A recent (satirical) post over at Stuff Christian Culture Likes got me thinking about how wrong-headed we are about the Offertory. This post started off as a series of Facebook posts and, eventually, I realized it should be re-edited into something a bit more coherent. I owe a great deal of thanks to my liturgy professor, L. Edward Phillips, my Eucharistic theology professor, Ted Hackett, and to James K.A. Smith and Simon Chan for helping clarify my thoughts in this area over the past year.
___
Ok, I get that these things might be practical (just like online giving, I guess). Sure, the clergy does need health insurance and a living wage (and yes, seminary loans are expensive, but don't get me started on the education system...). If it helps, it helps. I question, though, the wisdom (specifically, lack there of) in separating the Offertory from the Holy Eucharist. The money (et al) that we give accompanies the bread and wine, God's own gifts which we return in thanksgiving, as our participation in the Kingdom of God (over and against the earthly city-state). The Offering is an act of participation in the Holy Meal (which is why, historically, Christians sent forth food, not cash), not the divine banking system.
Let me rephrase. It's less the separation of the Offertory from the Blessed Sacrament and more the substitution of the former for the latter. The sustenance, sanctification, and continuing salvation of the Church is in the Body of Christ (especially in as much as it makes us into the Body of Christ), not the image of our various Caesars.
Especially in as much as the Table of our Risen Lord is a place where all are welcome, be they Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, white or blue collar, banker or janitor, wealthy or impoverished. The Offertory isn't about squeezing every available dime through holy ATMs and consecrated iPhone apps. It is about redistributing the gifts of Christ's Church to those in need. Our blessed Church fathers and mothers weren't concerned with building campaigns, worship expenditures, or the bishop's salary. They were looking after the widow, the virgin, and the orphan. The gifts returned in the Offertory were consecrated for the service of those in need.
The Eucharist is, even today, an act of rebellion against an economy of consumption. The ecclesia (assembly) sends forth its gifts (the Offering, including the bread and wine to be consecrated) that they might be given to the Church for the support of all. Communion is, by default, communal. To remove the Offertory from the Feast is to deny its original role in service to those in need. Worse still, to so completely divorce the Offertory from the Eucharist is to marry it to the very consumerist society to which it is inherently subversive.
___
For more, see James KA Smith's Cultural Liturgies series (especially Part II of Imagining the Kingdom) and Ed Phillip's forth-coming work on God and Wealth, an examination of the ritualization of monetary offerings in place of the Eucharist.
"Metal bottom makes taking of offering NOISY! Listen to the change rattle in the pot and watch the giving momentum grow!"
I found this in a Christian resource magazine. A modern Christian resource magazine. And I very nearly died laughing.
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. It's been happening for quite some time. A few examples:
The first is the reason we are all Roman Catholic. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a Christian could give money to the Roman church and either earn a few years off of their own stay in Purgatory or free a deceased relative from the same. For those unfamiliar with European High Medieval/Renaissance history, this was the practice of selling Indulgences. It was based off of the theory that "the merits" of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints were stored up and that the papacy had the authority to distribute them. For a generous donation, that is. One German monk, of the Augustinian order, took issue with this unfounded practice. He wrote on it and ended up changing the world. Forever. He challenged the pope, asking, if this unfounded teaching is true, why are the "merits" not given freely to all? His name was Martin Luther, and if you want to more, I would encourage you to watch the movie Luther. It's not the most accurate depiction in the world, but it does a great job of discussing the issue of indulgences.
But don't take my word for it...
Ok. Moving on after a delightful little flashback.
Another prime example comes from the Christ, and you probably already know where I'm going with this. In one of the stories mentioned in all four Gospels, Jesus goes into the Temple and drives out the money changers and those selling animals to be sacrificed - in other words, those trying to make money off of God. And it's not like when he drove out demons, where Christ simply commanded it and it happened. No, it's significantly more dramatic than that. Making a whip out of reeds and turning over tables - this is the stuff Indiana Jones was made for. As Jesus said, the Temple had been made "a den of thieves".
And today we have much the same thing going on. First and foremost, I think of the massive market of Christian books. And here I must be careful, because there are a lot of authors that I respect and admire. But at the same time, there are people selling "special editions" of books and Bibles, trying to come up with any reason for a new volume. The Five Languages of Love...for Young Men Between the Ages of 20 and 30 Who Enjoy Watching Men's Double Tennis During the British Open. Today's New International Version for Housewives Who Just Sent Their Fourth Child to Kindergarten for the First Day - Study Edition. Don't get me wrong. I understand books aimed at special audiences. But when you get tot he point of having five or more editions of the same book, something's gone horribly awry. CS Lewis, arguably one of the best Christian authors of the twentieth century, did not have Mere Christianity - For Singles. And yet Lee Strobel feels that if he doesn't publish seperate copies of The Case for... series for both teens and kids - well, I don't really know what will happen. Will the kids not understand the deep thoughts of the teen version? Will the younger half of a generation not fully love God? Will they be converted to atheism before the age of thirteen, never to go to church again?
And then there are the bullet point books. Joel Osteen guarantees that if you read his book, he can give you seven principles to being blessed by God. I'll hold my criticism of prosperity preachers for another day and focus more on the flawed idea of preaching that bullet points can change your life. First, I'll let Donald Miller explain it. Second, I'll continue Luther's challenge. If the secret to living a better life is seven simple steps, why are these not given out freely? If everything can be reduced to a point-by-point list, why does it have to be bound and sold for $22 ($15 on Amazon)? Why not publish it on a website? Now, I know that this same argument applies to all books, and CDs, and movies, but how much more, then, does it apply to lists?
Yes, yes, I know it all comes down to money. I know that money drives people, even Christians.
But I also know one thing: God is not for sale.
We cannot sale religion. We cannot sale salvation. We cannot sale a better relationship with God.
And Christianity is not the only religion with this problem.
I'm currently in "Introduction to Religion in Native American Cultures". And the first thing we talked about in this class was the New Age attempt to mix Eastern and Native American religious traditions and sell them. Which is why you have wealthy fifty year old white men smoking "peace pipes" and going on "vision quests" and teaching that we are all one with Mother Earth and the Great Spirit*. This abduction of culture has driven some Native Americans to "declare war" on the perpetrators, boycotting bookstores and New Age shops.
Which makes me wonder.
If native people are offended by cultural/religious theft and are willing to protest the offenders, why are Christians so willing to let our faith be packaged and sold for twenty dollars per mountaintop experience? Why do we stand by as "Christian" toys (BibleMan would pwn Psalty in a cage match), "Christian" financial guides, and, among the more troubling, "Christian" patriotic clothing, continue to commercialize Christianity?
And even more important, once we've had enough, what do we do about it?
Rock on.
*The "peace pipe" comes from various traditions of the Sacred Pipe. Vision quests are not practiced by all cultures. Mother Earth is a Greek concept. And the Great Spirit is a translation of an Oglala Lakota (think Black Elk) belief used to make monotheistic Westerners more comfortable with polytheistic native beliefs.
Post Script: The title is Johann Tetzel's famous rhyme. Translated , it means "As soon as the gold in the pan rings, the soul in [to] Heaven jumps," or more commonly translated, "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul to Heaven springs." Or, depending on the source, it could be "Die Seel aus dem Fegefeuer springt", which is, "the soul from Purgatory springs." There are a few other variations, but I won't go into them.
About a week ago, I was driving from Athens to Atlanta down 316. I don't like driving. I don't like 316. I don't like Atlanta. I always feel guilty about the drive - it's well over 100 miles round-trip. And though my little Toyota Echo is very fuel efficient, rising gas prices make the trip pricey. Not to mention that the horizon around Atlanta has a very sickly brown color. It's just not a good experience.
This trip, though, was made better by NPR. I like NPR, even if they are viewed by some to be nothing more than a bunch of hippies/liberals/communists/feminists/etc. Even if they present a skewed view (which, to be honest, is not as true as other sources of media), they can at least be polite about the hole thing. I've been listening to NPR since I was a child, and not once have I heard the hosts get into shouting matches with their guests, which is more than can be said for cable news programs. But I digress. NPR was broadcasting The Commonwealth Club, a California organization that invites speakers to present their views on varying topics. This particular speech was given by the CEO of GM, G. Richard Wagoner. And what he had to say surprised me - he dedicated the better part of the speech to the development of more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative forms of energy.
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. It doesn't matter if you think recent high gas prices will go down or not. All that matters is that the current world economy is dependent on transportation, which is dependent on a finite resource. At some point in the near future, we will run out of fuel. Before that time, we need to find a new source and adapt the infrastructure to fit the source. And better sooner than later.
So, with this in mind, here's a quick view of the common alternatives.
Bio-Diesel and Griesel/Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) First, watch this interview with Aaron Weiss of mewithoutYou. Great band, great guy, and interesting bus. I have long supported the use of SVO. You can run a traditional diesel motor with it (at the cost of fuel efficiency). And in warmer climates, it works pretty well. But the problem is that the restaurants don't use oil to sustain a large economy. So instead, we end up using "virgin" SVO, which is slightly wasteful. The main advantage of SVO is that it recycles this oil that we don't need. And, as addressed in the video, cooler temperatures can cause problems for running a griesel engine. Bio-diesel runs into a similar problem. Diesel ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline*.
Of course, we should not be too hasty in ruling out bio-diesel and griesel entirely. UGA runs their bus system off of used grease from the dinning halls (I may be mistaken, but I believe we use a B20 mixture, meaning that it is 20% bio-diesel). Diesel has long been used to run heavier vehicles, namely farm equipment and eighteen wheelers. Diesel engines were developed so that farmers could dedicate crops to fuel production.
Ethanol My friends and I joke about cars that run on Everclear and Golden Grain. Mostly because we're college students. But the use of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) is rather promising. Corn and soybeans produce large amounts of ethanol, which burns cooler, reducing the size of the cooling unit needed. So while ethanol is not as efficient as regular gasoline, the resulting reduction in vehicle weight makes up some ground.
Ethanol has some special sources, as well. Last April, I attended a symposium hosted by the UGA chapter of the Roosevelt Institute, a national student think tank. One policy proposal was the development of cellulose-based ethanol. In short, with the development of a certain enzyme, pulp derived from recycled paper products can be converted into ethanol. The two flaws in this plan: 1. The enzyme has yet to be found. 2. Diverting paper products from regular recycling to fuel development requires more trees to be cut down. Careful attention would have to be used in deciding which paper products are used to make recycled paper and which are used to make fuels.
The other source is hemp. While certain types of cannabis plants are used as drugs, hemp does not contain sufficient amounts of THC to produce a "high". Hemp produces, among many things, to include durable fabrics and robes (the oldest piece of fabric ever found is made of hemp), paper (it contains longer strains and is lighter in shade, meaning it can be recycled more and does not need to be bleached), food (hemp is high in fiber and other proteins, and to consume enough hemp to get a moderate buzz is the equivalent of taking two or three high fiber laxatives), and ethanol. Because hemp can be grown closer together, it produces more ethanol per acre than soy or corn, and more paper per acre than any type of tree. Hemp is grown in nearly every part of the world, except for the US, where legal regulations on every variety of cannabis makes production cost-prohibitive.
The downside of ethanol is that while it may burn cleaner than fossil fuels, there is question on how clean.
The Problem of Food Prices The largest argument against non-celluslosic based ethanol is that it is driving food prices up. Which might be true. But it doesn't have to be. Because corn and soy are so heavily subsidized sold at such a low cost, farmers do not meet their full potential for production. Crops are either left to rot, burned, or not planted - it's just not worth it. The problem isn't that we can't produce enough crops to feed the world and produce fuel, it's that we don't get the food to where it needs to go. To compound this, Americans are affluent. We throwout food that is only a day past the sell-by date. If we were to take only what we planned on eating, and not what "might be nice to have at some point next week", we wouldn't have as much of a problem. We buy in bulk, eat about half of it, and throw the rest out. I'm not saying that, by changing our shopping habits and subsidies, we can completely alleviate world hunger, but we can take steps in the right direction WITHOUT getting rid of biofuels.
Electric Engines Electric engines are great. They have been in development for a while, so they are getting to the point where they can actually compete with traditional internal-combustion-based vehicles. The problem is that the electricity has to come from somewhere. Which means that fossil-fuels are indirectly used to power many electric cars. The advantage is that when the energy market as a whole changes formats (from coal or oil based to hydro, wind, or geothermal based), the electric car will still be able to operate. The other problem is battery power - the technology for the batteries has a long way to go.
Hydrogen The hydrogen fuel cell is an electric car that runs on hydrogen. I'm not smart enough to explain how it gets electricity from hydrogen, but it does. And it's exhaust? Water.
There are a few problems, though. Cost is a big part of it. Another part is compression - hydrogen has severe limitations in how much can be stored in a fuel cell. But the biggest problem is efficiency. It takes a lot of energy to produce the hydrogen to produce the electricity. Take a look at this chart. It would be much more effective to use a traditional battery.
Conclusion One of the great things that Mr. Wagoner said is that alternative fuels have to fit the area in which they are used. The alternative fuel for the US doesn't have to be the same as the alternative fuel for Europe. Which is why Brazil's FlexCar is such a great technology.
Someday.
Rock on.
*Anecdote time! When I was in high school, my JROTC Ranger team trained in fire suppression. We trained using diesel fires contained in pans. In order to ignite, the diesel had to be mixed with gasoline. The gasoline was lit, and as it burned, it, in turn, ignited the diesel.
Update (22 June 2008) - About two weeks ago, GM announced that they would be reevaluating several of their lines, to include the Hummer and other SUVs. Granted, this doesn't mean that they will discontinue the Hummer, but even making it a few miles to the gallon more efficient is a step in the right direction.
I've thought for some time that even if "global warming" (though I believe a better title to be "Accelerated Climate Change Due to Human Interactions") isn't true, we should still act on it - even if pollution isn't going to change global weather patterns, it still poses massive health risks and destroys the beauty of Nature (I miss being able to see stars!). Not to mention the ever-present need for renewable energy.
As for the argument - I think it's pretty strong - however, it's not true in all cases, such as when applied to God - or Zeus for that matter - which is why it shouldn't be used in apologetics, but never mind that. The major problem it is pushing epistemological boundaries. For the sake of argument, the host assumes a complete lack of knowledge - a "veil of ignorance" if you will, and from their makes it a matter of choosing between the four possible outcomes. From there, he states that two outcomes are good, one is bad, and the other is worse.
It would look something like this: Let "A" represent the two "happy" outcomes - the bottom left and upper right corners. Let "B" represent the one bad outcome - the upper left corner. Let "C" represent the worst outcome - the lower right corner. Let "D" represent the economic downfall of the world. Let "E" represent the environmental and health hazards. Now B = D, while C = D+E. Therefore, A is preferable to both B and C. And B is preferable to C, because C includes more bad stuff. And of course, if we face the choice of facing D alone or facing both D and E, E is preferable.
Simple enough.
The problem is that he suggests we are playing by luck. I often get mad about economics because it makes broad assumptions - perfect knowledge chief among them. But when you assume no knowledge, you fall into just as much of a trap. Knowledge allows us to reconsider the probabilities. Before, we were operating under an assumption that for a given action (in this case, applying "green" practices or maintaining the status quo), we had a 50% chance of getting it right and a 50% chance of getting it wrong (in statistical terms, 1:1). With an informed decision, though, we see it differently. With current evidence (I'm not getting into what the evidence suggests, as too many people read it differently), we can go greatly increase our odds (9:1, or 90% to 10%). Because why would we run the risk of scenario B if scenario C had a ten percent chance of occurring? Or why would we risk C if scenario B had a five percent chance of occurring? There is also a point at which we must ask ourselves, "Is the risk worth it?" How likely does C have to be before B becomes preferable? No matter what a political scientist tells you, this point will vary from person to person.
Now, all of this is to say this: I have had no fewer than four classes that have devoted several lectures to climate change - International Affairs, Political Science, Geology, Biology - and I've had many more in which the topic has been addressed. And I would imagine that I'll have a few more before my Bachelor's is complete. Out of all of the classes, they all urged for some type of action. And I have become quite convinced that something is occurring, though I'm still skeptical about how drastic it will be (It's bad, but how bad? I don't think anyone truly knows, but a lot of people claim to...). But this short video still presents the argument better.
Tradition states that Martin Luther did a lot of thinking on the toilet. As a man who suffered from digestive problems, he, naturally, spent a lot of time there.
Well, I can't claim such unusual inspiration for this, but given that I have what I call ADS (Attention Deficit Shiny - as close as you can get to ADD without actually having ADD), I do get a lot of ideas in odd places. This one is from brushing my teeth.
I started to think of the movie Fun with Dick and Jane and the scene where Jim Carrey gets arrested by the Border Patrol. (If you think you're missing something, don't worry; you're not.)
A lot of very conservative people complain about immigration, or more specifically people illegally crossing the border from Mexico to the US (in the sense of fairness, there is some concern about the Canadian border, but very, very little). Some even go so far as to say that it is the largest threat our country faces.
Now don't get me wrong, I support immigration reform. But (yes, there is always a "but") not to the extent of deploying the National Guard or building a wall. A better-funded Border Patrol really would do the trick, if only people would get over their tax-phobia.
People say that something needs to be done - tighter border security and tighter screening processes for businesses that rely on unskilled or semiskilled labor (construction and farming come to mind) on the government's part.
But here's the rub - they claim the government is doing it's job. Because of this, we get organizations like the Minuteman Project (see my views on them here). The goal of the Minuteman Project is to alert Border Patrol officials to illegal crossings (though they often go beyond this). What I want to know is why they don't attempt to screen businesses as well?
Why is there no "Support Legal Labor" movement? A group of local businesses and individuals who sign a statement affirming that they will not higher undocumented workers? This is a much easier movement to coordinate than the Minuteman Project.
I have a theory on this. Only a theory, and not really supported by anything, so take it as you will. And I'm sure my greatest critic will say that I'm "buying everything they're selling" at my "liberal" university (I take it as a mark of pride that with as few readers as I have, I still manage to attract a critic). And oddly enough, I'm at odds with both liberals and conservatives about immigration - finally something they agree on. I suppose I should be pleased with this step towards unity. But anyway, on with my theory. I think it's that people are too cheap to actually care. Sure, they'll go on a camping trip with their friends to watch people walk through the desert. But God forbid they give up cheap construction and produce. Imagine the horror of our fast-food workers being paid above minimum wage.
Let's face it - there is no way to stop every single person who tries to cross the border illegally. But there is a way to get rid of the incentive, and oddly enough, it can be done without government involvement. But somehow, people decided it'd be better to take border patrol into their own hands...yeah. Right.
I find it funny (in a very disgusting, disturbing sort of way) that we are willing to, as private citizens, crack down on those crossing the border, but not those hiring them. Advocates of such radical reform as the wall and the deployment of the National Guard argue that illegal residents steal jobs. But what about the people giving them the jobs?
It means I'll always have a job to look forward to. Though satellite churches suggest that the preaching side could possibly be shipped overseas...
I have finally had a chance to start on Friedman's The World Is Flat, and I'm slightly frightened. While I applaud the ability to take jobs to middle class Asian youth (though I still have my doubts as to whether or not globalization can do anything but harm the Asian poor and under-developed nations, and the moving of jobs to Mexico and other third-world countries is a topic entirely undiscussed in - expect a post on how the flattened world crushed South American and Africa), I cannot find any benefit to working class Americans. Mr. Friedman argues that while outsourcing may cut phone service jobs, it is good for American business because these Indian agencies are using American products - from software to bottled water. Yet on the very next page, he talks about how R&D is being outsourced. And anyone who's ever bought an electronic device in the past ten years knows that production has been moved overseas as well. So if research, production, and service have all been sent to southeast Asia, which Americans are seeing the benefits? Stockholders and the upper class business owners. While prices are theoretically falling (and I cannot stress the "theoretically" enough), what good does that do if the working class has no source of income in the first place?
It seems amazing what is being outsourced these days. The book starts by discussing the use of Indian firms for accounting. Yup, your CPA may very well be sending your taxes to Bangalore. By extension, to all my friends are accounting majors, I suggest you either get really good at what you do or find a job that must be done in person). As it turns out, your CAT scan may also be read by a tech in Bangalore. And most surprisingly, research assistantships, the bread and butter of many college students, are being sent to Bangalore (described as the Silicon Valley of India). For about $2000 a month, you can have all of your research done and summarized for you (sadly, this falls out of the price range of college and grad students).
I don't like to think of things as American v. non-American, but in this case, it's hard not to. Most recipients of these outsourced tele-service jobs are earning $200-$500 a month - a living wage in India. Including insurance and housing pushes the wage up to perhaps $700 a month. And this is to employ a college graduate, a professional. No American, especially one with a family, can compete with that. My friend, a college graduate, was offered a $10/hour full time job in Seattle and still may not be able to afford to live there. My $6.25/hour job on campus* is pushing it for most students, and that's in a college town, land of cheap food (for all who are curious, Ramen is 14 cents a pack now) and $1 movies. *The most Food Service allows a student to work is 40 hrs/wk, meaning the most a student could could make is $1000 a month, before taxes. That 40 hours is on top of at least a 12 hour schedule.
This outsourcing is, of course, helping India's economy. Eventually, inflation will catch up, and the economy will grow to where $700/month will not be a living wage. The same is true of other outsourcing centers, such as Thailand. So at best, the cheap labor pool is temporary. Unfortunately, "temporary" can be a long time.
China is quickly emerging as the heir to the former Soviet Union's role as the second super power. China is among our biggest trade partners (seriously, find how many things in your house are marked with "Made in China"), one of the largest investors in the African continent, and the largest country in the world by population. It makes sense that such a model of the new and global economy would get the 2008 Olympics.
But should the US attend these games?
First, there is China's rights abuses in their own country. The fact that eighteen years after Tienanmen Square, they have yet to admit to any wrong doing or even allow for a memorial service in the Square itself does not demonstrate the type of nation that we should be supporting. (This is not to mention how many Chinese the Olympic construction has displaced, as Atlanta did the same thing on a smaller scale.)
Perhaps we as a nation should take a closer look at China's trading partners in Africa. Among them are the Sudan and Zimbabwe, two of the most notorious human rights abusers on the continent. China won't point out the speck in their trading partners' eyes with a plank in their own, but they won't remove their plank. China can hold tremendous sway in the reason and help to put an end to the Sudanese genocide, but instead of risking an economic advantage, they threaten to veto any UN sanctions on Sudan.
With the world on China as 2008 approaches, the US and other western nations have a great opportunity to shame China into shape. Threatening to boycott the Olympics, whose greatest supporters in recent times have been Americans, would force China to start reforming their rights policies.
But I don't see the US boycotting. China is our ally, and will be for some time, despite supporting the Khmer Rouge, despite its numerous rights abuses, and despite their support of genocidal African regimes. We want China to help us talk to North Korea. We want China to continue making our stuff. We want China. Our nation has essentially given China a get-out-of-jail-free card (or several).
Even if the US did decide to boycott, the American people would never allow it. To many rich business men are looking forward to going to the games. To many Americans depend on the Olympics to build up their national pride. NBC depends on the games to pull in advertising and viewers.
Five bucks says we would boycott the Cuban Olympics. Ten says we would boycott the Venezuelan games.
For those who don't know, Georgia high schools have previously offered two different seals on high school diplomas. One is the college prep seal. The meaning behind this seal is obvious: the courses the student has completed courses to get ready for college. The second seal is a vocational seal. Students take standard math and English classes, geography, and such, but instead of going into advanced classes, such as the upper maths and sciences, and some history classes, they take courses in welding, carpentry, auto repair, and computer sciences (to name a few). The seal, at least at my old high school, required that they take three classes from the same group (three consecutive welding classes, for example). Most of my friends who were on this track planned on going on to trade schools and working in construction or car shops.
The two seals had a few basic requirements in common: English composition, basic maths and sciences, and introductory social sciences. They then gradually moved apart as the college-bound prepared for their trek to higher learning and the future manual-laborers learned the general practices of their trade. Obviously, this system was not perfect, as both could probably stand a little more in the way of foreign language instruction and practical mathematics (money management classes, things such as balancing a check book and keeping a budget).
The high school I attended for the first two years, Bradwell Institute, also offered a dual seal, meaning that the recipient took classes in both the upper-level arts and sciences and in technical areas (a fourth seal, the college prep honors seal went to those who took the honors and AP college prep classes).
The state, though, has decided that the vocational diploma discriminates between rural and urban schools, and on account of race and income level. Because of this, they plan to do away with it, saying that students need to be held to the same standard.
I am all for equality. But specialized education is also essential. You don't see them arguing for the removal of honors classes in Georgia. It is not just unreasonable, but also harmful to the students. Instead of wasting the future mechanic or hair-stylist's time with the Calc, Physics, and European History, put them in the classes that will prepare them for what they want to do. We say we want to prepare them for college, but they aren't going to college. We say we want to prepare them for life, but we are wasting their time with stuff they don't need. Our current education philosophy here in the US seems to be get everybody ready to go to Georgia Tech, MIT, and other technology centers, to prepare us for the future and global economy. I first call into doubt the idea of devoting our lives to technology, lest the Matrix come about voluntarily. But I do enough of that in other posts. Here I focus on becoming so single-minded in education that we have tunnel vision. Where will the dreamers go, the philosophers, theologians, and those who practice the arts, the writers, painters, and musicians, the performers and photographers? And those upon whose toil society is built in the most literal sense and whose sweat keeps life running like a well-oiled machine, what will become of them? Our way of life is built upon diversity, starting education. Let us keep it that way.
I have always lifted Georgia's dual-diploma system up as an example of what good education looks like. Teaching students what they want to learn and preparing them for what they want to do. I sincerely hope that this system stays in place.
For those in Georgia, please write to the Department of Education. Let them know how vital this program is.
Today, I had the privilege to attend the Roosevelt Institution's second annual Roosevelt Policy Symposium. For those who don't know, the Roosevelt Institution is the only policy think-tank for students. Involved students come from all fields of study and are committed to not just being cynical of the world around them, but to actually trying to make a difference. They research and suggest policies for local, regional, national, and international change. Today, three members presented very intriguing proposals on Chinese involvement in Africa (a very enlightening presentation), production and use of cellulosic ethanol at UGA as a model for the rest of the nation, and an especially interesting proposal for modification to federal regulation on stem cell research.
The students presented their proposals to the audience and guest speaker Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) offered his critique of ideas put forth. He even took a few questions from the audience (including my question on US involvement with the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur). The senator also briefly mentioned Iraq and admitted to mistakes being made, though, in keeping with the administration's latest policy, sounded a lot like the Democrats in mentioning redeployment (on a tangent, I'm starting to notice that while the Democrats, for the most part, are calling for quick withdrawl, the Republicans, even the president's cabinet, are starting to mention the idea of pulling out).
All of this is to say that there is still hope. My generation is not entirely lost. Some students are working to make the world a better place. They take it past my own level of cynicism and use their anger about the way things are to work towards the way things should be. There are people out there who care about Sudan and the environment. Maybe students aren't so apathetic after all.
Don Imus has been canned. After a career of being incredibly offensive, the public finally had enough after Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos". After an initial punishment of two weeks suspension, CBS finally decided to pull the plug on Imus in the Morning.
My question is why the change. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to see him go, as he is possibly the only talking head (well, disembodied voice) who is a bigger jerk than Bill O'Reilly. But honestly, what made CBS change its mind? Executives claim that it's because his remarks were inappropriate (that's been obvious for a while) and harmful to the young black female community. This is, of course, true. But did it take them that long to realize it? Why not just fire him from the get-go? Public outcry? Or corporate outcry?
The first headline I saw this morning when I checked my mail and news was that Imus was losing sponsors. Again, as he should. But why does it take advertising losses for corporate executives to realize that what's wrong is wrong?
Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
We are the called out. Christ commands that we show our faith in love. Love for God and love for others. Paul told us not to be of this world. Time after time, the Word dictates that we who are in God, and that only through the grace of his blood, be different. It is time that we live this out.
I must first confess my own short comings. All of the sins listed below our my own and for committing them, I sincerely apologize. It is out of my love for you, my brothers and sisters in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, that I warn you of these.
First, and the root of all, is apathy. It is in our own sinful nature to care only for ourselves. The thinking goes, "If it does not impact my life, it does not concern me in the least." But in the words of the martyr Martin Luther King, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Christ did not and will not stand for injustice. He comes to "preach good news to the poor" and "to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the opressed." Christ protected the adultress, cleared the temple, and forgave those who killed him. To be like Christ, we must fight our own self interest and our own apathy and cange the world.
Second, and very closely related, is greed. I do not need that new shirt or that new CD. It is worth food for fifteen days in Africa or another trinket for me. So instead of providing the basics for others, I cushion my own existence. This extends, though, beyond our affluent lifestyles. It goes on to the everyday spending of everyone. Businesses export jobs to take advantage of lower wages. They overcharge and overpay to maximize on profit. We have a responsibility to support humans worldwide. It is time for us to support Fair Trade and fight against poverty. It is time for us to go out and in the name of God help the poor, in the US and the world. Likewise, the planet belongs to the human race. Respect the creation of God, for he called it good. Support environmentally friendly companies. Pick up trash. Recycle.
We shold set ourselves apart by loving others. We are all sinners, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Show our equality. Fight prejudice. We can start with our own. The term "gay" has become synonymous with "stupid". While I believe homosexuality is wrong, there is no reason to discriminate agaisnt or degrade those who are, in fact, homosexual, or those who are affeminate. Fred Phelps misrepresents the Lord and accuses God of hatred. We should not follow in his footsteps but instead actively work against him and love all. The crime of genocide is a travesty and it is our job to stand against it. We must follow through on the promise of "Never Again". Nationalism is a plague among the world. We are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of God. I may be from Georgia and I may be an American, but this is nothing more than where I live. As such, we should fight for freedom everywhere, not just at homre or for our "national interests".
Brothers and sisters, we are the children of God through the grace of God. It is time to act like it. It will not be easy. Quite the contrary, it will be very difficult and is only possibly through love, given freely through the death and resurrection of Christ. This is our challenge, our calling, our job.
May the grace and peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you now and forever.
The economy is normally one of the biggest voting issues for presidential elections. Anyone will tell you that. But have you ever thought about our economy? And the global economy as a whole, for that matter?
Look at a dollar bill, or whatever piece of currency you have laying around. What is it worth? Can you take it to the government and get a dollar's worth of gold or silver or anything for it? Not anymore. Our currency is entirely theoretical. The dollar's value is derived from faith that when you give it to someone, you get something back for it. Dollar in soda machine, Coke out of soda machine. Five dollars to cashier, cheeseburger from cashier.
Bonds are based on the idea that you give money to the government and you get it back. A currency of currency, in a sense.
Stocks are just the same. The value of stock (non-prefered stock, that is) is dependent not only on how the company performs, but also (and more so) on the supply of the stock. How many people are buying it? How many people are selling it? You give money to a company, and assuming that the company does not fail, you can sell it to another person, assuming that that person is willing to pay for it.
Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that the currency in the game Second Life should have an impact on the currency in the "real" world. Currency in Second Life is a currency of currency as well. You give the Second Life makers your money, assuming that you will get Second Life money back. You use the cyber SL money assuming that you will get SL goods. You sell those goods, knowing that you will get SL money. You transfer the cyber bucks to "real" bucks, assuming that when you give the "real" money to someone, you will get something back.
In short, this cyber economy is every bit as real as the US economy.
Rock on. Edit: It has been brought to my attention that this is the nature of economy. The point was made that gold has an assigned value, just like the dollar. After pondering it for a while, I realized that gold was used as a currency because it was a commodity, just like salt. A gold-based currency is a version of a barter system.
