Being truthful always in a loving way (to paraphrase part of Ephesians 4:15) is one of the most important things we can do, as I see it. In my opinion, this is true always.
At least two very different accounts exist of a shooting that occurred in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this week.
One version states that a white police officer shot an unarmed and disabled African-American man holding a book who was waiting to pick up a child from school.
Another version states that an African-American officer shot an armed man who refused to drop his weapon.
I would love to know the truth and hope the true story will be discovered and disclosed. I hope the police will release video of the incident soon.
But regardless of which story is true (and both may be at least a bit true for all I know), it is horrible that looting, shooting, etc., occurred afterward. That is not the way to respond. Stealing and damaging the property of innocent persons and shooting or otherwise injuring others is not the right way to respond. This seems like madness.
Looting and violence against innocent persons seems to often occur in response to perceived injustices. Pent-up emotions seem to released inappropriately. The best way to prevent this might be to raise up children properly, treat everyone fairly, and to address minor problems before they become major ones. Unfortunately, in our imperfect world that doesn't happen. But I am confident we can do better than we do now.
I strongly support the right of persons to protest peacefully and responsibly. And I'm sorry that the acts of some in Charlotte may reflect poorly on all those who protested peacefully and responsibly.
If the police account of events in Charlotte is wrong, corrective action needs to be taken. And even if it wasn't, corrective action needs to be taken in cases where police abuses have occurred.
Indeed, we need to allow and encourage persons to report injustices and to take actions to investigate and correct them when they are reported. Please, let's all seek to do so, quickly, fairly, and responsibly.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Saturday, September 17, 2016
What Can Help Food Stamp and Medicaid Recipients Live Healthier Lifestyles?
Studies indicate that recipients of food stamps, Medicaid, and other federal government benefits are more likely than the general public to smoke cigarettes, consume more junk food than the general public, and engage in some other activities that are risky to their health more frequently than does the general public.
What can be done to help welfare recipients make better choices and live happier, healthier, more productive lives? A Malbeck Data Institute study published on NationalReport.net in 2014 stated that 89% of those receiving food stamps purchased primarily junk food. A 2015 Centers for Disease Control press release that used "data from the 2014 National Health Survey" found that 29.1% of Medicaid recipients were smokers vs. 16.8% of adults in general.
For one thing, it would be great if food stamp recipients enjoyed easy access to a grocery or supermarket that sells fresh produce and other relatively healthy food options at reasonable prices and shopped there regularly. Too many of them live a significant distance from a supermarket, lack automobiles, and/or have small children that complicate shopping/traveling to a store.
Some persons advocate not allowing the purchase of things like carbonated soft drinks or candy with food stamps. But for now at least the federal government does allow this, although to my surprise vitamins are not allowed to be purchased using food stamps. More details about the food stamp program (officially called "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" or by the acronym SNAP for short) are on the SNAP Frequently Asked Questions webpage.
Many taxpayers (who are the ones paying for the SNAP program) are upset that food stamp recipients buy so much junk food. Also, many persons feel that if persons can afford to visit tanning salons, get tattoos, smoke cigarettes, etc., (as some welfare recipients apparently do) that they can afford food and maybe even medical care, and should not be subsidized by the government.
Some states have passes restrictions limiting how welfare benefits (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) can be spent, to help prevent welfare money from being spent on tattoos, piercings, tanning salon visits, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, etc. Some states are also adding specific work requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients. An April 16, 2015 NBCNews article reports on a Kansas law that the state's goverrnor had recently signed that may be the most restrictive.
Some of these requirements seem geared toward helping both welfare recipients and the taxpayers who support them. But persons who take this to extreme by seeking to eliminate welfare and food stamps or to cut them off for masses of people without providing them alternatives may not be following what I consider the Christian attitude of "There but for the grace of God go I." Jesus advocated caring for the poor and needy.
But the point that these persons would do well to take better care of their health is a valid one. It is perhaps even more important that welfare recipients with children teach their children how to take care of their health, so that the children do not become abuses of drugs, or overindulge in junk food.
Also, it is wonderful to provide a reasonable amount of professional medical care for the needy. But a willingness to take care of one's health is important. If a Medicaid recipient goes to the doctor for breathing problems and high blood pressure, but refuses to quit smoking or to exercise or to eat a diet that can help lower their blood pressure, the doctor's visit may not be very productive. Often medical professionals treat symptoms only, not the underlying problems.
What can we do to encourage persons to live a healthier lifestyle? These food stamp and Medicaid recipients often have children dependent upon them, and in many cases even have parents that they are caregivers for. I think it would be unfair to the recipients and to those dependent on them to cut off their benefits. But it would be great if we could find a good way to reduce unnecessary expenditures on food stamps and Medicaid, as well as improve to the health of these recipients. That seems like a win-win situation.
What can we do to help unemployed able-bodied welfare recipients who are looking for jobs to find jobs? And what can we do to convince them to live healthier lifestyles?
What can be done to help welfare recipients make better choices and live happier, healthier, more productive lives? A Malbeck Data Institute study published on NationalReport.net in 2014 stated that 89% of those receiving food stamps purchased primarily junk food. A 2015 Centers for Disease Control press release that used "data from the 2014 National Health Survey" found that 29.1% of Medicaid recipients were smokers vs. 16.8% of adults in general.
For one thing, it would be great if food stamp recipients enjoyed easy access to a grocery or supermarket that sells fresh produce and other relatively healthy food options at reasonable prices and shopped there regularly. Too many of them live a significant distance from a supermarket, lack automobiles, and/or have small children that complicate shopping/traveling to a store.
Some persons advocate not allowing the purchase of things like carbonated soft drinks or candy with food stamps. But for now at least the federal government does allow this, although to my surprise vitamins are not allowed to be purchased using food stamps. More details about the food stamp program (officially called "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" or by the acronym SNAP for short) are on the SNAP Frequently Asked Questions webpage.
Many taxpayers (who are the ones paying for the SNAP program) are upset that food stamp recipients buy so much junk food. Also, many persons feel that if persons can afford to visit tanning salons, get tattoos, smoke cigarettes, etc., (as some welfare recipients apparently do) that they can afford food and maybe even medical care, and should not be subsidized by the government.
Some states have passes restrictions limiting how welfare benefits (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) can be spent, to help prevent welfare money from being spent on tattoos, piercings, tanning salon visits, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, etc. Some states are also adding specific work requirements for able-bodied welfare recipients. An April 16, 2015 NBCNews article reports on a Kansas law that the state's goverrnor had recently signed that may be the most restrictive.
Some of these requirements seem geared toward helping both welfare recipients and the taxpayers who support them. But persons who take this to extreme by seeking to eliminate welfare and food stamps or to cut them off for masses of people without providing them alternatives may not be following what I consider the Christian attitude of "There but for the grace of God go I." Jesus advocated caring for the poor and needy.
But the point that these persons would do well to take better care of their health is a valid one. It is perhaps even more important that welfare recipients with children teach their children how to take care of their health, so that the children do not become abuses of drugs, or overindulge in junk food.
Also, it is wonderful to provide a reasonable amount of professional medical care for the needy. But a willingness to take care of one's health is important. If a Medicaid recipient goes to the doctor for breathing problems and high blood pressure, but refuses to quit smoking or to exercise or to eat a diet that can help lower their blood pressure, the doctor's visit may not be very productive. Often medical professionals treat symptoms only, not the underlying problems.
What can we do to encourage persons to live a healthier lifestyle? These food stamp and Medicaid recipients often have children dependent upon them, and in many cases even have parents that they are caregivers for. I think it would be unfair to the recipients and to those dependent on them to cut off their benefits. But it would be great if we could find a good way to reduce unnecessary expenditures on food stamps and Medicaid, as well as improve to the health of these recipients. That seems like a win-win situation.
What can we do to help unemployed able-bodied welfare recipients who are looking for jobs to find jobs? And what can we do to convince them to live healthier lifestyles?
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Music Can Arouse Various Emotions: Is an International Language in a Sense
Music can arouse a variety of emotions. It can have powerful effects on humans. Music can help make someone joyous, sad, angry, etc.
Music Is an International Language in a Sense
"Music is the universal language of mankind" stated Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in 1835. I prefer to state that music is a form of international language, international in the sense that musical tunes can be conveyed to and recognized by persons of various languages. But music is not a universal language, because persons differ in the extent to which they understand and benefit from music, as well as in their tastes in it. Some even dislike most if not all music.
My Perspective
For me, music is a sideline, and not a centerpiece. I usually just listen to music in the background while I am doing something else, such as washing dishes. And even when doing things like washing dishes, I often do other things than listen to music, including listening to news or a sermon message on the radio, or just quietly meditating.
Me and Musical Instruments
I appreciate the talents of those who read music and/or play various instruments well. But I can not read music. Nor can I play an instrument. I do still have a cheap flute that I may have owned for decades, pictured below in two photos.
But I can't play a tune on it.
My Music Tastes
The time I love music most is during the Christmas season. I enjoy listening to Christmas music, both contemporary songs and traditional Christian hymns. It gets me even more in a positive frame of mind, instilling the Christmas Spirit I guess one could say. The fact that many stores play Christmas music during the season indicates that it is effective or perceived as being effective for the stores. [Disclosure: My current second job is working as a part-time store clerk.]
I also enjoy listening to positive uplifting contemporary Christian songs by artists like Michael W. Smith, as well as a few classic hymns like "How Great Thou Art" and "Amazing Grace." Some soft rock songs appeal to me, too, including several by Simon & Garfunkel and by the Beatles from the 1960s to 1970. As a kid I also liked the positive, upbeat Fifth Dimension song "Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In." Perhaps one reason I loved that song is the fact that I am an Aquarian; but, I also liked its uplifting message.
I generally dislike the country songs that tell a sad story, and the Christmas song "Blue Christmas." I think listening to sad songs like those contributes toward making one sad. I think there is a correlation between persons who enjoy listening to that type of music and persons who suffer from depression. I admit that this is based on my observations of some persons rather than a scientific study. However, in a later section of this article I briefly refer to a study that indicated a correlation between depression and listening to music.
What I call "message" songs also impact people, in my opinion. These songs promote some type of message, whether it be "peace," "love," "patriotism," or something else.
I like some message songs like "One Tin Soldier" by Coven and "Indian Reservation" by Paul Revere and the Raiders. I think some songs can inspire one to take positive actions, and some can make one angry. And playing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." is a tradition at some Fourth of July festivals; it seems to help instill pride in the United States. I enjoy hearing it.
Patriotism and "The Star-Spangled Banner"
And the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before sporting events in the United States is one way to help instill national unity and patriotism, as well as respect for the United States flag that is displayed at such occasions. But it is important not to confuse patriotism with nationalism. True patriotism requires putting obedience to the highest righteous authority (which I call God) above nationalism. As United States Senator Carl Schurz defined patriotism long before I was born: "My country right or wrong. When right to keep right; when wrong, to put right." I respect those who choose not to stand for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Music and Depression
Many talk about the therapeutic effect of music, but I think often those who are most heavily involved in listening to music seem to be more depressed than the average person. A journal article published in 2011 based on data from an earlier study of teens indicated a correlation (not necessarily causation) between depression and listening to music more than the average person, as reported by various news pieces, including a Time.com article.
Those of us who are actively doing constructive things are perhaps happier than those passively retreating into listening to music or even playing music. Even positive, upbeat music I think needs to be kept in the proper perspective, being a sideline rather than a centerpiece of one's life.
Music in Perspective
Often the real world sounds of birds singing, cats purring, dogs barking happily, ocean waves, or water running over a waterfall can be more peaceful and relaxing than the artificial man-made musical sounds, as I see it. Man-made music needs to be kept in proper perspective.
I think persons walking around with headphones on listening to music instead of conversing with passersby or listening to natural sounds miss out on a lot, as well as possibly endangering lives if they don't hear cars and other things around them due to the headphones.
Yes, music can have a variety of effects on people. Let's enjoy its benefits, but let's also keep it in perspective.
NOTE:
This article was last revised February 16, 2023.
Music Is an International Language in a Sense
"Music is the universal language of mankind" stated Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in 1835. I prefer to state that music is a form of international language, international in the sense that musical tunes can be conveyed to and recognized by persons of various languages. But music is not a universal language, because persons differ in the extent to which they understand and benefit from music, as well as in their tastes in it. Some even dislike most if not all music.
My Perspective
For me, music is a sideline, and not a centerpiece. I usually just listen to music in the background while I am doing something else, such as washing dishes. And even when doing things like washing dishes, I often do other things than listen to music, including listening to news or a sermon message on the radio, or just quietly meditating.
Me and Musical Instruments
I appreciate the talents of those who read music and/or play various instruments well. But I can not read music. Nor can I play an instrument. I do still have a cheap flute that I may have owned for decades, pictured below in two photos.
My Music Tastes
The time I love music most is during the Christmas season. I enjoy listening to Christmas music, both contemporary songs and traditional Christian hymns. It gets me even more in a positive frame of mind, instilling the Christmas Spirit I guess one could say. The fact that many stores play Christmas music during the season indicates that it is effective or perceived as being effective for the stores. [Disclosure: My current second job is working as a part-time store clerk.]
I also enjoy listening to positive uplifting contemporary Christian songs by artists like Michael W. Smith, as well as a few classic hymns like "How Great Thou Art" and "Amazing Grace." Some soft rock songs appeal to me, too, including several by Simon & Garfunkel and by the Beatles from the 1960s to 1970. As a kid I also liked the positive, upbeat Fifth Dimension song "Aquarius/Let the Sun Shine In." Perhaps one reason I loved that song is the fact that I am an Aquarian; but, I also liked its uplifting message.
I generally dislike the country songs that tell a sad story, and the Christmas song "Blue Christmas." I think listening to sad songs like those contributes toward making one sad. I think there is a correlation between persons who enjoy listening to that type of music and persons who suffer from depression. I admit that this is based on my observations of some persons rather than a scientific study. However, in a later section of this article I briefly refer to a study that indicated a correlation between depression and listening to music.
What I call "message" songs also impact people, in my opinion. These songs promote some type of message, whether it be "peace," "love," "patriotism," or something else.
I like some message songs like "One Tin Soldier" by Coven and "Indian Reservation" by Paul Revere and the Raiders. I think some songs can inspire one to take positive actions, and some can make one angry. And playing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." is a tradition at some Fourth of July festivals; it seems to help instill pride in the United States. I enjoy hearing it.
Patriotism and "The Star-Spangled Banner"
And the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" before sporting events in the United States is one way to help instill national unity and patriotism, as well as respect for the United States flag that is displayed at such occasions. But it is important not to confuse patriotism with nationalism. True patriotism requires putting obedience to the highest righteous authority (which I call God) above nationalism. As United States Senator Carl Schurz defined patriotism long before I was born: "My country right or wrong. When right to keep right; when wrong, to put right." I respect those who choose not to stand for the playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Music and Depression
Many talk about the therapeutic effect of music, but I think often those who are most heavily involved in listening to music seem to be more depressed than the average person. A journal article published in 2011 based on data from an earlier study of teens indicated a correlation (not necessarily causation) between depression and listening to music more than the average person, as reported by various news pieces, including a Time.com article.
Those of us who are actively doing constructive things are perhaps happier than those passively retreating into listening to music or even playing music. Even positive, upbeat music I think needs to be kept in the proper perspective, being a sideline rather than a centerpiece of one's life.
Music in Perspective
Often the real world sounds of birds singing, cats purring, dogs barking happily, ocean waves, or water running over a waterfall can be more peaceful and relaxing than the artificial man-made musical sounds, as I see it. Man-made music needs to be kept in proper perspective.
I think persons walking around with headphones on listening to music instead of conversing with passersby or listening to natural sounds miss out on a lot, as well as possibly endangering lives if they don't hear cars and other things around them due to the headphones.
Yes, music can have a variety of effects on people. Let's enjoy its benefits, but let's also keep it in perspective.
NOTE:
This article was last revised February 16, 2023.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
2016 Presidential Race: Good? and Bad? News for Voters Disliking Clinton and Trump
For U.S. voters who don't want to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I have both good and bad news.
The Bad? News
The bad news first: I am not going to run for President myself in 2016. (Yes, I know some may consider that good news and may consider it bad news that I am considering the possibility of running in 2020.) But I honestly think I might be better qualified than Clinton or Trump in several ways, and I hope to improve my qualifications in the next few years.
The Good? News
Personally, I consider it good news that there are numerous alternative candidates running for President of the United States in 2016. Some are running as the official candidates of "minor" parties. Others are running as independent candidates.
You may believe that an independent candidate or a candidate of a minor party has virtually no chance of winning. And that may be true. But--please read on.
The majority of persons eligible to register to vote and to cast votes in the election, will probably not vote at all. I urge these persons to consider voting for another candidate that is on their state's ballot or to consider casting a write-in vote for a candidate not on the ballot. A wide variety of candidates with a big variety of different views are available to choose from. Instead of not voting at all, try to vote for a candidate you feel is better qualified than the two major party candidates.
If all (or a huge percentage) of the voters who would otherwise not vote decide to vote and vote for the same other candidate instead of Clinton or Trump, that candidate could win. Indeed, if all these persons voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in a landslide.
According to a list on Politics1.com a few hundred different candidates are already running for President this year. More may still decide to run as election day gets closer. According to a Federal Election Commission webpage, as of August 17, 2016 (today), 1,845 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission to run for President. This is a much longer list than the one on Politics1. These two lists indicate there are a lot of alternatives to choose from.
Maybe it would be nice to take time to read a bit more about some, many, or all of the candidates. Who knows? Some little known independent candidate among the few hundred of them running would be your personal favorite. Or maybe you would prefer the nominee of the Prohibition Party, Green Party, Constitution Party of the U.S., Libertarian Party, Reform Party USA, Socialist Party USA, or one of the other parties offering candidates to choose from.
Perhaps most important, I pray for the best candidate to win, whomever it may be. And I hope and pray that we voters (and even those who don't vote) will seek to hold the winning candidate accountable (in the right way) for any wrongdoing they do after elected.
The Bad? News
The bad news first: I am not going to run for President myself in 2016. (Yes, I know some may consider that good news and may consider it bad news that I am considering the possibility of running in 2020.) But I honestly think I might be better qualified than Clinton or Trump in several ways, and I hope to improve my qualifications in the next few years.
The Good? News
Personally, I consider it good news that there are numerous alternative candidates running for President of the United States in 2016. Some are running as the official candidates of "minor" parties. Others are running as independent candidates.
You may believe that an independent candidate or a candidate of a minor party has virtually no chance of winning. And that may be true. But--please read on.
The majority of persons eligible to register to vote and to cast votes in the election, will probably not vote at all. I urge these persons to consider voting for another candidate that is on their state's ballot or to consider casting a write-in vote for a candidate not on the ballot. A wide variety of candidates with a big variety of different views are available to choose from. Instead of not voting at all, try to vote for a candidate you feel is better qualified than the two major party candidates.
If all (or a huge percentage) of the voters who would otherwise not vote decide to vote and vote for the same other candidate instead of Clinton or Trump, that candidate could win. Indeed, if all these persons voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in a landslide.
According to a list on Politics1.com a few hundred different candidates are already running for President this year. More may still decide to run as election day gets closer. According to a Federal Election Commission webpage, as of August 17, 2016 (today), 1,845 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission to run for President. This is a much longer list than the one on Politics1. These two lists indicate there are a lot of alternatives to choose from.
Maybe it would be nice to take time to read a bit more about some, many, or all of the candidates. Who knows? Some little known independent candidate among the few hundred of them running would be your personal favorite. Or maybe you would prefer the nominee of the Prohibition Party, Green Party, Constitution Party of the U.S., Libertarian Party, Reform Party USA, Socialist Party USA, or one of the other parties offering candidates to choose from.
Perhaps most important, I pray for the best candidate to win, whomever it may be. And I hope and pray that we voters (and even those who don't vote) will seek to hold the winning candidate accountable (in the right way) for any wrongdoing they do after elected.
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Laws Vs. Common Sense
Lots of things are so obviously wrong that it should not be necessary to pass a law against them. Furthermore, laws are not a substitute for common sense.
And some of the existing laws on the books likely contradict one another, so it would be impossible to obey them all. In fact, if a resident of the United States seeks to read all the federal, state, county, and city laws of the place where he or she resides, even if one reads for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for one's entire lifetime, one wouldn't finish in a normal lifespan.
Therefore, none of us have even read all the laws. If we haven't read all the laws and don't know them, how can we obey them? The key to maintaining a civilized society is not in passing laws and obeying them, it is in learning common sense and applying it.
Two Examples
As one example, no law exists against eating 100 chocolate chip cookies at one time, but few people would try to do it, due to the known harmful effects from the calories, saturated fat, sugar, etc. It's common sense. And, I confess that although I've never eaten 100 chocolate chip cookies at once, I have eaten far too many at one time before. I learned from my mistake (at least I hope so).
Quite frankly, it would probably be better if no one ever ate a chocolate chip cookie. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and grains, beans, nuts, legumes, etc., instead. Of course I can rationalize that chocolate chip cookies do contain flour, a grain.
Furthermore, eating a few of those cookies is a minor mistake (sin if you prefer). I may be better off if I never eat another chocolate chip cookie. But if I do (and I almost certainly will), I hope no one ever seeks to put me in jail or fine me for eating one (or several).
As a second example, no law exists in the United States now to prohibit abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy. But, I think even the most strongly pro-choice woman in the country would prefer to avoid the pain, expense, and health risks of an abortion if reasonably possible. It's common sense.
Personally, I am basically pro-life, but even pro-choice persons prefer preventing an unwanted pregnancy (by practicing sexual abstinence and/or using birth control) to having an abortion. Let's seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies, rather than just preventing the abortions that are a symptom of underlying problems such as unwanted pregnancies and/or selfish sexual lust. I don't want to put persons in jail or fine them for an unintended pregnancy or for having an abortion. But common sense says to avoid undesired pregnancies and abortions whenever reasonably possible.
Laws and Common Sense
Below is a photo taken in June 2017 of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. I hope its nine justices use common sense in determining how to decide the cases that come before them. Perhaps more important is how we individuals use common sense in our daily lives in numerous actions that never get to the Supreme Court.
Laws help us do correctly. Fortunately, we have laws against speeding, driving drunk, stealing, committing murder, bearing false testimony, etc. I'm glad. But enforcing all those laws isn't easy. It is far better if persons learn from common sense that society functions better when we avoid disobeying these laws, and we voluntarily obey such laws. Also, we can all work together to teach (or remind) others who do wrong (in a loving way) the right course of action to take, rather than depending on a few law enforcement officials to do so.
None of us perfectly develop our common sense, and thus we never have perfect obedience to what I call "God's law," doing the correct thing. But the closer we come to doing so, the better off we and society will be. We may have a lot of freedom, but we need to use our common sense to exercise our freedom wisely.
NOTE: This article was last modified on July 28th, 2021.
And some of the existing laws on the books likely contradict one another, so it would be impossible to obey them all. In fact, if a resident of the United States seeks to read all the federal, state, county, and city laws of the place where he or she resides, even if one reads for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for one's entire lifetime, one wouldn't finish in a normal lifespan.
Therefore, none of us have even read all the laws. If we haven't read all the laws and don't know them, how can we obey them? The key to maintaining a civilized society is not in passing laws and obeying them, it is in learning common sense and applying it.
Two Examples
As one example, no law exists against eating 100 chocolate chip cookies at one time, but few people would try to do it, due to the known harmful effects from the calories, saturated fat, sugar, etc. It's common sense. And, I confess that although I've never eaten 100 chocolate chip cookies at once, I have eaten far too many at one time before. I learned from my mistake (at least I hope so).
Quite frankly, it would probably be better if no one ever ate a chocolate chip cookie. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and grains, beans, nuts, legumes, etc., instead. Of course I can rationalize that chocolate chip cookies do contain flour, a grain.
Furthermore, eating a few of those cookies is a minor mistake (sin if you prefer). I may be better off if I never eat another chocolate chip cookie. But if I do (and I almost certainly will), I hope no one ever seeks to put me in jail or fine me for eating one (or several).
As a second example, no law exists in the United States now to prohibit abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy. But, I think even the most strongly pro-choice woman in the country would prefer to avoid the pain, expense, and health risks of an abortion if reasonably possible. It's common sense.
Personally, I am basically pro-life, but even pro-choice persons prefer preventing an unwanted pregnancy (by practicing sexual abstinence and/or using birth control) to having an abortion. Let's seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies, rather than just preventing the abortions that are a symptom of underlying problems such as unwanted pregnancies and/or selfish sexual lust. I don't want to put persons in jail or fine them for an unintended pregnancy or for having an abortion. But common sense says to avoid undesired pregnancies and abortions whenever reasonably possible.
Laws and Common Sense
Below is a photo taken in June 2017 of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. I hope its nine justices use common sense in determining how to decide the cases that come before them. Perhaps more important is how we individuals use common sense in our daily lives in numerous actions that never get to the Supreme Court.
Laws help us do correctly. Fortunately, we have laws against speeding, driving drunk, stealing, committing murder, bearing false testimony, etc. I'm glad. But enforcing all those laws isn't easy. It is far better if persons learn from common sense that society functions better when we avoid disobeying these laws, and we voluntarily obey such laws. Also, we can all work together to teach (or remind) others who do wrong (in a loving way) the right course of action to take, rather than depending on a few law enforcement officials to do so.
None of us perfectly develop our common sense, and thus we never have perfect obedience to what I call "God's law," doing the correct thing. But the closer we come to doing so, the better off we and society will be. We may have a lot of freedom, but we need to use our common sense to exercise our freedom wisely.
NOTE: This article was last modified on July 28th, 2021.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
New York World Trade Center: A Personal Perspective
I abhor the horrible loss of innocent lives on
September 11, 2001 when the New York World Trade Center was destroyed in a
terrorist attack. But, at least in a small way, I partially understand why some
persons hated the huge structure, even if I can't understand why they destroyed it. Please read on.
The New York World Trade Center was the largest
office building in the world at the time it was destroyed. I visited New York
City a few years before the World Trade Center's demise. Though I never went up
to the top, I did walk through part of what I guess was the first floor of at
least one of the twin towers.
The building itself seemed to possibly be constructed and
used for the wrong reasons in the wrong way. Though I enjoyed my visit to New York
City very much, the least favorite part of the visit was possibly the time I
spent in that World Trade Center.
On the day that I was in the building, at the time I
was there, a huge crowd of people (including me) was trying to go through the
building on to our destinations beyond it after getting off the subway, while
another crowd of people was waiting at the elevators to go up in the building.
A bottleneck in the World Trade Center had us waiting for what seemed like
several minutes in a crowd of people that barely moved for minutes.
The way the building was designed, there was only a
relatively small area for persons to wait for the elevators, or for persons to
walk through the first floor to other places. I think the architects,
engineers, or whoever designed it would have done better to have put in a larger
open plaza so that persons didn't crowd up waiting for the elevators or trying
to walk through the first floor to other destinations.
Listening to and Talking With
People in a Crowd at the World Trade Center
One person who was waiting in the crowd with me that
day said that another person had told her that some individuals had considered renovating
the building to make pedestrian traffic flow more efficiently, but that apparently
the way the building was designed, the support beams, etc. didn't allow alterations
that would make a large open area on the first floor to make it easier for
travelers to walk quickly through to other destinations and/or to have a large
area to wait for an elevator.
One person waiting in the crowd said that even if
the building wasn't destroyed by terrorism, someday it would be torn down due
to its poor design. The huge traffic jams on the first floor and the design
that apparently made modifying it extremely difficult and expensive seemed to rule out
other alternatives. Indeed, extensive renovations often are more expensive than
tearing a building down and building a new one.
By the way, some of those waiting seemed very nervous.
One person stated that she hated walking through it, not just because it took
so long due to the crowds of people crammed together, but also because there
were rumors that it was going to be attacked again. (The building had already
been bombed once, on February 26, 1993). I don't know where the rumors came from, and she
apparently didn't either. But obviously hatred continued.
As we waited for the crowd to move, those of us waiting
had plenty of time to talk. I did more listening than talking. But, I asked one
woman who said she had heard that some people were going to try to destroy it again, why persons wanted
to destroy it. She said look around. I did. And I saw businesses that reminded
me of the story in the New Testament about the money changers and salespersons that
Jesus drove out of the temple. If I
remember correctly, I saw businesses selling lottery tickets, alcoholic
beverages, tobacco, junk food, etc. There may have been businesses selling more
useful, quality products, but my eyes were focused on the ones selling harmful
products, and those products did seem to dominate.
Concluding Thoughts
Obviously, since the New York World Trade Center was
the largest office building in the world, it housed a lot of offices of various
types. At the time it was built, it was the tallest building in the world. And
its "twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry,"
according to a piece on Skyscraper.org. Persons of various nationalities, cultures, religions, etc.,
worked in the towers and visited them. The two 110-story towers were 1,368 and
1,362 feet high according to various websites. At least one child care center was
even in the building, according to news reports. But in the spot where I was on
the first floor, retail businesses selling harmful products seemed to dominate.
Though I hate the tragic loss of lives, in my humble
opinion, New York City is better off without its World Trade Center. In fact, New
York City may have been a better city long ago when the large lighthouse, Liberty
Enlightening the World (better known as the Statue of Liberty), was the tallest
structure in the city.
Probably the most enjoyable part of my visit to New York City was seeing that statue as I rode out toward Liberty Island and Ellis Island on a ferry boat. I could visualize in my mind immigrants from around the world sailing into the harbor, seeing that lighthouse lighting the way to a new life.
France may have donated that lighthouse to the
United States at the right time for the right reason. In contrast, I think the New
York World Trade Center may have been built the wrong way, by the wrong people,
for the wrong reason, at the wrong time. I may be wrong, but I think the city
is better off without it.
However, please don't misunderstand me. I am basically a pacifist. And I certainly don't condone or understand the madness that led extremists to crash jets into the towers as suicide bombers. But I do believe that when we do bad things, including building a huge building whose most visible elements include an overcrowded lobby with pedestrian traffic jams and money-hungry vendors selling harmful products, bad things happen.
I also believe that when we do good things, we make
good things happen. Let's seek to love even our enemies as Jesus taught. By
doing so, I think we can turn our enemies (if we have any) into our friends.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Taking Things Slower Has Benefits
Often it seems that life is fast-paced. Traveling quickly by jet aircraft and preparing food in a microwave oven are two examples of things getting done much quicker, at a faster pace, than was true long ago. But, I think taking things slower has benefits in at least some ways.
Travel
Recently I traveled from Lexington, Kentucky to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and back on a Greyhound bus. Most persons probably would have flown. But the prices and limited travel times (at least for budget airlines) led me to go via the bus.
I found the bus trip relaxing in some ways. I met many nice, interesting persons, enjoyed seeing the scenery, took time to read, did some editing work to revise a book I'd published shortly before the trip, etc. I doubt that I would have enjoyed a flight as much. I even slept a significant amount on the approximately 20 hours each way trip, though not as much as I'd planned.
I honesty think that, assuming I didn't get seasick, I might even enjoy devoting a few days to traveling on a ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Centuries ago, before steamships, when folks like Benjamin Franklin were on ships with sails, it might have taken a month or longer to sail across the ocean. I can visualize persons reading, meeting new friends, writing articles or books, and engaging in deep thoughts to gain new insights, as well as enjoying some nice relaxation, among many other activities.
Yes, I am confident there can be big advantages sometimes to taking travel a bit slower. I know I can see and enjoy my neighborhood, city, etc., more when I am walking or bicycling than when I am traveling in a car or on a bus.
Food Preparation
I love my microwave oven, which can prepare a lot of tasty food quickly. It likely even does some foods better than "conventional" cooking. I would not want to go back to the days when someone may have devoted a big part of a day to preparing food for a family, doing things like baking bread from scratch. But I am confident that old-fashioned cooking is better in many ways.
Forgive me for being nostalgic, but I have fond memories of enjoying a potato baked by my great grandmother in the coals of a fireplace. I remember the various homemade "delicacies" that my mom and grandmother prepared from scratch. And I myself still frequently soak pinto beans overnight; then, I devote a couple of hours to cooking them on the stove, while I busy myself doing reading, writing, browsing the Internet, sorting papers, etc., as they cook.
Multitasking
Many persons today seem to carry a cell phone with them almost everywhere and seem the majority of the time to be conversing with someone on it or playing games on it, etc. At the same time, they may be shopping, driving, baby-sitting children, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the huge amount of multitasking that takes place in modern society is a contributing factor toward many headaches, ulcers, and other illnesses.
Personally, I try to take things slower. I rarely carry my cellphone with me, and I seldom use it when I do. I try to do one thing at a time and to focus on it, rather than multitasking, with some exceptions such as cooking beans as I mentioned earlier, which aren't really a distraction as long as I set a timer for them (and set the timer near the door, so I can put them out of mind, relatively confident I won't go out and forget them).
Of course, I am single and not a parent. It may be impossible to be a parent and not multitask. Even I do a significant amount of multitasking. But I think that if most of us reduce the quantity of our multitasking, when reasonably feasible, our lives would improve.
Concluding Thoughts
Persons such as the Mennonites and Amish who have strong morals, good work ethics, and avoid using many modern inventions may have the right idea in some ways. A lot of people seem to go deeply into debt, then get stressed out working two or three jobs to pay for labor-saving devices or a second home or a boat.
And if we go slower, taking more time to talk to others and to listen to them, maybe we would do a better job of getting along with others. Personally, I am confident that we could resolve all (or at least most) conflicts much more fairly and peacefully if we took time to communicate openly and honestly and to sincerely listen to the points of view of others, to try to understand their side(s) of the issue(s), and to seek the right solution.
Maybe we all could sincerely be conscientious objectors. On the Philadelphia trip I mentioned earlier, a Mennonite ministering in Philadelphia on a Saturday handed me a CD (I was a bit surprised he had a CD.) with a sermon message titled "A True Conscientious Objector Today," apparently delivered by a person named Melvin Burkholder. I am basically a pacifist myself and enjoyed listening to it. Maybe we all could be conscientious objectors if through the grace of God we all sincerely followed the Holy Spirit's leading in treating all persons fairly.
I don't claim to always take things slower, but I do only rent a car a few times a year, taking time to walk, bicycle, and ride the bus much more frequently. And I live in a studio efficiency apartment that helps me limit how much stuff I acquire (though I found that one can fit several bookcases full of books even in a studio efficiency).
Furthermore, I am happy remaining single, which may be a simpler life than marriage. I do remain open to the possibility of.marriage if I meet the right person at the right time in the right way and develop a relationship slowly, but I think I may be called to be single and celibate.
I respect the right of persons to choose a fast-paced life, and at times I do, too. But in general, I think most of us, here in the United States anyway, can benefit by slowing down our pace of life, acquiring fewer possessions, and enjoying the simple pleasures of life more.
Travel
Recently I traveled from Lexington, Kentucky to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and back on a Greyhound bus. Most persons probably would have flown. But the prices and limited travel times (at least for budget airlines) led me to go via the bus.
I found the bus trip relaxing in some ways. I met many nice, interesting persons, enjoyed seeing the scenery, took time to read, did some editing work to revise a book I'd published shortly before the trip, etc. I doubt that I would have enjoyed a flight as much. I even slept a significant amount on the approximately 20 hours each way trip, though not as much as I'd planned.
I honesty think that, assuming I didn't get seasick, I might even enjoy devoting a few days to traveling on a ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Centuries ago, before steamships, when folks like Benjamin Franklin were on ships with sails, it might have taken a month or longer to sail across the ocean. I can visualize persons reading, meeting new friends, writing articles or books, and engaging in deep thoughts to gain new insights, as well as enjoying some nice relaxation, among many other activities.
Yes, I am confident there can be big advantages sometimes to taking travel a bit slower. I know I can see and enjoy my neighborhood, city, etc., more when I am walking or bicycling than when I am traveling in a car or on a bus.
Food Preparation
I love my microwave oven, which can prepare a lot of tasty food quickly. It likely even does some foods better than "conventional" cooking. I would not want to go back to the days when someone may have devoted a big part of a day to preparing food for a family, doing things like baking bread from scratch. But I am confident that old-fashioned cooking is better in many ways.
Forgive me for being nostalgic, but I have fond memories of enjoying a potato baked by my great grandmother in the coals of a fireplace. I remember the various homemade "delicacies" that my mom and grandmother prepared from scratch. And I myself still frequently soak pinto beans overnight; then, I devote a couple of hours to cooking them on the stove, while I busy myself doing reading, writing, browsing the Internet, sorting papers, etc., as they cook.
Multitasking
Many persons today seem to carry a cell phone with them almost everywhere and seem the majority of the time to be conversing with someone on it or playing games on it, etc. At the same time, they may be shopping, driving, baby-sitting children, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the huge amount of multitasking that takes place in modern society is a contributing factor toward many headaches, ulcers, and other illnesses.
Personally, I try to take things slower. I rarely carry my cellphone with me, and I seldom use it when I do. I try to do one thing at a time and to focus on it, rather than multitasking, with some exceptions such as cooking beans as I mentioned earlier, which aren't really a distraction as long as I set a timer for them (and set the timer near the door, so I can put them out of mind, relatively confident I won't go out and forget them).
Of course, I am single and not a parent. It may be impossible to be a parent and not multitask. Even I do a significant amount of multitasking. But I think that if most of us reduce the quantity of our multitasking, when reasonably feasible, our lives would improve.
Concluding Thoughts
Persons such as the Mennonites and Amish who have strong morals, good work ethics, and avoid using many modern inventions may have the right idea in some ways. A lot of people seem to go deeply into debt, then get stressed out working two or three jobs to pay for labor-saving devices or a second home or a boat.
And if we go slower, taking more time to talk to others and to listen to them, maybe we would do a better job of getting along with others. Personally, I am confident that we could resolve all (or at least most) conflicts much more fairly and peacefully if we took time to communicate openly and honestly and to sincerely listen to the points of view of others, to try to understand their side(s) of the issue(s), and to seek the right solution.
Maybe we all could sincerely be conscientious objectors. On the Philadelphia trip I mentioned earlier, a Mennonite ministering in Philadelphia on a Saturday handed me a CD (I was a bit surprised he had a CD.) with a sermon message titled "A True Conscientious Objector Today," apparently delivered by a person named Melvin Burkholder. I am basically a pacifist myself and enjoyed listening to it. Maybe we all could be conscientious objectors if through the grace of God we all sincerely followed the Holy Spirit's leading in treating all persons fairly.
I don't claim to always take things slower, but I do only rent a car a few times a year, taking time to walk, bicycle, and ride the bus much more frequently. And I live in a studio efficiency apartment that helps me limit how much stuff I acquire (though I found that one can fit several bookcases full of books even in a studio efficiency).
Furthermore, I am happy remaining single, which may be a simpler life than marriage. I do remain open to the possibility of.marriage if I meet the right person at the right time in the right way and develop a relationship slowly, but I think I may be called to be single and celibate.
I respect the right of persons to choose a fast-paced life, and at times I do, too. But in general, I think most of us, here in the United States anyway, can benefit by slowing down our pace of life, acquiring fewer possessions, and enjoying the simple pleasures of life more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)