Memorial Day is one day a year when we should put ourselves in this boy's shoes for a moment. Look at his face - really look, with an open heart and perceiving eyes. He doesn't need a red number on a calendar to remember his loss. He sums up the range of Memorial Day emotions perfectly; defiant and strong, yet mourning. This is what this day is about. Our nation was bought at great effort, and great price, by the blood of our fellow countrymen, and continues to require those who have given their lives in her defense.
So - happy Memorial Day*. May God bless America.
(* I know there are those who take issue with the phrase “Happy Memorial Day”. If we can call Good Friday good because of sacrifice made on our behalf, I think we can also let our gratitude for these sacrifices lead us to be happy. I certainly don't think that those we honor today would want us moping around; take time for reflection and gratitude, then enjoy the freedom they earned for you.)
Saturday, April 12, 2014
3:45 pm
Daniel J. Summers
A friend posted this picture earlier today, and combined with another headline I read, really got me thinking. A good portion of this started out as a comment under that picture, but then I thought “Why should Facebook get these thoughts for free?”
One of the arguments against large corporations is that they are unjust; and, as much as those of us who recognize them as the energy driving the gears of our economy, they have proved by their actions that they need checks and balances to prevent that very thing. The key, of course, is to strike the right balance where growth is not hindered, but abuse is prevented.
Now, consider the pharmaceutical industry. The desire to produce medicines to help people live fuller lives is a good thing, but this picture (and the society it accurately represents) proves that they are no more immune to self-serving actions as the oft-termed “evil” corporations that produce food, consumable goods, technology, etc.
How about higher education? I don't think anyone reading this ever heard, going through high school, “You know, when you finish here, you should go ahead and get a job, and be productive.” No, we all heard “Graduation is just the beginning; you need a 4-year degree before you're really ready! Because it's so important, we'll outright give you some money, and lend you the rest; don't worry, this will be easy to pay off once you're out there making six figures!” Yet, who is benefiting from our current under-30 sea of student loan debt? Colleges and banks, that's who. Meanwhile, students are finding no job market for their degrees. Were they sold a useless product?
The point is that, in each of these cases, the original thought was a good one. This product will make people's lives better. This pill will take away pain. This knowledge will give you a leg up in the world. Then, bit by bit, that germ of an idea grows, until you end up with something large and successful, which leads to an increasingly self-serving outlook. It's the old “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” thing in real life.
The key to this is character in those who gain this notoriety. However, we cannot control others. In our fallen state, the one thing we can control is our reaction. Do we really need that product? Have these degrees really lead to higher incomes? Do these drugs' claims make sense? “Buyer beware” is always good advice. If more people took it, maybe the market for the speculative advertising that has launched these areas into such heights would dry up, and they would have to start being more honest about what they can really provide.
One final note - government is no more immune to this than education, medicine, or corporations.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
5:34 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Earlier this evening, Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham had a debate over creation as a valid model for the origin of man. The recorded debate can be viewed online; the remainder of this assumes that you have seen it. I felt that, all in all, the debate went well. Nothing is perfect, though, and Monday-morning quarterbacking - well, that's probably what a good portion of the Internet is for, so here we go.
(Full disclosure - I have rather strong beliefs on this topic, which will probably come out in these thoughts. I'm doing my best to be impartial, but that's kind of how bias works; you don't know you're doing it.)
I was glad that the debate occurred at all. For a long time, mainstream science has marginalized or even ridiculed anyone who dares to disagree with Darwin. While, toward the end of the debate, I feel that both men missed opportunities to answer each other's questions or assertions, the debate itself was a great first step towards understanding. Personally, I learned something from both men. I hope the model is repeated, maybe on stage again, but in the day-to-day lives of all those who love learning about our world and universe.
The question of the debate (I guess it can't be called a resolution, as it wasn't a declarative statement) was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?” Were I scoring the debate the way we were scored back in high school, they'd both get a few dings for topicality, but they'd probably also get a pass on them, as most of their discussion was at least tangentially related. Also, the Ken Ham presentations of the gospel and Bill Nye's appeals to voters and taxpayers seemed to balance out.
Building off my first thought - Bill Nye almost kept the snark turned off. Somehow, “creation” became “Ken Ham's model” that was from “the Bible as it was translated into American English”; both these were repeated often, and are where the snark came through just a bit. Both of these are also distortions; the model being debated is the Biblical model, not the “Ken Ham Theory of the Origins of Species”, and I'm pretty sure that creationism (as opposed to evolution) was developed based on a Bible that had been translated to Shakespearean English. I completely get that Bill may not understand the whole “history as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy” thing; a good number of Christians don't understand that! Those two changes, though, struck me as unnecessary spin.
Ken Ham made a moderately convincing argument. Yes, the Bible is the source for the model whose viability was being debated, but for those who do not recognize it as absolute truth, I feel that a stronger scientific argument should have been made. He failed to address two key arguments made by Bill Nye, the main one being the predictive capabilities of creation science. There are arguments to be made here, the easiest of which is that creation as the origin of life does not contradict natural laws, so creation has no effect on the predictive nature of currently-observable science. Every time Bill asked for predictive science, Ken responded with confirmational science. It's kinda cool, if you've ever studied it, but it doesn't answer the question.
The age thing gets its own thought. One of Bill's main arguments is that what we observe today couldn't have come to be in 4,000 years, and Ken never really answered that either. This, too, has a pretty easy explanation (that requires no more faith than creation already requires); if God created Adam as an adult, does it not make sense that He would also create the earth with age? Created 6,000 years ago is not the same thing as 6,000 years old. And, several times Ken said that the dating process was flawed, but he never provided a specific example of one that he felt was better, and why that is. What reason do we have to believe that the atoms behaved differently then than they do now?
Presentation-wise, and particularly during the Q&A, I believe Bill had the edge. His responses were more directed at the actual questions. Ken gets dinged here for completely avoiding one question. He spent the first 1:30 of his two minutes dissecting the assumption behind the question, then stopped talking; what's the answer? This was also where they started talking past each other, when I felt that they could have addressed the others' assertions more directly.
Bill Nye's explanation of science was pretty awesome, IMO. I loved his description of the search for knowledge, trying to fill in the gaps, eager to find something that contradicts what we thought. I hope the climate “scientists” were watching. (Disclosure - even I can tell that the preceding sentence contains a little bias.)
I understand the format, so I understand why some of the detail I was looking for wasn't there. But, as I mentioned above, while Ken's line “You know, there's a Book…” was funny, mainstream science is not going to be convinced with “because God said so.”
(More disclosure - this is the part where I stop trying to be objective.)
A belief in Creation as the origin of the universe is not incompatible with science. Ken started to make this point, but didn't really see it through, and if Bill had made the point, it would have contradicted his dire characterizations of what would happen if we teach people about it. There is a lot in our world that scientists of all beliefs have in common; theologically, we call this common grace. “The sun shines on the just and on the unjust.” I've said before that I do not have enough faith to believe in evolution as an answer for the origin of the universe. There are things for which we simply cannot find physical proof in this world; what mainstream science often cites as proof is extrapolation, which assumes facts not always in evidence. (I'm not against extrapolation as a technique; I'm against the belief that gives a 100% answer.) My praise for Bill's description of science applies here as well. Yes, as Christians, we believe we know what's coming at the end; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the same curiosity about His creation that the rest of the world has.
To be sure, this is one of the big worldview issues, from which many other issues proceed. Take abortion as an example. If we are created by God as creatures in His image, and He makes laws for His people that state that anyone who causes a miscarriage through striking a woman should be killed (Exodus 21:22-24), we probably shouldn't kill babies in the womb. If we evolved by chance from a big bang, though, abortion is just “survival of the fittest” (particularly as Bill described it, in a way I'd never heard it described before) - the baby didn't fit.
As I said at the top, I'm glad the debate was held; I hope this is the first of many dialogues with people of faith around many issues. I'm convinced that neither “side” has an accurate idea of the arguments on the other “side,” and changing that is an important first step in turning back the polarization and coarsening we've been witnessing for decades.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
5:32 pm
Daniel J. Summers
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Lots of places turn pink for awareness, but I don't know exactly what this “awareness” is supposed to accomplish. We're now “aware” that grown men tackling other grown men while wearing pink uniforms is - uh - different, and that cars zooming around a racetrack with pink paint schemes bring back memories of Pepto-Bismol. In our sex-obsessed society, it almost seems as though it's Breast Awareness Month. “Save the Ta-Tas!” “Save Second Base!” (Although I do have to admit that the one with two bees dressed like ghosts, with the caption “Save the Boo Bees,” is quite creative.) Certainly many Halloween costumes accentuate the fact that their wearers still possess them; but, again, I don't think that's the awareness this month is really meant to bring about.
The issue at stake with breast cancer, as anyone who has ever had it, or had a loved one or friend who had it, is the same issue at stake in nearly every other thing that has “cancer” in the name. It's your life. According to the NIH's National Cancer Institute, there have been around 232,000 cases of breast cancer found in 2013, with 40,000 of those resulting in death; but that's just for females. Males are responsible for another 2,200 cases of cancer and 400 deaths. That puts the death rate at 17% of women and 18% for men; for women, this is the #1 or #2 cause of death from cancer, depending on your ethnic heritage. The breast cancer survivors I know would give their breasts up in a heartbeat (and I believe that all of the ones I know have) to be rid of the cancer, and live to see their children grow.
The death rates are decreasing, which is good. Awareness is leading to action. That's really the key - a change of behavior based on the knowledge acquired. Both men and women can benefit from regular self-examinations; if something feels different, get it checked out. It's not just a lump of flesh at stake.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
11:04 am
Daniel J. Summers
To my friends blaming the Democrats for the shutdown - you're right. To my friends blaming the Republicans for the shutdown - you're right. We should not still be operating on a 5-year series of continuing resolutions; all this does is prove that we earned our credit downgrade.
Both sides were elected, and virulent dissent is not incompatible with our system of government; both sides have their talking points down pretty well. It truly is a shame that arguing these back and forth is what passes for debate. It certainly doesn't inspire much confidence for the future.
In a way, though, this just reflects our society. Schools don't teach reasoning and logic, they are simple regurgitation centers. Instead of encouraging debate and outside-the-box thinking, the only questions allowed are those that question the institutions and traditions on which our country is founded. We allowed people to say “Freedom from religion is the same as freedom of religion” without saying back “Uh, no, it's not; prepositions have definite meanings and were selected based on those definitions.”
IMO, this was the beginning of the intellectual weakness that is now writ large on our society. The pseudo-intellectuals use derision and contempt as their go-to weapons when they do not want to deal with opposing viewpoints. In that way, the last week in Washington has been merely a mirror to show us how ugly we've become.
The only thing Idiocracy missed was how long it will take us to get there.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
3:56 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Patriot Day. 9/11. The day the world stopped turning. Whatever you call it, today is a day of remembrance. Remember those who died for the crime of being on-time to work that day. Remember those who loved those who died; every year is a new time to be reminded of their loss.
In the remembering, though, we would be remiss if we did not remember the complacency which left us vulnerable, and the lack of response to previous attacks that left the attackers emboldened. I fear that, 12 years removed from that day, we are once again sliding into that complacency; we're war-weary, as evidenced by the general public's opposition to any action in Syria. I'm right there with them; I have no desire to continue or start any conflict, I simply want to live in peace.
However, peace requires vigilance against those who would use our peace and freedom against us. It also requires vigilance against those who would restrict our freedom in the name of peace. And, so, we will never see true peace while evil remains with us. Earlier this year, Boston showed us that just because we've “won” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem of terrorism persists. We are stuck with evil for the rest of our nation's existence; my hope is that, doing my part for my generation, we can push that succumbing to evil out to many, many years in the future.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
6:17 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's “I Have a Dream” speech he delivered as part of the March on Washington. Plans have been made to observe it, but I don't see how Dr. King's dream will be furthered by someone else's narcissistic speech. I also find it highly unlikely that the people who are actually working to further Dr. King's dream will even be represented tomorrow. Why have we allowed “content of their character” to be replaced by bean-counters and diversity czars?
I heard someone on the radio this afternoon saying that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were consummate capitalists, becoming wealthy off racial agitation because that's what the free market will support. The more I think, the less I think I can come up with a convincing argument against that view. As such, they should be subject to at least as much derision as those evil CEOs that the left routinely decries. I would suggest they be held in even more derision, as the CEOs generally produce products and jobs that improve people's lives, not foment racial anger that turns one tragedy into many more.
The wrongs of the past have, for the most part, been righted, at least as much as can be expected from people who have owned no slaves, nor ever consumed water from fountains adorned with “whites only” and “coloreds only” signs. The only people even thinking about race, it seems, are those who continually obsess over it, hurling charges of racism so far and wide that the charge is now more often the punchline of a joke than a substantiated claim. These same people abide racism among their own supporters, many of whom have cross the line of equal rights a long time ago.
For those of you, like me, who believed what you were taught growing up; who believe that when the Declaration of Independence said “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;” who believe that the biggest “affirmative” action we can take is leveling the playing field, not tilting it in the other direction; who believe that Jesus died for all mankind, thus demonstrating God's view of importance - for you, congratulations. You are exactly those of whom Dr. King was dreaming.
For everyone else - just stop. We are the United States of America, but you have been doing your best to make us the Divided States of America. How about expending that energy helping people focus on the opportunity they do have, rather than stirring up anger and rage against perceived* injustices? God has blessed America, and your efforts are keeping people from recognizing and enjoying that blessing for themselves, just so you can look good to the outside world because “you care” and “you're doing something.” Shame on you.
* I'm being generous; here lately, a better word would be “fabricated”.
Today marked the end of my wife Michelle's four-year leadership of the base homeschool group. Our family's journey with homeschooling is nearing the end of its seventh year, but when we arrived here, we had about a month's experience. The base homeschool group provided playmates for our children, and support for Michelle, as the majority of the homeschooling duties fell to her.
Three years in, the group had shrunk to just a few families, and Michelle stepped up to assume the presidency of the group. Her first year, the group grew by a few families. However, in her second year, there was a huge influx homeschooling families, and the majority of those were families who were new to homeschooling. During that year, she spent lots of time talking with individual people about homeschooling, while managing the calendar for field trips, parties, and other social occasions. Not all the families were new, though, and as she transitioned to her third year, she restructured the group and set up “coordinators” who were responsible for various aspects of the group's activities. This divided the work, and allowed people to be even more effective; some of the field trips involved nearly 50 kids! Her title changed from “President” to “Group Coordinator,” and freeing her from the party and field trip planning allowed her to focus on helping new families get oriented, as well as sharing information on curriculum and relevant legal information with the group. This coordinator style of leadership proved its value as the third year transitioned to the fourth, the group continued to grow, and nothing fell through the cracks.
Oh, by the way - while doing all this, she is also currently homeschooling a 10th grader, an 8th grader, and a 3rd grader.
Michelle, you have done an absolutely amazing job. You've not only educated our children well, you have worked countless hours to help other families exercise their right to educate their children the way they see fit. If there is anyone more deserving of an end-of-tour medal than you, I don't think I've ever seen them. I'm proud of the leadership you provided for the past four years, and I'm very proud to be your husband.
Sounds harsh, but what else am I to make of this picture?
First off, the dumb part. Why would a computer hacker, hacking computers across a network, need to obscure his face? (In CNN's defense, they're not the only ones to use dumb pictures to caption hacking.) Companies like CNN have smart technology people writing for them, as well as freelancers and others. Why does this type of image persist? Look at Kevin Mitnick, Dan Kaminsky, Meredith L. Patterson, or Shawn Fanning (creator of Napster, but branded by non-tech people as a hacker, or worse). Do any of those look like “hackers” to you? This metaphor makes people more likely to not believe it when they actually see a hacker.
And second - a hoodie? Are you serious, CNN? Weren't you lecturing us a scant two weeks ago on how people in hoodies were perfectly fine? They were as pure as the wind-driven snow, representing everything that is right with the country, and people who thought otherwise were terrible racists? How do we know this guy isn't just updating Facebook on a public computer before he makes his way home from the convenience store? But, no - you definitely have him portrayed as the bad guy in this image. You are convicted by your own words; shame on you, CNN. I'll be waiting for your apology (but I won't be holding my breath).
One of the arguments against large corporations is that they are unjust; and, as much as those of us who recognize them as the energy driving the gears of our economy, they have proved by their actions that they need checks and balances to prevent that very thing. The key, of course, is to strike the right balance where growth is not hindered, but abuse is prevented.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Lots of places turn pink for awareness, but I don't know exactly what this “awareness” is supposed to accomplish. We're now “aware” that grown men tackling other grown men while wearing pink uniforms is - uh - different, and that cars zooming around a racetrack with pink paint schemes bring back memories of Pepto-Bismol. In our sex-obsessed society, it almost seems as though it's Breast Awareness Month. “Save the Ta-Tas!” “Save Second Base!” (Although I do have to admit that the one with two bees dressed like ghosts, with the caption “Save the Boo Bees,” is quite creative.) Certainly many Halloween costumes accentuate the fact that their wearers still possess them; but, again, I don't think that's the awareness this month is really meant to bring about.
Three years in, the group had shrunk to just a few families, and Michelle stepped up to assume the presidency of the group. Her first year, the group grew by a few families. However, in her second year, there was a huge influx homeschooling families, and the majority of those were families who were new to homeschooling. During that year, she spent lots of time talking with individual people about homeschooling, while managing the calendar for field trips, parties, and other social occasions. Not all the families were new, though, and as she transitioned to her third year, she restructured the group and set up “coordinators” who were responsible for various aspects of the group's activities. This divided the work, and allowed people to be even more effective; some of the field trips involved nearly 50 kids! Her title changed from “President” to “Group Coordinator,” and freeing her from the party and field trip planning allowed her to focus on helping new families get oriented, as well as sharing information on curriculum and relevant legal information with the group. This coordinator style of leadership proved its value as the third year transitioned to the fourth, the group continued to grow, and nothing fell through the cracks.
First off, the dumb part. Why would a computer hacker, hacking computers across a network, need to obscure his face? (In CNN's defense, they're not