It's pretty funny how people make everything into a race issue.
If you don't follow baseball, you will still probably have heard that Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants is close to tying (and breaking) Hank Aaron's long-standing home run record of 755. Bonds has 754 as of today, July 31, 2007.
A lot has been made of the fact that Aaron and Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig has been lukewarm at best in showing their support for Bonds. It was only recently that Selig has decided that he will attend if/when Bonds ties and/or breaks Aaron's record.
Even though I have Barry Bonds' rookie card (for investment purposes only, not because I'm a fan), I am hoping that he will not break the Aaron record. Why? Isn't it obvious (ok, maybe it's not, if you don't follow baseball)? Bonds is an arrogant, obnoxious, jacked-up on steroids cheater, who does not care about the fans. Do you ever see his conduct during pre or especially post-game interviews? Absolutely devoid of professionalism.
If you don't think he's been cheating, have a look at the days when he played with the Pittsburgh Pirates. He was skinny as a stick (I was looking at his rookie card the other day and definitely noticed this). Didn't hit that many home runs (think he was hitting around 20-30 a year), and that was, what, 15-20 years ago? Now look at him - it's like Dr. Banner vs. The Incredible Hulk - he's hitting tons of homeruns, and he's like, 42 years old? Baseball players (especially batters) seldom last past their mid-30s due to age and declining strength. Yet this guy's somehow getting considerably stronger with age? If you look at Aaron, he hit consistently throughout his career - his numbers never skyrocketed as he approach the twilight of his playing days. Also, did you know that Barry Bonds' hat size has gone up 2 sizes since he started playing? Working out every day will not do that to your head. Steroids will. I'd give Bonds the benefit of the doubt, if not for the fact that...
The guy's had federal purjury charges brought up against him, a grand jury has investigated him, he has been in steroids scandals many times where he admitted that he had steroids in him but had no idea how they got there or what they were, has been in controversy over breaking rules at various levels of play (if you don't care about the game, what will be your natural inclination?), his teammates for the most part all hate his guts, he has had "domestic issues" with his women - ie. cheating on his wife (by the way, an ex-girlfriend mentioned that he was definitely a steroids user), and the list goes on. Is this the guy who you want to see as the home run king? Even personal / character flaw stuff aside, the steroids scandals is enough to put an asterisk beside his name in the record books if/when that happens.
Compare that to Hank Aaron, a humble, skilled player, who NEVER got into controversy, and to this day, remains one of the most respected baseball players of all time (I believe he even won some Presidential medal for his civilian contribution). To see a character like Bonds break the record of a true baseball great (and a simply nice guy) like Aaron will pain me deeply.
Some supporters (the few that are out there) of Barry Bonds will claim that he is being unfairly targeted because he is black. Hold yer horses...
Hank Aaron is black.
Other baseball greats like Willie Mays, and the latest notable, Ozzie Smith (whose rookie card I have as well and it is both an investment and because I am a big fan) were black - did they get flak from fans and the media? No. Because they played the game fairly, smartly, honestly, ethnically and professionally.
Besides, does anyone, white or black, have good vibes on Mark McGwire (who is white) but also is artificially bulked up by steroids? Ok, he never admitted it explicitly, but on the stand at a steroids inquiry, he pleaded the fifth, and also refused to answer the questions about his own alleged steroid use, simply stating that he wasn't there to talk about the past. McGwire broke the home run record in 1998 (my wife and I watched it on TV in our dingy, centipede-infested basement apartment at the time), before the steroids scandals hit. A few years later, Barry Bonds breaks McGwire's record. In my mind, Roger Maris' record was never broken, even by Sammy Sosa, who broke it three times, came short of Bonds and McGwire, but he himself has people wondering how a guy has suddenly gotten so huge and is hitting home runs everywhere where he wasn't before. I don't think too many people in the future will regard McGwire or Bonds as legitimate record holders, if they haven't already.
Even if Bonds was a nice guy, the steroids use still taints any achievement he makes. The fact that he acts like a douche bag around fans and press, and baseball's hall of fame players, showing no respect for his predecessors or anyone in authority at Major League Baseball, just adds another reason to hope that somehow, miraculously, Hank Aaron's record will remain intact.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
George W. Bush - His Legacy
It's kind of funny how people tend to bandwagon jump on others, particularly if they do not agree with them. I see this all the time in business and outside of business. It is the person with a lot of guts (and a lot of balls) who will go against the grain to defend their convictions, whether they are popular or not. There are a number of people with whom I may disagree philosophically, politically, and theologically, but I highly respect them for taking a position that may not be popular, or an easy one to take.
So all that being said, I turn my attention to the embattled U.S. President George W. Bush, whose term is going to end at the end of next year. I actually like the U.S. constitutions provision for presidential term limits, since it will ensure that there's a new face in there at the maximum every eight years. It also has helped ensure that popular, but morally suspect Presidents like Bill Clinton don't stay on for longer than they should.
Has George W. been the greatest U.S. President? Probably not. Has he made some mistakes? I believe he has. Does he deserve all the criticism he is getting by left wingers and some right wingers in the States? No. Has he been a good president overall? Given the climate and the environment that he has had to work with, I would say yes, as unpopular as it is to say that these days.
Bush has served pretty much his whole term under the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and aftermath. He has really had to make some tough decisions, especially in going into war. Should he have gone into Iraq? Who knows - I can say one way or another, but hindsight is 20/20, right? The whole weapons of mass destruction thing was a bit of a fiasco. They did capture Saddam Hussein, who has since been executed - so he did a good service to the Iraqi people by removing a dictator, but as the war as drawn on, it sort of reminds you of Vietnam in a sense, as the U.S. stuck their nose in someone else's business. In this case, I think that it was the right decision, even though it has cost many soldier and civilian lives. Personally, I would have preferred if they put more troops in Afghanistan, which is probably where Osama Bin Laden is still hiding. But then again, I don't work for the government, the Pentagon, the CIA, or NSA, so again, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest anything here.
Now, I know what you may think - Jeremy, what have you been smoking? Have you see any of the Michael Moore films? Well, let me just say that Michael Moore is hardly an unbiased, objective authority on anything. I've watched a few of his movies, and I am more than happy to challenge some of the "facts", since some of the topics and scenarios he enacted in his movie, I know a little about. The problem is when Moore goes on and appeals to left wingers or those on the fence and just shoves endless anti-Bush propaganda on them, these people assume he is the authority and eats it up (just like when Al Gore or any other environmental wannabe throws facts and statistics out, people don't know any better but they assume it's true - there are many scientists and studies who show that the idea of global warming is inconsistent at best - email me if you want some sources here). Anyway, people think that Bush is some heartless guy who has no backbone, etc., and has Tony Blair (not anymore) on a leash.
Say what you want about Bush's decisions - I don't agree with all of them, but I know that they were hard to make, so I applaud him for at least taking a stance and making a decision (just like his veto of embryonic stem cell research - something which I am against, and I highly respect the fact that Bush has the guts to take a stand and put the sanctity of human life before scientific breakthroughs (as beneficial as some of the research may result). He has had all sorts of groups lobbying for him to allow this research and even in the face of Hollywood celebrities and the like (who to me, have no more sway than anyone else), he made some tough decisions.
People mention how the U.S. economy is down the crapper for many years now and they blame Bush. I don't think that Bush is directly responsible for the U.S. economy's current long-standing funk. Remember, the tech bubble burst at the turn of the century (and millenium), so stocks were starting to spiral downward anyway. Add to that the terrorist attacks and the constant uncertainty of potentially new attacks, the U.S. economy has never recovered fully. I don't expect to see any growth in the U.S. economy for the next 8-10 years, actually, no matter who is President. No doubt if a Democrat is elected in 2008, there may be a slight jump in the economy, but I think it will go back to slumping after.
Compare Bush to Bill Clinton, from a people perspective. Bush was not involved in any sexual scandals. The first lady, Laura Bush, never got in any controversy and is pretty well respected across the board (unlike Hillary Clinton, who is a love-her-or-hate-her character). Clinton was very popular among voters because he had good schmoozing techniques (being a lawyer and all). But the record has also shown that Clinton has been engaged in many bold-face lies, and I'm not just talking about Monica Lewinsky. Bush - well, I don't recall of any instance where he told a bold-faced lie (and I'm not talking about him not being fed accurate information, but I'm talking about him deliberately misleading people). Granted, Bush may not have all the people skills Clinton has, but I'd rather choose someone who can make tough decisions and live by convictions rather than someone who goes around trying to please everyone.
Even though I'm not an American citizen, in 2004 I managed to buy a Bush-Cheney campaign golf shirt, which I wore everywhere (and yes, I drew my fair share of stares and hostile body language from people I came across). While I think Bush has made some mistakes, I don't believe he deserves to be considered the worst president that the U.S. has ever had. I believe in 20-30 years, the commentators will realize that he was put in a tough position and did the best that he could, under the circumstances.
So all that being said, I turn my attention to the embattled U.S. President George W. Bush, whose term is going to end at the end of next year. I actually like the U.S. constitutions provision for presidential term limits, since it will ensure that there's a new face in there at the maximum every eight years. It also has helped ensure that popular, but morally suspect Presidents like Bill Clinton don't stay on for longer than they should.
Has George W. been the greatest U.S. President? Probably not. Has he made some mistakes? I believe he has. Does he deserve all the criticism he is getting by left wingers and some right wingers in the States? No. Has he been a good president overall? Given the climate and the environment that he has had to work with, I would say yes, as unpopular as it is to say that these days.
Bush has served pretty much his whole term under the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and aftermath. He has really had to make some tough decisions, especially in going into war. Should he have gone into Iraq? Who knows - I can say one way or another, but hindsight is 20/20, right? The whole weapons of mass destruction thing was a bit of a fiasco. They did capture Saddam Hussein, who has since been executed - so he did a good service to the Iraqi people by removing a dictator, but as the war as drawn on, it sort of reminds you of Vietnam in a sense, as the U.S. stuck their nose in someone else's business. In this case, I think that it was the right decision, even though it has cost many soldier and civilian lives. Personally, I would have preferred if they put more troops in Afghanistan, which is probably where Osama Bin Laden is still hiding. But then again, I don't work for the government, the Pentagon, the CIA, or NSA, so again, it would be presumptuous of me to suggest anything here.
Now, I know what you may think - Jeremy, what have you been smoking? Have you see any of the Michael Moore films? Well, let me just say that Michael Moore is hardly an unbiased, objective authority on anything. I've watched a few of his movies, and I am more than happy to challenge some of the "facts", since some of the topics and scenarios he enacted in his movie, I know a little about. The problem is when Moore goes on and appeals to left wingers or those on the fence and just shoves endless anti-Bush propaganda on them, these people assume he is the authority and eats it up (just like when Al Gore or any other environmental wannabe throws facts and statistics out, people don't know any better but they assume it's true - there are many scientists and studies who show that the idea of global warming is inconsistent at best - email me if you want some sources here). Anyway, people think that Bush is some heartless guy who has no backbone, etc., and has Tony Blair (not anymore) on a leash.
Say what you want about Bush's decisions - I don't agree with all of them, but I know that they were hard to make, so I applaud him for at least taking a stance and making a decision (just like his veto of embryonic stem cell research - something which I am against, and I highly respect the fact that Bush has the guts to take a stand and put the sanctity of human life before scientific breakthroughs (as beneficial as some of the research may result). He has had all sorts of groups lobbying for him to allow this research and even in the face of Hollywood celebrities and the like (who to me, have no more sway than anyone else), he made some tough decisions.
People mention how the U.S. economy is down the crapper for many years now and they blame Bush. I don't think that Bush is directly responsible for the U.S. economy's current long-standing funk. Remember, the tech bubble burst at the turn of the century (and millenium), so stocks were starting to spiral downward anyway. Add to that the terrorist attacks and the constant uncertainty of potentially new attacks, the U.S. economy has never recovered fully. I don't expect to see any growth in the U.S. economy for the next 8-10 years, actually, no matter who is President. No doubt if a Democrat is elected in 2008, there may be a slight jump in the economy, but I think it will go back to slumping after.
Compare Bush to Bill Clinton, from a people perspective. Bush was not involved in any sexual scandals. The first lady, Laura Bush, never got in any controversy and is pretty well respected across the board (unlike Hillary Clinton, who is a love-her-or-hate-her character). Clinton was very popular among voters because he had good schmoozing techniques (being a lawyer and all). But the record has also shown that Clinton has been engaged in many bold-face lies, and I'm not just talking about Monica Lewinsky. Bush - well, I don't recall of any instance where he told a bold-faced lie (and I'm not talking about him not being fed accurate information, but I'm talking about him deliberately misleading people). Granted, Bush may not have all the people skills Clinton has, but I'd rather choose someone who can make tough decisions and live by convictions rather than someone who goes around trying to please everyone.
Even though I'm not an American citizen, in 2004 I managed to buy a Bush-Cheney campaign golf shirt, which I wore everywhere (and yes, I drew my fair share of stares and hostile body language from people I came across). While I think Bush has made some mistakes, I don't believe he deserves to be considered the worst president that the U.S. has ever had. I believe in 20-30 years, the commentators will realize that he was put in a tough position and did the best that he could, under the circumstances.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
My Correspondence with Tess Gerritsen
As an avid reader and an even more avid writer, I tend to thoroughly enjoy discussing the art of the written word. Last year (or was it this year?), I had the opportunity to write to one of my favourite, if not my favourite fiction writer Tess Gerritsen. She writes medical thrillers and in all my years of reading fiction, I cannot think of too many writers who produce better prose than she does. Her books are extremely well written, have plotlines that never stand still, and employ engaging and multi-dimensional characters.
When I wrote to Tess Gerritsen, I was certainly not expecting a response, since she is a New York Times bestselling author, and I imagine travels quite a bit to promote her books. However, a few days after I sent my email, I was pleasantly surprised to see a response from her in my e-mail box, and it was a fairly detailed response at that.
Tess Gerritsen, if you read her books, is of Asian ethnicity. That, of course, piques my interest, since I do not see many Asian in high profile arts and literature. In other fields like sports, we are seeing a few more Asians (particularly in baseball). On TV and in the movies, they usually cast the same old supporting characters (old, wise kung-fu masters or gangsters or nerds), and when they do feature Asians prominently, it is in a stereotypical role (ie. Jackie Chan or Jet Li doing martial arts). I would say that Daniel Dae Kim is probably one of the more versatile actors, being featured in the blockbuster TV series Lost, not to mention other movies and TV shows like 24. Also, Sandra Oh (Canadian girl of Asian background) has been in movies like Sideways and is one of the main characters on the TV show Grey's Anatomy.
I wrote Ms. Gerritsen about her seemingly lack of Asian characters in her books. Now, before you wonder where I am going with this, let me just say upfront that no, I do not believe that if you are Asian, that you are obligated to have Asian characters in your books. However, in knowing how few Asians are represented in books and film, and knowing that there are still age-old offensive (and not much offends me) stereotypes that float around (let's just say that the William Hung phenomenon on American Idol was not simply his lack of musical skill of which people poked fun), I would have always thought that if I ever get a book published, I would try to feature Asians prominently, and not like Joy Luck Club, which is still pretty stereotypical.
Her response is sincere and very interesting to note. She said that she thought about that idea for a long time and in doing studies on these things, has concluded that having Asian main characters will not help her sell books, since the mainstream society is still not ready for Asian main characters, and as a result would not buy books with prominently featured Asian protagonists. As she is a stay-at-home mom who writes books for a living, I can certainly appreciate why she needs to ensure that she continues to pull in an income (though as a New York Times bestselling author, I imagine she does pretty well financially). She did tell me that does consciously employ the occasional use of Asian characters in supporting roles or other character roles, which I have noticed. She also mentioned that she believes a large reason why many more Asian kids don't get into the literary arts is because of traditional parental pressure in Asian cultures. I think this is quite true. Many Asian parents are achievement-oriented, and as immigrants, want to see their child succeed, which in Asian terms, equates to earning a good pay. That is why you generally see Asian kids more often than not in fields such as the sciences and mathematics, both of which can lead to high paying scientific, medical, or engineering jobs in the future.
I'd also probably add that it is likely that while much of this has to do with economics and cultural pressure, there is no doubt a part of this that has to do with language as well. I have always thought that part of the reason why immigrant kids tend to go into science and math is because of the universality of the concepts behind these disciplines. As a result, knowing how to speak and write languages (ie. English) is not prerequisite that is prominent. As a result, you have fewer kids in language arts programs in universities and colleges and subsequently, fewer of them in journalism, writing, literary, and editorial careers.
Obviously, it is my hope to one day be able to be an instrument towards change in this area. I was not designed by God to work in a corporate office environment, as nice as some of the perks are. My natural giftings and skills are not in information technology management, as good as I believe I am in doing my job, and others have affirmed this. My passion is to write, I think that it is one of the few things I am actually good at doing, so hopefully one day I will be able to join the ranks of the Tess Gerritsens and be able to help reverse long-standing Asian stereotpes, and be an agent to encourage other Asian folks to explore the literary arts, exercising their natural gifts and abilities.
When I wrote to Tess Gerritsen, I was certainly not expecting a response, since she is a New York Times bestselling author, and I imagine travels quite a bit to promote her books. However, a few days after I sent my email, I was pleasantly surprised to see a response from her in my e-mail box, and it was a fairly detailed response at that.
Tess Gerritsen, if you read her books, is of Asian ethnicity. That, of course, piques my interest, since I do not see many Asian in high profile arts and literature. In other fields like sports, we are seeing a few more Asians (particularly in baseball). On TV and in the movies, they usually cast the same old supporting characters (old, wise kung-fu masters or gangsters or nerds), and when they do feature Asians prominently, it is in a stereotypical role (ie. Jackie Chan or Jet Li doing martial arts). I would say that Daniel Dae Kim is probably one of the more versatile actors, being featured in the blockbuster TV series Lost, not to mention other movies and TV shows like 24. Also, Sandra Oh (Canadian girl of Asian background) has been in movies like Sideways and is one of the main characters on the TV show Grey's Anatomy.
I wrote Ms. Gerritsen about her seemingly lack of Asian characters in her books. Now, before you wonder where I am going with this, let me just say upfront that no, I do not believe that if you are Asian, that you are obligated to have Asian characters in your books. However, in knowing how few Asians are represented in books and film, and knowing that there are still age-old offensive (and not much offends me) stereotypes that float around (let's just say that the William Hung phenomenon on American Idol was not simply his lack of musical skill of which people poked fun), I would have always thought that if I ever get a book published, I would try to feature Asians prominently, and not like Joy Luck Club, which is still pretty stereotypical.
Her response is sincere and very interesting to note. She said that she thought about that idea for a long time and in doing studies on these things, has concluded that having Asian main characters will not help her sell books, since the mainstream society is still not ready for Asian main characters, and as a result would not buy books with prominently featured Asian protagonists. As she is a stay-at-home mom who writes books for a living, I can certainly appreciate why she needs to ensure that she continues to pull in an income (though as a New York Times bestselling author, I imagine she does pretty well financially). She did tell me that does consciously employ the occasional use of Asian characters in supporting roles or other character roles, which I have noticed. She also mentioned that she believes a large reason why many more Asian kids don't get into the literary arts is because of traditional parental pressure in Asian cultures. I think this is quite true. Many Asian parents are achievement-oriented, and as immigrants, want to see their child succeed, which in Asian terms, equates to earning a good pay. That is why you generally see Asian kids more often than not in fields such as the sciences and mathematics, both of which can lead to high paying scientific, medical, or engineering jobs in the future.
I'd also probably add that it is likely that while much of this has to do with economics and cultural pressure, there is no doubt a part of this that has to do with language as well. I have always thought that part of the reason why immigrant kids tend to go into science and math is because of the universality of the concepts behind these disciplines. As a result, knowing how to speak and write languages (ie. English) is not prerequisite that is prominent. As a result, you have fewer kids in language arts programs in universities and colleges and subsequently, fewer of them in journalism, writing, literary, and editorial careers.
Obviously, it is my hope to one day be able to be an instrument towards change in this area. I was not designed by God to work in a corporate office environment, as nice as some of the perks are. My natural giftings and skills are not in information technology management, as good as I believe I am in doing my job, and others have affirmed this. My passion is to write, I think that it is one of the few things I am actually good at doing, so hopefully one day I will be able to join the ranks of the Tess Gerritsens and be able to help reverse long-standing Asian stereotpes, and be an agent to encourage other Asian folks to explore the literary arts, exercising their natural gifts and abilities.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Peverted Justice and Pedophiles
I just came back from a friendly round of golf with some friends at church (yes, I finished in last place, though I am encouraged by the fact that I bettered my score by ten strokes compared to a few weeks ago - still, the score is nothing to write home about). My wife is busy in the other room preparing for work tomorrow, the kids at the daycare are all asleep (as is my son), so I thought I'd catch up on email from this week, something that I haven't been doing much of at all.
I got an interesting email from a person in the U.S. with whom I speak with often about U.S. / Canadian politics and social issues. The email had a YouTube link included, which played a video sniplet of a U.S. television show called Perverted Justice (it airs on NBC, it looks like), in which they set up live sting operations in which they get an over-18 "actress" to impersonate a 12 or 13 year old online, in order to lure potential pedophiles into meeting. With hidden cameras in tow, they show the whole sting operation.
While I haven't watched Peverted Justice previously, they did air something remarkably similar on the Canadian investigative/journalistic show W5, earlier this year. My wife and I watched it and she got sick to her stomach seeing how many married (and sometimes with kids) people showed up at this house to have sexual encounters with these pre-teeens. As if that wasn't bad enough, when everything was set and the pervert was engaging in conversation with the "teen", out pops the host of the show, with the online correspondence in hand and asks pointed questions to the perpetrator. Sometimes, the host will rummage through the bag(s) that the perpetrator brings, finding all sorts of disgusting stuff inside.
In watching this video clip on YouTube, it brings to mind something that I've been meaning to talk about on this blog anyway - which is why it seems that pedophilia and child porn is on the rise these days (or seemingly so). When I was a little boy, there was some mention of inappropriate touching in our school classrooms, but ultimately, the conclusion seemed to be that these were rare occurrences and that it was some mental sicko who was responsible for this. Some have argued that cases of molestation have always been there - it's just that it was much more hidden 25 years ago. There was a very negative stigma towards molesters in general. I was never molested, nor did I know anyone who was, so my sense is that it was "safer" back then than it is now.
I have no idea why it seems that pedophilia is so prevalent these days, but perhaps I can brainstorm some possibilities:
1) Like it or not, I think that the internet has played a huge part in this. In the old days, I would imagine that pedophiles would operate by mail and secret meetings and so forth. Now, with the anonymity of the internet, any predator can easily disguise themselves under a plethora of online monikers. I was listening to CFRB this past week, and they mentioned that the social website myspace.com, which I understand is more geared towards teenagers, has about 28,000 (that's right, twenty-eight thousand) registered sex offenders as members. That's kind of scary if you ask me. Because perpetrators now have the internet to hide behind, they can much more easily ply their craft and seduce kids.
2) This will be a controversial one for me to discuss, but as it is simple brainstorming, I thought I'd just throw it out. It would appear, to me anyway, that kids are dressing more and more provocatively these days. Yes, I know the response - no one invites an attack, a molestation, a rape. This is true. But knowing that there are probably more perverts out there than there used to be, by dressing in an even remotely sexual manner, I think that they are not helping to curb the fantasies of potential pedophiles. My wife went to the mall earlier this week, as it was our nine-year anniversary on Wednesday and I gave her some gift certificates, and she had mentioned to me that there were these girls there, who weren't any older than 11 or 12, who had "practically nothing on" (her words, not mine). My wife said that she was "very pretty". Now, you add the fact that she was a cute girl, coupled with the fact that she was wearing pretty revealing clothes - I think that is just helping to conjure up fantasies for a potential pedophile.
3) Porn seems to be considered somewhat acceptable these days, almost fashonable. I definitely don't believe there is the social stigma associated with viewing porn. Case in point - last month on a call-in radio show, they had women call in and expressed whether they would have any issues with working porn themselves or having their husbands / boyfriends watch it. To my surprise, all 12 women callers on that segment of the show had no issues with it, and some even encouraged it as a marital aid. To no one's surprise, all the men calling in (about 5 or 6) had no problem with it. I think with an acceptable view of pornography uses, that has cut some of the stigma out of variations of pornography. I'm not saying that society in general finds child porn acceptable, but I am saying that because porn in general seems to be more societally accepted, the makers of child porn have a pretty large audience to which they can cater their products (coupled with the internet's use of file sharing programs and what not).
4) Children seem to be pushed to grow up faster these days, by society in general. Look at the plethora of DVDs and toys and learning materials available for kids. We're churning out kids who act more like adults, speaking with more sophistication earlier. Children who act like typical kids are called "immature" and not as developmentally advanced. It almost goes back to the old days in England where kids who were 11 or 12 were expected to work full time hours in labourious conditions (and interestingly enough, the age of marriage was considerably lower). You even see this in various industries - kids who are young teenagers are becoming pro golfers and tennis players. Young actors and actresses abound (believe it or not, I heard on the radio a year or so ago that there was a website dedicated to some 12-year-old actress that has some running clock that counts down to when she turns 18. I can't think of too many noble reason for such a site, but that seems to be how prevalent this stuff is). Fashion and perfume companies are signing up models as young as 11. Children have much more pressure on them to grow up faster and of course, I would imagine this would make them attractive to pedophiles.
Ultimately though, I think it may also come down to the fact that we live, and have lived for the last decade or more, in a relatively permissive environment. People's individual rights of speech and expression are protected so fiercely that even if they are encroaching on the border between child pornography and artistic depictions of children, the law does not have enough provisions to shut them down early, in the interests of society as a whole. Parents don't correct their kids as much as they should, so their kids grow up thinking that everything is relatively acceptable, so what's wrong with fantasizing about a pre-pubescent? True, laws and governements can never tell people how or what to think (and it is not their place to do so), but surely they must realize their responsibility to protect their most vulnerable members of their society, even if it means that it infringes on someone's right to free expression. And lawmakers and law enforcement need to realize that those who are convicted as sex offenders are very unlikely to just "change". Urges can be suppressed, either with will power or through medication (and even then, the assumption is that the offender takes the medication). Those convicted of crimes against children should never be released to the general public again - they can be monitored all you want, but I've always believed that if you have a pre-disposition to this type of sexual attraction, it is not "fixable", so it would not be in society's best interest (nor the neighbourhood's, where the convict is being released) to release these perverts and hope for the best.
I got an interesting email from a person in the U.S. with whom I speak with often about U.S. / Canadian politics and social issues. The email had a YouTube link included, which played a video sniplet of a U.S. television show called Perverted Justice (it airs on NBC, it looks like), in which they set up live sting operations in which they get an over-18 "actress" to impersonate a 12 or 13 year old online, in order to lure potential pedophiles into meeting. With hidden cameras in tow, they show the whole sting operation.
While I haven't watched Peverted Justice previously, they did air something remarkably similar on the Canadian investigative/journalistic show W5, earlier this year. My wife and I watched it and she got sick to her stomach seeing how many married (and sometimes with kids) people showed up at this house to have sexual encounters with these pre-teeens. As if that wasn't bad enough, when everything was set and the pervert was engaging in conversation with the "teen", out pops the host of the show, with the online correspondence in hand and asks pointed questions to the perpetrator. Sometimes, the host will rummage through the bag(s) that the perpetrator brings, finding all sorts of disgusting stuff inside.
In watching this video clip on YouTube, it brings to mind something that I've been meaning to talk about on this blog anyway - which is why it seems that pedophilia and child porn is on the rise these days (or seemingly so). When I was a little boy, there was some mention of inappropriate touching in our school classrooms, but ultimately, the conclusion seemed to be that these were rare occurrences and that it was some mental sicko who was responsible for this. Some have argued that cases of molestation have always been there - it's just that it was much more hidden 25 years ago. There was a very negative stigma towards molesters in general. I was never molested, nor did I know anyone who was, so my sense is that it was "safer" back then than it is now.
I have no idea why it seems that pedophilia is so prevalent these days, but perhaps I can brainstorm some possibilities:
1) Like it or not, I think that the internet has played a huge part in this. In the old days, I would imagine that pedophiles would operate by mail and secret meetings and so forth. Now, with the anonymity of the internet, any predator can easily disguise themselves under a plethora of online monikers. I was listening to CFRB this past week, and they mentioned that the social website myspace.com, which I understand is more geared towards teenagers, has about 28,000 (that's right, twenty-eight thousand) registered sex offenders as members. That's kind of scary if you ask me. Because perpetrators now have the internet to hide behind, they can much more easily ply their craft and seduce kids.
2) This will be a controversial one for me to discuss, but as it is simple brainstorming, I thought I'd just throw it out. It would appear, to me anyway, that kids are dressing more and more provocatively these days. Yes, I know the response - no one invites an attack, a molestation, a rape. This is true. But knowing that there are probably more perverts out there than there used to be, by dressing in an even remotely sexual manner, I think that they are not helping to curb the fantasies of potential pedophiles. My wife went to the mall earlier this week, as it was our nine-year anniversary on Wednesday and I gave her some gift certificates, and she had mentioned to me that there were these girls there, who weren't any older than 11 or 12, who had "practically nothing on" (her words, not mine). My wife said that she was "very pretty". Now, you add the fact that she was a cute girl, coupled with the fact that she was wearing pretty revealing clothes - I think that is just helping to conjure up fantasies for a potential pedophile.
3) Porn seems to be considered somewhat acceptable these days, almost fashonable. I definitely don't believe there is the social stigma associated with viewing porn. Case in point - last month on a call-in radio show, they had women call in and expressed whether they would have any issues with working porn themselves or having their husbands / boyfriends watch it. To my surprise, all 12 women callers on that segment of the show had no issues with it, and some even encouraged it as a marital aid. To no one's surprise, all the men calling in (about 5 or 6) had no problem with it. I think with an acceptable view of pornography uses, that has cut some of the stigma out of variations of pornography. I'm not saying that society in general finds child porn acceptable, but I am saying that because porn in general seems to be more societally accepted, the makers of child porn have a pretty large audience to which they can cater their products (coupled with the internet's use of file sharing programs and what not).
4) Children seem to be pushed to grow up faster these days, by society in general. Look at the plethora of DVDs and toys and learning materials available for kids. We're churning out kids who act more like adults, speaking with more sophistication earlier. Children who act like typical kids are called "immature" and not as developmentally advanced. It almost goes back to the old days in England where kids who were 11 or 12 were expected to work full time hours in labourious conditions (and interestingly enough, the age of marriage was considerably lower). You even see this in various industries - kids who are young teenagers are becoming pro golfers and tennis players. Young actors and actresses abound (believe it or not, I heard on the radio a year or so ago that there was a website dedicated to some 12-year-old actress that has some running clock that counts down to when she turns 18. I can't think of too many noble reason for such a site, but that seems to be how prevalent this stuff is). Fashion and perfume companies are signing up models as young as 11. Children have much more pressure on them to grow up faster and of course, I would imagine this would make them attractive to pedophiles.
Ultimately though, I think it may also come down to the fact that we live, and have lived for the last decade or more, in a relatively permissive environment. People's individual rights of speech and expression are protected so fiercely that even if they are encroaching on the border between child pornography and artistic depictions of children, the law does not have enough provisions to shut them down early, in the interests of society as a whole. Parents don't correct their kids as much as they should, so their kids grow up thinking that everything is relatively acceptable, so what's wrong with fantasizing about a pre-pubescent? True, laws and governements can never tell people how or what to think (and it is not their place to do so), but surely they must realize their responsibility to protect their most vulnerable members of their society, even if it means that it infringes on someone's right to free expression. And lawmakers and law enforcement need to realize that those who are convicted as sex offenders are very unlikely to just "change". Urges can be suppressed, either with will power or through medication (and even then, the assumption is that the offender takes the medication). Those convicted of crimes against children should never be released to the general public again - they can be monitored all you want, but I've always believed that if you have a pre-disposition to this type of sexual attraction, it is not "fixable", so it would not be in society's best interest (nor the neighbourhood's, where the convict is being released) to release these perverts and hope for the best.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Thoughts On The U.S. Democratic Candidates CNN YouTube Debate 2008
I was probably one of only a handful of people in Canada who watched (and videotaped on my VHS machine at the same time) last night's two-hour 2008 Democratic debate sponsored by CNN / YouTube. I really liked the format of surprise questions by voters via YouTube people. I am obviously not a left-winger, but I have an interest in politics, period. It was an interesting debate, though as with other debates, the thing I could not stand was how candidates would not answer a question and then proceed to use the rest of the time to talk about something else.
Here's some comments on the candidates (that I remember):
John Edwards - kind of too slick for me, with a one trick pony "I will fight big business and insurance companies" line. However, he was the only candidate who sincerely stated that he did not believe in gay marriage to the entire audience, which scored points for me. That took a lot of guts.
Dennis Kucinich - between him and Mike Gravel, I am not sure who was the more pain in the ass candidate for the evening. He acted like a smart ass, trying to distance himself from the other candidates, and oftentimes, would be the only one to state that he believes in x or y, but you can tell by the tone that he was just trying to buy votes. Thankfully, he only got muted applause, even when he tried to show himself as distinct. Kucinich seems like a typical slimy politician. Holy cow, his wife is sooooo young (he's was born in 1947 - 60 years old, I just looked her up and she was born in 1977 - 30 years old). And I thought Fred Thompson (potential Republican candidate) was a cradle robber.... It was funny how at the end of the debate, when each candidate was asked what they liked the most about the person to their left, Joe Biden turned to Kucinich and humourously said, "I like your wife!" Haha...
Barack Obama - seemed fairly genuine, though you can tell he was very polished. Seemed even-keeled and confident. Gave credit and praised his fellow candidates. Seemed very decisive and confident in his answers. However, his lack of experience was evident.
Mike Gravel - not a factor. Tried to lambaste his fellow candidates. Got really pissed off several times that he is not getting questions, and this was, unfortunately very clear on TV. An old fogey who will not go very far - I'm shocked he's in the race. I suspect he'll drop out first.
Chris Dodd - not a factor. Gets off topic. Seems passionate, but didn't really draw any oohs and ahhs.
Joe Biden - not bad, but kind of slick - he seems way too sure of himself, although he did show some humility at times. Was very clearly best versed at the issues of the war and gun control. He seemed to show well, without too many faux pas.
Hillary Clinton - she seemed very rehearsed. She used a lot of one-liners and cliches. Remained even-keeled and did not blow a gasket at any time. Didn't answer some questions directly, although she was definitely able to outline her experience, probably more than any of the other candidates.
Bill Richardson - he seemed probably the most sincere of the candidates. Seemed like he talked the talk but it was a lot of generalizations and theory (ie. "we need to do this" but he did not outline how). I think he made a good impression on the audience. Showed a good sense of humour by saying at the end that everyone would be great in the next government...as his vice-president...
Overall, I found it interesting, even though I staunchly disagreed with many of their responses as standard liberal fare.
Republican version of the debate will take place Sept. 17.
Here's some comments on the candidates (that I remember):
John Edwards - kind of too slick for me, with a one trick pony "I will fight big business and insurance companies" line. However, he was the only candidate who sincerely stated that he did not believe in gay marriage to the entire audience, which scored points for me. That took a lot of guts.
Dennis Kucinich - between him and Mike Gravel, I am not sure who was the more pain in the ass candidate for the evening. He acted like a smart ass, trying to distance himself from the other candidates, and oftentimes, would be the only one to state that he believes in x or y, but you can tell by the tone that he was just trying to buy votes. Thankfully, he only got muted applause, even when he tried to show himself as distinct. Kucinich seems like a typical slimy politician. Holy cow, his wife is sooooo young (he's was born in 1947 - 60 years old, I just looked her up and she was born in 1977 - 30 years old). And I thought Fred Thompson (potential Republican candidate) was a cradle robber.... It was funny how at the end of the debate, when each candidate was asked what they liked the most about the person to their left, Joe Biden turned to Kucinich and humourously said, "I like your wife!" Haha...
Barack Obama - seemed fairly genuine, though you can tell he was very polished. Seemed even-keeled and confident. Gave credit and praised his fellow candidates. Seemed very decisive and confident in his answers. However, his lack of experience was evident.
Mike Gravel - not a factor. Tried to lambaste his fellow candidates. Got really pissed off several times that he is not getting questions, and this was, unfortunately very clear on TV. An old fogey who will not go very far - I'm shocked he's in the race. I suspect he'll drop out first.
Chris Dodd - not a factor. Gets off topic. Seems passionate, but didn't really draw any oohs and ahhs.
Joe Biden - not bad, but kind of slick - he seems way too sure of himself, although he did show some humility at times. Was very clearly best versed at the issues of the war and gun control. He seemed to show well, without too many faux pas.
Hillary Clinton - she seemed very rehearsed. She used a lot of one-liners and cliches. Remained even-keeled and did not blow a gasket at any time. Didn't answer some questions directly, although she was definitely able to outline her experience, probably more than any of the other candidates.
Bill Richardson - he seemed probably the most sincere of the candidates. Seemed like he talked the talk but it was a lot of generalizations and theory (ie. "we need to do this" but he did not outline how). I think he made a good impression on the audience. Showed a good sense of humour by saying at the end that everyone would be great in the next government...as his vice-president...
Overall, I found it interesting, even though I staunchly disagreed with many of their responses as standard liberal fare.
Republican version of the debate will take place Sept. 17.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Spiritual Maturity Counts For Something
I am on vacation all this week, so I will probably not be writing as frequently as I normally do (or will I? I do have a few things planned, so I'll have to see how much time I can find to update this...)
I happened to drop by a local Christian bookstore recently, and as is my usual custom, made a quick beeline towards the magazine section. Now, I will be the first one to admit that the Christian publication industry produces a plethora of crap. Many of the books are poorly written and most are overpriced for what you are getting (I understand why they are overpriced, but still, that's no justification). However, one of my favourite magazines, Christian or secular, is "Christian Research Journal", a highly academic publication published by the Christian Research Institute, that delves into recent religious and social trends. It is, in essence, and apologetics-based magazine, but more for the academic or intellectual. There are virtually no ads in the magazine (unlike other Christian mags like Christianity today, which is littered with useless ads). However, CRJ is not cheap (at $10.00 a magazine, you would think it is one of those rip-off jobs, but let me tell you, it is well worth it). Anyway, after flipping through the current CRJ issue and deciding that I was going to purchase it, I thought I'd flip through some other mags on the rack. As you may or may not know, I used to be a contributing music reviewer for HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal), found at almost all Chrstian bookstores. I found a current issue of HM, quickly flipped through that and saw that a lot has changed in 12 years, and put it back.
Against my better judgement, I started flipping through some more magazines, some of them I know are pretty cheesy, but since I was at the rack, I thought I'd flip through it. One magazine was a really thin youth ministry type of rag (forgot the name of it, but it wasn't a well known publication) and in perusing through it, something interesting caught my attention.
It was a job opening/advertisement for some youth minister job (something like junior youth minister, so it was a very entry-level ministry position) at some camp based in New York state somewhere. No, I wasn't looking for a new job or a career change, but
you can't help notice such a full-page colourful ad in such a thin magazine. Anyway, while I don't remember the exact wording, the ad went something like this:
"Looking for energetic, responsible person to work as a leader with a challenging summer camp in (place I don't remember). Must be focussed, willing to serve, able to communicate, and have a team-based mentality. Previous camp experience an asset. Please contact (such and such) Ministries (contact info included). On the ad was a vignette of photos showing the standard kids hiking, setting up a tent, doing some water play, and the obligatory sitting around reading their Bibles, in a studious stupor (I only say this because I have never in my life seen kids that age all sit around quietly reading their Bibles, but then again, maybe I haven't been around enough).
OK, what is my issue here? Oh come on, take a guess...
I was a bit flabbergasted, upon stumbling across the ad, that there was absolutely no mention of the candidate's spiritual maturity, knowledge of the Bible, or some evidence of their walk with God. I can forsee the counterarguments here.
"Well, the ad is in a Christian magazine, so we would have to assume that a Christian audience is understood." That is bullocks. I think Benny Hill, like him or hate him, once said that when you assume you are making an ass out of u and me. Just because it is targeted towards a Christian audience doesn't mean that you will automatically get spiritually qualified candidates. The fact that the ad does not mention any spiritual requirements at all (and it is not a secular ad, as it was put out by such and such ministries) makes me nervous.
"Perhaps they are not looking for a spiritual type of person." If this is the case, why put the ad in a Christian magazine? Why bother showing photos of kids reading their Bibles? I mean, how are you going to be able to continue to perpetuate that Bible reading group photo, if you don't bring on a leader who has some spiritual qualifications. Unless, of course, that photo was a stock photo, but still...
"Maybe they want to discern the spiritual capability during the interview." This is a distinct possibility, but I would argue that if it was not a clear prerequisite out of the blocks, what makes you think that it will be a factor during the interview. It was sort of like some interviews I did this year with some candidates. At first, no one told me that the position called for a bilingual (English/French) candidate, so I proceeded with my position requirements and started interviewing. More than halfway through the candidates, I was told of the requirement, so in interviewing the rest of the original slate of candidates, I threw out the question of whether they spoke French as well. To no one's surprise, none of the candidates were bilingual. So this tells me that unless you state the requirements clearly at the start, you will not get the candidate for which you are seeking.
"Perhaps they are not looking for a spiritual leader." Well, that's fine, but if it's for some Christian camp, that's a pretty sad state of affairs for Christian youth ministry.
As I put down the magazine and wandered around the rest of the store, I thought I'd take a gander over at the "leadership" section of the store. Naturally, there were plenty of books about being a leader, and in viewing the backs of the books and the table of contents, I was encouraged a bit to see that some books did mention spiritual maturity as part of being a leader in the church, while others seem to talk more about communication, conflict resolution, etc., stuff you can find in any non-Christian leadership book.
I suppose, I should not be surprised or disappointed in these change of events. In visiting several churches over the past few years, while on vacation or visiting just for the sake of seeing something different, I noticed a trend among evangelical churches that their leaders/pastors are more geared towards slick-speaking, projecting, motivational types. The topics are pretty syrupy, and it's no different than a business meeting. So few are the preachers who are passionate about reaching people for Christ, who read their Bibles with passion and who impart the same love of ministering to others. It almost seems as if they are looking to fill church pews and garner the most tithes and offerings as a result, rather than looking at growing the spiritual maturity of the congregation.
At my own church, I have seen this trend at times, although I am encouraged to see that the congregation has put, as their number one requirement in looking for a senior pastor, someone who preaches Biblically-based sermons. This would indicate to me that they are looking for more spiritual nourishment, rather than simply someone to talk their ear off and give them slick illustrations.
I am not sure that the same could be said for other churches, though. I went to one late last year in my area by myself (my wife was setting up for some party that she was hosting at the time), and after the service, I was able to sit down with two of the elders (separately). I was a bit surprised in talking with both of them, that neither one seemed to stress any spiritual development in their ministry vision (yes, I get into these conversations with people). No, I am not talking about people who simply talk "Christianese" or use theological jargon. This was just a standard conversation. I asked them about their ministry distinctives and they said it was to meet people's needs, whether they were divorced, have mental problems, etc. I asked what kinds of needs were they trying to meet, and one person said, "to make them feel better about themselves" and the other said, "to realize that they are loved and supported". Those are fine in and of themselves, though there was nothing about building up people in their relationship with Jesus, or providing spiritual support in their situation, or to make them realize that they can lean on the Lord, etc. Again, you may think this is simple semantics, and I thought so too, until I talked with the other elder who told me that the church is in the business to give people an alternative, and while they can't always make everything into a spiritual matter (why not?), they try to have practical ways to help people. So, how is this different than any other support group? And these are some of the elders of the church? Maybe this is today's trend in churches, but that doesn't mean that we should accept mediocrity.
At my church, I am very encouraged that we have a person on staff, our pastoral associate, who I highly respect because of his spiritual maturity. You see that in the way that he conducts himself, the way that he deals with conflict, the way he listens far more than he talks, and the way in which, when you hear him preach a sermon, you can tell that he spent some time in Scripture and study preparing for it, and prayed for God's insight. His sermons are generally quite good, and in the 12+ years that I've attended the church, the best sermon I have ever heard was by him (it was about the Good Samaritan, and it was good not only in a sense of relevant substance, but also in how he picked apart the context, making the pasages alive for those listeners who sought understanding. Outside of church, he conducts himself with maturity, exercises a great depth of humility (something that is sorely lacking in today's church leaders), and has a good relationship with others, irrespective of their station or lot in life. Many church leaders will go the business-like "schmooze" route, befriending those who have important positions or lots of money, but eventually, their shallow approach is discovered by others and they will be abandoned. We need more Christian leaders like our pastoral associate, who quietly goes about his business, serving fervently, listening to God's leading. I seriously hope he becomes our senior pastor someday.
I think that spiritual maturity for any church leader should be the first and foremost requirement, rather than an afterthought. After all, if you are leading a group of people, no matter who they are, I would like to think that your goal would be to either nurture their relationship with Jesus Christ, if they are already believers, or to help lead them to a relationship with Jesus Christ. In reality, I think this is the ultimate goal of any Christian, since Jesus tasked his followers with this during his final commission. A Christian leader needs to be able to set a good example, in word and deed, naturally demonstrating his/her desire to live a life that strives towards becoming like Christ. A Christian leader needs to be able to back everything up that he / she is saying through Scripture and has a deep love for reading and studying the Word. This is a tough call and a tall order, but Christians should expect nothing less from their leaders.
I happened to drop by a local Christian bookstore recently, and as is my usual custom, made a quick beeline towards the magazine section. Now, I will be the first one to admit that the Christian publication industry produces a plethora of crap. Many of the books are poorly written and most are overpriced for what you are getting (I understand why they are overpriced, but still, that's no justification). However, one of my favourite magazines, Christian or secular, is "Christian Research Journal", a highly academic publication published by the Christian Research Institute, that delves into recent religious and social trends. It is, in essence, and apologetics-based magazine, but more for the academic or intellectual. There are virtually no ads in the magazine (unlike other Christian mags like Christianity today, which is littered with useless ads). However, CRJ is not cheap (at $10.00 a magazine, you would think it is one of those rip-off jobs, but let me tell you, it is well worth it). Anyway, after flipping through the current CRJ issue and deciding that I was going to purchase it, I thought I'd flip through some other mags on the rack. As you may or may not know, I used to be a contributing music reviewer for HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal), found at almost all Chrstian bookstores. I found a current issue of HM, quickly flipped through that and saw that a lot has changed in 12 years, and put it back.
Against my better judgement, I started flipping through some more magazines, some of them I know are pretty cheesy, but since I was at the rack, I thought I'd flip through it. One magazine was a really thin youth ministry type of rag (forgot the name of it, but it wasn't a well known publication) and in perusing through it, something interesting caught my attention.
It was a job opening/advertisement for some youth minister job (something like junior youth minister, so it was a very entry-level ministry position) at some camp based in New York state somewhere. No, I wasn't looking for a new job or a career change, but
you can't help notice such a full-page colourful ad in such a thin magazine. Anyway, while I don't remember the exact wording, the ad went something like this:
"Looking for energetic, responsible person to work as a leader with a challenging summer camp in (place I don't remember). Must be focussed, willing to serve, able to communicate, and have a team-based mentality. Previous camp experience an asset. Please contact (such and such) Ministries (contact info included). On the ad was a vignette of photos showing the standard kids hiking, setting up a tent, doing some water play, and the obligatory sitting around reading their Bibles, in a studious stupor (I only say this because I have never in my life seen kids that age all sit around quietly reading their Bibles, but then again, maybe I haven't been around enough).
OK, what is my issue here? Oh come on, take a guess...
I was a bit flabbergasted, upon stumbling across the ad, that there was absolutely no mention of the candidate's spiritual maturity, knowledge of the Bible, or some evidence of their walk with God. I can forsee the counterarguments here.
"Well, the ad is in a Christian magazine, so we would have to assume that a Christian audience is understood." That is bullocks. I think Benny Hill, like him or hate him, once said that when you assume you are making an ass out of u and me. Just because it is targeted towards a Christian audience doesn't mean that you will automatically get spiritually qualified candidates. The fact that the ad does not mention any spiritual requirements at all (and it is not a secular ad, as it was put out by such and such ministries) makes me nervous.
"Perhaps they are not looking for a spiritual type of person." If this is the case, why put the ad in a Christian magazine? Why bother showing photos of kids reading their Bibles? I mean, how are you going to be able to continue to perpetuate that Bible reading group photo, if you don't bring on a leader who has some spiritual qualifications. Unless, of course, that photo was a stock photo, but still...
"Maybe they want to discern the spiritual capability during the interview." This is a distinct possibility, but I would argue that if it was not a clear prerequisite out of the blocks, what makes you think that it will be a factor during the interview. It was sort of like some interviews I did this year with some candidates. At first, no one told me that the position called for a bilingual (English/French) candidate, so I proceeded with my position requirements and started interviewing. More than halfway through the candidates, I was told of the requirement, so in interviewing the rest of the original slate of candidates, I threw out the question of whether they spoke French as well. To no one's surprise, none of the candidates were bilingual. So this tells me that unless you state the requirements clearly at the start, you will not get the candidate for which you are seeking.
"Perhaps they are not looking for a spiritual leader." Well, that's fine, but if it's for some Christian camp, that's a pretty sad state of affairs for Christian youth ministry.
As I put down the magazine and wandered around the rest of the store, I thought I'd take a gander over at the "leadership" section of the store. Naturally, there were plenty of books about being a leader, and in viewing the backs of the books and the table of contents, I was encouraged a bit to see that some books did mention spiritual maturity as part of being a leader in the church, while others seem to talk more about communication, conflict resolution, etc., stuff you can find in any non-Christian leadership book.
I suppose, I should not be surprised or disappointed in these change of events. In visiting several churches over the past few years, while on vacation or visiting just for the sake of seeing something different, I noticed a trend among evangelical churches that their leaders/pastors are more geared towards slick-speaking, projecting, motivational types. The topics are pretty syrupy, and it's no different than a business meeting. So few are the preachers who are passionate about reaching people for Christ, who read their Bibles with passion and who impart the same love of ministering to others. It almost seems as if they are looking to fill church pews and garner the most tithes and offerings as a result, rather than looking at growing the spiritual maturity of the congregation.
At my own church, I have seen this trend at times, although I am encouraged to see that the congregation has put, as their number one requirement in looking for a senior pastor, someone who preaches Biblically-based sermons. This would indicate to me that they are looking for more spiritual nourishment, rather than simply someone to talk their ear off and give them slick illustrations.
I am not sure that the same could be said for other churches, though. I went to one late last year in my area by myself (my wife was setting up for some party that she was hosting at the time), and after the service, I was able to sit down with two of the elders (separately). I was a bit surprised in talking with both of them, that neither one seemed to stress any spiritual development in their ministry vision (yes, I get into these conversations with people). No, I am not talking about people who simply talk "Christianese" or use theological jargon. This was just a standard conversation. I asked them about their ministry distinctives and they said it was to meet people's needs, whether they were divorced, have mental problems, etc. I asked what kinds of needs were they trying to meet, and one person said, "to make them feel better about themselves" and the other said, "to realize that they are loved and supported". Those are fine in and of themselves, though there was nothing about building up people in their relationship with Jesus, or providing spiritual support in their situation, or to make them realize that they can lean on the Lord, etc. Again, you may think this is simple semantics, and I thought so too, until I talked with the other elder who told me that the church is in the business to give people an alternative, and while they can't always make everything into a spiritual matter (why not?), they try to have practical ways to help people. So, how is this different than any other support group? And these are some of the elders of the church? Maybe this is today's trend in churches, but that doesn't mean that we should accept mediocrity.
At my church, I am very encouraged that we have a person on staff, our pastoral associate, who I highly respect because of his spiritual maturity. You see that in the way that he conducts himself, the way that he deals with conflict, the way he listens far more than he talks, and the way in which, when you hear him preach a sermon, you can tell that he spent some time in Scripture and study preparing for it, and prayed for God's insight. His sermons are generally quite good, and in the 12+ years that I've attended the church, the best sermon I have ever heard was by him (it was about the Good Samaritan, and it was good not only in a sense of relevant substance, but also in how he picked apart the context, making the pasages alive for those listeners who sought understanding. Outside of church, he conducts himself with maturity, exercises a great depth of humility (something that is sorely lacking in today's church leaders), and has a good relationship with others, irrespective of their station or lot in life. Many church leaders will go the business-like "schmooze" route, befriending those who have important positions or lots of money, but eventually, their shallow approach is discovered by others and they will be abandoned. We need more Christian leaders like our pastoral associate, who quietly goes about his business, serving fervently, listening to God's leading. I seriously hope he becomes our senior pastor someday.
I think that spiritual maturity for any church leader should be the first and foremost requirement, rather than an afterthought. After all, if you are leading a group of people, no matter who they are, I would like to think that your goal would be to either nurture their relationship with Jesus Christ, if they are already believers, or to help lead them to a relationship with Jesus Christ. In reality, I think this is the ultimate goal of any Christian, since Jesus tasked his followers with this during his final commission. A Christian leader needs to be able to set a good example, in word and deed, naturally demonstrating his/her desire to live a life that strives towards becoming like Christ. A Christian leader needs to be able to back everything up that he / she is saying through Scripture and has a deep love for reading and studying the Word. This is a tough call and a tall order, but Christians should expect nothing less from their leaders.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Why the Toronto Maple Leafs Will Continue to Suck
I have been a Toronto Maple Leafs "fan" (and these days, I use that term loosely) for about 20 years now. My Dad, actually, turned me onto the Leafs in 1986 when they were a competitive team with some great characters and role players. The ownership wasn't that great under Harold Ballard, but the team was definitely contending. With exciting players like Ed Olczyk, Wendel Clark, Al Iafrate, and Borje Salming (in the twilight of his career), they were great to watch. They had a young goaltender in Allan Bester and some experience in Ken Wregett. And there was also the likes of Mark Osborne, Steve Thomas, and so forth.
The Leafs were flip-flopping in the standings (I am being kind here) for many years after 1986, until they actually made it deep into the payoffs in 1993 before losing to Los Angeles in the semi-finals (I believe). Doug Gilmour was an exceptional addition, and whether you like him or hate him, who can argue that Felix Potvin was one of the most exciting Leaf goalies in recent memory, alongside Grant Fuhr and Cutris Joseph (all of whom are much better than that current *cough* Raycroft guy).
When I was in school and early in my work career / married life, I stopped watching the Leafs because I just didn't have time. However, over the past year or two, I started following the Leafs again, more in terms of their player movement (or lack thereof) and while I believe they are nowhere near a contending team, I don't think that all is lost. However, there are several things/people which will continue to serve as an impediment for a successful Leafs team to flourish.
First of all, the board of Maple Leafs Sports Entertainment (MLSE), who owns the Leafs, needs to turf out President Richard Peddie. He is useless, and does not possess the hockey knowledge to make the tough choices in order to surround himself with good management people. He meddles in his GMs affairs and is tremendously indecisive (BTW, MLSE also owns the Toronto Raptors basketball club, and until they brought on Brian Colangelo - a high calibre basketball GM, I thought all was lost in Raptorland as well).
But we're not talking basketball here. Let's look at Peddie's latest move here - bringing on a high-quality hockey GM man, John Muckler as a "mentor" for the Leafs' current GM, John "I'm Way Over My Head Here" Ferguson, Jr. Why Muckler didn't simply replace Ferguson is anyone's bet - Ferguson has been here for how long - four years or so? He has not been able to put together anything resembling a good hockey team. The drafting has been horrid, the trades have left a lot of fans scratching their heads, and well, the fact that the Leafs continue to keep on Mats Sundin, an injury riddled player who is nowhere near the calibre he was once, although I will admit, he has a good hockey work ethic), paying him 5.5 million dollars a season - it just goes to show that no one in Leafs management land is willing to look at the facts objectively; rather, they feel some loyalty to some players and management people, for whatever reason. The fact that Peddie called Ferguson a great hockey mind that just need some coaching, would lead me to believe he has completely lost touch with reality.
Muckler (or even Cliff Fletcher, former GM) should have been offered the GM job, plain and simple, not as a consultant for an ineffective GM. Mucker is a proven winner, guiding teams to the Stanley Cup finals (with the latest being Ottawa this year, in 2007, before the Senators threw him out after they were trounced int he finals by Anaheim). There is no other organization in sports, to my best knowledge, who has brought in a mentor for a team GM. The vast majority of the clubs will say, if the GM does not produce, we get a new GM. Ferguson has clearly not produced for the Leafs. The Leafs, I will argue, may actually have been a slightly worse team with him as GM. Unless the Leaf organization actually doesn't want to get any better, nothing is going to change until they replace John Ferguson Jr.
Second, the Leafs' management needs to realize that the time is now to start from the drawing board and start with fresh talent. You can see that kind of approach the last number of years with the Pittsburgh Penguins, even before Sidney Crosby came on the scene. They started developing some young players and put a lot of focus on the draft and making sure they got good value in trades. The Leafs, on the other hand, have spent the last number of years signing very overpriced over-achievers who are well beyond their prime (read: old dinosaur players). Sure, it's nice to see some veterans, but when your team collectively moves down the ice at the speed of a tortoise, what is the point? For those who aren't over the hill or getting close, the Leafs are simply overpaying for their players. And with a cap in place, overpaying for mediocre players aren't going to get you anywhere anytime soon.
Of course, none of this matters much. The Leafs continue to sell out their games day in and day out, not because they're any good, but because they are in a hockey-mad market, one in which fans care more about the legacy of the club and wish for the good ol' days of 1967, rather than think about what kind of product they are putting on the ice in 2007. As long as the suckers continue to pay for exorbitantly overpriced tickets, MLSE will have no incentive to actually improve their hockey offering.
The Leafs were flip-flopping in the standings (I am being kind here) for many years after 1986, until they actually made it deep into the payoffs in 1993 before losing to Los Angeles in the semi-finals (I believe). Doug Gilmour was an exceptional addition, and whether you like him or hate him, who can argue that Felix Potvin was one of the most exciting Leaf goalies in recent memory, alongside Grant Fuhr and Cutris Joseph (all of whom are much better than that current *cough* Raycroft guy).
When I was in school and early in my work career / married life, I stopped watching the Leafs because I just didn't have time. However, over the past year or two, I started following the Leafs again, more in terms of their player movement (or lack thereof) and while I believe they are nowhere near a contending team, I don't think that all is lost. However, there are several things/people which will continue to serve as an impediment for a successful Leafs team to flourish.
First of all, the board of Maple Leafs Sports Entertainment (MLSE), who owns the Leafs, needs to turf out President Richard Peddie. He is useless, and does not possess the hockey knowledge to make the tough choices in order to surround himself with good management people. He meddles in his GMs affairs and is tremendously indecisive (BTW, MLSE also owns the Toronto Raptors basketball club, and until they brought on Brian Colangelo - a high calibre basketball GM, I thought all was lost in Raptorland as well).
But we're not talking basketball here. Let's look at Peddie's latest move here - bringing on a high-quality hockey GM man, John Muckler as a "mentor" for the Leafs' current GM, John "I'm Way Over My Head Here" Ferguson, Jr. Why Muckler didn't simply replace Ferguson is anyone's bet - Ferguson has been here for how long - four years or so? He has not been able to put together anything resembling a good hockey team. The drafting has been horrid, the trades have left a lot of fans scratching their heads, and well, the fact that the Leafs continue to keep on Mats Sundin, an injury riddled player who is nowhere near the calibre he was once, although I will admit, he has a good hockey work ethic), paying him 5.5 million dollars a season - it just goes to show that no one in Leafs management land is willing to look at the facts objectively; rather, they feel some loyalty to some players and management people, for whatever reason. The fact that Peddie called Ferguson a great hockey mind that just need some coaching, would lead me to believe he has completely lost touch with reality.
Muckler (or even Cliff Fletcher, former GM) should have been offered the GM job, plain and simple, not as a consultant for an ineffective GM. Mucker is a proven winner, guiding teams to the Stanley Cup finals (with the latest being Ottawa this year, in 2007, before the Senators threw him out after they were trounced int he finals by Anaheim). There is no other organization in sports, to my best knowledge, who has brought in a mentor for a team GM. The vast majority of the clubs will say, if the GM does not produce, we get a new GM. Ferguson has clearly not produced for the Leafs. The Leafs, I will argue, may actually have been a slightly worse team with him as GM. Unless the Leaf organization actually doesn't want to get any better, nothing is going to change until they replace John Ferguson Jr.
Second, the Leafs' management needs to realize that the time is now to start from the drawing board and start with fresh talent. You can see that kind of approach the last number of years with the Pittsburgh Penguins, even before Sidney Crosby came on the scene. They started developing some young players and put a lot of focus on the draft and making sure they got good value in trades. The Leafs, on the other hand, have spent the last number of years signing very overpriced over-achievers who are well beyond their prime (read: old dinosaur players). Sure, it's nice to see some veterans, but when your team collectively moves down the ice at the speed of a tortoise, what is the point? For those who aren't over the hill or getting close, the Leafs are simply overpaying for their players. And with a cap in place, overpaying for mediocre players aren't going to get you anywhere anytime soon.
Of course, none of this matters much. The Leafs continue to sell out their games day in and day out, not because they're any good, but because they are in a hockey-mad market, one in which fans care more about the legacy of the club and wish for the good ol' days of 1967, rather than think about what kind of product they are putting on the ice in 2007. As long as the suckers continue to pay for exorbitantly overpriced tickets, MLSE will have no incentive to actually improve their hockey offering.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Dog Fighting
I am not an animal lover in the least. After seeing my brother's leg get mauled by an out of control dog when we were teens, that pretty much sealed the fate of any lovefest with animals. I don't like their smell, the mess they make, but realize there are many others who don't mind canine halitosis, so I say to each their own. But even though I'm not fond of animals, even I can recognize what constitutes inhumane and cruel treatment of dogs/cats, etc. (the only time I don't feel sorry for animals is when it's the pest/rodent variety - if you shoot a raccoon, I won't flinch). Always had that opinion about the need to protect and take care of non-rodent animals (though I won't be the one taking care of it), always will. Just because God put animals on this earth and put man in dominion over them does not mean we can do whatever we want with them. Just like any other thing God gave us, we need to be good stewards and take care of it. I've said before that people who go around killing cats and torturing dogs are probably only a step away from turning on the homosapiens, and those people should probably be the ones locked up in cages, not the animals.
So it is no surprise that I almost wretched when I heard about the recent indictments of pro (and I guess some would say all-star) football Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick, for running an illegal (as if legalizing it would make any difference) dog fighting operation on one of his properties. OK, so he hasn't gone to trial yet, but the U.S. government does not indict you if they don't have sufficient evidence to back the case. Just so you know, the U.S. government's subsequent conviction by trial rate, after indictment, is around 95%. So I'd say that Vick has a pretty uphill battle to face. He claims he was not there, yet there are plenty of witnesses who will testify otherwise. And I suppose I'd believe him if he was a upstanding good citizen like the rest of the NFL players out there (haha, yeah right), but he's not exactly a model citizen, on and off the field.
Anyway, what Vick is charged with is not only running a dog fighting operation, but also the disgusting and absolutely horrid way he and his partners dealt with animals that lost the fights. It is reported that not only were the dogs kept in squalor conditions, but when they lost, they were brutally executed by hanging, drowning, shot with guns, or tortured. The feds found dogs buried all over Vick's property. Yikes.
These dogs deserve better than this. OK, granted, some dogs probably should not be out in public at all (pitbulls, rotweilers), I don't think that the way to destroy troublesome (or not that troublesome ones) are through dog fighting. Veterinarians have humane ways of putting down violent dogs. To pit them against one another simply for sport is just plain disgusting. I'd rather see (and I mean this) two convicted murders or rapists put in a cage and let them fight to the death - I suppose I'd be ok if they took the loser out and put a couple in his head after. But not with dogs... And what does it say about the people (and I use that term loosely) who feel that they can pick on a defenseless animal (for the most part) and use and discard them, with no regard to their life - just for the sake of entertainment and betting...
I guess this is what the world has come to - watching animals rip each other apart for sport.
Who are the real animals here?
So it is no surprise that I almost wretched when I heard about the recent indictments of pro (and I guess some would say all-star) football Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick, for running an illegal (as if legalizing it would make any difference) dog fighting operation on one of his properties. OK, so he hasn't gone to trial yet, but the U.S. government does not indict you if they don't have sufficient evidence to back the case. Just so you know, the U.S. government's subsequent conviction by trial rate, after indictment, is around 95%. So I'd say that Vick has a pretty uphill battle to face. He claims he was not there, yet there are plenty of witnesses who will testify otherwise. And I suppose I'd believe him if he was a upstanding good citizen like the rest of the NFL players out there (haha, yeah right), but he's not exactly a model citizen, on and off the field.
Anyway, what Vick is charged with is not only running a dog fighting operation, but also the disgusting and absolutely horrid way he and his partners dealt with animals that lost the fights. It is reported that not only were the dogs kept in squalor conditions, but when they lost, they were brutally executed by hanging, drowning, shot with guns, or tortured. The feds found dogs buried all over Vick's property. Yikes.
These dogs deserve better than this. OK, granted, some dogs probably should not be out in public at all (pitbulls, rotweilers), I don't think that the way to destroy troublesome (or not that troublesome ones) are through dog fighting. Veterinarians have humane ways of putting down violent dogs. To pit them against one another simply for sport is just plain disgusting. I'd rather see (and I mean this) two convicted murders or rapists put in a cage and let them fight to the death - I suppose I'd be ok if they took the loser out and put a couple in his head after. But not with dogs... And what does it say about the people (and I use that term loosely) who feel that they can pick on a defenseless animal (for the most part) and use and discard them, with no regard to their life - just for the sake of entertainment and betting...
I guess this is what the world has come to - watching animals rip each other apart for sport.
Who are the real animals here?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Procom Sure Knows How To Throw a Corporate Golf Tournament
I am always happy to promote companies with whom I have had great dealings. At my workplace, one of the companies we deal with for IT resources is Procom. I have not dealt much with them in the past, since our company had another preferred vendor for years, but they came to their senses and opened up the market and accepted offers from different vendors. Procom has impressed me from the start, with their account managers who are friendly and on the ball, their speed of delivery of resources exactly as per my specifications, and their follow-up, all make me not surprised to find out they are one of Canada's 50 best companies.
This afternoon, I was invited to the Procom client-appreciation golf tournament at Station Creek Golf Club, a PRIVATE course which is Clublink GOLD-rated, and spent a very fun day golfing (did pretty well, all things considered, even though it was a scramble tournament), eating and drinking (not necessarily in that order). As with many corporate golf tournaments, they included some company gear when you walk in, but this was pretty nice company gear. I've been to corporate golf tournaments where they hand you something that you have no idea what to do with, and it falls apart on the way home. Procom pulled out all the stops to put stuff in the shoulder backpack like 1GB memory sticks, towels, Callaway balls, etc. and provided a really, really nice Nike Golf shirt (it's the breatheable kind that are about $90 bucks a piece at Golftown), an ice cooler carry-on container full of food in case we didn't eat lunch (this was waiting for us in our customized driving golf carts (I have one all to myself, since my paired partner never showed - so I got her lunch as well), and then after a very nice outing, we were treated to a really nice catered dinner, with lots of food. What really helped people to stay was the quality stuff they were giving away for all guests and on the special raffle. The President and founder of Procom spoke a few words and all attendees of the tournament received a decent gift (and it all varied) - and these weren't some cheap dollar store stuff, we're talking pizza ovens, cell phones, DVD sets, high end golf balls boxes, patio laterns, high end croquet sets, big bottles of rum and wine, and numerous gift certificates. I got a $25.00 gift certificate to Second Cup coffee or any affiliated restaurant. Then came the raffle and the insanity of the prizes - XBOX360s, Playstation 2 units, portable DVD players, IPODs, laser guided tracking devices, golf clubs, bags and shoes (and these were all really nice high end brands), wine and more wine, etc. The last corporate tournament I went to, the prizes were cheesy. Procom sure knows how to wow their clients!
I can also tell that there was a different aura around the employees working the tournament, and this was different than other corproate golf tournaments I've attended. Everyone was happy to be there, and in talking with a LOT of Procom employees throughout the day, they really, genuinely wanted their customer to be happy, have fun, and I can just tell, they have a lot of enthusiasm and pride for their company. Makes me want to work there! (should have brought some extra business cards - damn!)
Anyway, it was a well run golf tournament at a high quality course, from a superb company. Procom impressed me already in the workplace with how they can deliver on my requirements in a short time. Seeing their client appreciation event outside of the work environment just solidifies the excellent impression that Procom continues to give their clients and the exceptional reputation that they have.
This afternoon, I was invited to the Procom client-appreciation golf tournament at Station Creek Golf Club, a PRIVATE course which is Clublink GOLD-rated, and spent a very fun day golfing (did pretty well, all things considered, even though it was a scramble tournament), eating and drinking (not necessarily in that order). As with many corporate golf tournaments, they included some company gear when you walk in, but this was pretty nice company gear. I've been to corporate golf tournaments where they hand you something that you have no idea what to do with, and it falls apart on the way home. Procom pulled out all the stops to put stuff in the shoulder backpack like 1GB memory sticks, towels, Callaway balls, etc. and provided a really, really nice Nike Golf shirt (it's the breatheable kind that are about $90 bucks a piece at Golftown), an ice cooler carry-on container full of food in case we didn't eat lunch (this was waiting for us in our customized driving golf carts (I have one all to myself, since my paired partner never showed - so I got her lunch as well), and then after a very nice outing, we were treated to a really nice catered dinner, with lots of food. What really helped people to stay was the quality stuff they were giving away for all guests and on the special raffle. The President and founder of Procom spoke a few words and all attendees of the tournament received a decent gift (and it all varied) - and these weren't some cheap dollar store stuff, we're talking pizza ovens, cell phones, DVD sets, high end golf balls boxes, patio laterns, high end croquet sets, big bottles of rum and wine, and numerous gift certificates. I got a $25.00 gift certificate to Second Cup coffee or any affiliated restaurant. Then came the raffle and the insanity of the prizes - XBOX360s, Playstation 2 units, portable DVD players, IPODs, laser guided tracking devices, golf clubs, bags and shoes (and these were all really nice high end brands), wine and more wine, etc. The last corporate tournament I went to, the prizes were cheesy. Procom sure knows how to wow their clients!
I can also tell that there was a different aura around the employees working the tournament, and this was different than other corproate golf tournaments I've attended. Everyone was happy to be there, and in talking with a LOT of Procom employees throughout the day, they really, genuinely wanted their customer to be happy, have fun, and I can just tell, they have a lot of enthusiasm and pride for their company. Makes me want to work there! (should have brought some extra business cards - damn!)
Anyway, it was a well run golf tournament at a high quality course, from a superb company. Procom impressed me already in the workplace with how they can deliver on my requirements in a short time. Seeing their client appreciation event outside of the work environment just solidifies the excellent impression that Procom continues to give their clients and the exceptional reputation that they have.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Public Officials Outed For Their Hypocrisy
I heard some news recently and thought, "Good for Larry Flynt!"
Whoa there, you are probably thinking. What on earth are you doing giving an accolade to the founder of the pornographic Hustler Magazine?
Well, let me just say that it's not what you think. I don't support Flynt's pornographic magazine, and his other business pursuits that revolve around smut. However, to show that I can be reasonably objective, I try to call a spade a spade, and when I see Flynt making reward money available to expose the hypocrisy amongst lawmakers, politicians, religious leaders, and other high-profile officials, I have to applaud him on that, since some of these same officials are acting two faced in making laws against pornographic materials, same sex marriage, abortion; meanwhile, their lives behind closed doors reek of hypocrisy.
Take, for instance, the latest on that David Vitters guy. Congressman in Louisiana who is married with four kids. Was recently outed has having been on the list of patrons for some high-end escort service a number of years ago. Strangely, until the story broke, he never admitted this. After the story broke, he started sounding contrite and talked about "serious sin" in his past, etc. I'd think for any politician who has some skeletons in the past, better expose them before starting to champion family values or what not. I have no issues with someone who has had a not-so-delightful past publicly recognize that they have since moved on and have received forgiveness, etc. At least you know that they have some credibility, being able to admit that they were not so perfect, but learned from mistakes. For Vitters to now come clean AFTER he is discovered; well, I don't really feel sorry for this guy, no different from that idiot Bill Clinton (who was not a conservative) who bold-faced lie to the American people on national television.
Of course, Vitters, just like evangelist Ted Haggard, claimed that he got nude massages, but no sex was exchanged (kind of funny, with the amount of registered massage therapists out there, you'd turn to either an escort service or male prostitute for a massage). Yeah, whatever.
Also recent news is the absolutely mind-numbing $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic church and victims of sexual abuse (in the U.S.). As my wife and I read through numerous headlines, we were shocked by how widespread this abuse was - settlements were reached in various States with various amounts of victims. This just proves to me the whole fallacy behind the requirement of priests remaining celebate. The Bible talks about (in 1 Corinthians, I believe, about the fact that "it is better to marry than burn with passion." As human beings, we all have sexual urges, and unless a person is clearly gifted with the gift of celibacy (I don't consider it a gift, but anyway...), I'd say don't bother getting in a position where you'll get tempted. In my entire life on this earth, I have only met one person who (maybe) has demonstrated that she has this gift, and that's only from conversations and such that I've had with her. I would say that women would more likely have this gift than men, but I am not here to discuss celibacy, so let's move on...
How about "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger. Against birth control (never understood this), but she had her tubes tied, speaks out against adultery even though she committed it, does not believe in divorce, but she got divorced. Again, if it's in your past, but you have changed and you admit your past and move on, that's one thing. But if you are, say, preaching against homosexual relationships, while you are covertly pursing one - that's much more damaging to your credibility than admitting your past, but realizing that some mistakes you did make helped shape a different position on an issue.
This sort of goes back to my blog posting on the "myth of nice guys" (search my blog from last month - June 2006 - and you'll see it). I still maintain that those who seem to have a perfect life and perfect relationship in public likely have the most to hide.
Last year, there was Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who sent sexually explicit messages to his male pages (the text of these are public record, but pretty disturbing considering how bold an elected official will be in using such a traceable medium such as email. This didn't stop one guy (last name was Doyle, I think), who was like 4th in command at the department of Homeland Security in the U.S., who last year was busted on the spot for sexually laced emails to what he thought was a 14-year-old girl (literally - the police showed up at his door while he on his computer). This guy (55) even sent photos of himself wearing his official Department of Homeland Security badge, and passed along his government land line and cell phone numbers to this 14-year-old girl, who was obviously really a police officer. How a guy as dumb as this gets a high level government job with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, I will never understand. No wonder they haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet.
See, some scandals I'm not surprised about (like that Minnesota Viking "love boat" scandal). These guys never claimed to be above-the-board moral types, and they are not really in a position to be considered role models anyway. But I think for anyone to step into the public eye on either a political or religious platform based on some subset of moral values, better examine yourself first to make sure that you are consciously able to follow your convictions without some hidden stuff in your closet.
Whoa there, you are probably thinking. What on earth are you doing giving an accolade to the founder of the pornographic Hustler Magazine?
Well, let me just say that it's not what you think. I don't support Flynt's pornographic magazine, and his other business pursuits that revolve around smut. However, to show that I can be reasonably objective, I try to call a spade a spade, and when I see Flynt making reward money available to expose the hypocrisy amongst lawmakers, politicians, religious leaders, and other high-profile officials, I have to applaud him on that, since some of these same officials are acting two faced in making laws against pornographic materials, same sex marriage, abortion; meanwhile, their lives behind closed doors reek of hypocrisy.
Take, for instance, the latest on that David Vitters guy. Congressman in Louisiana who is married with four kids. Was recently outed has having been on the list of patrons for some high-end escort service a number of years ago. Strangely, until the story broke, he never admitted this. After the story broke, he started sounding contrite and talked about "serious sin" in his past, etc. I'd think for any politician who has some skeletons in the past, better expose them before starting to champion family values or what not. I have no issues with someone who has had a not-so-delightful past publicly recognize that they have since moved on and have received forgiveness, etc. At least you know that they have some credibility, being able to admit that they were not so perfect, but learned from mistakes. For Vitters to now come clean AFTER he is discovered; well, I don't really feel sorry for this guy, no different from that idiot Bill Clinton (who was not a conservative) who bold-faced lie to the American people on national television.
Of course, Vitters, just like evangelist Ted Haggard, claimed that he got nude massages, but no sex was exchanged (kind of funny, with the amount of registered massage therapists out there, you'd turn to either an escort service or male prostitute for a massage). Yeah, whatever.
Also recent news is the absolutely mind-numbing $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic church and victims of sexual abuse (in the U.S.). As my wife and I read through numerous headlines, we were shocked by how widespread this abuse was - settlements were reached in various States with various amounts of victims. This just proves to me the whole fallacy behind the requirement of priests remaining celebate. The Bible talks about (in 1 Corinthians, I believe, about the fact that "it is better to marry than burn with passion." As human beings, we all have sexual urges, and unless a person is clearly gifted with the gift of celibacy (I don't consider it a gift, but anyway...), I'd say don't bother getting in a position where you'll get tempted. In my entire life on this earth, I have only met one person who (maybe) has demonstrated that she has this gift, and that's only from conversations and such that I've had with her. I would say that women would more likely have this gift than men, but I am not here to discuss celibacy, so let's move on...
How about "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger. Against birth control (never understood this), but she had her tubes tied, speaks out against adultery even though she committed it, does not believe in divorce, but she got divorced. Again, if it's in your past, but you have changed and you admit your past and move on, that's one thing. But if you are, say, preaching against homosexual relationships, while you are covertly pursing one - that's much more damaging to your credibility than admitting your past, but realizing that some mistakes you did make helped shape a different position on an issue.
This sort of goes back to my blog posting on the "myth of nice guys" (search my blog from last month - June 2006 - and you'll see it). I still maintain that those who seem to have a perfect life and perfect relationship in public likely have the most to hide.
Last year, there was Mark Foley, the Florida congressman who sent sexually explicit messages to his male pages (the text of these are public record, but pretty disturbing considering how bold an elected official will be in using such a traceable medium such as email. This didn't stop one guy (last name was Doyle, I think), who was like 4th in command at the department of Homeland Security in the U.S., who last year was busted on the spot for sexually laced emails to what he thought was a 14-year-old girl (literally - the police showed up at his door while he on his computer). This guy (55) even sent photos of himself wearing his official Department of Homeland Security badge, and passed along his government land line and cell phone numbers to this 14-year-old girl, who was obviously really a police officer. How a guy as dumb as this gets a high level government job with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, I will never understand. No wonder they haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet.
See, some scandals I'm not surprised about (like that Minnesota Viking "love boat" scandal). These guys never claimed to be above-the-board moral types, and they are not really in a position to be considered role models anyway. But I think for anyone to step into the public eye on either a political or religious platform based on some subset of moral values, better examine yourself first to make sure that you are consciously able to follow your convictions without some hidden stuff in your closet.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Christian and Gambling
Since it's wee into the night, I am not sure how much of this I can get done on this topic, but here goes...
Many, many years ago, when we had many more employees at work than we do now, they started a lottery pool (which exists to this day), as typical in many corporate offices, and people pitched in. When I was asked to participate, I politely declined. It wasn't until a few years later that someone approached me and asked why I didn't participate. I simply told them I don't gamble, and they said, "it's not gambling". Well, what can I say? I respectfully disagreed, and responded that what do you call it when you put money into something where the odds are heavily against you that you will get anything back? In my view, this is the opposite of wise investing, where you put your money into something that generally appreciates in value and although there may be slight risk, the general trend of investments tend to rise (I know that there is a grey line here, since some investments are extremely volitile (ie. sector investments), while others are fairly sound (money market, bonds, etc.).
Aside from the addiction part and the documented broken marriages and families arising from gambling's worse by-products (this is not really the scope of this blog entry, so I won't touch it here), my biggest beef with gambling is that it plays on unrealistic hopes and dreams of peple. Notice how the lottery companies will spin this - "what would you do with a million dollars?" Or "imagine the freedom..." Problem is, the chance of winning anything is very, very, very remote. Unfortunately, some people will tend to be so desperate as to try to make money the easy way that they don't think through the process that is working against their favour. My Dad has always taught me that there's no such thing as easy money, and I have seen the truth in that. I literally know people who hinge their future hopes and retirement on "hopefully" winning the lottery. Until then, they keep working, but put away money into lottery tickets. Imagine what they would have if they actually had put that money away in mutual funds or some other appreciating investment, growing their money along the way.
These days, gambling does not simply take the form of slot machines and baccarrat tables at a casino. People can gamble online, through the lottery, sports betting, and the most disturbing trend, the charity lotteries. The justification here is "oh, but I'm supporting a good cause". OK then, how about you simply donate to that charity without going through the lottery? My educated guess is that nine out of ten people will not do that. And I think you know why - they are in it for themselves - to win cars or houses or whatever the charity is giving away via the lottery, under the guise of "supporting a good cause". No different than people giving to churches in order to get a tax receipt (the question is whether you would give to your church if there was no tax benefits for yoruself?) It's sort of like horse racing. I was flipping channels one weekend while my son was sleeping and saw the Kentucky Derby coverage, even though I don't follow horse sports at all. I find it absolutely laughable that they participate in such a ritual like singing some silly song and then watching horses run for less than a 5 minutes. But the place is packed, and you know why? Everyone there is betting on the horses. Take betting out, and how many people would spend a couple of minutes (literally) watching horses run around for the fun of it? Yet, the Derby (and the other Triple Crown events) are made out to be some horse-loving sport (and I don't deny that there are people who watch it for the horses themselves or to see how many Hispanic jockeys there are).
For the Christian, I have some food for thought, and while I am not so stupid as to simply tout, as true as it may be, that "gambling is a sin" like some believers will blatantly state, I will pose several questions to the Christian pondering this issue, keeping in mind that it is true that the Bible has more to say about money and money management than any other topic, theological or otherwise (God, in His wisdom, I am sure, knew that money management would be an issue for people):
First and foremost, what does it say about your faith in God providing for your needs when you are trying to take a shortcut to what is supposedly easy money, rather than rely on Him to supply your needs? What does it say about your willingness to believe God's promises such as Matthew 6:25-34 (one of my favourite Scripture passages of all time) which indicates for people not to worry (and these sentiments are all from Jesus' own mouth) when you decide to play the lottery? Jesus says that our Heavenly Father takes care of the birds of the air and clothes the lilies of the field, and He certainly cares more for people than these other things. In the book of Malachi, it is the only place where God has ever explicity asked people to test Him. Guess what He asked to be tested about? Money! As a personal note, my wife and I can absolutely attest to God's goodness when we had our son, and she went on mat leave and our monthly budget showed that we were going to be taking a financial hit month after month to no end. Well, several amazing things happened during that time where it was really a leap of faith to trust God in light of what we thought was contrary evidence - not only did He take care of our needs, He surprised us by supplying more than enough so even during those times, we had money to put away in mutual funds, etc. (some of the things that happened will astonish you and I am convinced there is no other explanation than God's providence). When we are in a tight financial crunch, I look back and know that God indeed takes care of us, and so when I am telling you this, I am not just paying lip service here - I truly believe this myself!
The Bible warns against dishonest gain and not working for one's wage (I'll have to look up the passages for these ones, but trust me they are there - it's just getting late and I'm starting to doze off here). The fact of the matter is, like it or not, God has given us the ability to work, and working for one's money (obviously in legal ways) is honouring to Him. Not really wanting to work for money, or taking shortcuts in making money is not, and it's been shown in several places in the Bible. There is even a certain expectation that we work - I believe it's in 2 Thessalonians 3 that it says if we don't work, we don't eat. Likewise, being good stewards of the money that God entrusted to us is absolutely important. I think there's not much of a difference between gambling away the money to which God has entrusted you, and and farting the money away on absolutely stupid things (which I have been guilty of doing many times).
The Bible models wise investing through its accounts of Biblical people and through Jesus' parables. The book of Proverbs are full of examples of making wise decisions, taking time to plan, not rushing into things, etc.
Now, people may argue, what's the difference between putting money into a charity lottery and putting money into your kid's school fundraiser? I am not here to draw out lines in every situation, but I'd encourage you to ask yourself at those times: why I am I putting money into this? Am I expecting money back?
If not, well, I'd say you have nothing to worry about.
If so, ask yourself if this a wise investstment - ie. is it likely that my investment will grow as a result? In gambling, the odds are always against you and you are almost certainly always going to lose money, since the whole system only works if there are an overwhelming ratio of losers to winners. When people give to their kids' fundraising efforts, they are not expecting any money back - so it is considered a gift of charity. The child or their school wins as a result with added funds for programs, and you win since you are helping them out with a gift. If you are putting money into any kind of raffle or lottery, you are essentially wanting something back (otherwise, you would give through non-lottery channels), and you are giving to a system where the odds are against you.
Another question that has been raised, and for which I haven't spent an enormous amount of time thinking about, is the whole idea of signing up for stuff which gives away money and prizes but you don't have to put down any money. I would say that it's not gambling, since what is being gambled here? You're probably exposing your address, email and contact info to telemarketing companies, but because you're not putting in your own money towards an odd-on losing proposition, I wouldn't consider it gambling, though some people would still say it's not working so it's kind of lazy. As I haven't really worked out this in my mind, it would be foolish for me to comment further.
The next one is interesting - and again, I haven't thought this through, so this may not make sense (and I'm exhausted right now) - how about "friendly wagers" between people? Again, I look at it whether there is any money being put in? If so, then I'd say it is gambling but then again, most people make these wagers with some semblance of control over what they are wagering. For instance, if I were to bet you $20.00 that I would beat you in arm wrestling, I'd have to be an idiot to do so if I didn't think I could beat you. However, since it is never really guaranteed, you are still playing the unknown card, and as such, it is probably likely siding on the gambling definition. If it's one of those "whoever wins this game will buy the other one dinner" - I don't consider that gambling per se, but again, I haven't thought through this one as I said. Maybe when I'm more awake, I'll run this scenario through again.
Now, I don't distinugish levels of gambling, since gambling is gambling and I don't think there is such a thing as innocent gambling, even at many church-affiliated bingo halls where I am amazed that senior citizens (with generally fixed incomes which generally mean less disposable money to throw out) fart their money away under the guise of fun and fellowship. I also am not one to rank sins, since the Bible does not indicate certain sins being lesser or more than others, though of course, the consequences of sins will differ in their severity. In the end, it is really between you and God, but the Bible does have quite a bit to say about how to gain wealth and properity in a God honouring way, but sorry to say, gambling is not one of them.
Many, many years ago, when we had many more employees at work than we do now, they started a lottery pool (which exists to this day), as typical in many corporate offices, and people pitched in. When I was asked to participate, I politely declined. It wasn't until a few years later that someone approached me and asked why I didn't participate. I simply told them I don't gamble, and they said, "it's not gambling". Well, what can I say? I respectfully disagreed, and responded that what do you call it when you put money into something where the odds are heavily against you that you will get anything back? In my view, this is the opposite of wise investing, where you put your money into something that generally appreciates in value and although there may be slight risk, the general trend of investments tend to rise (I know that there is a grey line here, since some investments are extremely volitile (ie. sector investments), while others are fairly sound (money market, bonds, etc.).
Aside from the addiction part and the documented broken marriages and families arising from gambling's worse by-products (this is not really the scope of this blog entry, so I won't touch it here), my biggest beef with gambling is that it plays on unrealistic hopes and dreams of peple. Notice how the lottery companies will spin this - "what would you do with a million dollars?" Or "imagine the freedom..." Problem is, the chance of winning anything is very, very, very remote. Unfortunately, some people will tend to be so desperate as to try to make money the easy way that they don't think through the process that is working against their favour. My Dad has always taught me that there's no such thing as easy money, and I have seen the truth in that. I literally know people who hinge their future hopes and retirement on "hopefully" winning the lottery. Until then, they keep working, but put away money into lottery tickets. Imagine what they would have if they actually had put that money away in mutual funds or some other appreciating investment, growing their money along the way.
These days, gambling does not simply take the form of slot machines and baccarrat tables at a casino. People can gamble online, through the lottery, sports betting, and the most disturbing trend, the charity lotteries. The justification here is "oh, but I'm supporting a good cause". OK then, how about you simply donate to that charity without going through the lottery? My educated guess is that nine out of ten people will not do that. And I think you know why - they are in it for themselves - to win cars or houses or whatever the charity is giving away via the lottery, under the guise of "supporting a good cause". No different than people giving to churches in order to get a tax receipt (the question is whether you would give to your church if there was no tax benefits for yoruself?) It's sort of like horse racing. I was flipping channels one weekend while my son was sleeping and saw the Kentucky Derby coverage, even though I don't follow horse sports at all. I find it absolutely laughable that they participate in such a ritual like singing some silly song and then watching horses run for less than a 5 minutes. But the place is packed, and you know why? Everyone there is betting on the horses. Take betting out, and how many people would spend a couple of minutes (literally) watching horses run around for the fun of it? Yet, the Derby (and the other Triple Crown events) are made out to be some horse-loving sport (and I don't deny that there are people who watch it for the horses themselves or to see how many Hispanic jockeys there are).
For the Christian, I have some food for thought, and while I am not so stupid as to simply tout, as true as it may be, that "gambling is a sin" like some believers will blatantly state, I will pose several questions to the Christian pondering this issue, keeping in mind that it is true that the Bible has more to say about money and money management than any other topic, theological or otherwise (God, in His wisdom, I am sure, knew that money management would be an issue for people):
First and foremost, what does it say about your faith in God providing for your needs when you are trying to take a shortcut to what is supposedly easy money, rather than rely on Him to supply your needs? What does it say about your willingness to believe God's promises such as Matthew 6:25-34 (one of my favourite Scripture passages of all time) which indicates for people not to worry (and these sentiments are all from Jesus' own mouth) when you decide to play the lottery? Jesus says that our Heavenly Father takes care of the birds of the air and clothes the lilies of the field, and He certainly cares more for people than these other things. In the book of Malachi, it is the only place where God has ever explicity asked people to test Him. Guess what He asked to be tested about? Money! As a personal note, my wife and I can absolutely attest to God's goodness when we had our son, and she went on mat leave and our monthly budget showed that we were going to be taking a financial hit month after month to no end. Well, several amazing things happened during that time where it was really a leap of faith to trust God in light of what we thought was contrary evidence - not only did He take care of our needs, He surprised us by supplying more than enough so even during those times, we had money to put away in mutual funds, etc. (some of the things that happened will astonish you and I am convinced there is no other explanation than God's providence). When we are in a tight financial crunch, I look back and know that God indeed takes care of us, and so when I am telling you this, I am not just paying lip service here - I truly believe this myself!
The Bible warns against dishonest gain and not working for one's wage (I'll have to look up the passages for these ones, but trust me they are there - it's just getting late and I'm starting to doze off here). The fact of the matter is, like it or not, God has given us the ability to work, and working for one's money (obviously in legal ways) is honouring to Him. Not really wanting to work for money, or taking shortcuts in making money is not, and it's been shown in several places in the Bible. There is even a certain expectation that we work - I believe it's in 2 Thessalonians 3 that it says if we don't work, we don't eat. Likewise, being good stewards of the money that God entrusted to us is absolutely important. I think there's not much of a difference between gambling away the money to which God has entrusted you, and and farting the money away on absolutely stupid things (which I have been guilty of doing many times).
The Bible models wise investing through its accounts of Biblical people and through Jesus' parables. The book of Proverbs are full of examples of making wise decisions, taking time to plan, not rushing into things, etc.
Now, people may argue, what's the difference between putting money into a charity lottery and putting money into your kid's school fundraiser? I am not here to draw out lines in every situation, but I'd encourage you to ask yourself at those times: why I am I putting money into this? Am I expecting money back?
If not, well, I'd say you have nothing to worry about.
If so, ask yourself if this a wise investstment - ie. is it likely that my investment will grow as a result? In gambling, the odds are always against you and you are almost certainly always going to lose money, since the whole system only works if there are an overwhelming ratio of losers to winners. When people give to their kids' fundraising efforts, they are not expecting any money back - so it is considered a gift of charity. The child or their school wins as a result with added funds for programs, and you win since you are helping them out with a gift. If you are putting money into any kind of raffle or lottery, you are essentially wanting something back (otherwise, you would give through non-lottery channels), and you are giving to a system where the odds are against you.
Another question that has been raised, and for which I haven't spent an enormous amount of time thinking about, is the whole idea of signing up for stuff which gives away money and prizes but you don't have to put down any money. I would say that it's not gambling, since what is being gambled here? You're probably exposing your address, email and contact info to telemarketing companies, but because you're not putting in your own money towards an odd-on losing proposition, I wouldn't consider it gambling, though some people would still say it's not working so it's kind of lazy. As I haven't really worked out this in my mind, it would be foolish for me to comment further.
The next one is interesting - and again, I haven't thought this through, so this may not make sense (and I'm exhausted right now) - how about "friendly wagers" between people? Again, I look at it whether there is any money being put in? If so, then I'd say it is gambling but then again, most people make these wagers with some semblance of control over what they are wagering. For instance, if I were to bet you $20.00 that I would beat you in arm wrestling, I'd have to be an idiot to do so if I didn't think I could beat you. However, since it is never really guaranteed, you are still playing the unknown card, and as such, it is probably likely siding on the gambling definition. If it's one of those "whoever wins this game will buy the other one dinner" - I don't consider that gambling per se, but again, I haven't thought through this one as I said. Maybe when I'm more awake, I'll run this scenario through again.
Now, I don't distinugish levels of gambling, since gambling is gambling and I don't think there is such a thing as innocent gambling, even at many church-affiliated bingo halls where I am amazed that senior citizens (with generally fixed incomes which generally mean less disposable money to throw out) fart their money away under the guise of fun and fellowship. I also am not one to rank sins, since the Bible does not indicate certain sins being lesser or more than others, though of course, the consequences of sins will differ in their severity. In the end, it is really between you and God, but the Bible does have quite a bit to say about how to gain wealth and properity in a God honouring way, but sorry to say, gambling is not one of them.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
I'm Glad I Don't Live In Toronto
Every year, something happens to confirm that we made the right choice seven years ago not to buy a home in Toronto. Whether it was the garbage strike a few years back where the entire city had no garbage pickup and intersections were littered wtih hundreds of rotting garbage bags in the middle of the summer, whether it was the TTC (public transit) shortages / stoppages or strikes (if I lived in Toronto, I would have to take public transit, and you know my opinion on public transit already, as seen in a previous blog entry), the ridiculous left-wing socialist mayor that is currently in office, the ridiculous amounts of "tolerance" events that goes on in the city and the eroding of traditional family events, the constant contruction on roads which never seen to be fixed, the countless road closures (including more than regular closures of major parkway/arteries into and out of the city), not to mention the amount of crime that goes on in the city - well, all this has just re-affirmed to me that it's much better to live in the suberbs, even though the 'burbs have their own share of problems, albeit significantly fewer than Toronto.
The latest item which has simply re-affirmed my gladness that we never decided to live in Toronto is the ridiculous new taxes that David Miller, Toronto's socialist mayor has decided to impose. On the forefront are two new, very controversial taxes, one being an increased land transfer tax, and the other being an additional drivers' licence renewal tax of 60 bucks on top of the provincially set $74.50 (though humourously I don't think they consulted the province since they refuse to help Toronto collect the extra 60 bucks). Also planned was an additional tax on alcohol, but that's been pulled for now. I also read that they had proposed a tax on cigarettes (good!) and amusement parks (???).
The mayor and his supporters claim these taxes are supposed to help offset a budget shortfall (I think whenever this happens in politics, it's an indication that the government is not working within their means or that they are not aggressively looking at cuts - how governments get themselves in debt, I will never understand) - anyway, I would take this rationalization seriously if it weren't for the fact that Toronto council recently voted themselves a pay raise. And that the city has put really dumb-ass things in their budget, like commissioning something like $300,000 - $400,000 to do a manual count of how many trees there are in Toronto. I'm not kidding here.
I'm no economist, but I've always believed heavier taxes drive people away from spending (resulting in less taxes collected through sales) and so your economy suffers as a result. Increased taxes discourage spending and companies will be forced to let go of staff since their sales will drop, reducing in less jobs and higher unemployment.
Now, as a suberbanite, this news makes me chuckle, but in a way, it's not bad for me. People who were planning to buy houses in Toronto will likely think twice, and that will make our suberbian regions much more attractive, thus driving up our housing prices (which are very high to begin with, but as a guy who has no plans to sell his house anytime soon, I'm basking in the increased investment value in my home as it is, and its certain continual rise in value).
The additional driver's licence renewal tax is ridiculous at best. What this will do is simply get people to register their vehicles outside of Toronto. Who is going to go to two places to renew their drivers' licence, anyway? Sheesh...
The thing is, this is not a big city thing. Others large cities in Canada have their budgets in order and in fact cities like Calgary have a nice surplus to work with (OK, they're in oil country, but...). Ultimately, this is not about having more money; rather, Toronto elected (and re-elected) a mayor whose philosophy is spend and tax, so what do you expect? I suspect that had Jane Pitfield been elected (and while I was not eligible to vote in last year's municipal elections, as I am not a resident of Toronto, I still supported Jane Pitfield and financially contributed to her campaign), things would be much different. Now I realize that Toronto's mayor has to deal with a not-too-swift Ontario Premier to get money for the city, but the previous mayor, Mel Lastman, as controversial as he was, was able to get money for the city much more successfully than this guy. I am hoping that my Torontonian friends who are fed up with this would not take it lying down and consider moving into the land of the 905 region where at least many towns and cities are run much more reponsibly. I look to see you there!
The latest item which has simply re-affirmed my gladness that we never decided to live in Toronto is the ridiculous new taxes that David Miller, Toronto's socialist mayor has decided to impose. On the forefront are two new, very controversial taxes, one being an increased land transfer tax, and the other being an additional drivers' licence renewal tax of 60 bucks on top of the provincially set $74.50 (though humourously I don't think they consulted the province since they refuse to help Toronto collect the extra 60 bucks). Also planned was an additional tax on alcohol, but that's been pulled for now. I also read that they had proposed a tax on cigarettes (good!) and amusement parks (???).
The mayor and his supporters claim these taxes are supposed to help offset a budget shortfall (I think whenever this happens in politics, it's an indication that the government is not working within their means or that they are not aggressively looking at cuts - how governments get themselves in debt, I will never understand) - anyway, I would take this rationalization seriously if it weren't for the fact that Toronto council recently voted themselves a pay raise. And that the city has put really dumb-ass things in their budget, like commissioning something like $300,000 - $400,000 to do a manual count of how many trees there are in Toronto. I'm not kidding here.
I'm no economist, but I've always believed heavier taxes drive people away from spending (resulting in less taxes collected through sales) and so your economy suffers as a result. Increased taxes discourage spending and companies will be forced to let go of staff since their sales will drop, reducing in less jobs and higher unemployment.
Now, as a suberbanite, this news makes me chuckle, but in a way, it's not bad for me. People who were planning to buy houses in Toronto will likely think twice, and that will make our suberbian regions much more attractive, thus driving up our housing prices (which are very high to begin with, but as a guy who has no plans to sell his house anytime soon, I'm basking in the increased investment value in my home as it is, and its certain continual rise in value).
The additional driver's licence renewal tax is ridiculous at best. What this will do is simply get people to register their vehicles outside of Toronto. Who is going to go to two places to renew their drivers' licence, anyway? Sheesh...
The thing is, this is not a big city thing. Others large cities in Canada have their budgets in order and in fact cities like Calgary have a nice surplus to work with (OK, they're in oil country, but...). Ultimately, this is not about having more money; rather, Toronto elected (and re-elected) a mayor whose philosophy is spend and tax, so what do you expect? I suspect that had Jane Pitfield been elected (and while I was not eligible to vote in last year's municipal elections, as I am not a resident of Toronto, I still supported Jane Pitfield and financially contributed to her campaign), things would be much different. Now I realize that Toronto's mayor has to deal with a not-too-swift Ontario Premier to get money for the city, but the previous mayor, Mel Lastman, as controversial as he was, was able to get money for the city much more successfully than this guy. I am hoping that my Torontonian friends who are fed up with this would not take it lying down and consider moving into the land of the 905 region where at least many towns and cities are run much more reponsibly. I look to see you there!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Why I Am Not Against Ticket Scalping
Ticket scalping is illegal in several U.S. states. Oftentimes, when I hear about controversy surrounding scalpers selling tickets at inflated prices, I always hear all sorts of arguments against it. As you may know, ticket scalping is the practice of buying up a bunch of tickets, and then selling them at inflated prices once demand exceeds supply. This seems to be simple capitalism to me. People buy things and sell it for more (and oftentimes much more than their cost). No matter what anyone will tell you, the reason why most people are against scalping is because the big monopolized companies like Ticketmaster don't get their share of profits (and governments can't get their nose in people's private enterprise - by the way, I will be writing about this shortly - it is sickening how much of our money is siphoned from us in all forms of taxes). Besides, the people who bought the original tickets bought them at face value, paying all the appropriate taxes and so forth. Unless the tickets were stolen, I would say that the scalpers purchased the tickets legally and it was a legitimate transaction. Now, the oppponents of ticket scalping will tell you that it may not be safe, and that there are no refunds and it's better to go to a bonded broker. Very true - it's probably safer that way - but people take risks all the time buying online from people they don't know (look at the mass success of craigstlist - there is a huge market for stuff).
The other argument goes like this: well, only certain retailers and distributors are allowed to sell their tickets. This is purely perpetuating a monopoly. I remember years ago, a friend of mine went to a Novell trade show in Toronto - he won some high-end Network server software. Of course, he wasn't planning to use it, since he had no Novell servers at home, so he decided to try to sell it on eBay. Despite the fact that it was sealed, retail version (and he had proof he got it from a Novell trade show), he wasn't allowed to sell it online (Novell blocked him and gave him a cease and desist order). Novell said that they were the only ones allowed to sell it. I'm glad to hear Novell is in the toilet right now in terms of sales and industry-wide usage. If you have legal Microsoft software, you are allowed to sell it under certain conditions (ie. as long as it is not academic or not-for-resale product that came at a discount primarily for a certain purpose). If you get something as a gift or buy something at face value, as long as you are not infringing on any intellectual property laws (such as claiming ownership of the product itself), I really find no common-sense reason why you can't resell it if you wish.
I would maintain that people have a choice. If you want to pay that much, go ahead. If demand wasn't there, the price would be lower - otherwise, you can make the same argument for Christie's auctionhouse or anywhere else, where people bid on stuff, therefore inflating the price. If you don't have the money, or can't afford it, then there ya go - I can't afford a Porsche 911 (yet), so I don't complain that the price is set too high. I just choose to drive another car.
Also, bear in mind that scalpers are also taking a huge risk - if they don't sell the tickets in time, they are stuck with them. So it's in their best interest to get people to buy the tickets and make some money.
I don't think anyone is holding people at gun point. And tickets to entertainment venues are not a necessary service. I'd be more concerned that the big gas and oil companies are buying up their supply, and then jacking the price up (oftentimes several times in a week), even though it's the same big tank of gas they bought at a set price! Why isn't that illegal?
Tickets are sold on eBay all the time. Concerts, sporting events, etc. Look at when SuperBowl comes - eBay always has a massive supply of tickets, always at higher than face value. How come this isn't illegal?
Seems like a definite double standard, doesn't it?
Ultimately, I see no moral dilemma here with the premise of ticket scalping. This is the law of supply and demand working at its finest.
The other argument goes like this: well, only certain retailers and distributors are allowed to sell their tickets. This is purely perpetuating a monopoly. I remember years ago, a friend of mine went to a Novell trade show in Toronto - he won some high-end Network server software. Of course, he wasn't planning to use it, since he had no Novell servers at home, so he decided to try to sell it on eBay. Despite the fact that it was sealed, retail version (and he had proof he got it from a Novell trade show), he wasn't allowed to sell it online (Novell blocked him and gave him a cease and desist order). Novell said that they were the only ones allowed to sell it. I'm glad to hear Novell is in the toilet right now in terms of sales and industry-wide usage. If you have legal Microsoft software, you are allowed to sell it under certain conditions (ie. as long as it is not academic or not-for-resale product that came at a discount primarily for a certain purpose). If you get something as a gift or buy something at face value, as long as you are not infringing on any intellectual property laws (such as claiming ownership of the product itself), I really find no common-sense reason why you can't resell it if you wish.
I would maintain that people have a choice. If you want to pay that much, go ahead. If demand wasn't there, the price would be lower - otherwise, you can make the same argument for Christie's auctionhouse or anywhere else, where people bid on stuff, therefore inflating the price. If you don't have the money, or can't afford it, then there ya go - I can't afford a Porsche 911 (yet), so I don't complain that the price is set too high. I just choose to drive another car.
Also, bear in mind that scalpers are also taking a huge risk - if they don't sell the tickets in time, they are stuck with them. So it's in their best interest to get people to buy the tickets and make some money.
I don't think anyone is holding people at gun point. And tickets to entertainment venues are not a necessary service. I'd be more concerned that the big gas and oil companies are buying up their supply, and then jacking the price up (oftentimes several times in a week), even though it's the same big tank of gas they bought at a set price! Why isn't that illegal?
Tickets are sold on eBay all the time. Concerts, sporting events, etc. Look at when SuperBowl comes - eBay always has a massive supply of tickets, always at higher than face value. How come this isn't illegal?
Seems like a definite double standard, doesn't it?
Ultimately, I see no moral dilemma here with the premise of ticket scalping. This is the law of supply and demand working at its finest.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Thank God for Police Officers
I continue to read, with more than passing interest, the very recent case of two police officers, Russell Timoshenko, and Herman Yan, both from New York City, who pulled over what they believed to be a stolen BMW X5 SUV less than 48 hours ago (in the morning of July 9), only to have the passenger fire at them. Officer Timoshenko was hit twice in the face and is in very bad shape in hospital. Officer Yan was shot in the chest and arm, but he had a bulletproof vest on, which the New York City police chief says, probably saved his life. Officer Yan was able to fire back and it was believe that he hit one of the suspects.
The perpetrators are still on the lam, but they do have a description of a suspect. He apparently was a salesman at the BMW dealership from which the SUV came, but interesting enough, he is a convicted rapist and has a history of violent behaviour (how BMW came to employ him was anyone's guess). Anyways, despite the fact that this was such a sad, violent act that is perpetrated on another human being, it is of increasing concern that police officers were the target of the bullets. I think many of us will think the story is still sad if it was two rival gangs shooting each other up (or depending on who you are, it may be a good thing), but I cannot understand how a guy can pull a gun and deliberately shoot a police officer.
The police, to me, represent the people who willingly serve so you and I can live in a safe neighbourhood, town or city (or hamlet or village). Whenever I get pulled over by a police officer (by the way, it is not a regular occurrence, but I have been pulled over for speeding and for rolling stops, all of which were my fault and I have no excuse), I always call them "sir", "maam" and "officer". I have also been pulled over once by accident (there was another Jeremy Choi in the province driving with a suspended licence (wonder if it was that guy running for town council who shares my name) - an officer ran my plates at some lights and then pulled me over, to the shock of my Grandma, who was in the passenger's side. I wasn't upset, but I know some people who would be. I'm actually glad that police are doing their job, even if once in a blue moon, they pull over the wrong guy. I wasn't upset and even told the officer, "no problem". We've had the police at our house when a schitzophrenic lady tried to kick in our front door, thinking that we had kidnapped her friend Sue. We have had the police over when we reported strange noises in the backyard (which eventually turned out to be a toy bear of Isaac's, whose batteries were dying - what an awful sound it made!). Every single time, we have had professional, courteous (and thank God!) large and bulky officers whose presence made us feel much safer. I'm very thankful we have police officers to serve and protect us.
My cousin's a police officer in Edmonton. Last year (or was it 2004 during our other visit), I had an opportunity to sit down with my cousin. He was a bit down about his job and said that it wasn't very exicting. He said (and I thought he was pulling my leg, but his facial expression revealed he wasn't) that he wished that he had an exciting job in Information Technology like what I do. I told him, "you have got to be kidding!" I have a freaking office job, the most boringist of the boring occupations you can have. I said that as far as societal contributions go and inherent occupational value, there is not much that compares to a police officer. If I asked him in 2004, then I revisited the discussion last year since I spent a good chunk of the evening and well into the night louging on a chair while he sat on the opposing couch telling me story after story about his day-to-day job. Some of the stories just blow my mind - what an exciting life it is, and while yes, it is dangerous, and my aunt I am sure is on pins and needles on a regular basis when my cousin goes into work, I am very proud of him, and thanked him in person for putting his life on the line in serving others. In 2004, we walked the street with him (he was off-duty of course) and he bumped into some other off-duty cops and they were like old buddies at a bar discussing current events - these officers were like anyone else - they had families, a good sense of humour, etc.
I would love to be a police officer. But as my Mom and Dad (and wife) can attest, I'm not exactly the bravest soul on earth. Plus, the fact that I am a mere 5' 6" and under 145 lbs. is not exactly physically imposing. So I end up playing Police Quest video games and watch NYPD Blue and think that at the very least, I'm learning about police work.
All that being said, whenever I hear of a police officer being shot, or shot at, the only thing that comes to my mind is that these criminals obviously not only are devoid of a healthy fear and respect for authority, but the fact that they would contemplate killing a law enforcement official would indicate to me that they have forfeited any remnant of humanity that they have left. The very vast majority of human beings would recognize that their actions are governed by laws, which society as a whole has put into place. If they feel no remorse in snuffing out the life of one of the enforcers of those very laws, I would dare say, they just forfeited their right to be among the living. I would count copkillers on the same level as child molesters and rapists (and if you've read my blog thus far, you'll know what I suggest should be the punishment for those sub-humans, despite how vehemently left-wing psychologists would argue otherwise).
I hope that they find this/these coward(s) who shot these brave officers in New York (unfortunately, New York State abolished the death penalty), and I hope that Officer Timoshenko pulls through, even though it will obviously be an extraordinarily long healing and re-habilitation process. May God continue to bless the men and women who serve as upholders of the law so that people like me can write blogs in a safe place, and readers like you can read them in a safe place.
The perpetrators are still on the lam, but they do have a description of a suspect. He apparently was a salesman at the BMW dealership from which the SUV came, but interesting enough, he is a convicted rapist and has a history of violent behaviour (how BMW came to employ him was anyone's guess). Anyways, despite the fact that this was such a sad, violent act that is perpetrated on another human being, it is of increasing concern that police officers were the target of the bullets. I think many of us will think the story is still sad if it was two rival gangs shooting each other up (or depending on who you are, it may be a good thing), but I cannot understand how a guy can pull a gun and deliberately shoot a police officer.
The police, to me, represent the people who willingly serve so you and I can live in a safe neighbourhood, town or city (or hamlet or village). Whenever I get pulled over by a police officer (by the way, it is not a regular occurrence, but I have been pulled over for speeding and for rolling stops, all of which were my fault and I have no excuse), I always call them "sir", "maam" and "officer". I have also been pulled over once by accident (there was another Jeremy Choi in the province driving with a suspended licence (wonder if it was that guy running for town council who shares my name) - an officer ran my plates at some lights and then pulled me over, to the shock of my Grandma, who was in the passenger's side. I wasn't upset, but I know some people who would be. I'm actually glad that police are doing their job, even if once in a blue moon, they pull over the wrong guy. I wasn't upset and even told the officer, "no problem". We've had the police at our house when a schitzophrenic lady tried to kick in our front door, thinking that we had kidnapped her friend Sue. We have had the police over when we reported strange noises in the backyard (which eventually turned out to be a toy bear of Isaac's, whose batteries were dying - what an awful sound it made!). Every single time, we have had professional, courteous (and thank God!) large and bulky officers whose presence made us feel much safer. I'm very thankful we have police officers to serve and protect us.
My cousin's a police officer in Edmonton. Last year (or was it 2004 during our other visit), I had an opportunity to sit down with my cousin. He was a bit down about his job and said that it wasn't very exicting. He said (and I thought he was pulling my leg, but his facial expression revealed he wasn't) that he wished that he had an exciting job in Information Technology like what I do. I told him, "you have got to be kidding!" I have a freaking office job, the most boringist of the boring occupations you can have. I said that as far as societal contributions go and inherent occupational value, there is not much that compares to a police officer. If I asked him in 2004, then I revisited the discussion last year since I spent a good chunk of the evening and well into the night louging on a chair while he sat on the opposing couch telling me story after story about his day-to-day job. Some of the stories just blow my mind - what an exciting life it is, and while yes, it is dangerous, and my aunt I am sure is on pins and needles on a regular basis when my cousin goes into work, I am very proud of him, and thanked him in person for putting his life on the line in serving others. In 2004, we walked the street with him (he was off-duty of course) and he bumped into some other off-duty cops and they were like old buddies at a bar discussing current events - these officers were like anyone else - they had families, a good sense of humour, etc.
I would love to be a police officer. But as my Mom and Dad (and wife) can attest, I'm not exactly the bravest soul on earth. Plus, the fact that I am a mere 5' 6" and under 145 lbs. is not exactly physically imposing. So I end up playing Police Quest video games and watch NYPD Blue and think that at the very least, I'm learning about police work.
All that being said, whenever I hear of a police officer being shot, or shot at, the only thing that comes to my mind is that these criminals obviously not only are devoid of a healthy fear and respect for authority, but the fact that they would contemplate killing a law enforcement official would indicate to me that they have forfeited any remnant of humanity that they have left. The very vast majority of human beings would recognize that their actions are governed by laws, which society as a whole has put into place. If they feel no remorse in snuffing out the life of one of the enforcers of those very laws, I would dare say, they just forfeited their right to be among the living. I would count copkillers on the same level as child molesters and rapists (and if you've read my blog thus far, you'll know what I suggest should be the punishment for those sub-humans, despite how vehemently left-wing psychologists would argue otherwise).
I hope that they find this/these coward(s) who shot these brave officers in New York (unfortunately, New York State abolished the death penalty), and I hope that Officer Timoshenko pulls through, even though it will obviously be an extraordinarily long healing and re-habilitation process. May God continue to bless the men and women who serve as upholders of the law so that people like me can write blogs in a safe place, and readers like you can read them in a safe place.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Theological Discussions...Discussed
Back in my Bible college days about 12-15 years ago, I remember many late nights sipping coffee with a bunch of guys in dorm, as we sat in a lounge debating the merits and shortcomings of a number of theological topics. At the time, I was an eager participant, since I've only been a Christian for about 2-4 years at that point, so any discussion which would either cement or strengthen my faith was welcome. Of course, I have the propensity to be opinionated and I love debating/arguing (I'll let you distinguish), so it was a perfect vehicle for me to learn and engage the mind, at the same time forming friendships and fostering Christian fellowship.
More than a decade later, I still enjoy a good theological debate and have a few friends with whom I can probably spend an entire afternoon outside in lawnchairs, while sipping beers or other beverages of choice, talking about pre or post tribulation, Calvinism or Arminism, whether to dunk or splash or spray (we're talking baptism here, in case you are thinking something else). However, my views on theological discussions and debates have shifted noticeably since those days when I was a relatively new Christian.
I'll come right out and state it succinctly that I think that Billy Graham has it right (I can't comment on his son or his grandson, though they seem to be doing ok in carrying the torch). I have watched Billy Graham on TV many times (and had the opportunity to see him live only once), but if you watch Mr. Graham, you'll notice that he preaches the same gospel day in and day out, nothing added, nothing taken away. You go back to a tape or a reel of film from the 60s, compare it to the 80s and you'll see it's the same message. He is obediently following Jesus' final commission for this followers. And people today are responding in making decisions for Christ. Mr. Graham seldom is seen bogged down discussing sectarian theology or denominational distinctives - I personally think he has it right, and my shift in thinking over the years has been because I believe that Christians everywhere spend too much time debating useless theology (not useless per se, but ultimately useless in the whole scheme of things). Let me quickly explain.
There are things absolutely worth debating. I think that how a Christian views hot-potato social issues like abortion, homosexuality, war and peace, capital punishment, euthanasia, legalizing drugs, feminism, the environment, etc. has a place, particularly in that one's actions generally will be a product of one's worldview. For instance, I would never support (read: financially and otherwise) a political candidate who is a proponent of abortion (this topic will be coming up shortly in my blog here, but for now I'll just state that). I would never support (read: financially or otherwise) a church who has a practising homosexual minister or whose constitution allows openly practising homosexual members. As a result, if someone were to convince me otherwise or wanted my viewpoint, I am not shy (now, some people may think of me as a bit of a prick for being so opinionated and not as "tolerant" and "understanding", but I was not put on this earth to win popularity contests nor please everyone, so if I piss people off or they don't like me, I have learned that it goes with the territory of speaking one's mind openly). How I view things has a direct impact on what I do / not do, so if someone asks for my views on something that matters to them because it may potentially impact their own actions, I certainly take that seriously and will be happy to discuss/debate issues, and do so with respect and compassion to the other person (since they are struggling with coming to grips with issues as well, just like I am).
All that being said, I feel that many theological discussions have no overarching value, as much as I believe that many non-theological discussions have no overarching value (ie. talking about celebrity gossip or what Paris Hilton is up to - who really gives a rat's ass, honestly? If you do, I'd reassess your grasp of reality if I were you - I recently went to a friend's BBQ at their place and the husband was eager to talk about Paris Hilton in jail and he asked me what I thought and I said, although not as tactfully as I should have, "I don't care - let's talk about something else."). On the top of the theological discussions that have no value are discussing things which we clearly do not know and will not know, followed by discussing issues that perpetuate denominationalism. Again, I'll explain.
I have never been entirely comfortable with eschatological theology; that is, theology that deals with the end times. It was great to discuss this as a new Christian with a bunch of guys equally interested with picking each other's brains, but from a pragmatic perspective, how this plays out is out of our control. Same with the elected vs. free will debate. I think it's more important for Christians to preach the gospel to as many people out there as possible, rather than bicker about whether God has already chosen those and set them aside, or people choose Him through their free will. Neither argument can be perfectly supported, even using Scripture, and if you look at Jesus' example, He spends very little time, if any, debating the theological issues of the time. He went out and met with people and ministered to their needs and offered His free gift of salvation (the book of John is filled with Jesus meeting common people - notice how he spent very little, if any, time with the religious leaders at the time - the Pharissees and Saduccees). As His followers, we need to take a look in the mirror and realize that there are many things out of our control and rather than trying to find the answers to how the end times will work out, we should be spending our time reaching others with the gospel in our day to day lives. I think this brings more glory to God since it shows that we are yielding to Him for things that we may not understand and have faith in His ultimate will. It does seem easier and safer to debate these things with Christians, but people are dying everyday without knowing Christ, so which is more important?
My other issue with these either/or debates is that it puts you into one camp or the other. I am not a Calvinist, but I am not an Arminist either. But in the end here, my position is that this is a peripheral point. If you made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour by asking Him into your heart, you are saved. Whether it was your free will making the decision, or God's predestined work, I don't know. But what is important is that you made the decision and what is even MORE important than that is that someone told you the good news of the gospel message.
There are other peripheral issues in my mind, such as what happens during communion or, as my good friend Greg would call, the Eucharist. Frankly, I don't particularly concern myself with whether trans-substantiation occurs or con-substatiation or no substantiation or trans-fat substantiation, to use a current food term). Jesus commanded his followers to remember Him through partaking in the bread and the cup. I think everyone (I hope everyone) will agree with me that reverence for what the Lord commanded and respecting the elements (ie. not deliberately throwing it around or chewing like a cow with cud) is appreciated, but whether the elements actually become the body and blood is foreign to me, and it doesn't matter anyway since we are remembering Christ through our actions and in humility, spend time confessing our sins and asking forgiveness while we take communion.
The next part of this discussion may get me into some hot water, but I'll lay it out nonetheless. I think that the church today is not living up to the model of the original New Testament church in that it is fractured into all these denominations. Someone (a non-Christian) once asked me about this and said that the church can't even agree on things, so how can they purport to evangelize others? You know what - that's a really valid point and one which I think needs to change for the church to be effective. Let's state at the outset, and I hope that we can agree - these denominations are all built upon subtle (and at times not so subtle) differences in the way they view theology. Take that to its origins and you will see that these denominations were created because people took issue with another's views, etc., and purport that these are all substantiated by Scripture. I can't comment on too much of this, since I am not a theologian or a Biblical scholar, but it would seem to me that many of these things are more preference types of theology - for instance, most evangelical churches today will have something in their constitution or statement of faith about God being triune: God, Son, Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the only divinely inspired Word of God, that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved, God's gift of salvation is by grace alone (not works), every human being is sinful and in need of redemption, and so forth. However, despite what commonalities these churches have, it is their distinctives in theology which set them apart and which often causes friction and lack of unity. Some of these churches have differences in local church governance structures, the place of women in ministry (which I actually think is a bigger issue than a peripheral one which people would have you believe - I think the Bible is pretty clear in how it views the qualifications of a pastor or elder and yes, I believe they both need to be men and it's not because I'm sexist or misogynist or whatever else label gets applied to people who don't embrace feminism). But ultimately, if I had or were forced to rank what is more important - preaching the gospel or debating women in ministry, I'd work on my gospel presentation. Also, I realize that I don't operate in a vaccuum, so I need to sometimes be active in less-than-ideal conditions and be willing to yield to Christian unity over a denominational disagreement. But because I am not a big fan of denominations anyway, I tend to stay away from the discussions that center on denominational differences. Churches today have much more important things to worry about (such as whether they are doctrinally sound and whether their view of Scripture as the ONLY divinely inspired Word of God is intact - North American churches tend to be shifting more towards a business type of model, to my utter chagrin - I went to a church last year in Edmonton, Alberta - it was a very large, considered "hip" church complete with a bookstore and coffeeshop (it was disconcerting to see commerce done on Sunday IN THE CHURCH) - but you know what? If I were asked for my assessment of that church (and I was - my cousin asked me) - I would say big building, high tech children's drop-off and retrieval program, lots of seating, lots of options of things to do in the church building itself, highly emotionally-based worship singing, lots of use in A/V for presentations and skits and what not, but the sermon/message was not unlike something I would hear in a business meeting. The place was packed and I can see why - why not go to a place where they don't discuss the need for salvation, how we need to seek forgiveness for sins, how Christ's death paid for our sinful break with God? Instead, they have divorce support groups, teen and college support groups, ethnically-centered support groups, etc. Probably a church which held up "The Purpose Driven Life" as canon. Again, they can talk with me about reaching the lost and evangelism numbers and what not, but if their message is so syrupy, I'd say they have more important things to talk about.
Oh...what was I talking about. Oh yeah. There are some very good theological discussions that can be had, and these days, I generally gravitate towards those (or introduce those) whenever possible. I've already discussed that I generally try to refrain from participating in theological discussions that perpetuate denominational distinctives, discussions or over which we, as human beings, have no control. I'd add to that things such as speculative conjecturing, such as "what was that thorn in Paul's flesh and what was the nature of it?" or "what was that, that Jesus wrote on the sand in the account of the adulterous woman being brought out by the religious leaders?" Similarly, there are things (miraculous occurrences) that I cannot explain, but I simply have to accept on faith. As per one of my earlier postings, I believe the central issue for Biblical apologetics is whether the Bible is true or not. I wholeheartedly believe and know that the Bible is God's Word, so I will have to take the parts which I don't quite understand along with the many more parts that I do understand.
I mentioned already some of what I consider are "good discussions" - those which have value in that it can and does prompt us towards action in our lives, in order to be the salt and light of this earth and, whenever possible, advancing the Kingdom. I would probably add to that two other aspects which I find to be of good value in discussing and that is simple Bible study and also Biblical apologetics (or faith defence, as some term). Discussing the Bible is something which has inherit intrinsic value - being better versed with the manual to which believers live their lives is never a bad thing - discussing the Bible in all its facets in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture is a good thing. As a natural extension, in my view, every Christian should have a good, solid understanding of Biblical apologetics, being able to provide an answer when people ask us about our faith. Unfortunately, it's been too often that I hear of Bible-believing Christians not answering their door to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. I get encountered by Mormons very often in the intersection where I work and while I have to confess, it's not always the most comfortable to place to be in, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my faith (some times it has gone well, some times it has not, but whatever the case, I tend to read my Bible more that afternoon or that evening as a result, and that's always a good thing). More Christians need to be acquainted with their Bibles for those very reasons - so when someone comes and asks you about something, or challenges you on a topic, that you can at the very least use that as a potential witnessing opportunity. Those, I would suggest, are perhaps the best theological discussions you can have.
More than a decade later, I still enjoy a good theological debate and have a few friends with whom I can probably spend an entire afternoon outside in lawnchairs, while sipping beers or other beverages of choice, talking about pre or post tribulation, Calvinism or Arminism, whether to dunk or splash or spray (we're talking baptism here, in case you are thinking something else). However, my views on theological discussions and debates have shifted noticeably since those days when I was a relatively new Christian.
I'll come right out and state it succinctly that I think that Billy Graham has it right (I can't comment on his son or his grandson, though they seem to be doing ok in carrying the torch). I have watched Billy Graham on TV many times (and had the opportunity to see him live only once), but if you watch Mr. Graham, you'll notice that he preaches the same gospel day in and day out, nothing added, nothing taken away. You go back to a tape or a reel of film from the 60s, compare it to the 80s and you'll see it's the same message. He is obediently following Jesus' final commission for this followers. And people today are responding in making decisions for Christ. Mr. Graham seldom is seen bogged down discussing sectarian theology or denominational distinctives - I personally think he has it right, and my shift in thinking over the years has been because I believe that Christians everywhere spend too much time debating useless theology (not useless per se, but ultimately useless in the whole scheme of things). Let me quickly explain.
There are things absolutely worth debating. I think that how a Christian views hot-potato social issues like abortion, homosexuality, war and peace, capital punishment, euthanasia, legalizing drugs, feminism, the environment, etc. has a place, particularly in that one's actions generally will be a product of one's worldview. For instance, I would never support (read: financially and otherwise) a political candidate who is a proponent of abortion (this topic will be coming up shortly in my blog here, but for now I'll just state that). I would never support (read: financially or otherwise) a church who has a practising homosexual minister or whose constitution allows openly practising homosexual members. As a result, if someone were to convince me otherwise or wanted my viewpoint, I am not shy (now, some people may think of me as a bit of a prick for being so opinionated and not as "tolerant" and "understanding", but I was not put on this earth to win popularity contests nor please everyone, so if I piss people off or they don't like me, I have learned that it goes with the territory of speaking one's mind openly). How I view things has a direct impact on what I do / not do, so if someone asks for my views on something that matters to them because it may potentially impact their own actions, I certainly take that seriously and will be happy to discuss/debate issues, and do so with respect and compassion to the other person (since they are struggling with coming to grips with issues as well, just like I am).
All that being said, I feel that many theological discussions have no overarching value, as much as I believe that many non-theological discussions have no overarching value (ie. talking about celebrity gossip or what Paris Hilton is up to - who really gives a rat's ass, honestly? If you do, I'd reassess your grasp of reality if I were you - I recently went to a friend's BBQ at their place and the husband was eager to talk about Paris Hilton in jail and he asked me what I thought and I said, although not as tactfully as I should have, "I don't care - let's talk about something else."). On the top of the theological discussions that have no value are discussing things which we clearly do not know and will not know, followed by discussing issues that perpetuate denominationalism. Again, I'll explain.
I have never been entirely comfortable with eschatological theology; that is, theology that deals with the end times. It was great to discuss this as a new Christian with a bunch of guys equally interested with picking each other's brains, but from a pragmatic perspective, how this plays out is out of our control. Same with the elected vs. free will debate. I think it's more important for Christians to preach the gospel to as many people out there as possible, rather than bicker about whether God has already chosen those and set them aside, or people choose Him through their free will. Neither argument can be perfectly supported, even using Scripture, and if you look at Jesus' example, He spends very little time, if any, debating the theological issues of the time. He went out and met with people and ministered to their needs and offered His free gift of salvation (the book of John is filled with Jesus meeting common people - notice how he spent very little, if any, time with the religious leaders at the time - the Pharissees and Saduccees). As His followers, we need to take a look in the mirror and realize that there are many things out of our control and rather than trying to find the answers to how the end times will work out, we should be spending our time reaching others with the gospel in our day to day lives. I think this brings more glory to God since it shows that we are yielding to Him for things that we may not understand and have faith in His ultimate will. It does seem easier and safer to debate these things with Christians, but people are dying everyday without knowing Christ, so which is more important?
My other issue with these either/or debates is that it puts you into one camp or the other. I am not a Calvinist, but I am not an Arminist either. But in the end here, my position is that this is a peripheral point. If you made a decision to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour by asking Him into your heart, you are saved. Whether it was your free will making the decision, or God's predestined work, I don't know. But what is important is that you made the decision and what is even MORE important than that is that someone told you the good news of the gospel message.
There are other peripheral issues in my mind, such as what happens during communion or, as my good friend Greg would call, the Eucharist. Frankly, I don't particularly concern myself with whether trans-substantiation occurs or con-substatiation or no substantiation or trans-fat substantiation, to use a current food term). Jesus commanded his followers to remember Him through partaking in the bread and the cup. I think everyone (I hope everyone) will agree with me that reverence for what the Lord commanded and respecting the elements (ie. not deliberately throwing it around or chewing like a cow with cud) is appreciated, but whether the elements actually become the body and blood is foreign to me, and it doesn't matter anyway since we are remembering Christ through our actions and in humility, spend time confessing our sins and asking forgiveness while we take communion.
The next part of this discussion may get me into some hot water, but I'll lay it out nonetheless. I think that the church today is not living up to the model of the original New Testament church in that it is fractured into all these denominations. Someone (a non-Christian) once asked me about this and said that the church can't even agree on things, so how can they purport to evangelize others? You know what - that's a really valid point and one which I think needs to change for the church to be effective. Let's state at the outset, and I hope that we can agree - these denominations are all built upon subtle (and at times not so subtle) differences in the way they view theology. Take that to its origins and you will see that these denominations were created because people took issue with another's views, etc., and purport that these are all substantiated by Scripture. I can't comment on too much of this, since I am not a theologian or a Biblical scholar, but it would seem to me that many of these things are more preference types of theology - for instance, most evangelical churches today will have something in their constitution or statement of faith about God being triune: God, Son, Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the only divinely inspired Word of God, that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved, God's gift of salvation is by grace alone (not works), every human being is sinful and in need of redemption, and so forth. However, despite what commonalities these churches have, it is their distinctives in theology which set them apart and which often causes friction and lack of unity. Some of these churches have differences in local church governance structures, the place of women in ministry (which I actually think is a bigger issue than a peripheral one which people would have you believe - I think the Bible is pretty clear in how it views the qualifications of a pastor or elder and yes, I believe they both need to be men and it's not because I'm sexist or misogynist or whatever else label gets applied to people who don't embrace feminism). But ultimately, if I had or were forced to rank what is more important - preaching the gospel or debating women in ministry, I'd work on my gospel presentation. Also, I realize that I don't operate in a vaccuum, so I need to sometimes be active in less-than-ideal conditions and be willing to yield to Christian unity over a denominational disagreement. But because I am not a big fan of denominations anyway, I tend to stay away from the discussions that center on denominational differences. Churches today have much more important things to worry about (such as whether they are doctrinally sound and whether their view of Scripture as the ONLY divinely inspired Word of God is intact - North American churches tend to be shifting more towards a business type of model, to my utter chagrin - I went to a church last year in Edmonton, Alberta - it was a very large, considered "hip" church complete with a bookstore and coffeeshop (it was disconcerting to see commerce done on Sunday IN THE CHURCH) - but you know what? If I were asked for my assessment of that church (and I was - my cousin asked me) - I would say big building, high tech children's drop-off and retrieval program, lots of seating, lots of options of things to do in the church building itself, highly emotionally-based worship singing, lots of use in A/V for presentations and skits and what not, but the sermon/message was not unlike something I would hear in a business meeting. The place was packed and I can see why - why not go to a place where they don't discuss the need for salvation, how we need to seek forgiveness for sins, how Christ's death paid for our sinful break with God? Instead, they have divorce support groups, teen and college support groups, ethnically-centered support groups, etc. Probably a church which held up "The Purpose Driven Life" as canon. Again, they can talk with me about reaching the lost and evangelism numbers and what not, but if their message is so syrupy, I'd say they have more important things to talk about.
Oh...what was I talking about. Oh yeah. There are some very good theological discussions that can be had, and these days, I generally gravitate towards those (or introduce those) whenever possible. I've already discussed that I generally try to refrain from participating in theological discussions that perpetuate denominational distinctives, discussions or over which we, as human beings, have no control. I'd add to that things such as speculative conjecturing, such as "what was that thorn in Paul's flesh and what was the nature of it?" or "what was that, that Jesus wrote on the sand in the account of the adulterous woman being brought out by the religious leaders?" Similarly, there are things (miraculous occurrences) that I cannot explain, but I simply have to accept on faith. As per one of my earlier postings, I believe the central issue for Biblical apologetics is whether the Bible is true or not. I wholeheartedly believe and know that the Bible is God's Word, so I will have to take the parts which I don't quite understand along with the many more parts that I do understand.
I mentioned already some of what I consider are "good discussions" - those which have value in that it can and does prompt us towards action in our lives, in order to be the salt and light of this earth and, whenever possible, advancing the Kingdom. I would probably add to that two other aspects which I find to be of good value in discussing and that is simple Bible study and also Biblical apologetics (or faith defence, as some term). Discussing the Bible is something which has inherit intrinsic value - being better versed with the manual to which believers live their lives is never a bad thing - discussing the Bible in all its facets in order to gain a better understanding of Scripture is a good thing. As a natural extension, in my view, every Christian should have a good, solid understanding of Biblical apologetics, being able to provide an answer when people ask us about our faith. Unfortunately, it's been too often that I hear of Bible-believing Christians not answering their door to Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. I get encountered by Mormons very often in the intersection where I work and while I have to confess, it's not always the most comfortable to place to be in, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my faith (some times it has gone well, some times it has not, but whatever the case, I tend to read my Bible more that afternoon or that evening as a result, and that's always a good thing). More Christians need to be acquainted with their Bibles for those very reasons - so when someone comes and asks you about something, or challenges you on a topic, that you can at the very least use that as a potential witnessing opportunity. Those, I would suggest, are perhaps the best theological discussions you can have.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Protests and Rallies Do Not Work and Are a Waste of Time
So...I have followed the events surrounding the Native blockcade near Belleville a week or so back, where traffic and train tracks were impeded and snarled throughout the day. I just sat listening to the coverage, thinking, what on earth is this going to accomplish? You are impeding people's travel (a lot of it is likely travel for work or livelihood), you are blocking train tracks, denying 100 million dollars worth of cargo from getting through, and right before a long weekend, this has all the earmarks of simply pissing people off. If I was travelling in that area, would I give a rat's arse what they were protesting about? Nope. In fact, I would hope they never get what they were after - teaches them a lesson that you don't inconveience others to try to make a point - and one where they threatened to use not just rifles and handguns, but all-out assault weapons (Against who else? The provincial police that would seek to break this off). Last year/this year, it was the occupation in Caledonia (claims that developers were building houses on their land). I think in the end, it just made people more resentful of them as a minority group.
Now, I know one thing for a fact, and it is only by way of talking with some people I know who are of Native background. This is a rogue band of Aboriginals who are doing this - I had that sense anyway before it was confirmed - in fact, the local Native community groups there strongly condemned the action before it was even taken, yet the small group, led by some ding dong who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, decided to go ahead and challenge the police anyway. Many Native communities are embarrassed by these actions and are worried that it will only fuel the fire towards their group collectively (which, sadly to say, will likely happen).
Of course, in Ontario, we have an extremely weak liberal government led by an extremely weak socialist chameleon individual (Dalton McGuinty), who has been shown to break promises and not take action when needed. About ten years ago, we had a similar protest at Ipperwash (I believe). The Premier at the time (a Conservative) sent in the police, and one of the protesters was regrettably, killed. Since then, the government has shyed away from involvement in these protests and this is sad. If I were to grab some friends and take some MP5s onto the highway and stop traffic, griping about hospital wait times, I guarantee you I would be arrested and charged. Yet, no one wants to touch these guys for fear of another death and stirring up any racial tensions.
But believe it or not, the recent events are not what I want to write about, even though I have already done so. What I want to suggest in this entry of my blog is that protests and rallies have no influence whatsoever and should be ignored by the government.
Now, that being said, I know what you are thinking - "Uh...Jeremy, didn't you just say that in the recent events near Belleville, that the government should have intervened?" Yes, I did say that, and no, I am not being two-faced here. In the recent Native protest situation, it wasn't a protest - it was an illegal action under the guise of a protest. Since they took out assault weapons and blocked consumer and business, they are now impeding on the rights and freedoms of others (and though I am far from a libertarian, I will say that we do have some rights entrenched in our constitution (which is a more left-wing constitution, but one nonetheless), entitling us to not be the victim of threats and having our business interests needlessly shut down by non-government people. There are also laws in the land governing how we live, but unfortunately, with a weak liberal socialist government, they pay little heed to enforcing laws - they are more than happy to make them, though.
What I want to discuss is the idea of protests and rallies proper. That is, peaceful marches and such, which although it may slow traffic down somewhat, they are non-violent. These protests are within the boundaries of what is lawfully permissible and it is definitely people's right to protest. However, here is why I do not believe protests and rallies do not work, and I will cite several examples.
1) Most governments are not easily swayed by the viewpoints of a special interest group or a minority. Yes, I am sure you will take issue with me on this one, but let me explain. There are literally millions of special interest groups out there, each seeming to want the government to throw some money their way or change or create a law in their favour. Many (not all) elected officials are generally thick-skinned and have a wider picture of their budgets and social programs, not simply going for short-term solutions. If they could be swayed left, right and centre (and I'm not talking about the political spectrum here), no constructive action will ever take place. Governments are elected to make tough decisions, and yes, if they are elected, they are to represent their constituents, so if their constituents want such and such, then they are obligated to represent them. Special interest groups different from constituents in that they are not geographically based, and as such, they don't really have an elected official that they put in office (though I know there are always exceptions). By the way, have you ever noticed that when a protest happens at a government building, you almost always never see a government official show up to address the crowd?
2) Some rallies are utterly laughable. My brother, son and I were, unfortunately, caught in the streets of downtown Toronto a couple of months ago during a 10,000 person rally by some Marijauana-advocacy group in Ontario. While it was generally a peaceful protest, let me just say that the language coming out of their mouths were less than civil and proper, and of course, there was the waft of pot smoke everywhere (I had to shut my windows and turn on the AC, recycling the car's already stale air). So as I was driving through the protest (I was strongly tempted to drive through the protest, if you know what I mean), I thought to myself - what are these yahoos trying to prove (and based on the demographics and age constitution in the group, their lack of business acumen and articulation, I couldn't tell what they were rallying for or against - seemed like a good day to go out and smoke some weed), if I were in the government's shoes, I would have just said, "whatever" and go back to saving the whales or whatever they do. As it turns out, this rally was thoroughly ignored and not even acknowledged by the goverment. Of course, some of these rallies may push for a viewpoint, but it's not fleshed out very well in terms of who pays for such and such, what the social implications are (usually the special interest group will not care about how what they are championing will impact others).
3) Christian protests and rallies - sorry to say, and I don't like to slag my own people often, but I have to say, these are also ineffective. Writing a personalized note to your MP or MPP may not make a huge difference, but I think it will have the potential of being slightly more effective than standing at a corner with a sign saying, "Abortion is wrong" or "we need prayer in schools". The first one, I absolutely agree with and fully support, as I find abortion to be completely abhorrent in general. Prayer in schools I don't necessarily agree with, but either way, protesters standing at a corner, trying to convince a secular government to institute an abortion ban - what will that do? I absolutely abhor the Roe vs. Wade verdict in the U.S., and would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturn it (which may happen seeing here is now a 5-4 ideology split favouring the conservative side (yay for John Roberts and Samuel Alito!!!), I think that in the meantime, the best way to get people to change their minds is to talk with them during your day to day interactions. If you want to try to sway a governement official, write them a letter with what's on your heart (I know, I know, they may not even read it, but it's better than standing at the corner). My wife will take issue with me on this one, as her position is that they are at least doing something, rather than simply talking about it, as I am, and I see her point, but would counter saying "what are they really doing?" Christian rallies generally tend to be peaceful anyway, and when they turn ugly (as some abortions protests have in the U.S., that ceases to be a protest and is now an unlawful act). I think believers can be far more effective in influencing people on a day-to-day basis, and I think that is the Biblical pattern that Jesus set for his followers.
4) Today, I think, that whole "Live Earth" concert, based on ideas from that neo-environmentalist Al Gore will occur. While it is not a protest per se, it is supposed to bring "awareness" to environmental issues (which seem to be on the forefront of political agendas these days). While environmentalism is a subject I plan to discuss in the future, for now I will simply acknowledge that there is a concert taking place. But as with any group gathering for a "cause-based" event, I will be so bold as to say that many people going to this concert will be more interested in the big name bands who play and less on the message. Even Live 8 was like that - in England it was all the hype because of the reuniting of Pink Floyd after 22 years or so (and I must say, as a guy who had a thrown-out back that day and spent the entire day and evening in front of the tube, I saw that Pink Floyd re-united part and it was pretty cool) - but did I think about African relief? Not really. Did I think of African relief when Motley Crue got on and I realized how porky and old these guys have become? And I'm not sure if the artists did either. I remember one of the Canadian bands, A Simple Plan, who played at the Barrie location, the vocalist kept referring to Barrie as Toronto, but moreover, I found it telling that his references to African relief was brief and generalized (I wasn't even sure if he knew why he was there): "We are here today to support a good cause...now, Toronto, are you fucking ready to rock??????!!!" Nice one, buddy. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see whether the media focuses on what will be a lot of garbage and litter on the grounds of the LiveEarth environmental concert...
I think that, while I believe rallies and protests to be a waste of time, that I have to commend some of the protesters and ralliers who brave weather conditions and crowds (and mocking opinionated blog writers) to try to support something they believe in deeply. In a sense, I think that they mean well, but it may also be that they just want to feel better about themselves, that they are at least voicing their opinion, which is, of course, our democratic right. Or they may just be the product of the 60s hippie generation who seemed to revel in these kinds of things.
Now, I know one thing for a fact, and it is only by way of talking with some people I know who are of Native background. This is a rogue band of Aboriginals who are doing this - I had that sense anyway before it was confirmed - in fact, the local Native community groups there strongly condemned the action before it was even taken, yet the small group, led by some ding dong who wanted his 15 minutes of fame, decided to go ahead and challenge the police anyway. Many Native communities are embarrassed by these actions and are worried that it will only fuel the fire towards their group collectively (which, sadly to say, will likely happen).
Of course, in Ontario, we have an extremely weak liberal government led by an extremely weak socialist chameleon individual (Dalton McGuinty), who has been shown to break promises and not take action when needed. About ten years ago, we had a similar protest at Ipperwash (I believe). The Premier at the time (a Conservative) sent in the police, and one of the protesters was regrettably, killed. Since then, the government has shyed away from involvement in these protests and this is sad. If I were to grab some friends and take some MP5s onto the highway and stop traffic, griping about hospital wait times, I guarantee you I would be arrested and charged. Yet, no one wants to touch these guys for fear of another death and stirring up any racial tensions.
But believe it or not, the recent events are not what I want to write about, even though I have already done so. What I want to suggest in this entry of my blog is that protests and rallies have no influence whatsoever and should be ignored by the government.
Now, that being said, I know what you are thinking - "Uh...Jeremy, didn't you just say that in the recent events near Belleville, that the government should have intervened?" Yes, I did say that, and no, I am not being two-faced here. In the recent Native protest situation, it wasn't a protest - it was an illegal action under the guise of a protest. Since they took out assault weapons and blocked consumer and business, they are now impeding on the rights and freedoms of others (and though I am far from a libertarian, I will say that we do have some rights entrenched in our constitution (which is a more left-wing constitution, but one nonetheless), entitling us to not be the victim of threats and having our business interests needlessly shut down by non-government people. There are also laws in the land governing how we live, but unfortunately, with a weak liberal socialist government, they pay little heed to enforcing laws - they are more than happy to make them, though.
What I want to discuss is the idea of protests and rallies proper. That is, peaceful marches and such, which although it may slow traffic down somewhat, they are non-violent. These protests are within the boundaries of what is lawfully permissible and it is definitely people's right to protest. However, here is why I do not believe protests and rallies do not work, and I will cite several examples.
1) Most governments are not easily swayed by the viewpoints of a special interest group or a minority. Yes, I am sure you will take issue with me on this one, but let me explain. There are literally millions of special interest groups out there, each seeming to want the government to throw some money their way or change or create a law in their favour. Many (not all) elected officials are generally thick-skinned and have a wider picture of their budgets and social programs, not simply going for short-term solutions. If they could be swayed left, right and centre (and I'm not talking about the political spectrum here), no constructive action will ever take place. Governments are elected to make tough decisions, and yes, if they are elected, they are to represent their constituents, so if their constituents want such and such, then they are obligated to represent them. Special interest groups different from constituents in that they are not geographically based, and as such, they don't really have an elected official that they put in office (though I know there are always exceptions). By the way, have you ever noticed that when a protest happens at a government building, you almost always never see a government official show up to address the crowd?
2) Some rallies are utterly laughable. My brother, son and I were, unfortunately, caught in the streets of downtown Toronto a couple of months ago during a 10,000 person rally by some Marijauana-advocacy group in Ontario. While it was generally a peaceful protest, let me just say that the language coming out of their mouths were less than civil and proper, and of course, there was the waft of pot smoke everywhere (I had to shut my windows and turn on the AC, recycling the car's already stale air). So as I was driving through the protest (I was strongly tempted to drive through the protest, if you know what I mean), I thought to myself - what are these yahoos trying to prove (and based on the demographics and age constitution in the group, their lack of business acumen and articulation, I couldn't tell what they were rallying for or against - seemed like a good day to go out and smoke some weed), if I were in the government's shoes, I would have just said, "whatever" and go back to saving the whales or whatever they do. As it turns out, this rally was thoroughly ignored and not even acknowledged by the goverment. Of course, some of these rallies may push for a viewpoint, but it's not fleshed out very well in terms of who pays for such and such, what the social implications are (usually the special interest group will not care about how what they are championing will impact others).
3) Christian protests and rallies - sorry to say, and I don't like to slag my own people often, but I have to say, these are also ineffective. Writing a personalized note to your MP or MPP may not make a huge difference, but I think it will have the potential of being slightly more effective than standing at a corner with a sign saying, "Abortion is wrong" or "we need prayer in schools". The first one, I absolutely agree with and fully support, as I find abortion to be completely abhorrent in general. Prayer in schools I don't necessarily agree with, but either way, protesters standing at a corner, trying to convince a secular government to institute an abortion ban - what will that do? I absolutely abhor the Roe vs. Wade verdict in the U.S., and would love to see the U.S. Supreme Court one day overturn it (which may happen seeing here is now a 5-4 ideology split favouring the conservative side (yay for John Roberts and Samuel Alito!!!), I think that in the meantime, the best way to get people to change their minds is to talk with them during your day to day interactions. If you want to try to sway a governement official, write them a letter with what's on your heart (I know, I know, they may not even read it, but it's better than standing at the corner). My wife will take issue with me on this one, as her position is that they are at least doing something, rather than simply talking about it, as I am, and I see her point, but would counter saying "what are they really doing?" Christian rallies generally tend to be peaceful anyway, and when they turn ugly (as some abortions protests have in the U.S., that ceases to be a protest and is now an unlawful act). I think believers can be far more effective in influencing people on a day-to-day basis, and I think that is the Biblical pattern that Jesus set for his followers.
4) Today, I think, that whole "Live Earth" concert, based on ideas from that neo-environmentalist Al Gore will occur. While it is not a protest per se, it is supposed to bring "awareness" to environmental issues (which seem to be on the forefront of political agendas these days). While environmentalism is a subject I plan to discuss in the future, for now I will simply acknowledge that there is a concert taking place. But as with any group gathering for a "cause-based" event, I will be so bold as to say that many people going to this concert will be more interested in the big name bands who play and less on the message. Even Live 8 was like that - in England it was all the hype because of the reuniting of Pink Floyd after 22 years or so (and I must say, as a guy who had a thrown-out back that day and spent the entire day and evening in front of the tube, I saw that Pink Floyd re-united part and it was pretty cool) - but did I think about African relief? Not really. Did I think of African relief when Motley Crue got on and I realized how porky and old these guys have become? And I'm not sure if the artists did either. I remember one of the Canadian bands, A Simple Plan, who played at the Barrie location, the vocalist kept referring to Barrie as Toronto, but moreover, I found it telling that his references to African relief was brief and generalized (I wasn't even sure if he knew why he was there): "We are here today to support a good cause...now, Toronto, are you fucking ready to rock??????!!!" Nice one, buddy. Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see whether the media focuses on what will be a lot of garbage and litter on the grounds of the LiveEarth environmental concert...
I think that, while I believe rallies and protests to be a waste of time, that I have to commend some of the protesters and ralliers who brave weather conditions and crowds (and mocking opinionated blog writers) to try to support something they believe in deeply. In a sense, I think that they mean well, but it may also be that they just want to feel better about themselves, that they are at least voicing their opinion, which is, of course, our democratic right. Or they may just be the product of the 60s hippie generation who seemed to revel in these kinds of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)