Index of Previous Columns
Conservative or Liberal? Gasoline Alley National Suicide July 4, 2011 Unemployment 5 Commands or 50? OMG D e b t Good, Better, Best Language These two terms are used widely but not always wisely. Rarely are they used synonymously. They find their way in religion, politics and elsewhere. Our concern at the moment is their use and abuse in religion, and politics as in Republican or Democrat. But why single them out? Read on and perhaps you'll understand.
Conservative or Liberal?First, lets define terms: 1. Conservative: conserving or tending to conserve; tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these: designating or of a major political party or religious persuasion. 2. Liberal: giving freely; generous; large or plentiful; ample; abundant; not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict: a liberal interpretation of the Bible or Constitution; tolerant of views differing from one's own; broad-minded; favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, politics, etc.
Not completely defined but close enough. It is easy to see how they can be defined to distinguish differences between them. Conservatives can be maligned because they are only interested in preserving traditions and institutions, resisting change of any kind while Liberals are maligned because they are generous, broad-minded and favor reform.
Now it is true that Conservatives and Liberals are not always magnanimous toward each other generally. Why is understandable according to the above definition as well as toward their conceived perception. There is a considerable difference between one who resists change and one who favor reform or progress. But does that mean that all Conservatives oppose reform or progress? Hardly. Or that all Liberals are tolerant of differing views?
Consequently, is it possible to be both Liberal and Conservative? Of course but don't count on it. No doubt that is why we have Independents. But here is another predicament: 3. Independent: free from the influence, control, or determination of another or others; not depending on others; independent in thinking, self-governing. Ah yes. Defining does present challenges, doesn't it? Should Independents be free from the influence of Liberals and Conservatives? Totally free? Does that mean there is nothing noble or worthwhile in other points of view? Hardly.
If we could accept the possibility that there are some valid premises in all three of the defined entities: Conservatives, Liberals, Independents; that Republicans, Democrats and Independents (for lack of another name) are not worthy of needless deprecation, could that be in order? Probably but don't hold your breath.
Personally, I'd love to see some Conservatives more tolerant of other points of view; for some Liberals to appreciate traditional perspectives; and for some Independents to mediate between the two urging them to exercise some independent thinking. Suppose that could help bridge the unbridgeable? Or would that bridge still be too short?
6/2011
Return to Top
Gasoline Alley Gasoline Alley by Jim Scancarelli is a gentle, good-natured continuing story of four generations of Wallets. Readers return daily for this positive slice of life, with universal themes and commonplace situations. So goes a promotion of this enduring comic strip many of us have enjoyed.The contemporary scene has changed in four generations. I can remember as a lad driving from Michigan to Chicago, filling up our 1937 auto with gasoline costing ten cents per gallon. A dime. The other day I topped off my mini van for $ 63.00 bucks and the tank wasn't empty. I hate to let it go down near Empty nowadays. Its easier now without those harsh winter winds blowing while I fill the tank. I even heard the other day that a license is needed for attendants to fill your tank. Is that possible?
Now you ask: Why is a retired clergyman talking about gasoline? I suppose it is because it is a daily conversation piece. Why has it risen from a dime to four bucks? True, compared to other countries it is a bargain but not so in some oil producing nations where it still is only a few pennies per gallon.
We will not go into the politics of this except to say there is something going on we morals do not fully grasp. But should we? I think so. Some of the obstacles causing our dependence on foreign oil are obvious: environmental concerns, costs of producing various grades and types of fuels, distribution, dangers of various kinds, experimentation and research, and least understood, speculation (a guessing game costs I suppose you could say). Plus the search for discounted stations.Then there are taxes and other hidden costs so we hardly know what we actually pay for fuel itself. We laugh at Gasoline Alley comic strips while others are laughing all the way to the bank. But I, for one, find it hard to laugh on the way to the fuel pump. It's hard enough to smile, pump gas or diesel, plunk in coins to check the tires and vacuum the floor mates but it is easy to slip inside and head home with a treat.
Transportation is an essential luxury as well as a necessity. Our love affair with our vehicles may or may not be diminishing although smaller, less guzzling conveyances may be on the increase. I remember rationing during WWII and a father who checked the odometer when his son returned from a date. I never had to do that with my son. Nor do I think my son ever had to drive backward to roll the odometer back a bit.
Things change. Which can be good. We ol' timers talk about the good 'ol days forgetting there was some good 'ol daze back then too. Do I want to go back four generations? Not really. But maybe back then there was a bit more transparency, less awareness of our local and worldwide grievances, fewer hidden costs and complications, not as many three-stall garages and a few mom and pop operations within walking distance. Plus gasoline alleys where we sat watching as gasoline pushed the gauge upward while the windshield was washed and the oil checked. Too bad so many don't remember those or can't imagine days like that.
6/2011
Return to Top
National Suicide Suicide is one of the most unfortunate episodes of life. It happens all too often, to too many individuals, institutions and ideals. Suicide defined ranges from self murder to act of killing oneself intentionally and to the ruin of one's own interests. Suicide can be suicidal, a built-in tendency toward self extermination, and abortive (either internally or externally). At best it is to be avoided.Since suicide can occur among individuals, it can also happen among a collection of individuals. We have seen this in voluntary suicide of groups of people, and we have seen it among nations that self-destruct. This occurs even among civilizations, political alliances and even religious assemblies.
Our concern today is the dubious art of national suicide, or the practice of self-destruction.Rather than go into a detailed history of suicide, we will limit ourselves to some ingredients common to suicide, either incidental, accidental or deliberate (as in conspiracy). Since this is penned by a retired clergyman, not a historian, scientist, or philosopher, it is suggestive, not dogmatic. Indeed, it could be controversial (and should be) and refutable (at least in part). So let's begin with a partial plausible formula for implementing national suicide.
First off, a nation must rid itself of any thing deemed supernatural, miraculous or divine. To enhance this, it should not be content merely with its removal but with its denunciation, deprecation and possible alternatives.
Secondly, a nation must rid itself of a the concept of marriage between a man and a woman. This will eventually weaken the family and help bring a nation to its knees.
Third. A nation should get itself into as much debt as possible which will enable it to debase its currency, print more money, borrow to the hilt and suffocate eventually.
Fourth. A good nation should do its best to police and improve the entire globe, not only in emergencies, but in safeguarding fledgling democracies and courting possible foes. In addition to keeping the peace at home, guarding its own safety and borders, it will greatly extend its efforts to the breaking point, economically and otherwise.
Fifth. A nation intent on suicide must also debase antiquity. Anything old cannot possibly be useful in a modern society. This includes ancient philosophers, scientists, theologians, economists and their works including constitutions, by-laws, and amendments. In order to do this, a nation should strive to be secretively autocratic, not democratic, allowing a minority to make the best (and worst) decisions for its people.
In Conclusion. Since by choice these columns stop at the bottom of the page, we could go on but you are free to add your own premises. Finally, should you recognize any of these conditions existent in a neighbor or in your own neighborhood, feel free to do your part in short-circuiting any proclivity toward national suicide. Your reward may not appreciated but it will be redemptive. 6/2011
Return to Top
July 4, 2011 The fourth of July has lots of meanings, memories and misgivings. One interesting item crossed my path: this year, July will boast five (yes, 5) Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. To witness another July like it, well, stick around for another eight or so centuries. I won't be there to prove or disprove it but that is what is predicted.Now, those gentlemen some 235 years ago, were fed up with the troublesome tyranny posed by colonial powers (which incidentally faded away but not in time to benefit our founding fathers). To safeguard the fledgling nation, they drew up a constitution which has survived for a couple of centuries plus.
However, like many old (or ancient) documents, artifacts, skeletons and blueprints, many fade, rust, deteriorate and disappear. Not so with the US Constitution. Then, either because things were overlooked, or necessitated later, Amendments were made. They too have survived (or as some say, endured).
It is quite natural then for subsequent generations to doubt the efficacy of these antiquities. The result is to reinterpret (modernize), abandon, disable or rewrite them. So far, the Constitution has not been abandoned completely, nor rewritten nor disabled. But it has been ignored, challenged, reinterpreted (for the 21st century) and interpreted by a select few ignoring for the most part the people.
Meanwhile, attempts have been made to create new documents for various purposes for the masses which are often excessively wordy (meaning zillions of words) that possibly few ever read less comprehend. If this should happen to our US Constitution, it boggles the mind to imagine how many words, pages and editions followed by amendments it would involve.
Our forefathers may not have known how long this document would last. Had they estimated two centuries, more or less, they might have done things differently. Fortunately for us, this didn't happen. It is a concise document, quite comprehensive, with principles intended to endure. It is not a text book on how to run (or how not to) a nation. It instead gives principles on which to build such as a good foundation which is necessary for a lasting structure, one story or one hundred.
John Adams (remember him?) remarked about the Constitution that it “was made only for a moral or religious people . . . it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If a nation intends to survive by following our Constitution, it must not abandon a Judeo-Christian heritage. Should that be the path on which the current USA intends to travel, it better come up with a constitution with a suitable, reliable contemporary moral and religious (spiritual) nature. If ignored, doomsday will follow.
If so ordained, it would be wise to keep it brief, dutifully crafted on reliable principles, and give the people an opportunity to evaluate it, make recommendations, and ultimately endorse it by a significant margin in a closed ballot. 7/4/1811 (oops, 7/4/2011)
Unemployment Nearly everyone knows we are having economic difficulties. Unemployment is but one of the problems. For those in the know, there are many reasons for it. When a wage-owner loses his or her job, and is unemployed for too long a time, the results are not cozy. Let's look at unemployment for a moment.What are some of the reasons so many are underemployed and unemployed. Is there such a thing as overemployed? Yeah, there is. But that word wasn't in my dictionary. As you know, clergy persons, for the most part, are not economically astute, so don't expect too much. But when unemployment (or the fear of becoming unemployed) hits close to home, we all hurt.
It doesn't help when other Western countries have fared better than we have. Perhaps their social mores and powerful unions played a role. Perhaps their employers were not as worried about survival as we might have been and toughed it out rather than resorting too quickly to pink slips. It could be that these countries didn't experience as critical a credit crises. Ironically, while some concerns are desperate for loans, others are sitting on huge reserves, waiting supposed for a sunnier day.
Counting the unemployed is complicated as well. Who really knows when some quit looking after a lengthy search and others take what they can get which is usually less, not equal or more. Years ago, most families lived under one salary. Today it is often two family wage earners that could face unemployment. And then are many more single parents who face dark days. And then there are those who pay for food with food stamps but have cash for other discretionary items not really essential and take it all home in rather recent vintage automobiles.
Unemployment also involves, ironically perhaps, self esteem. How important it is to be gainfully employed, especially if it is both satisfactory and pleasant. To be unemployed because of wrong doing, excessive tardiness, sloppy workmanship or because of tyrannical bosses or onerous tasks or unreasonable demands is not a good omen for self esteem.
When the Good Book either suggests or demands (depends on one's theology), that we should be at labor for six days a week, we wonder. It has not been all that long that we have been either burdened or blessed with a 36 hour week sometimes done in three or four days. How many take on extra work because of time on their hands which could mitigate against employment of the unemployed? Even with the typical 40 hour workweek, keeping busy for the sixth day is a necessity for some, a burden for others.
Unemployment is not good for the soul nor the welfare of a society, a family unit or the single individual. Nor is it healthy for local, state or federal governing bodies as we have seen. Too much free time can be debilitating, possibly even worse at times than being employed, for money and otherwise. 7/2011
Return to Top
Five Commandments or Fifty? We speak of the Ten Commandments (10) with ease but how many do we keep? By 'we' who are we talking about? Well, if polls are correct that most Americans actually do believe in God (at least some form of a deity), then the 'we' we are talking about includes many Americans who should recognize at least some of God's Ten Commandments (or if you prefer, Principles, Axioms, Maxims, Rules or Laws).We know that the first four deal with our relationship to God. The last five with our relationships with one another. Number five deals with the family (traditionally mom, dad, the kids, uncles/aunts/cousins, grandparents) but now that has changed with the demise of the extended family). Even so, it still is important: Honor your father and mother so that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you (paraphrased from Deuteronomy 5). In other words: good families make lasting communities.
What I have in mind is the genius of the Decalogue (another name for the Ten Commandments). Actually, Jesus shortened the ten into two basic axioms: Love God wholeheartedly and your neighbor as yourself (another concise thought provoker). We mortals have expanded the ten into dozens of laws, rules and regulations. It becomes burdensome, difficult to remember, and tough to prioritize. I remember when teaching youngsters catechism one of our projects was twofold: 1. Rearrange the ten into a better order; 2. Add two more that should have been included. We usually discovered ultimately, not at first, that the ten were amazingly all-inclusive, and the order was virtually unimprovable (like that word?). My dictionary didn't.
Unfortunately, the word 'commandment' often triggers an alarm (which it ought to do) and turns some people off. Better that we use other expressions they say. Perhaps like admonitions, priorities, advice, regulations, edicts. Personally, I like what Deuteronomy calls them: statutes and ordinances. The Good Book in effect says, Listen, my friends, to what I (God) have to say: learn from my ordinances and statutes and be careful to do them because I, the Lord, made this covenant with you. The implication is quite clear: observe and obey or it will not go well with you. It is a binding agreement with mankind (a covenant), not optional.
Even though our nation seemingly believes in God (polls reveal a high percentage) but there could be far more lip service than we realize. If we keep only the last five, it would help some: Do not kill, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness (e.g. lie, cheat, gossip, perjure, extort, plagiarize, overcharge etc.) or covet. This shows how ingenious these principle are when understood in depth.
Yet we cannot keep the final five statutes if we do not observe the first five; here is where society falls short: No other gods before God, Make not your own gods (idols: possessions, fame, power), Take God seriously, Regard the Lord's Day highly, and Honor your Mother and Father (the whole family). Do this and society will both survive and thrive. 7/2011
Return to Top
OMG OMG I muttered to myself. O my goodness! Did I write that? In 2005? Yes, I have said that many times when reading something I had written a long time ago. But I don't say OMG (or O my golly) any more. Apparently it is too old fashioned (although that is not why I don't say it). It has become too common place: O My God is what we hear too often: on the street, in the movies, on TV, everywhere. Only it is not the initials, its the words.
I have not conducted a survey so I am only guessing but I don't think there is a whole lot of discrimination in who utters this exclamation point in their conversation. I would even hazard a guess that not a few believers, non-believers, atheists, agnostics, radicals, conservatives, liberals, young 'uns and seniors alike have uttered that expression. It might be a prayer, a cuss word, a meaningless outburst of jubilation or utter disgust. It varies considerably.
Not too long ago, I wrote a series of imaginary “Conversations with God” to help illustrate Biblical realities with personalities God had a special interest in. With one character, who repeatedly voiced the proverbial OMG, God responded to her. But she was bewildered why He singled her out. He simply replied: You called me three times. And it wasn't O My Goodness. God does have a sense of humor.
My concern is about the invasion of OMG into our homes, the media, the street corner and most anywhere where language, written or spoken, is used. Why? Because it employs the sacred as a earthy expression. When our vocabulary goes on strike, we borrow readily from the holy, the sacred, the sublime to make a point: God, Jesus, holy cow, damn, hell and even more mildly for heaven's sake.
There was a moment in our history when this was not kosher (proper) but that propriety is vanishing. It has even made inroads among supposedly pious persons who mimic the vernacular, consciously or otherwise. Frankly, I wouldn't be saying this except for the increasing velocity of a profane vulgarity. I will simply remind us that it is not a healthy part of our culture and has a subtle way of demeaning that which ought to be sacred. We can do better. 7/2011
Return to Top
D e b t ! Debt is often easy to fall into but difficult to climb out. Not everyone of course falls into debt; many go there willingly while others go unwittingly or unwillingly. When we use our credit cards, the bill always gives us two options: pay the entire bill (no interest) or choose a partial payment allowing for debt on the balance at a hefty rate of interest (have you checked the rate lately?).Years ago, people often saved and paid in full, with cash. That changed. Remember when college students were bombarded with credit card offers? It still happens. It is a way of life. Now we have an option to live by debit cards which does mean keeping some cash in the bank. Various options available. But not all are beneficial.
Way back in history, the ancient Jews were admonished to avoid usury. However, usury can simply mean lending but its deeper meaning is lending at an excessive rate which is why it was forbidden. That same bit of wisdom should prevail today. But it is not always easy, not for the borrower nor the lender. Greed somehow tends to get in the way.
The British historian and author, Paul Johnson, penned a page in Forbes (6/6/2011) with the grabber: Debt A Moral Issue. He began by wishing that “people everywhere were encouraged by politicians, the media and their places of worship to see indebtedness in moral as well as economic terms.” He went on with three conditions for borrowing:
1. Money borrowed should be of reasonable size commensurate with your resources and prospects. 2. From the outset a program of repayment should be in place. 3. The repayment plan should have priority over any other commitment, especially any personal spending plans. Unfortunately, Johnson writes, these conditions are seldom met either by individuals or governments (and other organizations we might add).
We would be remiss if we don't say something about the morality of money and debt. Since the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil we are in trouble. We have been admonished not to steal, rob, cheat, plunder, connive . . . Since most of us do not steal, rob banks or extort money, we feel self-satisfied.
Then there is that perverted word: greed. It alone accounts for considerable economic woes: pilfering, plagiarizing, outrageous profiteering, panhandling, punitive revenge, Ponzi schemes (and that's only a start). Fraud, bribery, extortion, theft and deception are all related directly or indirectly to money, debt and despair, impoverishment, incarceration, homelessness, bankruptcy and, you guessed it.
Debt may be amoral, immoral or moral. Without morality, first we languish, then perish. Not good choices. Makes sense to heed our friend, Paul Johnson, because debt is indeed a moral issue, lest we forget. Or underestimate. 8/2011
Return to Top
Good, Better, Best The world is full of winners and losers, optimists and pessimists, ambitious and lazy, and good, better and best people, ideas and things. We all know that. What intrigues me at the moment is the good, better and best concept. Academics often grade on the curve or at times on pass/fail.Evaluating, grading or designating as good, better and best sounds attractive because there are no losers, only winners. If only life were this way. In certain instances, no doubt, this is fair enough. Otherwise, it can be unfair, unjust or untenable. Judgment hardly is fair if it begins in the middle with no poor, bad or failure possibilities.
In all my academic years, I cannot remember a class where it was pass or fail although I know this happens. I also am glad when I was a teacher that I didn't grade that way. However, at times, grading was one of the most difficult times of my 9 years spent as a teacher.
Our culture today is complex, whether more or less than previous cultures is of course debatable. With tuitions on the rise (often faster than society at large) coupled with higher academic dropout rates than we would wish, we have our challenges. We see problems at individual as well as national levels so demanding we can no longer shrug our shoulders.
What should we do? Use the good, better and best gradation scale or go full speed into the easier pass/fail strategy or opt for the traditional A B C D F category? Is it possible (or practical) to classify debt as pass/fail? I suppose it is. A millionaire who owes ten grand may pass while a collegian who owes thirty grand fails. But if we grade them, does the millionaire get an A but the student an F? It might just be easier to say one fails, the other succeeds and let it go at that.
We as a nation are quite interested in giving grades to possible candidates who will either walk or run for office depending on many factors: experience, bank account, charisma, endorsements, good or bad press and the like. Is it possible that an A candidate might lose to a D candidate? Do we measure them or settle for pass/fail? Are they all good, better or best but not average, poor or failures?
Although it seems too early to be talking like this, apparently it is not too early. Makes one wonder if our system is good, better or best. Or would we grade it? Or should we? A lot can happen in the months ahead. One who fails today could win tomorrow. A D candidate could inch upward to a C, then a B but may never reach an A. And the reverse can happen.
Whatever, do your homework diligently, discriminate wisely, and when you vote, do so that if you were graded, you would pass, not fail. But even more important, vote so that your grade would be an honorable one. 8/2010
Language As a typical American, I speak one language: English. Bilinguals and more are rather rare individuals but becoming more abundant. Once, in Europe, I sat next to a young lady from the Netherlands who translated a German speaker into English without missing a beat. None of this was in her native tongue. This is rare here.I took a year of French in high school, a year of Spanish in college, and a year of Greek in seminary. Plus we have lived for five years in Sweden and Mexico so I picked up a bit of both languages. But I am nowhere near being bilingual and like many, I keep checking a dictionary for either pronunciation or meaning.
Now, having confessed my linguistic inadequacies, let's move on. We could evoke quite a discussion on the origin of language, its spread, its demise and its multiple dialects. What I am interested in may be strictly esoteric but let's move on.
We are told there are 6,909 languages spoken worldwide but most of the world's population speak only a few of them. Possibly 83 of the most common languages are spoken by 80%. We're told that 500 languages, mainly tribal tongues, are in danger of dying out. It has been said that there are 20 languages spoken by just one person. The language Bo died out last year when its speaker passed away.
In one country alone, Papua, New Guinea, 80 languages are spoken. Imagine doing business or missionary work there. We're told that up to 25% of Swedish words are “borrowed” from other countries but that supposedly is not as true with Norwegians who make up a new word instead.
Interestingly, some borrowed words are pronounced locally although barely recognized by outsiders.
About 1.5 billion people speak English and Sweden leads all nations with 9-10 who reportedly speak English-as-a-second-language. However, with possibly a million immigrants now making Sweden their home, the ratio may be dropping. English has surpassed French as the world's diplomatic language and is most likely the most universal language for conducting business.About one-half of known languages are spoken by a mere 0.2% of the world's population. The ability to read and write is not as prevalent as the capacity to speak which is understandable, particularly in places where the language has yet to be put into writing. As nations move up the literary scale, illiteracy declines. For instance, in India, 18% over five years of age were literate in 1951. In 2008, 66% of adults could read and write.
In conclusion, 500,000 people use the American Sign Language, one of the most popular gestural languages. For more information, try ScienceIllustrated.com May/June 2011.
Return to Top
Previous Columns Index of All Previous Columns Home Page