The other day I was driving and saw a car covered (I would say littered) with bumper stickers promoting sports teams. There were probably 3 or 4 dedicated to the Red Sox, and just as many for the Patriots. This made me think that I really don’t understand the manic fanaticism that some put into their beloved sports. Do you know the derivation of the word “fan”? It comes from fanatic! I’m not kidding.
As a child, I played on baseball teams, and I enjoyed it. But I was never passionate about it. It’s the same with watching sports on TV - sure, I’ll watch it if there’s nothing else on, or if I’m with people who want to watch it - but, ultimately, it’s a game. I really don’t get much out of it.
On the other hand, I really enjoy watching individual sports, like swimming, diving, gymnastics, skating, etc. Yes, I take some ribbing that I’m a guy and I like skating better than football. Despite any insults to the contrary, it has nothing to do with a lack of masculinity, and everything to do with a respect for individualism and individual achievement. (I also enjoy boxing and watching martial arts matches)
So, I find it unfathomable how someone can expend so much energy on whether a team wins or loses. Speaking for myself, I really couldn’t care less. Like I said, it’s just a game.
And yet, people DO get all wrapped up in it. It finally occurred to me that there’s something about it that, for whatever reason, these people identify very strongly with. It’s the ever-popular us-versus-them mentality. When I think about it, it’s so simple that I can’t believe I never got it before. But, even knowing it, cerebrally, I STILL don’t get it! What’s the attraction? In my opinion, it is precisely this mentality that has caused ALL the problems in our world.
Us-versus-them. It’s kind of the definition of what it means to be tribal. One tribe want to grow and expand, but that necessitates the putting down of another tribe. And what is a tribe, anyway? It’s nothing but an artificially extended family. (Racism is, at its core, tribalism at its worst.) But then tribes grow into nations - and still that desire to grow at the expense of other nations is there.
It goes deeper than just sports, though. Sports is just the most obvious manifestation of the phenomenon. When I looked around more, I found bumper stickers for political parties, for religious points of view, for colleges, for fraternal organizations, etc. For some reason, a lot of people have an over-riding need to be identified with a particular group.
I’m a Christian, and I want to be identified as such, but only in the broadest possible sense. You will probably never see an ichthus fish on my car. You will probably never see a bumper sticker on the issue of abortion. Even though I generally vote for one party, you will probably never see a political sticker on my car (Actually, I had one ONCE, but I won’t again). Why? Because once people see anything that identifies you as being in any kind of group, you have effectively destroyed any chance of open communication.
Once someone sees the fish, for example, they ASSUME they know where you stand on every issue. If they see a political identifier, they ASSUME they know where you stand on every issue. Et cetera. So, the only communication that can ensue is either preaching to the choir, because they (presumably) agree with you on everything, or, in the event that your audience holds a contrary view, you instantly have a mountain of assumptions (some of which might be wrong) to overcome and their minds have already been closed to anything you have to say. Being identified with a group, any group, has an instantly polarizing effect on others.
On the other hand, I would say that I am very clannish. The funny thing is, I used to equate clans and tribes, but they actually are quite different. For one thing, a tribe usually has a leader or a small group of leaders. For another thing, a tribe may consist of several families, or perhaps even villages. Conversely, a clan is TRULY a family - yes, an extended family (cousins, etc.), but a naturally extended family, not an imposed one.
I have a deep love of my family. Not just my immediate family, but also the past generations of my family. In a sense, I am the family record keeper. I have all the information of my family tree going back to 1620, when we first came here from England. There is, in the record, circumstantial evidence that goes back to 1066. Unfortunately, this is unproven and, being this far removed, both in time and geographically, it will be quite a challenge getting confirmation that better equipped people than I have been unable to get. Be that as it may, I have a strong desire to learn as much about my family as I’m able to learn.
I understand there’s a danger, from a Christian perspective, with being too overly concerned with genealogy, but I love history, and what better than one’s own personal family’s history? I honestly believe that it’s impossible to divorce ourselves from the past, and we attempt to do so at our potential peril. It is the past that has created the present. To deny the past, or to have no knowledge of it, is to have no understanding of the present. Who I am, and what I am, is in large part due to what my ancestors did and who they were. I know some will disagree, and that’s okay, but it’s what I believe.
So, I don’t understand the tribal mentality, but I do understand the clan mentality. The main difference, to my mind, is that the tribe want to grow even to the detriment of other tribes, while the clan/family want to grow, but only in the natural order. As we have children, we grow, but we don’t go out to conquer in order to grow. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Clans generally just want to be left to their own. That’s how I feel - leave me and my family alone to flourish as we see fit, and we’ll extend the same courtesy to you and your family.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
(Appropriately) Passionate Motivation
I’m involved in a business that I intend to transition into, gradually getting out of my current occupation. So far, I haven’t done very much to propel myself toward what I say I want and, being a reflective person, I examine myself fairly constantly to try and figure out why that is.
I suppose any time one endeavors to make a significant and substantive change in ones life, one needs to overcome the inertia imposed by the comfort of complacency. Be that as it may, I find it troubling how long I’ve remained effectively motionless.
It could be caused by one or more of any number of things. Faith in the business I’m transitioning into, for example. I’m certain this isn’t the main problem. There is one particular aspect of the business that has me curious about it’s effectiveness in the current economy, and the direction I fear it’s going, but it’s not a serious concern that would prevent me from moving forward.
It could be fear preventing me from moving forward. I don’t deny periods of fear - mostly due to the unknown, of course - but I really don’t think that’s had a paralyzing effect. It’s reared it’s ugly head from time to time, but I can get past fear. I’m not afraid of fear.
Laziness is another suspect in this mystery. I absolutely have times when I’m lazy. More times than I wish to admit. But laziness just means you don’t feel like doing something, and, for whatever reason, you allow your feelings to dictate your actions. It’s simply a matter of discipline. Just steel your resolve and the laziness goes away. that’s not what I’m experiencing.
The next two possibilities are somewhat related, but also somewhat distinct. Motivation and passion. My motivation is the thing I’ve mentally attacked the most in this search. But motivation has two components. We all think of the internal component - do we feel motivated, and thus, act on that? But there’s a definite external aspect to motivation. There are external reasons that should “motivate” us to action. Just because we don’t move, doesn’t mean the external motivation is not there. We only act when we’ve internalized the external!
Viewed in that light, I have plenty of motivation. There’s a lot about my life (and that of my family) that I would love to improve.
That leaves passion. I’ve often commented about myself that I have myriad interests, but no passions. I’ve said that there’s really nothing that I feel passionately that I must do. I’m actually not sure that’s true, the more I think about it.
I feel passionately that I need to help people, in general, and families, in particular - and this business I mentioned does just that.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to learn what it is that God wants from my life, and then to do it - and that may also be this business.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to provide for my own family - again, this business has the potential of meeting that goal, as well.
I feel passionately that I need to be involved in my son’s life as much as possible. This business, done correctly, could free up much time to that end.
So, what’s the problem? Why am I standing still despite having both motivation and passion?
As an exercise, I was given the task of creating a “Dream Board” or “Dream Book” - basically a collage of things that are important to me for both a direction in life, and what I’d like to attain in life. If wealth were to be my lot, what would I want to do with it?
Some people are very motivated by money, and in my opinion, this exercise is largely based on that reality. If you know what you want, materially, out of life, the idea is that having a reminder ever-present to which you can refer, will keep your efforts on track and help you attain your goals.
Well, this project was quite difficult for me. Firstly, because, as I said earlier, I have very diverse interests, which results in “wanting” much. I began by gathering images of most of my interests, and proceeded by carving away the more trivial items to get to a core group of things that I’d really like to have or achieve.
Another reason this was difficult for me is because my nature is truly a dichotomy - and it always has been. It’s always been very difficult for me to reconcile my disparate desires, and this was certainly no exception.
What I mean by that is that I absolutely have material desires, but I also have a very strong desire to discover and obey God’s plan for me. I don’t necessarily think that the two are at odds with each other. I think God wants us to prosper. When we prosper, we are better positioned to give back and help those that need help. I have no problem with Christians being wealthy. I don’t even have a particular problem with wealthy people living like they’re wealthy. There’s a certain propriety to that. But I don’t know if that’s meant to be the destiny God has in mind for me.
If I were wealthy, there are a lot of charities and causes that I can readily think of that I would contribute to and advance the causes of. I would do what I thought God wanted me to do with the resources He gives to me to manage. I would also enjoy the wealth and have no problem doing so.
The problem I have is with the wanting first and attaining second. I have a problem putting material things on my wish list. I just feel that it promotes getting to your goal for the wrong reason. I know others don’t have an issue with this, and that’s fine, but I do, and I’m finding it difficult to get past.
How I’ve proceeded thus far is that I’ve created my “Dream Book” beginning with how I will improve myself and my family relations, then how I would help others. The end of the book is where I’ve put my material desires. At least, in this way, I can mentally say, “And if I ever get rich, this is what I would buy for myself, after these other areas are addressed”. But I still struggle with it.
I suppose any time one endeavors to make a significant and substantive change in ones life, one needs to overcome the inertia imposed by the comfort of complacency. Be that as it may, I find it troubling how long I’ve remained effectively motionless.
It could be caused by one or more of any number of things. Faith in the business I’m transitioning into, for example. I’m certain this isn’t the main problem. There is one particular aspect of the business that has me curious about it’s effectiveness in the current economy, and the direction I fear it’s going, but it’s not a serious concern that would prevent me from moving forward.
It could be fear preventing me from moving forward. I don’t deny periods of fear - mostly due to the unknown, of course - but I really don’t think that’s had a paralyzing effect. It’s reared it’s ugly head from time to time, but I can get past fear. I’m not afraid of fear.
Laziness is another suspect in this mystery. I absolutely have times when I’m lazy. More times than I wish to admit. But laziness just means you don’t feel like doing something, and, for whatever reason, you allow your feelings to dictate your actions. It’s simply a matter of discipline. Just steel your resolve and the laziness goes away. that’s not what I’m experiencing.
The next two possibilities are somewhat related, but also somewhat distinct. Motivation and passion. My motivation is the thing I’ve mentally attacked the most in this search. But motivation has two components. We all think of the internal component - do we feel motivated, and thus, act on that? But there’s a definite external aspect to motivation. There are external reasons that should “motivate” us to action. Just because we don’t move, doesn’t mean the external motivation is not there. We only act when we’ve internalized the external!
Viewed in that light, I have plenty of motivation. There’s a lot about my life (and that of my family) that I would love to improve.
That leaves passion. I’ve often commented about myself that I have myriad interests, but no passions. I’ve said that there’s really nothing that I feel passionately that I must do. I’m actually not sure that’s true, the more I think about it.
I feel passionately that I need to help people, in general, and families, in particular - and this business I mentioned does just that.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to learn what it is that God wants from my life, and then to do it - and that may also be this business.
I feel passionately that I’m supposed to provide for my own family - again, this business has the potential of meeting that goal, as well.
I feel passionately that I need to be involved in my son’s life as much as possible. This business, done correctly, could free up much time to that end.
So, what’s the problem? Why am I standing still despite having both motivation and passion?
As an exercise, I was given the task of creating a “Dream Board” or “Dream Book” - basically a collage of things that are important to me for both a direction in life, and what I’d like to attain in life. If wealth were to be my lot, what would I want to do with it?
Some people are very motivated by money, and in my opinion, this exercise is largely based on that reality. If you know what you want, materially, out of life, the idea is that having a reminder ever-present to which you can refer, will keep your efforts on track and help you attain your goals.
Well, this project was quite difficult for me. Firstly, because, as I said earlier, I have very diverse interests, which results in “wanting” much. I began by gathering images of most of my interests, and proceeded by carving away the more trivial items to get to a core group of things that I’d really like to have or achieve.
Another reason this was difficult for me is because my nature is truly a dichotomy - and it always has been. It’s always been very difficult for me to reconcile my disparate desires, and this was certainly no exception.
What I mean by that is that I absolutely have material desires, but I also have a very strong desire to discover and obey God’s plan for me. I don’t necessarily think that the two are at odds with each other. I think God wants us to prosper. When we prosper, we are better positioned to give back and help those that need help. I have no problem with Christians being wealthy. I don’t even have a particular problem with wealthy people living like they’re wealthy. There’s a certain propriety to that. But I don’t know if that’s meant to be the destiny God has in mind for me.
If I were wealthy, there are a lot of charities and causes that I can readily think of that I would contribute to and advance the causes of. I would do what I thought God wanted me to do with the resources He gives to me to manage. I would also enjoy the wealth and have no problem doing so.
The problem I have is with the wanting first and attaining second. I have a problem putting material things on my wish list. I just feel that it promotes getting to your goal for the wrong reason. I know others don’t have an issue with this, and that’s fine, but I do, and I’m finding it difficult to get past.
How I’ve proceeded thus far is that I’ve created my “Dream Book” beginning with how I will improve myself and my family relations, then how I would help others. The end of the book is where I’ve put my material desires. At least, in this way, I can mentally say, “And if I ever get rich, this is what I would buy for myself, after these other areas are addressed”. But I still struggle with it.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
A Police State in the Making?
I wrote the following letter to the State Police here in my home state of New Hampshire. Information for the reader: I never received a response or any kind of acknowledgement. So, I submit this to you so that you may make your own decision as to the official stance of the New Hampshire State Police in regard to this type of conduct. I've edited any identifiers regarding myself or the officer in question.
To Whom It May Concern,
On January 21, 2011 I was pulled over on Route 89 by Officer 4**, and the experience was so unsettling that I feel compelled to formally and strenuously complain.
Like most people, I’m not perfect - I’ve been ticketed for speeding, for example. But I’ve NEVER issued a complaint. In fact, quite the contrary. I have, on numerous occasions, praised New Hampshire law enforcement for their professionalism and courtesy. This is high praise from me, because I have witnessed brutish behavior from police in other places (like Massachusetts) on a regular basis which has instilled in me a certain level of disgust at the abuse of power.
New Hampshire police, whether local or state, have always been an exception to this pattern, and I, being a fair minded person, would recognize that to others in praise of NH police. This incident has tarnished that reputation in my mind.
Here’s what happened: I had entered Route 89 at the end (Bow Junction) and proceeded to travel in the left hand lane - passing other vehicles, but not speeding (as evidenced by the lack of a ticket being issued). Officer 4** entered Route 89 from the onramp from Route 93 south and had on his directional indicating he wanted to get into the left lane. Unfortunately, the positioning of our vehicles somewhat precluded me letting him in safely and, as I had the right-of-way anyway, I, frankly, wasn’t overly concerned about it.
(I noticed the previous night that my driver’s side headlight was out and had, twenty minutes before the stop, purchased a new one which I planned on installing when I got home.)
As soon as I passed him, he bolted into the left lane in a very aggressive manner and put on his blues, to which I thought “headlight”. I immediately pulled into the right lane and he, of course, got behind me. That wasn’t surprising. What was surprising was that, after I’d demonstrated that I saw him, and complied with his tacit directive for me to pull over, at THAT point he decided to put on his siren. Now, he didn’t just give the siren a chirp to get my attention and then shut it off. He put on the siren and left it on for the duration of the time it took me to pull completely over, and didn’t turn it off until I came to a complete stop! In addition, he turned on his high beams AND the side mounted spot light throughout this entire maneuver.
Normally, a) the siren isn’t used in this type of stop, unless the driver makes no indication that he saw the blue lights - and then they’re usually turned off fairly quickly. They’re an attention getter in this type of situation. And b) the side mounted spot light is usually turned on once the stop is complete - not while the vehicle is still moving and trying to see where it’s safe to pull over - which is difficult at best when there’s bright light shining back into your eyes from all mirrors. At this point, I was wondering what I could have possibly done wrong that warranted this response. But this was just the beginning.
When he approached my car, he vaguely identified himself as “State Police” - not Officer so-and-so, from the State Police - just “State Police” - then he asked for my license and registration - “And turn on your dome light, too.” This was getting stranger by the minute and I was frightened that maybe he had me confused with a criminal that he was looking for. Then I noticed that he was having trouble keeping his flashlight lit. When I look back on it, I marvel at the irony of it. He was pulling me over for defective equipment (as I would eventually learn) when he, himself, was using defective equipment.
After I turned on the dome light, and as I was finding my license and registration, I asked, “May I ask if I did something wrong?” To which he replied, “I’ll tell you after I see your documents.” Now, maybe I’m incorrect about the legal latitude that the officer has, but it seems logical to me that, if you have just cause to pull me over, and I ask if I did something wrong, that you should tell me what the just cause is, regardless of documentation.
The argument that he needs to know who he pulled over for safety reasons doesn’t hold water, because he, allegedly, pulled me over for a reason and I simply wanted to be informed of the reason. Also, let’s remain cognizant of a few facts: I was strapped into my car; he had a gun on his hip, and a flashlight that’s specifically designed to double as a truncheon in his hand, pointed at my head. How unsafe could he be? I would argue that if you need to continually point out that you’re in control, then you aren’t. But I digress. The point is, being informed of my offense was, apparently, too much to ask. It was reminiscent of any number of police states that one may think of - they all conjure up the same image - “Papers please!”
When I handed him the documents, he then asked, “Are you aware that you have a headlight out?” I responded that I was, and showed him the headlight that I had purchased twenty minutes prior and told him that I was going to replace it when I got home. He replied, “Then you should know why I pulled you over.”, and began walking away as I was about to respond.
Firstly, why would I have any reason to believe, based on his conduct thus far, that what I was being pulled over for was a simple defective headlight. Secondly, I didn’t ask why I was being pulled over - I asked if I did something wrong. At this point, I was afraid and I wanted to know what I did that prompted this aggressive, incredibly rude, and intimidating behavior.
As an aside, when he returned my documents, I didn’t quite have a complete hold on them when he let go and the registration fell on the ground. Now what do I do? If I open the door to retrieve it, will he interpret that as a threat and club me with the flashlight? Will he bend down and pick it up? Since he didn’t, I took the chance and opened the door to get it. Thankfully, it wasn’t too windy and the ground was wet, but what if it had blown away? What then?
(Another irony, when I looked at the defective equipment warning that I was given, I noticed that the address could not fully be read. Now, I’m sure the postal service knows where it goes, and it would, no doubt, get there. It’s just ironic because it demonstrates another instance of defective equipment used by the State Police {the address stamp}).
My reason for writing this letter is that I think whoever is in command would want/need to know what happened, and also because I believe that the honor and integrity of the State Police demands that this individual be officially reprimanded - otherwise, one might assume that this is the new, sanctioned behavior of the State Police. If it is, please tell me, and I will make plans to leave the state as soon as it’s financially feasible.
Assuming this is not the case, you may mail me a copy of the reprimand that will go into Officer 4**’s file. If I don’t receive anything, I’ll assume that I know where the State Police stand on this type of behavior.
Sincerely,
etc., etc.
To Whom It May Concern,
On January 21, 2011 I was pulled over on Route 89 by Officer 4**, and the experience was so unsettling that I feel compelled to formally and strenuously complain.
Like most people, I’m not perfect - I’ve been ticketed for speeding, for example. But I’ve NEVER issued a complaint. In fact, quite the contrary. I have, on numerous occasions, praised New Hampshire law enforcement for their professionalism and courtesy. This is high praise from me, because I have witnessed brutish behavior from police in other places (like Massachusetts) on a regular basis which has instilled in me a certain level of disgust at the abuse of power.
New Hampshire police, whether local or state, have always been an exception to this pattern, and I, being a fair minded person, would recognize that to others in praise of NH police. This incident has tarnished that reputation in my mind.
Here’s what happened: I had entered Route 89 at the end (Bow Junction) and proceeded to travel in the left hand lane - passing other vehicles, but not speeding (as evidenced by the lack of a ticket being issued). Officer 4** entered Route 89 from the onramp from Route 93 south and had on his directional indicating he wanted to get into the left lane. Unfortunately, the positioning of our vehicles somewhat precluded me letting him in safely and, as I had the right-of-way anyway, I, frankly, wasn’t overly concerned about it.
(I noticed the previous night that my driver’s side headlight was out and had, twenty minutes before the stop, purchased a new one which I planned on installing when I got home.)
As soon as I passed him, he bolted into the left lane in a very aggressive manner and put on his blues, to which I thought “headlight”. I immediately pulled into the right lane and he, of course, got behind me. That wasn’t surprising. What was surprising was that, after I’d demonstrated that I saw him, and complied with his tacit directive for me to pull over, at THAT point he decided to put on his siren. Now, he didn’t just give the siren a chirp to get my attention and then shut it off. He put on the siren and left it on for the duration of the time it took me to pull completely over, and didn’t turn it off until I came to a complete stop! In addition, he turned on his high beams AND the side mounted spot light throughout this entire maneuver.
Normally, a) the siren isn’t used in this type of stop, unless the driver makes no indication that he saw the blue lights - and then they’re usually turned off fairly quickly. They’re an attention getter in this type of situation. And b) the side mounted spot light is usually turned on once the stop is complete - not while the vehicle is still moving and trying to see where it’s safe to pull over - which is difficult at best when there’s bright light shining back into your eyes from all mirrors. At this point, I was wondering what I could have possibly done wrong that warranted this response. But this was just the beginning.
When he approached my car, he vaguely identified himself as “State Police” - not Officer so-and-so, from the State Police - just “State Police” - then he asked for my license and registration - “And turn on your dome light, too.” This was getting stranger by the minute and I was frightened that maybe he had me confused with a criminal that he was looking for. Then I noticed that he was having trouble keeping his flashlight lit. When I look back on it, I marvel at the irony of it. He was pulling me over for defective equipment (as I would eventually learn) when he, himself, was using defective equipment.
After I turned on the dome light, and as I was finding my license and registration, I asked, “May I ask if I did something wrong?” To which he replied, “I’ll tell you after I see your documents.” Now, maybe I’m incorrect about the legal latitude that the officer has, but it seems logical to me that, if you have just cause to pull me over, and I ask if I did something wrong, that you should tell me what the just cause is, regardless of documentation.
The argument that he needs to know who he pulled over for safety reasons doesn’t hold water, because he, allegedly, pulled me over for a reason and I simply wanted to be informed of the reason. Also, let’s remain cognizant of a few facts: I was strapped into my car; he had a gun on his hip, and a flashlight that’s specifically designed to double as a truncheon in his hand, pointed at my head. How unsafe could he be? I would argue that if you need to continually point out that you’re in control, then you aren’t. But I digress. The point is, being informed of my offense was, apparently, too much to ask. It was reminiscent of any number of police states that one may think of - they all conjure up the same image - “Papers please!”
When I handed him the documents, he then asked, “Are you aware that you have a headlight out?” I responded that I was, and showed him the headlight that I had purchased twenty minutes prior and told him that I was going to replace it when I got home. He replied, “Then you should know why I pulled you over.”, and began walking away as I was about to respond.
Firstly, why would I have any reason to believe, based on his conduct thus far, that what I was being pulled over for was a simple defective headlight. Secondly, I didn’t ask why I was being pulled over - I asked if I did something wrong. At this point, I was afraid and I wanted to know what I did that prompted this aggressive, incredibly rude, and intimidating behavior.
As an aside, when he returned my documents, I didn’t quite have a complete hold on them when he let go and the registration fell on the ground. Now what do I do? If I open the door to retrieve it, will he interpret that as a threat and club me with the flashlight? Will he bend down and pick it up? Since he didn’t, I took the chance and opened the door to get it. Thankfully, it wasn’t too windy and the ground was wet, but what if it had blown away? What then?
(Another irony, when I looked at the defective equipment warning that I was given, I noticed that the address could not fully be read. Now, I’m sure the postal service knows where it goes, and it would, no doubt, get there. It’s just ironic because it demonstrates another instance of defective equipment used by the State Police {the address stamp}).
My reason for writing this letter is that I think whoever is in command would want/need to know what happened, and also because I believe that the honor and integrity of the State Police demands that this individual be officially reprimanded - otherwise, one might assume that this is the new, sanctioned behavior of the State Police. If it is, please tell me, and I will make plans to leave the state as soon as it’s financially feasible.
Assuming this is not the case, you may mail me a copy of the reprimand that will go into Officer 4**’s file. If I don’t receive anything, I’ll assume that I know where the State Police stand on this type of behavior.
Sincerely,
etc., etc.
The Masculine Directive
For years I’ve wrestled with the Christian concept of male headship of the home and family. I’m sure it’s a combination of the time and the culture in which I was raised, along with the confusion that most people have regarding equality. (Equality is not sameness. We have equal value, but different roles - otherwise, there’d be no reason for different people.)
Until now, I’ve reluctantly “accepted” that it’s the role of the man to be in headship of his household. Frankly, I didn’t like the idea at all, but resolved that if that’s what God directed, then I should accept it.
Then, recently, my 14 year old son asked my wife a question that, at first, might seem to be unrelated, but proved otherwise. It was around Christmas, and he had been thinking about Jesus, in general, and the Christmas story, in particular. He asked, “Do you think Mary knew that Jesus was born without sin?”
When I heard this, my first thought was, “Of course she did. She was a virgin, and yet conceived. The angel Gabriel told her Jesus would be called the Son of the Highest.” Then I realized two things. Gabriel didn’t actually come right out and say that Jesus would be born without sin. In my opinion, it was certainly implied, but maybe not understood. The second thing I realized was that Jesus actually told the disciples things which they nevertheless seemed surprised at when it was borne out. So, maybe she didn’t know. Good question.
This made me ask, “Was Jesus actually born without sin?” I know that Catholic doctrine says that even Mary was born (or even conceived) without sin, so therefore, Jesus was also. I’m not Catholic, and, while I don’t wish to argue the point, I don’t subscribe to this doctrine.
But if the argument is made that Jesus, as well as being fully God, was fully human - and was in fact born from a human mother’s womb - how can it be argued, being as all men are born with original sin, that he was born without sin?
This proved to be a fascinating study for me. I’ve since heard other people talk in similar terms, so I know it’s not original, but it was new to me at the time.
Jesus was born of a woman’s seed - as prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Every other time in the Bible, when it talks about seed, it’s always a man’s seed. That makes sense, as it’s the man who carries the seed. So, why would it speak about a woman’s seed? At first glance, it doesn’t make sense. Until you examine the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.
Jesus was born of a woman’s seed - or stock, if you will - He was born as a baby to a woman. However, He was NOT the result of a man’s seed. There was nothing of Joseph, physically, in Jesus. So, the prophecy makes sense. He was born of a woman’s seed. He was still human, so wasn’t He born with original sin?
No! And this is where it ties in with the subject of male headship. The sin nature resulting from disobedience to God was not carried in Eve (or the woman). It’s was carried in Adam (the man). It was Adam to whom God gave the command to not eat of the tree. Eve wasn’t even created yet, at that point.
Yes, Eve was aware of the command. We know that Adam passed along the command, because she repeats it to the serpent. But if you read Genesis, you’ll see that it was Adam - and only Adam - that God commanded. He was the responsible party. From the beginning, God intended the man to be in headship over his wife - and in SUBMISSION to God! He disobeyed god and bore the punishment by having a sin nature. The reason all humans have a sin nature is because all humans are descendants of Adam. All except Jesus. Jesus has no connection to Adam other than through Mary’s ancestors - but, while the mother may carry the sin nature, she does not pass it along. The father passes it along. Which is why it’s so critical to understand that Jesus was not born of an earthly father.
So, it’s actually for the same reason that we know that Jesus did not have a sin nature, that we also know that God has designed male headship. Adam was the responsible party, not Eve.
To be completely honest, I’m still not sure I LIKE the idea, but now, as well as accepting it, I also understand it.
Until now, I’ve reluctantly “accepted” that it’s the role of the man to be in headship of his household. Frankly, I didn’t like the idea at all, but resolved that if that’s what God directed, then I should accept it.
Then, recently, my 14 year old son asked my wife a question that, at first, might seem to be unrelated, but proved otherwise. It was around Christmas, and he had been thinking about Jesus, in general, and the Christmas story, in particular. He asked, “Do you think Mary knew that Jesus was born without sin?”
When I heard this, my first thought was, “Of course she did. She was a virgin, and yet conceived. The angel Gabriel told her Jesus would be called the Son of the Highest.” Then I realized two things. Gabriel didn’t actually come right out and say that Jesus would be born without sin. In my opinion, it was certainly implied, but maybe not understood. The second thing I realized was that Jesus actually told the disciples things which they nevertheless seemed surprised at when it was borne out. So, maybe she didn’t know. Good question.
This made me ask, “Was Jesus actually born without sin?” I know that Catholic doctrine says that even Mary was born (or even conceived) without sin, so therefore, Jesus was also. I’m not Catholic, and, while I don’t wish to argue the point, I don’t subscribe to this doctrine.
But if the argument is made that Jesus, as well as being fully God, was fully human - and was in fact born from a human mother’s womb - how can it be argued, being as all men are born with original sin, that he was born without sin?
This proved to be a fascinating study for me. I’ve since heard other people talk in similar terms, so I know it’s not original, but it was new to me at the time.
Jesus was born of a woman’s seed - as prophesied in Genesis 3:15. Every other time in the Bible, when it talks about seed, it’s always a man’s seed. That makes sense, as it’s the man who carries the seed. So, why would it speak about a woman’s seed? At first glance, it doesn’t make sense. Until you examine the circumstances of Jesus’ birth.
Jesus was born of a woman’s seed - or stock, if you will - He was born as a baby to a woman. However, He was NOT the result of a man’s seed. There was nothing of Joseph, physically, in Jesus. So, the prophecy makes sense. He was born of a woman’s seed. He was still human, so wasn’t He born with original sin?
No! And this is where it ties in with the subject of male headship. The sin nature resulting from disobedience to God was not carried in Eve (or the woman). It’s was carried in Adam (the man). It was Adam to whom God gave the command to not eat of the tree. Eve wasn’t even created yet, at that point.
Yes, Eve was aware of the command. We know that Adam passed along the command, because she repeats it to the serpent. But if you read Genesis, you’ll see that it was Adam - and only Adam - that God commanded. He was the responsible party. From the beginning, God intended the man to be in headship over his wife - and in SUBMISSION to God! He disobeyed god and bore the punishment by having a sin nature. The reason all humans have a sin nature is because all humans are descendants of Adam. All except Jesus. Jesus has no connection to Adam other than through Mary’s ancestors - but, while the mother may carry the sin nature, she does not pass it along. The father passes it along. Which is why it’s so critical to understand that Jesus was not born of an earthly father.
So, it’s actually for the same reason that we know that Jesus did not have a sin nature, that we also know that God has designed male headship. Adam was the responsible party, not Eve.
To be completely honest, I’m still not sure I LIKE the idea, but now, as well as accepting it, I also understand it.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Civil Obedience, Part 2
Back in March, I posted an opinion about civil obedience and the Christian. It was an opinion that runs somewhat contrary to what is currently the accepted view - particularly with respect to Romans 13:1-7.
About three weeks ago I ran across a sermon given by Jonathan Mayhew in 1750 - a full quarter-century before the American Revolution. Mayhew was a clergyman who served at Boston’s Old West Church for 29 years before he died. In this sermon, he says things that sound very familiar to what I said. I took a bit more of a general stand regarding authority where he takes a somewhat specific stand against a particular ruler, but the argument he uses is almost exactly the same (perhaps better worded). I won’t reprint the whole sermon, but what follows below is a relevant portion:
_____________________________________________________________________
Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. Here the apostle sums up what he had been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers. And his argument stands thus - “Since magistrates who execute their office well, are common benefactors to society; and may, in that respect, be properly stiled (sic) the ministers and ordinance of God; and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public; it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom; and to reverence, honor, and submit to, them in the execution of their respective offices.” This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience, to such persons as (although they bear the title of rulers) use all their powers to hurt and injure the public: such as are not God’s ministers, but Satan’s? such as do not take care of, and attend upon, the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no natural and just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience?
It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose incoherent manner; and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises.
For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled (sic) to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.
____________________________________________________________________
About three weeks ago I ran across a sermon given by Jonathan Mayhew in 1750 - a full quarter-century before the American Revolution. Mayhew was a clergyman who served at Boston’s Old West Church for 29 years before he died. In this sermon, he says things that sound very familiar to what I said. I took a bit more of a general stand regarding authority where he takes a somewhat specific stand against a particular ruler, but the argument he uses is almost exactly the same (perhaps better worded). I won’t reprint the whole sermon, but what follows below is a relevant portion:
_____________________________________________________________________
Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. Here the apostle sums up what he had been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers. And his argument stands thus - “Since magistrates who execute their office well, are common benefactors to society; and may, in that respect, be properly stiled (sic) the ministers and ordinance of God; and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public; it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom; and to reverence, honor, and submit to, them in the execution of their respective offices.” This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience, to such persons as (although they bear the title of rulers) use all their powers to hurt and injure the public: such as are not God’s ministers, but Satan’s? such as do not take care of, and attend upon, the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no natural and just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience?
It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle’s character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose incoherent manner; and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises.
For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? “Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office.”
Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle’s reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled (sic) to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.
____________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Dinosaurs Always Give Me Trouble
It seems like a recurring issue of faith/logic/science in my life has been the trouble that dinosaurs create within my belief system and how I respond to people who question me about it.
It’s simply not logical to deny their existence. They definitely existed - the evidence is overwhelming.
The first obstacle I encounter is WHEN did they exist. The fact is that there is absolutely and unequivocally FAR more evidence for a young Earth than there is for the more commonly held belief in an old Earth.
See what I mean - I’ve already lost the majority of my readers. People have been so conditioned to believe that the Earth is millions (or billions) of years old, that they look with suspicion and derision upon anybody that says otherwise. The problem is the evidence for it is not there - or perhaps I should say that the evidence for it has been manipulated to fit prevalent theories. The arguments used are usually circular, or they use pseudo-science (all theories, by the way) to come up with explanations and tie together facts that should not be tied together.
Anyway, moving on. It’s pretty obvious that I believe in the biblical account of creation over the spurious theory of evolution, although, I admit that for quite a while I had trouble taking the account of the Garden of Eden literally. I thought that it was basically a story - accurate regarding how God created, but one example among many such gardens spread throughout the Earth. So the question remains - if I accept that dinosaurs lived, when did they live, because the Bible makes no specific mention of them.
The Bible DOES mention a couple the occasional creatures that MIGHT be a dinosaur or dragon, but not many. But, then again, neither does it mention very many other animals specifically.
What if the Bible story of the Garden of Eden is literally correct? Then dinosaurs could have co-existed time-wise with man, but not geographically. Man would be in the middle east while dinosaurs were everywhere else. That would explain everything. That’s why dinosaur remains are found everywhere EXCEPT, to the best of my knowledge, the middle east. There are remains found in North America, Africa, Asia, South America - but not the middle east.
Oh, there is one possible exception to the above. Although the theory (there’s that word again) has been pretty much dismissed and, as usual the scientists are revamping their theories, they once said that oil is the result of millions of years of dinosaur decomposition.
So, I’m back to where I started: dinosaurs are again giving me trouble. In places like Montana the remains are at or near the surface. You can hardly roam around without tripping over a bone, it seems. But in the middle east, dinosaur remains are thousands of feet (or more) below the surface and became oil. I don’t get it.
It’s simply not logical to deny their existence. They definitely existed - the evidence is overwhelming.
The first obstacle I encounter is WHEN did they exist. The fact is that there is absolutely and unequivocally FAR more evidence for a young Earth than there is for the more commonly held belief in an old Earth.
See what I mean - I’ve already lost the majority of my readers. People have been so conditioned to believe that the Earth is millions (or billions) of years old, that they look with suspicion and derision upon anybody that says otherwise. The problem is the evidence for it is not there - or perhaps I should say that the evidence for it has been manipulated to fit prevalent theories. The arguments used are usually circular, or they use pseudo-science (all theories, by the way) to come up with explanations and tie together facts that should not be tied together.
Anyway, moving on. It’s pretty obvious that I believe in the biblical account of creation over the spurious theory of evolution, although, I admit that for quite a while I had trouble taking the account of the Garden of Eden literally. I thought that it was basically a story - accurate regarding how God created, but one example among many such gardens spread throughout the Earth. So the question remains - if I accept that dinosaurs lived, when did they live, because the Bible makes no specific mention of them.
The Bible DOES mention a couple the occasional creatures that MIGHT be a dinosaur or dragon, but not many. But, then again, neither does it mention very many other animals specifically.
What if the Bible story of the Garden of Eden is literally correct? Then dinosaurs could have co-existed time-wise with man, but not geographically. Man would be in the middle east while dinosaurs were everywhere else. That would explain everything. That’s why dinosaur remains are found everywhere EXCEPT, to the best of my knowledge, the middle east. There are remains found in North America, Africa, Asia, South America - but not the middle east.
Oh, there is one possible exception to the above. Although the theory (there’s that word again) has been pretty much dismissed and, as usual the scientists are revamping their theories, they once said that oil is the result of millions of years of dinosaur decomposition.
So, I’m back to where I started: dinosaurs are again giving me trouble. In places like Montana the remains are at or near the surface. You can hardly roam around without tripping over a bone, it seems. But in the middle east, dinosaur remains are thousands of feet (or more) below the surface and became oil. I don’t get it.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Technology of Big Brother
People who know me, know that I love the show King of the Hill. It’s a great show on a number of levels, but I especially love the main character, Hank Hill. I can relate to his simple, moderately conservative American-ness. Naturally he has his own foibles, but that just makes him more real and more lovable.
I relate to Hank so much that, for a while, I had his picture as my avatar on my social networking web page - thinking my friends would get a kick out of it.
But there’s another, arguably less lovable side to my personality - and this aspect would be better represented by Dale Gribble, Hank’s friend on the show.You see, Dale is best known as being a conspiracy theorist of the highest order and, while I’m not quite as extreme, my own outlook with regards to the government is very similar.
The other day I went to the web site for my state because I wanted to know what information was optional on a driver’s license. I don’t want any more private information than is absolutely necessary on my license - I mean, come on, they have bar codes on licenses and scanners in patrol cars now! Remember the movie Alien Nation? In that movie, the license plates on the cars were bar codes and there was a scanner on the front end of the cruisers. Instant info without getting out of the squad car (or even while traveling at speed). How far into the future is this, I wonder?
The problem with technology is that it can be corrupted and used for purposes other than intended. For example, the E-Z Pass system of paying tolls electronically on turnpikes can (and I think has) be used to issue speeding tickets - by recording the time from one toll to another and computing how fast someone was driving. There isn’t even someone who pulls you over - you just receive a ticket in the mail. How wrong is that?! That would really stink if someone was borrowing your car and YOU got the ticket! On top of this, there’s a camera peering into your car as you go through. Of the thousands or tens of thousands of drivers that go through that toll every day, only a few will do anything wrong (and really, how wrong? Beating the state out of a buck?), but they’re taking everybody’s mug shot as they go through, just in case. This is an invasion of privacy for the sake of the government having more control over your life.
The On-Star product that’s available on some cars can be used to locate your car (and presumably you) no matter where you are. A new feature of this is that the police can now shut down your car - cut all power to it - using On-Star. It’s touted as being able to stop a car thief, but when our culture becomes a police state - which is exactly the direction we’re headed - won’t that be a handy-dandy tool for the oppressors?
Do you have a newer generation cell phone that has GPS capabilities? Probably a bad plan if you value privacy and individual liberty. Just food for thought.
I’ve been saying for years that if they can hard-wire a broadcast into your home (cable TV), then they can also use that same cable to broadcast from your home. All they need is a camera and microphone surreptitiously hidden within the TV. Do you know for a fact that these things are not already there? The government could easily mandate manufacturers to install them and further mandate not telling anyone. Why would they want to do that, you ask? I don’t care why. I don’t want them to be able to do it.
Right about now some of you are thinking that I’m a paranoid delusional. The government wouldn’t do that - not in this country. We’re a nation of freedom. Really? The FBI can (and has), on their own, write out a search warrant and invade your privacy without court knowledge. And if you tell anyone - ANYONE, even your lawyer - they will arrest you. This has already happened! In case you didn’t know, a search warrant is supposed to be a court-issued document. The police or FBI is not supposed to be able to do this. But they have done it, nonetheless. And neither political party is better or worse than the other. This problem is a result of the Patriot Act - which came during an administration who’s party prides itself on less government.
Oh, and by the way, the cable TV scenario has already been played out in a more creative way using newer technology. You’ve probably heard about the public school (one of the more liberal wings of our government) that issued lap top computers to students and then using the integral web cam on the lap top to spy on the students’ homes. So be careful before judging me as unreasonably paranoid.
Just today there was an article about how the current administration might very soon have the power to shut down portions of the internet that it deems as potentially harmful (using ONLY the discretion of the President). The government wants to control EVERY aspect of our lives!
When these new policies are put into place, they are usually presented as being for the general safety (and my personal favorite, national security), or for being easier for law enforcement to catch criminals, or simply as a matter of convenience.
In the case of convenience - like E-Z Pass, or On-Star, or cell phones - we have ourselves to blame, except to the extent to which the technology is being misused (data mining, etc., or used in ways otherwise contrary or beyond the stated reason for it).
If you want GPS capabilities, for example, you’d be better served owning a GPS unit than having it tied in to another device.
Regarding making it easier for law enforcement, I say that, in an allegedly free society, the exercise of power by the police is SUPPOSED TO BE difficult and challenging - that precisely what keeps the society free. Just look at the examples of places and times when it was EASY for law enforcement to do what they wanted. I don’t have to point them out - everybody knows what I’m talking about.
When it’s presented as a case for safety is when it’s at its most insidious, because they use scare tactics in order to get you to “buy in” to their power grab scheme. It brings instantly to mind the quote from Ben Franklin in 1775 - “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
And this brings me back to the state web site and driver’s licenses. This is what it says - cut and pasted directly from the state web site:
Bureau of Driver Licensing
Image Waiver
NH law allows you to request the DMV to remove your digitized photo image from its system. Your image is your own personal information and the DMV understands that citizens want to manage and safeguard their personal information. To that end, we will honor your wishes for an image waiver, consistent with NH law. In helping you make that decision, this page is dedicated to explaining the results of the removal of your image from the DMV’s computer system and raising your awareness of a new variety of theft referred to as "Identity Theft". Identity theft is the taking of a victim’s identity in order to obtain credit, services, or enter into transactions under the victim’s name.
An impostor can steal your identity by obtaining personal information about you, such as your social security number, date of birth, address or telephone number. With this information, and a false driver license with his/her own picture, the impostor can apply in person for credit, services, a job, or any other transaction, posing as you. If you have removed your digitized image from the DMV’s system, your image can never be recovered. If an impostor has your personal information and applies for a driver license in your name, without your digitized image to visually prove identity, a driver license may be issued to the impostor with your personal information! In order to reduce such a risk, if your image has been deleted and you have a lost or stolen driver license, the DMV will require two (2) forms of identification to receive a duplicate driver license. Additionally, if you are out of state, you will be unable to receive a duplicate driver license through the mail.
_________________________________________________________________
There’s so much flawed logic there, that I hardly know where to begin. Okay, so a person can steal my identity and get a driver’s license in my name with his picture? Firstly, HOW? Isn’t there something in place to prevent this? Secondly, how do we know someone hasn’t already done this? Thirdly, If I already have a driver’s license issued to me, how would the “perp” effect this bit of magic? Fourthly, if I show up and can prove who I am - and I CAN - just reverse the process, find the culprit and bring him to justice. Fifthly, if I choose to have my digitized image removed, it can never be recovered? Really - you want me to buy that? You can capture someone’s computer that they’ve deleted everything from and you can still get evidence from it, but you can’t do that with your own system? Do I still have the smell of pumpkin on me from falling off the truck? And sixthly, am I right in inferring from that, that if I choose to keep the digitized image on the system that it can never be deleted? Seventhly, if someone has been issued a license in my name, with his picture, and his digitized image, haven’t I already lost? I mean, he’s got the digitized image on his side and there’s nothing you can do, right? IF ANYTHING, it makes the process of undoing even more difficult. It’s a self-defeating argument.
The REAL basis for them wanting your digitized image is so that they can input it into every facial recognition software application they can get their hands on and you become even more at the mercy of the state - every state on the planet. Do you travel by air? Guess what’s at a lot of major airports. Cameras tied into facial recognition software. As soon as you pass by, they know everything there is to know about you. Not only that, but in many places in Europe, you can’t walk down the street without being photographed a dozen times from government cameras on the street. And we’re not far behind Europe. That’s the direction our government wants us to go. All in the name of national security. Are YOU feeling more secure?
I relate to Hank so much that, for a while, I had his picture as my avatar on my social networking web page - thinking my friends would get a kick out of it.
But there’s another, arguably less lovable side to my personality - and this aspect would be better represented by Dale Gribble, Hank’s friend on the show.You see, Dale is best known as being a conspiracy theorist of the highest order and, while I’m not quite as extreme, my own outlook with regards to the government is very similar.
The other day I went to the web site for my state because I wanted to know what information was optional on a driver’s license. I don’t want any more private information than is absolutely necessary on my license - I mean, come on, they have bar codes on licenses and scanners in patrol cars now!
The On-Star product that’s available on some cars can be used to locate your car (and presumably you) no matter where you are. A new feature of this is that the police can now shut down your car - cut all power to it - using On-Star. It’s touted as being able to stop a car thief, but when our culture becomes a police state - which is exactly the direction we’re headed - won’t that be a handy-dandy tool for the oppressors?
Do you have a newer generation cell phone that has GPS capabilities? Probably a bad plan if you value privacy and individual liberty. Just food for thought.
I’ve been saying for years that if they can hard-wire a broadcast into your home (cable TV), then they can also use that same cable to broadcast from your home. All they need is a camera and microphone surreptitiously hidden within the TV. Do you know for a fact that these things are not already there? The government could easily mandate manufacturers to install them and further mandate not telling anyone. Why would they want to do that, you ask? I don’t care why. I don’t want them to be able to do it.
Right about now some of you are thinking that I’m a paranoid delusional. The government wouldn’t do that - not in this country. We’re a nation of freedom. Really? The FBI can (and has), on their own, write out a search warrant and invade your privacy without court knowledge. And if you tell anyone - ANYONE, even your lawyer - they will arrest you. This has already happened! In case you didn’t know, a search warrant is supposed to be a court-issued document. The police or FBI is not supposed to be able to do this. But they have done it, nonetheless. And neither political party is better or worse than the other. This problem is a result of the Patriot Act - which came during an administration who’s party prides itself on less government.
Oh, and by the way, the cable TV scenario has already been played out in a more creative way using newer technology. You’ve probably heard about the public school (one of the more liberal wings of our government) that issued lap top computers to students and then using the integral web cam on the lap top to spy on the students’ homes. So be careful before judging me as unreasonably paranoid.
Just today there was an article about how the current administration might very soon have the power to shut down portions of the internet that it deems as potentially harmful (using ONLY the discretion of the President). The government wants to control EVERY aspect of our lives!
When these new policies are put into place, they are usually presented as being for the general safety (and my personal favorite, national security), or for being easier for law enforcement to catch criminals, or simply as a matter of convenience.
In the case of convenience - like E-Z Pass, or On-Star, or cell phones - we have ourselves to blame, except to the extent to which the technology is being misused (data mining, etc., or used in ways otherwise contrary or beyond the stated reason for it).
If you want GPS capabilities, for example, you’d be better served owning a GPS unit than having it tied in to another device.
Regarding making it easier for law enforcement, I say that, in an allegedly free society, the exercise of power by the police is SUPPOSED TO BE difficult and challenging - that precisely what keeps the society free. Just look at the examples of places and times when it was EASY for law enforcement to do what they wanted. I don’t have to point them out - everybody knows what I’m talking about.
When it’s presented as a case for safety is when it’s at its most insidious, because they use scare tactics in order to get you to “buy in” to their power grab scheme. It brings instantly to mind the quote from Ben Franklin in 1775 - “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
And this brings me back to the state web site and driver’s licenses. This is what it says - cut and pasted directly from the state web site:
Bureau of Driver Licensing
Image Waiver
NH law allows you to request the DMV to remove your digitized photo image from its system. Your image is your own personal information and the DMV understands that citizens want to manage and safeguard their personal information. To that end, we will honor your wishes for an image waiver, consistent with NH law. In helping you make that decision, this page is dedicated to explaining the results of the removal of your image from the DMV’s computer system and raising your awareness of a new variety of theft referred to as "Identity Theft". Identity theft is the taking of a victim’s identity in order to obtain credit, services, or enter into transactions under the victim’s name.
An impostor can steal your identity by obtaining personal information about you, such as your social security number, date of birth, address or telephone number. With this information, and a false driver license with his/her own picture, the impostor can apply in person for credit, services, a job, or any other transaction, posing as you. If you have removed your digitized image from the DMV’s system, your image can never be recovered. If an impostor has your personal information and applies for a driver license in your name, without your digitized image to visually prove identity, a driver license may be issued to the impostor with your personal information! In order to reduce such a risk, if your image has been deleted and you have a lost or stolen driver license, the DMV will require two (2) forms of identification to receive a duplicate driver license. Additionally, if you are out of state, you will be unable to receive a duplicate driver license through the mail.
_________________________________________________________________
There’s so much flawed logic there, that I hardly know where to begin. Okay, so a person can steal my identity and get a driver’s license in my name with his picture? Firstly, HOW? Isn’t there something in place to prevent this? Secondly, how do we know someone hasn’t already done this? Thirdly, If I already have a driver’s license issued to me, how would the “perp” effect this bit of magic? Fourthly, if I show up and can prove who I am - and I CAN - just reverse the process, find the culprit and bring him to justice. Fifthly, if I choose to have my digitized image removed, it can never be recovered? Really - you want me to buy that? You can capture someone’s computer that they’ve deleted everything from and you can still get evidence from it, but you can’t do that with your own system? Do I still have the smell of pumpkin on me from falling off the truck? And sixthly, am I right in inferring from that, that if I choose to keep the digitized image on the system that it can never be deleted? Seventhly, if someone has been issued a license in my name, with his picture, and his digitized image, haven’t I already lost? I mean, he’s got the digitized image on his side and there’s nothing you can do, right? IF ANYTHING, it makes the process of undoing even more difficult. It’s a self-defeating argument.
The REAL basis for them wanting your digitized image is so that they can input it into every facial recognition software application they can get their hands on and you become even more at the mercy of the state - every state on the planet. Do you travel by air? Guess what’s at a lot of major airports. Cameras tied into facial recognition software. As soon as you pass by, they know everything there is to know about you. Not only that, but in many places in Europe, you can’t walk down the street without being photographed a dozen times from government cameras on the street. And we’re not far behind Europe. That’s the direction our government wants us to go. All in the name of national security. Are YOU feeling more secure?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)