likewise appealing to me because the conjecture sets two rather simple rules, one for odd numbers and another for even numbers, and these rules have been demonstrated to be correct to very large numbers, but because there are an infinite number of postive numbers, the conjecture cannot be proven true exhaustively. Furthermore, the conjecture has resisted a proof by contradiction or the traditional deductive proof.
The Collatz Conjecture has two rules:
If a number is odd, multiply by three and add one (3x +1),
If a number is even, divide the number in half (x/2).
The conjecture states that, eventually, any number will reduce, given these two rules, to one.
Some examples:
1 4 2 1
2 1
3 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
4 2 1
5 16 8 4 2 1
6 3 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
7 22 11 34 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
8 4 2 1
9 28 14 7 22 11 34 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
10 5 16 8 4 2 1
And so on...
It becomes apparent rather quickly that there is some kind of pattern in the way the rule works, and that once a sequence reaches a number already present in an existing sequence then it follows the same trail (for example, 11 would be 11 34 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1). However, the proof of this conjecture has evaded the attempts of mathematicians of far greater ability than I (though, to be honest, it is not a difficult task to find mathematicians of greater ability than I am).
I consider such examples as this simple conjecture as evidence that the world in which we live, even when we look only at such narrow areas as mathematics which appear at first capable of exhaustive rational proof, nonetheless possesses aspects which we hold to be true even though we cannot demonstrate them to be true by logic. The world we live in, that is, requires something we call faith. If this is true in the world of number theory, it is certainly even more true in those aspects of life that are not as quantifiable. This may not make some mathematicians very happy, but it should nonetheless provide food for thought for those of us who are able to handle a bit more uncertainty and are able to reflect upon intelligence greater than our own.
Logic gives us several ways of proving a statement. One is a proof by contradiction. In this proof, we assume that the theorem is not true and then demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction with what is known to be true. For example, if we assumed a theorem was not true and then showed that if this was the case then 1 = 0, then we would prove by contradiction that the theorem was true. This is a particularly elegant form of proof, and I quite enjoy that as well. Other proofs seek to demonstrate that a statement boils down, eventually, to already proven statements, so that the theorem rests on the shoulders of prior statements (standing on the shoulder of giants, as it were). The immediate implications of a given theorem are considered corollaries, and are added to the pool of proven statements as well. Alternatively, theorems may be proven exhaustively, such that within a given range one can demonstrate that the theorem is true because one has exhausted all of the possibilities. I dislike this manner of proof because I tend to get rather bored of calculating algorithms and my attention has the tendency to wander, leading to mistakes in arithmetic. Since this is apparently a common affliction, generally computers are used in this form beyond the simplest of cases, because their attention does not wander (unless they use a Microsoft operating system and have a blue screen error, but that is another subject entirely).
I particularly enjoy conjectures because they are often composed of rather simple statements and can be verified to very large numbers, but because they resist proof by contradiction or traditional methods of proof, and because they make such grand claims that they cannot be proven exhaustively. One such example of this sort of conjecture is that the digits of pi and Euler's constant do not have a repetitive pattern, making them transcendental numbers. Well, this has not been proven (or disproven, for that matter) despite the fact that computers have calculated pi and Euler's constant to extreme lengths and have found (in the case of pi at least) that there are roughly equal numbers of each digit despite no discernable pattern.
Collatz's conjecture is likewise appealing to me because the conjecture sets two rather simple rules, one for odd numbers and another for even numbers, and these rules have been demonstrated to be correct to very large numbers, but because there are an infinite number of postive numbers, the conjecture cannot be proven true exhaustively. Furthermore, the conjecture has resisted a proof by contradiction or the traditional deductive proof.
The Collatz Conjecture has two rules:
If a number is odd, multiply by three and add one (3x +1),
If a number is even, divide the number in half (x/2).
The conjecture states that, eventually, any number will reduce, given these two rules, to one.
Some examples:
1 4 2 1
2 1
3 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
4 2 1
5 16 8 4 2 1
6 3 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
7 22 11 34 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
8 4 2 1
9 28 14 7 22 11 34 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1
10 5 16 8 4 2 1
And so on...
It becomes apparent rather quickly that there is some kind of pattern in the way the rule works, and that once a sequence reaches a number already present in an existing sequence then it follows the same trail (for example, 11 would be 11 34 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2 1). However, the proof of this conjecture has evaded the attempts of mathematicians of far greater ability than I (though, to be honest, it is not a difficult task to find mathematicians of greater ability than I am).
I consider such examples as this simple conjecture as evidence that the world in which we live, even when we look only at such narrow areas as mathematics which appear at first capable of exhaustive rational proof, nonetheless possesses aspects which we hold to be true even though we cannot demonstrate them to be true by logic. The world we live in, that is, requires something we call faith. If this is true in the world of number theory, it is certainly even more true in those aspects of life that are not as quantifiable. This may not make some mathematicians very happy, but it should nonetheless provide food for thought for those of us who are able to handle a bit more uncertainty and are able to reflect upon intelligence greater than our own.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Three Vignettes On The Life Of A Graduate Student
My life as a graduate student provides me with numerous opportunities for dry humor and (sometimes) dispassionate reflection on the quirks of higher education and my own place within it. Knowing that graduate education is still somewhat rare in the United States, and particularly rare in my family (I am the first person in my family to go to graduate school since my great-great uncle Willis David Matthias got his Th.D from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1927, but that is another story), hopefully my musings are not too esoteric or obscure.
On Americans In Graduate School
As an American in a graduate engineering program, I am a rather unusual fellow (regardless of whether I would be unusual on account of my own inherent quirkiness). The vast majority of my fellow graduate students in the School of Engineering, even at the University of South Florida, are not American citizens. Those that are Americans are often older students (many of whom have children only a little younger than myself), and many of the other students come from such diverse lands as China, India, South Korea, Turkey, France, Columbia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco. I happen to enjoy studying with such people, as they provide me the opportunity to learn about other lands and backgrounds beyond my own (and I tend to seek out such knowledge anyway). So, for me it is not the presence of people from other lands that is noteworthy. What is noteworthy is the absence of other Americans, particularly young Americans, from my classes. I know I am an odd fellow, but being interested in graduate school in engineering should not make me that unusual, I would think. What makes this rather amusing is that immigration law, which for me personally is a rather non-issue, becomes a very important matter for many of my classmates. One classmate, an undergraduate in a combination graduate/undergraduate program at USF, is from Columbia, and she was unable to go to a recent academic conference she helped organize because it was in Cancun and she did not have travel visa privileges. Other friends of mine face difficulties in finding employment because of a shortage of H1-B visas, with the liklihood that they will have to return to their home nations.
This becomes a problem in that many professions (such as civil engineering, my own) are moving towards making professional credentials more difficult to obtain, often to the point of requiring graduate school. With the above-inflation rise in college costs and the increasing length of time of non-productive (in economic terms) years spent acquiring an education rather than earning a living, coupled with the shortage in young people willing or able to study advanced degrees in science and engineering (and the difficulties in legally hiring educated foreigners to these positions) we face some serious problems. There appear to be no shortage of ambitious young adults in MBA programs, but when it comes to more technical studies the shortage is most glaring (and I have seen it with my own eyes). It appears as if my generation of students has understood that we value the acquisition of money above all else--above integrity, above truth/knowledge--and they have chosen their academic careers accordingly. What are we to do to ensure our nation has enough intellectuals to fill those emptying ivory towers, or even the ranks of middle-class professions like scientists and engineers?
A Nexus Of Cash And Corruption
It is a common thread of mine to comment on corruption in this world wherever it can be found, and recently I have found another occasion to comment on this. A scandal is breaking in the world of academic financing, as numerous university officials have been found to have had overly cozy financial relationships with a clique of financial organizations engaged in predatory lending to university students. While the universities implicated so far in the scandal are on the east coast (Penn, St. John's, and so forth), there are plenty of schools in other parts of the United States that engage in the same practices (and I know of some schools on the west coast that they could look into as well).
The university officials implicated in this scandal (and some government officials as well) received lucrative benefits from a few preferred lenders who apparently gave the universities (and those officials) bonuses based on how many students chose particular loan packages that contained terms advantageous to the lending companies and not as advantageous to the students themselves. Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general for the state of New York (a position that in recent years has inspired rather fiercely anti-corruption officials), apparently began the investigation at the behest of a lender who was apparently shut out of elite college lending on account of being unable to schmooze with the university officials and being unwilling/financially unable to engage in the graft/corruption that such college lending apparently entails. Perhaps the AG of New York should go after the credit card companies that camp out on university sidewalks continually with free t-shirts to give out. Maybe they are paying off university officials as well. That would not be surprising.
A Parking Rant
Actually, one of the benefits of being a commuter student (as I am now) is avoiding such people. When I lived on campus as an undergraduate on the left coast, I could only avoid such people at food speed, and those who know me should realize my foot speed is not terribly fast. Unfortunately, one of the annoyances of being a commuter student is the problem of finding adequate parking.
A few days ago, I received a survey from the University of South Florida about parking, which gave me the opportunity to rant to the people responsible for the travesty that is engineering school parking. (It is a rare treat in my life to be able to rant directly, and anonymously, to people who make my life more difficult than I would prefer). I was bemused by the attempts of the survey to advocate the use of Tampa's rather unacceptable public transportation service (known as HARTLine), as well as advocate future light rail projects to connect USF to the airport and a few other major places. (The question of how someone is supposed to get from where they live to the light rail and back, much less go to work as well, is left unstated).
I took the opportunity of the survey to make a few choice (but non-profane) comments about the incompetence of those responsible for parking at USF. Of course, these are the same geniuses who removed an entire parking lot from student use (for who knows what reason) some weeks ago while the Spring Semester is still in session. Parking was crowded enough before, now the situation is even more untenable. I do not appreciate having to walk half a mile from my car to class, especially not when I have to pass half-empty lots I cannot use because they are reserved for staff. I take such things rather personally, and as a sign of the lack of genuine interest people in charge have about doing what is best for those they purportedly serve. It is distressing that it is so hard to find leaders who are not corrupt and incompetent. If leaders were as competent in serving as they were in advocating their own pet agendas and in avoiding due regulation and accountability, I would have much less to rant about. I think that would be a good thing all the way around. For now, I study what is around me, and occasionally report on it.
On Americans In Graduate School
As an American in a graduate engineering program, I am a rather unusual fellow (regardless of whether I would be unusual on account of my own inherent quirkiness). The vast majority of my fellow graduate students in the School of Engineering, even at the University of South Florida, are not American citizens. Those that are Americans are often older students (many of whom have children only a little younger than myself), and many of the other students come from such diverse lands as China, India, South Korea, Turkey, France, Columbia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco. I happen to enjoy studying with such people, as they provide me the opportunity to learn about other lands and backgrounds beyond my own (and I tend to seek out such knowledge anyway). So, for me it is not the presence of people from other lands that is noteworthy. What is noteworthy is the absence of other Americans, particularly young Americans, from my classes. I know I am an odd fellow, but being interested in graduate school in engineering should not make me that unusual, I would think. What makes this rather amusing is that immigration law, which for me personally is a rather non-issue, becomes a very important matter for many of my classmates. One classmate, an undergraduate in a combination graduate/undergraduate program at USF, is from Columbia, and she was unable to go to a recent academic conference she helped organize because it was in Cancun and she did not have travel visa privileges. Other friends of mine face difficulties in finding employment because of a shortage of H1-B visas, with the liklihood that they will have to return to their home nations.
This becomes a problem in that many professions (such as civil engineering, my own) are moving towards making professional credentials more difficult to obtain, often to the point of requiring graduate school. With the above-inflation rise in college costs and the increasing length of time of non-productive (in economic terms) years spent acquiring an education rather than earning a living, coupled with the shortage in young people willing or able to study advanced degrees in science and engineering (and the difficulties in legally hiring educated foreigners to these positions) we face some serious problems. There appear to be no shortage of ambitious young adults in MBA programs, but when it comes to more technical studies the shortage is most glaring (and I have seen it with my own eyes). It appears as if my generation of students has understood that we value the acquisition of money above all else--above integrity, above truth/knowledge--and they have chosen their academic careers accordingly. What are we to do to ensure our nation has enough intellectuals to fill those emptying ivory towers, or even the ranks of middle-class professions like scientists and engineers?
A Nexus Of Cash And Corruption
It is a common thread of mine to comment on corruption in this world wherever it can be found, and recently I have found another occasion to comment on this. A scandal is breaking in the world of academic financing, as numerous university officials have been found to have had overly cozy financial relationships with a clique of financial organizations engaged in predatory lending to university students. While the universities implicated so far in the scandal are on the east coast (Penn, St. John's, and so forth), there are plenty of schools in other parts of the United States that engage in the same practices (and I know of some schools on the west coast that they could look into as well).
The university officials implicated in this scandal (and some government officials as well) received lucrative benefits from a few preferred lenders who apparently gave the universities (and those officials) bonuses based on how many students chose particular loan packages that contained terms advantageous to the lending companies and not as advantageous to the students themselves. Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general for the state of New York (a position that in recent years has inspired rather fiercely anti-corruption officials), apparently began the investigation at the behest of a lender who was apparently shut out of elite college lending on account of being unable to schmooze with the university officials and being unwilling/financially unable to engage in the graft/corruption that such college lending apparently entails. Perhaps the AG of New York should go after the credit card companies that camp out on university sidewalks continually with free t-shirts to give out. Maybe they are paying off university officials as well. That would not be surprising.
A Parking Rant
Actually, one of the benefits of being a commuter student (as I am now) is avoiding such people. When I lived on campus as an undergraduate on the left coast, I could only avoid such people at food speed, and those who know me should realize my foot speed is not terribly fast. Unfortunately, one of the annoyances of being a commuter student is the problem of finding adequate parking.
A few days ago, I received a survey from the University of South Florida about parking, which gave me the opportunity to rant to the people responsible for the travesty that is engineering school parking. (It is a rare treat in my life to be able to rant directly, and anonymously, to people who make my life more difficult than I would prefer). I was bemused by the attempts of the survey to advocate the use of Tampa's rather unacceptable public transportation service (known as HARTLine), as well as advocate future light rail projects to connect USF to the airport and a few other major places. (The question of how someone is supposed to get from where they live to the light rail and back, much less go to work as well, is left unstated).
I took the opportunity of the survey to make a few choice (but non-profane) comments about the incompetence of those responsible for parking at USF. Of course, these are the same geniuses who removed an entire parking lot from student use (for who knows what reason) some weeks ago while the Spring Semester is still in session. Parking was crowded enough before, now the situation is even more untenable. I do not appreciate having to walk half a mile from my car to class, especially not when I have to pass half-empty lots I cannot use because they are reserved for staff. I take such things rather personally, and as a sign of the lack of genuine interest people in charge have about doing what is best for those they purportedly serve. It is distressing that it is so hard to find leaders who are not corrupt and incompetent. If leaders were as competent in serving as they were in advocating their own pet agendas and in avoiding due regulation and accountability, I would have much less to rant about. I think that would be a good thing all the way around. For now, I study what is around me, and occasionally report on it.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Why Is The Beam Always In Our Eye?
One of the most pointed verses in the Bible concerning our behavior to other people is Matthew 7:3: "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? (NASB)" One question I have long had about this verse is, why is the beam (or log) always in our eye, and why is the speck in the eye of the other person? Today I would like to look at at least a few possible answers.
On Specks
The answer to the question of why the speck is the eye of the other person seems a bit easier to answer, so I will tackle that one first. What we see of other people is rather limited. Even a fairly obvious person (I would probably qualify as one of these) still keeps a fair amount of information inside simply because not everything can be communicated to other people without a large amount of time spent with someone in a wide variety of different situations. Furthermore, much of what we do communicate verbally and nonverbally is subject to interpretation (and misinterpretation), which presents a further barrier to understanding other people. Therefore, even for people whose living is spent critiquing (that is how I pay my bills, after all) only have a small amount of material available to judge someone on.
This need not be a bad thing. We are not to be judgmental after all (much easier said than done), so it would be salutory for those of us who do tend to be a tad more hypercritical than we probably should be to recognize that we may be wrong (sometimes really wrong) and mean it. However, even when we judge something correctly in other people, we must realize that even here our information may be incomplete. No mercy will be shown to those who show no mercy, and when we do not know why someone acts the way they do, we may err in being harsh to those who suffer and struggle greatly. Consequently, we may be too easy on those who are better at hiding their sins (or are politically powerful enough that most people with a modicum of sense quail at challenging). So, what we see is often imperfect and that we see imperfectly. Therefore we cannot but see specks in the eyes of others, as their logs are often quite hidden to us.
On Logs
On the other hand, we all have logs in our eyes (I have mine, and I am blessed to have other people around me who seem to take great pleasure in reminding me about them, often). We need not be too hard on ourselves--God knows our situations better than we do--but we do need to look realistically at ourselves and understand that we all fall far short of our goal. Without the pardon given to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, salvation would be far beyond our reach, as if we were trying to stand on the ground and grasp for the stars in the night sky.
There are many reasons we have logs. For one, most people do not examine themselves particularly closely. We selectively compare ourselves to others and justify ourselves by looking at how other people fall short and how we have been wronged (I say this knowing I do the same thing, often, myself). In doing so, even when we see the worse parts of our own nature, we mitigate them and try to explain away our own problems through forces beyond our control while denying this privilege to others, what is called the fundamental attribution error. Furthermore, by not dealing with our own problems, we have a skewed perception of reality, which prevents us from seeing our world clearly and makes us less able to correctly judge other people.
What To Do Then?
How do we avoid this difficulty? Besides remaining in a state of blissfully ignorant hypocrisy, there are really two solutions. One is not to judge at all, and the other is to learn how to judge wisely. Our society right now seems to point towards not judging at all (though here it is only those people who wish to live righteously who are judged, in a perversion of the concept of judging). Not judging basically amounts to this: you do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do, and as long as you don't hurt or judge me I won't judge you. This is incorrect, because if we desire a just society that is suitable for human existence, we must realize that no act is without consequences for other people, no matter how private it may seem. I could go at length about this, but a common example should suffice. For example, many people think that buying cocaine is a decision that effects only the drug user. This is false. The purchase of drugs is but one link in a rather complicated picture that involves a lot of people. Besides harming the user himself (itself a sin, as we are to honor God's temple--our bodies), the act of buying drugs supports a whole legion of people who make their livings in illegal ways (drug dealers, laboratories, etc.) who often combine drugs with other criminal behavior such as prostitution, theft, violence. These people, in turn, depend on the sources of their drugs from international drug traffickers who themselves are involved in crimes such as illegal immigration, terrorism, the international slave trade, massacres of populations in drug growing areas, and so forth. When we act, we can either be a part of a nexus of good or a nexus of evil. We cannot pretend, though, that what we do has no consequences outside of ourselves.
That leaves us with the choice of judging wisely. In doing so, we need to be aware (at least as much as possible) about what is right and wrong, and about why what is simple for us may be difficult for someone else (and the reverse is true also). In seeking to understand others, we may find that they have much to teach us and we have much to learn, even when we set out to teach them about their errors. Also, we must separate the sin from the sinner. We are all sinners, all worthy of the death penalty for our actions, and all (potentially) covered by the grace of God should we choose to accept the offer. We all have much to struggle with in this life, and we should recognize it as such. If we spend the limited time and energy we have on this earth honestly and openly seeking to live rightly (and increase in knowledge so that we have a better idea of what it is we are to do and how it is we are to do it), then we will speak louder about sin than we would through a million jeremiads against the sins of others. Sometimes we speak loudest through our own example--do you know what your example is saying? That is a frightening picture to consider indeed.
On Specks
The answer to the question of why the speck is the eye of the other person seems a bit easier to answer, so I will tackle that one first. What we see of other people is rather limited. Even a fairly obvious person (I would probably qualify as one of these) still keeps a fair amount of information inside simply because not everything can be communicated to other people without a large amount of time spent with someone in a wide variety of different situations. Furthermore, much of what we do communicate verbally and nonverbally is subject to interpretation (and misinterpretation), which presents a further barrier to understanding other people. Therefore, even for people whose living is spent critiquing (that is how I pay my bills, after all) only have a small amount of material available to judge someone on.
This need not be a bad thing. We are not to be judgmental after all (much easier said than done), so it would be salutory for those of us who do tend to be a tad more hypercritical than we probably should be to recognize that we may be wrong (sometimes really wrong) and mean it. However, even when we judge something correctly in other people, we must realize that even here our information may be incomplete. No mercy will be shown to those who show no mercy, and when we do not know why someone acts the way they do, we may err in being harsh to those who suffer and struggle greatly. Consequently, we may be too easy on those who are better at hiding their sins (or are politically powerful enough that most people with a modicum of sense quail at challenging). So, what we see is often imperfect and that we see imperfectly. Therefore we cannot but see specks in the eyes of others, as their logs are often quite hidden to us.
On Logs
On the other hand, we all have logs in our eyes (I have mine, and I am blessed to have other people around me who seem to take great pleasure in reminding me about them, often). We need not be too hard on ourselves--God knows our situations better than we do--but we do need to look realistically at ourselves and understand that we all fall far short of our goal. Without the pardon given to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, salvation would be far beyond our reach, as if we were trying to stand on the ground and grasp for the stars in the night sky.
There are many reasons we have logs. For one, most people do not examine themselves particularly closely. We selectively compare ourselves to others and justify ourselves by looking at how other people fall short and how we have been wronged (I say this knowing I do the same thing, often, myself). In doing so, even when we see the worse parts of our own nature, we mitigate them and try to explain away our own problems through forces beyond our control while denying this privilege to others, what is called the fundamental attribution error. Furthermore, by not dealing with our own problems, we have a skewed perception of reality, which prevents us from seeing our world clearly and makes us less able to correctly judge other people.
What To Do Then?
How do we avoid this difficulty? Besides remaining in a state of blissfully ignorant hypocrisy, there are really two solutions. One is not to judge at all, and the other is to learn how to judge wisely. Our society right now seems to point towards not judging at all (though here it is only those people who wish to live righteously who are judged, in a perversion of the concept of judging). Not judging basically amounts to this: you do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do, and as long as you don't hurt or judge me I won't judge you. This is incorrect, because if we desire a just society that is suitable for human existence, we must realize that no act is without consequences for other people, no matter how private it may seem. I could go at length about this, but a common example should suffice. For example, many people think that buying cocaine is a decision that effects only the drug user. This is false. The purchase of drugs is but one link in a rather complicated picture that involves a lot of people. Besides harming the user himself (itself a sin, as we are to honor God's temple--our bodies), the act of buying drugs supports a whole legion of people who make their livings in illegal ways (drug dealers, laboratories, etc.) who often combine drugs with other criminal behavior such as prostitution, theft, violence. These people, in turn, depend on the sources of their drugs from international drug traffickers who themselves are involved in crimes such as illegal immigration, terrorism, the international slave trade, massacres of populations in drug growing areas, and so forth. When we act, we can either be a part of a nexus of good or a nexus of evil. We cannot pretend, though, that what we do has no consequences outside of ourselves.
That leaves us with the choice of judging wisely. In doing so, we need to be aware (at least as much as possible) about what is right and wrong, and about why what is simple for us may be difficult for someone else (and the reverse is true also). In seeking to understand others, we may find that they have much to teach us and we have much to learn, even when we set out to teach them about their errors. Also, we must separate the sin from the sinner. We are all sinners, all worthy of the death penalty for our actions, and all (potentially) covered by the grace of God should we choose to accept the offer. We all have much to struggle with in this life, and we should recognize it as such. If we spend the limited time and energy we have on this earth honestly and openly seeking to live rightly (and increase in knowledge so that we have a better idea of what it is we are to do and how it is we are to do it), then we will speak louder about sin than we would through a million jeremiads against the sins of others. Sometimes we speak loudest through our own example--do you know what your example is saying? That is a frightening picture to consider indeed.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
C is for Controversy
In a humorous news story out of New Zealand reported by Reuters, two teenagers (Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo) appear to have busted the claims of drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) concerning the product Ribena. Ribena, a syrupy drink marketed mainly to children, supposedly contains blackcurrants with four times the vitamin C as oranges. Instead, the young ladies found that Ribena contains nearly no vitamin C at all, and that one commercial brand of orange juice in New Zealand contained four times as much Vitamin C as Ribena. The young ladies brought their research to the attention of the company, but it was ignored until the research reached New Zealand's Commerce Commission, which has charged GSK with fifteen counts of various malfeasance, with potential fines around $2.1 million.
This particular humorous case raises some interesting questions about drug labeling. Companies like GSK are extremely powerful, with drug marketing efforts (through direct commercials as well as employing doctors as drug peddlers) that may not serve the interests of the consumer at large. After all, the two expenses that continually outpace the rate of inflation are health care and higher education.
One of the ways in which drug companies like GSK were thought to be superior to snake-oil peddling alternative medicines/vitamin supplements is that medicines were supposed to contain a humorous array of comments about varying results and side effects and so forth. That is, products that drug companies market are supposed to be honest, at least to the level of honesty we would expect from buying used cars from a dealer (with an automobile manufacturer's logo over his business) rather than from a guy on the side of the road.
However, it appears that a product marketed mainly in British nations (it first achieved fame as a drink distributed to British youth during WWII) is merely an overly expensive form of soda rather than a health drink of any kind. Make of that what you will. However, give praise to two plucky and creative young people in New Zealand for their work in refuting some spectacularly false claims about the health benefits of a drink marketed by a drug company. The world needs more people like those two, because it has all the snake oil salesmen it can handle.
This particular humorous case raises some interesting questions about drug labeling. Companies like GSK are extremely powerful, with drug marketing efforts (through direct commercials as well as employing doctors as drug peddlers) that may not serve the interests of the consumer at large. After all, the two expenses that continually outpace the rate of inflation are health care and higher education.
One of the ways in which drug companies like GSK were thought to be superior to snake-oil peddling alternative medicines/vitamin supplements is that medicines were supposed to contain a humorous array of comments about varying results and side effects and so forth. That is, products that drug companies market are supposed to be honest, at least to the level of honesty we would expect from buying used cars from a dealer (with an automobile manufacturer's logo over his business) rather than from a guy on the side of the road.
However, it appears that a product marketed mainly in British nations (it first achieved fame as a drink distributed to British youth during WWII) is merely an overly expensive form of soda rather than a health drink of any kind. Make of that what you will. However, give praise to two plucky and creative young people in New Zealand for their work in refuting some spectacularly false claims about the health benefits of a drink marketed by a drug company. The world needs more people like those two, because it has all the snake oil salesmen it can handle.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
A Truly Scattered Post
Well, given that this blog only shows a small part of my life (though sometimes a larger part than is probably wise), it might be nice to know what this particular blogger is up to when he is not ranting about something or commenting on bizarre events in the world. This post is meant to give a look into the scattered and very random life that is my own. Consider it three very odd posts in one with very little connection, except that they have to do with my life and what I am up to currently. So, here goes.
Nathan's Passive Investment Portfolio
I decided to begin with the weirdest and most ephemeral of the three mini-posts. Last year I started a Roth IRA, because I am rather skeptical about the solvency of Social Security for my generation (thanks to overly greedy Baby Boomers, but that is a rant and I'd like to avoid that if possible during this entry). Deciding it was better to take personal responsibility for my retirement, should I ever want to rest, or ever live that long, I opened a Roth IRA with my tax refund last year, shortly before I turned 25. Since my employer had no retirement plan, I made my own. So far it is doing pretty well, and had over 10% gains for last year. I calculated the amount of money the account would have if the amount in it right now were compounded at 10% until I was 65, and the amount was around $170,000, so I was pretty pleased with that. Of course, now my employer is starting a 401(k) plan, so my financial planning gets a little more complicated now that I have my own Roth plan as well as the deferred plan from my employer. Since my employer will match 50% of the first 4% of my income that is contributed into the 401(k) plan, I figured it would be good to just put 4% into that and continue my regular contributions into my Roth IRA. Between the two, I should have a decent amount set for my passive portfolio income. Now I can look for more active investments to add to the list. I'm not one to put all my eggs into one basket. Rather, I am a person who likes to diversify to reduce risk rather than put all my eggs into one basket (real estate, tech stocks, krugerands, etc.).
White And Nerdy
Okay, Weird Al Yankovic made a song in "White And Nerdy" that suits me a little too well, I suppose. I think I just may be a little bit too nerdy for my own good. How so, you ask? Well, if all goes as planned (and that is never a given in my world), I just may be adding another major to my graduate studies. I suppose I can never leave well enough alone. Right now I am already an MSEM (Master's of Science in Engineering Management) student also going for two graduate certificate programs at the University of South Florida (Technology Management and Total Quality Management). Well, being the uber-nerdy person that I am, I am seeking to add another program with a thesis option, because I suppose I am a glutton for punishment (and, to be honest, a chance to write about third parties in modular engineering and their role in increasing efficiency in building approvals is too good to pass up). Remember that I am a person whose undergraduate major at USC was civil (structural) engineering and whose minor was history. My interests are wide and finding ways to keep myself sufficiently involved in all (or most) of my interests while fulfilling key personal ambitions on my personal five/ten year plan is a difficult task. I do seem to like it that way, though, so there's no reason to complain. It just makes my life rather complicated.
Some Theological Comments (But No Rants About Dead People, I Promise)
Ever since the C.S. Lewis Society Annual Banquet I went to on Thursday night, I have been doing some C.S. Lewis reading (finishing "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" since then). There are a few things about C.S. Lewis' writing, particularly in "Mere Christianity" that I found quite fascinating and worthy of discussion. First, the concept of Sehnsucht (German for some mystical longing for a place one has never been but knows one belongs, such as the Kingdom of God) inspired me to write a sonnet. Within us all is a God-shaped hole, a longing that can only be fulfilled by our Creator, and when we try to fill it by other means, we commit idolatry by keeping ourself from the one being who can fulfill our needs. It is sad that so many of us try to fill our longings with sex, drugs, alcohol, money, and the like. The second part about C.S. Lewis' writing in both "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" that deeply moved me was his writing about how God judges the behavior of believers. A quote that made me cry from "Mere Christianity" (page 215) follows:
"There is either a warning or an encouragement here for every one of us. If you are a nice person--if virtue comes easily to you--beware! Much is expected from those to whom much is given. If you mistake for your own merits what are really God's gifts to you through nature, and if you are contented with simply being nice, you are still a rebel: and all those gifts will only make your fall more terrible, your corruption more complicated, your bad example more disastrous. The Devil was an archangel once; his natural gifts were as far above yours as yours are above those of a chimpanzee.
But if you are some poor creature--poisoned by a wretched upbringing in some house full of vulgar jealousies and senseless quarrels--saddled, by no choice of your own, with some loathsome sexual perversion--nagged day in and day out by an inferiority complex that makes you snap at your best friends--do not despair. He knows all about it. You are one of the poor whom He blessed. He knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. Keep on. Do what you can. One day (perhaps in another world, but perhaps far sooner than that) He will fling it on the scrap-heap and give you a new one. And then you may astonish us all--not least yourself: for you have learned your driving in a hard school. (Some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last)."
I could not read those paragraphs without thinking both of them applied to me--both as greatly gifted and greatly cursed. Perhaps we are all a bit that way. The third aspect of C.S. Lewis' writings that I found most interesting was his conception of the Trinity. He compared it to the bond between God the Father and Jesus Christ, and said that it was sort of a "group identity" much as is found in a family or corporation. In the chemical sense, that would be the same as a bond between two or more atoms (whether an ionic bond or a covalent one). That bond is what God offers to us (and that we can in no way deserve). While I disagree that this bond is itself a person, except in that fictitious sort of personhood that corporations have, the conception I have of the Holy Spirit is not really different from his. If C.S. Lewis captured what Trinitarians believe when they refer to the Holy Spirit, as that spiritual bond that joins us together with God in His family, then the disagreement becomes one of semantics rather than a different conception of the nature of God. I found that to be most interesting, and enlightening. As such, I thought it worthy of comment.
Nathan's Passive Investment Portfolio
I decided to begin with the weirdest and most ephemeral of the three mini-posts. Last year I started a Roth IRA, because I am rather skeptical about the solvency of Social Security for my generation (thanks to overly greedy Baby Boomers, but that is a rant and I'd like to avoid that if possible during this entry). Deciding it was better to take personal responsibility for my retirement, should I ever want to rest, or ever live that long, I opened a Roth IRA with my tax refund last year, shortly before I turned 25. Since my employer had no retirement plan, I made my own. So far it is doing pretty well, and had over 10% gains for last year. I calculated the amount of money the account would have if the amount in it right now were compounded at 10% until I was 65, and the amount was around $170,000, so I was pretty pleased with that. Of course, now my employer is starting a 401(k) plan, so my financial planning gets a little more complicated now that I have my own Roth plan as well as the deferred plan from my employer. Since my employer will match 50% of the first 4% of my income that is contributed into the 401(k) plan, I figured it would be good to just put 4% into that and continue my regular contributions into my Roth IRA. Between the two, I should have a decent amount set for my passive portfolio income. Now I can look for more active investments to add to the list. I'm not one to put all my eggs into one basket. Rather, I am a person who likes to diversify to reduce risk rather than put all my eggs into one basket (real estate, tech stocks, krugerands, etc.).
White And Nerdy
Okay, Weird Al Yankovic made a song in "White And Nerdy" that suits me a little too well, I suppose. I think I just may be a little bit too nerdy for my own good. How so, you ask? Well, if all goes as planned (and that is never a given in my world), I just may be adding another major to my graduate studies. I suppose I can never leave well enough alone. Right now I am already an MSEM (Master's of Science in Engineering Management) student also going for two graduate certificate programs at the University of South Florida (Technology Management and Total Quality Management). Well, being the uber-nerdy person that I am, I am seeking to add another program with a thesis option, because I suppose I am a glutton for punishment (and, to be honest, a chance to write about third parties in modular engineering and their role in increasing efficiency in building approvals is too good to pass up). Remember that I am a person whose undergraduate major at USC was civil (structural) engineering and whose minor was history. My interests are wide and finding ways to keep myself sufficiently involved in all (or most) of my interests while fulfilling key personal ambitions on my personal five/ten year plan is a difficult task. I do seem to like it that way, though, so there's no reason to complain. It just makes my life rather complicated.
Some Theological Comments (But No Rants About Dead People, I Promise)
Ever since the C.S. Lewis Society Annual Banquet I went to on Thursday night, I have been doing some C.S. Lewis reading (finishing "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" since then). There are a few things about C.S. Lewis' writing, particularly in "Mere Christianity" that I found quite fascinating and worthy of discussion. First, the concept of Sehnsucht (German for some mystical longing for a place one has never been but knows one belongs, such as the Kingdom of God) inspired me to write a sonnet. Within us all is a God-shaped hole, a longing that can only be fulfilled by our Creator, and when we try to fill it by other means, we commit idolatry by keeping ourself from the one being who can fulfill our needs. It is sad that so many of us try to fill our longings with sex, drugs, alcohol, money, and the like. The second part about C.S. Lewis' writing in both "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" that deeply moved me was his writing about how God judges the behavior of believers. A quote that made me cry from "Mere Christianity" (page 215) follows:
"There is either a warning or an encouragement here for every one of us. If you are a nice person--if virtue comes easily to you--beware! Much is expected from those to whom much is given. If you mistake for your own merits what are really God's gifts to you through nature, and if you are contented with simply being nice, you are still a rebel: and all those gifts will only make your fall more terrible, your corruption more complicated, your bad example more disastrous. The Devil was an archangel once; his natural gifts were as far above yours as yours are above those of a chimpanzee.
But if you are some poor creature--poisoned by a wretched upbringing in some house full of vulgar jealousies and senseless quarrels--saddled, by no choice of your own, with some loathsome sexual perversion--nagged day in and day out by an inferiority complex that makes you snap at your best friends--do not despair. He knows all about it. You are one of the poor whom He blessed. He knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. Keep on. Do what you can. One day (perhaps in another world, but perhaps far sooner than that) He will fling it on the scrap-heap and give you a new one. And then you may astonish us all--not least yourself: for you have learned your driving in a hard school. (Some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last)."
I could not read those paragraphs without thinking both of them applied to me--both as greatly gifted and greatly cursed. Perhaps we are all a bit that way. The third aspect of C.S. Lewis' writings that I found most interesting was his conception of the Trinity. He compared it to the bond between God the Father and Jesus Christ, and said that it was sort of a "group identity" much as is found in a family or corporation. In the chemical sense, that would be the same as a bond between two or more atoms (whether an ionic bond or a covalent one). That bond is what God offers to us (and that we can in no way deserve). While I disagree that this bond is itself a person, except in that fictitious sort of personhood that corporations have, the conception I have of the Holy Spirit is not really different from his. If C.S. Lewis captured what Trinitarians believe when they refer to the Holy Spirit, as that spiritual bond that joins us together with God in His family, then the disagreement becomes one of semantics rather than a different conception of the nature of God. I found that to be most interesting, and enlightening. As such, I thought it worthy of comment.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
From Russia With Love
When writing my occasional world events blogs, I do not generally like to write about nations that are particularly large or important (since I figure there are already plenty of people who write about such events and are much better able to put them into a coherent picture than my anecdotal sort of style). However, I have been rather troubled by recent events in Russia, and this blog will deal the dark return of Soviet ways on Russia's brave defenders of truth and liberty. The following short comments will relate to some of the more threatening and ominous signs coming out of Russia that the bad old days are returning.
The Soviet Defenestration Returns
I once wrote a historical essay called "The Defenestrations of Prague," and found three important ones in history. The third was the assassination of Jan Masaryk. It is interesting because the Soviets threw him out of the window of his own house and then claimed it was a suicide. The same thing happened on Friday, March 2nd, when Ivan Safronov, a 51 year old Russian journalist who was critical of the military establishment was found dead after a fall from his fifth-floor apartment. He apparently made some enemies after embarassing Russia's military establishment by publishing articles demonstrating the failure of Russia's experimental Bulava intercontinental missle.
Till Death Do Us Part
A mother and daughter set of Russian immigrants who came over the United States in 1989, Marina (age 48) and Yana (age 25) Kovalenskaya, flew to Moscow last month from their home in Los Angeles to attend a family wedding. There, they apparently met up with enemies, because they ended up sick with Thallium poisoning. They were transferred from their hotel room to the American embassy hospital, and from there to the Sklifosovsky clinic, Moscow's top emergency hospital (according to Guardian Unlimited). Thallium poisoning was apparently favored during Soviet times as a poison, but it is unclear how these two women became targets for assassination. Perhaps it hardly matters.
Welcome To Russia
You'd think that with all of the assassination attempts going on that Soviet-type thugs would be too busy to harass young artists, but you would be wrong. Ivan Ushkov, age 33, is part of Russia's "lost generation," the generation that dealt with the fallout from the fall of the Soviet Union while other generations got rich and found positions of power in the new regime. He is a photographer and artist, who takes (and draws) pictures that demonstrate the dark truth behind Russia's rather phony and glamorous facade. He's a man after my own dark heart, but apparently that sort of dark truthtelling is a bit dangerous in St. Petersburg, Russia, these days. His first Moscow showing was cancelled and he has dealt with bogus police investigations of his art studios because he portrays an image of Russia that threatens the interests of the powerful. Of course, I will let this fine gentleman have the last word about the false positive picture Russia's leaders try to promote, "They are smoking their own dope, basically." Indeed. Another comment of his is also insightful: "But if you don't watch television or interest yourself in politics then very soon politics could get interested in you." Very true also.
Lest We Forget
Since Dateline did such a lovely and thorough job on researching the strange assassination of Russian journalist and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvineko, I will not write about it here (as it is too well known for my blog). That said, it is worth mentioning that dark truthtelling is becoming a rather dangerous occupation on Russia. Russia killed more journalists last year than any other nation besides Iraq and Algeria. Worse, many of these appear to be the work of those closely allied to the Russian government, a very ominous trend. Those of us in the West, and in the United States in particular, should not forget that we have our own rather brutal Cold Warriors here as well. We should not be naive to think that if the world's attitude towards truthtelling darkens that we will not be affected by it at all. If the perceived need for security ever trumps our concern for freedom (especially to tell the truth, often an unpleasant thing), then we will suffer greatly, especially those of us with quick pens and big mouths.
The Soviet Defenestration Returns
I once wrote a historical essay called "The Defenestrations of Prague," and found three important ones in history. The third was the assassination of Jan Masaryk. It is interesting because the Soviets threw him out of the window of his own house and then claimed it was a suicide. The same thing happened on Friday, March 2nd, when Ivan Safronov, a 51 year old Russian journalist who was critical of the military establishment was found dead after a fall from his fifth-floor apartment. He apparently made some enemies after embarassing Russia's military establishment by publishing articles demonstrating the failure of Russia's experimental Bulava intercontinental missle.
Till Death Do Us Part
A mother and daughter set of Russian immigrants who came over the United States in 1989, Marina (age 48) and Yana (age 25) Kovalenskaya, flew to Moscow last month from their home in Los Angeles to attend a family wedding. There, they apparently met up with enemies, because they ended up sick with Thallium poisoning. They were transferred from their hotel room to the American embassy hospital, and from there to the Sklifosovsky clinic, Moscow's top emergency hospital (according to Guardian Unlimited). Thallium poisoning was apparently favored during Soviet times as a poison, but it is unclear how these two women became targets for assassination. Perhaps it hardly matters.
Welcome To Russia
You'd think that with all of the assassination attempts going on that Soviet-type thugs would be too busy to harass young artists, but you would be wrong. Ivan Ushkov, age 33, is part of Russia's "lost generation," the generation that dealt with the fallout from the fall of the Soviet Union while other generations got rich and found positions of power in the new regime. He is a photographer and artist, who takes (and draws) pictures that demonstrate the dark truth behind Russia's rather phony and glamorous facade. He's a man after my own dark heart, but apparently that sort of dark truthtelling is a bit dangerous in St. Petersburg, Russia, these days. His first Moscow showing was cancelled and he has dealt with bogus police investigations of his art studios because he portrays an image of Russia that threatens the interests of the powerful. Of course, I will let this fine gentleman have the last word about the false positive picture Russia's leaders try to promote, "They are smoking their own dope, basically." Indeed. Another comment of his is also insightful: "But if you don't watch television or interest yourself in politics then very soon politics could get interested in you." Very true also.
Lest We Forget
Since Dateline did such a lovely and thorough job on researching the strange assassination of Russian journalist and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvineko, I will not write about it here (as it is too well known for my blog). That said, it is worth mentioning that dark truthtelling is becoming a rather dangerous occupation on Russia. Russia killed more journalists last year than any other nation besides Iraq and Algeria. Worse, many of these appear to be the work of those closely allied to the Russian government, a very ominous trend. Those of us in the West, and in the United States in particular, should not forget that we have our own rather brutal Cold Warriors here as well. We should not be naive to think that if the world's attitude towards truthtelling darkens that we will not be affected by it at all. If the perceived need for security ever trumps our concern for freedom (especially to tell the truth, often an unpleasant thing), then we will suffer greatly, especially those of us with quick pens and big mouths.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Next Time, Bring Some Chocolate
Okay, I know I just posted earlier today with one of my more serious-type blog entries, but an unusual and obscure news article involving a small European nation was too rich to pass up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_fe_st/mistaken_invasion
I'm sure that somewhere, some company that sells maps (think Rand McNally or Thomas Guides or Google maps) is just salivating over the opportunity to turn this into a really bad commercial that I will have to add to my YouTube favorites list. How often do soldiers on military exercizes wander by accident into neighboring countries? Hopefully, not very often.
In fact, this particular incident, as unintentional as it is, marks the first Swiss invasion of anywhere since 1521, when the Swiss were feared all over Europe for their fierce armies of pikemen, and when they were defeated in battle around Milan. After that the Swiss Guard could be seen in the Vatican City area, but mostly for show (obviously pikemen are not so feared militarily nowadays). The Swiss, except for being invaded by Napoleon in 1798, have been at peace since then making excellent watches, chocolate, and serving as the bank deposit headquarters for would-be billionaire dictators all the world over. Who knew they harbored secret desires to take over their tiny neighbor, the Grand Duchy of Liechtenstein, which happens to be the last surviving principality of the Holy Roman Empire.
Perhaps the Swiss were concerned that the little nation, whose population of 34,000 is only slightly larger than that of my hometown of Plant City, would defeat them in the preliminaries for Euro 2008 (a highly competitive soccer tournament). Perhaps the nation of Liechtenstein, which has no army, was too tempting of a target for Swiss operations of "regime change."
Of course, it appears that it was just some lost soldiers who couldn't follow directions in the dark and refused to admit they were lost. I've done the same thing myself (most notably in the Wilderness of Virginia), and the worst it ever did for me was waste a couple of hours worth of time and gasoline in impenetrable forests that are so bad that two Civil War battles were fought there when large armies got lost near Catherine's Furnace among the second-growth forests (Chancellorsville in 1863 and the Wilderness in 1864).
At any rate, at least there are no hard feelings on both sides. One would hate for the Swiss to face a nasty UN resolution for aggressive acts against its peaceful neighbors. We wouldn't want that to happen...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_fe_st/mistaken_invasion
I'm sure that somewhere, some company that sells maps (think Rand McNally or Thomas Guides or Google maps) is just salivating over the opportunity to turn this into a really bad commercial that I will have to add to my YouTube favorites list. How often do soldiers on military exercizes wander by accident into neighboring countries? Hopefully, not very often.
In fact, this particular incident, as unintentional as it is, marks the first Swiss invasion of anywhere since 1521, when the Swiss were feared all over Europe for their fierce armies of pikemen, and when they were defeated in battle around Milan. After that the Swiss Guard could be seen in the Vatican City area, but mostly for show (obviously pikemen are not so feared militarily nowadays). The Swiss, except for being invaded by Napoleon in 1798, have been at peace since then making excellent watches, chocolate, and serving as the bank deposit headquarters for would-be billionaire dictators all the world over. Who knew they harbored secret desires to take over their tiny neighbor, the Grand Duchy of Liechtenstein, which happens to be the last surviving principality of the Holy Roman Empire.
Perhaps the Swiss were concerned that the little nation, whose population of 34,000 is only slightly larger than that of my hometown of Plant City, would defeat them in the preliminaries for Euro 2008 (a highly competitive soccer tournament). Perhaps the nation of Liechtenstein, which has no army, was too tempting of a target for Swiss operations of "regime change."
Of course, it appears that it was just some lost soldiers who couldn't follow directions in the dark and refused to admit they were lost. I've done the same thing myself (most notably in the Wilderness of Virginia), and the worst it ever did for me was waste a couple of hours worth of time and gasoline in impenetrable forests that are so bad that two Civil War battles were fought there when large armies got lost near Catherine's Furnace among the second-growth forests (Chancellorsville in 1863 and the Wilderness in 1864).
At any rate, at least there are no hard feelings on both sides. One would hate for the Swiss to face a nasty UN resolution for aggressive acts against its peaceful neighbors. We wouldn't want that to happen...
When Is Greed Good: An Examination of Enlightened Selfishness
I plan on doing a lot more research on this topic this evening for my Erev (Friday Evening) Bible Study, but the following are some thoughts I am trying to organize beforehand. Former American President Ronald Reagan said that "Greed is good," and has been widely lampooned since then. Selfishness is widely considered to be a highly negative quality, and the supposed narcissism of my generation has come under rather undue criticism from Baby Boomers (perhaps the most harmfully selfish generation in the entire existence of planet earth, if environmental scientists and moralists can be believed). Adam Smith stated that we do not trust the generosity of the butcher (or any other merchant) but his self-interest. The research of humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow sought to demonstrate that in certain circumstances selfishness was an act of altruism because benefitting the self also served to benefit others as well. Jesus Christ seemed to indicate the same thing when he stated that those who were not faithful with unrighteous mammon would not be faithful with much either (a paraphrase). The question is therefore: in what circumstances is selfishness good?
At first blush, this question may seem quite proposterous for some people. Many people do not consider selfishness to be positive at all, especially the selfishness of others (all of us are at least a little bit selfish ourselves). When we feel jealous about the success of others, and are insecure about how we are loved and respected, we are behaving selfishly. When we try to hoard money and resources and knowledge for ourselves rather than give them generously, we are also behaving selfishly. Most would agree with me, I suppose, that these types of selfishness would be bad. This is the sort of selfishness that seeks to increase one's own at the expense of other people (through shortchanging them as is common in the actions of businesses towards their salary/pension obligations, tax obligations, and social obligations). No one, save an overly greedy and wicked sort of person, would consider this sort of greed to be good.
What kind of greed is good then? When Adam Smith referred to the self-interest of the butcher (a stand-in for merchants in general, businesspeople who make their living by providing goods and services to paying customers), he seems to be referring to the fact that when a company seeks to meet the highest customer standards at the lowest price, both the customer and business benefit. The customer benefits by having his or her needs and wants fulfilled, and the business benefits by receiving profit on the transaction (as well as the possibility of future profit as satisfied customers tend to be creatures of habit and return to the same businesses over and over again so long as their standards are met). In this case, the selfishness of the merchant (the desire for profit) was benevolent because it served to help the customer as well.
This, then, provides the way out of the false dilemma of selfishness versus generosity and an environment where acting to benefit ourselves benefits others, and acting to benefit others benefits ourselves. This world is what Maslow (and others) would call an enlightened world. In an enlightened world, success, wealth, honor, and love are not zero-sum concepts, where one person must suffer if another benefits. Once an environment becomes synergistic (where gains in one area trigger gains in other places as well, to the benefit of all in the system), then we can gain enjoyment from the good we do to others, and acting for ourselves will serve to benefit others. In these cases selfishness is not a bad thing at all--and it cannot be separated from the benefit we are bringing to others as well. Both generosity and selfishness (taken as personal enjoyment and personal benefit) are intertwined into one.
In order for selfishness to be good, however, we must build an environment where what benefits us benefits others as well, and vice versa. This sort of environment would increase the connections that people have with each other, and would mean the sharing of gains we have with others around us, and vice versa. In such a realm of mutual generosity and love and respect, what benefits one benefits all, and there need not be a hostility or jealousy about the good that happens to others, so long as everyone shares in its benefits. This can be true of families, churches, businesses , and societies, indeed even the whole world. It is only the case, though, when we start from the premise that all human beings are worthwhile and valuable and important simply by being human beings, and that the human beings who are yet to be born are deserving of the same pleasures of this earth that we who now inhabit hte earth are. Such enlightened selfishness is not wicked at all. The question, though, remains: can we behave so righteously ourselves as to make enlightened selfishness possible for ourselves and those around us?
At first blush, this question may seem quite proposterous for some people. Many people do not consider selfishness to be positive at all, especially the selfishness of others (all of us are at least a little bit selfish ourselves). When we feel jealous about the success of others, and are insecure about how we are loved and respected, we are behaving selfishly. When we try to hoard money and resources and knowledge for ourselves rather than give them generously, we are also behaving selfishly. Most would agree with me, I suppose, that these types of selfishness would be bad. This is the sort of selfishness that seeks to increase one's own at the expense of other people (through shortchanging them as is common in the actions of businesses towards their salary/pension obligations, tax obligations, and social obligations). No one, save an overly greedy and wicked sort of person, would consider this sort of greed to be good.
What kind of greed is good then? When Adam Smith referred to the self-interest of the butcher (a stand-in for merchants in general, businesspeople who make their living by providing goods and services to paying customers), he seems to be referring to the fact that when a company seeks to meet the highest customer standards at the lowest price, both the customer and business benefit. The customer benefits by having his or her needs and wants fulfilled, and the business benefits by receiving profit on the transaction (as well as the possibility of future profit as satisfied customers tend to be creatures of habit and return to the same businesses over and over again so long as their standards are met). In this case, the selfishness of the merchant (the desire for profit) was benevolent because it served to help the customer as well.
This, then, provides the way out of the false dilemma of selfishness versus generosity and an environment where acting to benefit ourselves benefits others, and acting to benefit others benefits ourselves. This world is what Maslow (and others) would call an enlightened world. In an enlightened world, success, wealth, honor, and love are not zero-sum concepts, where one person must suffer if another benefits. Once an environment becomes synergistic (where gains in one area trigger gains in other places as well, to the benefit of all in the system), then we can gain enjoyment from the good we do to others, and acting for ourselves will serve to benefit others. In these cases selfishness is not a bad thing at all--and it cannot be separated from the benefit we are bringing to others as well. Both generosity and selfishness (taken as personal enjoyment and personal benefit) are intertwined into one.
In order for selfishness to be good, however, we must build an environment where what benefits us benefits others as well, and vice versa. This sort of environment would increase the connections that people have with each other, and would mean the sharing of gains we have with others around us, and vice versa. In such a realm of mutual generosity and love and respect, what benefits one benefits all, and there need not be a hostility or jealousy about the good that happens to others, so long as everyone shares in its benefits. This can be true of families, churches, businesses , and societies, indeed even the whole world. It is only the case, though, when we start from the premise that all human beings are worthwhile and valuable and important simply by being human beings, and that the human beings who are yet to be born are deserving of the same pleasures of this earth that we who now inhabit hte earth are. Such enlightened selfishness is not wicked at all. The question, though, remains: can we behave so righteously ourselves as to make enlightened selfishness possible for ourselves and those around us?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
It Isn't Pretty....
I am often amused by the news stories I read, and yesterday I read a pretty funny one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wrtv/20070227/lo_wrtv/11122828
Apparently, some sorority members in Indiana at DePauw University didn't get the memo that members of sororities are supposed to be attractive. Out of a chapter of 35, only 12 were slender and pretty enough (apparently) to meet the national chapter's rigorous standards. The University is protesting, complaining about the hardship it has caused its students, and is considering requesting the sorority to leave campus. What most concerns me, though, is that some people actually believe that sororities were meant to promote womanhood. Indeed, it appears that the university and many of the sorority members are the ones confused about what sororities (and the Greek system as a whole) is actually about.
Now, I have never been a part of a fraternity (and certainly not a sorority, obviously) myself, but during my time in Los Angeles I lived about half a block north of Fraternity row at the University South Central (as I affectionately called it). Delta Zeta might have been one of the many fraternities and sororities in that area (my old apartment, in fact, had once been the fraternity house for some Pharmacy fraternity). I can't remember, though. It was all Greek to me. I do remember, though, that the Tri Delta Sorority was at the end of our street, and they were widely considered to be one of the most competitive sororities (and had a large number of slender blonde members).
There are basically two types of fraternities/sororities that I saw. Some fraternities (though no sororities) were professional fraternities. The professional fraternities were generally coed, and included Alpha Rho Chi (the Architecture fraternity, where I had many friends), as well as professional fraternities for nursing students, engineers (I had many friends and classmates here as well), and so forth. These fraternities partied, but also had a professional focus that allowed students with similar majors to congregate together. Generally speaking, even as a teetotler I did not have a problem visiting my friends at those houses. Other fraternities like honor fraternities would also fall into this category as well.
The other fraternities and sororities appeared somewhat more sinister to me, however. They were largely filled with rather affluent students in high risk of contracting cirrhosis of the liver and any number of other diseases involved with copious amounts of alcohol consumption and fornication. While claiming to benefit the campus life in general, these societies were made up of people who were often quite arrogant, and unpleasant to be around (especially on Thursday through Saturday nights when msot of the partying went on). The people in this second group of fraternities certainly gained useful connections, but that had more to do with the fact that they were all pretty well off and well-connected already, and were now even better connected.
As far as the sororities go, they had even less credit to their names, as they appeared to be largely populated with young ladies whose slim figures as freshman pledges tended to gain as the years progressed due to poor eating habits and excessive drinking. Sadly, the wardrobe quality of many of these young ladies (though not all) did not tend to improve as they aged. Nurse's uniforms on Halloween remained a consistent tradition on that street during my time there. Indeed, the only way sororities might have promoted womanhood is to provide a place for girls to be around each other without guys around. I don't know if that's a good thing, though.
I don't know, to be honest, what the young ladies at DePauw University expected from their fraternity. Maybe they justed wanted to meet friendly and ambitious young ladies. If so, perhaps they would have been better served joining service clubs or professional clubs rather than a sorority. If your focus is not on the superficial, then there is probably no place for you in Delta Zeta or any number of other sororities. Perhaps being kicked out of the sorority is a good thing--if they are not superficial enough they just may be good enough people that a sorority would do them no good at all. And that is a matter of celebration, rather than mourning. Sometimes being kicked out of a group can be a good thing, after all. That, however, is a subject for another day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/wrtv/20070227/lo_wrtv/11122828
Apparently, some sorority members in Indiana at DePauw University didn't get the memo that members of sororities are supposed to be attractive. Out of a chapter of 35, only 12 were slender and pretty enough (apparently) to meet the national chapter's rigorous standards. The University is protesting, complaining about the hardship it has caused its students, and is considering requesting the sorority to leave campus. What most concerns me, though, is that some people actually believe that sororities were meant to promote womanhood. Indeed, it appears that the university and many of the sorority members are the ones confused about what sororities (and the Greek system as a whole) is actually about.
Now, I have never been a part of a fraternity (and certainly not a sorority, obviously) myself, but during my time in Los Angeles I lived about half a block north of Fraternity row at the University South Central (as I affectionately called it). Delta Zeta might have been one of the many fraternities and sororities in that area (my old apartment, in fact, had once been the fraternity house for some Pharmacy fraternity). I can't remember, though. It was all Greek to me. I do remember, though, that the Tri Delta Sorority was at the end of our street, and they were widely considered to be one of the most competitive sororities (and had a large number of slender blonde members).
There are basically two types of fraternities/sororities that I saw. Some fraternities (though no sororities) were professional fraternities. The professional fraternities were generally coed, and included Alpha Rho Chi (the Architecture fraternity, where I had many friends), as well as professional fraternities for nursing students, engineers (I had many friends and classmates here as well), and so forth. These fraternities partied, but also had a professional focus that allowed students with similar majors to congregate together. Generally speaking, even as a teetotler I did not have a problem visiting my friends at those houses. Other fraternities like honor fraternities would also fall into this category as well.
The other fraternities and sororities appeared somewhat more sinister to me, however. They were largely filled with rather affluent students in high risk of contracting cirrhosis of the liver and any number of other diseases involved with copious amounts of alcohol consumption and fornication. While claiming to benefit the campus life in general, these societies were made up of people who were often quite arrogant, and unpleasant to be around (especially on Thursday through Saturday nights when msot of the partying went on). The people in this second group of fraternities certainly gained useful connections, but that had more to do with the fact that they were all pretty well off and well-connected already, and were now even better connected.
As far as the sororities go, they had even less credit to their names, as they appeared to be largely populated with young ladies whose slim figures as freshman pledges tended to gain as the years progressed due to poor eating habits and excessive drinking. Sadly, the wardrobe quality of many of these young ladies (though not all) did not tend to improve as they aged. Nurse's uniforms on Halloween remained a consistent tradition on that street during my time there. Indeed, the only way sororities might have promoted womanhood is to provide a place for girls to be around each other without guys around. I don't know if that's a good thing, though.
I don't know, to be honest, what the young ladies at DePauw University expected from their fraternity. Maybe they justed wanted to meet friendly and ambitious young ladies. If so, perhaps they would have been better served joining service clubs or professional clubs rather than a sorority. If your focus is not on the superficial, then there is probably no place for you in Delta Zeta or any number of other sororities. Perhaps being kicked out of the sorority is a good thing--if they are not superficial enough they just may be good enough people that a sorority would do them no good at all. And that is a matter of celebration, rather than mourning. Sometimes being kicked out of a group can be a good thing, after all. That, however, is a subject for another day.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Profile In Courage
Yesterday I read a fantastic article about a person who has taken a brave stance against corruption by the wealthy and powerful in the rather corrupt nation of Columbia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_uribe_s_nemesis
Anyway, I was most impressed in the article by the courage this particular fellow had to oppose the drug traffickers on the left as well as the paramilitaries/government on the right. It is not an easy thing to antagonize everyone with guns in a nation as violent as Columbia. I am not someone who views Hugo Chavez very highly, so I do not know what to make of the friendship Gustavo Petro has with him, but there is much about his behavior that is admirable and worthwhile. Let us take a few lessons and comment on them.
1. Fight the power.
In today's world, those who hold power at all are generally corrupt, and often threaten those who seek justice and truth. Leaders would rather have those who follow them blinded by idyllic and pleasant false visions than grapple with the truth about what is and how it came to be. In most cases these threats are not all that severe (depending on what sort of authority someone has), but in the case of Señor Petro, he and his family have been threatened with death due to his firm stand against corruption in high places. Then again, as Mr. Petro was tortured by various unpleasant means (including large amounts of beating and dunking) for mostly peaceful protesting, it appears as if he has little fear for himself, and a realistic appraisal of what his resistance means to him and to his long-suffering people.
2. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
When faced with unpleasant accusations, there are a few sorts of defenses that people can make. The best defense is to come clean (preferably on 60 Minutes or some other popular show) and to be honest about one's side of the story, not minimizing what one has done, but putting a less hostile spin on it than was initially presented. Honesty about one's own flaws and foibles gives a lot of credibility when talking about those of others. After all, if we are not honest about ourselves, we are not likely to be honest about others as well. And if we have nothing to hide, those who oppose us should not have anything to hide either. Those, on the other hand, who do have something to hide, cannot bear to have their lives brought into the harsh light of day. Therefore they can choose to either hide their lives all the more and refuse to answer allegations (pretending that such matters are beneath them), or they can attack the person opposing them by slurring, namecalling, and the like. Most of us choose both methods (the odd fellows among us choose all three methods, in a baffling display of inconsistency). The point, though, is that enough independent allegations leads to a prima facie case of wrongdoing, and the refusal to answer becomes an admission of guilt.
3. Never Give Up
Columbia right now is experiencing a massive scandal extending all the way to the presidency thanks to the persistent efforts of Gustavo Petro and other members of the democratic opposition. In steadfastly opposing the paramilitary of the right wing (supported, sadly, by the American government with billions of dollars worth of aid and equipment) and in defending the rights and dignity of an oppressed common folk, Gustavo Petro has demonstrated firm integrity as well as a stubborn refusal to give in. Even where one would disagree with his policies (and I must admit I do not know them very well, except that I would assume human rights, avoidance of corruption, and land reform would be among them), one must respect someone who behaves with integrity and avoids making alliances of convenience with either the paramilitaries/military forces or the leftist guerillas, who between them have all the guns.
So, this blog gives a salute to the bravery and integrity of Gustavo Petro, former guerilla and now muckraking politician. Let there be others as brave and morally upright as you in the struggle against the evil all around us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/colombia_uribe_s_nemesis
Anyway, I was most impressed in the article by the courage this particular fellow had to oppose the drug traffickers on the left as well as the paramilitaries/government on the right. It is not an easy thing to antagonize everyone with guns in a nation as violent as Columbia. I am not someone who views Hugo Chavez very highly, so I do not know what to make of the friendship Gustavo Petro has with him, but there is much about his behavior that is admirable and worthwhile. Let us take a few lessons and comment on them.
1. Fight the power.
In today's world, those who hold power at all are generally corrupt, and often threaten those who seek justice and truth. Leaders would rather have those who follow them blinded by idyllic and pleasant false visions than grapple with the truth about what is and how it came to be. In most cases these threats are not all that severe (depending on what sort of authority someone has), but in the case of Señor Petro, he and his family have been threatened with death due to his firm stand against corruption in high places. Then again, as Mr. Petro was tortured by various unpleasant means (including large amounts of beating and dunking) for mostly peaceful protesting, it appears as if he has little fear for himself, and a realistic appraisal of what his resistance means to him and to his long-suffering people.
2. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
When faced with unpleasant accusations, there are a few sorts of defenses that people can make. The best defense is to come clean (preferably on 60 Minutes or some other popular show) and to be honest about one's side of the story, not minimizing what one has done, but putting a less hostile spin on it than was initially presented. Honesty about one's own flaws and foibles gives a lot of credibility when talking about those of others. After all, if we are not honest about ourselves, we are not likely to be honest about others as well. And if we have nothing to hide, those who oppose us should not have anything to hide either. Those, on the other hand, who do have something to hide, cannot bear to have their lives brought into the harsh light of day. Therefore they can choose to either hide their lives all the more and refuse to answer allegations (pretending that such matters are beneath them), or they can attack the person opposing them by slurring, namecalling, and the like. Most of us choose both methods (the odd fellows among us choose all three methods, in a baffling display of inconsistency). The point, though, is that enough independent allegations leads to a prima facie case of wrongdoing, and the refusal to answer becomes an admission of guilt.
3. Never Give Up
Columbia right now is experiencing a massive scandal extending all the way to the presidency thanks to the persistent efforts of Gustavo Petro and other members of the democratic opposition. In steadfastly opposing the paramilitary of the right wing (supported, sadly, by the American government with billions of dollars worth of aid and equipment) and in defending the rights and dignity of an oppressed common folk, Gustavo Petro has demonstrated firm integrity as well as a stubborn refusal to give in. Even where one would disagree with his policies (and I must admit I do not know them very well, except that I would assume human rights, avoidance of corruption, and land reform would be among them), one must respect someone who behaves with integrity and avoids making alliances of convenience with either the paramilitaries/military forces or the leftist guerillas, who between them have all the guns.
So, this blog gives a salute to the bravery and integrity of Gustavo Petro, former guerilla and now muckraking politician. Let there be others as brave and morally upright as you in the struggle against the evil all around us.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Keep Them Separated
Now, I get a lot of e-mails that I find vaguely irritating, and most of them I simply delete. However, some of them (see the Nigerian e-mail scam blog entry) become blogger-worthy rants. Some time ago (to be exact, it was February 11th), I received an e-mail that I get regularly that is supposedly written by someone I know a little bit (and know greater by reputation, as he is the President of the church I generally attend). The e-mail irritated me because it was highly simplistic and purported to add accuracy to thinking when in reality it did no such thing.
There were six "separations" that the author stated were useful in organizing what is learned. Each of these six is worthy of comment:
1. Separate the facts from mere information.
Well, in case someone has failed to consult the dictionary, information and facts are highly related. In fact (no pun intended), information is facts that are collected and from which conclusions may be drawn. Therefore if this statement were to be accurate, it should be stated: separate information from mere facts. However, even in this form the statement is unhelpful, as the diligent collection of facts to form information is quite useful in honing one's intellectual abilities. Here is one example where separation is of no help whatsoever, because having the facts together to form information, and then utilizing the information to form knowledge and then wisdom is a fundamental process in sharpening one's own intellect. Only a moron would seek to separate people from the process to developing independent thinking.
2. Separate the truth from idle gossip.
This separation principle is also unhelpful. What is truth to someone is idle gossip to someone else, and vice versa. In order for this principle to be helpful, there must be clear boundaries as to what is considered truth and what is gossip. Indeed, gossip need not be untrue. Do we trust the word of others on reputation without supporting evidence and logical presentation? If so, then even if that person is a minister or politician or boss, or other leader, then we are accepting gossip rather than truth. Determining the truth can be a very unpleasant task, and oftentimes it can only be gathered through a close understanding of gossip, as the dark truths may be impolitic to say out in the open. In this way, one may need to have a close ear to gossip in order to understand the truth.
3. Separate the good from the bad.
Again, it appears as if this principle is entirely useless if one wants to live a life in truth. The truth is the honest and unvarnished knowledge of ourselves and our world, and those around us, and that can either be good or bad. Separating out the good from the bad to focus on either in isolation does us no good in finding the balance of matters. If we focus only on the good, we become blind to the dark evil inside of ourselves and others, particularly those who do not like to deal with unpleasant truths. If we focus only on the bad and not the good, then our lives become darkened because we do not see that there is good in this world (even if there is not as much of it as we would like). If we surround ourselves with darkness, we cannot help but be corrupted by it. But if we do not deal with darkness at all we lack understanding of our world and ourselves, and cannot truly repent of who we are.
4. Separate the important from the unimportant.
This principle would be helpful if one could tell what was important and unimportant. And a further question needs to be dealt with: important to whom? If we separate matters based on what is important to us, we become rather selfish and self-centered, and that is certainly not a godly way to be. We do not always know what is important to God, though where we do know this we have an obligation to act accordingly. However, while it may be unimportant to us to play ball with our children (if we have any) in the yard, such matters may be very important to our children, as they are a sign of love and consideration. Again, unless one has defined what is important correctly, it appears that this principle is an invitation to selfishness.
5. Separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
Again, it appears as if this is an unhelpful principle of separation. What is not relevant in a particular situation may be very relevant in another situation. Also, if we have already separated the good and the bad (see above), then we may be missing very relevant information to a situation, especially if it involves the unpleasant reactions people have to certain situations. Unless we are sensitive to where people are coming from, and what background they have, we can often make little sense of their behavior, and this is certainly not going to improve our lives. Ignorance is not bliss, even if knowledge is seldom blissful as well.
6. Separate the usable from the unusable.
Again, it seems as if this principle is not a helpful one if written large. While in any given situation one may have to parce out information that can be used now from what cannot, over the long term there might be vastly more information that is usable, and if that information is lost then future decisions may be imparied by a lack of knowledge. If this author wishes to give wise advice for wise decisions, he ought to be vastly more informative and precise than he is in these rather overly simplistic maxims.
Oh, and I have class now, so I guess it is time to /rant, for now. I have another one to come if time permits later on.
There were six "separations" that the author stated were useful in organizing what is learned. Each of these six is worthy of comment:
1. Separate the facts from mere information.
Well, in case someone has failed to consult the dictionary, information and facts are highly related. In fact (no pun intended), information is facts that are collected and from which conclusions may be drawn. Therefore if this statement were to be accurate, it should be stated: separate information from mere facts. However, even in this form the statement is unhelpful, as the diligent collection of facts to form information is quite useful in honing one's intellectual abilities. Here is one example where separation is of no help whatsoever, because having the facts together to form information, and then utilizing the information to form knowledge and then wisdom is a fundamental process in sharpening one's own intellect. Only a moron would seek to separate people from the process to developing independent thinking.
2. Separate the truth from idle gossip.
This separation principle is also unhelpful. What is truth to someone is idle gossip to someone else, and vice versa. In order for this principle to be helpful, there must be clear boundaries as to what is considered truth and what is gossip. Indeed, gossip need not be untrue. Do we trust the word of others on reputation without supporting evidence and logical presentation? If so, then even if that person is a minister or politician or boss, or other leader, then we are accepting gossip rather than truth. Determining the truth can be a very unpleasant task, and oftentimes it can only be gathered through a close understanding of gossip, as the dark truths may be impolitic to say out in the open. In this way, one may need to have a close ear to gossip in order to understand the truth.
3. Separate the good from the bad.
Again, it appears as if this principle is entirely useless if one wants to live a life in truth. The truth is the honest and unvarnished knowledge of ourselves and our world, and those around us, and that can either be good or bad. Separating out the good from the bad to focus on either in isolation does us no good in finding the balance of matters. If we focus only on the good, we become blind to the dark evil inside of ourselves and others, particularly those who do not like to deal with unpleasant truths. If we focus only on the bad and not the good, then our lives become darkened because we do not see that there is good in this world (even if there is not as much of it as we would like). If we surround ourselves with darkness, we cannot help but be corrupted by it. But if we do not deal with darkness at all we lack understanding of our world and ourselves, and cannot truly repent of who we are.
4. Separate the important from the unimportant.
This principle would be helpful if one could tell what was important and unimportant. And a further question needs to be dealt with: important to whom? If we separate matters based on what is important to us, we become rather selfish and self-centered, and that is certainly not a godly way to be. We do not always know what is important to God, though where we do know this we have an obligation to act accordingly. However, while it may be unimportant to us to play ball with our children (if we have any) in the yard, such matters may be very important to our children, as they are a sign of love and consideration. Again, unless one has defined what is important correctly, it appears that this principle is an invitation to selfishness.
5. Separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
Again, it appears as if this is an unhelpful principle of separation. What is not relevant in a particular situation may be very relevant in another situation. Also, if we have already separated the good and the bad (see above), then we may be missing very relevant information to a situation, especially if it involves the unpleasant reactions people have to certain situations. Unless we are sensitive to where people are coming from, and what background they have, we can often make little sense of their behavior, and this is certainly not going to improve our lives. Ignorance is not bliss, even if knowledge is seldom blissful as well.
6. Separate the usable from the unusable.
Again, it seems as if this principle is not a helpful one if written large. While in any given situation one may have to parce out information that can be used now from what cannot, over the long term there might be vastly more information that is usable, and if that information is lost then future decisions may be imparied by a lack of knowledge. If this author wishes to give wise advice for wise decisions, he ought to be vastly more informative and precise than he is in these rather overly simplistic maxims.
Oh, and I have class now, so I guess it is time to /rant, for now. I have another one to come if time permits later on.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Fifteen Points
In 1939, a noted religious who founded one of the largest Sabbatarian Christian organizations and whose influence (for good and ill) has spread far and wide throughout the world in many religious organizations to this day made the following fifteen points. I will list them here and comment on each of the points.
1) The assembly is not an institution or an organization, but a society of believers.
This is quite true. While a religious organization can be useful, even necessary, to act in these rather over-regulated times, one must never confuse an organization, which is a business entity meant to fulfill legal obligations (usually involving tax law) with the assembly of believers (the actual "Church of God"), which forms a spiritual organism rather than a physical organization. This spiritual organism (which the NT authors, in particular Paul, were fond of comparing to a body) may include members in a variety of organizations (or none at all) and includes those who have been called at all times, and those who are yet to be called into the family of God. It is obvious that such an entity cannot ever be contained within one physical organization.
2) The church is not hierarchical, that is, in descending order of minister, elders, deacons, male laity, male children, women, and female children.
This point should go without saying. The offices of the Church of God (see Acts, Ephesians, Titus, etc.) are not ordered in a hierarchial form, but are rather defined in a functional manner depending on the various gifts that God gives us. While each of us has some gifts in excess of the usual (whether teaching or organizational skills or language and so forth), all of us, regardless of supposed rank, are to develop our spiritual skills in all areas to the best of our abilities as we seek to become like God. Even our savior Himself did not place Himself on a hierarchy above us. Jesus considers Himself our elder brother, and elder brothers are not to lord it over younger brothers. Rather, they seek to lead their younger siblings by example in a spirit of loving service and gentle instruction. If Jesus Christ does not lord it over us (when he could claim the right to do so), then no human leaders can justify a hierarchial society.
3) The Christian's relationship to the church is organic, not organizational.
See commentary to point #1 above. The Bible is consistent in treating the church as a body of believers (both in the sense of an organism and in the sense of an assembly), rather than in the organizational and beaurocratic terms which our benighted generation is so fond of. This is plain to any who open the Bible and read it with eyes open.
4) The church has no office and elects no officer.
Properly speaking, religion is an avocation not a vocation (thanks Mr. Ed for the lively commentary on that difference). Just as the rabbis in the first century were trained for a trade as well as their religious instruction, those who serve congregations were not intended to do so for filthy lucre. Paul himself, for example, refused to take monetary support from congregations when it became a problem (such as in Corinth), an example that few today seem to follow. It is sad that many today who draw salaries for religious service are unqualified for any other gainful (read: professional) employment. This should not be. In addition, the Church of God (as it is an organism rather than an organization) cannot elect an officer. For one, Jesus alone is head of the church, and any who would usurp Him have a lot to answer for. For another, those officers chosen in an organization are not done often for godly reasons, and are entirely lacking in a spiritual matter, simply existing for the good of the members and not reflecting any great spiritual understanding or excellence. When the first seven deacons were chosen by the early Church, it was for the purpose of serving the needs of the brethren in the collection to allow the apostles to spend their time preaching rather than waiting on tables. Such a position did not signify that the said deacons were in any way superior to others, but they were placed in responsibilty due to their prior reputation for diligence and reliability and faithful honesty.
5) Elders and deacons are not officers.
This is true (see above) because elders and deacons are servants and not masters.
6) There is no such thing as "instant elders" created by official act. In the pursuit of the Christian vocation members become elders as a matter of growth and maturity.
Those who have been ordained elders without demonstrating the proper wisdom and moral excellence for their position (not an easy task) bring discredit on many others.
7) Elders are not "over the church" and members are not "under the elders."
This should go without saying. The Bible (see 1 Peter 5 and elsewhere) teaches mutual submission, as everyone is to respect and honor everyone else, rather than behave as baboons do in a dominance-subodination hierarchy.
8) Overseers are "in" and "among" rather than over the assembly.
Again, this is an obvious point given the biblical doctrine of mutual accountability.
9) Overseeing does not involve control and carries no authority -- that is, the power to rule and to decide.
Overseeing is a responsibility for the benefit of the members, rather than a position of authority over the members.
10) "Elders" are simply senior members, male and female, who have matured through years of service. Ideally, there should be as many elders as there are older members, with no case of arrested growth.
This is quite true, although sadly this is not the case because there are vast majority of elders in age who through arrested growth are not cable of mature service but who still require milk and not meat.
11) "Deacons" is simply a generic term describing members, male and female, who serve. In New Testament times deacons ranged from apostles to lower members.
Again, this is quite true. A deacon was a word for a servant or waiter (for waiters then and now are servants who bring us food--whether spiritual or physical). The prominent leaders of the NT church (see Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.) were fond of calling themselves the servant or slave of Christ, which meant that they were the servants and slaves of the members as a whole. Many early church leaders were literal slaves as well, from early histories, and our current church leaders are so in at least a metaphorical sense.
12) Deacons in the church do not constitute a special class or have a special rank, or do any special work. They are merely servants devoted to the life of the Christian community.
This is obvious given the example of such servants in Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. However, as we are wicked and desire rank and position for ourselves, like the carnal 12 disciples before the death of Christ, we have twisted this into a base and false hierarchy.
13) Permission of elders is not required before anyone may engage in any Christian work or share in the activities of the church. Denying a member any active participation in prayers, songs, teaching, or exhortation is a gross usurpation of power contrary to the Bible.
No comment.
14) No man or group of men has any authority in the church by virtue of office which does not belong to other members.
Amen, and amen.
15) Nothing shall be done which affects the whole church without every member being heard before the decision is made. The quorum necessary for any action by the church is the entire membership. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur-- "What touches all, is to be approved by all." This is not a matter of passive assent or silence, but the result of active participation.
This is correct, and it is regrettable that many decisions are not made in the light of day, but rather in darkness and secrecy. Kudos to those leaders who seek not only the passive acceptance but the active participation of their brethren, and follow the example of the early church (read Acts 15 for a particularly enlightening account of a conference were apostles, elders, deacons, and members (all discussing as equals) came to agreement on what could have been a violent confrontation).
When I read these fifteen points, I shake my head and wonder how we wandered so far into the darkness when the truth was there in the light all along.
1) The assembly is not an institution or an organization, but a society of believers.
This is quite true. While a religious organization can be useful, even necessary, to act in these rather over-regulated times, one must never confuse an organization, which is a business entity meant to fulfill legal obligations (usually involving tax law) with the assembly of believers (the actual "Church of God"), which forms a spiritual organism rather than a physical organization. This spiritual organism (which the NT authors, in particular Paul, were fond of comparing to a body) may include members in a variety of organizations (or none at all) and includes those who have been called at all times, and those who are yet to be called into the family of God. It is obvious that such an entity cannot ever be contained within one physical organization.
2) The church is not hierarchical, that is, in descending order of minister, elders, deacons, male laity, male children, women, and female children.
This point should go without saying. The offices of the Church of God (see Acts, Ephesians, Titus, etc.) are not ordered in a hierarchial form, but are rather defined in a functional manner depending on the various gifts that God gives us. While each of us has some gifts in excess of the usual (whether teaching or organizational skills or language and so forth), all of us, regardless of supposed rank, are to develop our spiritual skills in all areas to the best of our abilities as we seek to become like God. Even our savior Himself did not place Himself on a hierarchy above us. Jesus considers Himself our elder brother, and elder brothers are not to lord it over younger brothers. Rather, they seek to lead their younger siblings by example in a spirit of loving service and gentle instruction. If Jesus Christ does not lord it over us (when he could claim the right to do so), then no human leaders can justify a hierarchial society.
3) The Christian's relationship to the church is organic, not organizational.
See commentary to point #1 above. The Bible is consistent in treating the church as a body of believers (both in the sense of an organism and in the sense of an assembly), rather than in the organizational and beaurocratic terms which our benighted generation is so fond of. This is plain to any who open the Bible and read it with eyes open.
4) The church has no office and elects no officer.
Properly speaking, religion is an avocation not a vocation (thanks Mr. Ed for the lively commentary on that difference). Just as the rabbis in the first century were trained for a trade as well as their religious instruction, those who serve congregations were not intended to do so for filthy lucre. Paul himself, for example, refused to take monetary support from congregations when it became a problem (such as in Corinth), an example that few today seem to follow. It is sad that many today who draw salaries for religious service are unqualified for any other gainful (read: professional) employment. This should not be. In addition, the Church of God (as it is an organism rather than an organization) cannot elect an officer. For one, Jesus alone is head of the church, and any who would usurp Him have a lot to answer for. For another, those officers chosen in an organization are not done often for godly reasons, and are entirely lacking in a spiritual matter, simply existing for the good of the members and not reflecting any great spiritual understanding or excellence. When the first seven deacons were chosen by the early Church, it was for the purpose of serving the needs of the brethren in the collection to allow the apostles to spend their time preaching rather than waiting on tables. Such a position did not signify that the said deacons were in any way superior to others, but they were placed in responsibilty due to their prior reputation for diligence and reliability and faithful honesty.
5) Elders and deacons are not officers.
This is true (see above) because elders and deacons are servants and not masters.
6) There is no such thing as "instant elders" created by official act. In the pursuit of the Christian vocation members become elders as a matter of growth and maturity.
Those who have been ordained elders without demonstrating the proper wisdom and moral excellence for their position (not an easy task) bring discredit on many others.
7) Elders are not "over the church" and members are not "under the elders."
This should go without saying. The Bible (see 1 Peter 5 and elsewhere) teaches mutual submission, as everyone is to respect and honor everyone else, rather than behave as baboons do in a dominance-subodination hierarchy.
8) Overseers are "in" and "among" rather than over the assembly.
Again, this is an obvious point given the biblical doctrine of mutual accountability.
9) Overseeing does not involve control and carries no authority -- that is, the power to rule and to decide.
Overseeing is a responsibility for the benefit of the members, rather than a position of authority over the members.
10) "Elders" are simply senior members, male and female, who have matured through years of service. Ideally, there should be as many elders as there are older members, with no case of arrested growth.
This is quite true, although sadly this is not the case because there are vast majority of elders in age who through arrested growth are not cable of mature service but who still require milk and not meat.
11) "Deacons" is simply a generic term describing members, male and female, who serve. In New Testament times deacons ranged from apostles to lower members.
Again, this is quite true. A deacon was a word for a servant or waiter (for waiters then and now are servants who bring us food--whether spiritual or physical). The prominent leaders of the NT church (see Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.) were fond of calling themselves the servant or slave of Christ, which meant that they were the servants and slaves of the members as a whole. Many early church leaders were literal slaves as well, from early histories, and our current church leaders are so in at least a metaphorical sense.
12) Deacons in the church do not constitute a special class or have a special rank, or do any special work. They are merely servants devoted to the life of the Christian community.
This is obvious given the example of such servants in Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. However, as we are wicked and desire rank and position for ourselves, like the carnal 12 disciples before the death of Christ, we have twisted this into a base and false hierarchy.
13) Permission of elders is not required before anyone may engage in any Christian work or share in the activities of the church. Denying a member any active participation in prayers, songs, teaching, or exhortation is a gross usurpation of power contrary to the Bible.
No comment.
14) No man or group of men has any authority in the church by virtue of office which does not belong to other members.
Amen, and amen.
15) Nothing shall be done which affects the whole church without every member being heard before the decision is made. The quorum necessary for any action by the church is the entire membership. Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur-- "What touches all, is to be approved by all." This is not a matter of passive assent or silence, but the result of active participation.
This is correct, and it is regrettable that many decisions are not made in the light of day, but rather in darkness and secrecy. Kudos to those leaders who seek not only the passive acceptance but the active participation of their brethren, and follow the example of the early church (read Acts 15 for a particularly enlightening account of a conference were apostles, elders, deacons, and members (all discussing as equals) came to agreement on what could have been a violent confrontation).
When I read these fifteen points, I shake my head and wonder how we wandered so far into the darkness when the truth was there in the light all along.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Ghosts In The Machine
Today the former Finnish president outlined his plan for the quasi-independence for the area of Kossovo, but it appears that (as is usual with such compromises) neither side is particularly happy. I'm sure that while NATO and the EU (and the UN) have bigger concerns than being the custodians of the downfall of the Serbian Empire (started just before WWI and reaching its largest size after WWII), it appears that for the second time in less than a year that a seemingly integral area of the Serbian empire is seeking its independence to follow the other former Yugoslav republics (Slovenia, already in the EU, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and new nation Montenegro as well). The compromise outlined by the UN would give Kossovo access to international organizations (like the UN and the IMF) and give it its own flag and control over its own international relations. It would, however, give great rights to the Serbian minority, including municipal control in its own area and the right to accept transparent transfers of money (i.e. subisides) from Serbia.
Unfortunately, as these matters seem to go, the Kossovar Albanians (who have 90% of the population) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with anything short of full independence. They see (rightly) that their own rights to self-determination are being shortchanged to benefit a bullying and abusive nation (Serbia) and its large and morally corrupt ally (Russia, who dislikes the precedent of Kossovo applying to, say, Chechnya and other areas that wish to break off from Russia). The Serbians, on the other hand, see Kossovo as an integral part of their empire, for Kossovo was the core of the Serbian empire until the 1300's, and the Battle of Kossovo in 1389 (a complete defeat that led to Ottoman rule over the Serbs until the 1800's) remains a pivotal event in Serbian history. No Serbian politician wants to go down in infamy as the person who surrendered Kossovo. Serbs have a long memory, and no one wants that eternal infamy.
So while one people seeks justice and the other remains tied to its own dark memories, it appears that neither side is to be happy with this deal, as it does point to independence for Kossovo, but without the status that the Albanians crave and the Serbs fear. The fact that Kossovo is currently a nation with a 50% unemployment rate, with aid (and expenditure by expatriates) accounting for some 30% of its Gross National Product, and with entrenched drug trafficking, prostitution, and copyright infringing interests (obviously not a good thing) makes the situation even more sticky. However, as development aid cannot enter the nation until its status is determined (being a UN Protectorate does not account for much), it appears that Kossovo will be granted near-independence soon, whether the Serbs like it or not. The demands of justice trump the bonds of memory.
Unfortunately, as these matters seem to go, the Kossovar Albanians (who have 90% of the population) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with anything short of full independence. They see (rightly) that their own rights to self-determination are being shortchanged to benefit a bullying and abusive nation (Serbia) and its large and morally corrupt ally (Russia, who dislikes the precedent of Kossovo applying to, say, Chechnya and other areas that wish to break off from Russia). The Serbians, on the other hand, see Kossovo as an integral part of their empire, for Kossovo was the core of the Serbian empire until the 1300's, and the Battle of Kossovo in 1389 (a complete defeat that led to Ottoman rule over the Serbs until the 1800's) remains a pivotal event in Serbian history. No Serbian politician wants to go down in infamy as the person who surrendered Kossovo. Serbs have a long memory, and no one wants that eternal infamy.
So while one people seeks justice and the other remains tied to its own dark memories, it appears that neither side is to be happy with this deal, as it does point to independence for Kossovo, but without the status that the Albanians crave and the Serbs fear. The fact that Kossovo is currently a nation with a 50% unemployment rate, with aid (and expenditure by expatriates) accounting for some 30% of its Gross National Product, and with entrenched drug trafficking, prostitution, and copyright infringing interests (obviously not a good thing) makes the situation even more sticky. However, as development aid cannot enter the nation until its status is determined (being a UN Protectorate does not account for much), it appears that Kossovo will be granted near-independence soon, whether the Serbs like it or not. The demands of justice trump the bonds of memory.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Banned In China
A few months ago I was speaking with an acquaintance from China, and she could not see this particular blog. From my reading about China's rather thorough attempts at blocking certain types of internet sites (mainly those that are deemed politically threatening), I saw with amusement that my own blog had fallen afoul of the Chinese censors, which means I must be saying something right, even though China has never been a particular blogworthy subject to me (with the exception of this anecdone, of course). Apparently some poor civil servant (hopefully proficient in English) read the subject matter of my blogs and assumed (correctly) that I am not a particular fan of China's government and that those reading my blog might be exposed to a bit too much free and loose discussion about government and tyranny than is politically expedient. The refusal to deal with dissent is a hallmark of authoritarian and insecure people and governments and organizations. This amusing incident, though, deals with another subject of great interest to me, and that is knowledge. In particular, I have a saying (in snappy Geneva Bible English, no less) that would apply to this situation, and probably many others:
Know thyself.
Know thy friends.
Know thine enemies.
Know the difference.
"Know Thyself."
As Sun-Tzu wisely said many years ago, someone who knows neither themselves nor others will lose every battle, someone who knows themselves and others will win every battle, and those who know either but not the other will win some and lose some. The Bible says, even more authoritatively, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free." While the extent our knowledge is not something to boast about (but rather an opportunity to help teach others), knowledge is a matter of supreme spiritual importance. Knowledge is the foundation of conduct and attitude. Our experiences and knowledge greatly influence us, and if that knowledge is incorrect, our lives will be built on faulty premises and our behavior will not be pleasing to God, or beneficial to ourselve sand others. We must know ourselves before we can begin to change our ways. All human beings in their natural state belong to the "vicious" state or morality. Before we can move from that we must be aware of what is often called our human depravity (a rather unpleasant term), or the mix of good and evil in our "human nature." A true and accurate knowledge of ourselves will demonstrate that we have gifts and abilities as well as struggles and problems. Such a balanced and accurate self-knowledge (admittedly difficult to obtain) will show that we have worth in the eyes of God (and, hopefully, ourselves and others) but that we are not perfect, and because we all struggle we can sympathize with others who struggle without falling into self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Likewise, if we do not know ourselves well, we may behave in ways that are mysterious to us (and others) and may behave in ways that are at cross purposes with what we really want (but may be unaware of or too afraid to admit) and what is best for us. The price of ignorance can be very steep, even if knowing the truth is not always pleasant.
"Know Thy Friends"
It is a difficult thing for anyone to know who is truly on their side. Some people are prone to falsely believing that everyone is their friend, simply because they are nice and most people are nice to them. While we all have many acquaintances, most of these people we enjoy chatting with on occasion and spending occasional time with share with us rather superficial relationships. We may enjoy the same kind of movies, games, books, music, we may go to church together, or be members of the same family, but not share any particular deep personal bond, even if we have no particular problems with each other. Such a wide circle of acquaintances may help us find people to talk to, but do not really help with the need we have for emotional intimacy (even on a platonic level). A friend is someone who knows us inside and out, good and bad, and loves us anyway. Some people never (or with extreme difficulty) let people get that close to them, and so they therefore have few friends. If we are a friend to others, the people we know have to open themselves up to us as well, and we need to be worthy of that trust if we do not wish to inflict great pain and suffering on them (and there is enough pain and suffering in this world already without us adding to it). The sort of intimacy that comes from knowing friends and being so close with friends can be dangerous, though, if we choose our friends unwisely. Our loyalty to friends can put us in difficult dilemmas if our friends are invovled in matters they should not be. Proverbs, for example, and other places, are particularly prescient on the need to be careful how we choose our friends. Our friends say a lot about who we are.
"Know Thine Enemies"
We all have enemies. Some enemies are those who disagree with us without being disagreeable. These disagreements, as they are not the cause of personal disrespect, can lead to a sharpening of ideas, and an understanding that different background and experience (as well as a different situation in life) can lead to very different positions that need not be defended with hostility. What is best for us may not be good for others, and vice versa, and knowing this does not need to be entirely unpleasant. It is possible to be the best of enemies with someone, respecting even with strenuous disagreement. Most of the time, though, what is meant by enemies are those who not only disagree with us, but actively oppose us to such an extent that even harmonious opposition is impossible. With such enemies, respect may be impossible, and the need to defend from enemies and attack them may feel overwelming. In such occasions it is difficult to admit when someone who is our enemy may be right (just as it would be difficult for those who are your enemies to admit that you are right). However, being able to recognize what is correct about enemies not only helps us to avoid a Pogo situation ("We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us") but also may give us an advantage if we retain some semblance of rationality while our enemies do not.
"Know The Difference"
We must, at all times, know the difference between ourselves and our friends and our enemies. We may not share the same motives as anyone else, and even when we agree with our friends we may do so for different reasons. Likewise, the reasons we may be enemies with someone may be a matter of mutual disrespect (rather than any fundamental difference of opinion) or may be a matter of difference of opinion without any personal dislike. Or, worst of all, it may be both. Knowing how we are different from our friends would mean we have to know them and be able to explain ourselves (at least somewhat) in their language, if that is possible. The same is true with our enemies. In a best case scenario, we would have a baseline respect for everyone, simply because we are all human beings created in the image of God, but in practical terms not respecting someone as much as they think they ought to be respected is considered disrespect.
Knowledge is not the be-all and end all of our lives, but it is the essential beginning to living a worthwhile life. We cannot hope to live a worthwhile life until and unless our life reflects an accurate knowledge of ourselves and others. As someone once wisely said, if our lives are not in accordance with reality, reality will work against us. If that means your posts get banned in China, that is a small price to pay.
Know thyself.
Know thy friends.
Know thine enemies.
Know the difference.
"Know Thyself."
As Sun-Tzu wisely said many years ago, someone who knows neither themselves nor others will lose every battle, someone who knows themselves and others will win every battle, and those who know either but not the other will win some and lose some. The Bible says, even more authoritatively, "Know the truth, and the truth will set you free." While the extent our knowledge is not something to boast about (but rather an opportunity to help teach others), knowledge is a matter of supreme spiritual importance. Knowledge is the foundation of conduct and attitude. Our experiences and knowledge greatly influence us, and if that knowledge is incorrect, our lives will be built on faulty premises and our behavior will not be pleasing to God, or beneficial to ourselve sand others. We must know ourselves before we can begin to change our ways. All human beings in their natural state belong to the "vicious" state or morality. Before we can move from that we must be aware of what is often called our human depravity (a rather unpleasant term), or the mix of good and evil in our "human nature." A true and accurate knowledge of ourselves will demonstrate that we have gifts and abilities as well as struggles and problems. Such a balanced and accurate self-knowledge (admittedly difficult to obtain) will show that we have worth in the eyes of God (and, hopefully, ourselves and others) but that we are not perfect, and because we all struggle we can sympathize with others who struggle without falling into self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Likewise, if we do not know ourselves well, we may behave in ways that are mysterious to us (and others) and may behave in ways that are at cross purposes with what we really want (but may be unaware of or too afraid to admit) and what is best for us. The price of ignorance can be very steep, even if knowing the truth is not always pleasant.
"Know Thy Friends"
It is a difficult thing for anyone to know who is truly on their side. Some people are prone to falsely believing that everyone is their friend, simply because they are nice and most people are nice to them. While we all have many acquaintances, most of these people we enjoy chatting with on occasion and spending occasional time with share with us rather superficial relationships. We may enjoy the same kind of movies, games, books, music, we may go to church together, or be members of the same family, but not share any particular deep personal bond, even if we have no particular problems with each other. Such a wide circle of acquaintances may help us find people to talk to, but do not really help with the need we have for emotional intimacy (even on a platonic level). A friend is someone who knows us inside and out, good and bad, and loves us anyway. Some people never (or with extreme difficulty) let people get that close to them, and so they therefore have few friends. If we are a friend to others, the people we know have to open themselves up to us as well, and we need to be worthy of that trust if we do not wish to inflict great pain and suffering on them (and there is enough pain and suffering in this world already without us adding to it). The sort of intimacy that comes from knowing friends and being so close with friends can be dangerous, though, if we choose our friends unwisely. Our loyalty to friends can put us in difficult dilemmas if our friends are invovled in matters they should not be. Proverbs, for example, and other places, are particularly prescient on the need to be careful how we choose our friends. Our friends say a lot about who we are.
"Know Thine Enemies"
We all have enemies. Some enemies are those who disagree with us without being disagreeable. These disagreements, as they are not the cause of personal disrespect, can lead to a sharpening of ideas, and an understanding that different background and experience (as well as a different situation in life) can lead to very different positions that need not be defended with hostility. What is best for us may not be good for others, and vice versa, and knowing this does not need to be entirely unpleasant. It is possible to be the best of enemies with someone, respecting even with strenuous disagreement. Most of the time, though, what is meant by enemies are those who not only disagree with us, but actively oppose us to such an extent that even harmonious opposition is impossible. With such enemies, respect may be impossible, and the need to defend from enemies and attack them may feel overwelming. In such occasions it is difficult to admit when someone who is our enemy may be right (just as it would be difficult for those who are your enemies to admit that you are right). However, being able to recognize what is correct about enemies not only helps us to avoid a Pogo situation ("We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us") but also may give us an advantage if we retain some semblance of rationality while our enemies do not.
"Know The Difference"
We must, at all times, know the difference between ourselves and our friends and our enemies. We may not share the same motives as anyone else, and even when we agree with our friends we may do so for different reasons. Likewise, the reasons we may be enemies with someone may be a matter of mutual disrespect (rather than any fundamental difference of opinion) or may be a matter of difference of opinion without any personal dislike. Or, worst of all, it may be both. Knowing how we are different from our friends would mean we have to know them and be able to explain ourselves (at least somewhat) in their language, if that is possible. The same is true with our enemies. In a best case scenario, we would have a baseline respect for everyone, simply because we are all human beings created in the image of God, but in practical terms not respecting someone as much as they think they ought to be respected is considered disrespect.
Knowledge is not the be-all and end all of our lives, but it is the essential beginning to living a worthwhile life. We cannot hope to live a worthwhile life until and unless our life reflects an accurate knowledge of ourselves and others. As someone once wisely said, if our lives are not in accordance with reality, reality will work against us. If that means your posts get banned in China, that is a small price to pay.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
Yesterday, former Chilean dictator and tyrant General Augustin Pinochet died of a heart attack. The reaction to his death was a mixed one in what remains a somewhat divided nation some thirty-three years after he took power in a US-supported coup against an ineffective and highly socialist leader (President Allende, whose neice Isabelle writes some terrible dreck for novels, including one this writer had to read during high school). He then instituted a reign of terror against leftists (particularly young ones) who disappeared, and were presumably tortured and slain. Even after he gave up power to give Chile a fragile (but so far well-functioning) democracy, he still had immunity from facing justice in this life for his serious crimes against humanity. Despite some attempts by Spain and England earlier to bring him to justice, he remained unconvincted despite his serious wrongs.
So now he is dead, and can no longer face justice in this world. The result of his death was a mixture of cheering and mourning, of riots against Chile's recent attempts to try the aged Pinochet for his crimes, cheering people who claim (in a news article I read on it) to love Pinochet like they love their own children, and mourning people who feel as if the opportunity for justice has been taken from them. We live in an unjust world (and some of us have a more intimate and personal understanding of this than others, and some of us understand the injustice in different ways because of our own different personal experience). This world has always been unjust, and as long as humans govern I do not have hope that it will ever be entirely just, though I would hope for it to be a good deal more just than it is now. The world was probably more unjust in the past than it is now, but there is greater dissatisfaction at justice now than before, and injustices people used to get away with without comment now bring harsh condemnation (from people like myself, often).
There are two ways of viewing this growing dissatisfaction with the injustice of this world. One view, largely a holdover from wicked days in which leaders ruled harshly without accountability for their often wicked actions, considers leaders to be some kind of divinely ordained power figures who are only answerable to God and not to mere mortals (especially cranky and somewhat mistrusting mortals like myself). Simply because leaders behaved this way through much of the course of human history (and because of the undeniable appeal of leading when one does not have to answer to the hoi polloi, that is, the common folk) this still appeals in politically backwards and ungodly leadership models.
The other way of viewing this problem is the one I hold. In the two millenia since Jesus Christ came to this earth certain evils which were tolerated in times of old have become less tenable. Slavery, which was a "necessary" evil in the times of Paul (see Philemon) gradually became morally untenable as the commands to love slaves as brethren increasingly meant (as it was intended to originally) that one should not have slaves at all. The same is true with polygamy as being against the biblical mutual respect of men and women and the understanding that a man and a woman become one in marriage and thus it is sinful to cleave to more than one person. In the same way, the evils of "gentile" government that were tolerated have become increasingly morally untenable as they go against the true biblical understanding that as we are all God's children, created in the image of God, we should all be respected as such. Those who claim to rule with God's authority must meet the same moral standards God does, and if they do not they must be accountable to God's fellow children for their failings because leaders have no moral nature higher than those they rule (and often a good deal lower of a nature). We are all equals in the eye of God, who is no respector of persons. We should not be respectors of persons (or titles) either.
Unfortunately, this world seems not to have been created with an eye towards making sure justice happened in this life. A just world would need to be ruled by a perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful being or set of beings, and only God meets that qualification. Therefore, those of us who long for a just world long for God's kingdom, even if we try to help this earth more closely resemble the perfect world above. Whether we admit this or not is one thing, but our world's demands for justice mean that we demand (whether consciously or not) for God to come to this earth and set up His kingdom, because none of us are capable of the perfect moral demands. It is for this reason that no just human government is unaccountable, because imperfect beings must be held accountable for their actions in order to avoid the creation of abusive systems of government (something of particular distaste for me).
Since this world is unjust, though, and since a perfectly just universe would not be particularly kind for any of us (because all of us fall woefully short of the perfect standard and are deserving of death for our sins), there must be some place for mercy and grace in our behavior as well. We must not abuse these to excuse the sins of others (who often twist grace and mercy to give themselves license to take advantage of others while demanding forgiveness for their own actions). However, mercy and grace are necessary because if we cannot forgive others and cast our burdens upon Jesus Christ then we ourselves carry a burden of bitterness and anger that no one can or should bear. And about that I have all too much experience myself. Since this world is unjust, though, sometimes we must wait for justice in the time to come, when no one will be able to escape censure for their deeds, naked in the harsh light of day to face accountability for their deeds. I think, though, that such a time would not be a time for gloating, but at least it will be fair. And that is enough.
So now he is dead, and can no longer face justice in this world. The result of his death was a mixture of cheering and mourning, of riots against Chile's recent attempts to try the aged Pinochet for his crimes, cheering people who claim (in a news article I read on it) to love Pinochet like they love their own children, and mourning people who feel as if the opportunity for justice has been taken from them. We live in an unjust world (and some of us have a more intimate and personal understanding of this than others, and some of us understand the injustice in different ways because of our own different personal experience). This world has always been unjust, and as long as humans govern I do not have hope that it will ever be entirely just, though I would hope for it to be a good deal more just than it is now. The world was probably more unjust in the past than it is now, but there is greater dissatisfaction at justice now than before, and injustices people used to get away with without comment now bring harsh condemnation (from people like myself, often).
There are two ways of viewing this growing dissatisfaction with the injustice of this world. One view, largely a holdover from wicked days in which leaders ruled harshly without accountability for their often wicked actions, considers leaders to be some kind of divinely ordained power figures who are only answerable to God and not to mere mortals (especially cranky and somewhat mistrusting mortals like myself). Simply because leaders behaved this way through much of the course of human history (and because of the undeniable appeal of leading when one does not have to answer to the hoi polloi, that is, the common folk) this still appeals in politically backwards and ungodly leadership models.
The other way of viewing this problem is the one I hold. In the two millenia since Jesus Christ came to this earth certain evils which were tolerated in times of old have become less tenable. Slavery, which was a "necessary" evil in the times of Paul (see Philemon) gradually became morally untenable as the commands to love slaves as brethren increasingly meant (as it was intended to originally) that one should not have slaves at all. The same is true with polygamy as being against the biblical mutual respect of men and women and the understanding that a man and a woman become one in marriage and thus it is sinful to cleave to more than one person. In the same way, the evils of "gentile" government that were tolerated have become increasingly morally untenable as they go against the true biblical understanding that as we are all God's children, created in the image of God, we should all be respected as such. Those who claim to rule with God's authority must meet the same moral standards God does, and if they do not they must be accountable to God's fellow children for their failings because leaders have no moral nature higher than those they rule (and often a good deal lower of a nature). We are all equals in the eye of God, who is no respector of persons. We should not be respectors of persons (or titles) either.
Unfortunately, this world seems not to have been created with an eye towards making sure justice happened in this life. A just world would need to be ruled by a perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful being or set of beings, and only God meets that qualification. Therefore, those of us who long for a just world long for God's kingdom, even if we try to help this earth more closely resemble the perfect world above. Whether we admit this or not is one thing, but our world's demands for justice mean that we demand (whether consciously or not) for God to come to this earth and set up His kingdom, because none of us are capable of the perfect moral demands. It is for this reason that no just human government is unaccountable, because imperfect beings must be held accountable for their actions in order to avoid the creation of abusive systems of government (something of particular distaste for me).
Since this world is unjust, though, and since a perfectly just universe would not be particularly kind for any of us (because all of us fall woefully short of the perfect standard and are deserving of death for our sins), there must be some place for mercy and grace in our behavior as well. We must not abuse these to excuse the sins of others (who often twist grace and mercy to give themselves license to take advantage of others while demanding forgiveness for their own actions). However, mercy and grace are necessary because if we cannot forgive others and cast our burdens upon Jesus Christ then we ourselves carry a burden of bitterness and anger that no one can or should bear. And about that I have all too much experience myself. Since this world is unjust, though, sometimes we must wait for justice in the time to come, when no one will be able to escape censure for their deeds, naked in the harsh light of day to face accountability for their deeds. I think, though, that such a time would not be a time for gloating, but at least it will be fair. And that is enough.
Friday, November 10, 2006
A Bittersweet Success
This week I officially got my own office instead of having to share the copy room with a particularly ornery machine that has a tendency to jam easily, grab too many papers to scan or copy at once, and generally behave in a surly manner. While my papers at work are still in the state of some chaos (then again, aren't they always?), I know have some space to myself, even if I don't particularly like the layout yet. For example, I don't like the fact that the entrance to the office is behind me, as I tend to panic when people surprise me from behind. But I digress. Despite my pleasure about having an office of my own, what makes it a bittersweet success is the rather sad circumstances that opened up an office for me in the first place.
The former occupant of this office was named Manuel. He was in his mid-to-late 50's, overweight, with high blood pressure, high cholesteral, sleep apnia, and so forth (all of these problems being similar to those of my father before he had his stroke last December and died of a heart attack in February). He slept little (more at work than anywhere else), and worked two jobs--reviewing building plans as well as delivering newspapers. Then, while I was out of the country last month, he had a brain aneurysm. He is still in the hospital, though he may be released soon, as he has somewhat recovered (though his brain function is still highly limited and he is not going to be able to return for a long time, if ever, to work, a disastrous consequence for his family).
I can think of a few reasons why my coworker's health would be of such a concern to me, besides the fact that in general I don't like to see people suffer. What is the most troublesome is that his health seems to have been affected in a similar way to my father's health. Right now Manuel is at the slow recovery from a severe health crisis stage. Hopefully it goes well for him. Still, this has not been a good year for the health of people I know (I could go on and on with examples from friends, family, and coworkers, but I would rather not). Suffice it to say, though, that reminders of mortality are not ever very far from me, at least right now.
The former occupant of this office was named Manuel. He was in his mid-to-late 50's, overweight, with high blood pressure, high cholesteral, sleep apnia, and so forth (all of these problems being similar to those of my father before he had his stroke last December and died of a heart attack in February). He slept little (more at work than anywhere else), and worked two jobs--reviewing building plans as well as delivering newspapers. Then, while I was out of the country last month, he had a brain aneurysm. He is still in the hospital, though he may be released soon, as he has somewhat recovered (though his brain function is still highly limited and he is not going to be able to return for a long time, if ever, to work, a disastrous consequence for his family).
I can think of a few reasons why my coworker's health would be of such a concern to me, besides the fact that in general I don't like to see people suffer. What is the most troublesome is that his health seems to have been affected in a similar way to my father's health. Right now Manuel is at the slow recovery from a severe health crisis stage. Hopefully it goes well for him. Still, this has not been a good year for the health of people I know (I could go on and on with examples from friends, family, and coworkers, but I would rather not). Suffice it to say, though, that reminders of mortality are not ever very far from me, at least right now.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
A Lesson In Irony
In my recent trip to the nation of Turkey, I saw two related cases of irony. The trip, however, was not merely ironic for me, but even more so for a friend of mine there as well, who was of Armenian ancestry. Why that would be ironic should be made clear in what follows.
Irony #1: Nathan correctly (and unintentionally) predicts the 2006 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature
Before I went to Turkey I wanted to do some research (because I am a compulsive reader and like to know information about the places I am about to see). Besides the usual tourist books (the Lonely Planet guide) and the history books, I decided to get a copy of "Istanbul: A Memoir" by the author Orhan Pamuk. I had been familiar with his work since reading a story about his arrest and trial by the Turkish government for making a comment about the Armenian genocide in his novel "Snow," published last year. He was, thankfully, acquitted, but for an author to suffer punishment for writing what is historical fact (or even a reasonable historical interpretation) is highly offensive to me.
Anyway, I read his memoir of his hometown, and it was an excellent book, a mixture of dryly ironic commentary on how his city has consistently thrown away its Turkish charm to appear ever more Western in the last 200 years as well as personal history about his own life and his family. He even manages to comment on the endemic stray dogs in Turkey (which I happened to see first hand). So, what does this have to do with predicting the Nobel Prize? Well, I thought I would attract a great deal of scrutiny for bringing such a pro-Western author to Turkey, but it turns out that customs in Turkey is rather non-rigorous and my bags were not even searched. Towards the end of my trip to Turkey, I found out that Orhan Pamuk had won the Nobel Prize for Literature, becoming the first Turk to win a Nobel Prize. And I could say (sorta) that I knew (of) him back when. At least this is a better story than my discovery of Ricky Martin before he became a big success (shifts eyes).
Irony #2: The Crime of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey and France
I commented earlier how one of my friends who was in Turkey with me was Armenian, and this particular irony is a rather cruel one. According to basic Turkish law, it is a crime to affirm the existence of the Armenian genocide. In fact, the crime is punishable (if one is convicted) by up to 3 years of prison time. This has long been a sticking point in the Turkish attempts to enter the European Union. After all, if Germans are forced to recognize the Holocost (as they do), then it would only be fair to expect other nations to admit their own historical misdeeds. Not that it is very pleasant business to admit massacres. Which Americans would want all of the American Indian massacres to be endlessly displayed prominently in accounts about the United States, after all?
Anyway, France passed, on October 12th, a law that made it a crime in France to deny the Armenian massacre. That puts any Turks who go between France and Turkey in a difficult position, at least if they are forced to confront the issue in both countries. The whole issue strikes me as rather grimly ironic in that two nations noted in the Christian and Muslim worlds, respectively, for their rather anti-religious secular stands are making such a religious issue (if I may use the term) over history. At any rate, I (somehow) avoided being arrested while in Turkey while delicately explaining the issue and at least strongly hinting at my own opinion on the matter. At least the rioting going on in Istanbul while we were there was against someone other than the United States. It was nice to see protests against another nation for a change.
Irony #1: Nathan correctly (and unintentionally) predicts the 2006 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature
Before I went to Turkey I wanted to do some research (because I am a compulsive reader and like to know information about the places I am about to see). Besides the usual tourist books (the Lonely Planet guide) and the history books, I decided to get a copy of "Istanbul: A Memoir" by the author Orhan Pamuk. I had been familiar with his work since reading a story about his arrest and trial by the Turkish government for making a comment about the Armenian genocide in his novel "Snow," published last year. He was, thankfully, acquitted, but for an author to suffer punishment for writing what is historical fact (or even a reasonable historical interpretation) is highly offensive to me.
Anyway, I read his memoir of his hometown, and it was an excellent book, a mixture of dryly ironic commentary on how his city has consistently thrown away its Turkish charm to appear ever more Western in the last 200 years as well as personal history about his own life and his family. He even manages to comment on the endemic stray dogs in Turkey (which I happened to see first hand). So, what does this have to do with predicting the Nobel Prize? Well, I thought I would attract a great deal of scrutiny for bringing such a pro-Western author to Turkey, but it turns out that customs in Turkey is rather non-rigorous and my bags were not even searched. Towards the end of my trip to Turkey, I found out that Orhan Pamuk had won the Nobel Prize for Literature, becoming the first Turk to win a Nobel Prize. And I could say (sorta) that I knew (of) him back when. At least this is a better story than my discovery of Ricky Martin before he became a big success (shifts eyes).
Irony #2: The Crime of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey and France
I commented earlier how one of my friends who was in Turkey with me was Armenian, and this particular irony is a rather cruel one. According to basic Turkish law, it is a crime to affirm the existence of the Armenian genocide. In fact, the crime is punishable (if one is convicted) by up to 3 years of prison time. This has long been a sticking point in the Turkish attempts to enter the European Union. After all, if Germans are forced to recognize the Holocost (as they do), then it would only be fair to expect other nations to admit their own historical misdeeds. Not that it is very pleasant business to admit massacres. Which Americans would want all of the American Indian massacres to be endlessly displayed prominently in accounts about the United States, after all?
Anyway, France passed, on October 12th, a law that made it a crime in France to deny the Armenian massacre. That puts any Turks who go between France and Turkey in a difficult position, at least if they are forced to confront the issue in both countries. The whole issue strikes me as rather grimly ironic in that two nations noted in the Christian and Muslim worlds, respectively, for their rather anti-religious secular stands are making such a religious issue (if I may use the term) over history. At any rate, I (somehow) avoided being arrested while in Turkey while delicately explaining the issue and at least strongly hinting at my own opinion on the matter. At least the rioting going on in Istanbul while we were there was against someone other than the United States. It was nice to see protests against another nation for a change.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Trouble In Paradise
For the last dozen years or so, it was widely thought in Thailand (and elsewhere) that the King of Thailand (who is quite beloved to people I know personally as supposedly having the best interests of his people at heart) was a bulwark for democracy in a part of the world that has known mostly dictators in the post-colonial period.
Of course, that is no longer the case as the King of Thailand has supported a coup by a Muslim General against a corrupt but populist democratic government. As is always the case in this sort of coup where rule of law is trampled by tyranny there is always some sort of specious justification--usually involving the attempt to get rid of corruption (even though undemocratic leadership is almost invariably more corrupt than democratic leadership even of the wickedest variety), or the need to cure pressing military problems that a general would be expected to know better than an elected politician.
The truth is that even though democracies are far from perfect governments, they are better at governing just about anything than any form of unrepresentative government. Generally speaking, democracies depend on the vigilance of the people (who themselves, in many politically immature systems, do not seek to be responsible as adults). Democracies, however, allow the governened to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, which is the most effective form of preventing corruption and keeping leaders reined in (which is sadly necessary at all times and in all situations). In all other forms of government, there is some form of force or fraud that prevents people from having rightful supervision over their government. In the case of a military government, the modus operendi is that of force, where men (and possibly women) with automatic machine guns prevent people from exercising their God-given rights. In that of a monarchy, the modus operendi is fraud, where a leader perports to have some sort of divine or semi-divine status that puts such a leader beyond scrutiny and criticism from mere commoners. In Thailand, the current situation has a little bit of both flavors of tyranny.
Despite the promises that some form of autocracy will be more efficient and effective than a democratic form of government, the truth invariably demonstrates that any gain in stability depends upon massive atrocities and only temporarily hides the disasters that threaten society, and exacerbate their results (see Congo, Iraq, Nepal, etc.). In addition, the threat of military force at the slightest problem a democracy faces prevents the citizenry of a given nation from developing the necessary maturity to make democracy work. Democracy is not an easy business--it depends on there being an active citizenry with the expectation that laws will be obeyed by all--including lawmakers, soldiers, and other officials of the state. It also depends on a citizenry that is willing to demand their rights (even at a cost) and accept the responsibilities for ensuring that no one abuses their power. This is the responsibility of adults, who are capable of dividing right from wrong and are able to handle solid intellectual and moral food rather than the milk of civics lessons.
What is currently going on in Thailand at best will end up in a situation like Nepal (where popular demonstrations forced the fall of the autocratic monarchial rule) and Argentina (where a disastrous military conflict ended the rule of a military junta not unlike Thailand's current leadership). At worst, dictatorships can linger on indefinitely despite failures in solving the military problems that bring them to power (see Pakistan, Myanmar), or can even threaten the absolute dissolution of a nation (see Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Congo, Serbia, etc.) and attract foreign military operations. It is far better, given this grim picture, for a nation to tough out the inevitable rough periods of an early democracy and form their own solutions to problems that allow for minority rights as well as majority rule, lead to more egalitarian social structures and the elimination of immoral systems of social division that deny the natural equality of humanity, all issues of massive difficulty that demand gradual and patient work. In no nation can these tasks be considered completed, but only in a society of mature political citizens can such tasks even be partially resolved in a lasting and beneficial fashion.
Sadly, these basic lessons are too often ignored, both by people with power who become addicted to position and authority and who forget that what is best for them is seldom best for the people as a whole (even paternalistic authoritarianism is an unrighteous form of government). While it may seem expedient in such cases to temporarily withhold democracy in order to deal with pressing problems, the skills in creating and maintaining a democracy can only be learned through struggling through trials. As painful as such difficulties may be for a nation, it is necessary for a society to endure such difficulties so that they may grow in maturity. To treat the citizenry of a society as children forever is to deny the promise that God provide to us as rulers. If we are to rule effectively over others, we must be able to rule over ourselves and develop self-control, patience, and resopnsibility. This can only be learned in an egalitarian society where people are resopnsible for their own actions without being able to rely on the commands of others who claim some sort of superiority to them.
How long will the simple love simplicity (for nothing in this world is truly simple)? It seems, in much of the world, that it will be for at least a while longer.
Of course, that is no longer the case as the King of Thailand has supported a coup by a Muslim General against a corrupt but populist democratic government. As is always the case in this sort of coup where rule of law is trampled by tyranny there is always some sort of specious justification--usually involving the attempt to get rid of corruption (even though undemocratic leadership is almost invariably more corrupt than democratic leadership even of the wickedest variety), or the need to cure pressing military problems that a general would be expected to know better than an elected politician.
The truth is that even though democracies are far from perfect governments, they are better at governing just about anything than any form of unrepresentative government. Generally speaking, democracies depend on the vigilance of the people (who themselves, in many politically immature systems, do not seek to be responsible as adults). Democracies, however, allow the governened to hold their leaders accountable for their actions, which is the most effective form of preventing corruption and keeping leaders reined in (which is sadly necessary at all times and in all situations). In all other forms of government, there is some form of force or fraud that prevents people from having rightful supervision over their government. In the case of a military government, the modus operendi is that of force, where men (and possibly women) with automatic machine guns prevent people from exercising their God-given rights. In that of a monarchy, the modus operendi is fraud, where a leader perports to have some sort of divine or semi-divine status that puts such a leader beyond scrutiny and criticism from mere commoners. In Thailand, the current situation has a little bit of both flavors of tyranny.
Despite the promises that some form of autocracy will be more efficient and effective than a democratic form of government, the truth invariably demonstrates that any gain in stability depends upon massive atrocities and only temporarily hides the disasters that threaten society, and exacerbate their results (see Congo, Iraq, Nepal, etc.). In addition, the threat of military force at the slightest problem a democracy faces prevents the citizenry of a given nation from developing the necessary maturity to make democracy work. Democracy is not an easy business--it depends on there being an active citizenry with the expectation that laws will be obeyed by all--including lawmakers, soldiers, and other officials of the state. It also depends on a citizenry that is willing to demand their rights (even at a cost) and accept the responsibilities for ensuring that no one abuses their power. This is the responsibility of adults, who are capable of dividing right from wrong and are able to handle solid intellectual and moral food rather than the milk of civics lessons.
What is currently going on in Thailand at best will end up in a situation like Nepal (where popular demonstrations forced the fall of the autocratic monarchial rule) and Argentina (where a disastrous military conflict ended the rule of a military junta not unlike Thailand's current leadership). At worst, dictatorships can linger on indefinitely despite failures in solving the military problems that bring them to power (see Pakistan, Myanmar), or can even threaten the absolute dissolution of a nation (see Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Congo, Serbia, etc.) and attract foreign military operations. It is far better, given this grim picture, for a nation to tough out the inevitable rough periods of an early democracy and form their own solutions to problems that allow for minority rights as well as majority rule, lead to more egalitarian social structures and the elimination of immoral systems of social division that deny the natural equality of humanity, all issues of massive difficulty that demand gradual and patient work. In no nation can these tasks be considered completed, but only in a society of mature political citizens can such tasks even be partially resolved in a lasting and beneficial fashion.
Sadly, these basic lessons are too often ignored, both by people with power who become addicted to position and authority and who forget that what is best for them is seldom best for the people as a whole (even paternalistic authoritarianism is an unrighteous form of government). While it may seem expedient in such cases to temporarily withhold democracy in order to deal with pressing problems, the skills in creating and maintaining a democracy can only be learned through struggling through trials. As painful as such difficulties may be for a nation, it is necessary for a society to endure such difficulties so that they may grow in maturity. To treat the citizenry of a society as children forever is to deny the promise that God provide to us as rulers. If we are to rule effectively over others, we must be able to rule over ourselves and develop self-control, patience, and resopnsibility. This can only be learned in an egalitarian society where people are resopnsible for their own actions without being able to rely on the commands of others who claim some sort of superiority to them.
How long will the simple love simplicity (for nothing in this world is truly simple)? It seems, in much of the world, that it will be for at least a while longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
