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.
Monday, July 16, 2007
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)