I do not normally delve into discussions of biblical prophecy, partly because I find the claims in most (if not all) cases far outweigh the modest biblical evidence presented in support. However, in this entry I will make an exception, though to be honest this is not a comment about biblical prophecy itself as much as it is a comment about the difficulties involved with rigid methodological commitments. I am a fond reader of the American Vision blogs by a fellow named Gary DeMar and his associates, but one aspect of their analysis which irritates me is the way in which their firm commitment to postmillennialism forces them into a preterist view of prophecy that neglects the firm and consistent scriptural record. Since this is a blog, and not a weighty tome of several hundred pages (which would be necessary to analyze the case for different views of biblical prophecy), the analysis will be by necessity somewhat more superficial than I would prefer.
There are basically four ways to view biblical prophecy (especially the book of Revelation, but the same problem is true for the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others): preterism, historicism, futurism, and spiritualism. The preterest takes prophecy as applying to the time in which the prophecy was written. For example, Jeremiah would apply to the Babylonian captivity of Judah, Haggai would apply to the rebuidling of the second temple around 520 BC, and Revelation would apply to the first century church. This is the view taken by Gary Demar and many who ascribe to the postmillennialist position (for reasons that will become more clear below). Historicists see prophecy as applying in stages throughout human history. This view, with regards to Revelation 2 and 3 (perhaps the most notable example of this strain of prophetic view) would ascribe various eras in the NT church according to the letters to the seven churches, and some have even (with considerable excellence) used this view with regards to the OT as well. Futurists see prophecy as primarily about the end-times (which are usually just around the corner in their view). Spiritualists see prophecy as involving different believers or different types of believers in any time, and make no historical commitment about the fulfillment of various scriptures. For example, a spiritualist would see the seven letters of Revelation 2 and 3 as referring to different types of believers.
Now, I am of the belief that the Bible is big enough for all of these views to be true. To use Revelation as an example, I believe John the Apostle was writing to contemporary believers, to eras of the OT and NT spanning thousands of years of human history, to faithful in the end time, as well as to individual believers, congregations, and even religious organizations as a whole whose spiritual profiles match those of one church or another. To view only one view as true, and to view evidence bolstering one particular perspective as meaning the disproving and refutation of another perspective is to engage in bad-logic, a false dilemma of either/or when both/and is the correct and proper answer. The Bible was written for people in a specific time and place, with certain historical and social knowledge and in a form designed to reach people in a specific time (this accounts for the fact that the NT Epistles are written in the general form of first century letters, and why the Ten Commandments are organized like a Hittite suzereignity-vassal treaty, as well as why the Psalms often resemble Ugaritic hymns minus the pagan trappings, why the Proverbs resemble Egyptian wisdom writing, and so on). This does not, however, diminish the equally important fact that the Bible was written for people of all times and places as a revelation to mankind so that we can orient our lives according to the will of God. The laws of God are eternally applicable (though in ways we may not always recognize) and reflect the unchanging and unchangable character of our Creator God. We neglect these laws (however big or small, however famous or obscure) at our peril. Indeed, we may honestly through our hands up in the air and wonder how on earth we are supposed to obey some laws (say, for example, the law about tassels), even as we recognize that God had a point with the law that remains valid today, even as we struggle to understand what that point was.
For the most part, Gary Demar and his associates understand this, as they are members of the Theonomic movement, which posits that a godly society must live under God's laws (all of them, even the civil laws) and not rely on God's grace to rid ourselves of the requirements of obedience. To this end, I would support them. From what I understand of the Theonomy movement (which is admittedly not as much as I'd like to), I agree with their aims and approach, and find them similar if not identical to the thoughts of Ron Dart in his Law & Covenant book, which I find to be an excellent and authoritative examination of the applicability of covenants to our time. However, the commitment to postmillennialism is a serious problem, as it involves a substantial neglect of scripture. It should also be noted that a firm commitment to premillennialism (at least in most of its forms) shares a similar neglect of scripture that has equally serious consequences, and both "solutions" are flip sides of the same coin.
Postmillennialism posits that Christ will return after a millennium established by mankind through accordance with God's laws that overturns the consequences of the fall of man in Eden. In this view, righteousness will spread throughout society ever-more progressively until the world is so filled with obedience to God's law that sin is vanquished and mankind will live in peace and harmony and then Christ returns to establish his kingdom on earth. This appeals to Gary Demar (and others of like mind, especially among Catholic scholars in political science, where I first became familiar with this view, like Harry Jaffa) who consider their work to educate mankind on their proper obedience to God, and the role of the United States as bringing liberty to a world enslaved by tradition, and the role of the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) as the church victorious becoming more active and more powerful as time goes on in an essentially millennial and extremely optimistic light. It is this optimism, incidentally, that allows them to remain active and avoid despairing in a world that looks pretty dark and depressing (and this optimism is its most righteous and most redeeming feature).
Pre-millennialism, by contrast, is extremely pessimistic about the world's future, and frequently believes that things are so bad in the world today that Christ's return is imminent because mankind is on the verge of absolute ruin. Pre-millennialists often can be found trying to calculate the return of Jesus Christ (against the commands of Jesus Christ, who said 'no man shall no the day or the hour' of his return, something often neglected by would be prophets), and can often be found making various claims about raptures and places of safety based on rather slim biblical evidence and a very healthy dose of speculation that may or may not come to pass. In general, pre-millennialism often discourages any kind of action that could postpone the return of Chist, including any meaningful effort to arrest our civilization's and our nation's alarming slide to ruin and perdition. Indeed, pre-millennialism often itself serves as a recipe for passivity and the misguided belief that God will do everything and so mankind needs to do nothing, in contrast to the equally deluded belief by post-millennialists that mankind's efforts (admittedly of God-led and Holy Spirit-endowed people) are sufficient to bring about the Millennial paradise on earth.
I happen to be a pre-millennialist myself, though not of a passive strain, and I find there to be a great tension between my belief that mankind is on the fast train to hell in a handbasket as well as my belief that I must do whatever is in my (very) limited power to arrest that trend. Indeed, I find this tension to be present quite frequently in the Bible. I think of Amos, for example, sent to preach about Israel's destruction and the social injustices (mirrored, intriguingly enough, in our own society) present in a people of superficial religious and 'spiritual' values but insufficiently deep commitment to God's law and its application in their lives and society (a situation alarmingly like that in the USA at present). I think of Jeremiah, called to preach to a hostile and unwelcoming and unrepenant society trusting in foreign alliances and full of moral decay and a government that was set on the separation of church and state (at least by eliminating religious leaders who criticized the politics of the day). I think of John, persecuted and exiled by the Roman government of his time for refusing to worship the emperor as a god and instead preaching that all men are accountable to God (something our political and religious and business leaders seem to forget sometimes). Their call was to action, and to involvement, even though their mission was unsuccessful. They did not passively wait for God to deliver them in a rapture, and neither did they believe that their preaching would lead to a national revival, as much as they would have liked that, to be sure. Instead, they avoided either extreme and felt the tension that seems to be essential for development of godly character, tension that would destroy us if not for the protection and mercy of God Himself.
That view, surprisingly enough, puts me in the rather delicate and strange position of agreeing with the actions of those who, like those at American Vision and other organizations, seek to write books and engage people in recognizing our nation's (and indeed, Christianity's) lost virtues while avoiding the passive copouts like rapture or dispensationalism, even while I disagree with their approach and consider their prophetic knowledge to be extremely lacking on account of their firm (and unwarrented) commitment to a preterist view of scripture (to the exclusion of other views) and a post-millenialist prophetic framework that denies the whole of biblical history (where calamity purges the unrighteous, where human institutions crumble under the weight of human fraility and Satanic corruption, and where God delivers a righteous and small remnant to start again). We will see, in the end, who is right.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
On Asabiya
Recently, I read an extremely insightful book by Peter Turchin, named "War and Peace and War," which examines the cycles of imperial nations. This book seeks to examine what it is that makes empires rise (and fall), and does so in an exemplary fashion. In reading the book, I could not help but reflect upon my own dislikes of the center and my love of the periphery in the cultures I inhabit, and this book deals with those issues as well. The word asabiya itself comes from the pivotal work on Magreb (that would be North African) political cycles by the historian Ibn Kahldun. Asabiya, in English, roughly translates to "social capital," or the sum total of social forces holding a society and its institutions (political, social, familial) together.
Empires, apparently without exception, come from those frontier regions on the edge of what are termed "metaethnic fault lines." The situation of bordering entirely alien civilizations causes an extremely tight "us-against-them" mentality that leads to high levels of social cohesion, allowing large scale businesses and socieities to develop. The same may be true in religious groups as well, and is a subject worthy of further personal study in that regard (For example, can the Church of God and the wider Sabbatarian and Messianic movements be considered on the meta-religious fault line of Christianity, and if so, does that mean that right now we are on the downward slide of an asabiya cycle? More on that later.). Asabiya is apparently acquired through that survival instinct that forces social conflict to be submerged in the face of a grave and common threat where high levels of egalitarianism and high levels of sacrifice among leaders reduce the problems of rivalry and social division. In the absence of such external threats, the selfish acquisition of wealth and power (and the rising inequality between the elite and common population of a society) reduces asabiya and leads to periods of social disintigration (such as what is currently going on in the United States, and what has gone on in Southern Italy, to name one famous example, for the last 2000 or so years). Certain practices, like slavery, appear to lead to "asabiya black holes" in the words of Turchin, which explains why the southern part of the US, with its low asabiya, has such poor wages and such a dismal political record (See in particular the state of Louisiana, the last "core" of the southern slaveholding culture before the civil war, which still shows large amounts of corruption, a sign of low asabiya.).
Core regions of a given society develop because of high asabiya, but the increase of imperial territory inevitably brings the frontiers far beyond the core (for reasons of safety and security, empires do not like their capitals/cores to be in periphery regions). The movement of frontiers beyond the core region mean that the forces that once brought unity to a people leave elsewhere. Through cycles of rising and falling social cohesion, an empire gradually loses steam, and eventually crumbles in what is termed, appropriately enough, imperialpathosis. Once a critical amount of asabiya is lost, an empire is finished. It is only in the frontier regions on either side of the fault lines (which move based on the performance of societies along the fault lines) that new imperial peoples gradually develop. Metaethnic lines are not to be trifled with. Consider, for example, the difference between Israel and its neighbors. Israel is a democratic, secular, Western nation, and its neighbors are highly corrupt, often intensely fundamentalist, and not particularly enlightened in their social views or their terroristic behavior. The border between Israel and its neighbors is a metaethnic line similar to those between the Mediterranean society Israel springs from and the uncultured barbarians who viewed its wealth and power jealously but who did not wish to become civilized themselves. (Incidentally enough, the Arabs did become civilized during the time they were on the outside of the metaethnic fault line between Mediterranean and Persian civilizations and the outside barbarians, but their civilization fell apart before the Turkic and Mongol invasions, followed by European colonization, and it is only recently when their asabiya has risen again as a result of the new fault lines, though it appears not to have civilized them again, yet).
What I found most interesting about the book and its contrast between core regions and peripheries, is that the book managed to pull together two strands in my own thinking. One strand was my personal preference for being far away from core regions, to be a border dweller (something that, not surprisingly, is apparently a longstanding family trait among my ancestors, who long dwelt in frontier regions in Europe and the US), far away from the centers of power. For it is in frontiers, when one is faced with alien and hostile enemies, that one learns how to join together with others for survival and finds the greatest social cohesion. However, the link with the second strand, my firm and strident concern for egalitarianism as opposed to social stratification, gives the moral justification for this preference. In periphery regions, the fierce conflict between at the fault lines leaves a low population (i.e. not many people survive there) that is so engaged in fierce struggle that they do not have the time to engage in pettier differentiation or in the hoarding of goods that separate the haves and have-nots. Instead, everyone is in it together. In core regions, by contrast, elites show off their wealth and power and engage in all sorts of petty intra-elite competitions for power and its accutrements that serve to embitter the less privileged majority of groups and distract those elites from their task of holding together their society/civilization. In other words, they fiddle while Rome burns, and they live in luxury while the legions who dwell roughly and in poverty protect the empire from the barbarian hordes across the wall/river/desert. This breeds a lot of well-earned resentment.
The well-organized and presented thoughts from Mr. Turchin should give those dwellers of core regions a lot of pause. Too often, especially in periods of declining asabiya, power is seen not for how it can serve the people, but how it can serve the officeholder, and this leads to a lot of popular cynicism that leads people to focus energy on civic duties and more energy on getting ahead themselves, which, as the "knave mentality" furthers the decline in asabiya and destroys the society from within, leaving it vulnerable to any more cohesive rival on its borders. Others, the "saints," will serve even as everyone else takes advantage, getting taken advantage of without any gain to the society they thanklessly help. It is those in the middle, the "moralists," of which I am one, who seek to punish and condemn the knaves, and in so doing reduce the cynicism of others and allow for social cohesion to develop once again. The book gave an excellent framework for some very interesting ideas, and his analysis of the modern world empires (the USA, Europe, the Middle East, Russia, and China) is frightening and dead-on. In other words, this is an exceedingly good book, and one which relates to a great many subjects on my mind.
Empires, apparently without exception, come from those frontier regions on the edge of what are termed "metaethnic fault lines." The situation of bordering entirely alien civilizations causes an extremely tight "us-against-them" mentality that leads to high levels of social cohesion, allowing large scale businesses and socieities to develop. The same may be true in religious groups as well, and is a subject worthy of further personal study in that regard (For example, can the Church of God and the wider Sabbatarian and Messianic movements be considered on the meta-religious fault line of Christianity, and if so, does that mean that right now we are on the downward slide of an asabiya cycle? More on that later.). Asabiya is apparently acquired through that survival instinct that forces social conflict to be submerged in the face of a grave and common threat where high levels of egalitarianism and high levels of sacrifice among leaders reduce the problems of rivalry and social division. In the absence of such external threats, the selfish acquisition of wealth and power (and the rising inequality between the elite and common population of a society) reduces asabiya and leads to periods of social disintigration (such as what is currently going on in the United States, and what has gone on in Southern Italy, to name one famous example, for the last 2000 or so years). Certain practices, like slavery, appear to lead to "asabiya black holes" in the words of Turchin, which explains why the southern part of the US, with its low asabiya, has such poor wages and such a dismal political record (See in particular the state of Louisiana, the last "core" of the southern slaveholding culture before the civil war, which still shows large amounts of corruption, a sign of low asabiya.).
Core regions of a given society develop because of high asabiya, but the increase of imperial territory inevitably brings the frontiers far beyond the core (for reasons of safety and security, empires do not like their capitals/cores to be in periphery regions). The movement of frontiers beyond the core region mean that the forces that once brought unity to a people leave elsewhere. Through cycles of rising and falling social cohesion, an empire gradually loses steam, and eventually crumbles in what is termed, appropriately enough, imperialpathosis. Once a critical amount of asabiya is lost, an empire is finished. It is only in the frontier regions on either side of the fault lines (which move based on the performance of societies along the fault lines) that new imperial peoples gradually develop. Metaethnic lines are not to be trifled with. Consider, for example, the difference between Israel and its neighbors. Israel is a democratic, secular, Western nation, and its neighbors are highly corrupt, often intensely fundamentalist, and not particularly enlightened in their social views or their terroristic behavior. The border between Israel and its neighbors is a metaethnic line similar to those between the Mediterranean society Israel springs from and the uncultured barbarians who viewed its wealth and power jealously but who did not wish to become civilized themselves. (Incidentally enough, the Arabs did become civilized during the time they were on the outside of the metaethnic fault line between Mediterranean and Persian civilizations and the outside barbarians, but their civilization fell apart before the Turkic and Mongol invasions, followed by European colonization, and it is only recently when their asabiya has risen again as a result of the new fault lines, though it appears not to have civilized them again, yet).
What I found most interesting about the book and its contrast between core regions and peripheries, is that the book managed to pull together two strands in my own thinking. One strand was my personal preference for being far away from core regions, to be a border dweller (something that, not surprisingly, is apparently a longstanding family trait among my ancestors, who long dwelt in frontier regions in Europe and the US), far away from the centers of power. For it is in frontiers, when one is faced with alien and hostile enemies, that one learns how to join together with others for survival and finds the greatest social cohesion. However, the link with the second strand, my firm and strident concern for egalitarianism as opposed to social stratification, gives the moral justification for this preference. In periphery regions, the fierce conflict between at the fault lines leaves a low population (i.e. not many people survive there) that is so engaged in fierce struggle that they do not have the time to engage in pettier differentiation or in the hoarding of goods that separate the haves and have-nots. Instead, everyone is in it together. In core regions, by contrast, elites show off their wealth and power and engage in all sorts of petty intra-elite competitions for power and its accutrements that serve to embitter the less privileged majority of groups and distract those elites from their task of holding together their society/civilization. In other words, they fiddle while Rome burns, and they live in luxury while the legions who dwell roughly and in poverty protect the empire from the barbarian hordes across the wall/river/desert. This breeds a lot of well-earned resentment.
The well-organized and presented thoughts from Mr. Turchin should give those dwellers of core regions a lot of pause. Too often, especially in periods of declining asabiya, power is seen not for how it can serve the people, but how it can serve the officeholder, and this leads to a lot of popular cynicism that leads people to focus energy on civic duties and more energy on getting ahead themselves, which, as the "knave mentality" furthers the decline in asabiya and destroys the society from within, leaving it vulnerable to any more cohesive rival on its borders. Others, the "saints," will serve even as everyone else takes advantage, getting taken advantage of without any gain to the society they thanklessly help. It is those in the middle, the "moralists," of which I am one, who seek to punish and condemn the knaves, and in so doing reduce the cynicism of others and allow for social cohesion to develop once again. The book gave an excellent framework for some very interesting ideas, and his analysis of the modern world empires (the USA, Europe, the Middle East, Russia, and China) is frightening and dead-on. In other words, this is an exceedingly good book, and one which relates to a great many subjects on my mind.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Dark Heroes For A Dark Time
Our heroes speak much about ourselves. Most of us are not the heroic sort of people, but inside of us we hold a certain admiration (and maybe a bit of fear) about the type of people we need to preserve the safety and security most of us hold dear. At times of great optimism, our heroes are idealistic servants of the public good, perhaps of a wealthy background, but at any rate serving within the system to fight against an external system of unspeakable evil (think, for example about the Nazis or the Commies in the writings of patriotic Americans of the '40's and '50's, as opposed to the more complicated writings of those who were themselves Communists and who resented the "simplistic" rubric of good and evil). In darker and more corrupt times, our heroes are themselves darker, torn between the duality of good and evil in their natures (a representative of the tension between dark and light in society and in the people themselves), fighting against corrupt authorities, dark and terroristic villains, and the powerful darkness in their own minds and spirits.
Our heroes reflect ourselves because of the (sometimes rather distressing) fact that we see things not as they are, but as we are. As heroes struggle against the great wrongs that people see in the world around them 9whether internal corruption or external threats), those heroes and their environments are a representation of the hopes and fears of the people they reach. In short, it is possible to reconstruct the concerns of a mostly silent (and not particularly articulate) society through the sorts of heroes that are most popular in a given time. Dutiful, hard working heroes (think of Horatio Alger tales) who succeed modestly based on pluck, hard work, virtue, and connections, speak of societies that wish for modest security and believe in the basic justice of the existing social system. On the other hand, the most recent Batman movie, "The Dark Knight," which I will spend the rest of this entry discussing, gives a much darker picture of our times.
At the heart of this movie are a group of sharply individualized characters who represent, in varying amounts, great idealism and cynicism (sometimes in the same person) in a corrupt society of Gotham City which resembles our own society in many powerful and deeply unsettling ways. Batman himself is a dark vigilante, working outside the law because the law is powerless. By day Bruce Wayne is a wealthy playboy served well by able idealists (like Lucius Fox) and a worldly wise butler. The forces of law are represented by the police and the justice system. Commissioner Gordon is representative of the idealistic but powerless forces of the police who are aware of their own limitations of power (he can't even protect himself, much less the city of Gotham, without the help of corrupt fellow cops and Batman, and he is bitterly aware of this weakness, even as he struggles to do the best he can). Harvey Dent, the supposed White Knight of Gotham (but in reality a two-faced, literally and figuratively, character) and his girlfriend and assistant Rachel Dawes (a former girlfriend of Bruce Wayne, the Dark Knight) represent the hard-working and threatened prosecutors, and the judges and mayors fare even worse.
And these are the forces of good. The forces of evil, ultimately including Dent, after he goes insane with rage over the death of his beloved which he was helpless to prevent, are an event more troubled lot. They include a bevy of corrupt cops who are willing to make deals with mobsters and the Joker (the most evil of the lot, a terrorist in love with chaos who nonetheless represents the moral chaos of the world around, personifying it and seeking to corrupt, terrorize, or destroy any who would oppose his nihilistic vision of destruction). The corrupt cops and mobsters (and, pointedly, Chinese businessmen) are knaves, feeling the pinch from Dent and Batman, who seek to rid Gotham of the corruption and vice they peddle and profit from. Their concern for the grubby profits of evil leads them to be surprised when the Joker, who has no such materialistic concerns and who merely wishes for Gotham to be destroyed, betrays them.
In such a dark world we can easily see our own. The ideals of civil servants can become corrupted by dealing with the evil and venality all around them. Cops abuse their power, politicians are controlled by corrupt business interests, and those who defend the law faithfully cannot even defend themselves. The wealthy live a life of insane privilege far beyond the comprehension, much less the reach, of the people, who inhabit "the lower fifth" and view the police and the wealthy and powerful with barely covered mistrust. The great mass of people trudge from day to day without grand hopes and dreams, merely hoping to make it, and greatly hostile (though nearly entirely helpless) against those who would disturb their drudgery. This world is our own, becoming more and more unequal, riven with intra-elite squabbles and great corruption and oppression of the common people. Who can be trusted in this world? Even the great heroes must wear masks and act outside the law (significantly, in darkness and disguise) to defend the people who mistrust them but cannot live without them. Such is our fate, for the heroes we need are not the heroes we deserve, and the heroes we deserve are not the heroes we need. As Dent says truthfully, "We either die as heroes or live to become what we hate." And so it is with us as well.
All of this bodes ill for our world. It would appear that our redemption is outside of our own hands. Though the movie does not explore the means of this redemption in a systematic manner, we may do so here. For one, hope cannot succumb to despair. The power to deliver ourselves from the powerful and deep evil in our midst (which has infected politics, religion, education, law, the family, media, indeed all of our culture and society) cannot come from ourselves, for all of us are darkened by the dark world in which we reside, often in powerful and complicated ways. But are we so corrupted by our world that we cannot recognize and admire the true hero we need to deliver us, Himself unspotted by the world and above all the corruption that we are mired in? Even so, Lord, come.
Our heroes reflect ourselves because of the (sometimes rather distressing) fact that we see things not as they are, but as we are. As heroes struggle against the great wrongs that people see in the world around them 9whether internal corruption or external threats), those heroes and their environments are a representation of the hopes and fears of the people they reach. In short, it is possible to reconstruct the concerns of a mostly silent (and not particularly articulate) society through the sorts of heroes that are most popular in a given time. Dutiful, hard working heroes (think of Horatio Alger tales) who succeed modestly based on pluck, hard work, virtue, and connections, speak of societies that wish for modest security and believe in the basic justice of the existing social system. On the other hand, the most recent Batman movie, "The Dark Knight," which I will spend the rest of this entry discussing, gives a much darker picture of our times.
At the heart of this movie are a group of sharply individualized characters who represent, in varying amounts, great idealism and cynicism (sometimes in the same person) in a corrupt society of Gotham City which resembles our own society in many powerful and deeply unsettling ways. Batman himself is a dark vigilante, working outside the law because the law is powerless. By day Bruce Wayne is a wealthy playboy served well by able idealists (like Lucius Fox) and a worldly wise butler. The forces of law are represented by the police and the justice system. Commissioner Gordon is representative of the idealistic but powerless forces of the police who are aware of their own limitations of power (he can't even protect himself, much less the city of Gotham, without the help of corrupt fellow cops and Batman, and he is bitterly aware of this weakness, even as he struggles to do the best he can). Harvey Dent, the supposed White Knight of Gotham (but in reality a two-faced, literally and figuratively, character) and his girlfriend and assistant Rachel Dawes (a former girlfriend of Bruce Wayne, the Dark Knight) represent the hard-working and threatened prosecutors, and the judges and mayors fare even worse.
And these are the forces of good. The forces of evil, ultimately including Dent, after he goes insane with rage over the death of his beloved which he was helpless to prevent, are an event more troubled lot. They include a bevy of corrupt cops who are willing to make deals with mobsters and the Joker (the most evil of the lot, a terrorist in love with chaos who nonetheless represents the moral chaos of the world around, personifying it and seeking to corrupt, terrorize, or destroy any who would oppose his nihilistic vision of destruction). The corrupt cops and mobsters (and, pointedly, Chinese businessmen) are knaves, feeling the pinch from Dent and Batman, who seek to rid Gotham of the corruption and vice they peddle and profit from. Their concern for the grubby profits of evil leads them to be surprised when the Joker, who has no such materialistic concerns and who merely wishes for Gotham to be destroyed, betrays them.
In such a dark world we can easily see our own. The ideals of civil servants can become corrupted by dealing with the evil and venality all around them. Cops abuse their power, politicians are controlled by corrupt business interests, and those who defend the law faithfully cannot even defend themselves. The wealthy live a life of insane privilege far beyond the comprehension, much less the reach, of the people, who inhabit "the lower fifth" and view the police and the wealthy and powerful with barely covered mistrust. The great mass of people trudge from day to day without grand hopes and dreams, merely hoping to make it, and greatly hostile (though nearly entirely helpless) against those who would disturb their drudgery. This world is our own, becoming more and more unequal, riven with intra-elite squabbles and great corruption and oppression of the common people. Who can be trusted in this world? Even the great heroes must wear masks and act outside the law (significantly, in darkness and disguise) to defend the people who mistrust them but cannot live without them. Such is our fate, for the heroes we need are not the heroes we deserve, and the heroes we deserve are not the heroes we need. As Dent says truthfully, "We either die as heroes or live to become what we hate." And so it is with us as well.
All of this bodes ill for our world. It would appear that our redemption is outside of our own hands. Though the movie does not explore the means of this redemption in a systematic manner, we may do so here. For one, hope cannot succumb to despair. The power to deliver ourselves from the powerful and deep evil in our midst (which has infected politics, religion, education, law, the family, media, indeed all of our culture and society) cannot come from ourselves, for all of us are darkened by the dark world in which we reside, often in powerful and complicated ways. But are we so corrupted by our world that we cannot recognize and admire the true hero we need to deliver us, Himself unspotted by the world and above all the corruption that we are mired in? Even so, Lord, come.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Lady Mondegreen
One of the new words added this year to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary is a word I was not familiar with, but which describes many of my experiences singing along to my car radio (or along to some fine music video on Youtube): mondegreen. The word itself is quite obscure, but it describes the lyrics I sing very well. Why is that, you might ask? Well, mondegreen refers to misheard song lyrics. To wit, the word mondegreen itself, not surprisingly, comes from a misheard song lyric. Lady Mondegreen is the name for a lyric that actually says "laid him on the green."
This is far from the only song (and not even the most familiar example to most people) that has flagrantly misunderstood lyrics. For example, there is a rock song known as In-a-gada-da-vida, which really was intended to be "In The Garden Of Eden." This misheard lyric is so common that it ended up becoming the name of the song. This is quite remarkable and unusual in the history of mondegreens. The word mondegreen itself was first cited in 1953, but the word has toiled away in undeserved obscurity until now. In fact, this word is such a common facet of my own singing that I will probably use it a lot more often, know that I know the word (especially since it suits me well).
One song I enjoy listening to a lot right now is the song "Violet Hill" by Coldplay, the first single from their Viva La Vida, or Death And All His Friends album. My favorite lyric in the song is probably the following: "Bury me in honor, when I'm dead and hit the ground." Of course, when I hear and sing along to the song, it goes like this: "Bury me in armor, when I'm dead and hit the ground." I just think it's cooler (given my love of castles and that sort of thing) to be buried in armor than buried in honor, not that I'm sure that would be even possible anymore (given the absolute scarcity of honor, that is).
This is far from the only song whose lyrics I butcher. I remember slaughtering the lyrics to Norah Jones' tune "Don't Know Why" while in the car with some friends of mine. This sort of tendency to slaughter the lyrics of tunes in spectacularly public ways has made me a bit gunshy when it comes to kareoke. Despite my love of singing, I actually have never sung kareoke before, though I almost sung "Man! I Feel Like A Woman!" with some friends as a joke once at a Winter Family Weekend in Lexington in 2002. Thankfully, I spared myself much embarassment, I think, by not ending up singing that particular tune.
I'd be curious to hear about some favorite misheard lyrics from my loyal readers, because these sorts of funny stories are way too good to keep private. Why not share them with a world that probably includes many people who have done the exact same things. Come, let us take a stroll with Lady Mondegreen and reflect upon our common human frailty, and the tendency of the mind to hear, sometimes, what it wants to hear and not what is.
This is far from the only song (and not even the most familiar example to most people) that has flagrantly misunderstood lyrics. For example, there is a rock song known as In-a-gada-da-vida, which really was intended to be "In The Garden Of Eden." This misheard lyric is so common that it ended up becoming the name of the song. This is quite remarkable and unusual in the history of mondegreens. The word mondegreen itself was first cited in 1953, but the word has toiled away in undeserved obscurity until now. In fact, this word is such a common facet of my own singing that I will probably use it a lot more often, know that I know the word (especially since it suits me well).
One song I enjoy listening to a lot right now is the song "Violet Hill" by Coldplay, the first single from their Viva La Vida, or Death And All His Friends album. My favorite lyric in the song is probably the following: "Bury me in honor, when I'm dead and hit the ground." Of course, when I hear and sing along to the song, it goes like this: "Bury me in armor, when I'm dead and hit the ground." I just think it's cooler (given my love of castles and that sort of thing) to be buried in armor than buried in honor, not that I'm sure that would be even possible anymore (given the absolute scarcity of honor, that is).
This is far from the only song whose lyrics I butcher. I remember slaughtering the lyrics to Norah Jones' tune "Don't Know Why" while in the car with some friends of mine. This sort of tendency to slaughter the lyrics of tunes in spectacularly public ways has made me a bit gunshy when it comes to kareoke. Despite my love of singing, I actually have never sung kareoke before, though I almost sung "Man! I Feel Like A Woman!" with some friends as a joke once at a Winter Family Weekend in Lexington in 2002. Thankfully, I spared myself much embarassment, I think, by not ending up singing that particular tune.
I'd be curious to hear about some favorite misheard lyrics from my loyal readers, because these sorts of funny stories are way too good to keep private. Why not share them with a world that probably includes many people who have done the exact same things. Come, let us take a stroll with Lady Mondegreen and reflect upon our common human frailty, and the tendency of the mind to hear, sometimes, what it wants to hear and not what is.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A Defense of Sola Scriptura Against False Tradition
A friend of mine alerted me to a rather alarming section of a recent sermon given in Phoenix where the speaker gave a rather sarcastic commentary, laced with invective, against those who would depart from human traditions based on supposedly new understandings from the Bible. In every generation there is a struggle between the Word of God, and its sharply worded commands, and the wishes of entrenched hierarchies who wish to pass down received traditions that supposedly spring from apostles and prophets but are mediated through priests or pastors according to their own biases, seeking to defend their positions rather than the truth entrusted to them from above. It is for that reason that true believers must continually come out of Babylon because of the corruption that constantly assails all human organizations and societies.
If we are to refresh our spirits in these dark times, we must drink from the living waters of Christ, and every generation anew must find in those Words of precious truth the sword of the spirit to cut down the arguments of those who oppose God's way in practice, however much they may claim to support Him in theory. The Bible, far from being obsolete, speaks to the very concerns we deal with in life, though we do not often see it because few people are willing and able to face the harsh light of truth that the scripture has to say about human relationships and obedience to God's laws. One must remember there are two great commandments: to love God with all our heart and all our mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
These two great commandments lead into two essential and difficult elements of true religion. True religion must be in conformity to God's ways. If we are truly called, and truly a part of God's church (that is, the spiritual organism), we will behave in accordance with God's law, or at least have that as our target, and admit when we (often) fall short of it. When someone, no matter what their title or position, or whatever their claim of obedience to God, mocks divine commands and calls those who point out scriptures previously neglected (though never new, for what is true has always been true, and therefore there is really no such thing as a "new truth") as rebels and blasphemers, followers of the doctrines of demons, such a person does not speak with God's Holy Spirit, but rather slanders God's servants and holds himself as a judge of souls, only to find himself condemned.
The second obligation of true religion is no easier to accomplish, loving our neighbor (which means everyone else we happen to come across) as we regard ourselves. If we have an accurate knowledge of ourselves, we will see that we have dignity in that we are children of the Most High God, and we will see the depravity that all of us share as fallen sons of Adam. Such mixtures of dignity and depravity we see in ourselves (if we are honest) are also present, in varying quantities and qualities, in everyone else as well. No one is above the curse of sin and the suffering that results from a fallen nature, and no one is below the dignity of being a child of God. We are all struggling humans alike, whether we realize it or not. None of us has any place for shame, for all of us were put here for His purposes, and none of us has any place for glorying in ourselves, for God alone has the glory--solo gloria Dei.
We can only know these things, though, from a knowledge of the scriptures. It was the scriptures that the wise Bereans searched to prove whether Paul was truly speaking correctly in his messages. It was the scriptures (probably Deuteronomy) that Josiah the righteous king of Judah looked in to see the harrowing judgment about to fall upon his idolatrous nation that God mercifully allowed him not to see. It was the scriptures that inspired men like William Tyndale to risk their lives to translate these good words for the spiritual building up of their fellow human beings trapped in ignorance to vain and corrupt priests who claimed that the church was infallible and that only they had the right to read the scriptures and interpret it. They were wrong--no human church is, ever has been, or ever can be infallible. So long as we are human beings serving other human beings, there will be some area we fall short in, some way to improve, some aspect of our knowledge that is incomplete, or that we give too much credence to human traditions and false interpretations taught by well-meaning people that were nonetheless just as flawed (and hopefully just as sincere) as we are.
It is for that reason that we must ever be willing to look to the Word of God for reproof and instruction, for we are never too wise to learn something new or so knowledgeable that we have no need of further instruction, nor so good that we have no need of further correction. The more a wise person knows, the more they are aware of their ignorance, and the more aware they are of their fallen and sinful nature that they must struggle with constantly. It is only an errant fool that considers themselves all-knowing and all-good, and above any accountability to others or to the scriptures. It is not merely a matter of seeking a private word to God that makes us superior to others, but rather a matter of letting ourselves remember that we are all to be held accountable to the standard of God's word.
It is, incidentally, for this very reason that God commands us to fellowship with other people. We all have, by virtue of our experiences and personalities, and differing quantities and usage of different talents and gifts, some areas where we excel and some where we struggle. Without a close awareness of where our gifts can help someone else with a shortfall in a given area, and a close awareness of our shortfalls that need help from other people who are blessed in that particular area (let none of us suppose we are without them), we fall into the trap that says that we are blessed and others have to follow our example, but we have nothing to learn from them, and no use for them except as followers of us. There is no believer, no matter how old or how young, how intellectual or how unlearned, how patient or how much in a hurry, how fast or slow, how wealthy or how poor, how healthy or how frail, that we cannot learn from and that we cannot teach.
What we lack, more than anything, is that spiritual sight that looks beyond the superficial and physical things, the pretty titles and vain use of power and the bully pulpit, and that examines the spiritual heart within ourselves and others. Let us be less proud of our own thoughts--all of us--and more interested in learning what God has to tell us, and maybe then we could fight less about stupid things, spend less time on what is not remotely important, and get to the hard work that is helping improve the world one life and one relationship at a time, whether that means forgiving wrongs, not being easily offended, changing our ways that lead to our unhappiness and trouble, taking our pride a few notches down so that we can listen to what other people tell us without becoming angry, and facing ourselves and others as the mixture of good and evil that all of us possess. We cannot, though, reach these heights unless we realize that we have not finished climbing the mountain yet, and are still struggling to find a place for our feet and hands to latch onto on the sheer cliff we have made it our goal to climb. Until we reach the top, we have no cause to think ourselves or our organizations to be without flaw and blemish, for if we were without blemish, we would not need to crow about it, or insult others who pointed out our flaws for good motive or bad, but would rather be living testaments to God's goodness even without speaking a word at all. I wish I were at that point. Perhaps someday.
If we are to refresh our spirits in these dark times, we must drink from the living waters of Christ, and every generation anew must find in those Words of precious truth the sword of the spirit to cut down the arguments of those who oppose God's way in practice, however much they may claim to support Him in theory. The Bible, far from being obsolete, speaks to the very concerns we deal with in life, though we do not often see it because few people are willing and able to face the harsh light of truth that the scripture has to say about human relationships and obedience to God's laws. One must remember there are two great commandments: to love God with all our heart and all our mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
These two great commandments lead into two essential and difficult elements of true religion. True religion must be in conformity to God's ways. If we are truly called, and truly a part of God's church (that is, the spiritual organism), we will behave in accordance with God's law, or at least have that as our target, and admit when we (often) fall short of it. When someone, no matter what their title or position, or whatever their claim of obedience to God, mocks divine commands and calls those who point out scriptures previously neglected (though never new, for what is true has always been true, and therefore there is really no such thing as a "new truth") as rebels and blasphemers, followers of the doctrines of demons, such a person does not speak with God's Holy Spirit, but rather slanders God's servants and holds himself as a judge of souls, only to find himself condemned.
The second obligation of true religion is no easier to accomplish, loving our neighbor (which means everyone else we happen to come across) as we regard ourselves. If we have an accurate knowledge of ourselves, we will see that we have dignity in that we are children of the Most High God, and we will see the depravity that all of us share as fallen sons of Adam. Such mixtures of dignity and depravity we see in ourselves (if we are honest) are also present, in varying quantities and qualities, in everyone else as well. No one is above the curse of sin and the suffering that results from a fallen nature, and no one is below the dignity of being a child of God. We are all struggling humans alike, whether we realize it or not. None of us has any place for shame, for all of us were put here for His purposes, and none of us has any place for glorying in ourselves, for God alone has the glory--solo gloria Dei.
We can only know these things, though, from a knowledge of the scriptures. It was the scriptures that the wise Bereans searched to prove whether Paul was truly speaking correctly in his messages. It was the scriptures (probably Deuteronomy) that Josiah the righteous king of Judah looked in to see the harrowing judgment about to fall upon his idolatrous nation that God mercifully allowed him not to see. It was the scriptures that inspired men like William Tyndale to risk their lives to translate these good words for the spiritual building up of their fellow human beings trapped in ignorance to vain and corrupt priests who claimed that the church was infallible and that only they had the right to read the scriptures and interpret it. They were wrong--no human church is, ever has been, or ever can be infallible. So long as we are human beings serving other human beings, there will be some area we fall short in, some way to improve, some aspect of our knowledge that is incomplete, or that we give too much credence to human traditions and false interpretations taught by well-meaning people that were nonetheless just as flawed (and hopefully just as sincere) as we are.
It is for that reason that we must ever be willing to look to the Word of God for reproof and instruction, for we are never too wise to learn something new or so knowledgeable that we have no need of further instruction, nor so good that we have no need of further correction. The more a wise person knows, the more they are aware of their ignorance, and the more aware they are of their fallen and sinful nature that they must struggle with constantly. It is only an errant fool that considers themselves all-knowing and all-good, and above any accountability to others or to the scriptures. It is not merely a matter of seeking a private word to God that makes us superior to others, but rather a matter of letting ourselves remember that we are all to be held accountable to the standard of God's word.
It is, incidentally, for this very reason that God commands us to fellowship with other people. We all have, by virtue of our experiences and personalities, and differing quantities and usage of different talents and gifts, some areas where we excel and some where we struggle. Without a close awareness of where our gifts can help someone else with a shortfall in a given area, and a close awareness of our shortfalls that need help from other people who are blessed in that particular area (let none of us suppose we are without them), we fall into the trap that says that we are blessed and others have to follow our example, but we have nothing to learn from them, and no use for them except as followers of us. There is no believer, no matter how old or how young, how intellectual or how unlearned, how patient or how much in a hurry, how fast or slow, how wealthy or how poor, how healthy or how frail, that we cannot learn from and that we cannot teach.
What we lack, more than anything, is that spiritual sight that looks beyond the superficial and physical things, the pretty titles and vain use of power and the bully pulpit, and that examines the spiritual heart within ourselves and others. Let us be less proud of our own thoughts--all of us--and more interested in learning what God has to tell us, and maybe then we could fight less about stupid things, spend less time on what is not remotely important, and get to the hard work that is helping improve the world one life and one relationship at a time, whether that means forgiving wrongs, not being easily offended, changing our ways that lead to our unhappiness and trouble, taking our pride a few notches down so that we can listen to what other people tell us without becoming angry, and facing ourselves and others as the mixture of good and evil that all of us possess. We cannot, though, reach these heights unless we realize that we have not finished climbing the mountain yet, and are still struggling to find a place for our feet and hands to latch onto on the sheer cliff we have made it our goal to climb. Until we reach the top, we have no cause to think ourselves or our organizations to be without flaw and blemish, for if we were without blemish, we would not need to crow about it, or insult others who pointed out our flaws for good motive or bad, but would rather be living testaments to God's goodness even without speaking a word at all. I wish I were at that point. Perhaps someday.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Biblical Re-enactment Society: A Case Study In Collaborative Leadership
Four years ago, as students at the Ambassador Bible Center, a fellow named Tyler and I co-write a skit for the Lifenets (www.lifenets.org) Charity Auction called "Biblical Re-Enactment Society." The short work (only about ten pages or so) remains the funniest play, by a fairly substantial margin, in my largely serious body of work. My thoughts were directed to this particular skit by an excellent video I recently watched (on http://abc.ucg.org under "Gaining Godly Wisdom, Building Godly Character"), where I saw a humorous skit called "Real Biblical Heroes" that reminded me of my own collaborative script in its use of biblical stories as the fodder for lighthearted humor about human nature and human experience.
Two thoughts came to mind as I reflected upon the "Biblical Re-Enactment Society" skit. The first was about how much fun it was to work on the script with other people. Usually, when I am writing, I sit alone at a computer and type about some melancholy subject or another, often without trying intentionally to be melancholy. However, in writing collaborative works, without trying the works are usually much more light-hearted and funny, much less overwelmingly serious and dark, and are often much more enjoyable in performance with other people. For whatever reason, collaborating brings out a much happier side of my personality than my usual solo writing works. Perhaps this should be a sign that I should write collaboratively more often, though it has been a very unusual practice for me to do so.
The second thought that came to mind is more extended, and is the subject of this paper at large. In life and in my recreational activities (be they writing or playing roleplaying games and so on), I often have serious difficulties with the way in which other people lead. While some people are comforted by strong leadership, as it reminds them of order, for whatever reason (and there are plenty of reasons), the exercise of a strong arm of leadership tends to be taken as a hostile act of war on my part, with serious consequences for my relationships with said authority figures, as well as those others who support them. It is not enough, though, merely to be in opposition to power. Power, like it or not, is something that has to be dealt with, and someone must possess it and use it. The question is not, therefore, whether there is to be power or not, but how it is to be used correctly.
And, as odd as it may seem, the Biblical Re-Enactment Society project has a fair amount to say about the correct uses of power, and how power becomes almost invisible when it is used in a genuinely collaborative effort of shared ownership. Let me explain, in case this seems a bit too unusual. As the lead writer of the skit, I worked at the beginning with a co-writer whose sense of humor was similar to my own, and we created ten pages of written material that followed a group of young people through two scenes (and one "mother" character at the end of each scene) who were attempting to re-enact the scene where Jesus answers the Sadducees concerning a story about a woman who married seven brothers who each died. Even the forms of death were comical, ranging from being shot with an arrow by Roman auxilleries to being stoned to death with stones, which is quite unusual in my body of work (in which death, usually of a tragic nature, is quite prominent).
At the same time Tyler and I were writing this script, another classmate of mine was working on a script for a skit for the same show, about the Robin Hood cycle of tales. In contrast to the collegial working enviornment of my co-author and I, though, he did not seek the interaction of other people with the script. He had a vision for the script and did not desire anyone else to share ownership in it. Needless to say, this created difficulties with the actors and actresses he wished to fill the roles of Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John, and so on. On the contrary, when our script was handed out to the classmates we wished to take on various roles, several of them made suggestions about how they thought they could change their roles to better suit themselves--including some changes in wording, and the addition, in one case, of some very stellar physical comedy. My co-writer and I had no difficulty with these changes, which made the work an even better one (and certainly gave the other students involved a sense of ownership in the project that made it work much more smoothly).
Without realizing it (as I had never been in a position of authority as profound as directing and producing a skit), I had hit upon a handy technique for collaborative leadership. Since it was a charity show skit, I had no money to offer the students I was directing (nor did I receive any myself). What I could offer, though, was the ability of my fellow students to make their roles their own, and that ownership in the roles, and hence in the work itself, was all that was necessary to make the show a success. The other show never even got performed because no one would agree to work alongside a petty dictator who refused to share "creative control." This was a powerful lesson to me.
Since then, there have been a few, but not many, opportunities for me to be in charge of something, but I have not forgotten the importance of allowing other people to own projects. I know for myself that I like to own the projects I work on with other people, at least owning a part that is important to me. Those that present me with plans fully made and partially implemented who seek my support without seeking my input gain neither, but only gain my opposition. Being so intent on owning projects before I can support them, perhaps my inclination to treat others as I wished to be treated (by allowing them to own a project I had originated) was a more profound lesson in how to lead than I had originally thought.
It is somewhat sad, though, that this experience is rare from what I have seen. Far too often people are in a hurry to get something done and fail to ask other people for input on ways to improve the project or its implementation, and so the projects fail for lack of support from those who are affected by the change. I have seen quite a few such projects fail, either through outright revolt against the change, or through the quiet and effective sabatoge of the change by those who were not consulted before the attempted change. It is a shame they were not so wise as to realize that the desire to create and own is present in all of us, and that it if one desires to succeed, it is far better to be open and collaborative about it than to be secretive and proud about owning something all by one's lonesome. Those who do not share their toys play in the sandbox alone.
Two thoughts came to mind as I reflected upon the "Biblical Re-Enactment Society" skit. The first was about how much fun it was to work on the script with other people. Usually, when I am writing, I sit alone at a computer and type about some melancholy subject or another, often without trying intentionally to be melancholy. However, in writing collaborative works, without trying the works are usually much more light-hearted and funny, much less overwelmingly serious and dark, and are often much more enjoyable in performance with other people. For whatever reason, collaborating brings out a much happier side of my personality than my usual solo writing works. Perhaps this should be a sign that I should write collaboratively more often, though it has been a very unusual practice for me to do so.
The second thought that came to mind is more extended, and is the subject of this paper at large. In life and in my recreational activities (be they writing or playing roleplaying games and so on), I often have serious difficulties with the way in which other people lead. While some people are comforted by strong leadership, as it reminds them of order, for whatever reason (and there are plenty of reasons), the exercise of a strong arm of leadership tends to be taken as a hostile act of war on my part, with serious consequences for my relationships with said authority figures, as well as those others who support them. It is not enough, though, merely to be in opposition to power. Power, like it or not, is something that has to be dealt with, and someone must possess it and use it. The question is not, therefore, whether there is to be power or not, but how it is to be used correctly.
And, as odd as it may seem, the Biblical Re-Enactment Society project has a fair amount to say about the correct uses of power, and how power becomes almost invisible when it is used in a genuinely collaborative effort of shared ownership. Let me explain, in case this seems a bit too unusual. As the lead writer of the skit, I worked at the beginning with a co-writer whose sense of humor was similar to my own, and we created ten pages of written material that followed a group of young people through two scenes (and one "mother" character at the end of each scene) who were attempting to re-enact the scene where Jesus answers the Sadducees concerning a story about a woman who married seven brothers who each died. Even the forms of death were comical, ranging from being shot with an arrow by Roman auxilleries to being stoned to death with stones, which is quite unusual in my body of work (in which death, usually of a tragic nature, is quite prominent).
At the same time Tyler and I were writing this script, another classmate of mine was working on a script for a skit for the same show, about the Robin Hood cycle of tales. In contrast to the collegial working enviornment of my co-author and I, though, he did not seek the interaction of other people with the script. He had a vision for the script and did not desire anyone else to share ownership in it. Needless to say, this created difficulties with the actors and actresses he wished to fill the roles of Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John, and so on. On the contrary, when our script was handed out to the classmates we wished to take on various roles, several of them made suggestions about how they thought they could change their roles to better suit themselves--including some changes in wording, and the addition, in one case, of some very stellar physical comedy. My co-writer and I had no difficulty with these changes, which made the work an even better one (and certainly gave the other students involved a sense of ownership in the project that made it work much more smoothly).
Without realizing it (as I had never been in a position of authority as profound as directing and producing a skit), I had hit upon a handy technique for collaborative leadership. Since it was a charity show skit, I had no money to offer the students I was directing (nor did I receive any myself). What I could offer, though, was the ability of my fellow students to make their roles their own, and that ownership in the roles, and hence in the work itself, was all that was necessary to make the show a success. The other show never even got performed because no one would agree to work alongside a petty dictator who refused to share "creative control." This was a powerful lesson to me.
Since then, there have been a few, but not many, opportunities for me to be in charge of something, but I have not forgotten the importance of allowing other people to own projects. I know for myself that I like to own the projects I work on with other people, at least owning a part that is important to me. Those that present me with plans fully made and partially implemented who seek my support without seeking my input gain neither, but only gain my opposition. Being so intent on owning projects before I can support them, perhaps my inclination to treat others as I wished to be treated (by allowing them to own a project I had originated) was a more profound lesson in how to lead than I had originally thought.
It is somewhat sad, though, that this experience is rare from what I have seen. Far too often people are in a hurry to get something done and fail to ask other people for input on ways to improve the project or its implementation, and so the projects fail for lack of support from those who are affected by the change. I have seen quite a few such projects fail, either through outright revolt against the change, or through the quiet and effective sabatoge of the change by those who were not consulted before the attempted change. It is a shame they were not so wise as to realize that the desire to create and own is present in all of us, and that it if one desires to succeed, it is far better to be open and collaborative about it than to be secretive and proud about owning something all by one's lonesome. Those who do not share their toys play in the sandbox alone.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Ceteris Paribus: On The Virtues and Vices of Simplification
Ceteris Paribus is a handy Latin expression, used most often in economics, which means "with other things the same" or "all other things being equal." This particular simplifying assumption is an attempt to eliminate, for purposes of comparison or analysis, those niggling factors and error terms that result from the simple fact that all other things are never really equal. Given the rather esoteric use of this particular expression, I am concerned with the practical implications of this simplification, and what it means for our attempts to understand the complexity of our world. Consider this, therefore, a philosophical sort of post.
One of the fundamental axioms of my own life can be summed up with the following phrase: "there is an easy answer, and it is invariably wrong (or, at best, incomplete)." Given the contingent nature of so much in our lives, and the complexity that surrounds us at every turn, the certainty that so many people attach to such doubtful things is an area of deep concern to me. Is the faith of people that strong, or is it that others are so ignorant of the complex details and so confident in their ability to fill in the gaps that they do not recognize how little we really know about ourselves and our world? Indeed, the faith of those that deny the reality of God and the existence of anything beyond the material realm far exceeds the considerable faith of the most devout believer in the inerrancy of Holy scripture. What gives people the logical wherewithal to cast aside such great aspects of reality to comfort themselves with an apparent (and false) simplicity? Often, it is simplifying assumptions like "ceteris paribus" that allow people to toss aside the nasty unpleasantries of reality to focus on the comforting apparent similarities between two cases.
In some ways, this reliance on proof by analogy (of which ceteris paribus is one element) is necessary in logic and proof for lack of better alternatives. By virtue of the Pareto principle, a few crucial factors have a hugely disproportionate impact on something than the vast majority of other factors. In other words, the vital few have an explanatory power that far exceeds that of the trivial many. Who, though, gets to decide which elements are the vital few and which are the trivial many? Who gets to cut through the complexities of a matter and simplify it down to a reasonable and manageable level so that analysis can be undertaken to better understand the matter at hand? What grounds are acceptable for this simplification?
These are not particularly easy questions to answer when we get down to business. Let us consider a continuum between the messy and complicated truth, of which our knowledge is limited and finite on one side and an exceedingly simple but incomplete model of this truth on the other side. The more easily we seek to make the problem that reality presents us, the less our conception of the problem corresponds with the actual reality. The more closely we try to approximate that reality, though, the more difficult we make our given task on ourselves. Where do we draw the line between the quest for absolute truth and the awareness of our human limitations in comprehension and analysis? There appears to be no easy or definite answer to this question, though it behooves us to recognize the simplifications we make, the factors we ignore, and maintain a humble attitude towards the complexity and uncertainty that remain, even if we are pleased with the simplicity and accuracy of our chosen models.
In the final analysis, the test of models is how they correspond with reality itself. A robust model makes predictions about a given aspect of the real world. The more ambitious the model, the more claims it makes, and higher its ability of being falsified by reality. While absolute metaphysical certainty remains beyond the grasp of humanity (as much as we pretend otherwise), we act on our faith by testing our ideas and theories against reality. If they come out successfully, approximating what we expect from the world around us, and using as few simplifications as possible, and capturing as many features of analogous phenomena as possible, we can be confident that our theories and models are true. If we, however, wall ourselves off from empirical tests for fear our cherished theories will not be able to swim in the deep waters of reality, or if, worse, we deny any reality to test our theories and ideas against, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the ridicule which falls on those who talk a big game but refuse a difficult challenge. Let us, therefore, go on boldly, but humbly, while we tilt against windmills and struggle to deal with the complicated world around us. All other things being the same, I'd rather face as much of the reality this world confronts us with as possible.
One of the fundamental axioms of my own life can be summed up with the following phrase: "there is an easy answer, and it is invariably wrong (or, at best, incomplete)." Given the contingent nature of so much in our lives, and the complexity that surrounds us at every turn, the certainty that so many people attach to such doubtful things is an area of deep concern to me. Is the faith of people that strong, or is it that others are so ignorant of the complex details and so confident in their ability to fill in the gaps that they do not recognize how little we really know about ourselves and our world? Indeed, the faith of those that deny the reality of God and the existence of anything beyond the material realm far exceeds the considerable faith of the most devout believer in the inerrancy of Holy scripture. What gives people the logical wherewithal to cast aside such great aspects of reality to comfort themselves with an apparent (and false) simplicity? Often, it is simplifying assumptions like "ceteris paribus" that allow people to toss aside the nasty unpleasantries of reality to focus on the comforting apparent similarities between two cases.
In some ways, this reliance on proof by analogy (of which ceteris paribus is one element) is necessary in logic and proof for lack of better alternatives. By virtue of the Pareto principle, a few crucial factors have a hugely disproportionate impact on something than the vast majority of other factors. In other words, the vital few have an explanatory power that far exceeds that of the trivial many. Who, though, gets to decide which elements are the vital few and which are the trivial many? Who gets to cut through the complexities of a matter and simplify it down to a reasonable and manageable level so that analysis can be undertaken to better understand the matter at hand? What grounds are acceptable for this simplification?
These are not particularly easy questions to answer when we get down to business. Let us consider a continuum between the messy and complicated truth, of which our knowledge is limited and finite on one side and an exceedingly simple but incomplete model of this truth on the other side. The more easily we seek to make the problem that reality presents us, the less our conception of the problem corresponds with the actual reality. The more closely we try to approximate that reality, though, the more difficult we make our given task on ourselves. Where do we draw the line between the quest for absolute truth and the awareness of our human limitations in comprehension and analysis? There appears to be no easy or definite answer to this question, though it behooves us to recognize the simplifications we make, the factors we ignore, and maintain a humble attitude towards the complexity and uncertainty that remain, even if we are pleased with the simplicity and accuracy of our chosen models.
In the final analysis, the test of models is how they correspond with reality itself. A robust model makes predictions about a given aspect of the real world. The more ambitious the model, the more claims it makes, and higher its ability of being falsified by reality. While absolute metaphysical certainty remains beyond the grasp of humanity (as much as we pretend otherwise), we act on our faith by testing our ideas and theories against reality. If they come out successfully, approximating what we expect from the world around us, and using as few simplifications as possible, and capturing as many features of analogous phenomena as possible, we can be confident that our theories and models are true. If we, however, wall ourselves off from empirical tests for fear our cherished theories will not be able to swim in the deep waters of reality, or if, worse, we deny any reality to test our theories and ideas against, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the ridicule which falls on those who talk a big game but refuse a difficult challenge. Let us, therefore, go on boldly, but humbly, while we tilt against windmills and struggle to deal with the complicated world around us. All other things being the same, I'd rather face as much of the reality this world confronts us with as possible.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
This blog is not typically a movie review blog, though in this particular case I will make an exception, because the subject of the movie to be reviewed fits along with the general philosophical and scientific interests of this blog, and so those who read my blog are likely to be at least interested in the subject material this documentary involves. In the interests of full disclosure, I am not only an avid reader of books from the Intelligent Design movement (from Dembski and Behe to Johnson and Denton, among many others), but I have also written on the subject, for a paper on "The Pseudoscience of Evolution" in a historiography class, where I examined the metaphysical commitment of evolutionists to naturalism--that is, methodolical atheism, as an unexamined and unproven aspect of the supposed "definition" of science. Therefore, I am not, nor do I claim to be, a remotely unbiased reviewer of this film, for I am not only an avid student and spectator of the Intelligent Design debate, but I am also a participant, even if an obscure one. With that said, in the interest of intellectual honesty, the review may properly commence.
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" www.expelledthemovie.com
Ben Stein is perhaps the perfect person to make a documentary about the Intelligent Design debate. He does not come into this debate with commitments to one side or another, but merely seeks, as a scientifically inclined fellow partisan of freedom, to find honest answers to honest questions. His spirit of honest inquiry leads him, in this movie, to make a trail all around the USA (and the world) in search of answers to where his inquiry leads him. He speaks with evolutionary lights like Richard Dawkins (who comes across as rather smarmy) and others, and speaks with a few of the leading Intellectual Design scientists (like Dembski and Berlinski and Meyer). He goes to Darwin's home and examines the relationship between Darwinism and Eugenics and Nazism. He compares, in a leitmotif that appears throughout the documentary, the intellectual stonewalling of Darwinim to the Berlin Wall. The movie itself is bookended with a speech where Ben Stein speaks for the freedom of honest inquiry to prevail in all areas to preserve our freedom as a nation.
Perhaps the most poigiant aspect of this appeal to freedom of inquiry involves Stein's interviews with those in the scientific and journalistic community who have been "expelled" because of their adherence to, or openness to an honest examination of, intellectual design. Allowing the theory of Intellectual Design to obtain scholarly credentialing is apparently touching the forbidden third rail of "science." Meanwhile, Dawkins, a militant atheist, manages to expose the shallow National Academy of the Scienes attempt to marry liberal Christians and scientists to leave a place for religious faith that is as consequential as knitting (!) is shown to be a trojan horse for the incubus of atheism. The stakes of this fight are great, for as Ben Stein correctly notes, the dignity of humanity and the humane treatment of those who are weak and defenseless in society (the unborn, the elderly, the handicapped) depends on a moral worldview that ultimately springs from a belief in an ethical Supreme Deity. No God, no morality.
Despite the obvious seriousness of the movie's point, and the rather sobering looks at Dachau and an "insane assylum" where Nazis starved and murdered those with mental and physical deformities (and where Stein unsuccessfully attempts to elicit outrage from the caretaker of this place, who did not think it proper to presume to tell Hitler that what he did was wicked or insane), the movie itself is leavened with a lot of biting humor. Among the funniest moments are where Stein examines some of the "scientific" theories about the beginning of life, such as the deliberate seeding of earth by aliens (who nonetheless developed by undirected evolution themselves) and the piggybacking of organic materials on crystals. Ben Stein is as incredulous as this reviewer is in examining what passes for science compared with what is barred from the gates. Ben Stein's deadpan sense of humor and straightforward search for answers shows how he moved from an ignorant observer to a partisan in this debate through an honest consideration of the facts and the implications of clashing worldviews.
The fundamental point of the movie, though, is that America was founded on the principles that we were endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights simply by virtue of being humans, and these freedoms are in danger because of a metaphysical preconception of humankind as being the result of undirected evolution without any kind of inherent moral obligations or free will. Furthermore, to question this assumption is to come under the wrath of the "science police" and be subject to great harassment, loss of professional career and research opportunities, and blacklisting from future employment. Those who refuse to knuckle down deserve our support as brave soldiers fighting against the great armies of evil who have entrenched themselves in our society with their doctrine of materialism.
Indeed, my only criticism of this movie is that, at 90 minutes, that it is rather too short. No one watching this movie with a remotely open mind, though, can fail to notice that Ben Stein has brought to public light the essence of the greatest current threat to civilization, one that nearly destroyed us in Hitler's time and with Communism. As such, he deserves our thanks and our support. Those who would silence debate about any subject, and punish those who seek the truth and seek honest inquiry, are admitting the weakness of their own position and using their power despotically to preserve their own shaky position. All such efforts threaten the very survival of our great experiment in (righteous) liberty as a nation and people.
May God bless Ben Stein in his efforts, and may those of us watching realize the importance of the fight he is now a (surprising) participant in. He certainly has my support. This movie gets five stars out of five, and is on my list of dvds to buy the minute it is released. Who knows, I may even to go the theater again to see it with some friends if possible.
"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" www.expelledthemovie.com
Ben Stein is perhaps the perfect person to make a documentary about the Intelligent Design debate. He does not come into this debate with commitments to one side or another, but merely seeks, as a scientifically inclined fellow partisan of freedom, to find honest answers to honest questions. His spirit of honest inquiry leads him, in this movie, to make a trail all around the USA (and the world) in search of answers to where his inquiry leads him. He speaks with evolutionary lights like Richard Dawkins (who comes across as rather smarmy) and others, and speaks with a few of the leading Intellectual Design scientists (like Dembski and Berlinski and Meyer). He goes to Darwin's home and examines the relationship between Darwinism and Eugenics and Nazism. He compares, in a leitmotif that appears throughout the documentary, the intellectual stonewalling of Darwinim to the Berlin Wall. The movie itself is bookended with a speech where Ben Stein speaks for the freedom of honest inquiry to prevail in all areas to preserve our freedom as a nation.
Perhaps the most poigiant aspect of this appeal to freedom of inquiry involves Stein's interviews with those in the scientific and journalistic community who have been "expelled" because of their adherence to, or openness to an honest examination of, intellectual design. Allowing the theory of Intellectual Design to obtain scholarly credentialing is apparently touching the forbidden third rail of "science." Meanwhile, Dawkins, a militant atheist, manages to expose the shallow National Academy of the Scienes attempt to marry liberal Christians and scientists to leave a place for religious faith that is as consequential as knitting (!) is shown to be a trojan horse for the incubus of atheism. The stakes of this fight are great, for as Ben Stein correctly notes, the dignity of humanity and the humane treatment of those who are weak and defenseless in society (the unborn, the elderly, the handicapped) depends on a moral worldview that ultimately springs from a belief in an ethical Supreme Deity. No God, no morality.
Despite the obvious seriousness of the movie's point, and the rather sobering looks at Dachau and an "insane assylum" where Nazis starved and murdered those with mental and physical deformities (and where Stein unsuccessfully attempts to elicit outrage from the caretaker of this place, who did not think it proper to presume to tell Hitler that what he did was wicked or insane), the movie itself is leavened with a lot of biting humor. Among the funniest moments are where Stein examines some of the "scientific" theories about the beginning of life, such as the deliberate seeding of earth by aliens (who nonetheless developed by undirected evolution themselves) and the piggybacking of organic materials on crystals. Ben Stein is as incredulous as this reviewer is in examining what passes for science compared with what is barred from the gates. Ben Stein's deadpan sense of humor and straightforward search for answers shows how he moved from an ignorant observer to a partisan in this debate through an honest consideration of the facts and the implications of clashing worldviews.
The fundamental point of the movie, though, is that America was founded on the principles that we were endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights simply by virtue of being humans, and these freedoms are in danger because of a metaphysical preconception of humankind as being the result of undirected evolution without any kind of inherent moral obligations or free will. Furthermore, to question this assumption is to come under the wrath of the "science police" and be subject to great harassment, loss of professional career and research opportunities, and blacklisting from future employment. Those who refuse to knuckle down deserve our support as brave soldiers fighting against the great armies of evil who have entrenched themselves in our society with their doctrine of materialism.
Indeed, my only criticism of this movie is that, at 90 minutes, that it is rather too short. No one watching this movie with a remotely open mind, though, can fail to notice that Ben Stein has brought to public light the essence of the greatest current threat to civilization, one that nearly destroyed us in Hitler's time and with Communism. As such, he deserves our thanks and our support. Those who would silence debate about any subject, and punish those who seek the truth and seek honest inquiry, are admitting the weakness of their own position and using their power despotically to preserve their own shaky position. All such efforts threaten the very survival of our great experiment in (righteous) liberty as a nation and people.
May God bless Ben Stein in his efforts, and may those of us watching realize the importance of the fight he is now a (surprising) participant in. He certainly has my support. This movie gets five stars out of five, and is on my list of dvds to buy the minute it is released. Who knows, I may even to go the theater again to see it with some friends if possible.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Five Game Reviews
Though some people may not be aware of this fact about me, I am an avid player of computer games, and I like seeing what sort of community gamers develop, and what kind of appeal a given game has to people. There are many different types of games and gamers. Personally, I am a fan mostly of strategy, historical, and role playing games, and sometimes these overlap. While I do not often pay for games, there are many free games online, and each of them has their own target audience and appeal. There are far too many games for me to play them all, but I have played five of them long enough to make a review of them and analyze in at least some depth what their appeal would be to a gamer like myself (and maybe, like you). Each of these five games is somewhat different, but each of them has aspects that I enjoy.
Travian (http://s5.travian.us)
Of the five games, Travian is the one I have been playing the longest. The game mechanics are themselves fairly straightforward. Everyone starts out with a village in the twilight period of the Roman Empire in a fictionalized grid map where one can either be a Roman, a Gaul, or a Teuton. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages and the choice a player makes depends on how they want to play the game. Gauls are big on storage and trapping, Romans have a balanced approach that allows for simultaneous building in the village and in the fields, and Tuetons have great raiding bonuses. One starts out with six wheat fields, four woodcutters, four iron mines, and four clay pits. Each resource is needed, in varying amounts, for the military units one builds, for trading opportunities, and through buildings in the village. Each person requires one unit of wheat, and different upgrades/units require different numbers of occupants. This game also features alliances, which one can join with buildings, as well as the possibility of expanding the village (though this is an expensive process). Certain buildings can be built only when conditions are met involving the upgrading of other buildings or fields. As fields are developed, they give exponentially higher yields/hour. As fields or buildings are developed, they are progressively more expensive as well. Units can also be researched and given upgrades to weapons and armor to increase their effectiveness in battle. Probably the best part of this game is that the ease of joining alliances makes for plenty of advice from more experienced players and a friendly atmosphere. However, the presence of larger villages near smaller ones means that raiding is frequent and annoying. The best way to avoid getting raided is to build big crannies that safeguard resources, because if a raider gets nothing for his raid, he will (eventually) stop trying. This game is most geared towards gamers who like a strong military and enjoy the Middle Ages. The pruning of inactive villages allows new villages to be placed near more experienced ones. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on one's perspective. The guides in the game, and the forums, are most helpful to the new player who wants to know more about how to develop his or her village.
Overall Grade: B+
Renaissance Kingdoms (www.renaissancekingdoms.com)
This game belongs to a category of games where you play a character in a historical period (in this case, in the 1450's) who has to eat, work, and learn various skills in order to advance in level. In this it can be considered a role playing game. The game's builders are from France, but discussion on the forums and in the game is largely in English (though there are quite a few countries/languages/provinces in Europe from Scotland and England to the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria). You begin as a level 0 character who must level up by gaining 5 reputation points (which involve working 2 days in a church and finding three people who give trust points), as well as the acquisition of 90 gold in order to buy a field. The work one does creates resources which can be sold in the market (giving money to the worker) which then help the town where one resides grow stronger and richer. Interaction between characters takes place in churches (where one can hear mass, as this is after all set in the 1400's), taverns (which serve as site-specific chatrooms only open to those citizens/visitors of a given city) as well as in bulletin board-style forums for text-based roleplay. The game does an excellent job of building community and establishing a sense of place, though the game is a bit anachronistic and is mostly local and provincial in its focus, lacking much in the way of national power and glory. There are town elections, the possibility of travel to other towns, and as one's level improves, a variety of requirements for leveling (including upgrading wardrobe and acquiring certain skill points) as well as opportunities for jobs (like being a priest, or a politician, or a baker, weaver, butcher, and other jobs like that). There is a turn every day, where one must eat in order to live (or go in retreat in a church if one cannot be online during the 24 hour period). Depending on how one plays, it can either take two minutes a day or many hours. One gets out what one puts in. As I enjoy the text-based and chat-based roleplay of the game, I find this the most enjoyable of the five free online games I play. Alas, I am in a very poor town, so leveling up in the future will demand traveling to distant parts. Such is the life, though.
Overall Grade: A
Ikariam (www.ikariam.com)
The most off-putting part of this game is the tagline of the game--"where the gods play." Not being particularly enamored of polytheism, this did not warm me to the idea of playing the game. Nonetheless, being curious, one day I decided to look beyond the tacky tagline and play the game. In fact, I found the game to be quite enjoyable from a gameplay aspect, and very friendly to new players (though communication in the game is a bit difficult, involving only mail messages that count as 'diplomacy'). The quick early leveling, though, is soon replaced by a very lengthy and very difficult process of ensuring sufficient resources, which is a daunting task. Each island contains building materials (basically wood) and one of four "strategic resources" that have to be mined (marble, crystal glass, wine, and sulfur). Buildings and units require differing amounts of these, and in order to develop the town beyond a very early level it is necessary to trade with neighbors. This is not an easy task. Each town can set the price for the goods it wishes to sell, and it takes a great deal of patience/gold to acquire what one needs for a happy and growing town. Establishing colonies is an extremely onerous task, and so developing good trade networks and diplomacy is vitally important. New units and buildings are researched in an academy, which requires scientists (lowering tax base/gold while increasing the acquisition of knowledge). Mining the strategic resource and gaining building material also takes workers, and the island's resource levels are shared with all villages on the island. Military raids also occur in this game, but they seem to be rare due to the high expense of units relative to the low price of most buildings. Cargo ships are a popular item of purchase, though, and necessary to grow beyond very low levels. Each island also contains a Greek-themed "wonder of the world" that increases, at excessively expensive gold levels, the mining of the local strategic resource. Overall, the game is easy to play, but it is difficult to ally or communicate with other players. That said, the graphics of this game are gorgeous, and improve as one's buildings are improved.
Overall Grade: B+
Human Age (www.human-age.com)
A resource-management game similar in basic concept to Renaissance Kingdoms, but updated less frequently with new content and without the forum-based roleplay aspect, this game takes an interesting look at history. Each character begins as a caveman (or cavewoman) and must meet certain requirements in heatlh/morale (two factors which slide or rise depending on accidents or one's activities), skill points, and quests/jobs. Working and hunting lower morale but give one necessary kneecaps (the first currency) for food and other items. Each character must eat one food item (which gives weight--another necessary quality to level), and drink water. There are numerous jobs one must master and certain quests which require that someone work in certain jobs. The process of leveling up is lengthy--taking at least several months if one is diligent. With eleven ages, this would require a very lengthy process of playing to "beat" the game. The biggest problem with the game is that it takes so little time/effort to do what is necessary each day to continue improve the character, but there is so little interaction with other players (except through the "confession" feature, which is entertaining). The lack of interaction makes it hard to keep playing the game in an enthusiastic manner. That said, the offbeat approach of the game is worthwhile.
Overall Grade: C+
Holy War (www.holy-war.net)
The fifth of the five games I have played, this is also possibly the most difficult to get into. There is, thankfully, a chatting option which allows for interaction, which is by far the most worthwhile aspect of the game. Each character can be a Christian, a Pagan, or a Saracen (Muslim) in the time of the crusades. The pagans are lamentably popular, while the Muslims are embarrassingly unpopular. Leveling up requires the gaining of experience, mostly through plundering (unfortunately, this leads to reprisals from the plundered party which can be very harsh--though some players have managed to plunder themselves). Skills can be increased and weapons and armor can be purchased through plundering as well as through work (which gives a low salary, but since plundering is limited to an hour a day for free players, one will spend most of the day working). During the first few days one plays, one can plunder for two hours a day (which costs money after that, not worth paying in my judgment). Unfortunately, the game does not do a good job of letting a player know this, so much plundering opportunity can be wasted. The game also has clans (alliances) and battle modes between "faiths" at higher levels, but I do not know how these work, not being of a high enough level. One can also upgrade one's own housing to increase defense from attacks (a very useful thing) or increasing the rate at which one gains back health. These, I imagine, become very important in later levels. Dueling other players give gold and experience as well, and helps one gain reputation among other players for being a strong soldier. Perhaps the game is more enjoyable at higher levels, but it is not all that fun for a new player, and the game gives little help through manuals. Thankfully, the chatting within the game is most amusing and worthwhile. The setting of the game as a military game set in the crusades is also pretty cool. Sometimes, that's enough.
Overall Grade: C+
Travian (http://s5.travian.us)
Of the five games, Travian is the one I have been playing the longest. The game mechanics are themselves fairly straightforward. Everyone starts out with a village in the twilight period of the Roman Empire in a fictionalized grid map where one can either be a Roman, a Gaul, or a Teuton. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages and the choice a player makes depends on how they want to play the game. Gauls are big on storage and trapping, Romans have a balanced approach that allows for simultaneous building in the village and in the fields, and Tuetons have great raiding bonuses. One starts out with six wheat fields, four woodcutters, four iron mines, and four clay pits. Each resource is needed, in varying amounts, for the military units one builds, for trading opportunities, and through buildings in the village. Each person requires one unit of wheat, and different upgrades/units require different numbers of occupants. This game also features alliances, which one can join with buildings, as well as the possibility of expanding the village (though this is an expensive process). Certain buildings can be built only when conditions are met involving the upgrading of other buildings or fields. As fields are developed, they give exponentially higher yields/hour. As fields or buildings are developed, they are progressively more expensive as well. Units can also be researched and given upgrades to weapons and armor to increase their effectiveness in battle. Probably the best part of this game is that the ease of joining alliances makes for plenty of advice from more experienced players and a friendly atmosphere. However, the presence of larger villages near smaller ones means that raiding is frequent and annoying. The best way to avoid getting raided is to build big crannies that safeguard resources, because if a raider gets nothing for his raid, he will (eventually) stop trying. This game is most geared towards gamers who like a strong military and enjoy the Middle Ages. The pruning of inactive villages allows new villages to be placed near more experienced ones. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on one's perspective. The guides in the game, and the forums, are most helpful to the new player who wants to know more about how to develop his or her village.
Overall Grade: B+
Renaissance Kingdoms (www.renaissancekingdoms.com)
This game belongs to a category of games where you play a character in a historical period (in this case, in the 1450's) who has to eat, work, and learn various skills in order to advance in level. In this it can be considered a role playing game. The game's builders are from France, but discussion on the forums and in the game is largely in English (though there are quite a few countries/languages/provinces in Europe from Scotland and England to the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria). You begin as a level 0 character who must level up by gaining 5 reputation points (which involve working 2 days in a church and finding three people who give trust points), as well as the acquisition of 90 gold in order to buy a field. The work one does creates resources which can be sold in the market (giving money to the worker) which then help the town where one resides grow stronger and richer. Interaction between characters takes place in churches (where one can hear mass, as this is after all set in the 1400's), taverns (which serve as site-specific chatrooms only open to those citizens/visitors of a given city) as well as in bulletin board-style forums for text-based roleplay. The game does an excellent job of building community and establishing a sense of place, though the game is a bit anachronistic and is mostly local and provincial in its focus, lacking much in the way of national power and glory. There are town elections, the possibility of travel to other towns, and as one's level improves, a variety of requirements for leveling (including upgrading wardrobe and acquiring certain skill points) as well as opportunities for jobs (like being a priest, or a politician, or a baker, weaver, butcher, and other jobs like that). There is a turn every day, where one must eat in order to live (or go in retreat in a church if one cannot be online during the 24 hour period). Depending on how one plays, it can either take two minutes a day or many hours. One gets out what one puts in. As I enjoy the text-based and chat-based roleplay of the game, I find this the most enjoyable of the five free online games I play. Alas, I am in a very poor town, so leveling up in the future will demand traveling to distant parts. Such is the life, though.
Overall Grade: A
Ikariam (www.ikariam.com)
The most off-putting part of this game is the tagline of the game--"where the gods play." Not being particularly enamored of polytheism, this did not warm me to the idea of playing the game. Nonetheless, being curious, one day I decided to look beyond the tacky tagline and play the game. In fact, I found the game to be quite enjoyable from a gameplay aspect, and very friendly to new players (though communication in the game is a bit difficult, involving only mail messages that count as 'diplomacy'). The quick early leveling, though, is soon replaced by a very lengthy and very difficult process of ensuring sufficient resources, which is a daunting task. Each island contains building materials (basically wood) and one of four "strategic resources" that have to be mined (marble, crystal glass, wine, and sulfur). Buildings and units require differing amounts of these, and in order to develop the town beyond a very early level it is necessary to trade with neighbors. This is not an easy task. Each town can set the price for the goods it wishes to sell, and it takes a great deal of patience/gold to acquire what one needs for a happy and growing town. Establishing colonies is an extremely onerous task, and so developing good trade networks and diplomacy is vitally important. New units and buildings are researched in an academy, which requires scientists (lowering tax base/gold while increasing the acquisition of knowledge). Mining the strategic resource and gaining building material also takes workers, and the island's resource levels are shared with all villages on the island. Military raids also occur in this game, but they seem to be rare due to the high expense of units relative to the low price of most buildings. Cargo ships are a popular item of purchase, though, and necessary to grow beyond very low levels. Each island also contains a Greek-themed "wonder of the world" that increases, at excessively expensive gold levels, the mining of the local strategic resource. Overall, the game is easy to play, but it is difficult to ally or communicate with other players. That said, the graphics of this game are gorgeous, and improve as one's buildings are improved.
Overall Grade: B+
Human Age (www.human-age.com)
A resource-management game similar in basic concept to Renaissance Kingdoms, but updated less frequently with new content and without the forum-based roleplay aspect, this game takes an interesting look at history. Each character begins as a caveman (or cavewoman) and must meet certain requirements in heatlh/morale (two factors which slide or rise depending on accidents or one's activities), skill points, and quests/jobs. Working and hunting lower morale but give one necessary kneecaps (the first currency) for food and other items. Each character must eat one food item (which gives weight--another necessary quality to level), and drink water. There are numerous jobs one must master and certain quests which require that someone work in certain jobs. The process of leveling up is lengthy--taking at least several months if one is diligent. With eleven ages, this would require a very lengthy process of playing to "beat" the game. The biggest problem with the game is that it takes so little time/effort to do what is necessary each day to continue improve the character, but there is so little interaction with other players (except through the "confession" feature, which is entertaining). The lack of interaction makes it hard to keep playing the game in an enthusiastic manner. That said, the offbeat approach of the game is worthwhile.
Overall Grade: C+
Holy War (www.holy-war.net)
The fifth of the five games I have played, this is also possibly the most difficult to get into. There is, thankfully, a chatting option which allows for interaction, which is by far the most worthwhile aspect of the game. Each character can be a Christian, a Pagan, or a Saracen (Muslim) in the time of the crusades. The pagans are lamentably popular, while the Muslims are embarrassingly unpopular. Leveling up requires the gaining of experience, mostly through plundering (unfortunately, this leads to reprisals from the plundered party which can be very harsh--though some players have managed to plunder themselves). Skills can be increased and weapons and armor can be purchased through plundering as well as through work (which gives a low salary, but since plundering is limited to an hour a day for free players, one will spend most of the day working). During the first few days one plays, one can plunder for two hours a day (which costs money after that, not worth paying in my judgment). Unfortunately, the game does not do a good job of letting a player know this, so much plundering opportunity can be wasted. The game also has clans (alliances) and battle modes between "faiths" at higher levels, but I do not know how these work, not being of a high enough level. One can also upgrade one's own housing to increase defense from attacks (a very useful thing) or increasing the rate at which one gains back health. These, I imagine, become very important in later levels. Dueling other players give gold and experience as well, and helps one gain reputation among other players for being a strong soldier. Perhaps the game is more enjoyable at higher levels, but it is not all that fun for a new player, and the game gives little help through manuals. Thankfully, the chatting within the game is most amusing and worthwhile. The setting of the game as a military game set in the crusades is also pretty cool. Sometimes, that's enough.
Overall Grade: C+
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Client #9
I have long followed the career of current (but perhaps not for too much longer) New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. He made his national reputation as an ambitious Attorney General for the state of New York who was very loud and prominent in rooting out corruption in a series of high-profile scandals involving health care companies, gun manufacturers, and power companies, and I'm sure a lot of other issues as well. A Progressive Democrat, he lived up to his political ideology by using the power of government to punish wayward companies who did not live up to their moral obligations with customers and the general public at large. While I admired his stands against corruption, I still feel ambivalent about what such intervention means on a large scale about the freedoms of the citizenry at large.
Spitzer's highly publicized investigations against corporate malfeasance earned him a recent election to become governor of the state of New York. It was there that Mr. Spitzer's problems began to grow, as the highly popular attorney general found himself a deeply unpopular governor. Ironically, the two scandals that have dogged his time in Albany, one of which appears to have brought him down, involve corruption and the abuse of power. The lesson to the rest of us, would be anti-corruption crusaders or not, is a sobering one.
The first major scandal that I know about at least involves his abuse of power in a spectacular way. Having problems with the lead Republican in the New York Legislature, he used his aides to try to dig up dirty news to discredit his opponent and force him to resign. This was not a success, as the revealing of the attempt led to Spitzer losing his own reputation for moral probity in power. Once it was revealed that he sought to discredit his opponents through dirty tricks, it became possible to wonder if he had done the same thing as Attorney General, itself a very serious problem. Of course, Spitzer could choose to deny that he ordered his aides to do such investigations, but such a denial rings hollow, as aides generally do not go digging up dirt on the political opponents of their bosses unless there is either a specific order to do so or it is the general behavior of their boss. Neither would reflect well on the Governor.
The other scandal, that appears to have brought down his administration completely (and that may end up destroying his marriage), involves his identity as Client #9 in an investigation of a high-class prostitution ring. Apparently he spent over $4000 just before Valentine's Day for a high-class prostitute named "Kirsten" from a prostitution ring based out of New York that is under investigation by the Feds and the IRS. His call to the agency, and the agency's response, show that he was not a first-time client. Obviously, this reflects poorly on an anti-corruption and stern moralist sort of politician, more so than it would an obviously corrupt one. It looks like Spitzer's political career is over, but there are some lessons that might be useful for future people in like positions.
It appears, in this day and age, that nothing is really private. While I lament this personally, I suppose that as a rather nosy and public person (public enough, at any rate, to discuss delicate subjects online), that I am part of the problem. At any rate, if you are a person in a public position (whether in government, in business, or in private organizations), you cannot expect any of your personal conduct to remain private whatsoever. I know that in previous times leaders got a way with a lot of things, but the desire for information and the high levels of tracking and publicity present nowadays make it almost impossible to keep a secret life for long. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I cannot say--I could argue it both ways depending on whether I was looking in the abstract or in the particular. Since the private conduct of people is no longer really all that private (sometimes because of our own stupidity and brazenness in the matter), it behooves all of the ambitious sorts among us to be a lot more honest and humble about ourselves. Being holier-than-thou nowadays is a bad call, and almost all the time it seems that the verdict on such would-be crusaders is the sobering one, "Physician, heal thyself." Ridding corruption from within and without still seems a rather difficult task, even more difficult when examining its spread within us all.
Spitzer's highly publicized investigations against corporate malfeasance earned him a recent election to become governor of the state of New York. It was there that Mr. Spitzer's problems began to grow, as the highly popular attorney general found himself a deeply unpopular governor. Ironically, the two scandals that have dogged his time in Albany, one of which appears to have brought him down, involve corruption and the abuse of power. The lesson to the rest of us, would be anti-corruption crusaders or not, is a sobering one.
The first major scandal that I know about at least involves his abuse of power in a spectacular way. Having problems with the lead Republican in the New York Legislature, he used his aides to try to dig up dirty news to discredit his opponent and force him to resign. This was not a success, as the revealing of the attempt led to Spitzer losing his own reputation for moral probity in power. Once it was revealed that he sought to discredit his opponents through dirty tricks, it became possible to wonder if he had done the same thing as Attorney General, itself a very serious problem. Of course, Spitzer could choose to deny that he ordered his aides to do such investigations, but such a denial rings hollow, as aides generally do not go digging up dirt on the political opponents of their bosses unless there is either a specific order to do so or it is the general behavior of their boss. Neither would reflect well on the Governor.
The other scandal, that appears to have brought down his administration completely (and that may end up destroying his marriage), involves his identity as Client #9 in an investigation of a high-class prostitution ring. Apparently he spent over $4000 just before Valentine's Day for a high-class prostitute named "Kirsten" from a prostitution ring based out of New York that is under investigation by the Feds and the IRS. His call to the agency, and the agency's response, show that he was not a first-time client. Obviously, this reflects poorly on an anti-corruption and stern moralist sort of politician, more so than it would an obviously corrupt one. It looks like Spitzer's political career is over, but there are some lessons that might be useful for future people in like positions.
It appears, in this day and age, that nothing is really private. While I lament this personally, I suppose that as a rather nosy and public person (public enough, at any rate, to discuss delicate subjects online), that I am part of the problem. At any rate, if you are a person in a public position (whether in government, in business, or in private organizations), you cannot expect any of your personal conduct to remain private whatsoever. I know that in previous times leaders got a way with a lot of things, but the desire for information and the high levels of tracking and publicity present nowadays make it almost impossible to keep a secret life for long. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I cannot say--I could argue it both ways depending on whether I was looking in the abstract or in the particular. Since the private conduct of people is no longer really all that private (sometimes because of our own stupidity and brazenness in the matter), it behooves all of the ambitious sorts among us to be a lot more honest and humble about ourselves. Being holier-than-thou nowadays is a bad call, and almost all the time it seems that the verdict on such would-be crusaders is the sobering one, "Physician, heal thyself." Ridding corruption from within and without still seems a rather difficult task, even more difficult when examining its spread within us all.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Kudos, Then Ironic Comments
Today I wish to write about a subject that appears in the Bible but that is seldom applied in modern life as it ought to be, but first I would like to give some kudos. Every day I receive an e-mail from Thisistheway.org, with a byline from Mr. Clyde Kilough, President of the United Church of God, and today's e-mail merits praise and attention. The subject of authority and service, and how leaders ought to serve the people they lead, rather than lord it over them, is a frequent (and hopefully not too tiresome), subject of my writings, both public and private. The forms of democracy alone are not sufficient, for a people that does not possess self-control is not fit to rule over a nation (for one must first govern one's self before one can govern others). Nonetheless, the example of Jesus Christ in his service to mankind (through footwashing, instruction, healing, and his offering of himself to remove the penalty of sin from mankind and heal the alienation between mankind and God) and the example of Abraham Lincoln, himself a martyr to the cause of freedom of the oppressed, servant leadership, and democracy were excellent choices to illuminate how leaders should behave.
However, I do not wish this to be the subject of this post, as I write about it frequently enough. Today I would like to write about a different matter entirely, and one that was provoked by my reading of a most excellent book by a fellow named Mr. Ron Dart, called Law And Covenant. In this book (which I would wholeheartedly recommend to any who wish to understand the true covenantal nature of law and its continuing applicability to humankind in a variety of aspects), there is an interesting comparison of the relationship between a man and his concubine and a man and his wife that is a subject of great importance for our times, and one that is often not recognized by preachers and concubines alike.
Concubinage strikes the modern ear as a discordant, and potentially exotic, reminder of past ages. I am reminded myself of references of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, and of the movie "Fareware, My Concubine," about early 20th century China (if I remember correctly). However, concubinage is not only a quaint historical notion of bygone eras where women dwelled with men without any contractural relationship, and without any guarantee of good behavior on the part of their lover beyond his good will. It is, in fact, a very real, and very common phenomenon. We, though, call a concubine by a different name today--a live-in girlfriend.
In societies where concubinage was recognized, concubines were universally considered of a lower status than wives. While a man might be attached to his hausfrau (as the Germans called such a woman), she had no legal rights (unlike a wife). If he died, she was entirely at the mercy of his will (if he provided for her), because she had no rights to his estate. Her children were not considered legitimate heirs, and were not in line for any inheritence a man might leave. Any states or nations that recognized common-law marriages required lengthy times of cohabitation before granting such a status, while a newly married bride carred the status of a wife as a result of the contractual relationship even on her honeymoon. One of the most grevious wrongs of slavery in the American South was the denial of marriage to slaves, who could conduct informal marriages (by jumping over the broom and so forth) but who could not protect their relationships from the threat of having a husband and wife and children sold seperately to different owners in distant places. Furthermore, a slave husband could not even assure the safety of his wife from the affections of the master, should he choose to take a concubine among his slaves.
The insecurity that results from relationships of concubinage is profound, and it seems obvious that someone who could be a wife would never want to be a concubine. Between a wife and a husband there is a mutuality of obligations, a contractual relationship that the ancients considered a "parity covenant" (a relationship among equals). Both the man and wife have legal and moral obligations to their spouses, and to the children of their union, and their joining in marriage brings honor to themselves, each other, and their families. In contrast, the joining in concubinage brings no legal obligations, and the relationship itself is only as stable as the affections of either partner, bringing no honor to either but only the fear that someone's affection might grow cold and leave a partner and a family without their main provider.
Given this rather grim contrast between the honor of being a wife and the fearful and insecure position of being a concubine, one wonders why anyone would choose to be a concubine? This is not to say that the lot of wives is always pleasant (nor that of husbands either), but the contractual protections of marriage mean something, even in these debased times. Why have women, who call themselves enlightened, traded honor and security for insecurity in the name of "freedom?" It would be like a worker trading a contractual job for a job (in a place like Florida) where there was employment at will (which means an employer could fire you for any or no reason without legal recourse), often for a lower salary. Who would make that kind of trade?
Why have live-in relationships, with all of the insecurity that result from not having a covenantal relationship or a secure status, become a status of freedom? Is freedom merely freedom from bonds and connections with other people (bonds which form anyway as a result of intimacy and friendship) or is it freedom from fear and insecurity and the gaining of a lasting and honored place in a family, community, and society? Is it better to have many lovers in a lifetime, having to move because a relationship has gone shower when dwellings were shared, or worse (as happened to a close friend of mine) having to share an apartment with an ex-girlfriend for months because a lease had yet to expire after having started a new relationship with someone else? Wouldn't one rather have someone one knew well, and had committed to spending the rest of one's life with, to dwell with through the ups and downs that life provides? Even as a man (who has no wife or concubine) I would greatly prefer, for her sake as well as my own, to have a wife secure in her position and knowledgeable of the respect I held her in rather than a live-in girlfriend insecure in my affections to her, and afraid that every female friend of mine was a potential love interest and rival for my affections. Hopefully there are some other people around who feel the same way as I do.
The current rise of concubinage (albeit under a new name) presents many grave difficulties for families and society. The decline of the honor of fatherhood has been frequently and ably commented on by others. The lack of loyalty that people show to each other in society results from a lack of understanding of covenantal relationships and the responsibilities all parties have therein. Frequently, in churches, live-in relationships are considered as fornication, and people involved in such relationships are told in more conservative congregations that they are not welcome at church as long as they "live in sin." Truth be told, though, concubinage did not result in any loss of rights to fellowship (one things of the Levite with the concubine in that tragic story in Judges). Concubinage appears to be a legitimate way, if less honorable than marriage, in showing the world of one's relationship. Fornication appears to be related to furtive and private attempts at sexual intimacy, while a live-in relationship is a public show of a relationship, and hence is no longer fornication.
What then, remains to be done about this worrisome societal trend? For one, it appears that the demonization of the practice needs to stop. While concubinage (a live-in relationship) is inferior to marriage, one does not communicate this fact through throwing people who practice it (no matter how much one may disapprove of it) out of church. It is not, for example, to be compared to the famous case in Corinthians where the man had his stepmother, itself a particular relationship forbidden by the law as being incestuous. It does appear, though, that young women and young men need to be educated about this ancient practice, as a reminder that it is not a new and enlightened practice but rather one that has put women and children at risk for many centuries. As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.
However, I do not wish this to be the subject of this post, as I write about it frequently enough. Today I would like to write about a different matter entirely, and one that was provoked by my reading of a most excellent book by a fellow named Mr. Ron Dart, called Law And Covenant. In this book (which I would wholeheartedly recommend to any who wish to understand the true covenantal nature of law and its continuing applicability to humankind in a variety of aspects), there is an interesting comparison of the relationship between a man and his concubine and a man and his wife that is a subject of great importance for our times, and one that is often not recognized by preachers and concubines alike.
Concubinage strikes the modern ear as a discordant, and potentially exotic, reminder of past ages. I am reminded myself of references of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, and of the movie "Fareware, My Concubine," about early 20th century China (if I remember correctly). However, concubinage is not only a quaint historical notion of bygone eras where women dwelled with men without any contractural relationship, and without any guarantee of good behavior on the part of their lover beyond his good will. It is, in fact, a very real, and very common phenomenon. We, though, call a concubine by a different name today--a live-in girlfriend.
In societies where concubinage was recognized, concubines were universally considered of a lower status than wives. While a man might be attached to his hausfrau (as the Germans called such a woman), she had no legal rights (unlike a wife). If he died, she was entirely at the mercy of his will (if he provided for her), because she had no rights to his estate. Her children were not considered legitimate heirs, and were not in line for any inheritence a man might leave. Any states or nations that recognized common-law marriages required lengthy times of cohabitation before granting such a status, while a newly married bride carred the status of a wife as a result of the contractual relationship even on her honeymoon. One of the most grevious wrongs of slavery in the American South was the denial of marriage to slaves, who could conduct informal marriages (by jumping over the broom and so forth) but who could not protect their relationships from the threat of having a husband and wife and children sold seperately to different owners in distant places. Furthermore, a slave husband could not even assure the safety of his wife from the affections of the master, should he choose to take a concubine among his slaves.
The insecurity that results from relationships of concubinage is profound, and it seems obvious that someone who could be a wife would never want to be a concubine. Between a wife and a husband there is a mutuality of obligations, a contractual relationship that the ancients considered a "parity covenant" (a relationship among equals). Both the man and wife have legal and moral obligations to their spouses, and to the children of their union, and their joining in marriage brings honor to themselves, each other, and their families. In contrast, the joining in concubinage brings no legal obligations, and the relationship itself is only as stable as the affections of either partner, bringing no honor to either but only the fear that someone's affection might grow cold and leave a partner and a family without their main provider.
Given this rather grim contrast between the honor of being a wife and the fearful and insecure position of being a concubine, one wonders why anyone would choose to be a concubine? This is not to say that the lot of wives is always pleasant (nor that of husbands either), but the contractual protections of marriage mean something, even in these debased times. Why have women, who call themselves enlightened, traded honor and security for insecurity in the name of "freedom?" It would be like a worker trading a contractual job for a job (in a place like Florida) where there was employment at will (which means an employer could fire you for any or no reason without legal recourse), often for a lower salary. Who would make that kind of trade?
Why have live-in relationships, with all of the insecurity that result from not having a covenantal relationship or a secure status, become a status of freedom? Is freedom merely freedom from bonds and connections with other people (bonds which form anyway as a result of intimacy and friendship) or is it freedom from fear and insecurity and the gaining of a lasting and honored place in a family, community, and society? Is it better to have many lovers in a lifetime, having to move because a relationship has gone shower when dwellings were shared, or worse (as happened to a close friend of mine) having to share an apartment with an ex-girlfriend for months because a lease had yet to expire after having started a new relationship with someone else? Wouldn't one rather have someone one knew well, and had committed to spending the rest of one's life with, to dwell with through the ups and downs that life provides? Even as a man (who has no wife or concubine) I would greatly prefer, for her sake as well as my own, to have a wife secure in her position and knowledgeable of the respect I held her in rather than a live-in girlfriend insecure in my affections to her, and afraid that every female friend of mine was a potential love interest and rival for my affections. Hopefully there are some other people around who feel the same way as I do.
The current rise of concubinage (albeit under a new name) presents many grave difficulties for families and society. The decline of the honor of fatherhood has been frequently and ably commented on by others. The lack of loyalty that people show to each other in society results from a lack of understanding of covenantal relationships and the responsibilities all parties have therein. Frequently, in churches, live-in relationships are considered as fornication, and people involved in such relationships are told in more conservative congregations that they are not welcome at church as long as they "live in sin." Truth be told, though, concubinage did not result in any loss of rights to fellowship (one things of the Levite with the concubine in that tragic story in Judges). Concubinage appears to be a legitimate way, if less honorable than marriage, in showing the world of one's relationship. Fornication appears to be related to furtive and private attempts at sexual intimacy, while a live-in relationship is a public show of a relationship, and hence is no longer fornication.
What then, remains to be done about this worrisome societal trend? For one, it appears that the demonization of the practice needs to stop. While concubinage (a live-in relationship) is inferior to marriage, one does not communicate this fact through throwing people who practice it (no matter how much one may disapprove of it) out of church. It is not, for example, to be compared to the famous case in Corinthians where the man had his stepmother, itself a particular relationship forbidden by the law as being incestuous. It does appear, though, that young women and young men need to be educated about this ancient practice, as a reminder that it is not a new and enlightened practice but rather one that has put women and children at risk for many centuries. As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
A Kenyan Catastrophe
While I have yet to visit the verdant but highly troubled nation of Kenya, which appears, fitfully, to be trying to drag itself from the precipice of a lengthy and horrific civil war, my mother and stepfather have visited the country and commented on the friendliness of the people and the beauty of the land. No doubt many of the people they met in that land have been dealing with the threat of violence after a notoriously rigged election between one incumbent kleptocrat and a would be kleptocrat (for those who don't know, a kleptocrat is one who uses democratic office to rob the wealth of the people and stash it away, usually in Swiss bank accounts).
It would be easy to pass judgment on the collapse of Kenya, all the more easy because Kenya is far away and in a continent known for its abominable standards of governance (Africa, a continent almost without any hope or success whatsoever). Nonetheless, Kenya (along with Ghana and perhaps a couple of other countries) was considered a rare "success" story (at least in relative terms), with high amounts of tourism and a fragile but existing democracy, despite long-held concerns about extreme government corruption and nepotism/ethnic favoritism.
However, while it may be tempting to label the problems of Kenya as being irrelevant, I think they provide a particular relevance that we in more "mature" democracies may be unaware of. There are several elements of the Kenyan problem that are of importance in comparison with other countries (like the United States for example, though other countries would certainly apply too). This list is not exhaustive, especially since it is currently early in the morning and I am only writing this because I am an insomniac and because a longtime and close friend of mine (who has been both a church friend and fellow musician as well as fellow classmate of mine in high school and beyond) asked that I write about it.
The most applicable comparison between the Kenyan election debacle and the situation in the United States (and perhaps other areas as well) is the poor choice between major candidates. After all, both of the major politicians seeking the Kenyan presidency were quite wealthy and had gained that wealth through corruption despite the fact that most Kenyans, by any standard of well-being, struggle to make ends meet (on less than $2 a day, for the most part). Like candidates for the office of presidency in other nations, it can be assumed that neither of them have the interests of the entire nation at heart, but both of them have ulterior motives for wishing office and will reward their supporters with a disproportionate share of the spoils of office.
In nations such as Kenya political parties are often based on regions (Red States vs. Blue States, Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Western Canada, Asante area vs. the rest of Ghana, Walloon vs. Flemish, and so on ad nauseum) or ethno-linguistic groups. This sort of division lends itself towards balkanization and the breakdown of unified cultures. It is not a bad thing to have stark choices about the future of a nation before the populace, but it is a bad thing when no communication based on mutual respect can cross hardened partisan boundaries. Politics can only deal with subjects that can be solved through compromise and partial victories that are based on shared fundamental beliefs and "values." This assumes a common identity that transcends politics and allows for the existence of a loyal opposition that opposes the policies of the dominant group without being labeled or treated as treacherous to the nation or organization as a whole. Where this unity and mutual respect is lacking, politics is only war by ballots rather than bullets, and the bullets are not often long in coming when ballots have failed to prevail.
A fundamental quality of genuine democracy, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is that the government is government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." This has three components. The first is "of the people," which means that the government is composed of those who represent those they govern. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 gives a list of qualities for would-be kings of Israel, and among those is the requirement that they come from among the people and not view themselves as being above those they govern. They must, in other words, never lose sight of the common equality of mankind before God and before others, as we are all children of God created in His image, no matter what we look like, how wealthy, intelligent, strong, healthy, or popular we are. The second quality is that the government is by the people, meaning it has the majoritarian support of the people. Those governments that rule by force or fraud, either through a manipulation of ballots or through the threat or use of violence are not legitimate. Those leaders who rule without the informed consent of the people can claim no divine sanction for their rule, nor claim popular mandate for their decisions in office. Their rule is illegitimate. Finally, government must be for the people in order to be legitimate and democratic. This means that government must have the best interests of the people, the entire populace, at heart, whether that populace voted for or against the leadership or even voted (or was able to vote) at all. Edmund Burke stated wisely and correctly that leaders have a contract with the past, the present, and the future. We must honor and respect our history, those that came before us, and the laws that have been set down from ancient times (especially the laws of God). We must also serve the interests of those who now live and are currently being governed, and we must govern so that we protect the best interests of those who have yet to live, to make the world a better place than it was when we found it.
This is obviously easier said than done. Being human beings, we are all fallible (and I am certainly at least as fallible as anyone else is). As Lord Acton wisely said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Where political power leads directly to great wealth (as it does in Kenya and many other countries), political power will be fought over and bloody coups and revolutions (whether done through fraud, violence, or the normal deception that goes in running for office) will occur. If leaders see power as a way to gain wealth and respect and fulfill long-held ambitions to lord it over others, rather than as an opportunity to serve the best interests of the general public, those leaders will be corrupted by their office, will corrupt those that gain access to a part of the power and influence they shower on others, and they will oppress the people they rule.
In the end, good government is an exceedingly rare thing, and it only occurs when people are governed by the laws of God and their behavior is circumscribed through the discipline that comes from obedience to God and a love and respect for others that seeks to use power to serve rather than to command and lord it over others. The proper use of power to serve is rare, whether that power is held in political office, in the corporate boardroom, in non-profit organizations and churches and schools and families. We may rightly long for the return of Jesus Christ to rule over this world with justice and mercy and wisdom, but we must never forget that if we are to rule, we must practice the proper use of power now, whatever our domain for doing so, even if it is just in ruling over ourselves. If we fail to practice wisely, we will watch the same ugly battles in Kenya take place among our churches, our schools, our homes, and our nations, perhaps with less violence, but with no less rancor and division. We will reap what we sow, and we will stand at the judgment seat of God either having set a good example of service to others, or we will be condemned as hirelings and wolves, fit for utter blackness. The choice is ours, and let us choose wisely. What good is the wealth and power gained and used corruptly if we lose our eternal lives?
It would be easy to pass judgment on the collapse of Kenya, all the more easy because Kenya is far away and in a continent known for its abominable standards of governance (Africa, a continent almost without any hope or success whatsoever). Nonetheless, Kenya (along with Ghana and perhaps a couple of other countries) was considered a rare "success" story (at least in relative terms), with high amounts of tourism and a fragile but existing democracy, despite long-held concerns about extreme government corruption and nepotism/ethnic favoritism.
However, while it may be tempting to label the problems of Kenya as being irrelevant, I think they provide a particular relevance that we in more "mature" democracies may be unaware of. There are several elements of the Kenyan problem that are of importance in comparison with other countries (like the United States for example, though other countries would certainly apply too). This list is not exhaustive, especially since it is currently early in the morning and I am only writing this because I am an insomniac and because a longtime and close friend of mine (who has been both a church friend and fellow musician as well as fellow classmate of mine in high school and beyond) asked that I write about it.
The most applicable comparison between the Kenyan election debacle and the situation in the United States (and perhaps other areas as well) is the poor choice between major candidates. After all, both of the major politicians seeking the Kenyan presidency were quite wealthy and had gained that wealth through corruption despite the fact that most Kenyans, by any standard of well-being, struggle to make ends meet (on less than $2 a day, for the most part). Like candidates for the office of presidency in other nations, it can be assumed that neither of them have the interests of the entire nation at heart, but both of them have ulterior motives for wishing office and will reward their supporters with a disproportionate share of the spoils of office.
In nations such as Kenya political parties are often based on regions (Red States vs. Blue States, Quebec vs. Ontario vs. Western Canada, Asante area vs. the rest of Ghana, Walloon vs. Flemish, and so on ad nauseum) or ethno-linguistic groups. This sort of division lends itself towards balkanization and the breakdown of unified cultures. It is not a bad thing to have stark choices about the future of a nation before the populace, but it is a bad thing when no communication based on mutual respect can cross hardened partisan boundaries. Politics can only deal with subjects that can be solved through compromise and partial victories that are based on shared fundamental beliefs and "values." This assumes a common identity that transcends politics and allows for the existence of a loyal opposition that opposes the policies of the dominant group without being labeled or treated as treacherous to the nation or organization as a whole. Where this unity and mutual respect is lacking, politics is only war by ballots rather than bullets, and the bullets are not often long in coming when ballots have failed to prevail.
A fundamental quality of genuine democracy, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is that the government is government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." This has three components. The first is "of the people," which means that the government is composed of those who represent those they govern. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 gives a list of qualities for would-be kings of Israel, and among those is the requirement that they come from among the people and not view themselves as being above those they govern. They must, in other words, never lose sight of the common equality of mankind before God and before others, as we are all children of God created in His image, no matter what we look like, how wealthy, intelligent, strong, healthy, or popular we are. The second quality is that the government is by the people, meaning it has the majoritarian support of the people. Those governments that rule by force or fraud, either through a manipulation of ballots or through the threat or use of violence are not legitimate. Those leaders who rule without the informed consent of the people can claim no divine sanction for their rule, nor claim popular mandate for their decisions in office. Their rule is illegitimate. Finally, government must be for the people in order to be legitimate and democratic. This means that government must have the best interests of the people, the entire populace, at heart, whether that populace voted for or against the leadership or even voted (or was able to vote) at all. Edmund Burke stated wisely and correctly that leaders have a contract with the past, the present, and the future. We must honor and respect our history, those that came before us, and the laws that have been set down from ancient times (especially the laws of God). We must also serve the interests of those who now live and are currently being governed, and we must govern so that we protect the best interests of those who have yet to live, to make the world a better place than it was when we found it.
This is obviously easier said than done. Being human beings, we are all fallible (and I am certainly at least as fallible as anyone else is). As Lord Acton wisely said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Where political power leads directly to great wealth (as it does in Kenya and many other countries), political power will be fought over and bloody coups and revolutions (whether done through fraud, violence, or the normal deception that goes in running for office) will occur. If leaders see power as a way to gain wealth and respect and fulfill long-held ambitions to lord it over others, rather than as an opportunity to serve the best interests of the general public, those leaders will be corrupted by their office, will corrupt those that gain access to a part of the power and influence they shower on others, and they will oppress the people they rule.
In the end, good government is an exceedingly rare thing, and it only occurs when people are governed by the laws of God and their behavior is circumscribed through the discipline that comes from obedience to God and a love and respect for others that seeks to use power to serve rather than to command and lord it over others. The proper use of power to serve is rare, whether that power is held in political office, in the corporate boardroom, in non-profit organizations and churches and schools and families. We may rightly long for the return of Jesus Christ to rule over this world with justice and mercy and wisdom, but we must never forget that if we are to rule, we must practice the proper use of power now, whatever our domain for doing so, even if it is just in ruling over ourselves. If we fail to practice wisely, we will watch the same ugly battles in Kenya take place among our churches, our schools, our homes, and our nations, perhaps with less violence, but with no less rancor and division. We will reap what we sow, and we will stand at the judgment seat of God either having set a good example of service to others, or we will be condemned as hirelings and wolves, fit for utter blackness. The choice is ours, and let us choose wisely. What good is the wealth and power gained and used corruptly if we lose our eternal lives?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Finally, A Presidential Candidate Almost Just Like Me...
As an occasional pundit more than a little interested in a politics and the use of power (a frequenet subject of this blog in one fashion or another), the goings on the 2008 Primary Season have been of great interest to me. While I hope I do not make the frequent mistake of many in believing that political leaders can fulfill escatological hopes for the bringing of heaven on earth (unlike some people), I nonetheless am a firm believer that the quality of our leadership is of great importance and that in a democratic republic where the ultimate accountability for leaders rests in the people, if one does not participate in the political process, one has no right to complain about the results. This does not mean I always agree with what leaders to choose from, or that I agree with all of their behavior in various elected offices, but I believe we have to do the best job we can as wise stewards of our freedom from tyranny and (whenever possible) oligarchy. That is the subject of another rant, though.
Occasionally, though, I find a candidate who, unusually, reflects my own rather quirky views and personality. Such is the case this year. However, first, I must begin with a story. In 2000 I was a freshman at the University of Southern California when it came time to vote in the primary. As the primary approached, I was an undecided voter, not knowing much about Sen. McCain and not being an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush (despite voting for him in the general election of both 2000 (in California) and 2004 (in Florida), I never have been an enthusiastic supporter of him). However, I had the chance to witness Sen. McCain speak in person at Bouvard Auditorium just before the election, and I found him to be an immensely sincere and passionate speaker, worthy of my support (he got my vote, despite losing the primary and the campaign).
Once 2008 came around, I thus already was interested in Sen. McCain's campaign, though matters looked rather grim in the last half of 2006 as anti-war fever swept the nation and the Republican party started resembling the nativist (anti-immigrant) Know-Nothings of the 1850's, another tumultuous and highly polarized time in our nation's history. Though I disagreed with Sen. McCain on some aspects of his proposed solution to illegal immigration (namely, those parts which suggested amnesty), as a long-time resident of areas with high amounts of immigrants, I see the need for a comprehensive immigration solution that encourages legal immigration and harshly punishes those companies that employ illegal immigrants and make it easier for them to engage in normal business practices (see Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc.). As a graduate student in engineering, I also see the need for reforming the H1-B (work visa) program, which is in shambles as the high supply of qualified foreign graduate students (who could greatly benefit this nation) is mostly prevented from finding legal gainful employment. As someone, therefore, who was familiar with the immigration situation, I was more than a little sympathetic to McCain's position as trying to negotiate a comprehensive (and necessarily compromise) solution.
So when McCain won New Hampshire, and then South Carolina, through the support of moderate Republicans (I would personally consider myself, like McCain, moderately conservative--and there is substantial, though not total, overlap between our positions), I was interested in helping out the McCain campaign in Florida, which I did. I happened to volunteer three evenings at the McCain office when I didn't have class during the week, and helped pass out stickers and signs at a McCain town hall meeting in The Villages (where I even got to escort a New York Times reporter to her seat through the relatively, but thankfully not violently, hostile audience), and attended a McCain rally in Tampa on Primary Election Eve. When McCain won a larger-than-expected five-point win the next day, I was quite pleased.
But I was less than pleased with the response of many conservative pundits to McCain's growing momentum. The same conservatives who had supported Thompson (of an 86% lifetime conservative voting record) considered McCain (of an 82% lifetime conservative voting record) an apostate to the Republican party, almost as if one was voting for Hillary Clinton. Various conservatives said that if McCain won the primary that they would not vote Republican in the final election (thus perhaps giving the election to Hilary). It puzzled me that many conservative Republicans would be so hostile to someone who was mostly (though by no means entirely) in favor of their positions.
Then again, I often puzzle why, in my own circles, those who are conservative consider me to be such a radical revolutionary when in reality I am far from it. Certainly, I am a pugnacious maverick who enjoys tweaking the establishment now and again, and certainly I have some longstanding issues with authority (which I will be the first to admit). Intriguingly enough, I found many of the same parallels in McCain's own life. For one, he received many demerits in the Naval Academy because he would not stand for the arbitrary and capricious use of power by upperclassman over underclassman. Here was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. His noble stand in Vietnam not to take advantage of his father's position as admiral in getting out of the Hanoi Hilton out of order and in thus submitting himself to an additional five years of torture and imprisonment was a noble stand for his comrades in prison, worthy of my highest respect. Here was someone who did not dodge or avoid the draft or use political influence to gain a cushy spot in the National Guard, but someone who suffered for the sake of fairness and justice as a prisoner-of-war.
It appeared to me that the reason why McCain is so universally loathed by conservatives (see Rush, a man whose right to speak I defended in my first editorial as an pre-teen in a western Pennsylvania newspaper, and others) was not because of his positions on such matters as the environment, immigration, and finance reform, but because he was not beholden to them. McCain's independent streak, especially shown in his combative and pugnacious personality, not his positions, is accountable for his unpopularity. His appeal with moderate voters lies in the fact that he is willing to work across the aisle (a rare quality these days, probably testament to the fact that he's not a baby boomer) and considers the good of the United States and all of its people above the slavish adherence to the establishment. This, inspite of the fact that he usually (over 80% of the time) agrees with that conservative establishment.
In fact, as a student of history, the situation between McCain and the Republican establishment mostly resembles the curious fate of Stephen Douglas, Illinois' Senator and frequent opponent of my favorite president of all time (Abraham Lincoln). Throughout the 1800's, the base of the Democratic party was in the South, and until the Civil War this base held most of the positions of great authority in the Supreme Court and in party leadership despite being a minority among the population of the US as a whole for almost all of that time. In 1860, Stephen Douglas ran for president, and sought the nomination of the whole Democratic Party. Despite usually supporting the south, they considered him ideologically impure thanks to his opposition of the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, which would have made Kansas a slave state due to the votes of a bunch of illegal Missouri border ruffians and the boycott of the election by anti-slavery Kansas (who organized their own government based in Topeka). Due to this supposed "heresy" to the southern Democrats, and his unwillingness to countenance a national slave code to protect the right of slaveholders to carry their "property" safely all over the United States, the Southern Democrats refused to support his candidacy, even though he was the only Democrat capable of beating the Republicans in a momentous election (does this sound familiar yet?). After a heated and ugly campaign, the Democratic party split, Abraham Lincoln won the general election, and the rest is history.
Let us hope that the Republicans do not repeat this folly in '08. But in order to do so, they will, in all probability (it looks at this point like McCain is going to win a heavy majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, with a heavy advantage going away for the nomination) have to deal with the fact that McCain will be their man in 2008. Will conservative pundits "hold their noses" and see behond the pugnacious spirit of McCain to see someone who represents the best chance to bring Americans beyond the polarizing politics of Baby Boomers engaged in the long culture wars, with a concern for the fate of our planet as well as the security and well-being of our nation? Will the threats of party activists to avoid voting be empty threats, or will they be acted upon? Much remains to be seen, but either way, I cannot help but feel for Sen. McCain, for despite his human flaws and imperfections (such as we all have), he is a man whom I deeply respect, and in whom I see a great resemblence in temperament and political opinions to myself. To see the depth of hostility shown by people who agree with him at least as much as with his two rivals (Romney and Huckabee) is to see the irrational hatred and hostility that I have long struggled against in my own battles against my own establishment (despite my substantial agreement with it). I suppose everything can be forgiven, except keeping an independent mind.
Occasionally, though, I find a candidate who, unusually, reflects my own rather quirky views and personality. Such is the case this year. However, first, I must begin with a story. In 2000 I was a freshman at the University of Southern California when it came time to vote in the primary. As the primary approached, I was an undecided voter, not knowing much about Sen. McCain and not being an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush (despite voting for him in the general election of both 2000 (in California) and 2004 (in Florida), I never have been an enthusiastic supporter of him). However, I had the chance to witness Sen. McCain speak in person at Bouvard Auditorium just before the election, and I found him to be an immensely sincere and passionate speaker, worthy of my support (he got my vote, despite losing the primary and the campaign).
Once 2008 came around, I thus already was interested in Sen. McCain's campaign, though matters looked rather grim in the last half of 2006 as anti-war fever swept the nation and the Republican party started resembling the nativist (anti-immigrant) Know-Nothings of the 1850's, another tumultuous and highly polarized time in our nation's history. Though I disagreed with Sen. McCain on some aspects of his proposed solution to illegal immigration (namely, those parts which suggested amnesty), as a long-time resident of areas with high amounts of immigrants, I see the need for a comprehensive immigration solution that encourages legal immigration and harshly punishes those companies that employ illegal immigrants and make it easier for them to engage in normal business practices (see Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc.). As a graduate student in engineering, I also see the need for reforming the H1-B (work visa) program, which is in shambles as the high supply of qualified foreign graduate students (who could greatly benefit this nation) is mostly prevented from finding legal gainful employment. As someone, therefore, who was familiar with the immigration situation, I was more than a little sympathetic to McCain's position as trying to negotiate a comprehensive (and necessarily compromise) solution.
So when McCain won New Hampshire, and then South Carolina, through the support of moderate Republicans (I would personally consider myself, like McCain, moderately conservative--and there is substantial, though not total, overlap between our positions), I was interested in helping out the McCain campaign in Florida, which I did. I happened to volunteer three evenings at the McCain office when I didn't have class during the week, and helped pass out stickers and signs at a McCain town hall meeting in The Villages (where I even got to escort a New York Times reporter to her seat through the relatively, but thankfully not violently, hostile audience), and attended a McCain rally in Tampa on Primary Election Eve. When McCain won a larger-than-expected five-point win the next day, I was quite pleased.
But I was less than pleased with the response of many conservative pundits to McCain's growing momentum. The same conservatives who had supported Thompson (of an 86% lifetime conservative voting record) considered McCain (of an 82% lifetime conservative voting record) an apostate to the Republican party, almost as if one was voting for Hillary Clinton. Various conservatives said that if McCain won the primary that they would not vote Republican in the final election (thus perhaps giving the election to Hilary). It puzzled me that many conservative Republicans would be so hostile to someone who was mostly (though by no means entirely) in favor of their positions.
Then again, I often puzzle why, in my own circles, those who are conservative consider me to be such a radical revolutionary when in reality I am far from it. Certainly, I am a pugnacious maverick who enjoys tweaking the establishment now and again, and certainly I have some longstanding issues with authority (which I will be the first to admit). Intriguingly enough, I found many of the same parallels in McCain's own life. For one, he received many demerits in the Naval Academy because he would not stand for the arbitrary and capricious use of power by upperclassman over underclassman. Here was something I wholeheartedly agreed with. His noble stand in Vietnam not to take advantage of his father's position as admiral in getting out of the Hanoi Hilton out of order and in thus submitting himself to an additional five years of torture and imprisonment was a noble stand for his comrades in prison, worthy of my highest respect. Here was someone who did not dodge or avoid the draft or use political influence to gain a cushy spot in the National Guard, but someone who suffered for the sake of fairness and justice as a prisoner-of-war.
It appeared to me that the reason why McCain is so universally loathed by conservatives (see Rush, a man whose right to speak I defended in my first editorial as an pre-teen in a western Pennsylvania newspaper, and others) was not because of his positions on such matters as the environment, immigration, and finance reform, but because he was not beholden to them. McCain's independent streak, especially shown in his combative and pugnacious personality, not his positions, is accountable for his unpopularity. His appeal with moderate voters lies in the fact that he is willing to work across the aisle (a rare quality these days, probably testament to the fact that he's not a baby boomer) and considers the good of the United States and all of its people above the slavish adherence to the establishment. This, inspite of the fact that he usually (over 80% of the time) agrees with that conservative establishment.
In fact, as a student of history, the situation between McCain and the Republican establishment mostly resembles the curious fate of Stephen Douglas, Illinois' Senator and frequent opponent of my favorite president of all time (Abraham Lincoln). Throughout the 1800's, the base of the Democratic party was in the South, and until the Civil War this base held most of the positions of great authority in the Supreme Court and in party leadership despite being a minority among the population of the US as a whole for almost all of that time. In 1860, Stephen Douglas ran for president, and sought the nomination of the whole Democratic Party. Despite usually supporting the south, they considered him ideologically impure thanks to his opposition of the fraudulent Lecompton Constitution for Kansas, which would have made Kansas a slave state due to the votes of a bunch of illegal Missouri border ruffians and the boycott of the election by anti-slavery Kansas (who organized their own government based in Topeka). Due to this supposed "heresy" to the southern Democrats, and his unwillingness to countenance a national slave code to protect the right of slaveholders to carry their "property" safely all over the United States, the Southern Democrats refused to support his candidacy, even though he was the only Democrat capable of beating the Republicans in a momentous election (does this sound familiar yet?). After a heated and ugly campaign, the Democratic party split, Abraham Lincoln won the general election, and the rest is history.
Let us hope that the Republicans do not repeat this folly in '08. But in order to do so, they will, in all probability (it looks at this point like McCain is going to win a heavy majority of the delegates on Super Tuesday, with a heavy advantage going away for the nomination) have to deal with the fact that McCain will be their man in 2008. Will conservative pundits "hold their noses" and see behond the pugnacious spirit of McCain to see someone who represents the best chance to bring Americans beyond the polarizing politics of Baby Boomers engaged in the long culture wars, with a concern for the fate of our planet as well as the security and well-being of our nation? Will the threats of party activists to avoid voting be empty threats, or will they be acted upon? Much remains to be seen, but either way, I cannot help but feel for Sen. McCain, for despite his human flaws and imperfections (such as we all have), he is a man whom I deeply respect, and in whom I see a great resemblence in temperament and political opinions to myself. To see the depth of hostility shown by people who agree with him at least as much as with his two rivals (Romney and Huckabee) is to see the irrational hatred and hostility that I have long struggled against in my own battles against my own establishment (despite my substantial agreement with it). I suppose everything can be forgiven, except keeping an independent mind.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
(Don't) Send In The Clowns
Today I read a particularly amusing article that stated something that made me feel a little less unusual. The article states that children uniformly dislike clowns, and that even older children are sometimes afraid of them and cannot explain them. When I was a child I was seriously afraid of clowns, and even now I don't like them. What is it about clowns that are so universally disliked by children, and what is it about clowns that make adults think children like them? I don't know the answers, but I can give at least a little bit of perspective.
Why Children Don't Like Clowns?
It is possible that a large part of what makes children not like clowns, at all, is the fact that clowns are fake. Children, in all the experience I have ever had (either being a child or being around them) are pretty genuine. The only children that tend to be private or practice pretense usually have something seriously wrong going on in their lives, and have learned that hypocrisy usually from parents. Otherwise, children are very open and honest about what they want and what they don't like, even when they say they are being sneaky (I find this particularly amusing). However, clowns are not genuine. They have paint covering their faces, masking their identities (not likely to lead children to trust them). Furthermore, they have smiles painted on their faces, and children are pretty good at telling a fake from a genuine article. Somehow most of us lose the ability to do that as we get older, probably because it's so distressing to be in a world surrounded by fakes (especially when most people fake to be accepted by the other fakes), that to search for the genuine article is a fruitless and thankless task. Children, not being burdened by this, tend to see (rightfully) the clowns as fakers, and as untrustworthy fakers at that.
Why Do Adults Think Clowns Are Okay For Kids?
This is perhaps the more inexplicable question. Clowns, like a lot of other entertainment, were originally for adults. The clothing for clowns resembles that of the "fool" in royal courts. Ironically enough, the fool was dressed foolishly, but was given the (rare) privilege to tell kids the truth. Nowadays clowns dress foolishly and tell a bunch of pablum to an often unwilling audience of young folk. It is probably the flamboyance of clowns that makes adults think they would be suitable for kids. After all, clowns typically dress in bright colors and act silly. So do children--but children do it honestly, out of a (usually) innocent heart. Clowns are pretenders. Perhaps adults are insufficiently aware of the need to teach genuineness to their children, and so conspire to foist all of these lies upon children that make them bitter and cynical towards adults (see "The Tooth Fairy," "Santa Claus" and any number of other such lies). Perhaps parents would better serve their children by simply letting children be children, play innocent games (while keeping an eye on them to make sure they stay safe), and tell them the truth, and provide for them entertainments that are similarly honest (this may be a difficult task). That would be a better choice than to foist a bunch of creepy adults in makeup and bad clothing on children. Don't send in the clowns. Seriously, don't.
Why Children Don't Like Clowns?
It is possible that a large part of what makes children not like clowns, at all, is the fact that clowns are fake. Children, in all the experience I have ever had (either being a child or being around them) are pretty genuine. The only children that tend to be private or practice pretense usually have something seriously wrong going on in their lives, and have learned that hypocrisy usually from parents. Otherwise, children are very open and honest about what they want and what they don't like, even when they say they are being sneaky (I find this particularly amusing). However, clowns are not genuine. They have paint covering their faces, masking their identities (not likely to lead children to trust them). Furthermore, they have smiles painted on their faces, and children are pretty good at telling a fake from a genuine article. Somehow most of us lose the ability to do that as we get older, probably because it's so distressing to be in a world surrounded by fakes (especially when most people fake to be accepted by the other fakes), that to search for the genuine article is a fruitless and thankless task. Children, not being burdened by this, tend to see (rightfully) the clowns as fakers, and as untrustworthy fakers at that.
Why Do Adults Think Clowns Are Okay For Kids?
This is perhaps the more inexplicable question. Clowns, like a lot of other entertainment, were originally for adults. The clothing for clowns resembles that of the "fool" in royal courts. Ironically enough, the fool was dressed foolishly, but was given the (rare) privilege to tell kids the truth. Nowadays clowns dress foolishly and tell a bunch of pablum to an often unwilling audience of young folk. It is probably the flamboyance of clowns that makes adults think they would be suitable for kids. After all, clowns typically dress in bright colors and act silly. So do children--but children do it honestly, out of a (usually) innocent heart. Clowns are pretenders. Perhaps adults are insufficiently aware of the need to teach genuineness to their children, and so conspire to foist all of these lies upon children that make them bitter and cynical towards adults (see "The Tooth Fairy," "Santa Claus" and any number of other such lies). Perhaps parents would better serve their children by simply letting children be children, play innocent games (while keeping an eye on them to make sure they stay safe), and tell them the truth, and provide for them entertainments that are similarly honest (this may be a difficult task). That would be a better choice than to foist a bunch of creepy adults in makeup and bad clothing on children. Don't send in the clowns. Seriously, don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
