Do you do New Year's Resolutions? I don't. It is not because I do not think that I can not improve myself. I am far from perfect. But the whole idea of resolutions baffle me.
The general idea of resolutions is that we are trying to make changes that we know we should make (i.e. stop drinking so much, exercise more). But if we know we should make them then why have we not changed. In other words why are we waiting until the beginning of the year to make resolutions? Why not change as soon as we know that we need to improve? It seems to me kind of silly to think that January 1 has special powers to make us change.
Come to think of it I have a hard time thinking of someone in my life who told me of a New Year resolution that really changed his/her life. People have made life-changing decisions. But New Year's Eve had nothing to do with them having the willpower to make those changes.
So my attitude is that if I see something in my life to make changes then I try to change. I do not always succeed. Maybe if I did always succeed then I be a lot closer to that measure of perfection. But it is better to act on your convictions as soon as you have them than to wait until an arbitrary date to make "resolutions."
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Celebrating Christmas
Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone we can really get into the celebration of Christmas. I cannot say that I am one of these huge Christmas people. I do not do decorating and stuff like that. But Christmas does have important spiritual significance for me. And I do like hearing the Christmas songs that I only hear at this time of the year.
Because I am a Christian it is natural that Christmas has meaning to me. But do some Christians go overboard and become rude with their celebrations. There are probably some cases of that. But it does not seem to me that the generic wishing of "Merry Christmas" or talking about a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree should be so offensive.
I remember when I was in grad school that one of the professors on my dissertation committee was Jewish. When I went to visit him about my dissertation I notice a menorah on his desk during the Christmas holidays. Even back then there was controversy about Christmas celebrations. I looked at that menorah and wondered what the fuss was all about. Looking at it did not offend me as a Christian. I felt no pressure to become Jewish or feel that he was going to treat me differently because I am not Jewish. I am as serious about my faith as they come but this did not hurt my feelings in the least. For me this was just his expression of his culture and beliefs.
I gotta wonder about people who get offended by the term Christmas or expression of "Merry Christmas." I wonder what all the fuss is about. Why do these people not see it as merely an expression of a person's faith and culture? Many of these same people often emphasis ideas about tolerance but this does not seem very tolerant to me.
So I wish to all "Merry Christmas." If you want to wish me "Happy Hanukkah" or "Good Kwanzaa" then that is fine with me. I will not be offended.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Because I am a Christian it is natural that Christmas has meaning to me. But do some Christians go overboard and become rude with their celebrations. There are probably some cases of that. But it does not seem to me that the generic wishing of "Merry Christmas" or talking about a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree should be so offensive.
I remember when I was in grad school that one of the professors on my dissertation committee was Jewish. When I went to visit him about my dissertation I notice a menorah on his desk during the Christmas holidays. Even back then there was controversy about Christmas celebrations. I looked at that menorah and wondered what the fuss was all about. Looking at it did not offend me as a Christian. I felt no pressure to become Jewish or feel that he was going to treat me differently because I am not Jewish. I am as serious about my faith as they come but this did not hurt my feelings in the least. For me this was just his expression of his culture and beliefs.
I gotta wonder about people who get offended by the term Christmas or expression of "Merry Christmas." I wonder what all the fuss is about. Why do these people not see it as merely an expression of a person's faith and culture? Many of these same people often emphasis ideas about tolerance but this does not seem very tolerant to me.
So I wish to all "Merry Christmas." If you want to wish me "Happy Hanukkah" or "Good Kwanzaa" then that is fine with me. I will not be offended.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Living in Transparency
The recent news about Herman Cain and Joe Paterno have got me thinking. Thinking about my past. I have to wonder if there is some event in my past that will come up and bite me someday. I am certain that I have never tried to stick my hand up a lady’s skirt as Cain is accused of doing and I am doubly certain that I do not know of any unreported child abuse that Paterno has confirmed not reporting. So I think I am clean of any of the really horrible potential bombs that can explode in my life.
But that does not mean that I am squeaky clean. Like just about everyone I have done things in my life that I am not proud of. There are events that if they came to light have the potential of embarrassing me. (And no I am not going to tell you in this public forum. They are embarrassing remember.) I have tried my best to live a good and moral life but I am human and at times I have failed. Fortunately my faith has helped me to deal with the guilt that can come with those failings but I have to recognize that they are there nonetheless. Sometimes, as I think it was in the case of Paterno, a person may not fully realize how much he or she has failed until the event blows up. Paterno probably had forgotten about the molestation until it became public. This is not to excuse him but I can see how this has taken him by surprise and now has greatly damaged his legacy.
What if we lived our lives as if our worst actions can be made public at a later stage of our lives? That is not a pleasant thought to consider but if we ever become famous it is a wise thought to have. If we lived our lives this way would it change what we are doing right now? If you would change your life then why not go ahead and make those changes? It is a kind of selfish motivation to not do bad because you are afraid someone will one day “out” you but if this means that one less spouse is beaten or one less child is abused then I will take it.
So I challenge all of us, myself included, to live as if people are watching and will report on you someday. I hope your worse sins are never revealed to the rest of the world. But who knows? Maybe one day they will be.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But that does not mean that I am squeaky clean. Like just about everyone I have done things in my life that I am not proud of. There are events that if they came to light have the potential of embarrassing me. (And no I am not going to tell you in this public forum. They are embarrassing remember.) I have tried my best to live a good and moral life but I am human and at times I have failed. Fortunately my faith has helped me to deal with the guilt that can come with those failings but I have to recognize that they are there nonetheless. Sometimes, as I think it was in the case of Paterno, a person may not fully realize how much he or she has failed until the event blows up. Paterno probably had forgotten about the molestation until it became public. This is not to excuse him but I can see how this has taken him by surprise and now has greatly damaged his legacy.
What if we lived our lives as if our worst actions can be made public at a later stage of our lives? That is not a pleasant thought to consider but if we ever become famous it is a wise thought to have. If we lived our lives this way would it change what we are doing right now? If you would change your life then why not go ahead and make those changes? It is a kind of selfish motivation to not do bad because you are afraid someone will one day “out” you but if this means that one less spouse is beaten or one less child is abused then I will take it.
So I challenge all of us, myself included, to live as if people are watching and will report on you someday. I hope your worse sins are never revealed to the rest of the world. But who knows? Maybe one day they will be.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Sometimes the Stereotypes are True.
All groups like to stereotype out-groups. Even those groups that pride themselves on tolerance engage in stereotyping of those they disagree with. For example, I notice that a common stereotype progressives tend to have of conservatives is that they are stupid. You saw this a lot in comments about President Bush and Governor Palin. I do not believe that you can become President if you are stupid and such a stereotype undervalues the fact that Palin became governor of Alaska without a lot of resources. I do not agree with those individuals all the time but that does not mean I have to think they are stupid.
But then there is Governor Perry. You know. Sometimes the stereotypes are true. Tonight during the Republican debate he forgot the government departments he wanted to cut. Yes you read that correctly. He is eager to cut governmental agencies but just do not know which ones to cut. Hope he does cut the wrong one by accident. You know we may want that department of defense to not be cut in case we go to war or something.
Yeah Perry reminds us that some people do exhibit the stereotypes of their group. I do not believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives. But a whole lot of them seem smarter than Perry. The task for those of us who want to be fair to others is not to look at the performance of Perry and then buy into the stereotype of conservatives. We have to remember that any stereotype will have people who fit them. Some women are bad drivers. Some poor people are lazy. But women are on average not worse drivers than men, and the poor are not lazier than the rich. So even if Perry is as intellectually challenged as we think this says nothing about conservatives as a whole. But that does not mean we have to stop having fun laughing at his mistakes.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But then there is Governor Perry. You know. Sometimes the stereotypes are true. Tonight during the Republican debate he forgot the government departments he wanted to cut. Yes you read that correctly. He is eager to cut governmental agencies but just do not know which ones to cut. Hope he does cut the wrong one by accident. You know we may want that department of defense to not be cut in case we go to war or something.
Yeah Perry reminds us that some people do exhibit the stereotypes of their group. I do not believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives. But a whole lot of them seem smarter than Perry. The task for those of us who want to be fair to others is not to look at the performance of Perry and then buy into the stereotype of conservatives. We have to remember that any stereotype will have people who fit them. Some women are bad drivers. Some poor people are lazy. But women are on average not worse drivers than men, and the poor are not lazier than the rich. So even if Perry is as intellectually challenged as we think this says nothing about conservatives as a whole. But that does not mean we have to stop having fun laughing at his mistakes.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, October 30, 2011
A one percenter meets his critics.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/one-per-center-peter-schiff-visits-occupy-wall-street-produces-18-minutes-of-civility/
You have to admit that this Peter Schiff has got some guts. How many of us would go down to a rally where people are complaining about us and deal with them in honest dialog. I am not saying that I totally agree with Schiff because I don't. But I highly respect a man who choose to have dialog in a situation that is not completely under his control. Especially since as a self-identified top one percent of our society he can easily keep his detractors at bay.
I hope his interaction allows some of those detractors to see that the people they oppose are, well people. Not just stereotypes of the uncaring rich. I hope he can see that his critics as individuals as well. Not just a rabble that has to be put down. When we disagree with people we are so tempted to dehumanize them and react to our stereotype of them. That is why dialog like that initiated by Peter Schiff is so important. We can still disagree with others but do so in ways that help us to find solutions instead of merely demonizing them as the enemy.
So God bless you Peter Schiff. You may not have the the right answers to our economic crisis but you do have the guts to put your ideas to those who disagree the most. I hope that I can dialog with my critics if I am ever in a similar situation. That sort of dialog is the only way we will be able to find those right answers.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
You have to admit that this Peter Schiff has got some guts. How many of us would go down to a rally where people are complaining about us and deal with them in honest dialog. I am not saying that I totally agree with Schiff because I don't. But I highly respect a man who choose to have dialog in a situation that is not completely under his control. Especially since as a self-identified top one percent of our society he can easily keep his detractors at bay.
I hope his interaction allows some of those detractors to see that the people they oppose are, well people. Not just stereotypes of the uncaring rich. I hope he can see that his critics as individuals as well. Not just a rabble that has to be put down. When we disagree with people we are so tempted to dehumanize them and react to our stereotype of them. That is why dialog like that initiated by Peter Schiff is so important. We can still disagree with others but do so in ways that help us to find solutions instead of merely demonizing them as the enemy.
So God bless you Peter Schiff. You may not have the the right answers to our economic crisis but you do have the guts to put your ideas to those who disagree the most. I hope that I can dialog with my critics if I am ever in a similar situation. That sort of dialog is the only way we will be able to find those right answers.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Christian but not conservative?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/conservative-evangelicals-implore-gop-presidential-hopefuls-tone-down-181946140.html
For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Is this diversity?
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110915/OPINION03/309150052/Vanderbilt-flirting-religious-suppression?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)