I got a book several years ago about the life of Nikola Tesla, the great Serbian-American inventor of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I only just started reading it recently, and have found it to be quite excellent. Tesla was an extremely interesting fellow, revolutionizing the world with every thought.
Nikola Tesla invented AC electricity, which slowly replaced Thomas Edison's DC electricity systems world-wide. He was the first to convert water energy into power with hydroelectricity on a large scale, pulling power from Niagara Falls. He was also the first to figure out how to harness and deliver this immense amount of power, powering the cities of Buffalo, Albany, and New York City. He invented many components for and perfected the use and production of "wireless transmissions" - or the radio.
As I'm reading through, I'm struck by his celebrity. He was a regular subject of newspaper articles. Banquets were thrown for him when he completed a project. Tesla was a household name worldwide by the late 1800s, and he rubbed shoulders with the likes of Mark Twain, JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, Lord Kelvin, the Vanderbilts, and George Westinghouse - the man to whom he sold many of his inventions. In Tesla's day, our nation celebrated ideas, literature, knowledge, and accomplishment in business.
And then I thought about celebrities today: Sarah Palin, Justin Bieber, Madonna, Kobe Bryant, Tom Hanks, Kim Kardashian, and Lindsay Lohan. Today, we celebrate voice, athletic ability, controversy, physical appearance, and the ability to pretend. We have parades for sports teams who won a few games in a row. We have TV show that follows around parents with eight children. We pay upwards of $10-15 to watch a movie for a couple hours.
How many famous inventors can you name from the last 20 years other than Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or Steve Jobs? How many authors are mentioned in the media on a weekly - or even monthly - basis? How many physicists can you name? Even NASA is shrinking! What happened in the last hundred years to shift our focus and praise?
I'm not entirely sure, but I am certain that I don't like it.
14 April 2013
24 February 2013
I am Jack's fussy baby
Today, Molly has chipped away at my patience, bit by bit. Moaning, grunting, smiling, then crying all day long. I think she's ready to fall asleep, then it continues again. I just shot off a text message to a friend of mine for a quick prayer so I don't lose my mind.
Then it hit me: this is exactly how God sees me.
For a God who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, I must look pretty silly with my bright ideas and big plans. I must be pretty irritating with my constant sinning, repenting, rinse and repeating. God sees me as I see my baby girl - small, totally dependent, and ignorant to the grand scope of things around her. When I sin, I chip away at the ideal God wishes for me - perfect union. Of course, this is unobtainable since I am neither a perfect nor divine being. So how does that work?
While God hates sin enough to demand death as its penalty, he loved us enough to provide his own son as the solution. For those who "love and trust in Jesus" as we say in Sunday school, sins and debts are forgiven through the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross in our stead those many centuries ago. As we are simple humans in a broken, sinful world, how could we not sin? It is in our nature. How unloving would God be to put us in a position he knew we couldn't get out of and demand we get out of it?
Similarly, how can babies restrain themselves from crying? They can't! On the contrary - they can only cry for the first several weeks of their lives as their primary form of communication. How could I expect her to do otherwise?
Enter sin. How sinful of me to not extend the love and patience God has for me to my daughter! It is exactly this sin that pushes me closer to God. As only he provides the solution, only he provides a way to deal with it.In times of great need and despair, run toward God, not away from him. Not only does he have the way out, but you'll get more of him in the process! What could be better? There is nothing.
I am God's fussy baby.
Then it hit me: this is exactly how God sees me.
For a God who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, I must look pretty silly with my bright ideas and big plans. I must be pretty irritating with my constant sinning, repenting, rinse and repeating. God sees me as I see my baby girl - small, totally dependent, and ignorant to the grand scope of things around her. When I sin, I chip away at the ideal God wishes for me - perfect union. Of course, this is unobtainable since I am neither a perfect nor divine being. So how does that work?
While God hates sin enough to demand death as its penalty, he loved us enough to provide his own son as the solution. For those who "love and trust in Jesus" as we say in Sunday school, sins and debts are forgiven through the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross in our stead those many centuries ago. As we are simple humans in a broken, sinful world, how could we not sin? It is in our nature. How unloving would God be to put us in a position he knew we couldn't get out of and demand we get out of it?
Similarly, how can babies restrain themselves from crying? They can't! On the contrary - they can only cry for the first several weeks of their lives as their primary form of communication. How could I expect her to do otherwise?
Enter sin. How sinful of me to not extend the love and patience God has for me to my daughter! It is exactly this sin that pushes me closer to God. As only he provides the solution, only he provides a way to deal with it.In times of great need and despair, run toward God, not away from him. Not only does he have the way out, but you'll get more of him in the process! What could be better? There is nothing.
I am God's fussy baby.
05 February 2013
Liberty
The Boy Scouts of America have received a lot of pressure lately to repeal their ban on gay members. As an Eagle Scout myself and pursuer of liberty, I wanted to share my thoughts on the topic.
I remember back in the 90's, when I was in Scouting, there was a big to-do about girls trying to join the Boy Scouts. I remember thinking, "Why would a girl want to join the Boy Scouts instead of the Girl Scouts? It's the Boy Scouts for crying out loud!" As a young lad, I was already aware of common sense and liberty. I knew that the BSA was a private organization, so they should be able to do whatever they wanted. If they didn't want girls in, they shouldn't have to let girls in. And as a boy, I didn't want to have anything to do with the Girl Scouts. It just didn't make sense, even with their delicious, succulent cookies! I was a boy!
I believe in maximizing and enhancing liberty whenever possible. Politically, this results in my desire for a very small government, for example. If you want to have blue hair in high school, your school shouldn't suspend you. If you want to paint your house bright yellow, you shouldn't be arrested or fined. If you want to eat at Taco Cabana instead of Taco Bueno, you should be allowed to do that.
Where we must curtail liberty is where it conflicts with the liberty of others. If I want to set my neighbor's lawn on fire for not returning my lawn mower, I should not be allowed to do that. If I want to take your car because it's nicer than my car, I should not be allowed to do that. A lot of this falls under the term "common sense", which is something that seems to be emigrating from the US.
Where liberty is curtailed by definition is in organizations. You don't try to make the Democratic National Committee have Republicans on their board. You don't require a Muslim mosque hold Jewish services. You couldn't get the KKK to allow black members if you tried! That's because none of these examples make sense, and it would curtail the liberty of the members of the organization. The DNC is specifically set up to tend to the needs and ideologies of Democrats. A Muslim mosque would be defiled by a Jewish service. The KKK is a pro-white organization.
Which brings us back to the BSA. Everyone who joins knows what the BSA is and what it stands for. Changing it would make it something else entirely. If the BSA leadership decides they want to change a policy that goes against its members' wishes, they will likely fail and keep the policy as is. If they want to change a policy that is in line with its members' wishes, they will succeed and change the policy. If the members want a change in policy, they will likely succeed, and the BSA leadership will change the policy or be replaced. If you're thinking, "Hmm. This sounds a little familiar." It's because it's basically how our government works. We vote in Congressmen, Presidents, Governors, and the like to make changes to policies that we want. If they stop doing things in accordance to our wishes, we have the opportunity to communicate that to them or vote them out.
If the BSA wants to make the change to allow gays to join, I hope they run that by their members because I'm not so sure they're on board. The BSA has every right to refuse their membership, however. It is a private organization that can determine with whom it associates. And gays have every right to start their own gay-friendly organization that refuses membership to heterosexuals. I would support that. Why? Because that maximizes the liberties of all. If we start dictating what private organizations do and don't do, liberty will be lost.
For further reading, Wikipedia has a good article about some of these topics. Check it out here.
I remember back in the 90's, when I was in Scouting, there was a big to-do about girls trying to join the Boy Scouts. I remember thinking, "Why would a girl want to join the Boy Scouts instead of the Girl Scouts? It's the Boy Scouts for crying out loud!" As a young lad, I was already aware of common sense and liberty. I knew that the BSA was a private organization, so they should be able to do whatever they wanted. If they didn't want girls in, they shouldn't have to let girls in. And as a boy, I didn't want to have anything to do with the Girl Scouts. It just didn't make sense, even with their delicious, succulent cookies! I was a boy!
I believe in maximizing and enhancing liberty whenever possible. Politically, this results in my desire for a very small government, for example. If you want to have blue hair in high school, your school shouldn't suspend you. If you want to paint your house bright yellow, you shouldn't be arrested or fined. If you want to eat at Taco Cabana instead of Taco Bueno, you should be allowed to do that.
Where we must curtail liberty is where it conflicts with the liberty of others. If I want to set my neighbor's lawn on fire for not returning my lawn mower, I should not be allowed to do that. If I want to take your car because it's nicer than my car, I should not be allowed to do that. A lot of this falls under the term "common sense", which is something that seems to be emigrating from the US.
Where liberty is curtailed by definition is in organizations. You don't try to make the Democratic National Committee have Republicans on their board. You don't require a Muslim mosque hold Jewish services. You couldn't get the KKK to allow black members if you tried! That's because none of these examples make sense, and it would curtail the liberty of the members of the organization. The DNC is specifically set up to tend to the needs and ideologies of Democrats. A Muslim mosque would be defiled by a Jewish service. The KKK is a pro-white organization.
Which brings us back to the BSA. Everyone who joins knows what the BSA is and what it stands for. Changing it would make it something else entirely. If the BSA leadership decides they want to change a policy that goes against its members' wishes, they will likely fail and keep the policy as is. If they want to change a policy that is in line with its members' wishes, they will succeed and change the policy. If the members want a change in policy, they will likely succeed, and the BSA leadership will change the policy or be replaced. If you're thinking, "Hmm. This sounds a little familiar." It's because it's basically how our government works. We vote in Congressmen, Presidents, Governors, and the like to make changes to policies that we want. If they stop doing things in accordance to our wishes, we have the opportunity to communicate that to them or vote them out.
If the BSA wants to make the change to allow gays to join, I hope they run that by their members because I'm not so sure they're on board. The BSA has every right to refuse their membership, however. It is a private organization that can determine with whom it associates. And gays have every right to start their own gay-friendly organization that refuses membership to heterosexuals. I would support that. Why? Because that maximizes the liberties of all. If we start dictating what private organizations do and don't do, liberty will be lost.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
For further reading, Wikipedia has a good article about some of these topics. Check it out here.
01 February 2013
Multiplication
Kelley and I have been part of a home group at The Village Church for exactly two years. It's been amazing. We've laughed and cried with everyone over births and deaths, and I know I have grown and matured because of everyone in the group.
During this summer and fall, Kelley and I felt like it was time for us to split off and start our own group. The Village calls this "Gospel-centered multiplication" in what I guess amounts to their mission statement. They added that prefix to emphasize how we should "make disciples of all nations," as Jesus tells us in Matthew 28. For a Christian, making disciples must revolve around Jesus. Anything else props up the self and is rooted in sin.
We just had signups this weekend for all the new groups. Kelley and I were pretty excited going in, and perhaps had some last-minute doubts. Would anyone join our group? How many? What if too many are interested? Are we really prepared to lead the spiritual needs of these people? What if we didn't like the people who signed up?
In reality, these questions were meaningless. God had a plan for who would join and how many. He already knew how long the group would last, and whether or not we would succeed in this journey. I think it was a lot easier preparing for the daunting task ahead when focusing on God's plan and abilities instead of my own. Funny how that works.
It turned out great. Signups for home groups at TVC is more like speed dating than anything. There's a bunch of tables lining the hall and the folks looking to signup in a new group just go at it. Find your city, or one nearby, and hit up the leaders until you find something you like. You don't have many conversations because there are so many people there. Instead, you listen as the group leader(s) talk to the few people before them about the quick and easies - meeting time, location, style, kids/no kids, etc. Kelley and I really enjoyed the people we were able to speak with, and we're stoked to get started. It's sad to leave our old group, but we feel really good about moving on in advancing God's kingdom.
Speaking of multiplication, fatherhood is wonderful. It feels so good to see my daughter when I come home each night. She's just to the point now where she can recognize faces. When I come home and she sees me, she smiles real big. It's a feeling that can't be matched.
It's funny thinking about Molly as a real person with thoughts and feelings. So far, she mostly just cries, coos, and sleeps. Once she gets mobile and learns how to talk, I'm sure everything will be so different. I can't wait!
During this summer and fall, Kelley and I felt like it was time for us to split off and start our own group. The Village calls this "Gospel-centered multiplication" in what I guess amounts to their mission statement. They added that prefix to emphasize how we should "make disciples of all nations," as Jesus tells us in Matthew 28. For a Christian, making disciples must revolve around Jesus. Anything else props up the self and is rooted in sin.
We just had signups this weekend for all the new groups. Kelley and I were pretty excited going in, and perhaps had some last-minute doubts. Would anyone join our group? How many? What if too many are interested? Are we really prepared to lead the spiritual needs of these people? What if we didn't like the people who signed up?
In reality, these questions were meaningless. God had a plan for who would join and how many. He already knew how long the group would last, and whether or not we would succeed in this journey. I think it was a lot easier preparing for the daunting task ahead when focusing on God's plan and abilities instead of my own. Funny how that works.
It turned out great. Signups for home groups at TVC is more like speed dating than anything. There's a bunch of tables lining the hall and the folks looking to signup in a new group just go at it. Find your city, or one nearby, and hit up the leaders until you find something you like. You don't have many conversations because there are so many people there. Instead, you listen as the group leader(s) talk to the few people before them about the quick and easies - meeting time, location, style, kids/no kids, etc. Kelley and I really enjoyed the people we were able to speak with, and we're stoked to get started. It's sad to leave our old group, but we feel really good about moving on in advancing God's kingdom.
* * * * *
Speaking of multiplication, fatherhood is wonderful. It feels so good to see my daughter when I come home each night. She's just to the point now where she can recognize faces. When I come home and she sees me, she smiles real big. It's a feeling that can't be matched.
It's funny thinking about Molly as a real person with thoughts and feelings. So far, she mostly just cries, coos, and sleeps. Once she gets mobile and learns how to talk, I'm sure everything will be so different. I can't wait!
30 January 2013
The Fashion Industry is the Pinnacle of Capitalism
A non-violent anarchist co-worker of mine said something the other day that really got me thinking. In short, said that the fashion industry is the pinnacle of capitalism.
He was telling me how he believes that government is entirely unnecessary because there are always social (or legal) contracts that people can engage in to solve the same problems. Because I think of this as a bit of an extreme view, I started challenging him. What about national defense, for example? "Corporations and individuals can do the same thing more efficiently and cost-effectively," he said. We touched on taxes and their uses, and we eventually made it around to patents.
According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, a patent is
I was a bit taken aback. "How does this camo pants-wearing computer programmer know anything about the fashion industry?" After I repented for judging him, I listened. The fashion industry, he told me, has virtually no patents. While, yes, product can be "reverse engineered" or copied, the big designers still make money. Lots of it. Plenty of people still like buying Chanel, Nike, Prada, Ralph Lauren, or Dolce & Gabanna. Their designs are copied or mimicked, quality is diluted, and these designs slowly make their way down the fashion chain to the common man (or woman) in places like Target, Sears, and Old Navy. The consumer is left with everything in between to choose from - nice and fancy to inexpensive and plain. This, he said, maximizes product variety, trend reach, and options for consumers. In the end, the best products will always win.
I was blown away. He certainly had a point! It got me thinking - what if the technology industry had no patents? I bet people would still buy Apple products just because it's Apple. I bet the vast majority of computers would continue to run on Windows. In his world, I would continue buying Apple products because they're really good and extremely user-friendly. But what else would be out there that doesn't and can't exist yet because of various patents that Apple has?
I certainly don't think that all government needs to go away, but I definitely think its reach has gone too far. How would our economy be affected by zero patents? How would innovation change? I'm not sure, but it's something I'm considering for the first time. What do you think?
As a final thought, The Devil Wears Prada had a really great scene about this very subject. Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestly, is admonishing Anne Hathaway's character, Andy Sachs, because of her choice of clothes and attitude toward the fashion industry. Check out monologuedb.com for the text.
He was telling me how he believes that government is entirely unnecessary because there are always social (or legal) contracts that people can engage in to solve the same problems. Because I think of this as a bit of an extreme view, I started challenging him. What about national defense, for example? "Corporations and individuals can do the same thing more efficiently and cost-effectively," he said. We touched on taxes and their uses, and we eventually made it around to patents.
According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, a patent is
...an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.I believe that patents are generally granted for a 50-year term, allowing the inventor to hold a government-condoned monopoly on the product or industry. Naturally, this irks my camo pants-wearing co-worker. He said that this limits creativity of corporations and benefits to consumers. My capitalistic bones pushed back. "Doesn't it instead reward inventors and innovators by allowing them to reap the rewards of their hard work?" He said that it didn't, and to prove his point, he referenced the fashion industry.
I was a bit taken aback. "How does this camo pants-wearing computer programmer know anything about the fashion industry?" After I repented for judging him, I listened. The fashion industry, he told me, has virtually no patents. While, yes, product can be "reverse engineered" or copied, the big designers still make money. Lots of it. Plenty of people still like buying Chanel, Nike, Prada, Ralph Lauren, or Dolce & Gabanna. Their designs are copied or mimicked, quality is diluted, and these designs slowly make their way down the fashion chain to the common man (or woman) in places like Target, Sears, and Old Navy. The consumer is left with everything in between to choose from - nice and fancy to inexpensive and plain. This, he said, maximizes product variety, trend reach, and options for consumers. In the end, the best products will always win.
I was blown away. He certainly had a point! It got me thinking - what if the technology industry had no patents? I bet people would still buy Apple products just because it's Apple. I bet the vast majority of computers would continue to run on Windows. In his world, I would continue buying Apple products because they're really good and extremely user-friendly. But what else would be out there that doesn't and can't exist yet because of various patents that Apple has?
I certainly don't think that all government needs to go away, but I definitely think its reach has gone too far. How would our economy be affected by zero patents? How would innovation change? I'm not sure, but it's something I'm considering for the first time. What do you think?
As a final thought, The Devil Wears Prada had a really great scene about this very subject. Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestly, is admonishing Anne Hathaway's character, Andy Sachs, because of her choice of clothes and attitude toward the fashion industry. Check out monologuedb.com for the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)