Informed Opinions
by
Daniel R. SeagrenThe main thrust of these fifteen essays will be to refocus on many issues of every day life and try to understand why we may not have informed opinions. Perhaps because we have not observed them sufficiently. Akin to this is the tendency (often unabated) of accepting something as making sense when it is in fact nonsense. The reverse also can be a malady: believing nonsense as if it made sense. We see this in too many areas of personal communications, public and private where the uninformed need to be informed, the blind made to see.
It is a fact, believe it or not, that something can make sense while being nonsense. These stories illustrate various subjects that easily take sides but can be blindsided too easily. If read carefully, they can reveal two sides to the topic and it is easy to add more “arguments” to both sides. Naturally, not every topic will be covered but a moderate cross-section has been chosen. This allows for additional opportunities for creative writers to add or subtract, multiply or divide.
Hopefully, seniors and juniors, moms and dads, neighbors and friends will find these fifteen stories friendly and perhaps at times disturbing because of their nature. Even then, we don't all think alike, but hopefully this will cause us to think differently when it is not necessarily convenient but when it is important.
The National Geographic, December 2010, arrived. While thumbing through the first pages, I stopped at page 24 where Gaudi's Masterpiece caught my eye. A basilica in the heart of Barcelona, Spain was master-minded by a famous Spanish architect with a religious faith and a love of nature, Antoni Gaudi (1852 - 1926). Its construction began in 1882 and Gaudi took over in 1883.Before he died in 1926, be realized he would not live to see its completion. So he made sure his archeological style, blending architecture with nature, would continue. Now it is expected to be completed by 2026, a century after his death.
Opinions of a structure such as this evoke various comments. Among them would include the well-worn argument that the money and energy spent would be better utilized to assist the poor. Others would say that the Almighty would be pleased while others would mutter that God hates such a showy extravagance. Then there would be those who would point out the blessings afforded countless workers employed for well over a century.
The article, under the heading of The Big Idea – Biomimetic Architecture, is very objective about the project although it quotes George Orwell who called the church “one of the most hideous buildings in the world.” Orwell, born in 1903, is famous as author of Animal Farm, 1945 and Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949. We might wonder how knowledgeable he was about biomimetic architecture, a modern term taken from bios, meaning life, and mimesis, to imitate). Gaudi's masterpiece is a curious blend of architecture by imitating life in nature in the structure, a complicated but meaningful concept.
Gaudi “based his buildings on a simple premise: if nature is the work of God, and if architectural forms are derived from nature, then the best way to honor God is to design buildings based on his work.” Gaudi's belief in the efficiency of natural engineering clearly anticipated the modern science of biomimetic architecture.
As I read further, and then studied the foldout portrayal of the cathedral with its instructive explanations, I became much more informed. And hopefully, a better critic. Not only is the architecture stunningly impressive, it was designed to “imitate life (nature).” Furthermore, when I realized that the Sagrada Familia basilica project was financed entirely through private donations and tourist revenue, I became even more informed.
Impressed with both its natural architectural design and its scriptural reasoning, I felt it entitled me to a much more informed opinion since I had no idea what biomimetic architecture was until I read this article. Jeremy Berlin concludes this story with a quote from a Gaudi biographer, Bassegoda: “Looking toward the future, the lesson of Gaudi is not to copy his solutions but rather to look at nature for inspiration . . . nature does not go out of fashion.” If I were anywhere near Barcelona, I would certainly not want to miss this basilica now that I have a better “informed opinion.” How valid are your opinions?
Go to Top
This is big business. Or, maybe you should get into outsourcing if you are a big business. Rather than get into the history of this topic, let's take a look at outsourcing as it exists in 2011. Yes, it is big business, and can be cost-effective, and yes, has lots of advantages. But there are always two sides of a story not always visualized. Most of us I suspect think that outsourcing manufacturing is done for economic reasons, namely cheap(er) labor which makes for increased profits. However there are no doubt other motives as well which may not be as well known. In addition, putting people to work in countries where labor is not only less expensive, it also conceivably can be beneficial to those there who need jobs.
OutsourcingThe question remains, however. If these laborers are exploited, underpaid, and over-worked, enabling bosses and owners to profit excessively at their expense, this is not right. Furthermore, it could be difficult to determine. The same is true on the other end. If the motive is not to be excessively profitable but to be unreasonably so, outsourcing could be considered viable.
With an economy bombarded infamously by many problems including serious un-employment (with complex causes), outsourcing undoubtedly contributes to the problem to some extent, or even to a great extent. Outsourcing maybe needs to be rethought, revised or reversed. Then of course some outsourcing is necessitated by the lack of personnel locally to do the job, particularly in skilled occupations. So, it is not a pleasant topic to explore for either the unemployed, underemployed or employers.
What the future of outsourcing holds is also questionable. Will it diminish or expand? Will it demand more or less? We are already beginning to see some cracks in the outsourcing edifices. Cheap labor isn't as cheap as it has been. Transportation glitches can be an occupational hazard, not only as costs rise but frustrating delays of merchandise do occur. Outsourcing to reputable concerns who in turn outsource to less reputable outlets can and does occur with some fatal flaws not easily remedied by long distance.
In short, outsourcing, particularly for the “little guy” can be discouraging compared to huge corporations able to staff overseas locales more efficiently than lesser entities.
To combat some of the woes of outsourcing which seem to be on the increase, not a few local companies are streamlining their endeavors for greater efficiency and profitability. Robots are becoming more and more more efficient which reduces labor costs as well as product control although this could cause some unemployment as well. Companies and corporations willing to curtail excessive profits could in all likelihood pay attractive wages for locals and still make a decent of not handsome profit.
Much more could be said, and probably should be said, but in closing, let me refer you to Brendan I. Koerner's article Made in the USA in Wired Magazine, March 2011 for an in depth article on which you can build your own arguments. It's worth a try.
Go to Top Does something ancient make it an antique? Know what? I am unsure. It used to be that an automobile 25 years old qualified as a classic. Maybe it still does. But what about a piece of furniture or an old picture in an ancient frame? Is it simply old, or is it an antique? Or a classic?
AntiquesWhat is old? How old does something have to be to be considered ancient? Is it possible to have something considered an antique but has little or no value? How is that determined and who does the determination? Supply and demand? An expert's evaluation? Its scarcity? Are there only two sides of something old: real value and little or no value?
A dictionary may put it like this: n. Belonging to, made in, or typical of an earlier period. An adjective may look like this: An object having special value because of its age, especially a domestic item or piece of furniture or handicraft esteemed for its artistry, beauty, or period of origin. The proverbial saying is so true: One man's junk is another man's treasure.
My wife and I are not collectors of antiques. However, we do have a treasure we cherish: an old Swedish desk dating back to the 1890s or thereabouts. I personally wanted something from my mother's era (she was born in Sweden in 1892) and I hope it will remain in our family long after I am gone.
I think it is an antique but may not qualify. But who cares? It certainly is dependent on two factors: one would be a furniture antique expert; the other would be its age and sentimental value for its owner. Ironically, we are told that this particular piece of furniture existed only in the Swedish upper class to which my mother hardly belonged.
Socializing in a living room adorned with antiques can be an exhilarating experience or one that makes us feel uneasy. It may be too fragile a piece to sit on, or to touch, or rather uncomfortable. Look but don't touch! Scattering antiques here and there may work if it doesn't beg abuse by visitors. Antiques can also help us appreciate our heritage, give us a glimpse into the past or reveal hidden traits otherwise unrecognized.
It remains true I suppose that one need not be a skilled connoisseur of antiques yet adore and even acquire replicas while cowering perhaps when they are referred to as fakes. Better to own something that is both functional as well as contemporary even if it resembles something of the past. Yes, our century-old desk is not only beautiful, it evokes memories of the past, and no, it isn't for sale. Not at any price.
We had a chance to lend it for a short-term demonstration while living in Sweden but we declined. We didn't want to risk losing it or have it damaged, even slightly. To us, as antique amateurs, it is functional, beautifully crafted, and ancient if not an antique. A keeper.
Go to Top In some ways I am a pack rat. That means that if something isn't worn out, or useless, or in some cases out-dated, why toss it out? Or send it to a local charity or Salvation Army? For a long time I have wanted to do this. When we decided to move some of our clothes to reputable charities, I had an excuse to fulfill my desire.
Shirts and SweatersI went through my closet and looked to see where some of my shirts and sweaters were made. Here is a list of the countries where some were manufactured: Haiti, Korea, India, Bulgaria, China, Peru, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Jordan, Mexico, North Mariana Islands, Bangladesh, Egypt, Honduras, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. This included about 33 garments.
Interesting, all were purchased in the U.S. but manufactured elsewhere. I was amazed that not one of the 33 was designed and made in our country. I knew many were made elsewhere so now I know.
It makes sense in some ways to outsource manufacturing where manufacturing is less expensive. I would imagine that the hourly cost per garment is a mere fraction of what it would cost to manufacture here. This, even with design, materials, shipping, supervision and equipment included, means savings for us and higher profits for the companies who do outsource manufacturing and other functions as well.It also means that many poor people abroad are employed, presumably at local wages. This of course is altruistic and to be commended. Indeed, it probably would be detrimental to even suggest better wages where poverty is exceptionally bad. This could upset the proverbial “apple cart.”
It does not make sense if the net result is excessively beneficial to the U.S. Entrepreneur. It also makes little sense if it needlessly deprives our own people of jobs, particularly in times of need, especially with desperate impoverishment.
It is pleasant to purchase a beautifully designed and manufactured garment for a bargain price. But does it save us that much if the corporation or entrepreneur gets too greedy? For manufacturing tycoons to salt away, not necessarily for a rainy day, but because of opportunistic, excessive profit making, outsourcing could become a part of an “evil empire.”
Naturally, we have to think of ourselves as often no one else will. Times change, styles vanish, a fickle buyer hesitates and we must do what we can while we can. Currencies change, salaries do not always remain static, and sloppy workmanship may be difficult or impossible to control by long distance.
Our employment difficulties are also problematical. A high dropout rate in our schools can contribute to an imbalance of the kind of workforce demanded forcing us at times to go abroad. How often have we called one of our U.S. firms for assistance only to struggle to understand and be understood because of outsourcing necessitated by our inability to hire competently.
Yes, there is sense and nonsense in so many areas of our existence but we too often have a myopic view of all the angles. Will we refuse to go to department stores where the prices are lower than to a non-outsourcing entrepreneur where prices may not compare but who is entitled to make a living? That seems like a reasonable question, doesn't it? You decide.
Go to Top How often we read something like this: The Best Perch (or Shrimp) in Town. Or, The Best Mechanics in the Country. However, when consulted, there is often little or no documentation whatsoever. But it happens. Every day. Everywhere. An article in Newsweek, January 10 & 17, 2011, caught my attention. It was concerned with “Autism and the Affluent” dealing with the preoccupation with autism and vaccines in late 2007.
The Best in TownSeth Mnookin's concern with the phobia is not new. It has to do with the reluctance of giving vaccines to children for fear of autism which has had some unnerving affects whether valid or not. Then he went on to discuss public fears which like other persistent untruths take on a life of their own insisting that these vaccine scares are due to multiple, interconnected causes.
These are then spread masquerading as fact playing “a role as has the media's habit of giving every story 'two sides' long after one has been discredited.” This he credits to “public officials' ineptitude at communicating with the public.”
Perhaps Mnookin is a bit harsh, and maybe not. Whatever, there is the dangerous tendency of making statements that at best are uninformed. Or at their worst, deliberately misinforming. Maybe the perch is good, even great, but the best? Maybe vaccines can be troublesome, but are they worth the risk to encourage other risks? Even if they have been tested and proved but not tested as unproved?
To begin his article he made the statement: “The vaccine rate has plummeted in places where people put “Darwin fish” bumper stickers on their hybrid cars. Seth was referring to affluent communities that boast high vaccine exemption rates flirting with the prospect of diseases such as whooping cough, Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b) and other diseases that have been stymied or wiped out by vaccines.
Ironically, his fish sticker illustration referred to “residents who show their disdain for the anti-science beliefs of creationists by putting 'Darwin fish' bumper stickers” on their cars. I thought, how interesting an analogy. But then I realized that seeming many Darwinists are showing their disdain for creationists by calling atheistic evolution a fact rather than a theory, especially when so many former evolutionists have abandoned these hypotheses for Intelligent Design which is based, not merely on religion, but primarily on science.
Once again, we are confronted with the ever present malady of “uninformed decisions” in countless endeavors, whether science, religion, politics or health. Seth Mnookin ended the article informing us that his first child is fully up to date on shots. Bravo. Then he wrote, “If only there were a shot for irrational fears.” I'd like to add – if only there were a shot for uninformed
decisions.Go to Top
Win, Or Else! As a novice sports enthusiast, this excludes me from being an expert. Therefore, like many columns, these are opinions although hopefully informed opinions. We have often heard that winning is everything. Nothing else matters. That is true in some cases, but not in others. Let's talk about professional sports which are so dominating these days. Look at what it took to go to the Super Bowl from getting there to getting in plus bargaining with the scalpers. It is big business, and probably more a business than a sport (another informed decision?).While in the waiting room for some medical tests, I scanned three new (to me) ESPN magazines. What caught my attention were articles signed ANONYMOUS. These apparently were professional athletes commenting on their sport including football, auto racing, basketball and the like. All three were I thought objective, reasonable and convincing.
Let me mention two. Tiger Woods kept his shenanigans quiet but cost him dearly ultimately as we know: his marriage, reportedly a $100 mil settlement, a loss of sponsors and some prestige. The writer talked about the difficulties in being on the road so much, away from home, temptations lurking at every turn causing marital challenges in many ways. His advice in part: don't mess with a fellow player's wife and get a prenuptial agreement. An insiders view which makes sense to someone on the outside looking in. All is not glamor.
Another argument was levied. Are athletes mostly interested in winning? Not so, he insisted. Training can be ugly, living on the road is not always ideal, in short: it's often tough, really tough. So, if winning isn't the motive, what is? The owners cry, Win, Or Else because winning is the motive for profitability. However, the players Mr. Anonymous said are in it really for the money. Period (with some exceptions). For many, sports is all they know, and to live like a celebrity for a few years is highly motivational. Rings and trophies are nice but the lucrative paycheck is paramount. Another informed tidbit.
One more insight to help me make an informed opinion about professional sports. I know what sports had to do with the Ancient Rome culture which got out of hand and I fear the same could repeat itself. I also know that professional sports have to keep on improving the game, make it safer, keep the crowds coming, improve the amenities and elevate savings accounts.
I have been concerned about how brutal certain sports can become. Vengeance is mine so so we have bean balls, attempts to disable the quarterback, all mocking good sportsmanship. Another anonymous writer talked about possible attempts to improve football apart from better equipment -- like helmets. He mentioned making the field a few feet wider which would open up the game. He also talked about eliminating kickoffs where defense men are going full speed and are often able to make vicious tackles.
Interesting. He also encouraged making six men rather than five eligible receiving (if I read him correctly) which could reduce injuries. So, now I am a bit more informed which is important for me -- and the game.
Go to Top Marriage has not always been the norm. Nations as well as religions spell out certain requirements, with or without formal authority. Various terms have been coined such as marriage, polygamy, polyandry, celibacy, common law, matrimony, physical union, wedlock, spousal union, married couple, man and wife, same-sex union, cohabitation . . .
Common Law Bliss?In short, it is a complicated subject with tons of pros and cons, precedents, experiments, justifications and ignorance. A recent study was made with some interesting statistics, not all unexpected. Marriage (a union between one man and one woman) is on the decline.
A trend maybe not realized by everyone reveals that children born to children is on the decline while children born to older women (who are marrying later nowadays) is on the increase. Common Law Bliss. So? we respond. But then, a rising figure revealed that a higher percentage of these older women are having children out of wedlock. In other words, they are living with a man who is not their husband but is the father of her child or children. That's the trend. Also, it is far less embarrassing today to be a single parent and in some cases, a rising status symbol.
Why this is occurring is a complex subject, not easily explained nor is it always understood. Let's take a look at some of the reasons why marriage is diminishing, both in numbers as well as in theory. Some want a child but not the burdens of marriage. Other consider it a status symbol to be a single parent. Others have been raised in an environment non-conducive to good parenting.
Others have been burned badly by an unworthy spouse as some have been victims of lust, hate or other woes. Still others are restless yearning for freedom or something better or lesser. Not a few rebel to ideals imposed upon them with its restraints and demands. There are simply too many reasons and not enough energy to probe into the reasons and benefits of marriage. One husband (same-sex marriage) referred to those opposed to same-sex marriage as not conservatives, but regressives. He then lamented that “change has already happened; its only the law that lags.”
With many taboos evaporating and stigmas blotted out, living unmarried with or without a partner and deciding whether or not to keep a child or an unborn seems easier than ever.
Now that we have seen both sense and nonsense in the realm of matrimonial affairs, let's see what sense there might be. History is on the side of marriage where spouses who marry “for richer or poorer . . . as long as they shall live'' have more than proven the value of good marriages.
Marriage is a union between two opposite sex persons with the possibility of bringing another generation into the world. To safeguard this union, both civil and religious laws have prevailed to guard against onslaughts to this union. Marriages are as they say made on earth but marriage is made in heaven. Well, maybe. At least the concept is divine.
It didn't take long in human history when marriage became plural, mostly with multiple wives. And history has shown that some societies feel that adults (namely parents) are better matchmakers than young adults.
Society has also witnessed marriages for convenience, for a short term, or for an ulterior motive do not fare as well as marriages intent on longevity, love and mutuality. A society that frustrates the dignity, value and beauty of wedded bliss eventually learns to regret its collusion. Same-sex unions in the ultimate sense of the reason for existence may need and want the blessings of matrimony, but a traditional marriage it is not nor can it be. A coupling, perhaps, or a civil union, partnership, cohabitation agreement among other terms with civil protections often necessary long-term.
Whether same-sex remains in vogue or not, or whether it opens the door to bigamy, polygamy or even celibacy remains to be seen. Marriage is an invaluable ingredient in civilized society where good parenting is so important for its well-being and survival.
Go to Top What a title for a story. This doesn't make sense, really. But then, maybe it does. We all live in a world where there are a lot of things that don't make sense. Sometimes we don't know if they are true or not. Then, on the other hand, there are some things that happen that really are nonsense and we know it. So maybe there is some merit in looking at this title seriously.
Sense and NonsenseSuppose your teacher in school tells you there will be no school tomorrow because there will be a 6.2 earthquake. Right away you say, “Whoopee, no school tomorrow.” But then, one of your bright, sometimes too brilliant, student says, “Wait a minute. How do you know, Sir, that there will be an earthquake of 6.2 magnitude tomorrow?”
The teacher scratches the back of his balding head, and says, “Good question, Archie.” Then he goes on to explain how he knows, when no one else knows, that there will be a 6.2 earthquake tomorrow. He even gives the time: 4:47 A.M. centered 45 miles away 300 feet underground.
Another kid, less of a wise guy than Archie, interrupts, “Please, tell us how you know when no one else knows. If anyone would know, my father would because his work is in construction and they have to know those things.”
“Good thinking, Ben, sounds like you're wide awake this morning. Alright class, I'll tell you why. Last night I had a dream. Or, what everyone would consider a dream. But let me tell you, this wasn't an ordinary dream. It was a vision. I was being told in a vision . . .”
“What's vision?” interrupted Cynthia, “I don't believe that ordinary people have visions anymore.”
“Anymore?” interrupted Ben, “Who told you that?”
“I don't remember. Maybe my Mom or my older sister, I can't remember.”
“Sounds stupid, Cynthia, lots of people have visions nowadays. If our teacher had a vision, he had a vision. Let's go on.”
“OK stupid, let's get on with the show.”
“Don't call me one of your family names.”
“That's enough, class. Remember, we don't call each other names. We need a little civility here.”
“Civility? What's civility? questioned Donna who rarely speaks up in class.”
“Civility, Donna, is being civil. You know what civil means, don't you?”“I guess so. It means being considerate, kind, and understanding toward each other I think.”
“Yeah,” says Archie, “you are absolutely correct. Let's move on.”
The teacher paused for a second or two, and then continued. “A vision is more than a dream. It is like a dream but more important. Someone or something is trying to tell us something important to share with others.”
“Teacher, that doesn't make sense. A dream is a dream. A bad dream is a nightmare, and a good dreams is, well, a natural part of sleep. It happens to all of us some of the time.”
“Not me, I never dream. Dreams are nonsense. If I don't dream, and you do, so what?” mouthed Fred who seems always ready for a confrontation.
“Confrontation? What's that?” asked Effie, who really knew what it meant but wanted to hear what someone else thought. Her answer came quickly.
“Confrontation is when you challenge someone to know if something they are doing or saying makes sense or if it is nonsense.” “Not bad,” muttered Ben. Good girl.
Finally the teacher got control of the class and complimented them on their comments. He felt that they handled his challenge (but they didn't know it was a challenge) and said there was no earthquake and school would go on the next day.
After a few groans, the class settled down and the teacher asked them if they knew the difference between sense and nonsense. Most raised their hands but one of them didn't. The teacher noticed, and asked him why he didn't raise his hand.
He was hesitant but the teacher didn't push him. After a moment or two of silence, Joey began to talk. Mr. Thomas, is it possible for someone to make sense when it is actually nonsense?” Ben raised his hand was given the nod. “Joey, that happens all the time. Some characters sound like they know what they are talking about but it is a bunch of baloney. Problem is, not only do they believe it but everyone else does, too. Or almost everyone.”
The teacher nodded, saying, “Ben, that was a good answer. I couldn't have done better myself.” Another hand went up. “Mr. Thomas, I'm confused. You said you had a dream and then called it a vision. What really is a vision? How can we know if it is just a dream or something more important?” “Lillian, that's a tough question, even for a teacher. Let's put it this way. Dreams are dreams but sometimes they seem to be different than usual which causes people to wonder if it isn't some kind of a omen . . .”
“What's an omen?” she asked.
“Lilly, an omen is a sign that something important is happening or is going to happen. It might even be a hint of something significant.”
“Like a fortune teller only in a dream form?”
“That's a good analogy, and the same thing can happen in other ways as well.”
“Like Ouija Boards and tarot cards? What about Nostradamus? We watched a TV show and it said he made about 1,000 prophesies and about one-half of them came true. It was weird,” announced Ben.
“Is there anything to that kind of prophetic stuff? You know, like an angel appearing to someone and telling them what is going to happen? I have heard a lot of creepy stuff like Nostradamus,” muttered Archie. “Religion is full of it.”
Mr. Thomas sighed, saying, “My, we sure have taken a detour, haven't we? But it is an important topic although I'll admit I am not an authority on interpreting dreams, omens or prophecy. But this is certain. At times it's very difficult to determine what is sensible and what is not.
Let me put it this way: there are many mysteries in life. Some are pure nonsense while others make sense. Our task is to take any omen, or an unusual dream, or even a prediction and put it to the test: is it sensible or nonsense, is it true or false, and what credentials, if any does the bearer have. Now, maybe its time to get back to work. We can discuss this more at another time.”
Go to Top A recent topic was aired rvealing a dilemma which arose in a science classroom over the teaching of evolution. The problem was complicated because the teacher had to teach evolution and only evolution although he did not hold to that particular view.
Classroom EthicsHe was ready to accept that evolution occurred within a species, sometimes rather quickly, but was not ready to teach that species could evolve into other species through an evolutionary mutation.
Further, he was convinced that he along with many scientists believe that many aspects of a naturalistic evolution were simply un-proven and maybe even unprovable even if given ample time and energy. And he was also convinced that Intelligent Design, unacceptable in the classroom as well as Creationism, were more in line with his school of thought.
Evolutionists (Darwinists) dominate the field, often making it mandatory to not teach alternate views much less mention that such teachings exist. This has often been done in a compelling manner making it difficult if not impossible to even mention Creationism or Intelligent Design or even suggesting that maybe God was both designer and creator as an alternate view.
It is almost ironic that what is still known as Darwin's Theory (which does have some valid points), is mandated that it be taught not as an hypothesis or a thesis but as a proven fact. Education is not indoctrination nor should it be. Nor should atheism exclude any other theory or fact simply because it is not a “proven” subject nor can it be “scientifically proven” when much of evolution is yet unproven.
This of course takes us back to the classroom where the teacher, unconvinced that evolution was both proved and absolute, simply answered students questions about other possible answers to designs and origins other than evolution. Because he did suggest there were those who had other ideas, and because he mentioned what they were since they were not included in the textbooks nor mentioned in passing, he and others like him were either fired, denied tenure or not promoted.
Again, because this does happen all too frequently, it fights the concept of informed decisions. Is it not pure nonsense to restrict a teacher from answering questions that can be handled without “proselytizing” or indoctrinating students?
It is even not scholarly to refuse to consider other schools of thought while restricting the class to a single point of view, whether or not it is viable. If numerous scholarly scientists have concluded that Intelligent Design is in some ways superior to natural selection, that evidence of design is more likely than mere chance, it would appear that this should not be hidden from those who view education as a learning experience, not as indoctrination or withholding knowledge.
Go to Top
A Horror Story “Hello, Professor. Sorry to intrude on you like this.”
“No problem, Stan. Any time. What's on your mind? Was my sermon too long last Sunday?”
“No. Just right. One of your better ones in fact.”
“Well, thank you for the compliment.”
“Long overdue, Pastor. Here's whats happening. Our son Jamie looked at a horror film with his youth group. He came home, scared to death.”
“Our youth group? I'm sorry to hear that.”
“Not your fault. It was a Christian film about end times.”
“I see. I didn't think it would affect him that much.”
“Nor did I. But it took me by surprise. I had no real answers for him. That's why I'm here.”
“I think I know the film you're talking about. I haven't seen it but our Youth Pastor always previews anything he shows to the kids.”
“I'm glad to hear that. I was wondering if he had seen it before showing it to the youth. Now I know.”
“That film, if it was the one I'm thinking of, is very dramatic. I think it has been around for awhile. What was Jamie's reaction?”
“More fear, or anxiety than appropriateness. It dramatized the rapture of believers when Jesus descends from heaven and the chaos it caused.”
“Like automobiles without drivers, trains without engineers, classes with missing students and teachers?”
“Exactly. And homes with a parent missing and unaccounted for. Things like that. I'm sure it had a moral or a spiritual purpose but apparently it was too, 'um, frightening.”
“I understand. Parents disappearing, cars crashing without a driver, classes without teachers. Chaos unbelievable. That could be frightening.”
“Do you suppose the Rapture could be depicted in another way, less traumatic?”
“Like how?”
“I don't want to fault the filmmakers but I think it maybe it depicts the Rapture lopsidedly. It makes God seem more ruthless than He is.”
“How's that?”
“I think God, who is capable of doing creative things, might have eliminated some of the horror as there would be considerable terror apart from the abrupt departure of believers.”
“Hmmm. Interesting. I never thought of that.”
“For instance, a commercial pilot could either be raptured before taking flight, or left until the plane landed safely.”
“I see. The expression suddenly, or “in the twinkling of an eye” wouldn't have to create absolute chaos by indicating that every believer would be taken in one split second. But I'm sure that is what many if not most interpret it that way.”
“I think so. Every believer at the same moment regardless of situation. No wonder the movie was so horrendous.”
“If God is not only all-powerful, He must also be most creative. I think you have made sense. Here is what I would like to do. I'd like to have you join join me to discuss this with them.”
“I think we could generate an interesting discussion which could make the Rapture look more civil without losing its impact. Let's do it, Pastor.”Go to Top There are two sides to every issue, almost. This one is no exception. That the Constitution of the United States insisted on a clarification of the relationship between the US and the Christian Church is clear.
Constitution – Church and StateWe fought a battle over English rule and won the struggle against huge odds: a handful of settlers vs. a mighty Empire (or what had been so). In setting up a standard for the new nation, it was imperative for our founders to not only create a working constitution but to learn from the past.
One lesson was the problem involved with the perennial question: Who's in charge? Historically, Europe fought battles between the Pope, the leader of the Christian Church, and the Emperor. At times it was vicious. England also faced a struggle between the power of the King and Parliament and The Church of England. In part, the battle was won when the Royalty was released from its political power and the Church could concentrate on religion.
Consequently, the framers of the US Constitution learned the lesson: there should be a separation of Church and State and it was written into the document:
The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The brevity of this is part of the challenging discussions, arguments and defenses which followed and has not ended. Roger Williams—who had written of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world," quoting Jefferson who wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State".
This metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the 1947 Everson Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.
However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as meaning absolute separation of government from all things religious. In contrast, David Barton, a former co-chair of the Texas Republican party, emphasized the religiosity of the nation's founders asserting that "separation of church and state," as widely understood by modern historians and jurists, is a "myth" and that the U.S. was founded as a religious, Christian nation.
And so, after more than two centuries, the question may not be resolved, diplomatically or theologically. It may, however, be interpreted to suit those in power and consequently could continue to vacillate politically more than linguistically.
In looking at the original declaration Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . it makes it clear that our Founding Fathers did not want or need a State Church. And it also is clear that the free exercise of religion is not prohibited.
Anything beyond this seems a bit far fetched to imply that the Constitution bans legitimate exercise of religion but whether or not it does close the door on encouraging or even allowing religious fanaticism or various forms of pseudo (false) religion is debatable. Even Barton's interpretation that the understanding of the originators and subsequent jurists means a complete separation of church and state (public) is a myth is debatable in part because of his argument that the United States was founded as a religious, Christian nation.It is true that not all Founders were religious, nor devout Christians - Protestant, Orthodox or Roman Catholic - but some unquestionably were religious. In all likelihood, it would be difficult to argue that the Constitution is distinctly a secular document.
In conclusion, suppose our existing Congress were to scrap the Constitution (God forbid that it should happen), two questions might be raised. First, would it be shorter or longer? Judging by current attempts to create proposals, it would be longer, considerably longer. And secondly, would it be an improvement? That would be difficult for many to imagine. Long live the Constitution of the United States of America.
Go to Top
Outsourcing This is big business. Or, maybe you should get into outsourcing if you are a big business. Rather than get into the history of this topic, let's take a look at outsourcing as it exists in 2011. Yes, it is big business, and can be cost-effective, and yes, has lots of advantages. But there are always two sides of a story not always visualized. Most of us I suspect think that outsourcing manufacturing is done for economic reasons, namely cheap(er) labor which makes for increased profits. However there are no doubt other motives as well which may not be as well known. In addition, putting people to work in countries where labor is not only less expensive, it also conceivably can be beneficial to those there who need jobs.The question remains, however. If these laborers are exploited, underpaid, and over-worked, enabling bosses and owners to profit excessively at their expense, this is not right. Furthermore, it could be difficult to determine. The same is true on the other end. If the motive is not to be excessively profitable but to be unreasonably so, outsourcing could be considered viable.
With an economy bombarded infamously by many problems including serious un-employment (with complex causes), outsourcing undoubtedly contributes to the problem to some extent, or even to a great extent. Outsourcing maybe needs to be rethought, revised or reversed. Then of course some outsourcing is necessitated by the lack of personnel locally to do the job, particularly in skilled occupations. So, it is not a pleasant topic to explore for either the unemployed, underemployed or employers.
What the future of outsourcing holds is also questionable. Will it diminish or expand? Will it demand more or less? We are already beginning to see some cracks in the outsourcing edifices. Cheap labor isn't as cheap as it has been. Transportation glitches can be an occupational hazard, not only as costs rise but frustrating delays of merchandise do occur. Outsourcing to reputable concerns who in turn outsource to less reputable outlets can and does occur with some fatal flaws not easily remedied by long distance.
In short, outsourcing, particularly for the “little guy” can be discouraging compared to huge corporations able to staff overseas locales more efficiently than lesser entities.
To combat some of the woes of outsourcing which seem to be on the increase, not a few local companies are streamlining their endeavors for greater efficiency and profitability. Robots are becoming more and more more efficient which reduces labor costs as well as product control although this could cause some unemployment as well. Companies and corporations willing to curtail excessive profits could in all likelihood pay attractive wages for locals and still make a decent of not handsome profit.
Much more could be said, and probably should be said, but in closing, let me refer you to Brendan I. Koerner's article Made in the USA in Wired Magazine, March 2011 for an in depth article on which you can build your own arguments. It's worth a try.
Go to Top
Fundamentalism Fundamentals are as essential as the air we breathe. They fall into all kinds of classifications: science, religion, math, music, history, politics. You name it. Let's take religion as an example. The Christian Church has evolved considerably over the centuries, partly (or largely) due to fundamentals.The early church was quite different than the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations today. However, any attempt to merge these seems futile although there are common fundamentals running through all of them. Where fundamentals get sidetracked varies based not only on theology but on charismatic personalities, archeology, geography and language among other factors.
Protestantism for instance, is exceptionally diverse today. The range far exceeds Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Add to this cults and sects and it get even more diverse. Even in set limits such as conservative and liberal there are subgroups which often become rigid and even ultra dogmatic. Various spin-offs occur. When these ceased to satisfy, other nomenclatures emerged.
Within many church, sect and cultic groups, major identifications emerged on the fundamentals that were espoused. These at times became exceptionally rigid or excessively fluid. Sometimes these fundamentals became revolutionary, often resulting in radical interpretations of segments of their religious literature at the expense of the whole.
This has occurred, not only within breakaway groups, but among large religious bodies often wreaking havoc as various dubious methodologies are employed to make converts or expand their base. We have witnessed this in various part of the globe promulgated by diversified religious groups. Unfortunately, fundamentals are often at the root of the problem.
It might be wise at this point to define fundamental: Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure. This is a concise but adequate definition. It is easily understood and readily ambushed. All politics, religions and science possess essential components subject to various interpretations wherein lie the ambiguities and subversive elements. In many if not most components of culture, there are often equal and opposing opinions that may or may not be resolved.
This could go on and on, but there is another aspect of fundamental worth mentioning. It is the designating of the lowest, or root, tone of a chord. Of course we are not talking about theology or politics here. Or are we? One of the root difficulties is highlighted here: seeking the lowest rather than the highest root, or tone of the end product. It is when we seek, find and exploit the lowest denomination of fundamentals, trouble is not far away. We dare not lose sight of valid fundamentals.
Go to Top
Executive Pay As it is with so many subjects, executive pay can be quite controversial. In some cases, the top executive is largely responsible for the health of the company, corporation or congregation (even pastors enter the equation, particularly in mega church situations).On the other hand, some execs are largely figureheads (like ceremonial kings and princes). They are there for the pomp and circumstance, the media and board meetings, but the success is elsewhere among the officers, shareholder wisdom, and possibly a genius here and there. Others are somewhere in between. Good management, excellent employees, benevolent unions and lest we forget, good times are determinants. At best, compensation is complicated and must be continually evaluated for good times and otherwise.
How to determine executive pay is varied from place to place. Movies and sports often rise and fall on superstar-celebrities who make or break the endeavors. At times this can be a gamble but its typical reliance doesn't seem to fade away until the superstar languishes and the search begins anew.
Rather recently we have seen a phenomenal explosion of salaries, fringe benefits and amenities in certain situations while others lag embarrassingly. On occasion a good executive surrounds him/herself not with subordinates but equals or superior talent. Good practice although not exercised widely enough. When this is the case, should the top executive be paid equally, slightly less, slightly more or exceedingly more?
But if the chief executive surrounds himself with subordinates, avoiding competition, how is he or she compensated? Yet many say this doesn't happen. It shouldn't happen if the top exec possesses a strong ego and a magnanimous disposition. If the way paved to the top included stumbling blocks that were overcome, does he deserve many times that of his deputies? It happens.
We talk about equal pay for equal tasks, for male and female alike, for equal academic and previous experience but that simply seems to be a lost art far too often. Then there are the concepts of tenure (or its equivalence), seniority, schmoozing and just plain luck which enter the salary components. And it should not underestimate that proverbial real estate axiom: location, location, location. Certain localities are far more challenging for a variety of reasons demanding or angling for commensurate pay.
In my own profession, I remember when the senior minister was paid considerably more than associates. More recently, comparative studies have been made of salaries here and elsewhere which have revealed certain disparities resulting in more equitable salary and benefit structures. One final comment in this brief, unscientific attempt to show the necessity for informed opinions: abnormal heights of salaries are often reached, not because of merit as much as a safeguard to keep the chief executive (or star) from being lured into greener pastures. Maybe we should all go on commission?
Go to Top Right now, this is a hot topic. Lots of rhetoric, pro and con. That is why it should be addressed by non-experts as well as experts (yours truly is the former).
Same Sex MarriageWhat prompted this was a story about Elton John and his husband (I didn't get his name). They were shown with an adopted child, a little darling I thought. When Elton referred to his partner as husband, I waited for some time to hear what his partner called him. I never did find out. Perhaps they were both husbands? Anyway, this shows my ignorance, doesn't it?
Now, to be fair, and unbiased, let me suggest a long, detailed but well-written article entitled Real Marriage found in the National Review, March 21, 2011, page 36 written by Sherif Girgis. There is considerable food for thought there. Incidentally, there is also an article Offense to the Constitution Act by Robert H. Bork, page 16, about the Obama Administration announcing its refusal to defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).
Back to our topic. The question of husband/wife in a traditional marriage does challenge the nomenclature of wife/wife or husband/husband or whatever. Maybe my spouse would work better. This is merely an awkward dimension of same sex unions.
Now, let's talk about marriage as such. Traditionally, it referred to a union between a man and a woman, not between two men or two women. Jokingly, maybe it is good we have only two sexes. When there are multiple spouses, words have been created to describe these unions. There is little doubt that history does consider a union between a man and a woman as marriage but it can be called a union, mating or other expressions.
A major problem arises as to what to call a union between two members of the same sex that is intended to be established civilly and legally, not a one-night option unintended for any permanence and primarily for its pleasure. When it borrows the term marriage, it becomes a magnet for debate. The argument for marriage as a union between a man and a woman includes the possibility of a union which is operative between male and female but not same sex partners. This is not really debatable. What is debatable is the use of the term marriage which is argued as only a secondary meaning in reputable dictionaries for same-sex couples.
Considerable discussion would probably cease if those desiring a same-sex union similar to the legal and civil attributes accorded marriage would find another term for marriage but as of now, that doesn't seem to be the case. The benefits, particularly legal, are many and no doubt have been and would be accorded if and when same-sex unions are universally recognized.
There are numerous dimensions to marriage per se accorded by the state, not by religious or civil ceremonies as such including child custody, tax breaks, child abuse and abandonment procedures, separation and annulment, recompense and inheritance and so on. Whether advanced societies will approve and accept the term marriage for same-sex unions universally may remain in limbo at least for the moment. Does anybody have a precise, acceptable alternate term?
Go to Top Another hot item which ought to be avoided is evolution. However, it is a challenge so let's explore it unscientifically for a moment. First of all, there is a godless evolution and its converse, theistic evolution. There are similarities and differences that often do not meet the eye.
EvolutionNaturalistic evolution sees the cosmos as a natural phenomenon, evolving over zillions of years into what we see today. This includes sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations as well as the earth, plants, animals and humans. This all occurred by natural means, evolving from the simple into the complex. Many if not most natural scientists think this way and are often dogmatic insisting that this is the only truth (until disproved). There is little room for other cause and effects.
Then there is theistic evolution which gets complicated, almost as much so as natural evolution. It is difficult to explain, especially in few words. One way of looking at it is that creation, what we see, feel and know has a divine origin (God, the designer and creator). Evolution is part of His technique as species do evolve. For instance, there may have been one dog early on but over the years changed (evolved) and today we have many kinds of dogs. However, theistic thinking doesn't allow for any evolving between species. For instance, a dog evolving into a cat.
Then there is a creationist movement whereby God created each species ranging from insects, lets say, to elephants but not really evolving from one into another. Slight modifications, perhaps, but no major evolutionary process.
Alas, in rather recent times, many scientists and theologians, lay and professional people, have embraced what is called Intelligent Design. ID is scorned by naturalists because it disallows pure evolution without a designer, only chance. ID seems to allow for variation but with a designer, but not all IDers call it a Designer (capital D for supernatural).
Now, if there ever was a simple description of creation this is it. What it boils down to is this: either there is a God, supernatural possibilities and miracles or there is none of that. Ironically, some are caught in the middle of these poles without knowing which one to lean on or when to lean. If one cannot or will not believe in a supernatural being or super-natural events, there are not many other options. Same is true for those who believe in God and His supernatural abilities to design, create and sustain the universe. Wiggle room for both sides is limited.
Finally, there is an element called faith which often seems to contradict reason. Strange as it may sound, reason is important but for some not all-important. Nor does reason contradict faith because we all live, move and discover both by faith and reason. Take faith from reason and reason from faith and there is not much left. Nor is there much space left on this page. So, farewell, reader, but one final word, embrace both faith and reason and you will be well rewarded. Informed opinions are far better than uninformed opinions. Yes?
Go to Top