Claiming inerrancy for scripture is a moot point and any claim for a literal interpretation is just plain ludicrous.
To be sure, truth is found in the Bible, though not all truth. All the truth one needs to gain eternal salvation is found there. All the truth one needs to live a purposeful life is found there.
However, the idea of an inerrant scripture is neither logical nor productive. In fact it is destructive because it fosters stringent doctrinal stances that divide the Christian community rather than unite it.
There are three things that make claims for inerrancy a moot point. If there were an inerrant scripture, it would have to be found in the original manuscripts of which none exist. Several hundred years separate the oldest known manuscripts from the originals. Also, one cannot make a reasonable claim of inerrancy for the many translations the scripture has gone through. However, even if the translations were made without error, there are many words that do not translate well, if at all, from one language to another, so nuances can vary from translation to translation.
The second thing that makes inerrancy a moot point has to do with interpretation. Even if we could start with an inerrant translation, there are many portions of scripture that beg for interpretation. Only an egoist would claim inerrancy for his interpretation. One only has to look at the many different denominations or varieties of independent churches to realize that scripture does not always get interpreted the same way, and if we all claim truth for our way of looking at things, then the others are in error.
The third issue that gets involved here is that the author’s intent gets lost in our reading and understanding of the text. A modern idea in literature is that the reader completes the text or provides the meaning, not the author. What we know and understand to be the meaning of a text comes from our personal experience and understanding of words. We provide the meaning. When I first heard this, I was skeptical. Over the years, I have come to see the truth of this. Our understanding of any given word is usually only approximately the same as others understand it, rarely exactly the same. Sometimes it is drastically different.
There is also a Biblical reason why inerrancy is a moot issue. I Corinthians 2: 9-16 says truth is revealed by God to those who believe, and believers believe because they “have the mind of Christ.” This implies that Christianity is an esoteric or in group faith. A person believes because of what God has revealed to them, not because they believe the word is inerrant. Once you realize your understanding is a function of the Holy Spirit making something real to you, inerrancy loses its significance. This explains why a particular passage will speak to you today and not tomorrow. How often have you read a passage many times, and then one day you read it, and it comes alive? If God reveals the truth in a passage to you, you will believe it without a doctrine of inerrancy.
People who teach inerrancy of the scripture like to quote 2 Peter 1:21 that “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” which refers to prophecies found in Old Testament Scripture. They argue that this guidance of the Holy Spirit protected the Scripture from error. And they turn to 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” to argue for inerrancy. However, verse 15 indicates the passage refers to the scripture of Timothy’s youth, which certainly was not the New Testament of the Christian Church.
The literal nature of scripture is much easier to deal with. We know the Bible is composed of several types of literature: law, history, poetry (which includes metaphors and similes), parables and myths (meaning fictional accounts written to present a truth, not fairy tales). To talk about anything other than law and history in literal terms is ludicrous. Did the trees in Psalms really clap their hands? Was there actually a wealthy man who left his assets in the hands of his servants to take care of while he went on a trip, and one of them buried his? There is a truth to be learned from these things that has nothing to do with the literalness of the words.
When I worked at a skid row mission, there was an Aleut who loved to regale me with the story of missionaries to a tribe of cannibals. The missionaries taught the cannibals to take scripture literally, so when they came to the part that says “this is my body eat it,” the cannibals did.
Doctrines of an inerrant and literal Bible tend to lead to a worship of scripture rather than worshiping the Truth behind those words. Human nature is fond of making “golden calves,” and it is easier to turn the Bible into one than to come to grips with the truth behind the words. There are too many Christians who have a reverence for the Bible based on its presumed inerrancy but never read the book or think deeply about what it says.
As long as I am discussing scripture, I will add my dislike for a major event in its evolution, the dividing into chapters and verses. At first glance, this is a blessing because it allows us to quickly find passages we want to read.
But, it has been a disaster, because it has also made it easy to proof-text instead of having to read passages in their entire context. Christians cannot resist the temptation to find a single text to prove their point and fire it at fellow Christians like darts rather than enter into a reasonable discussion about an entire context.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
keeping them poor
Keeping them poor
I was watching Garrison Keillor interview Bill Moyers on C-span, and as they passed away the time, they said some things I was comfortable with, but they also said some things I feel compelled to comment on.
One comment on which we found agreement was the mistreatment of President Obama’s pastor, Rev. Wright, by the right wing radio talk show hosts. Modern technology makes it too easy to take words out of context and play them over and over again. It is a form of high tech slander.
As I said in a previous column, I have heard fundamentalist preachers say “if God doesn’t punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. This is really no different than Rev. Wright saying, not God bless America, but God damn America, which the right maligned him for.
They then begin to wonder what had gone wrong with the religious right. How had they gotten started in the wrong direction? As they started talking about this, they mentioned how President George W. Bush had started an unprovoked war in Iraq that led to the deaths of thousands.
In this, they malign Bush every bit as much as the talk show hosts maligned Rev. Wright. They believe this because they choose to ignore the history of what happened in Iraq.
It started with the Persian Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation. The UN asked the US to intervene and liberate Kuwait, which we did under the direction of George H. Bush. Once the Iraqi army was pushed out of Kuwait, the UN insisted on a cease fire, which the US did and which Iraq agreed to.
However, a cease fire is not a surrender, nor is it the end of a war. It is only the end to current hostilities, and it comes with terms. Under the terms of the cease fire, Iraq agreed to free and unlimited inspections of their country to assure the world they were not developing weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam flagrantly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement, which means the cease fire is over and the hostilities begin again. The war with Iraq was in fact provoked by Saddam violating those agreements. It was not a new war, but the continuation of one Saddam had provoked when he invaded Kuwait.
Bush’s mistake was not that he invaded Iraq, but that he made the wrong argument for doing so. He should have argued what I just stated above. Instead, he argued he was invading because of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. When they didn’t find any, people like Moyers claimed he should not have done it. When they argue that he started an unprovoked war, they malign him.
Their second concern was that the religious right fails to show Christian compassion when they object to all the money being spent on social programs to help the poor. Again, they fail to think deep enough on the issue.
When Christ said the poor you will have with you always, he was making a psychological observation, not an economic one. The past 30 years of war on poverty should tell us that poverty is not an economic issue as we have poured enough money into the problem to make every poor person rich. If you gave every American a million dollars, within six months, some would be very, very rich and others would be very, very poor.
We do not need to spend more money on poverty to follow the precepts of the Bible. The Bible does not condemn the haves for having, it condemns those who would oppress the poor and make their lives more miserable than they already are.
Here are some examples of how we have oppressed the poor: exorbitant taxes on cigarettes; cash for clunkers, which got rid of the only cars the poor could afford; the high cost of fuel, which is a direct result of government policies; easy credit; child labor laws that favor the unions by keep poor kids unemployed; burdensome regulations that drive up the price of everything; and fostering attitudes that keep the poor tied to a welfare state.
We spend more than enough nationally, between our government and charitable institutions, to more than meet a Christian definition of charity. Our failing is that we do not prosecute those in government and business who design policies that end up oppressing the poor. One of my aphorisms states, “When something is given to us for free, it loses value in the transaction. If too much comes to us free, soon nothing has any value.” We don’t need to give more to the poor, we need to prosecute those who oppress them.
I was watching Garrison Keillor interview Bill Moyers on C-span, and as they passed away the time, they said some things I was comfortable with, but they also said some things I feel compelled to comment on.
One comment on which we found agreement was the mistreatment of President Obama’s pastor, Rev. Wright, by the right wing radio talk show hosts. Modern technology makes it too easy to take words out of context and play them over and over again. It is a form of high tech slander.
As I said in a previous column, I have heard fundamentalist preachers say “if God doesn’t punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah. This is really no different than Rev. Wright saying, not God bless America, but God damn America, which the right maligned him for.
They then begin to wonder what had gone wrong with the religious right. How had they gotten started in the wrong direction? As they started talking about this, they mentioned how President George W. Bush had started an unprovoked war in Iraq that led to the deaths of thousands.
In this, they malign Bush every bit as much as the talk show hosts maligned Rev. Wright. They believe this because they choose to ignore the history of what happened in Iraq.
It started with the Persian Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait without provocation. The UN asked the US to intervene and liberate Kuwait, which we did under the direction of George H. Bush. Once the Iraqi army was pushed out of Kuwait, the UN insisted on a cease fire, which the US did and which Iraq agreed to.
However, a cease fire is not a surrender, nor is it the end of a war. It is only the end to current hostilities, and it comes with terms. Under the terms of the cease fire, Iraq agreed to free and unlimited inspections of their country to assure the world they were not developing weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam flagrantly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement, which means the cease fire is over and the hostilities begin again. The war with Iraq was in fact provoked by Saddam violating those agreements. It was not a new war, but the continuation of one Saddam had provoked when he invaded Kuwait.
Bush’s mistake was not that he invaded Iraq, but that he made the wrong argument for doing so. He should have argued what I just stated above. Instead, he argued he was invading because of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. When they didn’t find any, people like Moyers claimed he should not have done it. When they argue that he started an unprovoked war, they malign him.
Their second concern was that the religious right fails to show Christian compassion when they object to all the money being spent on social programs to help the poor. Again, they fail to think deep enough on the issue.
When Christ said the poor you will have with you always, he was making a psychological observation, not an economic one. The past 30 years of war on poverty should tell us that poverty is not an economic issue as we have poured enough money into the problem to make every poor person rich. If you gave every American a million dollars, within six months, some would be very, very rich and others would be very, very poor.
We do not need to spend more money on poverty to follow the precepts of the Bible. The Bible does not condemn the haves for having, it condemns those who would oppress the poor and make their lives more miserable than they already are.
Here are some examples of how we have oppressed the poor: exorbitant taxes on cigarettes; cash for clunkers, which got rid of the only cars the poor could afford; the high cost of fuel, which is a direct result of government policies; easy credit; child labor laws that favor the unions by keep poor kids unemployed; burdensome regulations that drive up the price of everything; and fostering attitudes that keep the poor tied to a welfare state.
We spend more than enough nationally, between our government and charitable institutions, to more than meet a Christian definition of charity. Our failing is that we do not prosecute those in government and business who design policies that end up oppressing the poor. One of my aphorisms states, “When something is given to us for free, it loses value in the transaction. If too much comes to us free, soon nothing has any value.” We don’t need to give more to the poor, we need to prosecute those who oppress them.
Monday, May 2, 2011
retro-abortion -- an essay
The risk of writing satire is that someone, say Adolph Hitler, will miss the point and take you literally. With that caveat, I offer this essay in the spirit of Jonathan Swift’s “A modest Proposal.” A friend warned me against publishing this piece, because it is too easy for someone to miss the point of the satire and take it as a serious proposal. Even as I post this, I know there are elitist out there already planning policies to implement what I consider satire. In fact, my morning paper today (3/30/2011) carried a story about a local public school nurse who was fired for telling a class of students that special needs kids should be euthanized. Satire is useful because it puts the spotlight on the possible through the use of exaggeration and prepares people for what could be possible if good people do nothing. I wrote this to illustrate how ridiculous the arguments for abortion are by simply moving them a little further up the timeline.
“My mother went to the hospital to have me aborted.” With this, the obnoxious but often funny 15-year-old student had my attention and my sympathy. “What a terrible thing to have to live with, knowing your mother’s first choice was to abort you,” I thought. “No wonder she’s a problem student in an alternative school.”
“So, what happened,” I asked.
“They wouldn’t do it, “she said, “because I was twelve-years-old.”
She had me, and I laughed, but on reflection, I realized that as with most humor, there is also a serious side. In this case, let’s call it retroactive-abortion.
Abortion has been part of a serious national discussion at least since Roe vs. Wade. So much so that the arguments have become stale. I can predict in advance what is going to be said on the subject at any given time. It’s time to take the discussion to a new level.
Though retroactive abortion may seem radical, it is no more so than Jonathan Swift, tongue in cheek, suggesting the Irish might eat their children to keep them from being a burden to their parents. Even as children were a burden in Ireland in 1729, so they are today, though in a different sort of way. The burden of gross ignorance, which is perpetuated through having babies, plagues us today.
We have tried to stamp it out with public education, but it grows faster than we can cure it and it continues to grow. Think about it a minute: The bright people marry other bright people and have an average of one and a half kids per couple. The ignorant mate with the ignorant and have a half dozen kids per couple. This portends a disastrous trend which can easily be solved by retroactive-abortion.
Here’s how it would work. When a child reaches five or six, do a thorough evaluation with doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, ministers, and educators. Determine its IQ and social and economic potential, and if it reaches a certain standard, grant it a birth certificate and legal status as a human being. If not, euthanize it because quality of modern life seems to matter more than life itself.
If you catch yourself cringing at the thought of this, don’t rush to judgment too fast. To begin with, we have never settled the argument as to when life begins, and hence when legal protection is required. At conception? Three months? Six months? Half way out of the birth canal? Birth? Why not just make it six years? Up to that time, it is just a bit of aging fetal tissue to be surgically terminated for the convenience of the mother, a private matter between a woman and her doctor, psychiatrist, social worker, and minister.
In fact, retroactive abortion has several advantages over normal abortion. To begin with, most religions have some sort of theology about an age of accountability. If a child dies before that age, it’s an automatic trip to paradise. So, we see what kind of kid we have, and if things don’t look too promising, send it on to paradise before it’s eternally too late.
“But it’s murder,” some might object. Let’s not be squeamish about this. Murder is just a matter of legal definition after all. We have all kinds of killing that are not classified as murder, including abortion. Law makers can define retroactive abortion as a medical procedure and everything will be fine.
I know people will abhor this idea. We used to abhor the idea of abortion, but we all got used to it. We have all gotten comfortable with the idea of slaughtering the innocent but somehow cringe at the idea of destroying fetal tissue that has aged a little and in the process, given us opportunity to make a reasonable judgment about its potential. After all, it’s all about quality of life. The right to life only matters if quality can be guaranteed. In time, we’ll also get use to retroactive-abortion.
The way things are now, we don’t mind killing something we haven’t yet seen and can’t adequately evaluate, but are squeamish about killing what we can know and evaluate and eliminate only if it will become a problem. We don’t mind killing a potential Einstein as long as we don’t know it, while fussing about euthanizing a predicable burden on society.
Even though this is a workable solution to rid society of the burden of ignorance, it might be tough to sell it to an unenlightened public. The first step in selling it would be to sell the idea of making it an exceptional thing. Make it legal if the health of the mother is in question. This would include mental and emotional health. By leaving the definition of health as a private matter between a woman and her doctor, the exception will soon become the rule and people will get use to it. In the first few years there would only be a few thousand retroactive abortions across the country. But, in time the count could easily be up to a million and a half a year and ignorance would begin to diminish significantly.
In case people get upset with the ever increasing number of exceptions, we need an emotional argument to sway the masses who might object. The way it stands now, if a mother wants to get rid of a burdensome kid, she has to put out a contract on him with some back alley butcher or hit man who will do the job. The mother has to risk doing business with undesirable people, which can get pretty messy and might even threaten her own life. Whenever anyone raises the issue of again making the practice illegal, just argue that to do so would be forcing mothers to again use the back alley butchers, putting their own lives at risk.
If the fuss to do away with the exception gets too loud, move a case to the United States Supreme Court and get a judge to find a constitutional right to privacy. If a judge digs around that “living” document long enough, he can find anything growing there.
Once the right to a retroactive abortion is established, the practice will become common place enough that we will begin to see ignorance diminish. In time, liberal thinking people well see that the real issue here is one of choice. The argument will no longer be one of killing, but rather one of choice. What fair minded person could be against choice? Who would deny a mother the freedom to choose? Since the ignorant respond readily to emotions and slogans, the practice of retroactive abortion will be safe.
If necessary, throw in the economic argument also. Retroactive abortion will bring drastic reductions in free and reduced school breakfasts and lunches, food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, welfare payments and costs related to incarceration. All this adds up to billions of dollars that can be used for more important things.
So even though my student had hooked me on a cruel sort of joke, like most jokes, there was a serious element to her humor. After all, twelve is a little old, even for a retroactive abortion. But five or six? It might be worth a thought.
“My mother went to the hospital to have me aborted.” With this, the obnoxious but often funny 15-year-old student had my attention and my sympathy. “What a terrible thing to have to live with, knowing your mother’s first choice was to abort you,” I thought. “No wonder she’s a problem student in an alternative school.”
“So, what happened,” I asked.
“They wouldn’t do it, “she said, “because I was twelve-years-old.”
She had me, and I laughed, but on reflection, I realized that as with most humor, there is also a serious side. In this case, let’s call it retroactive-abortion.
Abortion has been part of a serious national discussion at least since Roe vs. Wade. So much so that the arguments have become stale. I can predict in advance what is going to be said on the subject at any given time. It’s time to take the discussion to a new level.
Though retroactive abortion may seem radical, it is no more so than Jonathan Swift, tongue in cheek, suggesting the Irish might eat their children to keep them from being a burden to their parents. Even as children were a burden in Ireland in 1729, so they are today, though in a different sort of way. The burden of gross ignorance, which is perpetuated through having babies, plagues us today.
We have tried to stamp it out with public education, but it grows faster than we can cure it and it continues to grow. Think about it a minute: The bright people marry other bright people and have an average of one and a half kids per couple. The ignorant mate with the ignorant and have a half dozen kids per couple. This portends a disastrous trend which can easily be solved by retroactive-abortion.
Here’s how it would work. When a child reaches five or six, do a thorough evaluation with doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, ministers, and educators. Determine its IQ and social and economic potential, and if it reaches a certain standard, grant it a birth certificate and legal status as a human being. If not, euthanize it because quality of modern life seems to matter more than life itself.
If you catch yourself cringing at the thought of this, don’t rush to judgment too fast. To begin with, we have never settled the argument as to when life begins, and hence when legal protection is required. At conception? Three months? Six months? Half way out of the birth canal? Birth? Why not just make it six years? Up to that time, it is just a bit of aging fetal tissue to be surgically terminated for the convenience of the mother, a private matter between a woman and her doctor, psychiatrist, social worker, and minister.
In fact, retroactive abortion has several advantages over normal abortion. To begin with, most religions have some sort of theology about an age of accountability. If a child dies before that age, it’s an automatic trip to paradise. So, we see what kind of kid we have, and if things don’t look too promising, send it on to paradise before it’s eternally too late.
“But it’s murder,” some might object. Let’s not be squeamish about this. Murder is just a matter of legal definition after all. We have all kinds of killing that are not classified as murder, including abortion. Law makers can define retroactive abortion as a medical procedure and everything will be fine.
I know people will abhor this idea. We used to abhor the idea of abortion, but we all got used to it. We have all gotten comfortable with the idea of slaughtering the innocent but somehow cringe at the idea of destroying fetal tissue that has aged a little and in the process, given us opportunity to make a reasonable judgment about its potential. After all, it’s all about quality of life. The right to life only matters if quality can be guaranteed. In time, we’ll also get use to retroactive-abortion.
The way things are now, we don’t mind killing something we haven’t yet seen and can’t adequately evaluate, but are squeamish about killing what we can know and evaluate and eliminate only if it will become a problem. We don’t mind killing a potential Einstein as long as we don’t know it, while fussing about euthanizing a predicable burden on society.
Even though this is a workable solution to rid society of the burden of ignorance, it might be tough to sell it to an unenlightened public. The first step in selling it would be to sell the idea of making it an exceptional thing. Make it legal if the health of the mother is in question. This would include mental and emotional health. By leaving the definition of health as a private matter between a woman and her doctor, the exception will soon become the rule and people will get use to it. In the first few years there would only be a few thousand retroactive abortions across the country. But, in time the count could easily be up to a million and a half a year and ignorance would begin to diminish significantly.
In case people get upset with the ever increasing number of exceptions, we need an emotional argument to sway the masses who might object. The way it stands now, if a mother wants to get rid of a burdensome kid, she has to put out a contract on him with some back alley butcher or hit man who will do the job. The mother has to risk doing business with undesirable people, which can get pretty messy and might even threaten her own life. Whenever anyone raises the issue of again making the practice illegal, just argue that to do so would be forcing mothers to again use the back alley butchers, putting their own lives at risk.
If the fuss to do away with the exception gets too loud, move a case to the United States Supreme Court and get a judge to find a constitutional right to privacy. If a judge digs around that “living” document long enough, he can find anything growing there.
Once the right to a retroactive abortion is established, the practice will become common place enough that we will begin to see ignorance diminish. In time, liberal thinking people well see that the real issue here is one of choice. The argument will no longer be one of killing, but rather one of choice. What fair minded person could be against choice? Who would deny a mother the freedom to choose? Since the ignorant respond readily to emotions and slogans, the practice of retroactive abortion will be safe.
If necessary, throw in the economic argument also. Retroactive abortion will bring drastic reductions in free and reduced school breakfasts and lunches, food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, welfare payments and costs related to incarceration. All this adds up to billions of dollars that can be used for more important things.
So even though my student had hooked me on a cruel sort of joke, like most jokes, there was a serious element to her humor. After all, twelve is a little old, even for a retroactive abortion. But five or six? It might be worth a thought.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Dropped Out, So What?
Drop out
Col.
This column is for you high school and college drop outs who keep beating yourselves up for having made such an ill advised decision. Quit kicking yourselves and put things in perspective.
We live in a society that has thoroughly confused education and the acquisition of diplomas and degrees. For truly educated people, learning is a lifelong adventure. The list of successful people who lack diplomas or degrees is lengthy, but I'll mention two of my favorites.
Eric Hoffer was a popular author back in the 60's. I don't think he attended school as a student a day in his life. He did, though, spend time in the classroom as a college instructor.
He came to America from Germany with his parents as a small boy. Since he was inexplicably smitten with blindness and couldn't speak English, his parents didn't send him to school.
As a teenager, his sight mysteriously returned and he started a life long journey of self education. By the time he died in his 80's, he had authored several books, a newspaper column, and served as a commentator on PBS. He was a retired long shore man.
During the great depression of the last century, he worked as an itinerant farm worker up and down the West Coast. He had a pocket full of library cards from the many towns along his route. Public libraries became his way of carrying on his lifetime learning.
The second is Frank Schaeffer, a current author of both fiction and non-fiction and a film director. Schaeffer grew up a missionary's kid. He was supposedly being home schooled, but his schooling was pretty much being neglected by his parents. When he was a young adolescent, his parents were coerced into putting him in school, but by then he was functionally illiterate and he was also plagued with dyslexia. At some point, however, he took charge of his own education and launched a life time of learning.
The list of such people could go on and on. Google "famous high school and college drop outs" and you will be surprised at the people you find on that list. However, there is another list, the list of people who have diplomas but have accomplished little or nothing. I could start this list but it would be at the risk of libel. Instead, look around you and make your own list.
The reason an employer hires someone with a diploma or degree is the knowledge base he assumes goes with the certificate. In recent years, employers have found all too often that an adequate knowledge base isn't there. Even if the knowledge base is there, the employer is still going to have to educate the employee as to what they are being hired for. The diploma or degree helps one open the door to the job market, but there are other ways to get in.
So, what are people without the diplomas suppose to do? First they must do those things that make anyone a valued employee. To that, they must add lifetime learning. Take every training course and workshop the employer offers and then find courses or workshops they can take on their own. Learn how to use the local library and the internet to build on the education they already have. When it comes to educating oneself, the internet is an amazing place. Even those employees with some kind of diploma or degree must constantly add value to it if they are to remain valuable to an employer. If you are an employer, are you going to be happiest with an employee who, in spite of his education level, continues to add to his knowledge base or with one who hasn’t bothered to learn much of anything since receiving a diploma or a degree? Like all valued employees, the drop out should try to understand where his particular industry is going and prepare for the future, not the present or the past.
Finally, the employees without diplomas or degrees should note who in their organization is making the money and find a pathway to that job if it interests them.
The lack of a degree may keep employees from becoming the CEO of a major company, but it doesn't have to keep them from making a decent living at a job they enjoy. Even those with degrees must find ways to add value to those degrees or they are not going to rise far in their companies.
There is another side to getting that degree that is seldom talked about. Sometimes a person's degree traps them in a job they have discovered they really don't like and wish they could get out of, but they have invested heavily in the degree in both time and money and feel there is nothing else they can do.
For one reason or another, we all are at the station in life that we now find ourselves, but we live in a dynamic culture in dynamic times, and decisions of the past rarely have to control our futures. We are pretty much limited only by personal motivation.
Col.
This column is for you high school and college drop outs who keep beating yourselves up for having made such an ill advised decision. Quit kicking yourselves and put things in perspective.
We live in a society that has thoroughly confused education and the acquisition of diplomas and degrees. For truly educated people, learning is a lifelong adventure. The list of successful people who lack diplomas or degrees is lengthy, but I'll mention two of my favorites.
Eric Hoffer was a popular author back in the 60's. I don't think he attended school as a student a day in his life. He did, though, spend time in the classroom as a college instructor.
He came to America from Germany with his parents as a small boy. Since he was inexplicably smitten with blindness and couldn't speak English, his parents didn't send him to school.
As a teenager, his sight mysteriously returned and he started a life long journey of self education. By the time he died in his 80's, he had authored several books, a newspaper column, and served as a commentator on PBS. He was a retired long shore man.
During the great depression of the last century, he worked as an itinerant farm worker up and down the West Coast. He had a pocket full of library cards from the many towns along his route. Public libraries became his way of carrying on his lifetime learning.
The second is Frank Schaeffer, a current author of both fiction and non-fiction and a film director. Schaeffer grew up a missionary's kid. He was supposedly being home schooled, but his schooling was pretty much being neglected by his parents. When he was a young adolescent, his parents were coerced into putting him in school, but by then he was functionally illiterate and he was also plagued with dyslexia. At some point, however, he took charge of his own education and launched a life time of learning.
The list of such people could go on and on. Google "famous high school and college drop outs" and you will be surprised at the people you find on that list. However, there is another list, the list of people who have diplomas but have accomplished little or nothing. I could start this list but it would be at the risk of libel. Instead, look around you and make your own list.
The reason an employer hires someone with a diploma or degree is the knowledge base he assumes goes with the certificate. In recent years, employers have found all too often that an adequate knowledge base isn't there. Even if the knowledge base is there, the employer is still going to have to educate the employee as to what they are being hired for. The diploma or degree helps one open the door to the job market, but there are other ways to get in.
So, what are people without the diplomas suppose to do? First they must do those things that make anyone a valued employee. To that, they must add lifetime learning. Take every training course and workshop the employer offers and then find courses or workshops they can take on their own. Learn how to use the local library and the internet to build on the education they already have. When it comes to educating oneself, the internet is an amazing place. Even those employees with some kind of diploma or degree must constantly add value to it if they are to remain valuable to an employer. If you are an employer, are you going to be happiest with an employee who, in spite of his education level, continues to add to his knowledge base or with one who hasn’t bothered to learn much of anything since receiving a diploma or a degree? Like all valued employees, the drop out should try to understand where his particular industry is going and prepare for the future, not the present or the past.
Finally, the employees without diplomas or degrees should note who in their organization is making the money and find a pathway to that job if it interests them.
The lack of a degree may keep employees from becoming the CEO of a major company, but it doesn't have to keep them from making a decent living at a job they enjoy. Even those with degrees must find ways to add value to those degrees or they are not going to rise far in their companies.
There is another side to getting that degree that is seldom talked about. Sometimes a person's degree traps them in a job they have discovered they really don't like and wish they could get out of, but they have invested heavily in the degree in both time and money and feel there is nothing else they can do.
For one reason or another, we all are at the station in life that we now find ourselves, but we live in a dynamic culture in dynamic times, and decisions of the past rarely have to control our futures. We are pretty much limited only by personal motivation.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Sleeping and Driving
It is frightening to jerk awake after dozing off at the wheel and find yourself on the wrong side of the center line. It was after one such incident that I realized dozing behind the wheel was every bit as evil as driving drunk, and I view such drivers as true low life. It is something they choose to do that endangers the life of the rest of us. Finally, I realized my behavior was no different. It had to have been the grace of God that kept me from killing some unsuspecting motorist.
Once the truth of this hit me, I quit driving while sleepy. If I start getting drowsy, I pull over and sleep whether in a car or on a motorcycle. I have more than one picture taken by a riding partner where I am napping alongside the road or on a picnic table beside my motorcycle.
So, when I decided to get a job distance driving, I knew I’d have to get a handle on this problem. First I called my brother who is a long haul trucker. "What do you do when you get drowsy?" I asked.
His answer surprised me. "I drink a bottle of water," he said.
Next, I did what I always do when I want to know something; I got a book by the leading expert on the subject, in this case, “The Promise of Sleep,” by Dr. William C. Dement, M.D., Ph.D., and discovered some interesting facts. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was caused by sleep deprivation in spite of what was commonly reported in the national press. The same was true of the Challenger accident. We Americans get one and a half hours less sleep a night than our grandparents. Most sleep related problems go undiagnosed because doctors aren't required to study sleep issues in medical school and there are few clinics nationwide that specialize in sleep. Jonesboro happens to have one.
The doctor believes that sleeping while driving is a major killer in our society. Making people aware is a mission with him. (It might have helped his cause had he dealt with it in a pamphlet instead of a 500 page book.)
Here's the information I found useful. On the average, we need one hour of sleep for each two hours we are awake. During the day, we accumulate sleep debt and pay it back at night. If we are up 16 hours and only get seven hours sleep we have an hour of unpaid sleep debt. If we don't pay it back, the debt accumulates. If we let the debt get too big, the body forces the payback.
Most of us run a sleep debt all week and then pay it back on weekends. Some of us pay it back by napping. The way to tell if you have a high sleep dept is by how fast you go to sleep when you go to bed at night or when you take a nap.
If you knock off in less than five minutes it is because you carry too much sleep debt. It takes some sleep debt, say eight hours for 16 hours of wakefulness, to make you sleepy. With a normal sleep debt, it should take about 15 minutes to go to sleep. Assuming you are not dealing with a disease like sleep apnea or narcolepsy, the proper management of sleep debt will keep you awake while driving as well as keep you alert while on the job.
Also, our internal clock or Circadian rhythm gets involved. This clock got set in the distant past when people got up and went to sleep by daylight and darkness. At certain times of the day, our internal clock starts getting us ready for sleep. If your sleep debt is too large, it is hard to override you internal clock and stay awake. This becomes a serious problem when traveling rapidly through several time zones or dealing with jet lag.
Another valuable thing Dement noted was that the caffeine in that cup of coffee you are drinking to kill the drowsies, won’t kick in for at least 15 minutes. If you wait until you are dozing at the wheel to stop and get that coffee and then get back in your car and keep driving, you haven’t helped yourself. Drink the coffee before you start dozing. Its effect will last four or five hours.
The message was pretty clear. If I want to quit dozing off while driving, keep my sleep debt paid up, drink my coffee well before I need it, and drink lots of water to reduce dehydration.
So, how did it work out? Since reading and applying the information in the book, I have driven many hours without getting drowsy. It works!
Once the truth of this hit me, I quit driving while sleepy. If I start getting drowsy, I pull over and sleep whether in a car or on a motorcycle. I have more than one picture taken by a riding partner where I am napping alongside the road or on a picnic table beside my motorcycle.
So, when I decided to get a job distance driving, I knew I’d have to get a handle on this problem. First I called my brother who is a long haul trucker. "What do you do when you get drowsy?" I asked.
His answer surprised me. "I drink a bottle of water," he said.
Next, I did what I always do when I want to know something; I got a book by the leading expert on the subject, in this case, “The Promise of Sleep,” by Dr. William C. Dement, M.D., Ph.D., and discovered some interesting facts. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was caused by sleep deprivation in spite of what was commonly reported in the national press. The same was true of the Challenger accident. We Americans get one and a half hours less sleep a night than our grandparents. Most sleep related problems go undiagnosed because doctors aren't required to study sleep issues in medical school and there are few clinics nationwide that specialize in sleep. Jonesboro happens to have one.
The doctor believes that sleeping while driving is a major killer in our society. Making people aware is a mission with him. (It might have helped his cause had he dealt with it in a pamphlet instead of a 500 page book.)
Here's the information I found useful. On the average, we need one hour of sleep for each two hours we are awake. During the day, we accumulate sleep debt and pay it back at night. If we are up 16 hours and only get seven hours sleep we have an hour of unpaid sleep debt. If we don't pay it back, the debt accumulates. If we let the debt get too big, the body forces the payback.
Most of us run a sleep debt all week and then pay it back on weekends. Some of us pay it back by napping. The way to tell if you have a high sleep dept is by how fast you go to sleep when you go to bed at night or when you take a nap.
If you knock off in less than five minutes it is because you carry too much sleep debt. It takes some sleep debt, say eight hours for 16 hours of wakefulness, to make you sleepy. With a normal sleep debt, it should take about 15 minutes to go to sleep. Assuming you are not dealing with a disease like sleep apnea or narcolepsy, the proper management of sleep debt will keep you awake while driving as well as keep you alert while on the job.
Also, our internal clock or Circadian rhythm gets involved. This clock got set in the distant past when people got up and went to sleep by daylight and darkness. At certain times of the day, our internal clock starts getting us ready for sleep. If your sleep debt is too large, it is hard to override you internal clock and stay awake. This becomes a serious problem when traveling rapidly through several time zones or dealing with jet lag.
Another valuable thing Dement noted was that the caffeine in that cup of coffee you are drinking to kill the drowsies, won’t kick in for at least 15 minutes. If you wait until you are dozing at the wheel to stop and get that coffee and then get back in your car and keep driving, you haven’t helped yourself. Drink the coffee before you start dozing. Its effect will last four or five hours.
The message was pretty clear. If I want to quit dozing off while driving, keep my sleep debt paid up, drink my coffee well before I need it, and drink lots of water to reduce dehydration.
So, how did it work out? Since reading and applying the information in the book, I have driven many hours without getting drowsy. It works!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Worth a Comment, not a Column
Often there are things I want to write about and though they are worthy of comment, they are not worth a column. I collect a few such things for this column.
No connection: When attempts are made to tie violent behavior to rap music, violent video games, or violent movies, or to tie sexual promiscuity to pornography, they are met with a wall of resistance from the media people who produce these things. They claim scientific studies do not show any connection. The same people who resist any attempt to make this connection jump at every opportunity to tie acts of violence, such as the recent Arizona shootings, to right wing rhetoric.
Privilege: The one thing I find most egregious about politicians is when they exempt themselves from the rules the rest of us must abide by. This could be such things as not having to go through the same security at the airport to not being a part of the government mandated healthcare plan or Social Security retirement plan.
Buying gold: The gold merchants are advertising heavily to try and get you to put gold in your investment portfolio. If you buy an ounce of gold today and keep it for ten years, you will still have an ounce of gold. The idea of investing in gold is that you protect yourself against inflation. Think about it for a moment; if the cash from the sale of that ounce of gold will buy you a month’s supply of groceries today, and it keeps up with inflation, when you sell it ten years from now, it will still buy a month’s worth of groceries. You need investments that grow. Precious metals are a way for the very rich to transport their wealth across the divide in difficult economic times.
Wrong: Al Gore finally admitted an inconvenient truth: ethanol was a mistake. It takes more energy to produce it than it conserves and the unintended consequences are a disaster. It drove the price of corn to unacceptable levels, causing hardship and hunger on poor people around the world. It never did make sense to me to turn a food source into energy to power our automobiles and toys when so many people in our world are starving. Now that Gore recognizes the error of this action, he tells us things will probably not change as there are now too many people with a vested interest in things the way they are. How many other negative unintended consequences are we living with over well intentioned actions of those who try to manage our lives with one-size-fits all government policies?
Labels: Back in the 80’s I was very politically active and participated in the formation of a group called The Moral Majority. The name was a public relations disaster because of what it wrongly implied about those who were not a part of the movement. A similar thing is happening with the modern liberal. Thinking the label liberal, which is a perfectly good label, has been tainted by the opposition beyond repair, those who fit that label have opted for the label “progressive.” Like the term Moral Majority, the label progressive implies something negative about those who are not a part of the movement. The same is true of churches that name themselves things like Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of the Nazarene, etc.
Expanded quote: I have seen the quote that no democracy is safe once the people discover they can vote themselves favors from the public treasury attributed to several sources, but none take it to the next logical step: nor is a democracy safe once politicians discover they can buy votes from the same. Between these two abuses of the public largess, our democracy is doomed.
Affirmed: As a writer, I always feel joy when something I write is affirmed by someone of acclaim. A few columns back I noted the firing of Juan Williams by NPR once again affirmed my experience that there is nothing more narrow-minded than a broad minded liberal. I was pleased to read the following quote by Christopher Hitchens in a piece by Andrew Anthony in “The Observer:” “I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.”
Partisanship: If you read the pundits, the politicians, and listen to the news casts, you get the feeling that bipartisanship is the goal to strive for. I say thank God for partisanship and the gridlock it produces. Legislative success should be judged by quality not quantity. No piece of legislation should be passed until it has withstood every contrary argument that can be thrown at it. Whether Republican or Democrat, no political party should be able to get what it wants when it wants it, to be able to move its agenda forward without contest. Sometimes, I have been very fortunate not to have gotten what I wanted, and certainly our nation would have been better off if political parties had not gotten what they wanted. I refer you back to the paragraph on ethanol as an example.
No connection: When attempts are made to tie violent behavior to rap music, violent video games, or violent movies, or to tie sexual promiscuity to pornography, they are met with a wall of resistance from the media people who produce these things. They claim scientific studies do not show any connection. The same people who resist any attempt to make this connection jump at every opportunity to tie acts of violence, such as the recent Arizona shootings, to right wing rhetoric.
Privilege: The one thing I find most egregious about politicians is when they exempt themselves from the rules the rest of us must abide by. This could be such things as not having to go through the same security at the airport to not being a part of the government mandated healthcare plan or Social Security retirement plan.
Buying gold: The gold merchants are advertising heavily to try and get you to put gold in your investment portfolio. If you buy an ounce of gold today and keep it for ten years, you will still have an ounce of gold. The idea of investing in gold is that you protect yourself against inflation. Think about it for a moment; if the cash from the sale of that ounce of gold will buy you a month’s supply of groceries today, and it keeps up with inflation, when you sell it ten years from now, it will still buy a month’s worth of groceries. You need investments that grow. Precious metals are a way for the very rich to transport their wealth across the divide in difficult economic times.
Wrong: Al Gore finally admitted an inconvenient truth: ethanol was a mistake. It takes more energy to produce it than it conserves and the unintended consequences are a disaster. It drove the price of corn to unacceptable levels, causing hardship and hunger on poor people around the world. It never did make sense to me to turn a food source into energy to power our automobiles and toys when so many people in our world are starving. Now that Gore recognizes the error of this action, he tells us things will probably not change as there are now too many people with a vested interest in things the way they are. How many other negative unintended consequences are we living with over well intentioned actions of those who try to manage our lives with one-size-fits all government policies?
Labels: Back in the 80’s I was very politically active and participated in the formation of a group called The Moral Majority. The name was a public relations disaster because of what it wrongly implied about those who were not a part of the movement. A similar thing is happening with the modern liberal. Thinking the label liberal, which is a perfectly good label, has been tainted by the opposition beyond repair, those who fit that label have opted for the label “progressive.” Like the term Moral Majority, the label progressive implies something negative about those who are not a part of the movement. The same is true of churches that name themselves things like Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of the Nazarene, etc.
Expanded quote: I have seen the quote that no democracy is safe once the people discover they can vote themselves favors from the public treasury attributed to several sources, but none take it to the next logical step: nor is a democracy safe once politicians discover they can buy votes from the same. Between these two abuses of the public largess, our democracy is doomed.
Affirmed: As a writer, I always feel joy when something I write is affirmed by someone of acclaim. A few columns back I noted the firing of Juan Williams by NPR once again affirmed my experience that there is nothing more narrow-minded than a broad minded liberal. I was pleased to read the following quote by Christopher Hitchens in a piece by Andrew Anthony in “The Observer:” “I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.”
Partisanship: If you read the pundits, the politicians, and listen to the news casts, you get the feeling that bipartisanship is the goal to strive for. I say thank God for partisanship and the gridlock it produces. Legislative success should be judged by quality not quantity. No piece of legislation should be passed until it has withstood every contrary argument that can be thrown at it. Whether Republican or Democrat, no political party should be able to get what it wants when it wants it, to be able to move its agenda forward without contest. Sometimes, I have been very fortunate not to have gotten what I wanted, and certainly our nation would have been better off if political parties had not gotten what they wanted. I refer you back to the paragraph on ethanol as an example.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Get Those Germs
As I write this, I’m in an RV park in Covington, Georgia. Getting here was a long day’s drive with lots of time for mental meandering which lead to the strange topic of Germ-X and similar products, those alcohol based hand sanitizers.
It seems that these products didn’t even exist a few years ago. Now they are everywhere. At Wal-Mart, soccer moms are wiping down their shopping carts with sanitizer wet wipes. In stores, restaurants, and offices there are large bottles of the stuff with dispensers for public use. It is stocked in bathrooms and can be found in ladies’ purses and on teacher’s desks everywhere.
When did the war on germs become so ferocious? How did those of us who grew up without Germ-X survive? I’ve never seen a germ, but apparently they exist and are dangerous. There are other things I’ve never seen that disturb me more, such as chiggers. I wish someone would declare war on those critters so I could collect a purple heart for the dozen wounds I’m now nursing from their itchy little bites.
But about germs, what caused this new onslaught against them? I think of all the times, as a kid, I spent my mornings shoveling cow manure or chicken droppings before sitting down to eat my lunch without the use of Germ-X or even water at times. Or my boss who would stop his work, take out his dirty farmer’s pocket knife, take out his dentures that were irritating him, scrape way the spot that was causing the discomfort and put them back.
How about all those camping trips, hunting outings, and picnics when you took care of your personal issues, or came to the table, without facilities to wash your hands? I grew up in a home with seven boys, one girl, one bathroom and one mom to monitor hand washing. Without the use of some algebraic formula and a capable mathematician, I could not even begin to account for the times little hands didn’t get washed. Yet we survived healthily without hand sanitizers.
Granted germs can be a problem, but our bodies are equipped to handle them in the normal course of things. It’s when we are sick and our immune systems are weak that germs become a problem. I’m no scientist, but it seems to me the way our bodies work is that when the various systems get exercised, they stay strong and when they don’t, they atrophy. When we have to fight against germs, our immune system stays strong.
Here is what I predict will be the unintended consequences of this incessant warfare on germs: We will wind up with weak immune systems that won’t be able to handle a serious attack when it comes. Secondly, the strong germs will survive our warfare, reproduce yet stronger germs and we will have created a super strain that will do a lot more damage than their weaker predecessors. In fact, I believe reports of such are already coming in.
I wonder if this hand sanitizer is another bottled water type scam. Someone convinced us that tap water was full of things that would make us sick. To be safe, we should all drink bottled water, and so bottled water became the craze. Unfortunately, the only legal definition of bottled water was water in a bottle. It turns out most bottlers got the water for their bottles out of municipal taps somewhere. But, the bottlers made lots of money and continue to do so. I suspect the same is true of the many germ killings products. The only ones to truly benefit are the manufacturers.
I’m addicted to a strong morning cup of coffee and the Jonesboro Sun. But, when I’m on the road, I have to get a morning paper via my Kindle. This trip, I’m reading “The Oklahoman” and discovered my mental wanderings about hand sanitizers might have been a little prescient. Here’s a lead sentence: “If the presence of all those alcohol based sanitizers makes you feel safe from disease, read no further.” The article explained that studies show the use of Germ-X, Purell and other such products has no effect on preventing flu or common colds. This was the findings of research done at the University of Virginia. “The researchers surmise that hand transmission is less important for these viruses than previously thought.”
I’d say, though, such usage has already reached the tipping point in public awareness, which means continued strong sales. Invest in Germ-X or Purell and hope my predictions are wrong. Also, keep on washing those hands, though regular soap will probably do, and if you miss a germ or two, it will probably be alright.
It seems that these products didn’t even exist a few years ago. Now they are everywhere. At Wal-Mart, soccer moms are wiping down their shopping carts with sanitizer wet wipes. In stores, restaurants, and offices there are large bottles of the stuff with dispensers for public use. It is stocked in bathrooms and can be found in ladies’ purses and on teacher’s desks everywhere.
When did the war on germs become so ferocious? How did those of us who grew up without Germ-X survive? I’ve never seen a germ, but apparently they exist and are dangerous. There are other things I’ve never seen that disturb me more, such as chiggers. I wish someone would declare war on those critters so I could collect a purple heart for the dozen wounds I’m now nursing from their itchy little bites.
But about germs, what caused this new onslaught against them? I think of all the times, as a kid, I spent my mornings shoveling cow manure or chicken droppings before sitting down to eat my lunch without the use of Germ-X or even water at times. Or my boss who would stop his work, take out his dirty farmer’s pocket knife, take out his dentures that were irritating him, scrape way the spot that was causing the discomfort and put them back.
How about all those camping trips, hunting outings, and picnics when you took care of your personal issues, or came to the table, without facilities to wash your hands? I grew up in a home with seven boys, one girl, one bathroom and one mom to monitor hand washing. Without the use of some algebraic formula and a capable mathematician, I could not even begin to account for the times little hands didn’t get washed. Yet we survived healthily without hand sanitizers.
Granted germs can be a problem, but our bodies are equipped to handle them in the normal course of things. It’s when we are sick and our immune systems are weak that germs become a problem. I’m no scientist, but it seems to me the way our bodies work is that when the various systems get exercised, they stay strong and when they don’t, they atrophy. When we have to fight against germs, our immune system stays strong.
Here is what I predict will be the unintended consequences of this incessant warfare on germs: We will wind up with weak immune systems that won’t be able to handle a serious attack when it comes. Secondly, the strong germs will survive our warfare, reproduce yet stronger germs and we will have created a super strain that will do a lot more damage than their weaker predecessors. In fact, I believe reports of such are already coming in.
I wonder if this hand sanitizer is another bottled water type scam. Someone convinced us that tap water was full of things that would make us sick. To be safe, we should all drink bottled water, and so bottled water became the craze. Unfortunately, the only legal definition of bottled water was water in a bottle. It turns out most bottlers got the water for their bottles out of municipal taps somewhere. But, the bottlers made lots of money and continue to do so. I suspect the same is true of the many germ killings products. The only ones to truly benefit are the manufacturers.
I’m addicted to a strong morning cup of coffee and the Jonesboro Sun. But, when I’m on the road, I have to get a morning paper via my Kindle. This trip, I’m reading “The Oklahoman” and discovered my mental wanderings about hand sanitizers might have been a little prescient. Here’s a lead sentence: “If the presence of all those alcohol based sanitizers makes you feel safe from disease, read no further.” The article explained that studies show the use of Germ-X, Purell and other such products has no effect on preventing flu or common colds. This was the findings of research done at the University of Virginia. “The researchers surmise that hand transmission is less important for these viruses than previously thought.”
I’d say, though, such usage has already reached the tipping point in public awareness, which means continued strong sales. Invest in Germ-X or Purell and hope my predictions are wrong. Also, keep on washing those hands, though regular soap will probably do, and if you miss a germ or two, it will probably be alright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)