China, the tank man, and boy I love Frontline!

What a whole host of irnoies we find in this life. Communism was suppossed to be a people's revolt/revolution, yet in China the working class lives in dire poverty. The people attempt to protest at Tinamen Square in 1989, yet their current college students know nothing of it. Additionally, their government recoreded 80,000 revolts among the peasant and working class. The commies squash them all.

But capitalism, which so many praise, is really no better. Various internet and information companies, Yahoo being one, currently aids the Chinese government in filtering and monitoring the people's interenet usage. These capitalistic companies are aiding in oppression so that they do not miss out on a huge market.

We love our power. We love our wealth. Niebuhr talks frequently about this, reminding us that there is an inherent flaw in us that no human social/political/economic system will ever fix.

So my question is, why haven't any enterprising hackers wrecked shop on China's internet filters?

Voting a morality

For a while, I had been against voting ones morality. It seemed horribly unjust to force someone into something they did not agree with. If a woman does not think abortion is wrong, how can a conservative sect make the act illegal for her? I believed moral tyranny to be morally wrong, which is actually a moral ideal that I want by government to follow (oops, I just voted my morality).

Essentially, the core of every government is based on a value system, and with our Democratic system, things become difficult. My libertarian friends choose the values that make businesses most prosperous, because (to put it very roughly)that will make us a prosperous nation, and thus make us a prosperous people. My socialist friends desire that everyone receive a fair and equal treatment because (again, roughly) we often play against a stacked deck, thus they want the government to even things out.

What is most interesting is that these groups with radically different political ideas can have surprisingly similar moralities. The libertarians friends I speak of are not necessarily comfortable with the large wage disparity we find in corporate America, and I doubt that the socialist revel in idea of having an unproductive society because everyone sits around enjoying government handouts. What is one to do?

I have recently discovered Reinhold Niebuhr, a "towering figure of twentieth-century religious thought." Though I have only read a couple of essays thus far, the brief biography in this book (The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr) was interesting. His critics often considered him a pessimist because he continually knocked down various ideologies in both the theological and political realms. The editor of this book quickly pointed out that this wrecking-ball mentality was actually rooted in an optimism. In Christ, he had hopes for a better reality, and the system he saw were inadequate. I believe that this is what we need to realize. Many of us have hope for a better world, an improved world, but no system will completely suffice, there will always be a flaw (the source of these flaws is another topic altogether). This is no reason to despair.

Ecclesiastes tells us that there is a season for everything. A season for war, a season for peace, a season to plant and a season to uproot, and so on and so forth. The same holds true for our form of government. There is a time for the libertarian ideals, and a time for the socialist ones. There is no evolution, but only a continual flux. It is a balancing act, much like slacklining. Very rarely can one stand without having to move. Something will happen (whether a breeze or one's own muscle tremors)that will call for some sort of compensation, some sort of shift in body weight. Never is one still. So our government must never stand still, it must shift, or change directions. And there will be people who will talk about the dangers of shifting in one direction, but there will be dangers with any direction, and that is why we must always go back the opposite way. The awesome thing is that our democratic form of government allows for this balancing act.

In the Name of

Invisible Children is an organization devoted to helping children soldiers in Africa caught up in a horrific war. I participated in one of their protest marches about a year or so ago, and something happened that turned me off to it. I forgot what it was, until after a recent email. The email consisted of various updates of the situation in Africa and to wrap things up, it thanked everyone for doing their work "in the name of humanity." I see this as very problematic. For one, I think Hitler, and other tyrants, could also claim his actions in the name of humanity, but he slaughtered people, as opposed to stopping slaughter. The existentialist ran into similar problems: each was looking for a new way to define humanity, and each came up with a different picture. Ultimately, humanity is too vague and too abstract of an idea, and what should be done in the name of humanity may lead to conflicting views. We do not know the platonic form of humanity.

That is one of the beautiful things about Christianity: we have a frame of reference. Someone can claim something in the name of Christ, and we can determine if they are indeed honoring his name. After reading the Gospels, killing one's neighbor, oppressing the poor, exploiting children in any way, are all obviously contrary to Christ's nature. Sure, conflicts arise between sects as to how this is lived out, but there is still an example to compare ourselves to. But in the name of humanity? Well...which human are we following?

Escape

So...finally a new post. This semester was a hectic one, due to 18hrs of school, about 12hrs of work, two student organizations, not to mention graduation! Hopefully things will slow down for the summer, and I'll be disciplined enough to post regularly. A couple of friends suggest I do "words of parting wisdom" or something to that effect, but I can't really think of any at the current moment. I believe I had some about a week ago, but alas I have lost them. I'm going to bet that that momentary wisdom isn't too vital to life (or else we may be in trouble).


Anyways, I was talking to a friend earlier today (actually, 10min ago) and she was relating some of her student-teaching experiences. Her 11th grade english class had to read Into the Wild by John Krakauer. They did not enjoy it. I assumed it was because high school kids don't like to read. My friend pointed outthat it was due to the fact that they could not relate to the story.
Many of her students are fairly poor, and a large percentage of them have after school jobs to help make ends meet. They could not understand why a man would ditch all his possession and burn a wad of $100 bills then hitchhike across America. It's absurd. Foolishness.

The situation made me realize that we are all trying to escape. One group is trying to escape poverty. The problem of not having enough. Enough to eat. Enough to wear. Enough to live. The other has too much. And that over abundance is not satisfying. One is trying to climb the latter of success; the other is trying to leave it. I wonder how often we pass each other on this road.

And it's not just an escape from a current life. It is also a pursuit of something. Meaning, significance. Fulfillment? Whatever it is, apparently it is not found in the life of poverty (as evidenced by those trying to leave it), but neither is it found in wealth (for the same reasons as above). Maybe this is an incident of the "journey v. destination" cliche. It is not the pursuit that matters, rather it is that we are pursuing.

Doom's Day

In my life, I have a fairly even mix of liberal and conservative friends. It drives me crazy. One side will give me a series of convincing arguments in regards to a particular issue, and I'll be firm in that until I talk to my other friends, who have their own convincing arguments. Choosing sides is very difficult. Will I forever be a fence-rider? Who knows.

Anyways, global warming (or "global climate change" if you're the GOP) keeps me in a perpetual tailspin. By and large, everyone believes it's occurance is a stone-cold fact, and it is a result of our abuse of fossil fuels and the carbon emissions they produce. Anyone who argues otherwise is not perceived in the most positive light. My problem is that those who call global warming a media myth have some convincing arguments.

I read in an issue of Time that Mars is actually experiencing a loss of glaciers. Considering that it doesn't have to worry about fossil fuels, the only thing that could be causing it is the Sun (which would logically effect us as well). According to Forbes, although the global temperature has increased by a degree over the past century, almost half of that occurred before 1940. Carbon emissions then were no where near the levels of today. What caused that change? Furthermore, a few centuries ago, the weather was actually warmer than it is today. And unfortunately for Al Gore, the programs that he used in his film to predict future weather patterns cannot even accurately predict past weather patterns.
(Now you can ask, "What are Forbes sources?" this is where I shrug my shoulders.)

So if all the above holds true, what's with all the hub-bub?

People need doomsday scenarios. The religious folk used to talk about the imminent second coming of Christ (in fact one of the reasons the Apostle Paul had to write his second letter to Thessalonica was to get them out of the doomsday train of thought), but since we as a culture traded in the supernatural for science, we no longer bought into the idea. Still, people need doomsday scenarios. So science gives us one -- global warming. The cool thing is, if we do the right deeds and make the right choices, we can save the world.

In all this, we get so concerned with the world, we forget about those who inhabit the world. Forget emissions, look what our desire for oil has done to people. Kuwait was invaded over a decade ago for it. Some argue that our present situation in Iraq has its roots in oil.National Geographic recently published an article on the horrible corruption and violence that takes place in Nigeria, and it's all rooted in oil.

So instead of falling for the environmental doomsday, lets talk about the humanitarian one.

In Regards to Sex and Violence (mostly the latter)

God created man in His own image, in His own image, He created him; male and female He created them. --Genesis 1:27 NASB

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. --1 Cor 6:18-20 NIV

Violence defaces the image of God, and sensuality profanes the temple of God. -- Ravi Zacharias


I'm tired of Hollywood for several reasons. Actually, I'm just tired of our culture in general.
When I was in high school, a good friend of mine vented some frustration while we were working out. "So many people speak out against sexual lust in our culture, and how it's evil, but then they advocate how great Braveheart and Gladiator are despite the graphic violence." He pointed out an inconsistency. Sexual lust is quickly labeled as bad, but blood lust is perfectly acceptable.

I just finished watching the Departed. In the last few minutes of the movie, four people are shot point-blank in the head. I don't get it. Why was this a great movie? The violence seems to obscure any sort of greatness the plot twist had.

We wonder why we have such crime rates. A few years ago, we questioned why school shootings were becoming such a problem. But look at our culture! We glorify violence. We glorify blood shed. If we were truly concerned about humanity, about homicide, Hollywood wouldn't have had the incentive to make two sequels to SAW. We wouldn't see gratuitous violence as entertaining.

Jack Johnson says it better than I:
We only receive what we demand,
and if we want hell then hell's what we'll have

Christ cliamed that a man speaks from the overflow of his heart. And if man fills it with violence, what will his actions reflect?

Bartering is Better

I have recently decided that this world would be a much better place if everyone bartered. Now, I know that this is a blanket statement, and as such, it is likely a foolish thing to say. Since I have acknowledged this fault, you are now obligated to read the rest of this post and examine my arguments, because obviously, I don't think it is a foolish thing to say (otherwise, I wouldn't have said it, hopefully).

Bartering forces us to take into account the other person's humanity. When we have to exchange goods, we have to acknowledge the needs of another. A student needs tutoring, I need food. I will give instruction, she will give me baked goods. But to realize these needs, we have to communicate and we have to know something about each others lives: she discovered that I am good at algebra, I learned that she is a great cook.

In contrast, money removes that relationship with relative ease. I don't need to know the needs of the checker at Target. I just need X amount of dollars to recieve the goods that I need (or want). The checkers bad day doesn't really effect me. She may sound a little gruff or frown at me, but ultimately I get my goods and am on my way (and probably rather quickly, depending on her mood). I am independent. I am alone.

Of course money is convienent: things move along faster so we have more time for other things, there is less (people) to deal with, etc. Of course, we must remember, much of today's technology was designed with convience in mind, and we are just as busy as we ever were, if not more so.

A friend pointed out to me that the masses will never be up for it. Money is convienent. More than that, it is also an easy way to show profit. And bartering would be very difficult to work out on a global scale.

No matter. Bartering is still the way to go, even if the world doesn't like it.