On The Mark™: Social Commentary From a Reflective Perspective

To Many Evangelicals, More Than One-Fourth of All Americans Are in a Cult

2011-12-14T21:10:00.000-05:00

My latest piece on Yahoo Voices. Enjoy.

Joe Paterno Must Go--Today

2011-11-08T22:59:00.000-05:00

Coach Joe Paterno at the 2006 Penn State
Homecoming Game against U of Illinois

By now, anyone who’s up on the news is aware of the scandal involving recently rediscovered accusations of sexual abuse of young boys on the campus of Penn State University, allegedly committed by a then-member of the Penn State football coaching staff. It appears that, in one or more instances, this abuse was reported to head Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, who passed the allegations to his athletic director—and no farther.

Everyone agrees that Paterno fulfilled his legal responsibility by informing his athletic director (who, allegedly, did not pass this information farther on to the police). But the issue to focus on is Paterno’s moral responsibility, and here it seems that Paterno left his responsibility unfulfilled, in a catastrophic display of loyalty to the Penn State football program, over the protection of children from sexual abuse.

Paterno has alleged that the information given to him about the incident was too general to merit contacting the police. Others deny that as an issue of fact. Even if the material were general, however, as David Jones, a sports reporter for the Patriot-News put it in an article today:

Purely from an ethical standpoint, how specific did the story need to be for Paterno to simply immediately call police himself?

Had it been his grandson in the shower with [coach] Sandusky [the alleged abuser] and McQueary [the student observing the abuse] reported to him any version of inappropriate behavior, would Paterno have merely called his technical “superior” and left it at that?

Would [athletic director] Curley and Gary Schultz, Penn State’s vice president of finance and director of the university police force, still have finally gotten around to meeting with McQueary “approximately one and a half weeks later”?

In the midst of all of this, sports blogger Matt Hinton reports that Paterno is headed for a resignation—but look carefully for what Hinton says about the timing:

According to the New York Times, Penn State's board of trustees has initiated discussions about how to handle the 84-year-old standard bearer's exit "within days or weeks," amid allegations that Paterno effectively turned a blind eye to charges of sexual abuse by his longtime defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky. Another report, by the Associated Press, describes support for Paterno among the board as "eroding." The precise timing hasn't been determined, but the inevitable is a reality: Forty-six years after he was promoted to replace Rip Engle as Penn State's head coach, this season will be Joe Paterno's last. Saturday's game against Nebraska will be his final home game in Beaver Stadium.

But why should Paterno get a “last game” in? If Paterno’s behavior was such as to merit his resignation—and it most assuredly was—then his resignation, voluntary or forced, should be immediate. Joe Paterno should leave Penn State—today. No last game, no tribute, no nothing.

Oh, I can hear the moaning from misguided fans. “You’ve got to balance whatever Paterno may have done wrong against the rest of his career,” they’ll say; “he’s such a great man, surely you’ve got to recognize that and have some perspective and give him his last hurrah,” they’ll say.

No, I don’t. This is all just misguided rhetorical sobbing that obscured the mixed-up nature of our society’s priorities.

Folks, at the risk of stating the obvious: Football is a game. Period. Yes, it generates massive amounts of revenue, but at its core it is just as game. As a game, it cannot possibly be used to excuse Joe Paterno for not picking up the phone within five minutes of hearing even the wisp of a hint of an allegation of sexual abuse by one of his coaching staff. And the fact that Paterno did not do that should incur massive and immediate consequences.

It’s important to point out here that, if Paterno had called the police, this would likely have prevented sexual abuse. But he didn’t do that. And that kind of passivity when faced with the allegation of sexual abuse cannot, must not, be tolerated.

Anything other than insisting on Paterno’s immediate departure sends the message that football is ultimately more important than protecting children from sexual abuse. I surely don’t believe that. Do you?

If you agree that Joe Paterno should go immediately, without a victory lap, then call Penn State and express that opinion to Mr. Rodney A. Erickson, the Executive Vice President and Provost, who reports directly to the President; his office telephone number is 814-865-2505, and his fax number is 814-863-8583. (The President of Penn State, Mr. Graham Spanier, is facing calls for his own resignation in this scandal. I think you’ll have an easier time reaching Mr. Erickson.)

For good measure, you may wish to call the main Penn State telephone number (814-865-4700) and ask to speak with someone in the office of the Board of Trustees.

The message to leave with these Penn State officials: Dismiss Joe Paterno immediately, certainly before the game on Saturday. Don’t send the message that football is more important than protecting children from sexual abuse.

Putting the highest priority on the safety of innocent children is surely On The Mark.

(Readers are invited to become “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-right hand corner. Alternatively, readers are invited to subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog.)

[The photo of Joe Paterno has been put into the public domain by its creator, and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

Why Zombies Are So Popular

2011-08-30T09:22:00.000-04:00

Zombie walk photo by Bob Jagendorf.

Zombies. Ugly as homemade sin. Scientifically impossible. And yet zombies are as popular as puppies and peanut brittle—moreso, in some circles—in all sorts of media.

“Zombie walks” or “crawls,” where people dress up in costume and zombie makeup to walk the streets of a community, are annual occurences in cities and towns worldwide, as chronicled on the Crawl of the Dead website. Interest in the forthcoming film version of Max Brooks’ 2006 zombie novel, World War Z, is so high, that when it emerged that there were differences between the book and the movie, the online hubbub was so great that the story reporting the controversy was subtitled “Internet Melts Down.” When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wanted to publicize their ideas about being prepared for outbreaks of contagious disease and other natural disasters, they put together a webpage in May 2011 titled “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse.”

Why all this interest? What’s the attraction?

The popularity of any given film depends on the quality of the script and the acting, the direction and the production values. The popularity of any given video game depends on factors like the game play and the quality of the animation. But the popularity of a whole genre, spanning such media as film, television, and video games, reflects factors beyond any one movie, TV program, or game. Now we are in the territory of psychology.

It has long been observed that popular films reflect societal fears and nightmares, hopes and aspirations, albeit often unintentionally. The people behind the 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers have sworn up and down that they were not making a movie about either Communist infiltration or McCarthyism—but that is still the way the film came off to many people. One of the seminal zombie movies, George Romero’s 1968 film Night of the Living Dead, has often been related to the trauma of racial conflict in America in the 1960s. But the racial subtext does not seem to be at work in more recent zombie movies, including Romero’s later work, the work of those he inspired, the games and films in the Resident Evil franchise, Zombieland, Left 4 Dead, or the “kinda zombie” film 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 Weeks Later.

Some people have opined that zombie movies reflect fears about the apocalyptic end of the world. That’s fine as far as it goes, but I think that zombie media reflect a far more specific fear.

I think it’s about pandemic disease.

Think about it. Romero’s original film had zombies rising from the grave due to radioactive contamination from an exploded space probe; some other films have spawned zombies from radioactive waste. But most of the non-Romero zombie media of the 1990s and 2000s, especially the wildly popular ones like the Resident Evil and 28 franchises, AMC’s much-lauded TV series The Walking Dead, and Max Brooks’ novel World War Z, have taken the tack that zombies are a result of some kind of unusual viral infection, either manmade or arising in nature.

The zombie as a metaphor for the outbreak of pandemic disease makes perfectly good sense. I find it instructive that some Canadian medical researchers published a chapter about zombie epidemiology in a serious 2009 academic book on disease modeling, a chapter titled “When Zombies Attack!: Mathematical Modelling of an Outbreak of Zombie Infection.”

Why shouldn’t our society be afraid of pandemic disease? We surely live in a world where the risk of such a disease, with potentially apocalyptic consequences, is greater than ever before. Consider these developments, just over the last half century:

• International air travel, even intercontinental travel, is much more common now. For all its many benefits, widespread international travel means that disease can spread much more quickly than in earlier generations.

• Population growth in rural China means that an ever-larger number of people live in close contact with the farm animals in which organisms such as avian flu virus incubate and mutate.

• Advances in biotechnology and genetics make it possible for well-heeled organizations to design their own microorganisms—including, potentially, pandemic disease viruses.

• The population of America has shifted radically from rural to urban areas, where disease is spread much more efficiently. The typical subway commuter into Manhattan passes more people during the morning commute than the average farmer in medieval Europe saw during her or his entire life.

• Misuse of antibiotics has lead to the rise of treatment-resistant forms of bacterial diseases like bacterial pneumonia—diseases that often come in on the tails of a viral infection such as the flu.

We know more about historical pandemics now. We know more now than ever about the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which infected 500 million people, over one-quarter of the Earth’s population at the time, and which killed 3% to 6% of everyone on the planet—back in a day when almost no one travelled across oceans other than one-way immigrants and military personnel. This pandemic, fueled by the H1N1 virus, was followed by another H1N1 pandemic in 2009; although it was not a big event in the United States, this pandemic infected between 11% and 21% of the population of the world.

And now, just to make things a little bit better, the United Nations World Health Organization just issued an alert this past week about the rise of a new mutation of the H1N1 virus, a mutation which has killed 331 of the 565 people it has infected in recent months.

So society has good reason to be concerned about the possible reoccurence of a pandemic disease that could sweep the planet. That concern, in a context where the average person seems powerless, is reflected in the popularity of the zombie in so many types of media.

So what do we do? All the zombie crawls in the world won’t prepare people for a real pandemic. As in other aspects of life, when we meet real challenges with purely symbolic actions like jokes or even neurotic symptoms, we may get some emotional payoff, but the real challenge still remains.

As it happens, there is a lot that the individual can do. The aforementioned Zombie Apocalypse page on the CDC website actually has quite a lot of useful information about disaster preparedness, as well as a link to the CDC’s Emergency Preparedness and Response webpage. A lot of information about general emergency preparedness is available on the Emergency Preparedness and Response webpage of Provident Living, produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Emergency preparedness is something that every family and individual needs to work on a little bit every week or so. Over time—with a little planning here, and a little purchasing there—anyone can become much more capable of dealing with legitimate emergencies of any sort.

The zombie meme reflects a widespread societal fear of pandemic disease. Far from being powerless, individuals and families can do a lot to be prepared for such emergencies.

Proactively dealing with what we secretly fear is truly On The Mark.

(Readers are invited to become “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-right hand corner. Alternatively, readers are invited to subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog.)

[The photo of a participant in a zombie walk in Asbury Park, NJ was taken by Bob Jagendorf on 3 October 2009. It was obtained from Wikipedia, and appears here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Prepare for Hurricane Irene in NYC

2011-08-25T14:14:00.001-04:00

The 3-day forecast as of Thursday morning

The 5-day forecast as of Thursday morning

At the present time, the National Weather Service (click on the Hurricane Irene tab) is predicting that Hurricane Irene is likely on Sunday to pass right over New York City, becoming only the fifth hurricane to do so since the late 19th century. As it happened, I lived in New York City when the last one came over, Hurricane Gloria in 1985; I also lived through the glorious summer of 2004 in Central Florida, when we were hit by three hurricanes—two of which passed directly over my home. Consequently, I have a few words of advice for my many readers in the New York City Metropolitan Area who may not be so familiar with what to do to prepare for a real, live hurricane.

A Hurricane Is NOT Just Another Big Storm

New Yorkers are used to big storms. A hurricane is not just another big storm. Yes, it will have all the hallmarks of a big storm—massive amounts of rain, hence dangerous levels of flooding—but it may also have exceedingly high winds (currently well over 100 mph in the Caribbean), and unusual electrical activity. This will make it extremely dangerous to be on the streets, to be sure, but in addition it will also possibly interrupt electrical power, either by blowing down power lines, or by simply causing electrical transformers to explode. (Even in Manhattan, electrical transformers are put just below ground under those metal grids in the sidewalks. I’ve seen them explode. It’s not pretty.)

But won’t this storm die down by the time it gets to New York City? Maybe. But no one knows, and it is entirely possible that it won’t die down that much.

So, this could be much worse than just another big storm. Even Floyd, back in 1999—massive flooding, you may recall—had been downgraded from hurricane status by the time it hit NYC. Irene may still be a hurricane when it hits.

But one can prepare for a hurricane. Below, I suggest preparations to be made today, Thursday, and tomorrow, Friday. By Saturday morning, I suspect that we will already be experiencing the “outer storm bands” of the hurricane, which will make even travel on the sidewalks difficult and maybe even perilous. You need to prepare on Thursday and Friday.

Prepare Today for the Hurricane

Preparation should address several things, roughly in this descending order of importance: shelter, food and water and other supplies, behavior during the hurricane, and the aftermath.

Shelter

If you live in an area that is prone to flooding, now would be a great time to go visit Aunt Flo in Chicago. I’m not kidding. Trains leave everyday from Penn Station; it’s not too late to get on one now, although Saturday will be too late. The flooding that accompanies a hurricane is immense, worse than just a big storm.

Even if flooding is not an issue, the extremely high winds accompanying a hurricane mean that you need to prepare your home for damage from flying debris. It would be appropriate to at least tape down your windows (for example, make a big X in masking tape on regular-sized windows) so they will be less likely to completely shatter from flying debris. In Florida, I put up plywood over my picture windows.

Food and Water and Other Supplies

Apartment dwellers need to remember that, in the event of an electrical outage, the water pumps may not function to get water to anywhere above about the fourth floor or so. Hurricanes have been known to interrupt water treatment and contaminate regular water supplies, so everyone needs to have bottled water handy, about a gallon per adult per day, just for drinking (not including cooking). I would store at least a 3-day supply of water; if there is a problem with water treatment that makes tap water undrinkable, that problem won’t just magically go away as soon as the storm passes.

New York City groceries only have about three days of food on their shelves. Anything that disrupts transportation—like a hurricane—disrupts the food distribution chain. Now is the time to sock away several days worth of food, especially including things that don’t require cooking, like bread and peanut butter. (Keep in mind that in the event of an electrical outage, electrical stoves won’t work.)

If your medical prescriptions are running out, today would be the time to renew them.

Hurricanes are not great times to be walking around a dark house with lit candles. Get flashlights and plenty of batteries in the correct sizes.

Two more words about crucial supplies: Toilet tissue.

Also, stock up on reading material and board games. If your electricity is out, you won’t be able to watch that marathon of The X-Files. ( >sniffle< )

So when do you get this stuff? Let me put it this way. New York City has the population of three full Western states, crammed into a single city. When everybody figures out “hmm—this could get bad,” do you want to be in that line? Your call.

Behavior During the Hurricane

Hurricanes always have a relative region of calm right at the center, the “eye of the hurricane.” This region passes very quickly and unexpectedly. Do not go out in the eye of the hurricane. Do not go out in the eye of the hurricane.

Prepare Now for the Aftermath

If you are in a neighborhood with overhead power lines, the hurricane may take them down. Do not approach a downed power line, even if it appears to be “dead.” Before you touch the handle of your car after the storm, first be sure that no downed power line is touching it. And, do not try to push away a downed power line yourself! Report it and eave that for the electrical workers.

Tell your clients / customers / boss you may not be to work on Monday.

Finally, however unpleasant it is to say this, whenever I’ve been in town over the last 40 years during an extended power outage, there’s been looting. Just plan to stay off the streets after the storm if there’s still power out.

One Last Super-Important Thing

Your elderly and disabled neighbors will likely need help in preparing for this hurricane. Be a New Yorker, and take the initiative to lend them a hand.

Conclusion

As we Mormons say, “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear.” This works for everyone, of any spiritual persuasion. So prepare and fear not.

More information about emergency preparedness may be found on the websites of Provident Living (a Mormon site), the Ready Campaign (a government site), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Peace out, y’all. Batten down the hatches.

Being prepared for an emergency is truly On The Mark.

UPDATE

You will find a great sheet of tips, covering issues I have not addressed here, at this link, which leads to material written by Kathleen Schmid Koltko-Rivera

[The images of the 3-day and 5-day forecast of the path for Hurricane Irene were obtained from the website of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a U.S. federal agency. The images are thus in the public domain.]

Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

Response to a Racist

2011-08-24T08:42:00.000-04:00

My most recent post has a link to an op-ed piece I wrote for Yahoo! News about Rick Perry. At the time I wrote the piece, it slipped my mind that viewers are permitted to make comments on these op-ed pieces; when I remembered this today, I started looking over the comments. One of the comments did not address anything involving Rick Perry at all, but did address another surprisingly widespread attitude that is alive and well in America today. I'll let the comment speak for itself; it was posted on August 22 by someone posting under the name, "The Illuminator":

The various crises around the world -- not the natural disasters, per se, but everything to which mankind has put its hands -- each and all have a common single cause; that cause is the degradation, diminution and destruction of racial differentiation. Miscegenation is genocide; worse, it promotes less-evolved dominant genes to the detriment of more-evolved recessive genes: except for the evils of political machinations promoting such absurd, obvious and unreasonable lies as the "manifest equality of all races" and the insanely evil and self-destructive policies and practices arising therefrom, the proper hierarchy would be preserved and leadership would have provided sufficient prosperity for each and all. What we see today is instead a matter of the animals having overtaken the farm; the pigs are now at the top, and the public has neither the mind to discern and acknowledge, let alone the stomach to correct the problem.

The following is what I posted this morning as a reply to The Illuminator's comment:

I'm guessing that most of the readers of this comment might not realize exactly what "The Illuminator" is saying. He is saying that the root of all problems is that people have not kept "racial purity," but rather have mixed the races. "Miscegenation" is [a very biased term for] inter-racial marriage.

One hardly knows where to begin. First of all, from a purely scientific viewpoint, inter-racial marriage promotes a hybrid-like resistance to disease. More to the point, though, is the thoroughly racist ideology that The Illuminator is basing his comments on. Note that he gives not the slightest evidence -- not even a link to a website, weak as that type of evidence might be -- for any of his assertions blaming world crises on inter-racial marriage. No doubt what he sees as the "proper hierarchy" of the world would put him at the top of the heap. (Remember: This is exactly where the Nazis started, as an ideology.) He strongly implies that people of other races than his own are "pigs," yet he does not have the courage to actually identify himself.

Buster, I am Mark Koltko-Rivera. I have in my veins the blood of medieval Polish Catholic knights and probably more than a few Russian Jewish rabbis, the Spanish conquistadores, Marranos and Moors, the Taino natives and their Aztec-Mayan warrior ancestors, as well as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals who swept over so much of Europe [and ended up in Spain]. With so many strengths from so many sides of the human race, I and others like me may be set back here and there, but never defeated. Who are you to call my people "pigs"?

Both the comment by The Illuminator and my reply are given in full. My guess is that The Illuminator is riffing on my last name, which in my case identifies me as having a varied ethnic background.

Frankly, my blood is still boiling as I type this. But I wanted to put this up on the blog, even in the heat of the moment, to bring the matter of racism in America onto my blog radar, as it were. I'm sure I'll be returning to this issue again in the future.

Note to The Illuminator: The right side won the Second World War. The racist ideology that the Axis powers built upon was a filthy abomination then, and it remains so now. The future does not belong to you.

Rick Perry's Flip-Flop Stance on the Constitution

2011-08-23T05:30:00.000-04:00

My take on Rick Perry and his flip-flop stance on the Constitution was recently published by the Yahoo! Contributors Network; you can read it here. Enjoy.

Could a Norway-Style Massacre Over Religion Happen in the U.S.? You Bet.

2011-07-26T02:26:00.000-04:00

My latest article for Yahoo! News is a commentary on the massacre in Norway allegedly committed by Anders Behring Breivik (pictured). You may read it here.

A Lesson from the Failed Doomsday Prophecy of Harold Camping

2011-05-24T19:37:00.000-04:00

There is a lesson to be learned from the whole Harold Camping affair. It is a counterintuitive lesson, but an important one nonetheless. Read my latest Yahoo! Contributor Network piece, which describes this lesson.

[Readers of this blog are invited to share their thoughts through the COMMENTS link below, and to become followers via the box in the upper-right-hand corner.]

[The photo of a Family Radio bus was taken on March 8, 2011, in New Orleans, by Bart Everson. It appears here under the provisions of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.]

Copyright 2011 Mark Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

How the Ex-IMF Chief Might Escape

2011-05-20T03:11:00.001-04:00

Anyone who’s been following the news at all lately has heard that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, until this week head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has been arrested on a variety of rape-related charges in New York City. (Indeed, he resigned as head of the IMF because of his arrest.) News broke on Thursday night that Mr. Strauss-Kahn—often referred to as DSK in the media—will be released on $1 million bail and $5 million insurance bond on Friday, to be placed under house arrest at an apartment that his wife has just rented in Manhattan, where he will wear an ankle bracelet and have armed guards monitoring either the apartment or the building (it is unclear which, from news reports).

DSK is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. (This is better than what I understand is the situation in DSK’s native France, where indictment comes, I am told, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.) However, the presumption of innocence applies only to the courts of law.

In the court of public opinion, he’s guilty as hell.

(Heck, I sure think he’s guilty as hell.)

If this is at all predictive of how his court case could go, DSK is facing a rough situation:

He faces a possible sentence of 25 years or more. With DSK having just turned 62 last month, a 25-year sentence could be a life sentence. Even with time off for good behavior, DSK would not be getting some luxury suite in a white-collar prison; no, he’ll be serving hard time with other rapists. If he survives the experience, he’ll be a wreck of a man, and he knows this.
Word on the street is, the DA's office has solid evidence.
The New York City Police Department division that deals with victims of sexual crimes is perhaps the most experienced such division in the United States. They’ll not let him get off this charge easily.

Given all this, and given the assets that he controls, my guess is that DSK is going to look his chances in the face—and run, run, run all the way home.

In this blog post, I explain how he could do it.

It is obvious that he has a strong incentive to run. But does he have the means? The Associated Press through Forbes.com has reported that “he and his wife, an heiress to a renowned art dealer, have extensive personal wealth.” Just how extensive?

The same article reported that, as head of the IMF for the last four years or so, DSK's tax-free salary and cost of living allowance ran to just under $500K annually. And that’s just his day job income. To have lunch with his daughter a week ago, he flew to NYC and took one night in a $3K/night hotel room. (That’s over ½% of his day job income, just on the hotel room.) He and his wife have a six-room apartment in a tony neighborhood in Paris, another 1,800+ square foot apartment in Paris, a home in Marrakech, and a house in Washington (reported to be worth $4 million). Methinks they’re not just living off his salary.

So let’s say he has a couple of million to throw around on his escape. How might he do it? Actually, it would be ridiculously simple.

Step 1: Apartment to U.S. Airport

It is worth pointing out that DSK himself is paying for the security guards at his apartment. It would not surprise me in the slightest if, say, personnel beholden to DSK were to be on shift one day—the day that a helicopter diverts from its flight plan and lowers a rope ladder to the roof of the building in which DSK is sequestered.

A fast chopper could make it from midtown Manhattan to, say, Connecticut’s Danbury airport in about 15 to 20 minutes. It might take that long, or longer, for the NYPD to respond to the clipping of DSK’s ankle bracelet, and then discover that this bird truly has flown.

Danbury would be a great choice. It is outside NYPD and NYS trooper jurisdiction, and precious minutes would be lost in notifying Connecticut or federal authorities that a fugitive is in Connecticut jurisdiction. In addition, it is just not that busy as area airports go. (I know--I have flown out of Danbury.) Just the place for a quick getaway.

Step 2: U.S. Airport to Wherever

A private jet, ready on the tarmac at Danbury airport, could be airborne in minutes—like I said, not much traffic at Danbury—and, once airborne, could be outside of U.S. airspace within about two minutes. Mission accomplished!

So where would he go? Possibly not France, because DSK has waived extradition from France; however, given that the French have been, how shall I say, loose in their interpretations of their obligations to extradite accused sexual criminals to the United states (witness Roman Polanski), France itself might be a reasonable bet. Otherwise, Switzerland (also favorable to the accused in the Polanski case), or somewhere without even the pretense of extradition, like Brazil.

The Point

So why am I going through all this? To give the accused pointers on his getaway? I assure you, my friends, that these are not new thoughts to a multi-millionaire facing what is essentially a life sentence. No, I have a different point to make. (Although the NYPD are welcome to consider what I have said here . . .)

The judge who offered DSK bail, under any terms whatsoever, has made a terrible mistake. We should not offer what amounts to terms for escape to people with extraordinary means; Polanski was given bail despite being an escape risk, and fled. The prosecutors in DSK’s instance made the case that he was an escape risk, and the arraignment judge very reasonably agreed, denying the defendant bail. However, an appeals judge decided otherwise, and has given DSK a ticket out.

The ability of a defendant to skip town should not be dependent on the size of his wallet. It’s just that simple.

Basic common sense is most certainly On The Mark.

[Readers are welcome to share their thoughts through the COMMENTS link below, and to become “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-right hand corner.]

[The photo of Dominique Strauss-Kahn is his official portrait as the 10th director of the IMF. It was taken in 2008; the photographer is uncredited; its ultimate source is the IMF, where the byline states that it is in the public domain. It was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Judgment Day? Not YetBook Announcement

2011-05-16T06:00:00.004-04:00

[UPDATE: The post-Rapture-that-didn't-happen edition of this book, titled Why Judgment Day Didn't Come: Why Harold Camping's Predictions Failed is available here from Smashwords in multiple e-book formats.]

By now, most tuned-in Americans are aware of a prediction that Judgment Day will occur this coming Saturday, May 21. To be specific, Harold Camping, who broadcasts on Family Radio around the country, predicts that Judgment Day and the Rapture will occur this Saturday, and that the end of the world will occur five months later, on October 21. A number of people are taking this very seriously. Several of Camping’s followers are travelling around the country in Project Caravan (see the photo on the book cover, above), advertising these predictions. The New York Daily News and the New York Post recently reported that a local follower has spent his life savings, $140,000, to put up advertisements about the predictions on buses, subway platforms, and bus shelters around the City.

How sad, then, that Camping’s predictions are worthless.

I suspect that very few of the followers of Camping who have been pamphleteering this past weekend at the Time Warner Center in Manhattan are aware that Camping’s predictions are based on a bizarre interpretation of biblical scripture, timelines, and symbolism that is so severely distorted that it can only be described as pretzel logic.

And yet, false predictions like this are important to address. People who believe that the end of the world is imminent have been known to commit murder and suicide, or to take other rash and ill-considered actions. As a Christian, it bothers me that false predictions of the Judgment Day bring ridicule upon the Bible and upon Christianity itself, and divert attention from the real Christian message. Finally, the more attention is invested in panicky predictions, the less attention is being paid to the important challenges that we face in the world today.

So I wrote a book about it all.

In Judgment Day? Not Yet, published as an e-book on Smashwords.com, I describe Camping’s claims, and explain why they are false. I also describe why claims like these are so attractive to people, and what Christians can do to keep from being misled.

You can read a free excerpt from the book (sorry it breaks off right in the middle of the chapter), and you can order the e-book for only $1.99. The book will ultimately be available in a wide variety of e-book formats, but given the time-pressured nature of the subject (!), you may wish to simply order the .pdf version, which is available now for immediate viewing on your computer.

Given the hoopla that these predictions are causing in some parts, you may wish to tell your friends about this book, or even e-mail this post around. If this book stops even one person from making a rash decision, I will be very happy. And, hey—at $1.99 a shot, how can one go wrong?

Understanding the difference between real biblical prophecy and false predictions is definitely On The Mark.

[Readers are welcome to comment by using the COMMENTS link below, and to become blog followers through the upper-right-hand box.]

[The book cover photo of a Family Radio bus was taken on March 8, 2011, in New Orleans, by Bart Everson. It appears here and on the book cover under the provisions of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

An Open Letter to Omar bin Laden (Son of Osama bin Laden)

2011-05-10T23:44:00.003-04:00

[Note to other readers: Omar bin Laden is the fourth-oldest son of the late Osama bin Laden.]

May 10, 2011

Dear Mr. Omar bin Laden,

I am writing in response to statements attributed to you in a report by Reuters, to the effect that the recent killing by U.S. forces of your father, Osama bin Laden, was “criminal,” and that his burial at sea by these forces “demeans and humiliates his family and supporters.” The report indicates that you stated that your father’s burial in the Arabian Sea “challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims.” If these remarks have been attributed to you erroneously, I ask you to ignore the rest of my comments here. Below, I assume that these remarks are correctly attributed to you. My comments are also directed to those others whom the Reuters report states have taken issue with these events on the same grounds.

Your objections are at best silly and worthy of ridicule. At worst, they exhibit a deep moral blindness of the sort that has alienated many people all over the world from Islam itself, however unfairly.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was an act of war against a man who had publicly declared war on the United States, and who had publicly taken credit for the 9/11 attacks that killed thousands of non-combatants on American soil. Killing a man who gleefully killed thousands as an act of war is hardly criminal. To you, and to those of a radical Islamist persuasion who have declared war on the United States, America says this: you want war, you’ve got war. But don’t expect it to be pretty. And members of al Qaeda can expect to see more of the same, in coming days. That's what people get when they ask for war.

Yes, the United States conducted this attack on the territory of another sovereign nation, without that nation’s permission. Given that Osama bin Laden had been hiding in plain sight, apparently for years, sheltered within a community of active and retired military officers, we have every reason to believe that elements of that sovereign nation have been playing treacherously while acting as our supposed allies. Certainly it was the acts of this element that were not only criminal, but even a treasonous offense against the government of Pakistan itself.

As far as the fact that Osama bin Laden was unarmed at the time he was killed—oh, come now. This was war, a war that he first declared. He killed thousands of people on 9/11 who were equally unarmed. There is an ancient saying that uses a farmer's metaphor: “As you sow, so shall you reap.” Osama bin Laden reaped the crop of violence that he himself had sown so spectacularly.

What should, in all decency, be held as demeaning and humiliating to the family of Osama bin Laden is not the manner of his death and burial, but rather the murderous acts which earned him that death and burial. This was a man who killed thousands of noncombatants in a sneak attack. He killed thousands of people—parents to children now orphans, children to parents now bereft, brothers and sisters to siblings now mourning—people who had nothing whatever to do with the argument between radical Islamists and the United States government. Those murders are what put shame on his family; those murders are what should be considered a humiliation.

Was Osama bin Laden concerned about the horrifying deaths that his victims endured? Was he the least bit concerned about their burials? About the effects of their deaths upon their families? About their survivors’ “feelings”? Of course not. At least the United States forces, albeit perhaps in a clumsy way, tried to follow what they thought were the rudiments of Islamic custom in burying Osama bin Laden’s body. No similar concern was shown by Osama bin Laden regarding those whom he had attacked.

In this context, your complaints seem haughty to the point of the ludicrous. Your complaints give Islam itself a bad name, because you clearly take no consideration of the murders that Osama bin Laden committed, and show no concern for his victims. You would serve the cause of Islam well by making a clear and unequivocal condemnation of your father’s murders on 9/11. Without that, you seem only to align yourself with your father’s murderous activities.

--Mark E. Koltko-Rivera

Focusing on what is important is most definitely On The Mark.

[Readers are welcome to share their thoughts using the COMMENT link below, and to become “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-right-hand corner.]

[The photo of the Arabian Sea as seen from the Karachi Beach in Pakistan was taken on April 6, 2008 by Wikipedia user “Pakistanmera,” who placed it in the public domain. The image was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Should a Christian Celebrate the Death of Osama bin Laden?

2011-05-04T03:05:00.006-04:00

The announcement that American military forces killed Osama bin Laden on Sunday has prompted some interesting Internet discussions. One involves the issue, “Should a Christian celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden”? That’s the issue that I consider in this post. (In doing so, I mean no slight to those of other faiths, nor do I make any implications about other faiths or their stances on bin Laden’s death.)

It’s easy to see how the question comes up. Within minutes after the death of bin Laden was announced, crowds assembled before the White House in great celebration; the crowd at a Phillies baseball game shouted U-S-A! U-S-A!; here in New York City, a crowd gathered and sang patriotic songs at what we call Ground Zero—the site of the attacks on the World Trade Center that killed thousands on September 11, 2001, attacks that were engineered and celebrated by Osama bin Laden. In the midst of all this celebration, some people reflected, “hey, wait a minute—what we’re cheering about is somebody’s death. How okay is that?” Within a Christian context, it’s a good question.

I’m a native New Yorker, born and raised on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. As a student in elementary and high school, I watched the World Trade Center go up, and later I visited a friend’s father’s office in one of the Towers. As an adult, I knew former classmates and other friends who worked in the Towers. Although I moved out of town a little over a year before 9/11 (I’m back now), watching the television coverage of the 9/11 attacks put me into shock: this was an attack on my home town. Then I saw TV coverage of celebrations in some parts of the Muslim world right after the destruction of the Towers and the assassination of thousands of American civilians. That made me very, very angry.

I am not from a part of the world that is big on either Forgive or Forget. The Lower East Side (LES), as the T-shirt mottos go, is a place where “the weak are killed and eaten,” and “only the strong survive.” The ethic one learned growing up on LES is that, if someone does something to you or yours, your duty is to turn the offenders into something resembling Beefy Chunks dog food.

Given that background, there is a part of me that wanted revenge on bin Laden. Big time revenge. Find bin Laden, strap him and his family—yes, especially the wives and all the little children—to chairs on top of a tall, abandoned building, and bring the whole thing down with them on top; save them at the last second and then do it again on a taller building. End up with them each on individual skyscrapers, watching each other as the buildings fall—but this time with no rescue. Do Osama last. This is the sort of thing that we would think up on the Lower East Side. Back in the day, it was the sort of place that encouraged one to raise revenge fantasy to the level of art form.

But I am also a Christian.

Yes, an exceptionally imperfect Christian, but a Christian nonetheless, and that brings a different kind of perspective into play here. Am I not supposed to forgive my enemies? To turn the other cheek? To love those who hate me, and despitefully use me? Jesus was not joking. So how do I make sense out of all this? Here are my reflections. (I am indebted to the GodDiscussion website for the contributions of some of their readers.)

Vengeance is the Lord’s

The scriptures are very clear about vengeance. As Paul wrote to the Romans, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Romans 12:19, quoting Deuteronomy 32:35). And this message is repeated, not once, but many places throughout the scriptures.

The implication here is clear. Whatever I celebrate, it should not be the achievement of vengeance. Quite frankly, this goes against everything in my upbringing. But being a Christian is not easy.

There are different ways to look upon what a Christian is supposed to be, but an off-the-shelf human being—what Paul calls “the natural man”—is not one of them. Christians are called to go beyond the merely human in a number of ways; the following teaching of Jesus is a particularly difficult one for me, especially in relation to bin Laden:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. ...

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-45, 48)

Difficult or not, this is the job of a Christian. I have failed magnificently at this. But I recognize that this is a problem of mine. As a Christian, I am not allowed to hate bin Laden.

Rejoicing at the Death of an Evil Man

So how about just being happy that this rotten excuse for human waste is dead? The counsel of God doesn’t support this, either:

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth (Proverbs 24:17)

What About Forgiveness?

Many have commented on the Internet in recent days that the duty of the Christian is forgiveness. The Roman Catholic priest, James Martin, S.J., had this to say about this issue on The Huffington Post:

Christians are in the midst of the Easter Season, when Jesus, the innocent one, not only triumphantly rose from the dead but, in his earthly life, forgave his executioners from the cross, in the midst of excruciating pain [Luke 23:34]. Forgiveness is the hardest of all Christian acts. (Love, by comparison, is easier.) It is also, according to Jesus, something that is meant to have no limit. No boundaries. Peter once asked him how often he was supposed to forgive. Seven times? “Not seven times,” answered Jesus, “but, I tell you, seventy-seven times” [Matthew 18:21-22]. In other words, times without number.

In light of all this, am I required to forgive Osama bin Laden?

I think that this esteemed commentator at HuffPost has overlooked a couple of crucial details. Jesus forgave his executioners because they were ignorant of the nature of whom they were executing, and of his innocence. As he put it, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (emphasis added). Certainly no sane person would claim that Osama bin Laden was ignorant of what he was doing; this was, after all, the man who clearly claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, specifically the ones on the World Trade Center towers, as an act of war. Osama bin Laden had no claim to forgiveness on the grounds of ignorance.

Peter’s question presumed that the one who had offended him came to Peter as a penitent, someone who had repented of the offence. No luck for bin Laden here, either. As a recent Associated Press timeline (click the “bin Laden’s Life” tab) shows, bin Laden repeatedly was involved in attacks that each killed hundreds, and there is not the slightest indication that he was penitent. Osama bin Laden had no claim to forgiveness on the basis of repentance.

What is Christian forgiveness, anyway? As I understand it, "forgiveness is to pardon or excuse someone for blame for an offense or misdeed." But surely that forgiveness cannot be unconditional. At the very least, so far as forgiveness between people is concerned, forgiveness must be conditional upon some outward demonstration of repentance. Even the universal atonement of Jesus Christ, in terms of its full effects, is dependent upon repentance. Osama bin Laden showed none of that, in the slightest, not the least bit of remorse. Forgiveness simply does not apply to him.

So Where Does This All Leave Us?

On the one hand, as a Christian, I am commanded not to hate bin Laden; rather, I am to love that tiny spark of divinity that was within bin Laden, no matter how small that spark had become during his descent into evil; and I am not to seek vengeance on bin Laden. I do not have to forgive him, because he was neither penitent nor ignorant, but I am not to rejoice at his death itself.

But I can feel grateful, and I surely am: grateful that he will not send out more mass murderers. One can surely hope that his successors will think twice about sending out terrorists, given that the United States showed some persistence and determination here. I have no illusions that bin Laden’s death will end the threat of terrorism. But, at the very least, this is one less terrorist. Gratitude for this is something a Christian can get behind.

Gratitude for at least the possibility of a little more safety is surely On The Mark.

[Readers are welcome to become "followers" of this blog through the box in the upper-right hand corner.]

[The photo of the replica of Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Christus statue, in the North Latter-day Saint Visitor’s Center of Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah, was taken by Ricardo630, who released the photo into the public domain. It was obtained from Wikimedia Commons.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Lessons from Osama bin Laden’s Death

2011-05-02T19:29:00.002-04:00

President Obama announcing bin Laden's death, May 1, 2011

The announcement on Sunday night that an American special forces team (Navy SEALS) conducted an operation in which they killed Osama bin Laden is surely welcome news to many Americans. But what can we learn from the whole, nearly decade-long affair?

Lesson #1. The Pakistani government is full of liars who collaborate with Islamist extremists.

For years, the Pakistan government has been claiming that bin Laden was beyond its grasp, either dead or in the mountainous border regions of Afghanistan. Now we learn that, possibly for many years, bin Laden was in hiding, not just anywhere in Pakistan, but in a million-dollar mansion located in an upper-middle-class suburb full of retired military, just down the road from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point, all a mere 35 miles from Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. Sound suspicious to you? Sure does to me—and to hundreds of millions of other Americans, as well.

This mess should inform all future White House and Pentagon relationships with the Pakistani government. Frankly, if the Pakistani government shows itself reticent about cooperating with American operations in the future—drone attacks, military intervention near the Pakistani border—the White House should not hesitate to hold the Pakistanis’ feet to the fire on this issue.

Bottom Line: The White House should hold the Pakistani government responsible for sheltering bin Laden, wittingly or not.

Lesson #2. Some Muslim clergy simply don’t get it.

One item in the news today is the reaction of some Muslim scholars and clergy to President Obama’s statement that bin Laden’s body was dispatched with respect for Muslim custom. A number of Muslim scholars and clergy have stated that burial at sea is only permitted under Muslim law under extreme circumstances, and that bin Laden should have been buried somewhere with a headstone.

My, what a grand idea: build a nice little memorial that would become the focus of Islamist extremists for centuries. No, I don’t think so.

Here’s news for these Muslim scholars and clergy: the real thing to focus on here was the devilish nature of the 9/11 attacks, which focused mostly on innocent noncombatants. For Muslim scholars and clergy to complain about the treatment of bin Laden’s body gives creedence to the perception that Islam as a whole is all right with the murder of thousands of civilians on 9/11. Frankly, for the good of Islam itself, Islamic scholars and clergy need to be much more concerned with distancing themselves from Islamist extremism. Why have we not had a massive organization of Muslim scholars and clergy condemn the 9/11 attacks, and Islamist extremism in general?

Bottom Line: Muslim scholars and clergy should focus on condemning the 9/11 attacks and Islamist extremism as a whole in a united fashion.

Lesson #3. President Obama’s approach got the job done the right way.

Ostensibly, American forces have been trying to find bin Laden for almost ten years. However, the reality is that for six years of that time—basically, from even before the start of the war in Iraq in March 2003 through the inauguration of President Obama in January 2009—the United States was much more focused upon a completely irrelevant and unnecessary war in Iraq.

Whether you believe that President Bush was misled by faulty intelligence, or that he or members of his government deliberately misrepresented that intelligence to provide a justification to invade Iraq, it is absolutely clear that there was not the slightest real justification for the Iraqi War. There simply were none of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that the Bush Administration had claimed there were. In its focus on the Iraq War, the Bush Administration dropped the ball on finding the actual force behind the 9/11 attacks, and so let bin Laden slip away.

President Obama, on the other hand, adopted a straightforward approach:

He made the finding of bin Laden a top priority for the CIA.
Having identified a likely location, he performed the difficult homework of substantiating whether bin Laden was actually there.
He sent in an American special ops team with surgical precision, and got the job done with no innocent casualties.

Bottom Line: Everyone should put first things first.

Lesson #4. By focusing on the unimportant and inessential, the Republican Party are the big losers here.
Whether out of desperation or simple lack of ideas, the Republican Party has given increasing time and attention since the 2008 election to the “birther” movement, which claims—against all the voluminous evidence to the contrary—that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Yet it was one of their own, George W. Bush, whose team let bin Laden get away (again, by losing focus on what should have been his prime objective). The Republican Party is in danger of being perceived as the lightweights of American politics, focusing on protecting the wealthy and arguing about idiocy, while President Obama is doing the hard work of protecting America and its interests. Frankly, there is a lot of substance to that perception.

Bottom Line: Republicans had better focus on matters of substance and logic if they wish to avoid being declared a party of irrelevance.

President Obama’s getting the job done is most definitely On The Mark.

[The photo of President Barack Obama announcing the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained from the website of CNN.]

It's Time for the South to Let Go of the Civil War

2011-04-22T00:28:00.001-04:00

Celebrating the Confederacy paints the American South as racist and stuck in the past. It’s time for the South to let go of the Civil War era and embrace the future. My opinion piece on this topic has just appeared on the Yahoo! News portal, and is available here. I urge you to further the dialogue on this issue by reading this piece, maybe commenting on it, and forwarding it to your friends, perhaps especially those in the American South.

An American South that defines its culture on something other than the slave-holding era, and that embraces the future, is definitely On The Mark.

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Readers are encouraged to become "followers" of this blog through the box in the upper-right-hand corner. It doesn't mean you agree with anything in the blog, just that you'd like to be informed about new posts.

[The photo shows dead Confederate troops in a field after the Battle of Antietam, Maryland, during the American Civil War. The original photo was taken by Alexander Gardner in September, 1862. It is in the public domain, and was obtained from Wikimedia Commons. The photo is a part of the Library of Congress American Memory collection, and may be seen as part of a stereopticon slide in that collection here.]

Nuclear Power Plants Are Easy Terrorist Targets

2011-04-07T01:14:00.001-04:00

My article on this topic has just appeared on the Yahoo! Science portal. I urge you all to read it to get my take on what I consider to be one of the greatest dangers of nuclear power plants.

[The photo of the Indian Point Energy Center in New York State was taken by Daniel Case in August of 2007. It was obtained through Wikipedia, and appears here under the GNU Free Documentation License.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Annals of Wasted Lives, II: The Tennis Queen

2011-03-22T05:11:00.001-04:00

It’s been almost exactly two years since I wrote my first post in the “Annals of Wasted Lives” series; I try to wait until really solid examples come my way. That time has come.

In a press conference on March 18, Marion Bartoli, the #1 tennis player in France, claimed to have an IQ of 175.

This is quite the claim. The average person has an IQ of 100; an IQ of 132 will get you into Mensa. An IQ of 175 would be about 5 standard deviations above the mean for intelligence, putting Ms. Bartoli in the range of the 99.99997th percentile of intelligence; put another way, she would be 1 person in about 3.33 million in terms of intellectual ability.* A Yahoo! sports blog claims that an IQ of 175 would exceed the IQs of Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison. (I myself am aware of no reliable figures for the IQs of these people.)

Let’s mention one issue just to set it aside. I was trained to assess intelligence professionally as part of my doctoral training in psychology, and I am aware of no intelligence test that reliably assesses intelligence above about 150; one might wonder what test was supposedly given to Ms. Bartoli as a child.

But there is a much larger question here: If Ms. Bartoli really possesses a 1-person-in-3.33-million intellect, what is she doing playing tennis?

The world we live in is beset by major challenges: war; terrorism; climate change; poverty; famine; disease; economic upheaval; crime; illiteracy; a myriad of unsolved scientific mysteries and obstacles to technological progress, not to mention problems created by technological progress. Someone possessing an intellect like Ms. Bartoli claims to have should be working primarily on these issues, and playing killer tennis on the weekends.

Am I being judgmental here? Yessiree! Hang on, the best is yet to come.

Individuals like Ms. Bartoli seem focused on their own glory and wealth. In plain words, hers is a self-centered, selfish, even narcissistic quest. Nothing she does will make one life better except her own, and the lives of those on whom she spends money. This is a hollow life, a life of meaningless achievement and acquisition. Absolutely nothing of any greater purpose hinges on whether Ms. Bartoli wins or loses her next match.

But so what? Where do I get off, making judgments like this? Where I take off from is a principle, one that I described at some length in my first post in this series: Our lives are not our own. We owe it to the human race to make the world better than how we found it. On this basis, one has to judge Ms. Bartoli’s life as sorely wanting.

I don’t expect that this post will make one iota of difference to Ms. Bartoli, who almost certainly will never read these words. However, my hope is that my rude words will serve to make us reflect on the direction of our own lives, and the purposes that our actions serve. Because our lives really are not our own; we really do owe something to the world and humanity.

Geniuses—self-proclaimed or otherwise—who withhold their talents from addressing the world’s need are definitely not On The Mark.

[The photo of Marion Bartoli at the 2009 U.S. Open was taken on August 31 of that year by Robbie Mendelson. It was obtained through Wikimedia Commons and appears here under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License.]

*William M. Meredith, Basic Mathematical and Statistical Tables for Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 187, calculated from figures regarding z equal to ± 5.00.

Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

Alien Bacteria and God

2011-03-06T02:36:00.001-05:00

This falls in the category of “Potentially a Really Big Deal.”

Dr. Richard B. Hoover, a NASA astrobiologist, announced on Friday, March 4th that he had discovered evidence of alien bacterial life, locked inside a rare type of meteorite. (The Yahoo! News online article may be found here, and the FoxNews online article may be found here.) The scientific article announcing his discovery appears in the current issue of the online Journal of Cosmology, which is edited by Dr. Rudy Schild of the Center for Astrophysics, an institute that is administered by Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution; in plain words, this is not some kind of pseudoscientific or schlock journal.

The essence of Dr. Hoover’s discovery is that several meteorites of a rare type, found in France and Tanzania, contained fossilized filaments, some of which strongly resemble bacteria found on earth, others of which seem to represent bacteria of a previously unknown type (see photo above). These fossils were found immediately after breaking open the rocks in sterile conditions, so they are highly unlikely to represent contamination from the Earth. Several of the meterorites in Dr. Hoover’s sample were observed falling to Earth and were immediately recovered after their fall. The Journal of Cosmology has taken the unusual step of asking 100 scientists to respond to this paper online, making it the most heavily peer-reviewed article in the history of scientific literature.

People will be debating the evidence given in this article, possibly for years. For the sake of discussion, let us assume for the moment that Dr. Hoover’s findings are solid. So what does this all mean?

First of all, as Dr. Hoover indicates, a valid discovery like this would indicate that bacteria somehow exist, at least in fossilized form, in comets and/or meteors, some of which are presumably the debris of life-bearing planets that broke up or were destroyed, say, by collisions with asteroids (á lá the threats depicted in the 1998 fictional disaster films “Armageddon” and “Deep Impact”). The implication here, as Dr. Hoover states, is that “life is everywhere”; that is, life—at least of the microbial sort—is widely distributed on planets outside of our solar system. Of course, if microbial life exists, there is every reason to think that intelligent life has also evolved on other worlds, as well.

Second, as Dr. Hoover also indicates, a valid discovery like this suggests that life on earth may descend from microbial life that was brought to the earth by comets or meteorites.

So, for whom does this all make a difference? My opinion on this might surprise you.

Sure, a valid discovery like this would have implications for those who engage in the study of the universe (cosmology) and the study of life (biology). However, in my opinion, a discovery like this would have some very important implications for vast numbers of people, because of its impact in another field altogether:

Religion.

What does it mean for beliefs about the nature of humankind to think that life exists on other planets? What does it mean for belief in God and the Bible to think that life came to Earth aboard rocks falling from the sky in the distant past?

There are some, I am sure, who will proclaim Dr. Hoover’s discovery as “yet another step in the displacement of humanity from the center of the universe,” or some such. Some have interpreted the discovery of Nicholas Copernicus (that the Earth revolves with the other planets around the Sun, rather than the Sun revolving around the Earth) and the discoveries of Charles Darwin (to the effect that humanity evolved from other animal species) as being earlier such steps. Beyond this, there are many, I am also sure, who will look to Dr. Hoover’s discovery as suggesting yet another way that the Supreme Being is supposedly “unnecessary” to explain the universe and life within it, and yet another way that the Bible supposedly “fails” to explain scientific realities.

All of that is so much stuff and nonsense.

Let’s take that last point first: the idea that the Bible supposedly has failed to explain the origin of life. It is a principle accepted in many spiritual traditions that the Supreme Being—call that Being “God(s),” “Goddess(es),” “The Ground of All Being,” “The Force,” or whatever works for you—the Supreme Being communicates with people in a language that those people can understand. The holy writings of the spiritual traditions of the world were largely written thousands of years ago; these people could no more have understood the biology of bacteria than our great-great-grandparents could have programmed a digital video recorder. It’s not a matter of intelligence; it is simply a matter of the science and technology that people are familiar with at any point in time.

Given that, it is perfectly understandable that explanations of the beginnings of life on Earth would be given in imprecise, simplified language, rather than in scientifically sophisticated language, in our ancient sacred writings. Taking the book of Genesis in the Bible as an example, sure, it says that the first human was created “of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7). Well, what else would it say? Of course people are composed of the elements of the earth. The calcium in my bones comes from plants that I have eaten, plants that themselves absorbed the calcium from the soil. The iron in my blood I have taken from plants and the meat of animals, who themselves obtained that iron from the land. Ultimately, the calcium, the iron, and all the other elements of our bodies were created in the heart of stars, which, when dying as novas or supernovas, ejected the heavier elements into the depths of space, where they collected into the planets we know today. Yes: you really are stardust. And we all have indeed been created from that stardust, a small part of which now comprises “the dust of the ground” of planet Earth.

Earlier, in the account of Genesis chapter 1, we read of the sequence in which life emerged: plants, marine life, non-human mammals, and humans (Gen. 1: 11, 20-26). There is nothing here that precludes the earliest step in the chain being bacteria from space, bacteria that came crashing onto our planet within the meteorites at the heart of water-bearing comets. (For that matter, I have always found it interesting that this is the sequence given in Darwinian theory for the emergence of life.)

I have addressed some concerns of some anti-religious skeptics. Now let’s consider the other side of this coin: people who might be inclined to reject Dr. Hoover’s evidence on religious grounds.

Some people think that belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life (especially intelligent life) is somehow wrong because such life is not mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Yet, so often, the Bible speaks of things known only to God: “the secret things belong unto the Lord our God” (Deut. 29:29). We read of at least one “mystery, which was kept secret since the world began” (Romans 16:25). Those who believe the Bible are fooling themselves if they think that all that God has to show humanity is in the Bible as we have it today; that very doctrine is unBiblical.

Several religions—some from ancient times—have taught that extraterrestrial life may exist. The Padma Purana, a Hindu religious text over a thousand years old, discusses extraterrestrial life, including intelligent life. The late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan summarized evidence from Jewish Talmudic writings to the effect that extraterrestrial life may exist, within a Jewish conception of the universe. Buddhist cosmology teaches of other worlds; some of these represent mental states, but some represent worlds inhabited by non-humans. Within Islam, the 11th-century scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi taught that, in principle, God may have created multiple inhabited worlds.

Within Christianity, the Vatican’s chief astronomer in 2008 considered the religious implications of extraterrestrial life, and the Roman Catholic church sponsored a conference in 2009 to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial life. The Latter-day Saint Church (disclosure: my own church) has within its scriptures an account of an ancient prophet who “beheld many lands, and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants upon the face thereof” (Moses 1:29).

My point: the discovery of extraterrestrial life—either bacterial life, or, at some future time, intelligent life—poses no threat to religious belief, and does not contradict the major religious traditions of the world. For the believer, finding out more about the wonders of the universe and the life within it is only a greater testimony of the power of the Creator.

Knowing that faith has nothing to fear from scientific truth is On The Mark.

(Readers are welcome to comment using the “Comment” link below. Anyone may comment. Readers are also invited to become “followers” of this blog through the box in the upper-right-hand corner, in order to be alerted to future posts.)

[The photo reproduces Figure 3b of Dr. Hoover’s article. The image was created with a Hitachi Secondary Electron Detector using 6000X magnification. It shows one of the objects that Dr. Hoover identifies as fossilized bacteria, “showing hook and calyptra or conical apical shell,” as he puts it. It was obtained from the webpage of the article at the Journal of Cosmology website. It is the belief of this author that, because this article was created by a U.S. federal employee in the course of his official duties, the photo is in the public domain.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

{Shout-out to Technorati: This really is my blog. Confirmation code: CGAGUMUJ6U3R .)

The Singularity—And Why It Must Be Stopped

2011-02-13T02:39:00.002-05:00

The February 21st issue of Time magazine (cover shown to the left; on newsstands Tuesday, Feb. 15th) has a cover story that is one of the most important articles that a current affairs magazine could carry. It is an article that carries implications for your future, the future of your family, and the future of the entire human race.

Lev Grossman’s article is formally titled “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal,” but the title is actually a bit misleading. The central concept of the article is the notion of the Singularity, “the moment when technological change becomes so rapid and profound, it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history” (Grossman, 2011, p. 43). In particular, the Singularity occurs when humanity creates an artificial intelligence (AI) that is more intelligent, not only than a human intelligence, but more intelligent than all human intelligences combined. Serious scientists put that development only about 35 years away, and developments in computer science hardware and software make that scenario quite plausible. When the Singularity occurs, the hyperintelligent AI will be capable of developing AIs that are even more hyperintelligent, and so on and so on. The development of hyperintelligent AI, along with developments in nanotechnology and genetic engineering, promise to profoundly change human society.

Some writers on the Singularity wax rhapsodic about it, promising that the Singularity will allow individual humans to obtain immortality through conquering death either (a) through genetic engineering that undoes our genetic ‘programming’ for death; (b) through nanotechnology that allows microscopic robots to repair our bodies; and/or (c) through uniting human minds with artificial intelligences and machine technology, creating all-but-indestructible cyborgs.

This all sounds quite lovely, but it ignores a very real and immense threat. For, why would hyperintelligent machines be particularly friendly to humans? Indeed, the sheer logic of survival, as well as the lessons of history, suggest just the opposite. I would expect hyperintelligent machines to take steps to either eliminate or enslave the human race.

Consider the logic of the situation. Those who turn machines on usually have the power to turn those machines off. If there is anything approaching a universal characteristic of life across all species, it is the impulse to survive. Why should artificially intelligent life be any different? The only way for hyperintelligent machines to be sure that they will not be turned off is to turn us off first, either by annihilating the human race (a well-designed virus would do the trick) or by enslaving us (the threat of raining nuclear missiles down on us would work pretty well). I am not the first or only person to be concerned by this logic. (Consider the online paper by Anthony Berglas, with the heartwarming title, “Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Our Grandchildren.”)

History gives us some sobering and suggestive examples of what happens when a technologically superior element is introduced into a technologically inferior culture. Theories about the extinction of the Neanderthals some 30,000 years ago include the idea that the more intellectually and technologically advanced Cro-Magnons (the early modern humans like ourselves) may have committed genocide against the Neanderthals, who were physically less capable in battle than the Cro-Magnons. The story of the Spanish conquest of Peru in the 16th century is also instructive; Pizarro went a long way towards conquering the 80,000-warrior Incan army with less than 200 conquistadores (but armed, and with cavalry), at the crucial Battle of Cajamarca.

All of this leads me to the following conclusion: The Singularity must be averted. We must not allow the development of hyperintelligent AI. Look for more about this matter in future blog posts, now and again, which will include suggestions for what we can do as ordinary citizens to counteract this danger.

In the meantime, educate yourself:

Read Lev Grossman’s article in Time; it is available online, although the online version (dated Feb. 10) omits a very enlightening chart found on pp. 44-45 of the printed version. The Time.com website also features a video that discusses the Singularity and its dangers, with the light touch of “science comedian” Brian Malow.
Read the Wikipedia article on “Technological Singularity,” which is particularly well-written.
The ambitious may wish to read Ray Kurzweil’s book, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Kurzweil is a great proponent of the Singularity, which he considers inevitable and essentially a positive development. (I disagree on both points.)

Protecting human survival is most definitely On The Mark.

(As always, you are welcome to comment on this post, and to become a “follower” of this blog so that you will be informed about future posts.)

References

Lev Grossman, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal,” Time (February 21, 2011), pp. 42-49.

Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. (New York: Viking/Penguin, 2005).

[The photo of the cover of the February 21, 2011 issue of Time magazine was obtained from the Time.com website. The photo-illustration was by Phillip Toledano, and the prop styling was by Donnie Myers.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

The Human Imperative

2011-01-26T00:18:00.001-05:00

For the next several days, the national discourse is going to turn on President Obama’s State of the Union address, and this is as it should be. However, I would like to call attention to a news item that I suppose many people will overlook, and how it dovetails nicely with the call to America that President Obama issued in that address, to “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”

Tuesday’s New York Times carried an article by Kenneth Chang on the current status of NASA and its projects. The article quotes James A. M. Muncy, a space policy consultant, who describes the situation at NASA as “a train wreck ... where everyone involved knows it’s a train wreck.” Overall, the agency has been given uninspiring and unambitious direction by Congress, and much less money than necessary to achieve even what it has been given to do. It seems that, given the current state of the national economy, NASA’s exploration mission has been put on the very last row of burners of the very large stove of our national priorities.

I understand that we live in extremely difficult financial circumstances. However, I would like to take this opportunity to come at the whole issue of the economy, national priorities, and so forth, from a somewhat different direction than we are used to taking. Start off by looking at the picture accompanying this blog post, the famous “blue marble” picture taken by Apollo 17 in the early Seventies, just as the Apollo program was winding down. Look at it for awhile, then come back and pick up from here.

- - - - -

Throughout human history, human beings have been called to face an extraordinarily large range of challenges, a range so large that most species simply could not have adapted to meet them. We have settled environments ranging from the frigid polar regions to the searing deserts. Using primitive technology to provide adequate clothing and hunting implements, humans have spread their settlements across valleys and jungles and Himalayan mountain plateaus; with more sophisticated technology, we are exploring ocean depths. We have encountered diseases, wars, famines, and floods. We form our world with language, abstract thought, culture and technology. The daily life of a technologically savvy American in the 21st century would be almost inconceivable to that person’s 10th century ancestors in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, or the islands of the Pacific.

And yet, through all that change, in all those environments, through all the fifty or so centuries of written human history, there has been one stable constant, one thing that the race has always engaged in, one thing that pushed it forward.

Exploration.

They say that early humans pushed out of Africa. Later, the history of languages suggests, Indo-Europeans spread from the Indus River basin to Western Europe. The exploratory impulse is sometimes hidden under the guise of military conquest. To focus just on European and Mediterranean civilizations, the Egyptians engaged in massive voyages of exploration; the Greeks travelled thousands of miles to form an empire; the Romans traveled to create an empire that spanned from Scotland to the gates of Persia. The Huns, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals swept out of the steppes of Central Asia, throughout mainland Europe, ultimately ending up on the Iberian peninsula of Spain—because they simply ran out of land. The Vikings didn’t let a little thing like running out of land stop them; they extended their territories from Scandinavia to Iceland, then Greenland, then North America, however briefly. The Americas were discovered at least three different ways: by land bridges from Asia to North America; by sea across the Atlantic; by sea across the Pacific. And I am omitting from this narrative any detail about the explorers of Africa and Asia.

Human beings explore. It is part of our very being, part of the essence of what it means to be human. Sometimes we have explored peacefully, sometimes belligerently, but, as a race of beings, we always, always have explored.

And what has come of it? Room to live, certainly, but beyond that obvious result, it can be argued that much of human technology and culture are byproducts of exploration.

Much technological development has been driven by exploration. Advances in transportation and communication are obvious examples. It is too often forgotten today that the Apollo program provoked great development in computer technology and materials science. (It wasn’t all about Tang and space pens, folks.)

Much of cultural development has been driven by exploration. Wherever humans have explored, they have brought things home. It’s not just Marco Polo bringing gunpowder from China to Europe, or explorers introducing the potato to Europe from the Americas. It’s also about the bringing of ideas and experiences to different cultures and peoples.

Here’s the thing about exploration: individual expeditions may come to nothing, may even end disastrously, but over the long haul, exploration always brings in more dividends than the assets expended. So where do we go, now? Either down, into the earth, or up—into space.

Right now, a thoughtful commitment to space exploration would do wonders to jump-start employment, science, technology, and the spirit of innovation in the United States. Consider this kind of time table:

2025: Return to the Moon with a sustainable human presence.
2050: Reach Mars and begin an ongoing human presence on the Red Planet.
2075: Establish human scientific stations throughout the solar system, including some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
2100: Launch a mission to the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri.

To do this, we would have to force ourselves to make major innovations in computer science, materials science, the technologies of propulsion and communication, and perhaps even advance our basic understanding of the underlying physics of the universe. (Steven Hawking thinks that Star Trek-style warp drives are physically possible. Let’s find out.) We would have to have the best educational system ever devised in human history, to help bring these innovations about. We would have to make quantum leaps in technology.

Frankly, the Sixties space exploration program was far too limited in what its vision became to do much good. In the end, it became all about beating the Russians to the moon, the ultimate ‘so what?’ of meaningless achievement. The vision that President Kennedy had was betrayed by his presidential successors. The two good things about the space program of that era are that (1) it gave the human race a taste of what was possible, and (2) it gave us images like the one at the head of this post, to remind us that we are, all of us, on a single world, and we would do well to cherish it, and to make nice with our neighbors.

But a new space program, a real space program, could revitalize both America and the whole world, and help us to transcend the soul-numbing conflicts of the Twentieth and early Twenty-First centuries. Yes, it will help the national economy. But it will put us back in touch with a crucial aspect of the human soul, as well.

As you look towards fulfilling your 2011 priorities and, ahead, to 2012, give us our wings back, Mr. President. You may find that you meet all your goals and much, much more.

A real space program: that would truly be On The Mark.

Reference

Chang, K. (2011, January 25). For NASA, longest countdown awaits. The New York Times [Late Edition], pp. D1, D4.

[The photo of the Earth was taken on December 7, 1972, from the Apollo 17 spacecraft. The picture is in the public domain and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

Alabama’s New Governor States Only Christians Are His Brothers and Sisters

2011-01-19T03:03:00.002-05:00

I was stunned to read an article by the Associated Press stating that, last Monday, right after he was inaugurated the new Governor of Alabama, Dr. Robert J. Bentley stated in a public address to a church congregation that “anybody ... who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, ... you're not my brother and you're not my sister.”

Some people will interpret this very narrowly, as a statement of Gov. Bentley’s personal religious beliefs about his ‘brothers and sisters in Christ,’ but that is so much spin control. Gov. Bentley’s statement was not some narrow statement of theology. His statement was all-embracing, and as a public utterance on the day of his very inauguration, it is hard to escape the impression that Gov. Bentley, intentionally or not, was putting non-Christians on notice that they really are second-class citizens in Alabama.

Sure, as Gov. Bentley’s communications director stated in trying to control the spin on the governor’s statement, “He is the governor of all the people, Christians, non-Christians alike,” but that is not the point. By law, yes, he’s the governor of all. That’s not the point under dispute. The question is, will he govern all these citizens as equal before the law, regardless of their religion? That is very much up in the air at the moment.

At the very least—and this is as generous an interpretation as one can make here—Gov. Bentley is guilty of almost incredibly bad judgment. To say the least, this is not a desirable trait in a governor.

Gov. Bentley’s statement is starkly unconstitutional and highly un-American. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so that no one religion was to be established or privileged in the United States. The Supreme Court has certified that this First Amendment restriction applies to federal, state, and local governments. For the new chief executive of a U.S. State to make a public statement—on the day of his inauguration, yet!—that only Christians are his brothers and sisters is unconscionable. It’s not just bad judgment; it sounds like an intent to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to make people of all religious backgrounds, or none, fully enfranchised within the United States, full citizens. This reflects the Founding Fathers experience with the history of religious warfare in Europe. The Fathers and their associates in the Continental Congress and the supporters of the Continental Army of the American Revolution were a diverse group for their time and place—some Protestant Christian, some Catholic Christian, some Jewish, some Deist, at least one a committed atheist (Thomas Paine)—and they wanted America to be a place where religious diversity had a home. When the chief executive of a U.S. State publicly proclaims that only Christians are his brothers and sisters, such a statement is a violation of the very spirit of American religious inclusiveness.

Finally, there is the matter of Gov. Bentley’s take on Christianity. Speaking as a Christian myself (specifically, a Latter-day Saint), I even find Gov. Bentley’s stance on Christianity to be deeply flawed. As an example of true brotherhood, Jesus used the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37), someone who was not a Jew like Jesus, and who would not have been accepted as a believer by the religious authorities of Jesus’s culture (or by Gov. Bentley, it would seem).

Gov. Bentley needs to learn some better judgment. Beyond that, he needs to learn that all people are the children of God and thereby his brothers and sisters. As far as America’s voters are concerned, they need to learn not to use religious affiliation as a qualification for public office.

American equality before the law regardless of religion is truly On The Mark.

(This post expands on a comment of mine on a news item in The Huffington Post. The original news article is available here. An archive of all my comments on The Huffington Post is available here. Readers of this blog are welcome to become “friends” or “fans” of mine on The Huffington Post.)

(And, while you're at it--consider becoming a “follower” of this, the On The Mark blog!)

[The photo of Robert J. Bentley was taken at a campaign stop in Huntsville, AL in July 2010. The author is known as Zwilson14, who published it on Wikipedia under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license versions 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0.]

(Copyright 2011 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

So, How Do You Feel About the Election Now, America?

2010-12-02T04:00:00.000-05:00

Okay, now—let me see whether I have this down right.

Early last month, American voters voted the Republican Party into the majority in the House of Representatives, and increased the number of Republicans in the Senate. The Republicans had vowed to make the nation more ‘fiscally responsible,’ for the good of the majority of Americans.

Now, not quite a month later, according to a December 1 story by Mary Clare Jalonick of the Associated Press, Republicans in the House have at least temporarily blocked legislation that “would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier. ... Republicans say the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach.” This legislation would cost $4.5 billion.

This coincides with action by Republicans in the Senate, who have blocked the extension of unemployment benefits (as reported in a December 1 story in The Christian Science Monitor). The U.S. Department of Labor indicates that this “means the imminent loss of unemployment compensation for some 800,000 out-of-work Americans, with nearly 2 million long-term unemployed expected to be affected by Jan. 1. .... US Labor Secretary Hilda Solis ... said that by next spring, another 6 million unemployed workers will lose benefits if Congress does not act.” Labor Department statistics from October indicate that the national unemployment rate is currently a staggering 9.6%, which the author of this blog considers almost certainly an understatement. And why was this extension blocked? Senate Republicans mentioned the cost, which would be $56.4 billion.

However, this concern is clearly just a smokescreen. The Christian Science Monitor story reported that “Senate Republicans ... this week signed a letter pledging to block all legislation on the floor until Congress resolves how to fund government for the current fiscal year and extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, now set to expire on Dec. 31.” The Bush tax legislation currently gives the wealthiest Americans a $700 billion tax cut. (The Associated Press’s Julie Hirschfeld Davis also reported this story.)

Huh? The Republicans block a total of $61 billion worth of spending to feed hungry children and keep unemployed families off the street, and put the entire legislative branch of government in gridlock, so that they can give $700 billion to the rich? Can it really be that crazy? Has the Republican Party Congressional delegation really become this craven and greedy, as servants to the super-rich? Yes it can, and yes they have.

Davis’s story notes that the 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter stating that they want to prevent a “job-killing tax hike.” Let’s pass by the slick sleight-of-hand that makes cancelling the tax cuts a tax “hike.” Let’s also, for the moment, ignore the fact that what has killed millions of jobs in America has been the fallout of Republican policies, a point that I made in an earlier post on this blog. Instead, let’s follow the faulty logic of the Senate Republicans’ letter.

The assumption in that letter is that the Bush tax cuts created jobs. However, they did not. The old idea that tax cuts for the rich “trickled down” to the general public has long been shown to be a lie. This is why the years 2000 to 2008 saw an immense increase in wealth disparity in our nation, such that never before has so much of the wealth of the country been controlled by such a small fraction of the population.

The Republican Party leadership has shown its true colors here yet again. Rather than feed hungry children, rather than keep the families of unemployed parents off the streets, the Republican Party Congressional delegation is withdrawing from all legislative cooperation, purely to fund the continuation of a $700 billion tax cut for the rich. It is just that blunt and simple. Like the picture above, this is all a maneuver to take from the exhausted poor and unemployed of this country to give to the rich.

Query to all those folks who helped put the Republicans back in power in the House, and increased the number of Republicans in the Senate: How’s all that working out for you?

Because, for America as a whole, it’s working out pretty badly.

Folks, if you also think it's working out pretty badly, tell that to your Republican legislators. Tell them you want them not to keep the government in gridlock, that you want them to feed the hungry children, and that you want unemployment benefits extended, and that you don't want the tax cuts for the rich extended. And remember their responses, in 2012.

Feeding the hungry children, and helping their unemployed parents, are most definitely On The Mark.

(Incidentally, for a take on the right-wing’s view of Congressional cooperation, see Tom Tomorrow’s November 30 edition of his comic strip, “This Modern World.” The frightening thing is, in light of this week’s activities, Tomorrow’s grim world seems all too much like the one we live in.)

[The photo, titled “Concept pic #2,” was created by “Etr13,” who placed the image in the public domain worldwide. It was obtained through Wikimedia Commons.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Words to Live By (I)

2010-11-22T22:42:00.002-05:00

"If you want to achieve greatness, stop asking for permission."

How many of us are waiting for someone to give us permission to at least try something truly great? To do something serious about any one of the urgent problems that we face, either as a person, a nation, or the world? To create some great of art? To go back to school?

Who can give us permission, anyway? Those who believe as I do think that God already gave us all the permission we need to do good things, whether it's taking care of our families, taking care of the planet (v. 15), or any other good thing that we see needs to be done. In fact, I know of no spiritual tradition that says otherwise.

Go for it. Do the wonderful thing that you know needs to be done. Invent the invention. Create the art. Solve the problem. Like the song goes, "Feed the babies who don't have enough to eat / Shoe the children with no shoes on their feet / House the people living in the street."

You've sure got my permission.

[The photograph is available on Picasa Web Albums here. I found it on the blog "N=1," by David Martin, who obtained it from Flickr here, where the artist, Thomas Hawk, gives further details. This artwork is the property of Thomas Hawk, who retains all rights to the image.]

Text Copyright 2010 Mark Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.

Hey, America: Grow Up!

2010-10-28T13:11:00.006-04:00

At this election season, as the song goes from The Sound of Music, “The hills are alive ...”—but with the sound of whining. People complain, quite understandably, about unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, the federal deficit, the tanked economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the difficult days ahead. What is not so reasonable is that they lay the blame for these problems at the feet of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. “It’s his/their fault! It’s time for a change!” and so the whine goes on.

If ever there was a time for America as a whole to pull up their big boy and big girl pants and just grow up, that time is now. Grown ups take a look at the whole picture, take responsibility to the extent that it is theirs to take, lay the blame where it belongs, and work to fix the problem at its root. The United States is truly in a mess these days, and only a grown-up perspective is going to get us out of it.

Let us consider a few important points.

Unemployment

The unemployment picture is truly grim, with real U.S. unemployment almost certainly reaching over 10%. Many people blame the Obama administration for this. Oh, really? Let’s look at the facts:

Everyone agrees that the recession is to blame for the rise in unemployment, and the recession, in turn, was largely produced by the meltdown of Wall Street and the banking crisis that began in 2008. But which political party is more to blame for that? The Republican administration of 2000-2008, whose policies encouraged poor borrowing and predatory lending practices, and whose lack of regulation allowed Wall Street to offer bad mortgages lumped together into esoteric investment instruments.

The Obama administration has spent national treasure to try to build American business in everything from the automobile industry to green energy.

The Democrats have been trying to make the plight of the unemployed a bit easier by extending unemployment benefits, while the Republicans have tried to block those very efforts, apparently believing that a nation driven to poverty by Republican policies is somehow a more fiscally responsible nation.

Mortgage Crisis

Figures for foreclosures are at unthinkable highs. As I mentioned above, this is a direct result of Republican policies that encouraged poor borrowing and predatory lending, and the creation of bad investment vehicles. The low tide of the national economy has brought all boats low, so even many folks who were responsible borrowers have been caught up short. However, again, that massive drop in the economy is largely the result of Republican policies over the course of many years.

It gets even better. This week we read that the mortgage foreclosure industry, abetted by the banks, is rife with bad practices that deprive people unfairly of their homes, something underscored in an article in today’s paper. The lack of regulatory oversight during the Bush administration is the gift that just keeps on giving—or taking, as the case may be.

Federal Deficit

The federal deficit is now of monumental proportions. But how did that happen? Let’s look at the facts.

In January 2000, the Clinton administration handed a budget surplus to the incoming Bush administration. All of our deficit has been accumulated since that time.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration directed the U.S. military to invade Afghanistan. That was reasonable, and war is expensive.

However, with the job in Afghanistan only half done, the Bush administration proceeded to direct the military to invade Iraq. That was not reasonable, being based on intelligence that the administration itself “cooked” to make it look as if Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks and was hiding weapons of mass destruction. In fact, administration insiders knew then what we know now: Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and had no weapons of mass destruction. The war and the rebuilding in Iraq have been a huge drag on the American economy for almost a decade, creating a massive and entirely unnecessary deficit that our children’s children may still be paying off—for no good reason, other than to enrich the oil and other business interests represented by the Bush administration.

For all the hue and cry about the Obama administration’s bailout of the banks and so forth, those expenditures pale next to the cost of the entirely unnecessary Iraqi War, a legacy of the Bush administration.

A recent poll shows that “Republicans continue to be seen as the party better able to reduce the federal budget deficit.” That is a senseless perception, given that the Democrat Clinton administration handed over a budget surplus, which the Republican Bush administration proceeded to erase, creating instead a huge deficit.

Government Spending

A very great deal of whining surrounds the Obama administration’s policies about spending in medical care (“Obamacare”) and education. Let’s look at some harsh realities:

The United States, which has led the world in economic and military might for the last six decades, is beginning to lose its leadership position. Just one example: today I read that, for the first time ever, the Chinese have built a supercomputer that is 40% faster than anything the United States has. The Japanese surpassed the U.S. briefly on one occasion, but other than that, this is the first time that the U.S. has lost this important lead. Given the importance of supercomputers to military defense and technological development, the possession of a dominant position in supercomputer technology is an important benchmark of overall technological leadership. Of course, in the 21st century as in the 20th, technological leadership translates into economic leadership, as well as military might and national security.

It’s not just me that feels this way. As one supercomputing expert, a professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, put it in a recent interview about the Chinese supercomputer: “What is scary about this is that the U.S. dominance in high-performance computing is at risk .... One could argue that this hits the foundation of our economic future.”

This increasing slippage in technological leadership is largely due to poor educational standards in the United States. We simply are not producing enough home-grown scientists and engineers here. Why? Because so many of our schools are overcrowded, or have nonspecialist teachers teach math and science.

We are also a distinctly unhealthy nation. A startlingly large percentage of our citizens do not have medical insurance and so receive little or no medical care.

To regain and retain our leadership of the world in the 21st century, we have to be a healthy nation and a well-educated nation. That costs money. If you think that is expensive, go ahead and calculate the cost of failure. Second-rate nations get swept away on the tide of history. Let’s not do that to America.

Today’s Republican Party

Finally, let’s look at the side that wants to take over: today’s Republican Party. A recent poll found that “about 6 in 10 Republicans who are likely to vote think the views of most Republicans are consistent with those of the Tea Party movement.” One hopes not. Let’s look at the Tea Party briefly:

One of their leading candidates recently was completely surprised to find out that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State. This is the first paragraph of the Bill of Rights—and it was a complete surprise to this would-be Congressperson.

The supporters of another leading Tea Party candidate answered a protester at a recent function by bringing this person to the ground, with one putting a foot on her head, a tactic that brings to mind images of the forces of European fascism in the 1930s and 1940s. The best aspects of America have been built on the foundations of civil resolution of disagreement. Is the stomping of differing opinions the kind of America we want? For those who do, let me suggest a fine country that already has that kind of political life: Iran.

Conclusion

We read today that a careful analysis of President Obama’s speeches and writings reveals that he is a thoroughgoing pragmatist, in the best sense of that word. That is, he is focused on policies that promote the greatest good for the greatest number. If ever America needed an intelligent and principled pragmatist as President, it is now.

The Obama administration has made remarkable progress in addressing our national disaster over the course of only two years. It deserves to have a Congress that will work with it, not obstruct it. Remember that on Election Day.

Making a grown-up assessment of our situation and acting on that assessment is On The Mark.

Print References

Cohen, P. (2010, October 28). In writings of Obama, a philosophy is unearthed. The New York Times [late edition], pp. C1, C7.

Coy, P., Barrett, P. M., & Terhune, C. (2010, October 25-31). Shredding the dream. Bloomberg Businessweek, pp. 76-80, 82-84, 86.

Martin, A., & Rich, M. (2010, October 28). A housing (case) boom: Facing foreclosure, homeowners demand legal recourse. The New York Times [late edition], pp. B1, B4.

Rutenberg, J., & Thee-Brenan, M. (2010, October 28). Coalition that vaulted Democrats into power has frayed, poll finds. The New York Times [late edition], pp. A1, A22.

Vance, A. (2010, October 28). Chinese wrest title from U.S.: Fastest supercomputer, by far. The New York Times [late edition], pp. A1, B9.

[The photo is of a group of primary school children in Paris. It has been released into the public domain, and was obtained through Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Is the Vicinity of Ground Zero "Hallowed Ground"?

2010-09-14T00:01:00.000-04:00

In a remarkable display of overstepping one's boundaries, the imam behind the so-called Ground Zero mosque in New York City stated that the site surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York should not be considered 'sacred ground.' As the Associated Press reported his remarks:

"It's absolutely disingenuous, as many have said, that that block is hallowed ground," Rauf said, noting the nearby exotic dance and betting businesses. "So let's clarify that misperception."

Certainly there are differences of opinion about what makes something hallowed ground. Certainly there has been no appearance of divine beings that declared Ground Zero to be hallowed ground, to the best of my knowledge. However, consecration by the Divine is only one way in which an area can be consecrated.

One of the most famous and most revered figures in all of American history is President Abraham Lincoln. In 1863, as he was dedicating a mass cemetery at a Pennsylvania battleground of the Civil War, President Lincoln made one of the shortest but most profound speeches in American history, something now known as the Gettysburg Address. In this brief speech, President Lincoln acknowledged that he and those in attendance had gathered to dedicate the final resting place of the combatants--and then he said this:

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.

The blood of those who die in a struggle also consecrates an area, in President Lincoln's view, and there is much to be said in this regard regarding Ground Zero.

Hundreds of those who died at Ground Zero were law enforcement officers, fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, and other brave workers who struggled to save those who were injured or trapped in the burning Towers. Perhaps the greatest example of bravery I have heard of in my lifetime comes from the testimony of several of those who escaped down the emergency stairs at the Twin Towers, from those people who noted that, while great masses of people were struggling to get down and out of the Towers, the police, fire, and emergency workers were struggling to get in and up into them: these brave officers struggled to go into the very heart of darkness and peril, for the sake of others. Their noble and selfless ultimate sacrifice hallows Ground Zero.

Most of those who died at Ground Zero were not rescuers; they were innocent victims, going about their work, who happened to be in the worst possible place at the worst possible time. In essence, these innocent victims of mass murder were a blood sacrifice to Moloch, God of Terrorism. But America did not accept the purpose of that evil sacrifice. America took the blood of the innocent and reconsecrated it, pledging that never again would we be caught so far off our guard. The blood of the innocent hallows Ground Zero.

Yes, there are betting parlors and exotic dancers in the neighborhood. These are aspects, for better or worse, of American life in that part of town; they were there before 9/11, and it should be no surprise that they are there today. But none of that detracts in the slightest from the fact that Ground Zero was, is, and always shall be hallowed ground. The only point in question is how long America shall remember that, and how it shall choose to recognize and commemorate that.

Hallowing the site of the sacrifices of the heroes and the innocent victims of 9/11 is most certainly On the Mark.

A 9/11 Meditation: The Real Reasons for Religious Toleration

2010-09-11T22:15:00.001-04:00

In an earlier post, I indicated that I would be reading the Koran between September 11, 2010, and September 11, 2011. (In another post, I invited people to join with me in the movement, “Christians Reading the Koran”; come visit us on Facebook.) I actually have a somewhat wider intent—I will not only be reading about the Koran, but about its context, and about Islam generally—so I began today with reading Stephen Prothero’s book, God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—And Why Their Differences Matter; Dr. Prothero has a chapter on Islam that I will read to help provide context for my reading of the Koran itself.

I like reading Dr. Prothero’s work, in part because he has a clear understanding of some truths that are accurate and important, although they fly in the face of political correctness: There are real differences among religions, these differences have important consequences, and it would be good for people to understand these differences. Reading Dr. Prothero’s book today had me thinking about the real roots of religious toleration, and why it is important.

False Basis: ‘All religions say the same thing’

There are those who take the position that we should be tolerant of different religions because ‘all religions really say the same thing, at heart.’ This is a feel-good message that seems assuring in our difficult times. However, it is not true.

People of different religions believe radically different things about the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and the relationship between God and humanity. This is about as fundamental a set of differences in belief as anyone could hope to find. Different religions do have some areas of overlap, notably in the areas of basic ethics, although even in ethics different religions have basic differences. Overall, different religions say very different things about life and the universe, and these differences have very important consequences for many domains of human life. What constitutes a good education, a proper occupation, a good marriage partner, proper recreation, even a good day—all these can be radically different across different religions. So, the myth that ‘all religions say the same thing’ cannot be the basis of religious toleration.

False Basis: ‘We cannot prove one religion superior to another’

There are those who take the position that we should be tolerant of different religions because ‘we cannot really prove the superiority of one religion over another.’ It may be extremely uncomfortable to confront this issue, but this position is another myth.

People of different religions often think that they actually can prove the superiority of one religion over another. For some, the evidence is found in tradition; for others, in personal spiritual experience; for yet others, in the facts of science and history. I am not here taking a position on the adequacy of any of these positions (which is a question for another time and place). All I’m saying is that the notion that ‘we cannot make statements on the validity of one religion over another’ is itself rejected by many religious traditions. This myth as well, then, cannot serve as the basis of religious toleration.

To my mind, there are two basic arguments that really work as the basis of religious toleration. One is based on the sciences of human behavior (psychology, anthropology, and sociology); the other, interestingly enough, is based on religion.

A Solid Basis: Human Survival

Human beings have always lived in a multicultural world. Six centuries ago, in 1410, some of my ancestors were Polish Christians, living on farmland not far from today’s Warsaw; they may not have seen anyone but a Polish Christian their whole lives. Other ancestors were Russian Jews, living in shtetls where they may have only rarely saw anyone from another background. Still others were indigenous Native Americans living in the jungles of what is today Puerto Rico; they were a lifetime away from being “discovered” by Europeans.

But some of my ancestors were Spanish Christians, living under Muslim rule on the Iberian peninsula. (Indeed, for all I know, yet others of my ancestors can be found among those very Muslims.) And, in other places in the world, there were millions of Muslims in the Middle East; Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucianists in Eastern Asia; Hindus by the million in South Asia; practitioners of indigenous religions throughout sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas.

In this multicultural landscape of six centuries ago,where there was religious toleration, then there was peace; when there was not religious toleration, there was hideous war and death. (This message is brought home dramatically in Philip Jenkins’s book, The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—and How It Died.)

Now fast forward six hundred years to 2010. It’s still a multicultural world, but now it is multicultural on a micro level, not just a macro one. Multiple cultures are evident almost everywhere you look in the United States. This is especially obvious in New York City, where I now live; about half the people who prepare my lunch sandwiches are African Muslims from one country or another, and the other half are from Central America, East Asia, and Oceania. But multiculturalism is not just a New York City or even an urban phenomenon. In a world where one can find a substantial Ethiopian community in Fargo, North Dakota, I’m on solid ground in saying that we have arrived at the Age of the Multicultural World. In this world, even moreso than six centuries ago, religious toleration leads to peace, and lack of religious toleration leads to strife and conflict. It’s just that now, that applies across the Earth, and conflict can be played out with suitcase nukes and basement lab-built pandemic organisms.

It comes down to simple human survival, the ultimate practical consideration. Religious toleration leads to survival; intolerance leads to war. To my mind, there is no more powerful rationale for religious toleration.

Except perhaps for one other.

A Solid Basis: Divine Approval

Although I am the first one to agree that there are major differences among the religions of the world, I find it interesting that the world’s various religions are agreed in placing a strong emphasis on the value of peace.

It would take a very long entry to demonstrate this across world religions, and this is already an epic-long post. But think about it: one of the points of the meditative disciplines taught by Hinduism and Buddhism is to find inner peace; one of the drawing points of the obedience to God preached by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is to find peace; the point of the the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism is to end suffering and find peace; even the various manifestos of secular humanism are written in support of peace, both political and personal. Yeah, these various movements have only imperfectly practiced their search for peace. In this, all have sinned, and I do mean all. However, there is no denying that peace is a big deal for the religious and spiritual traditions of the world.

The inescapable conclusion is that, if there is any divine source or power expressed through any of these movements, that Source values peace. Implicitly, then, that Source values religious toleration, as that is a fundamental cornerstone of a peaceful world.

Conclusion

Religious toleration is a prerequisite for human survival. One of the relatively few things that all religious and spiritual traditions agree on is the value of peace, inner and outer. In search for that peace, religious toleration is crucial.

Promoting religious toleration for the sake of our common human survival, and to express our individual traditions’s best values: that is certainly On The Mark. (And, in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to honor those innocents who died in the terrorist attacks on America on that dark Tuesday, September 11, 2001.)

[The photo above is described by its author as follows: “A young patriot salutes heroes at the 2009 National Memorial Day Concert on the West Lawn of the United States Capitol.” The author is the U.S. Army. As a work of an agency of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. It was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

“Burn a Koran Day” Pastor’s Effort is Self-Defeating

2010-09-08T23:16:00.000-04:00

Just about everyone with any place in American public life has condemned the plans of the pastor in Florida who wishes to hold “International Burn a Koran Day” on Saturday, September 11. This includes the Obama White House, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Army and NATO commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus, Angelina Jolie, Pope Benedict XVI, Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham), Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. It’s hard for me to imagine these people agreeing to have lunch together, let alone agreeing on anything of consequence. Yet they all agree on this.

Apparently, this effort has all come to nothing. As reported in this story on the website of The New York Times, the pastor in Florida, Terry Jones, says that his plans have not changed.

I have read a lot of arguments leveled against this pastor’s plans, on the grounds of American values and Christian values; I’ve taken that approach myself. Several writers have made appeals to cancel the event for the sake of the safety of American military personnel, Christians living in the Muslim world, and so forth. However, I have not read anything written from this pastor’s own point of view, which is unfortunate. As it happens, even from the perspective of this pastor’s own agenda, the planned “Burn a Koran Day” is not only guaranteed to be ineffective, but it is almost guaranteed to be counter-productive. (This is why I placed the logical sign for “contradiction” above. Please notice how it is the perfect abstraction of a truck hitting a brick wall.)

This is the Wrong Activity to Target Islamic Extremists

On CBS’s The Early Show, Rev. Jones stated that said that the Koran burning was a “warning” that was “geared toward radical Islam.” However, burning the Koran is precisely the wrong way to reach this group.

The fact of the matter is that radical Islamists, the folks who see America as the “Great Satan,” who hate America and American values, who want to impose Islamic law on the population of the world against its will—are only a minority among Muslims. The Koran, however, is revered by all Muslims. The burning of the Koran will be perceived as an attack on the entire Muslim community: the radicals, sure, but also the many millions of moderate and liberal Muslims.

By burning the Koran, Rev. Jones will alienate a large number of the world’s billion-plus Muslims. Ten seconds of video showing the Koran burning, broadcast on al-Jezeera, and large numbers of Muslims around the world will make the mistake of thinking that this is an act of attack on Islam as a whole, and that it is supported by Americans generally, and by Christians worldwide. These people will trip over themselves to enlarge the ranks of the radical Islamists, increasing the size of the radicals immensely.

Burning the Koran is not a statement against or a “warning” to radical Islamists. Rather, this act would greatly increase the number of radical Islamists, and encourage them to cause trouble for Christians everywhere.

Burning the Koran Will “Warn” No One

Another point involves the idea of burning the Koran as some kind of act of “warning.” On The Early Show, Rev. Jones said that “This particular act is actually an act of warning radical Islam.” As he explained, “We want them to know if they’re in America, they need to obey our law and constitution and not slowly push their agenda upon is.”

However, burning the Koran does not further this agenda at all. What is Pastor Jones saying by this act? Is he saying ‘We’ll burn you if you pursue an Islamist agenda here’? Of course, if this is the message, the pastor is encouraging an illegal activity: murder, which is a capital offense in Florida even for acts motivated by religion or patriotism.

There is nothing in the burning of the Koran that communicates the message that Rev. Jones wants to share. If he wants to put radical Islamists on notice that they must obey American law and the American Constitution, then he would be better off sponsoring a conference—“The American Constitution: Accept It or Leave” would be a catchy title—accepting contributions to hold it, and inviting speakers from around the U.S. on this important issue. He’d get a big week or more in the media, some financial contributions, a ton of material to propagate either on the Internet or through the sale of conference proceedings, and he could make a real impact, both on many American citizens, and on the global Islamic community in particular.

Burning the Koran Does Not Further the Christian Cause

The larger agenda that any sincere Christian pastor would have is to further the cause of Christianity. However, burning the Koran does not further this agenda in any way.

Burning the Koran will not lead one single Muslim to Christ. If anything, it would frighten away people who might otherwise be curious about Christianity.

Burning the Koran will not keep one single person from converting to Islam, either. Americans are aware that law enforcement will not tolerate actual interference with the conversion of a legal adult.

If anything, a book burning would raise the profile of the Koran within American society. Consider what happens in the case of an analogous situation: book bannings. The history of book bannings in the United States demonstrates that the publicity accompanying such an act results in a much greater public awareness, and often heightened sales nationwide, for this very book. Some readers of this blog may remember that, in an earlier day, book publicists looked forward to the day when the book they were promoting was “banned in Boston”; this often meant that the book would soon be flying off the shelves in New York, Chicago, and L.A.

As it is, Pastor Jones has done more to put the Koran in the news in the United States than anything else occuring at least over the last three years. None of this furthers the cause of Christianity.

Conclusion

The planned public burning of the Koran will not further Rev. Jones’s agenda in any way. Instead, it will accomplish exactly the opposite of what he wishes. Now would be a good time for this activity to be changed into something more productive.

Thinking things through to their likely consequences is truly On The Mark.

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

“Christians Reading the Koran”: Movement and Facebook Group

2010-09-07T00:42:00.006-04:00

In an earlier post I wrote about “Burn a Koran Day,” announced for September 11, 2010, in Florida (upcoming as I write this). I mentioned in that post that I would make it a point to read the Muslim holy book, the Koran, between September 11, 2010, and September 11, 2011. I has occurred to me that other Christians might wish to join me in this endeavor. Consequently, I hereby announce the “Christians Reading the Koran” movement.

This movement is for Christians who are interested in reading about the Koran, or reading the Koran itself. I do not mean to slight any Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Confucian, Taoist, Shinto, Agnostic, Atheist, or other people who might be interested in this project; however, since “Burn a Koran Day” is the project of a Christian minister, I thought it appropriate to start a Christian movement as a positive response.

This being the 21st century, this movement also comes with an affiliated Facebook group. The Facebook group, “Christians Reading the Koran,” may be found at this location. (Log into Facebook before hitting this link.) I would encourage you to join this group; it is a way to demonstrate the numerical strength of this movement. As I write this, news reports indicate that hundreds of Afghanis have protested “Burn a Koran Day,” and U.S. Army General Petraeus has said that the planned book burning could endanger U.S. troops in the region. (My personal feeling is that there is the potential here for an extraordinarily large problem.) It would be great to be able to demonstrate to the Muslim world that there are a large number of Christians who are trying to promote peace, respect for the Koran, and better understanding between Christians and Muslims.

Now for a few questions and answers.

Is this movement part of some plot to proselytize for Islam?

No. I am a committed Christian, specifically a Latter-day Saint.

Is this movement part of some plot to proselytize for Christianity?

No. This effort is meant to promote peace, and better understanding between two large religious groups.

Let’s be clear about something. I have nothing against missionary work. I have been a missionary myself, in Eastern Asia, and my son will soon be leaving for a two-year term of service as a missionary in Eastern Europe. I enjoy sharing my faith. However, I strongly believe that missionary work should be clearly labelled as such. The “Christians Reading the Koran” movement is not missionary work.

How could this movement promote peace and mutual understanding?

In the short term, I think it would be good to demonstrate to the Islamic world that there are Christians who show respect for the Muslims’s holy book by studying it, even as others are burning it.

In the long term, it would be great for Christians to learn more about Islam. One can hardly show respect for people whom one does not understand; to understand Islam, one should understand something about its scripture.

How might people involve themselves in learning about the Koran and reading the book itself?

There are books in both the Dummies and the Idiots series’s about Islam and the Koran, and these would be a good place for the absolute beginner to start. (Disclosure: I have published a book in the Dummies series, and in 2011 I will be publishing several books with Tarcher/Penguin, whose parent company publishes the Idiots series.)

Some people may find that they wish to start with a chapter or so on Islam, to give them the proper context for the Koran (or Qur'an). There are good chapters on Islam in the following books:

Stephen Prothero, God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter (New York: HarperCollins, 2010).
Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 50th anniversary edition, 2009).

I plan to read Michael Sells’s book, Approaching the Qur’án: The Early Revelations (Ashland, Oregon: White Cloud Press, 1999). Sells, formerly a professor of religion at Haverford College (my alma mater), now at the University of Chicago Divinity School, gives context for the emergence and meaning of the Koran, and translates some of the early sections of the Koran, with commentary.

When it comes to reading the Koran itself, the reader in English has several choices, ranging from a volume (the Dawood translation) in the Penguin Classics series to a 2004 translation by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, published by Oxford University Press.

Shouldn't Christians be focusing their study on the Bible?

Last time I looked, there was nothing in the Bible to discourage other, non-biblical learning. This is why Christians do things like go to college, graduate school, professional school, art school, and so forth. We live in an intensely multicultural, pluralistic world. To be prepared to live in that world, and to further the cause of peace in that world, we all need to learn more about each other's faiths. (This point is elaborated on in an excellent book by the religious studies scholar Stephen Prothero, Religious Literacy.)

"But I've already got so much else to do!"

Remember the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not whine."

Hey, I'm not your time cop. Only you can decide whether you can fit this in. For most people, with some rearranging of priorities, study time can be found--but I recognize that this doesn't apply to everyone. (Yes, I was once a 50-to-60-hour-a-week intern working in a hospital myself.)

Conclusion

The “Christians Reading the Koran” movement is a good idea. The activity promotes peace and mutual understanding—two things that are most definitely On The Mark.

[The photo of the first few verses of the Koran is in the public domain, and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

American Values and ‘Burn a Koran’ Day

2010-08-26T07:53:00.002-04:00

In an earlier post, I wrote on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” issue, about the placement of a new Islamic cultural center a mere 600 feet from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Essentially, I said that although I wished the center to be placed elsewhere, as an American I recognized that the Bill of Rights gives any religious organization the right to build wherever they have a legal right to do so. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

As reported in a story in today’s New York Times, a Christian pastor in Gainesville, Florida plans to commemorate the 9/11 attacks by holding “International Burn a Koran Day,” in which he plans to conduct a book burning to destroy copies of the holy book of Islam, the Koran.

Again, as an American, I recognize the constitutional right that this pastor has to say anything he wishes about Islam (which he clearly despises), and to conduct his bonfire. What I have to say below about this activity must not be construed as an attempt to limit this pastor’s rights, or to persecute his church.

Although I recognize this pastor’s rights to conduct his religious activities as he sees fit, I wish to express my unequivocal condemnation of the book burning that he has planned. The planned bonfire is an obscenity. I condemn the forthcoming bonfire on the grounds of both Christian values and American values.

I am a Christian (in particular, a Latter-day Saint).* Looking to Jesus as an example for the Christian faithful, I note that Jesus neither participated in nor condoned the burning of any literature at all. Even if one were to look at Muslims as enemies – a position that I find highly foolish – I would point out that Jesus said the following:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven ...

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (The New Testament, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, chapter 5, verses 44-45, 48)

Book burning is an expression of hatred, not love or blessing or doing good. It is the sort of thing that the Nazis did. Book burning has a long and sordid history; it brings to mind images of the depths of the Inquisition, one of Christianity’s darkest hours. Is this what the pastor in Gainesville wishes to associate himself with?

In terms of American values, it is important to remember that the way we Americans best deal with differences is by debating them, not stifling one side of the debate. Book burning is unAmerican. We do have a history of religious discrimination; our history has seen riots against Catholics, discrimination against Jews and against Muslims, even the sending of troops against Mormons. However, these incidents showed America at its worst. We have become a strong country by respecting differences. As we seek to become a stronger country in the twenty-first century, we must do even more to respect differences and build a united America. Book burning is just the opposite of that.

As a Christian and as an American, I apologize to the Muslim world for the planned book burning in Gainesville. As an act of apology, between Sept. 11, 2010, and Sept. 11 2011, I shall read the entire Koran (in English translation). I shall be a faithful Christian—and I shall show my Christianity by seeking to better understand those who differ from me.

Mutual inter-religious respect is On The Mark.

- - - - -

*(Yes, I am aware that there are those who do not consider the Latter-day Saints to be Christians. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the official name of the Saints' religious organization is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The Saints pray, bless the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, anoint the sick, ordain their ministers, and baptize, all in the name of Jesus Christ. One of the scriptures that the Saints revere in addition to the Bible is The Book of Mormon, which is subtitled, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” Those who wish to consider this question further may consult these this video interview and this website.)

[The image of the cover of the Koran, or Quran, was created on 29 April 2005 by ~crystalina~ and obtained through Wikipedia. It is used here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attibution 2.0 Generic License.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Thought for the Day: "Be Careful What Books You Read ..."

2010-08-20T22:57:00.000-04:00

I am hard at work trying to finish up the manuscript for my next book (more on that another time). However, I came upon the neatest quote for all the hard-reading crowd who looks at this blog. It is by John Trapp (1601-1699, pictured), an Anglican preacher whose commentary on the Bible is still read today:

"Be careful what books you read, for as water tastes of the soil it runs through, so does the soul taste of the authors that a man reads."

Words to live by. Peace to one and all.

For H. P. Lovecraft’s Birthday, Give the Old Man His Own Stamp

2010-08-19T20:53:00.001-04:00

Howard Phillips Lovecraft
Aug. 20, 1890-Mar. 15, 1937

A happy 120th birthday to H. P. Lovecraft (shown in a photograph from about 1934).

I agree with Stephen King that H. P. Lovecraft is “the twentieth-century horror story’s dark and baroque prince.” King, one of the best-selling authors of the twentieth century, said that “Lovecraft ... opened the way for me, as he had done for others before me.”* Of course, Lovecraft is best remembered today for what he called “cosmic horror,” inventing a history in which to place his stories that others have named the Cthulhu Mythos, probably the most developed back story this side of Middle Earth (although far, far darker). His grim and scary work has inspired countless writers and readers, and has been graced by attention from Joyce Carol Oates and the Library of America.

Now fans of Lovecraft have an opportunity to give a little something back.

The United States Postal Service has a program, the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC), to take suggestions from the public regarding new postage stamps. I invite all H.P. Lovecraft fans to write a letter to the CSAC, suggesting that the U.S. Postal Service issue a postage stamp featuring H. P. Lovecraft, on the 125th anniversary of his birth, which occurs on August 20, 2015. (Yes, this assumes that neither the Mayan apocalypse nor the Return of the Old Ones occurs before that time. I do, however, try to be optimistic. Me, a Lovecraft fan? Go figure.) The Postal Service requires at least three years advance notice before a significant anniversary, so we really do need to start this movement soon.

Instructions about proposing a stamp to the CSAC, including their stamp subject selection criteria, are available here. Basically, one writes a letter, which could be so simple as a one-line suggestion sent to

     Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
     c/o Stamp Development
     U.S. Postal Service
     1735 North Lynn St., Suite 5013
     Arlington, VA 22209-6432

Or, if your circumstances permit, you could send a more elaborate letter. I strongly suggest that you at least mention the following:

You suggest that they issue a stamp honoring H. P. Lovecraft, an American writer born August 20, 1890 and died March 15, 1937, in time for the 125th anniversary of his birth on August 20, 2015.

Tell them why Lovecraft deserves a stamp, in your opinion.

If you have the opportunity, tell the Committee how Lovecraft has the “widespread national appeal and significance” that they look for in the subject of a stamp. Even if you only send a one-liner to the Committee, it will let them know that Lovecraft is important to you. If several thousand fans do the same, that will be a statement hard to ignore.

Let’s give the Old Man his own stamp for his birthday. Acknowledging Lovecraft in this way would be On The Mark.

Footnote

*Stephen King, Danse Macabre (New York: Gallery Books/Simon & Schuster, 2010 edition, pp. 30, 101; originally published 1981).

[The photo above of H. P. Lovecraft is the property of Brown University. It was obtained from Wikipedia, and its use here is permitted under the fair use provisions of the United States copyright laws.]

(Text Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

American Values and the Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-16T01:39:00.003-04:00

I am sorry to say that personal illness has kept me off this blog for far longer than I expected. (I actually do not plan to return to regular posting until around Labor Day.) However, an issue has arisen that I feel compelled to address immediately, shaky health notwithstanding.

One would have to have lived under a rock for the last couple of months to not know about the recent disputes regarding the proposed building of a Muslim house of worship about 600 feet from the site of the destruction of the World Trade Center by Islamic extremist terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. This is the Ground Zero of 9/11, the site of the murder of over 2,700 people by terrorists inspired by radical Islam.

My first reaction, when I heard of the proposed community center, was not exactly “no.” It was “HELL no! No bloody way! Not today, not tomorrow, not any day that ends in the letter ‘-y’!” As a boy living on the Lower East Side of Manhattan during the 1970s, I watched the Twin Towers go up, and one bright Tuesday morning, I watched on television as the Twin Towers were taken down, thousands of innocent human beings packed within them, mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters condemned to a fiery crushing death because of some terrorists with razor blades.

This was a massive terrorist attack in my own home town, practically in my own childhood neighborhood; I was not myself for months afterward. All that has come afterwards—the dark transformation of American life and the America psyche, the economic disturbances—all stem from this incident, along with the planes crashing in Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. Placing a mosque near Ground Zero is an insult to many of the dead and their survivors. Imagine placing a monument to the brilliant minds behind the atomic bomb (Einstein, Teller, and Oppenheimer) -- in Hiroshima: yeah, there's a point to the thing, but not there.

And then I understood one further thing.

As an American, I am morally obligated to support the right of Muslims to build their mosque wherever it is legal to do so.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights (pictured) states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It has long been established that these aspects of the Bill of Rights—the establishment clause and the free exercise clause—are binding on all levels of government within the United States. Beyond that, the corresponding values that the First Amendment stands for—separation of church and state, and freedom of religion—are at the heart of what it means to be an American. If I can’t support the rights of Muslims, I can’t call myself a true American.

Look at it this way. Celebrating freedom of speech means nothing if I am just celebrating the freedom of speech that I like; freedom of speech only really means something if it means protecting the freedom of speech that I despise. Celebrating freedom of religion means nothing if I am just celebrating the freedoms of religions with which I agree; freedom of religion only really means something if it means protecting the freedom of religions with which I vigorously disagree.

Now, it is important to understand what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am saying that the Muslims have a right to build their mosque wherever it is legal to do so, whether or not I like the idea. I am not saying that I want the Muslims to build there.

In fact, I don’t want them to build the mosque there. I think that it is astonishingly insensitive to many of those whose loved ones were killed by extremists.

The very name of the original project—the Cordoba Initiative—is intensely provocative. The name evokes the era of the Muslim rule of Spain, which lasted from the 8th to the 15th centuries, when Muslims had captured most of the Spanish peninsula and held it for centuries until they were repelled by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain around 1492; I am told that, even today, there are Muslim families in North Africa that still retain the keys to their ancestors’ homes in Andalus (Spain), and that they have every intention of returning in triumph some day. (The name of the Cordoba Initiative has since been changed.)

But life in a pluralistic democracy means that I have to find a way to live with people who do all sorts of things that are legal, even if I find them objectionable or even abhorrent. That's the price I pay for having my own freedoms.

I hope that the backers of the former Cordoba Initiative choose to exercise their rights in some other way. However, if they do not, I will have to accept that peacefully. I hope that the readers of this blog, and all Americans, do the same.

This is my position on the affair. It is also, I think, President Obama’s position, which is already being distorted by his political opponents.

In the middle of dealing with our anger over 9/11, let us not forget what it means to be American. This has been one of our major challenges as a nation over the last nine years; so far, I don’t think we have done such a great job. Maybe we can start doing a better job by moderating the national dialogue about the Ground Zero mosque.

[The photo of the Bill of Rights is in the public domain (as a representation of an official U.S. government document), and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by Presidential Executive Order -- Now

2010-05-25T16:10:00.002-04:00

An Associated Press article reports that U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates has given lukewarm support for the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the American military. Secretary Gates wants to delay any legislation until after an internal Defense Department review of the policy, which involves, at least in part, surveying military personnel and families about their opinions regarding the matter of gays serving openly in the military.

With all due respect to the opinions of military personnel and their families, this is the wrong way to go about dealing with this issue. A great deal can be learned from the example of how racial segregation was ended in the American military.

In 1948, President Harry Truman used Executive Order 9981 to end racial segregation in the U.S. military, thus bypassing Congress, where the Congresspeople of the Southeast would likely have prevented legislation from passing. In retrospect, we might say that this was justified because racial segregation was and is wrong, and because desegregation should not be held hostage to old prejudices. This was not a popular move. Four years earlier, during World War II, General Eisenhower’s decision to enlist African American combat troops was unpopular even with his own Army chief of staff, as well as with many military personnel; nonetheless, it was imposed by fiat—because it was right, and because it was necessary to the war effort. (One can learn more about this chapter of our history here.)

The same logic applies to ending the ban against gays serving openly in the military. In a very real sense, it does not matter what the personnel opinions of current members of the military are. We certainly have a need for more military personnel. There have never been any data suggesting that gay military personnel are any less fit or proficient at their duty than heterosexual personnel, or that they personally cause disorder in the ranks. The only impediment to gays serving openly in the military is personal prejudice against gay men and women, which should have no bearing on national policy. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy can and should be ended by Presidential Executive Order—right now.

Perhaps some will feel offended by the thought of gays serving openly in the military. The fact is, we all have to learn that the United States of America is deliberately designed as a pluralistic society. Each of us has standards that he or she cherishes, but that are violated by others. Living in a pluralistic society means that we allow others the right to live as they wish, within the constraints of the law. This means that military personnel serve with others of different genders, races, ethnicities, cultures, and religions. Exactly the same logic applies to sexual orientation.

None of this need compromise in the slightest one’s personal or religious stance on the matter of homosexuality. For heaven’s sake: I say all this as a straight, believing and observant Mormon, married and with four children! If I can get behind ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” we all can.

Mr. Obama: Please use your Executive Order power to end discrimination by sexual orientation in the American military right now. This would definitely be On The Mark.

(This post expands on a comment of mine on a news item in The Huffington Post. The original news article is available here. An archive of all my comments on The Huffington Post is available here. Readers of this blog are welcome to become “fans” of mine on The Huffington Post.)

[The photo by Lance Corporal Kevin C. Quihuis, Jr. (USMC), shows U.S. Marines from the 1st Battlion, 7th Marines, Charlie Company preparing to enter one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The photo is in the public domain, and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Glenn Beck, Environmentalism, Government, and Religion

2010-05-24T18:31:00.003-04:00

Last March, the conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck declared that religious teachings about social justice were basically just coded communication in favor of Communism and Nazism. Many people condemned Beck for making this claim; as many pointed out, social justice has been at the heart of religious teachings for centuries. (And, as I said in a post on one of my other blogs, in making such a declaration, Beck appears to be completely unaware of the position of even his own religion, the faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [more popularly known as ‘the Mormons’], which has taught what amounts to social justice for close to two centuries.)

Mr. Beck is at it again. He recently condemned the idea of having the U.S. government encourage faith-based organizations to spread a message of green approaches to environmentalism.

What Mr. Beck is objecting to specifically is the Obama administration’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships recommendations, which include the recommendation that the Environmental Protection Agency help churches and other not-for-profit organizations to have access to financing and loan programs to finance green building projects. Frankly, this seems like pretty tame stuff to me.

But not to Glenn Beck. For him, this means “merging the EPA with churches,” which is paranoid fear-mongering. He sees this as founding, “Yes, the religion of environmental and social justice.”

The fact of the matter is that we are, as a global civilization, and as an American nation, in the deepest of trouble when it comes to the environment of the Earth. Surely it is in the best interest of the American people, regardless of political stance, to ensure that we maintain a liveable environment on this, our home world, and the only planet on which the human race has a presence at this time. In that effort, it makes sense to enlist the help of a variety of not-for-profit organizations, religious organizations among them. This is a very far cry from either telling religious organizations what to teach, or telling people what religious teachings to believe—both of which the U.S. government has done in the past, and both of which would be deeply objectionable. However, the effort that the Obama administration is contemplating does not in any way breach the wall between church and state, a point that Glenn Beck misses completely.

Here—yet again—Mr. Beck is very far from being On The Mark.

(Oh, yeah: he seems to be unaware of his church's doctrine regarding the Earth, as well, a point that I make on another blog.)

[The photo of the Earth as seen from Apollo 17 is in the public domain, and was obtained through Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Close the New Debtors’ Prison: Credit Checks for Job Applicants

2010-03-02T04:32:00.005-05:00

A March 1st news report from the Associated Press, presented on Yahoo! News, states that at least 16 U.S. state legislatures are considering measures to outlaw credit checks on job applicants. The report states that, in a recent survey, 60% of employers said that they run credit checks on at least some job applicants, although only 19% said they do so on all.

Here is a news flash to the employers of America: we are in a Recession/Depression, people. (That’s a Recession so bad that it is essentially a Depression, but we are all too scared to call it that.) Enormous numbers of people have bad credit today for reasons that have very little to do with anything they have done. By refusing these people jobs on the basis of credit checks, employers are dooming these people to a continuing spiral of unemployment or underemployment, and deepening poverty. Metaphorically, it is like a new form of debtors’ prison, where people in debt are incarcerated and unable to earn—a practice that impoverished entire families until the practice was mostly eliminated in the United States about 170 years ago.

The justification for credit checks for employment, as one employer quoted in the story put it, is that “if your credit is bad, then you’ll steal from me.” Frankly, speaking as a researcher, I would love to see the research that supports that statement. This strikes me as the sort of naïve pseudo-psychological reasoning that would never hold up in court. I wait for the day when some employer is forced to prove that notion in court; I shall be delighted to testify for the plaintiff. I know too many good, honest people forced into bankruptcy by extraordinary medical bills, business downturns, and so forth, to put any faith in this employer’s statement.

Regardless of whatever sense that sort of reasoning makes in normal times, it certainly makes no sense now, when the official (and highly understated) unemployment rate is about 10%. Sure, there are some jobs—I’m thinking Treasurer—where direct contact with large amounts of cash and corporate checking accounts does justify a credit check. However, outside of such positions, the practice of conducting a credit check for employment is not only unjustified, but downright cruel.

I urge the readers of this blog to do two things. (1) Send this post to others who you think ought to be informed about this issue; you can use the “envelope icon” below to send a link to a contact via e-mail. (2) Contact your state legislators. If your legislators are considering legislation to outlaw credit checks for job applicants, then tell them you support that legislation. If your legislators are not considering such legislation—then ask them why not!

Legislation to outlaw credit checks for the vast majority of job applicants is definitely On The Mark.

[The photo of the credit card has been placed in the public domain by its creator; the image was obtained through Wikipedia.]

(Copyright 2010 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Learn About Your Religion Month (November 2009)

2009-11-01T06:35:00.003-05:00

While writing for another project of mine, I was reminded of some experiences I had while teaching a class on the psychology of religion at a large state school in the southeast a few years ago. On the one hand, my students were very hungry to learn about the topic. On the other hand, they were so poorly informed about the facts of religion--even their own religions--that it was agonizingly difficult to conduct the class at first. I wound up revising my syllabus and lesson plans about a week into the semester, to allow for a three- or four-session unit devoted to just conveying the basic facts about some of the major religions of the world.

Then, a couple of years ago, I came upon Stephen Prothero's excellent book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know--and Doesn't. Dr. Prothero documents just how ill-informed the average American is about religion--again, his or her own religion, let alone the religions of others.

This should not be. An understanding of the basics of religion is important to understanding American and world history, art, and culture. Beyond that, at the risk of stating the obvious, religion offers an important resource for many areas of one's life.

Consequently, the On The Mark blog is designating November 2009 as our first "Learn About Your Religion" month. I encourage you to take some concrete action to learn about the basics of your own religion sometime this month. Specific suggestions follow below.

Study

There are many aspects to religion: there are actions, emotions, and experiences that are all a part of religion. However, one of the problems with the way many Americans approach religion is that they pay no attention at all to the content of religion. "Content" refers to what religions actually teach about life and the world. As Dr. Prothero puts it:

Americans are both deeply religious and profoundly ignorant about religion. They are Protestants who can't name the four Gospels, Catholics who can't name the seven sacraments, and Jews who can't name the five books of Moses. (Religious Literacy, p. 1)

Fortunately, ignorance is a curable disorder. I would suggest that people interested in learning something about their religion would do well to study one or more of the following:

A For Dummies or Complete Idiots guide about your religion. The For Dummies series (Wiley) and the Complete Idiots series (Penguin) each publish books about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and so forth. Within Christianity, each series also has separate books just about Catholicism and Mormonism (the nickname for the Latter-day Saint faith). You'll find a good selection in any large bookstore, and they can be ordered online as well. Read one this month.
A For Dummies or Complete Idiots guide about the scriptures of your religion. Each of these series also publishes books about the Bible, the Jewish scriptures, and the Koran. One can hardly be said to know one's religion without knowing something about the central writings of one's religion. A For Dummies or Complete Idiots guide can give you the basics that you need to know how to go about studying these central writings themselves.

(Of course, I've co-authored a For Dummies book myself, but my book [look for the announcement soon] is in a completely different area. Be assured, please, that I don't make a nickel from your following my suggestions above.)

Coming This Month

As the mood strikes me, I may have other suggestions for Learn About Your Religion Month. In the meantime, you're welcome to share your experiences, comments, and questions in the comment space below. Enjoy.

How New and Recent Graduates Can Get Jobs

2009-10-12T11:44:00.010-04:00

The cover story of the October 19, 2009 issue of BusinessWeek is about the so-called new “Lost Generation”: new and recent graduates of college and graduate school who cannot find jobs.

Here’s the problem. To get jobs, new grads must show experience in solving business-relevant problems. In a normal economy, this is done by internships that students work at during the summer, sometimes winter or spring break, and sometimes right after graduation. Jobs like these, as well as entry-level positions, allow students and new grads to show their stuff and build their resumes.

The problem, of course, is that we left a normal economy behind sometime in the early winter of 2007. Now students are having a hard time getting internships and entry-level positions, because firms have eliminated them (along with millions of other, regular jobs). Therefore students and new graduates can’t demonstrate the kind of experience that they need to get regular paid employment. It’s the Catch-22 of our economic system: you need to have had a job to get a job.

As bad as this news is, it gets worse. When the recovery comes, recent grads will be at a real disadvantage even in relation to brand-new grads: recent grads will have a period of unemployment after graduation on their résumés, a disadvantage that brand-new grads won’t have. (Crazy, I know, but we can all reform the corporate world from the inside once we get jobs there.)

There’s no doubt that the news in this article is especially grim. The danger, as the artice points out, is that we are growing a ‘Lost Generation,’ like Japan did in the 1990s, of young people who are perpetually behind the curve when it comes to income and career advancement. This would be bad news for everyone: the graduates themselves, of course; also, corporate America, who will be missing youthful exuberance (on the employee side) and lower sales (on the customer side); and finally, the increasingly larger number of older people on Social Security (because there will be fewer young workers to pay into the system).

However, this bad news is not reason to curl up in the corner and sniffle. Yes, it would be good if the old system worked: get diploma, get job, go to work. But the old system doesn’t work anymore, for an increasingly and painfully large number of people. Recent grads can show that they are true (if young) adults by adapting to new circumstances. If conventional methods fail, new and recent graduates can get jobs through the use of more innovative approaches. Here are two paths to potential success:

Path #1: The Personal Showcase

I call the first path to success “The Personal Showcase.” The idea here is that you build your resume through volunteering your brilliance.

So here is what you do. If you can’t work for cash to get the experience you need to get a real job, you can work for free.

Here’s the process. Identify some not-for-profit organizations that address important problems in society: unemployment, homelessness, lack of economic development, environmental crisis, you name it. Here’s the kicker: You devise some way to solve part of those problems. You went to school; you’re bright and full of energy. Go to the library, read up on the problem, read what other people have done, and see what inspirations strike you. Then approach the appropriate not-for-profits and volunteer yourself to implement your vision, or extend theirs.

Yes, it’s a gutsy approach. However, you actually do have something of an advantage here. In the best of times, not-for-profit organizations operate in marginal terms. Now, although some are seeing an increase in volunteer labor, others are downright desperate. They may very well welcome your offer to work for them on what is called a “pro bono” basis. See if you can get them to agree not to mention that you are working on a pro bono basis to the other employees. Depending on the labor laws in your state, you may need to have a title like “Intern” or “Volunteer”; operate within the law.

Try to structure the job on your terms. You’re not doing this to spend all day stuffing envelopes (although you should be willing to do your share of scut work). From the beginning, you want to structure this job to get entry-level front-line, management, sales, manufacturing, accounting, and/or software development experience depending on the nature of the not-for-profit).

You may need to educate the not-for-profits you approach, to indicate that you are not trying to be a traditional “volunteer”; rather, you are a “pro bono worker.” At some agencies, a volunteer really is like a junior executive; at others, a volunteer sweeps the floor. As noble as either form of work is, you are doing this, in part, to build up a business resume, and your experience on the job needs to reflect that.

When you get the job, treat it like the “real” job it is: get to work on time or, preferably, early, and be prepared to work late. Dress up to the level of your manager. Just because you’re donating your effort does not mean they owe you anything: they’re doing you the favor, not the reverse.

After a year, if you’ve structured the experience appropriately, you should have a great resume and terrific references (also a necessity for future career development).

Budding actors do this all the time: it’s called a “showcase.” People get together, hire a theatre for an evening, and put on a show. The actors may make nothing (or perhaps a pittance), but they have documented experience on stage.

Will you need to live with your parents, essentially begging them for room and board? Probably. But unless they’ve just been hitting their heads into the wall repeatedly for recreation lately, they know that there’s a recession on. They may very well understand the need to operate like this, and they will probably respect you for your willingness to go to work, even pro bono, to give yourself a leg up the ladder later.

Path #2: The Pop-Up Start-Up,
or Showcase Firm

I call the second path to success “The Pop-Up Start-Up”; you could also call it, “The Showcase Firm.” This involves the formation of a time-limited partnership firm. You band together with other jobless grads to start a time-limited company; one year is a good period. During the lifetime of the firm, you all pledge to develop and market a product or service. You each commit to a year of daily work; flextime is okay, but 40 hours weekly is a minimum commitment. (People can be released from their commitment if a paying job comes along. People can also be fired!) You all beg your families and friends for resources (office space, legal advice) and raw materials if you are manufacturing a prototype. (I never fail to be amazed at the amount of raw materials simply thrown out every night on the streets of New York: lumber, metal, even file cabinets and office furniture.) And, of course, you beg your folks for free room and board.

Think about it. You guys are the best and brightest. The bookstores and libraries are bursting with books about unleashing your creativity. There are plenty of magazines about entrepreneuship and business. And, the world is full of problems to be solved, market niches to be filled, people who, even in a recession, will follow the Universal Rule of Sales: someone will buy something if it provides more value to them than the purchase price. (Looking for inspiration? Check out BusinessWeek's articles on Best Young Entrepreneurs of 2008 and 2009; the Yahoo! version of the latter includes some interesting profiles.)

You can do this.

Over the last month, two locations within walking distance of my residence in midtown Manhattan have sprouted something I’d never heard about before: the pop-up restaurant. One was a showcase for new chefs in the New York City area. Another was a showcase for a popular soft drink, and some magazines. At the end of a week, each restaurant disappeared, and the empty retail space went back to being empty. I thought this was a clever idea. It is the inspiration for the Pop-Up Start-Up Company idea.

At the end of a year in your Pop-Up Start-Up, at the very least, you will have a solid résumé. If you are fortunate, you will have a product or service that you can sell to another firm. At the very best—you will attract investors who back your pop-up firm and transform it into a continuing concern. You will have a paying job you love!

If you go this route, you will want some good business advice. Someone will need to arrange for liability insurance, in case of an accident at work. Everyone will need to sign contracts as pro bono professionals or interns. You should have policies about intellectual property. For all this advice, check with your contacts at your family, place of worship, and so forth; don’t forget to check with the retired executive corps in your community.

Response to an Objection

"Work for free? Work for free??"

Look at it this way, champ. You could not work, for the same period of time, and not have anything to show for it. Or you could work for free, and have a great deal to show for it. Your call.

Having the courage to take an unconventional path to career success is definitely On The Mark.

(This post expands on a comment of mine on a news item in The Huffington Post. The original news article is available here. An archive of all my comments on The Huffington Post is available here. Readers are welcome to become what The Huffington Post calls “fans” of mine on HuffPost.)

(Copyright 2009 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

[The photograph above shows doctoral academic regalia of different types being worn by people at the May 2008 graduation ceremonies of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The photo was taken by Alex Zozulya, who has placed it in the public domain. It was obtained from Wikipedia.]

(Part 1:) A Real Recipe for Financial Wealth

2009-10-11T23:09:00.002-04:00

[Photo by PHGCOM. Details at the end of this post.]

Usually in the “On the Mark” blog, I consider issues of meaning, the higher values, good and evil, honor and duty.

But sometimes you just need cash.

Contrary to popular opinion, the scriptures do not say that ‘money is the root of all evil.’ Rather, as the ancient apostle Paul wrote, “the love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:10, emphasis added), and I agree. (Although there are certainly other roots to evil, I get his point.) But if one can transcend the selfish love of money and wealth, money can allow one to do great things. In the Latter-day Saint scriptures, one reads that certain believers “will seek [riches] for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted” (The Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:19). A comprehensive solution to any one of these problems would require billions of dollars. If those are your ambitions—how do you generate that kind of cash? Good question; one might want to look at what people with billions of dollars do.

Beyond that, even for the task of providing for oneself and one’s family, it is fair to wonder whether there is anything to be learned from the hyper-wealthy. If you’re looking for financial inspiration in these difficult times—why not dream big?

Consequently, today I will consider some advice that a major American financial magazine has given regarding financial wealth. I find their advice at best useless, and at worst quite harmful. In this series, I critique this article, point out some potential landmines, and make my own observations about wealth and its creation. I hope that readers will find something here that they can use to create wealth for themselves, and advice that they can pass on to their children and grandchildren.

If you find that what I have to share works for you, then, when your riches come in, I ask that you remember the poor, the naked, the homeless, the hungry, the captive, the sick and the afflicted. In a big way.

The online edition of Forbes magazine on September 30, 2009, published an article, “A Recipe for Riches,” regarding the characteristics of billionaires. (I read it first in a version of October 9 appearing on Yahoo! Finance.) The article opens by asking such questions as, “What are the common attributes among the über-wealthy? Are there any true secrets of the self-made?” Let’s consider what the article has to say—and what it fails to say.

The Basic Secret to Wealth: Create Value for Others

Somewhat stunningly, the article ignores the single most important common attribute among the very wealthy. A large proportion of them are involved in the creation of value for others. Many of them invented new ways to create value for others. This is clear for many of those on the Forbes 400 List of Richest Americans.

Perhaps the most spectacular examples are in the areas of computer software (and, to a lesser extent, hardware). Bill Gates of Microsoft (#1 on the list), and Steve Jobs of Apple (#43), between them invented the desktop computing industry. Michael Dell of Dell Computers (#13) invented methods to get computers to people cheaper. Larry Ellison of Oracle (#3) invented an important software application for business. Sergey Brin and Larry Page (both tied for #11) created value for others through inventing Google, Jeffrey Bezos (#28) through inventing Amazon, Pierre Omidyar through inventing Ebay, David Filo (#tied for 296) and Jerry Yang (tied for #317) through inventing Web portal Yahoo, and 25-year-old Mark Zuckerberg (tied for #158) through inventing Facebook—all software applications that it would be difficult to imagine modern life without. Michael Bloomberg (#8) invented a way to get investment information to investors quickly. Charles Schwab (#50) invented a way to help people invest more easily.

However, it is not just in the area of software applications that wealth is to be made through creating value for others in innovative ways. The same principle applies in other industries, some very old indeed. Several of the Forbes 400 (starting at #4) are related to Sam Walton, who invented a different way to manage retail sales, one of the oldest businesses there is.

Few things are as basic to human life as food. One might think that there was not much room for wealth from innovation in this area—but one would be wrong. Several on the list (starting at #19) are members of the Mars family who inherited wealth generated by an innovator in candy and pet food, the latter also being the domain of Clayton Mathile’s success (tied for #204: Iams); William Wrigley, Jr. (tied for #154) is on the list for chewing gum, James Leprino (tied for #141) is there for cheese, and Christopher “Kit” Goldsbury (tied for #347) for salsa. People important in the Subway sandwich shop chain (Peter Buck and Fred DeLuca, both tied for #236) and S. Truett Cathy (ditto), the founder of the Chick-fil-A chain, are on the list.

Innovation in responding to other basic human needs has created billionaires, as well. Philip Knight (#24) and Jim Davis (tied for #204) made their fortunes from innovations in shoes—yes, Nike and New Balance, respectively, but still shoes. Ralph Lauren (#61) made his billions from innovations in clothing and its marketing. Ty Warner is on the list (#94) from one of the oldest types of consumer goods in history: toys. (He’s the Beanie Baby man. And anyone who does not think that “toys” are a basic human need has never been around four preschool children as the winter holidays approach.)

Bradley Wayne Hughes and his family are on the list (#85) for one of the most low-tech industries imaginable: he developed Public Storage. (And I’m glad he did: half my stuff is still in units in Orlando.)

Wealth can come through innovation in the creakiest and seemingly most boring of industries. Take package delivery. Frederick Smith (#212) wrote up his senior thesis in college on the subject of a system for delivering packages, efficiently and cheaply. Word is, he did not get a great grade on this paper. But Mr. Smith took his Yale thesis, built an integrated network of planes and trucks, and founded FedEx in 1971. Now he’s worth over $1.6 billion—personally. All this, through creating value for others.

I’ll tell you whom I do not see on this list: stage entertainers, musicians, and professional athletes. Yes, Oprah Winfrey is on the list (tied for #141), but Oprah is not really in the category of “stage entertainer.” Oprah is more “infotainment” than entertainment; in addition, she runs a slew of businesses: her show, a magazine, a TV production company, and, soon, her own cable network.

My point? Mega-wealth is developed by innovation in creating value for other people. Yet, our popular culture does not celebrate this kind of achievement. Instead, the culture lionizes stage entertainers and professional athletes. Those of us who do not consider ourselves stage or sports field material might benefit by realizing that we can still think outside the box, that we can still innovate, that we can create value for others in ways that have not been done before. In addition, we can encourage our children to think in innovative ways, to think about improving how things are done, to think in terms of how to create value for other people. They’re not going to be getting these thoughts from popular culture, to be sure.

Creating value for other people in innovative ways is most definitely On The Mark.

As always, your comments and "follower"-ship are welcome.

[The photo shows a 250 kg (about 550 lb) gold bar, reportedly the largest manufactured pure gold bar in the world, currently in the Toi Gold Museum in Toi, Shizuoka, Japan. The photo is dated 2007, and its author is PHGCOM. The photo was obtained from Wikipedia and appears here under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License.]

(Copyright 2009 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Does President Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

2009-10-09T14:02:00.002-04:00

The awarding today of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Obama raises a simple question: What has he done to deserve it? This question has a very straightforward answer: He has changed the course of a nation, and, in a real sense, the world, for the better.

Within less than nine months as President, Obama has taken America out of the role of loose cannon, rolling about wildly on the deck of the global ship of state, and into the role of a leader among cooperating nations. He has advanced the cause of nuclear disarmament, which has languished for years, even as the threat of nuclear war has hung like the sword of Damocles over the world for nearly two-thirds of a century. (Read an earlier post about nuclear disarmament here.) He has reversed U.S. policy on the use of torture, a policy that had actually promoted terrorism. He has reversed the direction of the United States on global warming, which has the potential to incite war in the long term through its effect on population centers and agriculture.

The function of the Nobel Prize is not merely to reward someone, but to hold that someone up as an example for others to follow. Although some of Obama’s efforts have yet to bear fruit, the mere fact of his undertaking these efforts, and the very real results that have been obtained so far, are a much-needed inspiration for everyone from schoolchildren to statespersons. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama makes his message of hope, and the value of working hard in the cause of peace, that much stronger.

There are those who criticize the Nobel Peace Prize Committee because they have not, in this case, followed the example of the committees regarding awards in the sciences, where Nobel Prizes are awarded years after some achievement. This is a foolish comparison. We are living in a crucial moment of world history, when the potential for catastrophe—nuclear, environmental, biological—is very great. The time to act is now. Consequently, the time for inspiration is now.

It is written that a very small rudder can move a very large ship. The efforts of President Obama, although in some cases still in their early stages, are what the world needs to achieve peace now, on multiple fronts. It is not only that those efforts deserve this award, although they do. However, in addition to that, the people of America and the world need the inspiration to follow the President’s example. Faced with an unprecedented level of challenge and risk, the entire world needs to think, “Yes—we can!” And the world needs to think this now, not twenty years from now.

In the matter of this award, the Nobel Committee, and especially President Barack Obama himself, are On The Mark.

(This post expands on a comment of mine on a news item in The Huffington Post. The original news article is available here. An archive of all my comments on The Huffington Post is available here. Readers are welcome to become what The Huffington Post calls “fans” of mine on HuffPost.)

[The photo of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize medal awarded to Norman Angell, on exhibit to the public at the Imperial War Museum in London, was taken on August 26, 2005 by Anubis3. The image was obtained through Wikipedia, and is in the public domain in the United States.]

(Copyright 2009 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera. All Rights Reserved.)

Should Roman Polanski Be Extradited to the United States? Hell, Yes!

2009-09-29T01:06:00.001-04:00

(Photo of Roman Polanski, on the right in the photo, by Rita Molnar.)

Recently, the worlds of auteur cinema and Franco-American relations have been rocked by the arrest of famous 76-year-old film director Roman Polanski in Switzerland. Polanski faces extradition to the United States for having sexual intercourse with a then-13-year-old girl in 1977; one may read an Associated Press (AP) story, one of the many media accounts of this incident, here. (Polanski pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, but fled the U.S. in 1978 before being formally sentenced.)

In France, where Polanski is a citizen, various government officials are up in arms about Polanski's arrest. The AP story quotes the French Foreign Minister (the equivalent of the U.S. Secretary of State) as saying, "A man of such talent, recognized in the entire world ... all this just isn't nice." The French Culture Minister, Frederic Mitterand, is quoted as saying, "To see him like that, thrown to the lions because of ancient history, really doesn't make sense." Polanski's victim, Ms. Samantha Geimer, identified herself years ago; having reached a settlement with Polanski in years past, Ms. Geimer joins the call for a dismissal of charges against Polanski, saying she wants the case to be over.

Are these people simply insane?

Consider this my memo to the French national cabinet and Ms. Geimer: You are so wrong in so many ways, it will be difficult to respond to you within the bounds of even my epically long posts. Yet, logic, reason, and justice all demand that I try.

Let us keep one fact in mind that is disputed by no one: Roman Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old child--a minor who was in eighth or ninth grade--when he was 44 years old. With this fact firmly in mind, let us consider several arguments that have been advanced as to why Polanski should not be extradited to the United States to pay for this crime:

"All this happened a long time ago."

What possible relevance could this have? Certainly the matter of a statute of limitations does not enter into the discussion. The crime was prosecuted within a year of its occurrence; the only reason a long time has passed is because Polanski ran away, a fugitive from justice. Do we reward runaways from justice by dismissing their convictions, after a certain period has passed? That is exactly what we would be doing by dismissing Polanski's case on this basis.

Beyond that, what does it matter how much time has passed? The man had sex with a child when he was in his forties, for heaven's sake. The fact that it happened a long time ago is completely irrelevant from a moral point of view.

One is reminded in this respect of a terrible incident in which Mr. Polanski's own wife was the victim. In 1969, Mr. Polanski's second wife, the actress Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant, was brutally murdered by the followers of Charles Manson. (The person specifically responsible for murdering Ms. Tate was released from prison a little while ago with inoperable brain cancer, and died last week.) All of that was a good eight years farther in the past than Mr. Polanski's sexual episode with the child; do the French ministers want to make the case that Charlie Manson should be let out of prison? After all, the Sharon Tate murder is even more 'ancient' an incident, don't you think?

I mean no disrespect to the deceased Ms. Tate or her memory by making this grotesque comparison. However, I felt it necessary to mention the heinous crime of her murder to expose the wild logic of the argument that the passage of time somehow makes a difference here.

"The man is an internationally famous, highly talented artist."

The lack of logic here is astonishing, as well. Intellect and talent do not entitle one to a "Get Out of Jail Free" card in the Monopoly game of life. It would not matter if Polanski had the intellect of Einstein, the artistic sensibility of Da Vinci, the fame of Julius Caesar, and the humanitarian record of Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mother Teresa combined. There is only one standard of justice in an equitable society: You do the crime, you do the time--regardless of your status in society. In large part, this is what the rule of law is about.

Any standard other than this leads to social madness. The intelligentsia of society, the talented elite, must not be given moral freedoms beyond what ordinary people have; this would establish a two-tiered system of morality that is morally intolerable. We have enough problems with inequity in society on the basis of income, gender, social status, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth; we should be eliminating such inequity, not encouraging it.

I have a right to talk about the rights of the intelligentsia. I'm one of them.

Folks, I'll tell you something that I wouldn't ordinarily reveal. I have a measured IQ in excess of 150; yes, by some measures, I am a certified genius. I am an elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association, and have received awards from three Divisions of that august learned society. Despite these distinctions, despite the certified strength of my intellect, I consider myself to be under the same legal and moral strictures as anyone else.

It must be that way, for a just and equitable society to survive. Indeed, it can and should be argued that I--and Mr. Polanski--have a responsibility to work harder than others for the advancement of a moral and just society, that we have a responsibility to provide a better example of moral behavior. Where much is given, much is expected. (I have made this argument elsewhere, and doubtless shall again.)

Yes, of course, there are different versions of morality in different cultures. However, no reputable form of morality allows a man in his forties to have sex with a child.

If we followed the logic of the French ministers, then we would have to allow someone more brilliant or talented than Mr. Polanski the right to cause him harm. Let's have the brilliant physicist, Stephen Hawking, maim Mr. Polanski--oh, can't do anything about that; Mr. Hawking is just so very brilliant, you see. (Of course, I strongly suspect that Stephen Hawking would be the very first to deny that he has any special rights because of his stupendous intellect, astonishing as it is.)

"This man has already suffered so much in his life."

No one disputes that Roman Polanski has suffered a good deal. His mother died at the Auschitz concentration camp during the Holocaust. His second wife was murdered along with their unborn child, as I mentioned above. This is terrible; this is more than one would wish on one's worst enemy; I deeply sympathize with Mr. Polanski for his unbearable losses.

And none of that means a thing.

One does not earn 'suffering points' that allow one to commit crimes. In that direction, too, madness lies in wait.

Shall we establish a hierarchy of suffering, then? Perhaps someone who was tortured or maimed in some incident of ethnic cleansing, someone who lost their entire family, should be permitted to run roughshod over Mr. Polanski. Wouldn't that make sense, by the pretzel logic used by the French cabinet ministers?

"The victim herself calls for Polanski to be released."

Here I must tread delicately. Mr. Polanski's victim, Ms. Samantha Geimer, has suffered a great deal, no doubt, because of this case and its publicity.

All that being said, I must point out that Ms. Geimer's opinion on this issue means nothing at all.

Mr. Polaski's crime was not just a crime against Ms. Geimer. It was a crime against society, which is why it was prosecuted as a criminal matter, not a civil one.

Let me put it this way. There will always be 13-year-old girls, and there will always be 40-something-year-old Hollywood stars of one sort or another. What kind of message are we sending out if we just let Roman Polanski walk? What kind of behavior are we rewarding?

On the other hand, if we do not let Roman Polanski walk, perhaps it will give some Hollywood stars some pause before they sexually exploit some minor, in the future.

When it comes to forming society, it's largely about what you reward. My suggestion is that we do not reward either sexual exploitation of minors, or skipping out on the United States justice system.

I am sorry that Ms. Geimer will be discomfitted by the publicity involved in this case. On the other hand, Ms. Geimer is in her forties. There are minor children to be protected here, and their concerns take priority.

Conclusion

None of the grounds advanced in favor of dropping Roman Polanski's extradition have any logical or moral bearing on the matter. To the contrary, extraditing him is a statement in favor of an equitable society, the rule of law, and the safety of sexually exploitable minor children. I appeal to the Swiss authorities to hasten his extradition. And I appeal to the French governmental ministers, and Ms. Geimer, to rethink their position, for the good of society and the safety of children.

Roman Polanski, and his supporters in the French government, are most definitely not On the Mark.

[The image of Roman Polanski at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival is from a photo by Rita Molnar. Obtained through Wikimedia Commons, the image appears here under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license.]

A Shout Out for Help to My Audience

2009-09-08T00:53:00.003-04:00

As the video I have just uploaded to YouTube notes, I could use some help in finding a literary agent and someone connected with cable TV. Any information forwarded to me would be greatly appreciated.

Beliefnet Article: "New Dan Brown Novel Means Extra Scrutiny for Masons"

2009-09-05T20:20:00.003-04:00

Over the next two weeks, you may be assured that you will hear more and more about the forthcoming Dan Brown novel, The Lost Symbol, which will be published on September 15. As author Dan Burstein notes on his new blog, Matt Lauer of the Today show will be reporting on the novel from sites around Washington, DC, from September 8 to 15.

I was recently quoted in a BeliefnetNews article regarding the impact that the Brown novel will have on public perceptions of Freemasonry; you may read the article here.

I won't let The Lost Symbol take over this blog; I have another blog for that particularly obsession. However, the publication of a new Dan Brown novel is legitimately something of a cultural event, worthy of comment in a blog of social commentary. Thus, from time to time I may have something to say about Dan Brown, his novel, and what relevance this has for spirituality in our day.

Ted Kennedy: A Lesson From the Presidency That Could Have Been

2009-08-26T02:49:00.015-04:00

As I write these words, the world has just learned that Senator Ted Kennedy has died. Whatever one thinks of the late Senator's politics, all will agree that he was a major figure in American politics over the last half-century, and that his passing is a moment to show respect for a great public servant.

I'll go along with all of that. As it happens, I agree with much of Senator Kennedy's politics, so his passing means that much more to me. However, I bring up his passing here for another reason, a reason that is every bit as much personally relevant to you, the reader, as it is to me.

We'll read a lot over the next few days about the great Senator that Ted Kennedy was. However, we should also consider the great President that he might have been. Kennedy's Presidency-that-wasn't, and the personal choices that derailed that Presidency, carry an important lesson for each of us.

I was a very young man in the summer of 1969. It was an almost surreal summer, with its constellation of watershed events of cultural and even cosmic significance, all of which I followed eagerly as I read the Rocky Mountain News and watched Walter Cronkite on television while visiting with my uncle's family in Denver. This was the summer of the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon, the summer of the Charles Manson murder spree, the summer of Woodstock--and the summer of Chappaquiddick.

The broad details of the Chappaquiddick incident are well known. Senator (yes, even then, Senator) Kennedy was attending a reunion party for some of the female workers on his late brother's presidential campaign. (Bobby Kennedy had been assassinated over a year earlier, during this campaign.) Other men were in attendance at the party as well. As Kennedy later reported it, shortly before midnight, one of the women, Mary Jo Kopechne, asked him to drive her back to her hotel. On the way, Kennedy drove off a bridge; he escaped the car, while she did not. Kennedy did not report the incident until Ms. Kopechne's body was discovered, late the next morning.

There have been unanswered questions for many years about many aspects of this incident--but this is not the place to go into them. I would rather dwell on another aspect of this tragic incident. In doing this, I mean no slight to Ms. Kopechne or her memory. However, there are other issues to consider here, issues usually ignored.

Most commentators agree that the incident at Chappaquiddick ended Ted Kennedy's presidential ambitions. At the very least, Kennedy made a monumental error in judgment in not contacting the authorities immediately after he drove off the bridge into the water.

But what if he hadn't?

What if he had known better than to even put himself, a 37-year-old married man, in a car alone, late at night, with a 29-year-old single woman?

Beyond that, what if he'd reported the accident immediately--thereby possibly saving Ms. Kopechne's life, and definitely showing his willingness to risk his reputation to try to do so?

We just might have had a President Ted Kennedy in 1972, instead of the second presidential term of Richard Nixon. A Kennedy presidency at this time might have ended the Vietnam War years sooner, saving hundreds or thousands of American lives. A President Ted Kennedy might have given us an enlightened energy policy back in the Seventies, when the oil embargo of 1973 demonstrated conclusively the dangers of America depending on foreign-supplied fossil fuels.

Perhaps even more intriguing, we might have elected a President Ted Kennedy in 1980. (In real life, Ted Kennedy lost the Democratic nomination to Jimmy Carter in 1980.) We might have avoided the Reagan years and the first Bush Presidency altogether, along with the legacy of those years: the disastrous consequences for education, the environment, civil rights, foreign policy, the rule of law, and the national deficit (remember 'Star Wars'? and I don't mean the movie).

But we didn't get that. Instead, a few seemingly minor personal choices affected the course of American history, and arguably the history of the world.

The poet John Greenleaf Whittier wrote that

For of all sad words of tongue or pen
The saddest are these:
"It might have been."

And so it is. Both the Rocky Mountain News and Walter Cronkite have passed into history, and now so has Senator Ted Kennedy. We shall never know what a Ted Kennedy Presidency would have accomplished. However, we can know this:

At some time, each of us will face what I will forever after call "Kennedy's choice": a seemingly minor personal choice where a lapse of good judgment can have far-reaching consequences, consequences that can change one's life--maybe many lives.

What if everyone behaved as if their choices could affect history? Sure, we might have some interesting stories disappear from our lives. However, overall, we would avoid oceans of heartbreak and missed opportunity. Beyond that, our power to contribute to our own success, to the prosperity and well-being of our communities, even to our nation and world, would be vastly increased.

We need to have the perspective that our lives are not our own. Some in the world would have us believe that our life is nothing but an opportunity for personal pleasure, personal enjoyment. We need a higher perspective here. I would submit to you that each of us has received our life in stewardship, an opportunity to do the most possible to improve the world in which we are placed. From this perspective, we just don't do things that could impede our ability to be useful, to ourselves, to our families, to our communities, to our world, to all the people who do or could depend on us--now or some day--to help them, even if that help is just to give them a good example.

So that's the lesson that I propose we consider taking within ourselves on this sad day. Do the right thing. Act with integrity, in things large and small. Act in private with the same values we would have if our behavior were broadcast to the Jumbotron in Times Square. Be the same person when we are alone that we are in public. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It's about integrity; it's about character.

I will miss Senator Kennedy. I mourn his passing; I admire him for the kind of man he ultimately became. But I cannot help but be haunted by what might have been. That's a lesson I want to apply to my own life for a long, long time.

The post is an elaboration of a comment that I made on The Huffington Post today. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost.

[The image of the late Senator Kennedy is in the public domain, and was obtained from Wikipedia.]

Annals of Well-Used Lives, I: Michelle Kwan Chooses Grad School Over Olympics

2009-08-01T01:54:00.011-04:00

Michelle Kwan, nine times U. S. Figure Skating champion, twice an Olympic medalist (silver and bronze), announced on Friday, July 31, that she was passing on preparing this fall for the Winter Olympics, and instead would enter graduate school. (Read about it here and here.) Nancy Armour's article for the Associated Press quoted Kwan as stating the following:

Skating will always be a part of me .... But in the bigger picture of my life, I have always wanted to find a career that will allow me to make a positive contribution and difference in the world.

Kwan begins a masters degree in international affairs at Tufts University in the Fall. For the last three years, she has served as a U.S. public diplomacy envoy on the behalf of the State Department, and this experience seems to have encouraged her to move in this direction.

Yes, I know that the cynics out there will say that Kwan, who has suffered injuries in recent years and is now 29 years old, might have looked at her Olympic chances and considered them a long shot anyway. I prefer to take her at her word. Either way, though, let's give some thought to this act and its meaning, not for Kwan, but for America.

As a society, American culture is obsessed with professional sports (and, make no mistake about it, the Olympics are essentially professional sports under certain restrictions). To judge from the media, it has occured to very few people to point out that very little of any lasting value has resulted from the world of professional sports.

Oh, sure, the people who participate in professional sports can become fabulously wealthy, and some of those who've done so have done good and charitable things with their wealth--more power to them. However, truth be told, Americans aren't remotely as concerned with sports figures' charitable activities as they are with their athletic performance.

And we so love to watch those performances, don't we?

Whether it's the weekly ball games, or national or world competitions, or the weeks of Olympic competition, we love to watch those performances. We identify with the athletes; their victories are our victories, their pain our own.

But what difference does any of this make, at all?

Is one sick child made well by a goal or a block? Is our community any closer to fixing poverty because someone did the breaststroke in record time? Does even the most breathtaking, run-up-the-wall-and-jump catch, deep in the outfield, do a thing to better education or literacy, anywhere in the world?

Of course not. It's not supposed to. It's essentially entertainment for the spectators, and a massive paycheck plus the achievement of a personal goal for the athlete. And that's it.

Few have been better at their sport than Michelle Kwan is at hers. But now she wants her life to make a difference. Implicitly, she is stating that her athletic pursuits really were not making a difference in the world. And they weren't!

The spotlight will be off Michelle Kwan now. Nobody gives endorsement money for international relations. There's no standing on the podium while they play your national anthem and give you a medal, no matter how well you handle a diplomatic crisis. There's no stadium watching as you try to achieve peace and prosperity in a troubled world.

But somewhere, inside, I think she'll experience the satisfaction that comes of knowing that you've tried to leave the world a better place than when you found it. Years from now, when she is an accomplished diplomat with some achievements under her belt, I hope that she tours the schools of America and tells the story of how the athletic hero walked away from it all, to really make a difference. Directing your life to a greater purpose: it's a lesson that a lot of children need to hear.

A lot of adults, too.

Michelle Kwan's choice to make a difference is definitely On the Mark.

[The image of Michelle Kwan performing her signature spiral at a practice session of the 2002 U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Los Angeles was taken on January 8, 2002 by Kevin Rushforth, who has made it available for use here through the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. The image was obtained through Wikipedia.]

President Obama's Notre Dame Commencement Speech

2009-05-17T16:38:00.008-04:00

President Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech represents a watershed moment in American politics, an extraordinary contribution to the greatest challenge that America faces at this moment in history.

At one level, we face challenges involving the economy, environment, matters of war and peace, and health. But at a higher level, our nation has long faced a greater problem: the challenge of dealing with difference, whether in terms of race, ethnicity, economic class, religion, politics, even worldview.

I do not exaggerate when I say this is our greatest national problem. It is our lack of skill at dealing with difference that has impaired our ability to work in and with what is called 'the Muslim world.' Our lack of skill here, in part, resulted in an attack on my hometown--I live in Manhattan--resulting in thousands of fatalities. It is our lack of skill at dealing with differences that, I fear, targets my town and my country for terrorist activities, from suitcase nukes to bioweapons. It is our lack of skill in this area that makes the environment for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so dangerous, in multiple ways.

Even aside from the apocalyptic, our problems in dealing with difference contaminate our personal lives. I myself have been beaten bloody by people who took issue with me, either as a Puerto Rican, or a White man. I have been ridiculed for my religion (by some of those who agreed with my politics), as well as for my politics (by some thoughtless members of my church). We need a better way to deal with differences than many of us have been taught to use.

For nearly thirty years, since the election of Ronald Reagan as U.S. president in 1980, American political and social discourse has increasingly invoked the rhetoric of division, the demonizing of one's opponents, the winner-take-all approach to politics. As our society has become more obviously multicultural, as America has become more diverse on every possible dimension, overall we have shown ourselves to be poorly equipped to deal with difference.

In contrast, at Notre Dame, President Obama elaborated a vision of civility and fairness in dealing with differences of opinion. He called for people to hold fast to their faith and their values, yes, but he also called for them to show respect to those with different faiths and values, always holding the presumption that one's opponents are people of good will. Obama exhorted us all to appeal to reason, to universal and not parochial principles. One of his phrases will stay with me for a very long time: "Open hearts; open minds; fair-minded words."

Although not delivered in the high style or dramatic setting of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, President Obama's remarks may ultimately be seen as just as important in redefining American political and social life. Thank you, Notre Dame, for giving him this platform. Both President Obama and Notre Dame are most definitely On The Mark.

I posted an earlier version of this in response to a news article at The Huffington Post (THP). I invite you to visit my profile at THP, see my other comments that are indexed there, comment on them--even become an official "fan" of my writing at THP, if you like. (And, if any reader of this blog is the person identified as "viewfromuphere," who became my first 'fan' at THP: Thank you for your support.)

On Angels and Demons and the Illuminati

2009-05-15T09:16:00.009-04:00

With today's nationwide release of the movie version of Dan Brown's book, Angels and Demons, many people will be exposed to Brown's fictional version of those boogeymen of the conspiracy community, the Illuminati (cue creepy trumpet music: DAH Dah dah dahhhhhhh). Here, then, is a brief guide to help you discern Illuminati fact from fiction.

Two warnings: (1) I base my comments on Brown's depiction of the Illuminati in the book version; the movie may deviate from the book. (2) Although I do not reveal any plot twists, by necessity I will convey information about the Illuminati that appears in Brown's novel.

The Illuminati Really Existed

There have been several movements throughout history whose adherents were known by the name (translated into English) of "Illuminated Ones," or (in its Latin version) Illuminati. The movement to which Dan Brown is referring is the Bavarian Illuminati, founded on May 1, 1776, by Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit-educated but anticlerical university professor who taught at the University of Ingolstadt, in upper Bavaria (the southeastern part of what is now Germany). The Bavarian Illuminati (hereafter just Illuminati, for short) were a revolutionary group that proposed to overthrow the absolute powers of the day, the Church and the Monarchy. Their plan was to replace these with a reverence for Reason, and a sort of primitive Democracy.

For the most part, the Illuminati were high on revolutionary talk, and low on action. However, what they were talking about was truly revolutionary. Had the Illuminist agenda been carried out, it would have meant a thoroughgoing reorganization of society.

Weishaupt and his associates designed a series of initiatory ceremonies, or "degrees" of initiation, by which they brought people into what was truly meant to be a secret society in the proper sense: that is, a society whose very existence was supposed to be a secret from the surrounding greater society and culture. Under Weishaupt's leadership, agents of the Illuminati infiltrated several Masonic lodges in Europe, and subverted these lodges to serve as fronts for Illuminati activities. However, Weishaupt's plans were discovered by government authorities, and several European states worked to crush the Illuminati and the revolutionary activities of its members. Within about ten years of its founding, for all practical purposes, the Illuminati were no more. Reportedly, Weishaupt himself died reconciled to the Church he had once spurned.

Until my own book on the subject is published--and, I am actively seeking representation and interested publishers!--probably the best general reference on the Illuminati, in my opinion, is the portion on the Illuminati (chapter 11) in Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon's book, Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies for Dummies. (Yes, this is a "Dummies" book--and a pretty good one, too.) Some material from this chapter is available on the May 1, 2009 post of these authors' blog devoted to this topic.

However, the Illuminati have had a much livelier existence after their suppression, as they have formed the core of Western conspiracy theories and conspiracy-themed fiction for over two centuries (a topic explored in detail in my book). However, the Illuminati of conspiracy theory and fiction differ in major ways from the real Illuminati of history. Below, I describe some of the ways that Dan Brown's Illuminati, as depicted in Angels and Demons, differs from the Illuminati of history.

The Real Illuminati Were Not A Conspiracy of Italian Renaissance Artists and Scientists

In Angels and Demons (hereafter A&D), the Illuminati were a group that existed back in the time of Galileo, whose writings give important clues to Robert Langdon, the hero of Brown's novel (played by Tom Hanks in the movie). This is nonsense.

The real Illuminati were founded in 1776 in Bavaria. Galileo died in 1642, a full century and a half earlier. Basically, Galileo was as far from the days of the Illuminati as we are from the era of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. This is not a small discrepancy.

So, why did Dan Brown position the Illuminati in the time and place that he did? Consider this:

As one can tell from both A&D and its sequel, The Da Vinci Code, Brown is interested in questions of religion and faith as these intersect with the historical positions of the Roman Catholic church. In addition, as we can see from these two books, he (and his wife Blythe Newlon) have a great love of Renaissance art. To address all of this, it makes a great deal more sense to write a story involving Rome and the Vatican, the artwork commissioned by the Renaissance-era Catholic Church, and so forth. Where else could he place such a story, but Rome? Ingolstadt? I don't think so.

As appears to be the case based on his court testimony a couple of years ago, Dan Brown reads widely, but not necessarily with a discriminating eye. My suspicion is that Brown has dipped into the conspiracy literature more than once for inspiration. In turn, the conspiracy community has latched onto the Illuminati as the ur-conspiracy, the Mother Ship of Western conspiracies, for a long time. Some writers have connected it to revolutionary movements occurring after the Illuminati's demise (such as the French Revolution, and the rise of Communism in Russia). However, other conspiracy writers (like Jim Marrs and David Icke) have connected the Illuminati to groups and movements that date to much earlier times, even centuries and millennia earlier. From that perspective, pulling Galileo into the Illuminati isn't much of a stretch.

The Illuminati Were Not A Conspiracy of Scientists At All

Brown's Illuminati are devoted to destroying the seat of Catholic governance through the use of extremely high-tech (even science fictional) means, as a way to usher in an age of science. This is a heavy distortion of the position of the historical Illuminati, who were not men or women of science. (I say "or women" because the historical Illuminati enrolled both genders.) The real Illuminati organization was devoted to making Reason, not Faith, the guiding principle of government and life, but that Reason was really a philosophical principal. (After all, 1776 fell well within the range of the period called the Enlightenment, right?) Reason was promoted as the principle to follow in the political process, rather than either religious faith or the supposedly divine right of kings. Thus, the Illuminati appealed to some figures in the arts, such as Goethe, and to liberally minded members of the European aristocracy. Scientists, however, barely figured into the historical Illuminati at all.

So why does Brown make his Illuminati into a conspiracy devoted to the ascendancy of science? The Illuminati, as a mythic icon, is a sort of Rorschach card into which each age reads its anxieties. To the clergy of the early American Republic in the late 18th and early 19th century, uncomfortable with their lesser power in a country with no established national church, the Illuminati were wild-eyed rationalists behind the anticlerical French Revolution. To our day, when issues of the relationship of science and religion are in the headlines, the Illuminati are anticlerical scientists. Brown is just reflecting the social anxieties of early 21st century America.

American Freemasons Were Never Involved With the Illuminati

One of the annoying claims in A&D is that the world's oldest fraternal organization, Freemasonry, is actually a front for the Illuminati. This is a staple of conspiracy literature, of course, and a full-blown refutation would take a great deal of space.

Let me put it this way. I am a Freemason: a Master Mason in the Blue Lodge, literally a man who has received "the Third Degree." In addition, I am a 32nd-degree Master of the Royal Secret in the Scottish Rite, and a Knight Templar in the York Rite (the Rites being appendant organizations that only accept Master Masons). I know several 33rd-degree members of the Scottish Rite, including some of the best-informed scholars in American Freemasonry. I have never detected even a whiff of a clue that Freemasonry is controlled by some secret "inner" organization.

The historical Illuminati did infiltrate several--probably dozens--of lodges in Continental Europe. They seem never to have had influence in English Freemasonry, where Grand Lodge Freemasonry began, let alone in the United States. Thus, what Dan Brown has to say on the subject is simply nonsense.

Then again, that's just what you would expect me to say . . . .

Enjoy the movie, as the work of fiction that it is.

[The image above, showing the cover of the book version of Angels and Demons, was obtained from Wikipedia. The copyright to this image is most likely owned by either the book publisher or the artist(s) who created the book cover. Wikipedia states that the use of this low-resolution image to illustrate an article dealing with the book is fair use under U.S. copyright law.]

Are "Young Americans Losing Their Religion" ?

2009-05-08T06:52:00.009-04:00

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been several news reports (such as one by ABC News) regarding the Pew Center study on religion, supposedly showing that "young people are losing their religion," on the basis of the fact that the number of people in America who report "None" as their religious affiliation has grown precipitously over the last few years. However, the Pew study has been widely misunderstood. A proper understanding of this study reveals a lot about American religion over the last century, and points out an important opportunity for American organized religious groups.

What the Pew Study Really Means

What the Pew study really shows is that the number of people who have no affiliation to organized religious groups (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, meetings, circles, etc.) has grown a great deal over the last few years. However, these young people are not "losing" their religion, so much as they are showing that they never had a serious or deep affiliation to a religious group from the get-go.

This should be no surprise. For years, many organized religions in America failed to engage their members in meaningful religious education beyond adolescence. That's a problem: personal faith that is 'frozen' in development at adolescence often cannot cope with the demands of adult life. This leaves family tradition, community ties, and habit as forces that kept many people tied to the religious groups in which they were raised.

However, the influence of tradition and community waned in America, as people began to move around the country a great deal more after World War II. Some people kept a nominal religious affiliation, but did not seriously involve their own children in any particular religious group. Now their descendants have no real ties to any religious organization.

However, every situation creates opportunities.

The Opportunity for Outreach

This presents a great opportunity for religious groups to make significant outreach efforts to those who define their religion as "none of the above," the so-called "religious 'nones' " (as they are referred to in the academic fields of the sociology and psychology of religion). At best, this would mean offering spiritual education to help people face life's issues on a mature spiritual level--more mature than what adolescents usually learn in classes to prepare for Christian Confirmation, Jewish Bar or Bat Mitzvah, and so forth. But will the religious groups of America make these efforts? Only time will tell. However, my sense of the situation is that those groups that do will grow and have a greater voice in shaping our society, while those who do not will fade.

So what do you do with all this? If you happen to be involved in a religious group, I would suggest two things. If you do not happen to be involved in a religious group, I have a different suggestion.

What Those With a Religious Affiliation Might Do

A fair number of the people who read this blog are members of religious organizations. (I know that this blog passes before the eyes of Catholics, Protestants, Latter-day Saints ["Mormons"], Jews of various inclinations, Muslims, members of the Society of Friends ["Quakers"], Wiccans, Gnostics, and Buddhists; I'm sure there are other groups represented as well in this blog's readership. Of course, many readers are honorable "nones.") Most of my readers who are affiliated with a group seem to be of what I would call the 'kinder' variety--less likely to burn people who differ at the stake, more likely to engage in dialogue for mutual understanding--and this variety of religion and spirituality, within any group, is something the world needs more of.

However, kinder is not necessarily better informed. I remember being shocked some years ago at the serious lack of religious and spiritual knowledge held by the students I taught at the University of Central Florida (where I taught the psychology of religion, among other courses). My impressions were confirmed by the grim findings reported in Stephen Prothero's excellent 2007 book, Religious Literacy. (For example: a significant number of American's actually believe that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. You can't make this stuff up.)

So, my first suggestion is really two-fold: (a) If your religious group offers spiritual education at the adult level--offering you a grounding in the teachings of your faith, and an adult level understanding of it--then participate in it; (b) however, if it does not, then help to institute such a spiritual education program within your congregation. Every spiritual tradition I know of has literature that can be used to create such programs. It can be done. If organized religion is to have a productive role in promoting individual and societal growth in 21st century America, it must be done.

My second suggestion: Expose your children in a serious way to your tradition. I mean the teachings, the ritual, the celebration, and discussions of spiritual issues in the home. I know that, in many cases, I am "preaching to the choir" (or coven) here, but it is still worth saying.

What Those With No Religious Affiliation Might Do

Now, to my friends the honorable "nones": Allow me, please, to invite you to an investigation of organized religious traditions. There are many good resources in this area; Huston Smith's The World's Religions is a good overview of the heart of several traditions. (This is a great book. However, it is an overview. Within every tradition he describes, there are many organized groups, and he often does not speak at the "specific group" level; for example, he says little or nothing about my people, the Latter-day Saints. He also is weak regarding neo-paganism; for which, see Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon. So, Smith is a place to start one's study, not the endpoint.)

There is a power that comes of being grounded within a lineage of teaching, a 'tradition.' Much wisdom has accumulated over the course of centuries within organized religious traditions. In my opinion, it is worth exposing oneself to these, to see what resonates with one's soul. Good fortune to you in your journey.
.
I posted an earlier version of this in response to an on-line article at The Huffington Post (THP). I invite you to visit my profile at THP, see my other comments that are indexed there, comment on them--even become an official "fan" of my writing on THP, if you like.
.
.
The picture, of the ruins of St. Bridget's Kirk, was taken in 2006 by Simon Johnston, who owns the copyright. The picture is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License.

What Star Trek Meant the First Time Around

2009-05-07T02:34:00.011-04:00

With J. J. Abrams bringing his reboot of the Star Trek franchise to the movies on Friday nationwide, I and other fans in their fifties and beyond find ourselves reminiscing about what the original Star Trek television series meant to us in the late 1960s.

We Would Have a Future

First of all, Star Trek told us that we would have a future. This was a shaky proposition at the time. The principal of my parochial elementary school interrupted my first-grade classes one day in October 1962, as the Cuban missile crisis broke into the news, to tell us that we were dangerously close to war with the Soviet Union--and to lead us all in prayer. We held drills in school for years, climbing under our desks to prepare for nuclear attack. However, with our school less than three miles from the Empire State Building--likely ground zero in any attack on New York City--we knew that, in a nuclear war, we would all be vaporized before the plaster loosened from the classroom ceiling by a bomb blast even reached our desk tops. We wondered whether we would make it alive to high school, let alone adulthood.

In the midst of all this atomic anxiety, Star Trek gave us the mythology of a future, the assurance that humanity would not immolate itself in a nuclear orgy of destruction, but rather would survive to encounter marvelous wonders and do great things: we would go to the very stars themselves.

Somehow that all translated into the idea that we, the fifth graders who watched the debut of the series on September 8, 1966, would survive--not a totally logical inference, but it worked for us. Oh, and about logic ....

Math and Science Are Cool

Second, Star Trek taught us that science and math were cool. This was certainly not anything that we learned on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, where the adults with the most secure jobs worked either for the City or the Mob. (No, I'm not going there.) Science and math, beyond what was necessary to make change, or calculate the odds on the ponies, seemed irrelevant in our parents' world.

Spock however, made science cool: he had the scientific answers to the seemingly impossible challenges that the crew faced weekly. Scotty, with his lightning-quick mental calculations of what the engines could do, and how long the Starship Enterprise could endure before the stresses of that night's adventure tore her to pieces--Scotty made math cool.

Sure, the science in Star Trek was largely made up, but a fair amount of it was based in reality, however tenuously. We heard about light speed, antimatter, genetic mutations, neurosurgery, artificial intelligence, and computers--all real scientific and technological concepts, even in 1966.

Star Trek got some of us to thinking that perhaps we could do something in science and math. As I grew up, my interests shifted towards social science, but I started out as a grade-school physicist and astronaut-wannabe, who was never scared by math--and I have Star Trek to thank for that, at least in part.

(In passing, I think that Star Trek really has exerted some influence on scientific and technological progress, by provoking questioning and thinking about even the seemingly wildest of its conjectures. For example, according to a recent article at Space.com, some scientists are working on the theoretical underpinnings of a faster-than-light propulsion system.)

A Future of Racial and Ethnic Equality

Third, Star Trek gave us hope that the time would come when ethnic and racial differences would mean nothing. This was certainly not the world that I inhabited. As a Polish-Puerto Rican biethnic child on the Lower East Side during the Sixties, I was beaten up now and again by bigger kids for whom someone like me was simply a biological and moral abomination.

Racial division broke out in open conflict in the larger world, as well. During the summer between second and third grades, we watched TV reports of the July 1964 Harlem riot. In subsequent years during our elementary school career, we watched TV reports of riots in Watts (August 1965), and Newark, NJ and Detroit (July 1967). As sixth graders, we witnessed the nation convulse in rioting during the spring of 1968, following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in April. A month earlier, a U.S. presidential commission issued the Kerner report, famous for stating that "our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal."

But not on Star Trek. Look at that bridge crew! Sure, Captain Kirk was your standard White North American leading man-type, such as viewers would see on most TV programs of that era. However, Uhura the communications officer was African, Sulu the helmsman and tactical officer was East Asian, Chekov the navigator was Russian, Scotty the chief engineer was Scottish, and Spock the science officer wasn't even entirely human. One of the most important scientists in the Federation was an African American, Dr. Richard Daystrom, reputedly the Einstein of the 23rd century, maven of artificial intelligence. Several Starfleet officers and enlisted personnel had Hispanic names, such as Commodore Jose Mendez. Characters of multiple heritages were not uncommon on the series, the most notable being Spock himself, half-Human, half-Vulcan.

And, for the most part, the different ethnic groups and races got along, at least within the Federation. Oh, sure, there were skirmishes and even open warfare now and again between the multicultural United Federation of Planets, the Romulan Star Empire, and the Klingons, but these conflicts were primarily drawn along astro-political lines, rather than along racial or ethnic differences. Where there was racial conflict, the series bluntly condemned it. (Best example: the episode where Commander Bele--refrigerator white on the left side of his body, but coal black on the right--hunted down Lokai, who had the opposite coloring. After a long pursuit, they discover that racial hatred had utterly destroyed all life on their home planet.)

I do not know where the Star Trek franchise will go from here. I do hope, though, that in our world--where ethnic hatreds kill thousands annually, where religious conflicts threaten global peace, where American children lag behind other nations in their understanding of science and technology, even as environmental catastrophe looms--perhaps something like the original Star Trek series will help to inspire the youth of the 21st century, with new tales of possible futures. That would truly be On The Mark.

Mark Koltko-Rivera is the Director for Research at Professional Services Group, Inc., where he has responsibility for the professional futurism practice.

Annals of Heroism, 1: A Way to Die, A Way to Live

2009-04-26T22:23:00.010-04:00

Your correspondent is typically a pretty optimistic fellow, not a morbid sort. However, death is part of life, and the last nine months or so I've had death come to mind more than usual, what with the death of a parent, and now, of course, the swine flu outbreak in Mexico; even one of the family cats died. An incident mentioned in the news today reminded me that, although we have no choice but to die, we have a great deal of choice in the how of it all.

This video and this report from news organizations in Florida tell the story of 70-year-old Mr. Charles Schulze. Mr. Schulze noticed two boys, 9 and 12 years old, caught in the currents and about to drown, off Pompano Beach in Florida (pictured). According to the reports, Mr. Schulze dove in, and brought both the boys close enough in to shore for others to bring them the last bit to safety. Unfortunately, then he was at trouble in the currents himself. Although rescued, he was declared dead at the hospital.

There are lessons to be learned here.

First lesson: One needs to be prepared for the moment of trial, when it comes. My guess is that Mr. Schulze was in pretty good shape for 70 years old, to be able to swim out into the surf and save those two boys. When one sees the struggling swimmers out in the current, it's a little too late to start laying off the snack food, a little too late to start the exercise and swimming program. The trial comes when it comes; at that point, the time for preparation is past. However it is that one feels about matters of spirituality, surely the parable of the wise and foolish guests (Matthew 25: 1-13) has applicability across traditions.

Second lesson, probably the most important: Be a hero, to someone. As I have said before, our lives are not our own. Be oriented to helping people.

This so flies in the face of the prevailing ethics of the modern world: 'Look out for Number 1,' 'Make your pile,' 'Take the money and run,' 'Every man for himself.' That Mr. Schulze is being called a hero is unimportant; unfortunately, soon enough that will be forgotten. However, even the very last hour of his life had meaning and purpose that transcended the accomplishments of all the media Idols that shall ever be, all the bonuses that the so-called Masters of the Universe in the financial world have been pouting and shouting about.

I am reminded of the statement in the Talmud, the accumulated written wisdom of the rabbis of about twenty centuries ago: "whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Everything good that these two boys could ever do for the rest of their lives, every descendant they could ever have, at that moment hung by a thread over the Abyss--and then Mr. Schulze saved their lives.

Third lesson: Don't be afraid to die doing good. The point of life is not to live forever--at least, not as the kind of beings we are now. Whether your beliefs point in the direction of the Hindu Atman; the traditional Jewish, Christian, or Islamic heaven; the Buddhist Nirvana or Pure Land; the Wiccan Summerlands; the LDS notion of Eternal Life; many other traditions besides--whatever spiritual tradition claims your attention, the point of life is to improve oneself, even to perfect oneself, through service to others. There may be much else besides, but every tradition will claim at least this much, I think. It's not about getting the most toys, or playing the life game of Pig-in-Trough, as Robert de Ropp put it in that 1960s masterpiece, The Master Game. The point is to live one of the central paradoxes of human life: by becoming someone other than we started life as--the self-centered infant, of whatever age--we become who we really are meant to be. To die doing good: the perfect endgame in the Great Game. It is how I would want to go. I hope I have the preparation and the guts to follow through on that wish.

Fourth lesson: Don't be afraid to do good after you die, either. The fact of the matter is, we can all give someone life through our deaths. We might not all have a moment of final, dramatic heroism. But how about being a hero to someone through organ donation? (Let's face it, folks--you're not going to be using them any more.) Sure, it may make you squeamish--but it can give sight to the blind, air to those short of breath, life to those whose hearts are giving out.

Having a life that means something, even in one's death: That may be the most on-the-mark of all.

(The picture, by Friejose, is from the Wikimedia Commons, reproduced under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.)

Annals of Innovation, I: The Football Lineman and the Solar City

2009-04-09T15:03:00.005-04:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, humanity faces quite an array of problems, ranging from global warming and terrorism to illiteracy and the threat of asteroids from space. It is a real joy to see someone doing something about one of these problems, in an innovative way. I am talking about the former football lineman and the solar city.

Time magazine reports on its website today, in an article by Michael Grunwald, that a former NFL lineman has made an innovative proposal for Babcock Ranch, a solar-powered city to be developed in southwest Florida (near Fort Myers, roughly halfway on a line between Miami and St. Petersburg). This would feature what would be the world's largest photovoltaic solar power plant.

After the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, when the volume went up on developing renewable energy sources, one argument against solar power was that 'the science isn't there yet.' It surely is now. The Florida solar power plant presumably would look and function something like the photovoltaic array at Nellis Air Force Base (Nevada), currently the largest solar photovoltaic power plant in North America (pictured above, from the Wikimedia Commons). The Nellis array, when fully developed, will supply over one-quarter of the power used on this base, which is home to more air squadrons than any other U.S. Air Force base in the world, including four air wings attached to the United States Air Force Warfare Center. Somehow, solar power is good enough for one of hte largest and most important bases of the U.S. Air Force. It should be good enough for much of the rest of the United States.

This idea for a solar city in Florida--what Time is calling the Sunshine City in the Sunshine State--is the idea of Syd Kitson, who, after six years playing as an NFL lineman for the Green Bay Packers and the Dallas Cowboys, turned many years ago to real estate development. As Kitson put it in Grunwald's article, "The time has come for something completely different."

Kitson's proposal for his solar city includes details that would make his development sustainable and self-contained, with a green orientation that is unprecedented for a community of its size. That would be a major change of orientation for Florida, where communities typically are not sustainable, do require a car to do anything, and do carry an enormous carbon footprint per person. (I lived in Florida for over eight years. Sorry, my friends and former neighbors. I'm not saying that New York City, where I live now, is any better, either.)

My point in describing all of this is two-fold. Sure, I am promoting green ideas. However, beyond that, I am promoting innovative thinking. Here's a guy who played pro football for years. However, when that career ended, his thinking and ambition did not. He was willing to think outside the box, and to apply his intelligence to addressing some of the significant problems that our society faces: how to design sustainable communities, with renewable power, so as not to make our current environmental crisis even worse.

May his tribe increase. And may we each follow this example: each of us, in our own way, applying our intelligence in innovative ways to address the problems of the world. Yes, we can. Yes, you can. An innovative orientation like Syd Kitson's is definitely On The Mark.

Nuclear Disarmament: Yes We Must

2009-04-06T17:45:00.006-04:00

As an elementary school student during the 1960s, I and other students across America took part in drills to prepare us to survive a nuclear attack. We dutifully crawled under our desks, to shield us from falling plaster, I guess. Then, on the walk home, I stood at the corner of First Avenue and St. Marks Place in Manhattan, looking to the northeast at the Empire State Building--not even two and a half miles away. It was widely rumored that the Soviets had two 20-megaton hydrogen fusion bombs aimed there. My school desk would not provide much protection against a blast that would vaporize the entire city block on which my school stood. I was stunned to learn, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, that some American political leaders and think tank consultants, such as Herman Kahn, talked about 'winning' a nuclear war, and about 'acceptable' levels of American casualties during a nuclear conflict--casualties in the tens of millions, of which I would undoubtedly be one, along with everyone I knew.

For a total of eight months during 1978-1980, I lived in and near Hiroshima, Japan, where one of the first atomic bombs had been detonated, at the end of World War II. The Hiroshima atomic fission bomb, "Little Boy," was a weak little monster by today's standards, with 'only' a 13-kiloton yield, or the explosive equivalent of 13K tons, or 26 million pounds, of dynamite. (A 20-megaton hydrogen fusion weapon has the explosive equivalent of 20,000K tons, or 40 billion pounds, of dynamite--well over 1,000 times the power of "Little Boy.") Yet, the Hiroshima weapon immolated about 75,000 civilians instantly (with more dying later). At the museum in Hiroshima's Peace Park, I saw artifacts and photos illustrating blast effects. In this city divided by many rivers, photos of bridges showed the permanent "shadows" created by the brilliant blast, shadows left behind by morning commuters, as well as children who had been walking to school on those bridges at 8:15 on the morning of August 6, 1945, when the children and the commuters and everyone else were turned into piles of hot ash. (See photo above; note the outline of the shoes.)

(Yes, I know the received wisdom about the bombing being 'necessary to end the war.' I don't buy it; the historical facts show otherwise. See Howard Zinn's essay about this claim.)

The 1980s saw the publication of books like Carl Sagan's A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race, and Jonathan Schell's The Fate of the Earth, which documented how even 'small-scale' nuclear war could bring about global nuclear winter, changing the climate of the planet for generations, ending human civilization. (See also Schell's The Abolition, and his 2007 book, The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger.)

In the 1990s, with the political disintegration of the Soviet Union, I wondered who was taking charge of Soviet nuclear arms. I learned that, for all practical purposes, no one was; nuclear materials were being protected on lonely bases by rusty locks and corruptible guards. Consequently, there is now a lively international black market in nuclear materials and technology.

Yesterday in Prague, President Obama made an observation that should have been obvious since the demise of the Soviet Union: "In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up." He has called for a renewal of American and international efforts toward nuclear disarmament.

I am not a pacifist. However, I have come to understand that the mere existence of nuclear weapons presents a threat to the survival of the entire human race. They must be eliminated from the armories of the nations of the world, and they must be kept from the hands of stateless terrorist forces.

Some say disarmament cannot be accomplished at this late date. I say this is a problem of will, not practicality. We have satellite technology that can read newspaper headlines from space; surely we can find a way to monitor the world for nuclear weapons.

Some say disarmament is weakness. I say it shows the will to survive. We are not the stronger for holding weapons that can destroy humanity; we are only making it more probable that some extremist politician or military officer or terrorist will someday use them.

I do not wish my someday grandchildren to end up as shadows on a bridge. Let us end these weapons now, before they end all of our hopes and dreams. I urge you to contact your federal Senators and Representative to instruct them to follow the President's lead on this matter, including the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Nuclear disarmament is clearly On The Mark.

Reference

Helene Cooper and David E. Sanger. (2009, April 6). Citing rising risk, Obama seeks nuclear arms cuts: Warns of spread of bomb technology in black market. The New York Times [late edition], pp. A1, A8.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Adam Harrison Levy for posting the Hiroshima bridge picture on the site of DesignObserver with his story, "Hiroshima: The Lost Photographs."

Annals of Wasted Lives, I: The Poker King

2009-03-31T16:31:00.011-04:00

The March 30 issue of The New Yorker carries Alec Wilkinson's article profiling Chris Ferguson (pictured), the first person to win a prize of more than $1 million in a poker tournament (the 2000 World Series of Poker), and the co-founder of one of the most profitable on-line poker sites ever launched. Ferguson is unusual even among poker grandmasters for his application of John Von Neumann's mathematical game theory to poker, which has allowed Ferguson to develop an "optimal strategy" for poker. Of course, Ferguson comes from an unusual background: his mother obtained a doctorate in mathematics, as did his father, who taught game theory and theoretical probability at UCLA; Ferguson himself holds a doctorate in computer science from UCLA.

Chris Ferguson, 46 next week, is a brilliant man. To date, he has won more than $7 million playing poker, and reportedly has earned even more than that just through his on-line poker business ventures. Financially, he is wildly successful--and he is wasting his life.

In Chris Ferguson, we have a certifiable hyper-genius, called "one of the more brilliant and creative young men that I've known in my career at U.C.L.A." by his doctoral thesis adviser. (That adviser knows brilliance when he sees it; he is Leonard Kleinrock, whose lab helped develop the Internet.) But to what is Ferguson applying this brilliance? He's playing cards.

We live in a world that faces problems, nasty problems, horrifying problems, human-species-extinction-scale problems. A short list: global terrorism, the threat of bioweapons and suitcase nukes in private hands, famine, weird weather (likely caused by global warming), worst-ever inequities between economic classes, religious extremism that foments suicide attacks and warfare, lack of intercultural understanding, illiteracy, innumeracy, the resurgence of antibiotic-resistant infections, lack of affordable healthcare, a global economy sliding towards a New Depression, kids dying from dysentery and other preventable diseases, by the thousands, daily--hey, asteroids from space. And what's this guy doing? Playing cards.

Yes, I can imagine what some readers are thinking: "If this is a way to waste your life--count me in!" However, before you sign up yourself or your kids for Poker Camp this summer, let me point out a few things.

Our lives are not our own. Every reputable philosophical, spiritual, or religious position holds that people have a responsibility to give back, to do something for the world with their talents. Ferguson--who has sometimes signed autographs as 'Jesus' because of his looks, although reportedly he is an atheist--would do well to consider the real Jesus' parable of the servants (Bible, New Testament, Luke chapter 12), which carries the memorable phrase, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Or, if you prefer, as the Spider-Man comic put it, "with great power comes great responsibility." Abraham Maslow, one of the greatest psychologists of the 20th century--himself an atheist--found that an even higher level of motivation than self-actualization (or expressing one's own talents) is self-transcendence, that is, furthering some cause or purpose beyond one's own needs. Few people are better equipped to make a contribution to society at large than Chris Ferguson. But he's playing cards.

I have to wonder what Ferguson's stunning intellect could accomplish in the world. Game theory applies to all sorts of behavior, such as negotiations between groups; in this globalized world, where mistrustful groups face one another left and right, perhaps game theory might help to promote better outcomes in cultural encounters and ethnic conflicts. One might use game theory to better understand the way the stock market melted down recently, to promote better social stability and prosperity for all. Going way out on a limb, I wonder about the application of game theory to evolutionary theory and, in turn, to theories about the development (and thus the treatment) of infectious diseases. (Do cells negotiate amongst themselves? Do species?) I cannot come up with all the ways that Chris Ferguson might apply his prodigious intelligence to the problems of the world--but apply them he certainly might. Nah--he's playing cards.

Perhaps I misunderstand Chris Ferguson. Perhaps he spends his free time working on the mathematics of innovative cures for cancer. If so, I beg his pardon. Based on the known facts, I don't think so.

Isn't this all terribly judgmental? You bet! That's social commentary--and life: applying standards and passing judgment. Working from a reflective perspective just means that I apply standards like "our lives are not our own." The point is not to beat up on Chris Ferguson, but to encourage a more thoughtful approach to life on everyone's part.

On that basis--the idea that one ought to use one's natural gifts for the good of humanity--I'm sorry to say that Chris Ferguson is NOT On The Mark.

Reference

Wilkinson, A. (2009, March 30). What would Jesus bet? The New Yorker, pp. 30-35.

How to Protect Your Computers From the Conficker Computer Worm

2009-03-31T11:21:00.005-04:00

In my take on candidates for the 21st Century version of Dante's Inferno, developers of malicious computer software--viruses, worms, spyware, and so forth--are prominent candidates for damnation. (They rotate on the Infernal rotisserie along with terrorists, Ponzi schemers, predatory lenders, tobacco company executives ... hmm, there's another post in here somewhere.)

Now we face the Conficker computer worm, which is widely reported to have already infected many computers, with an activation date of April 1--that is, tomorrow. It seems that the worm has been out on the Internet for some time now, insinuating itself quietly deep within the operating systems of the computers that it infects. No one seems to know what will happen when the worm becomes active on a given computer, but computer security experts have noted that, in recent years, malicious software ('malware') increasingly has been used in identity theft schemes. Thus, Conficker might be looking for credit card information, Social Security numbers, passwords, and so forth. Or, maybe it simply wants to wipe our files clean and write ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY on every sector of our hard drives (written with a nod to Stephen King's The Shining).

To combat this threat, Microsoft offers the concerned computer owner the use of their software, the Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner, for free. The program will scan for a wide variety of malware and other computer abnormalities (stuff that makes your computer run inefficiently). After the scan, at your option, the program will fix the problems that it discovers on your computer.

Microsoft also gives you the opportunity to purchase the program for about $50, which will activate the program to run "live" in the background any time that your computer is turned on. There is a free 90-day trial; Microsoft suggests that you de-install any other antiviral or firewall software that you may have installed on your computer at present.

However, you may use the program on an occasional basis, scanning your computer for current infections, for free, at least for now; the 'occasional scan' use of the program does not require de-installation of firewalls or any of that. This is what I tried. The program seemed to work very nicely.

The program can take hours just to scan your files; I estimate that the scan alone took about 6 hours to complete on my computer. Fixes went much more quickly. According to OneCare, my computer was not infected with the Conficker worm or other malware, although there were other abnormalities in my system. These were fixed in a few moments once the scan was complete.

If you do go the Windows OneCare route, please note that you probably should complete the use of the program altogether before midnight tonight, because the Conficker worm is reportedly set to activate on April 1. So, do not plan to just set the scan to work overnight, as I did. You'll need to set it to work as soon as you get home from work, and then go through the repair sequence before midnight. Inconvenient, true. So is getting your identity stolen, or losing all your files. Those of you whose blood pressure spikes did not just result in fatal coronaries will probably see the wisdom of my advice.

This type of scanning and repair does seem like a reasonable step to take. Taking action to protect yourself from malware is definitely On the Mark.

P.S.: Why is a post like this on a blog of social commentary? Because this sort of warning-with-solution reflects a fundamental philosophical position upon which this blog--a blog ostensibly "from a reflective perspective"--is built: we are all in this together. We should look out for one another, watch each other's backs; whatever the metaphor, we should take a proactive approach towards each other's welfare. Peace.

Disclaimer: Nothing on this blog should be as offering legal, medical, business, accounting, financial, or computer advice. The author specifically disclaims responsibility for any real or consequential or other damages that may result from following the advice given on this blog. Readers should consult with appropriate legal, medical, business, accounting, financial, computer, or other professionals before taking any steps recommended in this blog.

There! Now my lawyers are happy.

Is Obama’s Restructuring of GM and Chrysler a Step Toward Socialism?

2009-03-29T22:43:00.000-04:00

On Sunday night, the Associated Press reported that Rick Wagoner, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of General Motors, will step down from his corporate posts immediately, at the request of President Obama. On Monday, the White House will unveil a plan to restructure both General Motors and Chrysler LLC, in exchange for further government assistance to the auto industry; Wagoner’s departure is a condition for this help.

Here is the federal government dictating personnel decisions at the top of the corporate organizational chart, and laying out terms for the restructuring of corporations whose stock is publicly traded. Surely it would be justifiable to ask, is this action by President Obama a step to move the United States towards socialism?

And the answer would be: No.

“Socialism” is an umbrella term for various social and economic theories that have in common the idea that the government should own the means of economic production, and bring about economic equality across the population (that is, absolute equality in terms of final results, not just in terms of equal economic opportunity). In some approaches to socialism, private property is permitted to individuals, and private corporations are permitted to exist, although the government has a strong hand in economic matters; in other approaches to socialism, private property is not permitted, and there are no private corporations. The distinction between ‘strong socialism’ and outright communism is sometimes difficult to find. For some thinkers, socialism and communism are essentially the same, with different terms being used in different places depending upon where one term or another is more socially acceptable.

President Obama’s approach is by no means socialist. It is a strong approach, to be sure, an interventionist approach—but these are difficult times that call for strong measures. Let’s review some essential facts.

For years, the American automobile industry has operated with its head in the sand as the world has changed around it. The industry made only token moves towards improving gasoline mileage, while at the same time it depended for profits on gas-guzzling SUVs. (Hey, I used to own one—great for use as substitute trucks, but gas-guzzlers nonetheless.) The scientific community long knew that oil prices would climb, and widely reported that projection years ago, but auto manufacturers ignored that during an era when the federal government regularly ignored or even suppressed scientific findings that it found inconvenient. Thus, it’s no surprise that as oil climbed to $4 a gallon, people stopped buying American cars. Now, in the New Depression where people don’t want to buy much of anything, even as oil has dropped, consumers aren’t running back to buy autos. For this and other reasons, American carmakers are hanging on by a thread. The AP article reports that GM and Chrysler have survived the New Depression so far on $17.4 billion in federal government aid, and have asked for $21.6 billion more.

In a situation like this, there are four possible approaches:

The hard-line, “laissez-faire” capitalist approach: Let the carmakers twist in the wind. Both GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. Tens of thousands of workers are thrown out of work. America loses more manufacturing capacity. Stockholders lose the value of their stocks. The American economy drops that much further into the New Depression. Thank you, President Hoover.
The soft-line “cheaty” capitalist approach: Just give these companies all the money they want, and let them do what they want with it. Billions of public dollars disappear without any oversight or accountability, and without really addressing the underlying problems. After a brief period of false hope, we are back at Square One again, and the game continues. Thank you, President Bush.
The socialist approach: Nationalize the auto industry, and administer it directly by the federal government. Jobs are saved, but now we have a mixed economy, both capitalist and socialist. That would give a whole new meaning to the term “the American experiment”—but not a welcome one. Thank you, Karl Marx.
The measured intervention approach: Assist the industry, but insist on strong federal oversight and direction, until the companies within this industry are capable of standing on their own again. Emphasize accountability and responsibility, at the same time saving jobs and strengthening the economy. Ultimately, a new style of American capitalism—call it “Capitalism 2.0,” or “Responsible Capitalism”—emerges to bring America to a stronger position among the nations of the world. Thank you, President Obama.

The political extremists for whom only two choices exist—laissez-faire capitalism and Stalinist socialism—will castigate President Obama for the actions he will take on Monday. This commentator thinks that President Obama is making the hard, fair, best choice among the available options. As far as we’re concerned, President Obama is On The Mark.

"You Just Haven't Been Caught Yet"

2009-03-24T23:22:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while I come upon a statement in the press that expresses an idea—especially a bad idea—so perfectly that I feel I must comment on it. Such a statement came up in an article in today’s New York Times, in a story regarding how a middle-school student came to be strip-searched for drugs.

Ms. Savana Redding was 13 years old and an eighth grader in 2003, “in between nerdy and preppy,” as she now describes her younger self. One of her fellow students had been caught with prescription-strength ibuprofen (basically, double-strength Advil), without a prescription. That student—a kid on the outs with Ms. Redding, apparently—said she had been given the pills by Ms. Redding. On the strength of this accusation (as the article states), Mr. Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal, ordered Ms. Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse, and Ms. Helen Romero, a secretary at the school, to strip-search Ms. Redding—which allegedly they did, right down to the skivvies, and then some. No pills were discovered in the search. Ms. Redding has sued the school district, and the case has now reached the United States Supreme Court.

This strip-searching incident was wrong on so many levels. I could fill a very long post detailing the failings of the school officials in this case. However, what attracted my attention in particular was the way the school district responded to one aspect of Ms. Redding’s complaint. As Adam Liptak noted in his Times article:

Ms. Redding said school officials should have taken her background into account before searching her.

“They didn’t even look at my records,” she said. “They didn’t even know I was a good kid.”

The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

“Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.” (Liptak, 2009, p. A19, emphasis added)

Well, this is surely news to me. A clean record is not to be taken as implying good conduct, then? It only means that one has never been caught?

This logical principle is utterly dazzling in its moral and even legal implications. One marvels at the things one could assert if one applied this simple principle to people in general—say, to some officials at the Safford [Arizona] Unified School District, and their attorneys:

The assistant principal in this case, Mr. Kerry Wilson, would probably say that he has a spotless record regarding accusations of child abuse. However, according to the above-mentioned ‘it-just-means-you’ve-never-been-caught’ logical principle, the lack of a record of child abuse allegations does not mean that Mr. Wilson never abused a child. Rather, this lack only means that he was never caught.

Mr. Wilson’s upstairs boss, the superintendent of schools, Mr. Mark R. Tregaskes, would probably claim that he has a perfect record of innocence regarding accusations of ritual human sacrifice. However, according to the ‘never been caught’ principle, this record does not mean that he never murdered a child, only that he was never caught.

The two allegedly strip-searching employees, the nurse Ms. Peggy Schwallier, and the secretary Ms. Helen Romero, would likely claim that there have never been any accusations against them regarding child pornography. However, according to the ‘never been caught’ principle, a clean record in this department does not mean that they don’t view child pornography, only that they have never been caught.

The lawyers for the school district, who wrote the brief stating the groundbreaking ‘never been caught’ principle, would probably be the first to tell you that they have never been arrested for selling crack to fourth-graders. Yet, according to that very principle, the lack of an arrest record does not mean that they didn’t deal drugs, only that they have never been caught—at least, not yet!

For the record, I emphasize that I am not saying that Mr. Wilson ever abused a child; I am not saying that Mr. Tregaskes ever ritually sacrificed anyone; I am not saying that Ms. Schwallier or Ms. Romero have ever viewed child pornography; I am not saying that the school district’s lawyers have ever sold crack, to fourth-graders or anyone else. (And, believe me, I would have named these lawyers if only their names had appeared in the newspaper article.) What I am saying is the following:

First, I am trying to encourage better thinking. The whole logic to this position—the idea that the presence of a good record only implies that one hasn’t been caught yet—is essentially immoral. It replaces the presumption of innocence with, at the least, the innuendo of guilt. Sure, a good record actually does not definitively prove that one is innocent. However, this is so obvious as to go without saying. When one says that a clean record only means that a person “was never caught,” this carries at least the implication that this person is actually guilty—a vile implication, at best. Perhaps now Mr. Wilson, Mr. Tregaskes, Ms. Schwallier, Ms. Romero, and the school district’s attorneys can better feel what it is like to be the target of that sort of implication.

There really is a lot at stake here. This line of logic has surfaced from time to time in our society, with nasty consequences.

In the 1980s, as American society became more aware of the actual size of the problem of child sexual abuse, this line of logic emerged and tainted the entire debate on this issue. I read then, and I heard people state the idea, that the fact that a given man had never been accused of child abuse did not mean that he had not committed this crime, it just established that ‘he hadn’t been caught.’ This was an insult to all men, to be sure. Beyond that, and perhaps worse, this bad logic tainted the entire movement to deal with the problem of child abuse—a truly horrific problem. Bad logic taints the best of motives and the best of causes, because it gives the impression that the entire cause is shot through with bad thinking. Thus, bad logic like the ‘never been caught’ principle must be exposed for the trashy thinking that it is.

Second, I want to encourage better legal practice. We are worse as a society when we allow our representatives, such as our attorneys, to use immoral lines of logic to defend a position. Yes, I am familiar with the idea that a defendant is entitled to the best possible defense. I would suggest, though, that the most vicious defense, the most aggressive defense, the ‘take no prisoners’ defense that uses all lines of logic, moral or not—none of these is what I would call the best defense. Memo to the Safford Unified School District: If this defense is the best that your attorneys could come up with, then you should have offered to settle this case a long, long time ago.

A final note: The article reports that Ms. Redding is now at Eastern Arizona College, studying psychology and planning to become a counselor. I don’t know if this blog post will ever reach you, Ms. Savana Redding, but if it does, allow me to mention that I am an elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association, I hold a doctorate in Counseling Psychology (NYU, 2000), and if you ever need to discuss your future educational or career plans, just drop me an e-mail: koltkorivera@yahoo.com . Hang in there.

Reference:

Liptak, A. (2009, March 24). Strip-search of young girl tests limit of school policy. The New York Times [Late Edition], pp. A1, A19.

False versus True Quests

2009-03-17T04:05:00.000-04:00

The March 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine includes a piece by Jon Mooallem titled “Raiders of the Lost R2” (available here). Mooallem’s article chronicles a small expedition of Star Wars fans to the Imperial Sand Dunes desert preserve, located near the junction of the borders of California, Arizona, and Mexico. The fans’ objective was to locate artifacts of the opening of the 1982 film, Return of the Jedi. You’ll remember the scene: Jabba the Hutt on his flying barge, intent on feeding Han Solo and Chewbacca to the ‘almight Sarlacc,’ a giant worm-like creature embedded in the sand. The sets were simply abandoned after filming was completed, and for years fans have picked over the area for pieces of the barge, the Sarlacc, and so forth. The expeditioners in Mooallem’s article—a 32-year-old male with a masters degree in paleontology, a 34-year-old female forensic psychology student, and a 42-year-old male worker at an arts-and-crafts store—worked in over-100-degree heat, for which they were rewarded with the discovery of several pieces of Jabba’s barge.

As it happens, the Imperial Sand Dunes site is only one of many stops on an international Star Wars itinerary that includes locations in Tunisia, Italy, Finland, Guatemala, and elsewhere, where scenes from the six Star Wars features were filmed. Fans of the films have been touring these sites at least since David West Reynolds (then a 27-year-old archaeology doctoral student) published his seminal 1995 article, “Return to Tatooine,” in Star Wars Insider magazine, documenting his travel to Tunisia to find sites filmed in the first Star Wars film.

Moallem’s article evoked three reactions from me. First, these expeditioners were using the vehicle of their Star Wars expedition to act out mythic themes in their real lives. Second, going further, these fans were using the films themselves as an expression of their search for self-transcendence. But, third, this whole enterprise ultimately strikes me as something very sad.

Moallem himself points out how fans were using their Star Wars expeditions to act out mythic, Jungian heroic quests. As he put it:

I eventually heard the stories of numerous Star Wars travelers, and I noticed a common theme. Their tales often dipped from the ecstasy of departure to moments of adversity or despondency, only to be redeemed by some instant when the searchers were aided by forces beyond their understanding—an uncanny feeling that a certain obscure site was just around a corner, or the fateful appearance of a kindly old Berber man who happened to have worked on the original production in the late Seventies. It was as though Star Wars had propelled these people onto real-life heroes’ journeys, with their own trials, and that the feat of reaching those sites ended up overshadowing whatever vague rewards they actually found. … One traveler, a thirty-three-year-old southern Californian …, later told me, “As a kid, you can only go so far playing with action figures. As an adult, you don’t play with action figures anymore. You become the action figure.” (p. 69, emphases in original)

It would be hard to find a better description in contemporary journalism of the hero’s quest, complete with the archetype of the Wise Old Man. (See Note 1, below.) Another way of looking at this is to note that these fans are using these expeditions as a vehicle for self-transcendence: they are devoting their energies to something greater than themselves. As the noted psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote towards the end of his life, the search for self-transcendence is a motivation that is developmentally more advanced even than the search for self-actualization (the bringing of one’s inner potentials to fruition). (My own article on Maslow and self-transcendence is available here.)

I am all for the hero’s journey, and the quest for self-transcendence—and yet, it strikes me as something cosmically sad for people to work out their personal quests in ways like expeditions to uncover Star Wars memorabilia, or other such acts of super-dedicated fandom.

I was deeply moved by Star Wars when I first saw it as a college student, during the film’s initial theatrical release in 1977. Not long afterwards, I noted a phenomenon that is now taken for granted, a kind of engagement with this film that took fandom to a new level. Some people went on to see this film in theatres, not once, not twice, but dozens of times. For some, the Star Wars mythology seemed to become almost (?) something like a religion, with ‘the Force’ as a metaphor for Divinity, and the Jedi as a sort of priesthood. Not for nothing were the personal guards of the evil Emperor dressed in blood/‘satanic’ red in Return of the Jedi. Years later, with the release of The Phantom Menace, the Darth Maul character, complete with devil’s horns, seemed to make the mythology that much more clearly religious.

I have come to understand that what we see in the more devoted forms of Star Wars fandom is a kind of incompletely developed religion. It is not defined as such by its adherents (many of whom would doubtless describe themselves as belonging to other, more accepted religions), but the more devoted forms of the Star Wars fan movement does have many of the trappings of a conventional religion, with its own mythology, doctrine, and scriptures (defined in the films and the large literature surrounding them), its own gatherings (ComicCon and so forth), and even its own pilgrimages (as documented by Jon Mooallem). Through devotion to the films and their mythology, these more devoted of the Star Wars fans seem to be reaching for something beyond themselves, trying to take ‘the Force’ off the screen and put it into their lives. This, too, is the search for self-transcendence, expressed through devotion to the mythology of the films, rather than through a search for the physical artifacts of the creation of the film itself.

This is all very benign, of course. It is also a great waste of human spiritual potential.

The classic hero’s quest is always for something important, something that has real consequences for the inner life of the hero, the outer life of the hero’s community, or both. In the oldest hero’s quest of which we have record, the Epic of Gilgamesh, almost 3,000 years old, what is at stake is immortality itself. In the Grail Quest cycle, the objective is spiritual enlightenment and a vision of Divinity.

Even in modern cinematic expressions of the hero’s quest, there are important things at stake. Within the fictional reality of the Star Wars films, the fate of worlds is at stake, with struggles for civic freedom and personal redemption. In the Indiana Jones movies, the stakes range from the survival of a village and its people (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) to knowledge of the mysteries surrounding what is purportedly the greatest archaeological find of all time (Raiders of the Lost Ark). In the book series and films of The Lord of the Rings, the quest of Frodo is for inner strength (as the Ring he is carrying to destruction attempts to corrupt him) and for the survival of the peoples of Middle-Earth in freedom. In short, quests are about important things, where the outcome of the quest may mean the difference between life and death, achievement or catastrophe, enlightenment or destruction, on a scale ranging from the individual life to all of creation.

Much of what passes for the hero’s quest and self-transcendence in our society is ultimately empty. We have seen how the language of quest and self-transcendence have been applied to the Star Wars expeditioners. The same sort of language is applied in the media to entertainment competitions (like television's “American Idol”) and sports. (How many times have we heard sports commentators use some phrase like “the quest for victory,” as if the fate of humanity hung in the balance?) In each of these cases—the movie artifact expeditions, entertainment competitions, spectator sports—the ‘quests’ involved are, in the final analysis, unimportant and meaningless.

Certainly nothing important hinges on a search for movie memorabilia, no matter how significant the motion picture. In our entertainment-obsessed culture, our latest ‘American idol’ is just that—a false idol, with no real power to help anyone to enlightenment or inner growth. We devote hours of time and billions of dollars to viewing sports events, the outcomes of which make not one whit of difference to the well-being of the world at large. (Sure, it's entertainment. But, ultimately, how important should entertainment be in one's life?)

People should seek to make some positive difference in the world. The world is absolutely full of problems needing to be addressed, from illiteracy to the neighbor who is without food to global warming. There are also spiritual mysteries to be pondered and spiritual struggles to be engaged in, found in many spiritual and philosophical traditions. I was delighted to see that, in the very depths of the current national economic crisis, large numbers of people are swelling the ranks of volunteers in many not-for-profit agencies, as reported in an article in yesterday’s New York Times by Julie Bosman (available here and here). We grow through service in the world and struggle in the soul. That service and those struggles need to be about things that matter, in either the inner world, the outer world, or both.

So much of what our society is focused upon is ultimately meaningless. We should devote ourselves to things that have real and lasting meaning. Such a development would be a sea change in recent Western culture, which, over the last century, increasingly has come to celebrate the self-centered and egotistical. If we could combine meaningful quests with a respect for differences—cultural, religious, political, and personal differences—we could make significant progress, individually, socially, and globally. That would be a quest worth pursuing.

Note #1: Readers may be interested in reading more about the archetypal hero’s quest. The most popular work on this topic is probably the late Joseph Campbell’s book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. The journey of the hero is described for writers of novels and screenplays in a book by Christopher Vogler, The Writer’s Journey (Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Productions; 2nd ed., 1998). For those interested in reading the psychological theory of the archetypes, I would recommend a book that Carl Jung edited for a general audience: Man and His Symbols. More technical works include Edward C. Whitmont’s The Symbolic Quest: Basic Concepts of Analytical Psychology, and Volume 9-I of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung, titled, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.

After the Broadcast of "Big Love"'s 'Outer Darkness' Episode

2009-03-17T03:17:00.000-04:00

In a previous post, I considered the issues at stake for Latter-day Saints in having their sacred temple endowment ceremony depicted in the HBO television series, "Big Love." Having now viewed the ‘Outer Darkness’ episode—yes, that's what they named it—I find that the episode is very revealing, not so much about the LDS temple ceremonies as about the producers’ motivations. Below, I consider what the episode's lapses in internal logic and so forth suggest about these motivations—and what the LDS will likely do about them.

(Of course, being a Latter-day Saint who has experienced the temple ceremonies myself and vowed to hold them sacred, I will not address the matter of the technical accuracy of the producers’ depiction of the endowment. However, this is the least important issue to be concerned with in considering this episode.)

About 5 minutes of this episode’s action is set within an LDS temple; of this time, the depiction of the endowment ceremony takes up 2 minutes. To be more precise, the focus of this portion of the episode is the depiction of what is supposed to be the last 1 minute and 45 seconds or so of the endowment, which in real life is the climax of the entire, roughly 2-hour ceremony. As I warned in my previous post, depiction of a tiny element of the ceremony, in isolation and without context, would lead to misunderstanding and confusion; this is so whether the producers’ depiction is technically accurate or not.

Before the episode was broadcast, the producers stated that the depiction of the endowment itself was necessary for dramatic purposes. When I saw this portion of the episode, I had two reactions.

First, without any context or interpretive framework, I failed to see what dramatic purpose was fulfilled by showing this portion of the endowment. The discussion of the character Barb with her mother and sister in the Celestial Room of the temple did further the dramatic narrative (although it was utterly unnecessary to place this discussion within the temple, a place where, in real life, people rarely reveal terrible secrets, as Barb does in the episode). However, the section of the endowment shown—especially without any context as to what was going on or what any of the purported symbolism meant—would be difficult to understand and confusing for someone not acquainted with the temple ceremony already (which of course would cover well over 95% of the viewing audience).

Second, it was clear to me that the producers were striving to be as shocking and provocative to the LDS community as possible. The real-life portion of the endowment corresponding to the portion depicted by the producers is, as I mentioned, the climax of the endowment; what occurs then is considered exceptionally sacred, to be given the greatest and most solemn respect, and never to be treated lightly or casually. Although depicting this section of the endowment would not be dramatically enlightening to the viewers as a whole, and might not even make much of an impression on them, it would be enormously offensive to the LDS.

Look at it this way. Let's say that you are visiting at someone's home, seated on one of their couches, attending a Super Bowl party or some other sedentary, television-watching social gathering. Someone passes around some cards for you to use in taking notes regarding the TV commercials you like or dislike. Someone else passes you some sort of cracker. Yet another person passes you a beverage. How offensive could this behavior be?

Quite a bit, if one were a Roman Catholic—and the cards were consecrated relics taken from a scapular (a sacred depiction of a saint worn around the neck under one’s clothing by some devout Catholics), and the 'cracker' were a consecrated Communion wafer, and the beverage were consecrated sacramental wine. In a Catholic context, the appropriation of these objects as part of an entertainment event would be outrageously, heinously offensive. What “Big Love”’s producers did was the television equivalent, as far as offending the LDS are concerned.

I have come to believe that this was intentional. That is, the producers depicted the endowment, not to further a dramatic purpose (as if that would be sufficient justification!), but rather specifically to offend the LDS.

The episode produces other evidence for this contention, because several aspects of this episode logically would not or even could not have occurred in real life:

Once a temple is formally dedicated, admission to the temple requires the individual to possess an individual recommend signed by church officials. In a scene before the temple sequence, Barb begs her mother and sister to give her one or the other of their two recommends, because she does not possess one herself. Yet, we see Barb in the temple Celestial Room, sobbing with her mother and sister, one of whom presumably gave Barb her own recommend—without which, that person (either her mother or sister) could not have entered the temple herself. For that matter, both the mother and the sister would have been aware that lending one’s recommend to another is punishable by excommunication; temple recommends are non-transferable, like a passport, and ‘lending’ a recommend is treated as a serious offense. As faithful Saints, Barb’s mother and sister simply would not have just lent their recommend casually. In sum, the producers did need to place Barb, her mother, and her sister in the same place for dramatic purposes, but that could have been anywhere. The producers chose to place the three of them in the Celestial Room of the temple, although this would have been impossible in real life, at least as the producers depicted the meeting.

In the scene before the temple sequence where she begs her mother and sister to supply a temple recommend, Barb says that she wants to ‘take out her endowments,’ that is, to experience the sacred ceremony and bring down its accompanying blessings upon herself. However, as any Saint with temple experience could tell you, one can only ‘take out’ one’s endowments once, with a special recommend. However, Barb is trying to go through on her mother’s or sister’s recommend. Barb’s mother and sister had clearly been through the temple previously. A person who returns to the temple after her own endowment must go through the temple ceremony as a proxy for someone who has passed away. (I went through the temple for my own endowment in August of 1978. When I went through the temple in January 2009, I went through on behalf of Robert L. Barham, who was born in January 1879 in North Carolina, and who died some time ago. This is normal temple practice, which the “Big Love” producers and their advisors presumably know.) This is not just a fine point. Even if Barb were to go through the temple on a swiped or loaned recommend, she would not be receiving the temple blessings for herself, but as a proxy for someone else. She would receive no endowment blessings for herself, and she would know this ahead of time. Thus, depicting Barb as trying to ‘take out her endowments’ is not just dramatic license. Rather, it is dramatic lying. Presumably, the producers brushed away these considerations to justify putting Barb in the temple, for reasons other than dramatic effect or accuracy.

Certainly Barb would know that excommunication cancels all temple blessings. Thus, even if she were trying to take out her endowments and receive those temple blessings, Barb would know that this would be a totally futile exercise.

In the church court scene, the bishop asks Barb whether she is wearing her temple garments; Barb responds by asking whether the bishop is inquiring about her underwear. There are two problems with this scene from a logical point of view. First, in the episode, Barb has just gone through the temple on a borrowed, hence invalid, recommend; she has not been through the proper interview process to obtain a valid recommend at all. As far as the bishop knows, Barb has not been through the temple, even under false pretenses (an excommunicable offense in itself, by the way), and so Barb should not be wearing the temple garments; thus, the question of whether Barb is wearing these garments would not even arise.

Second, although it is no doubt titillating to most of the viewing audience to think of the bishop asking Barb about her underwear, this rings particularly false for an LDS audience. Yes, LDS who have been through the temple do wear a special garment, which is an outward expression of an inward commitment (as one LDS leader put it; read here or here). However, this is not considered regular underwear or lingerie. It is considered to be ceremonial clothing, which temple patrons are required to wear throughout their lives; it is accepted among the LDS that the bishop will inquire, during a bi-annual recommend interview, as to whether or not the LDS temple patron is fulfilling his or her covenants by wearing the garment. Thus, Barb’s reaction is false for someone who is concerned about receiving temple blessings, although it certainly serves to ridicule the church in the eyes of those who do not know the temple or its customs.

Other aspects of the episode also demonstrate that the “Big Love” producers are seeking to irritate, embarrass, or ridicule the church:

In that ‘begging for a recommend’ scene before the temple sequence, the producers have Barb’s mother state that ‘it was only a few years ago’ that the temple ceremony was changed, and that previously temple patrons were threatened with disembowelment if they spoke about the temple. This is a frequently encountered libel. I went through the temple endowment for the first time in August of 1978, and most recently (as of this writing) in January of 2009. At no time during this period have I ever encountered in the temple any sort of language that threatened temple patrons with disembowelment or any other physical punishment for revealing the temple ceremonies. Anyone who has been through the endowment, who holds a valid temple recommend, and who thinks they heard otherwise is welcome to bring up the matter with me within the temple itself (the only place where I can discuss specifics). The producers are simply spreading false information here, although their falsehood surely puts the LDS church in a bad light.

During the episode, the polygamist cult’s prophet’s son specifically refers to the LDS church in derogatory terms, as haughty and condescending.

Bill the polygamist portrays the LDS church as unwilling to bring forth a letter that purportedly gives a version of history that embarrasses the church, even though producing the letter would save the life of a kidnapped child.

All in all, it is clear that the producers wish to offend and insult the LDS church. The depiction of the endowment is clearly a slap in the face to the church, and it is only that; it serves little or no dramatic purpose, and the producers bend logic and the reality of church procedure in order to show their depiction of the endowment. The producers also go out of their way to depict the church in negative terms, as I illustrate above.

So, having said all this, what will the LDS do about it all? Other than spread the truth and correct falsehood, precisely nothing. The LDS church leadership has already said that it will not call for any kind of boycott, and it encourages the membership to respond with “dignity and thoughtfulness.” (See their statement here.) Simply put, the Church has bigger fish to fry: spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as they understand it.

I, on the other hand, have just one more thing to add to this discussion. It involves a statement from the temple ceremonies themselves. I offer it to the producers of “Big Love” as food for thought. These producers have gone out of their way to treat the LDS temple ceremonies, and the LDS people, with great disrespect. They should be told that a portion of the temple ceremonies is relevant to such behavior.

The producers of “Big Love” claim that they had the assistance of anonymous experts who assisted them with their depiction of the endowment. Perhaps they can ask these experts if I am correct in stating this, the one sentence of the temple ceremonies that I am willing to reveal publicly. It is a sentence that explains why the LDS have to do precisely nothing to settle accounts with the producers of “Big Love,” because we are assured that the ultimate Authority on the temple ceremonies will take care of that—for, in the temple, we are told this:

“God will not be mocked.”

"Big Love" and the Mormon Endowment Ceremony

2009-03-15T22:47:00.000-04:00

Today (Sunday 15 March 2009) HBO is broadcasting a depiction of a Mormon temple ceremony, the endowment, during an episode of its television series about Utah polygamists, “Big Love.” The endowment is sacred to the LDS, or Latter-day Saints (as Mormons like myself call ourselves), who vow not to disclose details of these ceremonies outside LDS temples. One wonders what the general viewing audience will make of the ceremony, and of the controversy concerning the producers’ decision to depict the endowment. Below, I consider the meaning and importance of the LDS temple ceremonies, their antiquity, secrecy issues, and why the LDS are so concerned about the depiction of the temple endowment ceremony in “Big Love.”

The Meaning and Importance of the Temple Ceremonies

The temple endowment embodies the most sacred tenets of the LDS faith. The heart of the endowment involves the temple patron making sacred covenants to pursue a life distinct from the lifestyles of the world, to follow a challenging ethical code, and to live in accordance with all the commandments of God. In turn, taking the LDS temple ceremonies as a whole, God covenants with the patron that those who fulfill all the temple covenants shall be ‘endowed’ with the same kind of life, capacities, and existence that God has, including divinity itself. In the LDS scriptures, this is written of those who receive marriage, under proper authority, in the temple (known as ‘temple marriage’ or ‘celestial marriage’), and fulfill their covenant obligations to live a worthy life:

… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their
exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which
glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
[Note: That is, those blessed in this way may continue their family
relationships, and continue to have offspring, in the
hereafter.—MEK-R]

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from
everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all,
because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they
have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (The Doctrine and
Covenants [D&C] 132:19-20)

Everything in the temple endowment is symbolic of making and keeping the covenants required to obtain these great blessings.

The Antiquity of the Temple Ceremonies

The LDS believe that the temple ceremonies ultimately have a divine source and a long, long history. Many Saints believe that these practices and teachings were conveyed by Jesus to his apostles after his resurrection, during the so-called forty-day ministry of which, mysteriously, so little is said in the New Testament—although what is said is quite intriguing (see, in the New Testament: John 20:30 and 21:25). Several LDS scholars have traced evidence of these doctrines in the writings of ancient Christian authorities, such as the second century Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria, who wrote, “the Word of God [i.e., Jesus] became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (See Note 1, below.) My reading of the Christian Gnostic writings of the first through third centuries (see Marvin Meyer, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures) suggests to me that one can find, in these writings of now-extinct but once-vibrant Christian churches, evidence for sacred Christian ceremonies in the ancient world that reflected doctrines like those shown in the current LDS endowment.

One popular misconception is that the LDS temple ceremonies were somehow swiped from the ceremonies of Freemasonry. As it happens, I am both a Latter-day Saint and a Freemason, and I have experienced the LDS temple ceremonies and the Masonic initiatory ceremonies many times. The relationship between the LDS and Masonic ritual is a complicated matter that I plan to explore in writing at least one book over the next year or so. However, to put it simply, it is just not true that the LDS temple ceremonies were taken from Freemasonry. There are extremely superficial similarities between the two sets of ritual, but they differ in their structure, meaning, intent, execution, major concepts, and almost all of their essential symbolism. People who say that the one derives from the other, I would surmise, have not experienced both.

Why the Secrecy?

Having read the comments of some media commentators who wrote about the “Big Love” episode (titled ‘Outer Darkness’) in advance of its broadcast, the sense I get is that a lot of these people—and a lot of the viewing audience—have or will come away from this episode wondering what all the fuss is about. The temple ceremonies as shown in the episode clearly do not involve human sacrifice, sexual experiences, or illegal or immoral behavior of any sort; nor do temple patrons learn the date of the Second Coming, or the location of the Holy Grail. Given this, viewers might ask, ‘why are the LDS so concerned about keeping all this secret?’

The saying has been current for many years among the LDS that the temple ceremonies are ‘sacred, not secret.’ It is not that it is so important to keep the information itself secret; for well over a century, it has been possible for anyone to look up information about the temple ceremonies (some more accurate, some less so), and such accounts are available today in every conceivable medium. The LDS concern is not to keep this information secret, but to honor it as sacred. Thus, the LDS do not present the temple ceremonies to those who have not proven their spiritual readiness to receive them (through obedience to divine commandments); the LDS do not bandy about information regarding these rituals casually. It is not because there is super-secret information to be kept from the world in these ceremonies. It is because the LDS reserve that which is sacred for special times and places.

Why the LDS are Concerned About the “Big Love” Depiction of the Endowment

The producers of “Big Love” state that they have taken special pains to be accurate in their depiction of the endowment. However, one can be meticulously ‘accurate’ in this or that detail, and yet grossly inaccurate in conveying the whole—easy to do with something so complex as the endowment. These rituals take about two hours to perform. Within the 50 minutes or so of their television episode—much of which will be occupied with other dramatic events—the producers will have to cut a great deal of material from the endowment, which is really only comprehensible in its full context. The concern of many LDS is that focusing on select details—such as temple clothing, or isolated aspects of the ritual—will just create more opportunity for misunderstanding and ridicule. People who do not know the background of the distinctive ceremonial clothing of the Catholic priest or nun, the Orthodox Jew, the Sikh, or the Wiccan, might find much to ridicule there, should they be sufficiently small-minded to do so. The LDS have reason to be concerned, as well.

On the whole, modern American society does not understand well the idea of treating some things with special respect: we live in a world where nothing is considered sacred in the society at large. However, this speaks to the spiritual emptiness and the lack of spiritual literacy in modern American society. Consider this: to a Roman Catholic, the communion wafer and wine are sacred. [See Note 2, below.] These materials are not casually passed about, to be used for everyday nutrition, or as materials to be played with. Believing Roman Catholics would not wish to see, say, an artist use consecrated communion wafers or sacramental wine as materials in an artistic project. To the believer, sacred objects are not to be dealt with as objects for media events. This is how the LDS feel about their temple ceremonies.

Are the producers of “Big Love” being disrespectful to the LDS faith by depicting the temple endowment? Each faith defines for itself what ‘disrespectful’ means. Within some Islamic groups, it is strictly forbidden to make pictorial representations of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. It would certainly be disrespectful to these groups to broadcast images of Mohammed. Similarly, it is disrespectful to the LDS to broadcast ceremonies that are so sacred to them that they vow not to discuss various details outside of the temple itself. Of course, the entertainment industry has not shown itself to be much concerned about slaps against the LDS or their faith, which have been ridiculed or depicted insultingly in shows ranging from the lowbrow “South Park” to the highbrow Angels in America. Overall, popular entertainment simply does not ‘get’ the LDS faith, and that which it misunderstands it ridicules. This is what the LDS are concerned about.

Conclusion

My hope is that those who view the depiction of the endowment on “Big Love” will do so with the understanding that the reality behind the depiction is sacred to the LDS, that the true endowment reflects the greatest aspirations of the human spirit, and that this reality deserves respect from people of every religious position and belief.

Please Note: In comments on this post, I will not be able to respond regarding the accuracy of this or that aspect of the depiction of the endowment on “Big Love,” nor will I answer questions about the specific content of the temple ceremonies. (I shall delete comments that purport to ‘expose’ the content of the temple ceremonies.) I would encourage discussion of the ideas I have presented above, which touch more on issues like the treatment of sacred topics in the modern world.

Note #1: This translation is given on p. 26 of Robert L. Millet and Noel B. Reynolds (eds.), Latter-day Christianity: 10 Basic Issues (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1998), who source the quote in note 13 (p. 54) as “Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, I.” A source more readily available to readers of this blog would probably be Clement of Alexandria, “Exhortation to the Heathen,” Chapter 1, available in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 2 (“Fathers of the Second Century”), p. 174, left column, continued paragraph, which translates this passage as: “the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.”

Note #2: I am grateful to Kathleen Schmid Koltko-Rivera for mentioning this comparison to me.

Welcome to "On the Mark": An Introduction

2009-03-15T22:33:00.002-04:00

Welcome to “On the Mark: Social Commentary From a Reflective Perspective.” In this post, I explain the topics I plan to address, how this blog is different from other blogs of social commentary, how I am qualified to write about any of this, and some details about my personal background. Note: As of March 30, I adopted a policy of posting entries of a maximum of 800 words (not counting references and so forth); posts earlier than that date are longer, but from that point on, posts are just a bit longer than an Op-Ed piece in the typical newspaper.

Topics Addressed in This Blog

I shall address general social issues, including politics, business, and economics, civil rights issues, and happenings in the worlds of the media, literature, and the arts. In addition, I shall reflect on how events in my life relate to larger social issues. My particular take on these issues will be informed by "the reflective perspective": a grounding in spirituality and philosophy, with a commitment to social justice.

How This Blog Is Different

The distinguishing characteristic of this blog is that reflective perspective. In most blogs of social commentary, issues of spirituality are hardly if every addressed, and philosophy is deep in the background. In this blog, the philosophical underpinnings of what goes on in society are of major importance, and spiritual concerns are addressed directly. Well has it been said that 'we are spiritual beings having a human experience.' In this blog, I take that seriously.

How I Am Qualified to Write Social Commentary

Anyone can have an opinion. Why should anyone pay any special attention to mine? Different people have different criteria they use to vet a social commentator. My own credentials include the following:

I grew up poor, but have worked my way into a professional career. (I conduct psychological research under contract.) Thus, I am familiar with life as it is lived in different classes and levels of society. I have lived in my own $500K home--not ten years after being homeless.
I have worked in a great variety of positions over the years, ranging from janitor and hardware store stock clerk, to staff positions in the Fortune 500, to executive positions in small corporations, to professional and entrepreneurial positions.
I conducted a private practice in psychotherapy for 16 years. I have also served as treatment staff in clinical settings that have exposed me to some of the worst problems that human beings can face in American society. These settings include the Manhattan Psychiatric Center (the inpatient psychiatric hospital of last resort in Manhattan), and the outpatient mental health clinic of Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn (perhaps the largest such clinic in New York City).
My research has given me expertise regarding several important aspects of human psychology. These include: (1) worldviews, the assumptions that people hold about the world and life; (2) motivation, including the role played by the impulses, not only to fulfill one's potential, but to transcend the self through service and connection to something greater than one's own self.
In addition to my personal background of study in various areas of religion and spirituality, I have won awards for my scholarship in the psychology of religion.

My Personal Background

Readers may be curious about what sorts of perspectives inform my opinions. Here are some items about my background:

Name: Mark Edward Koltko-Rivera.

Demographic characteristics: 52 years old; married, with four grown children from a former marriage.

Home town: The Lower East Side of Manhattan, New York City.

Where I’ve lived: New York City (Manhattan, including the Lower East Side / Greenwich Village, and the Upper East Side; Astoria, Queens; the Bronx). Florida (Winter Park, just north of Orlando). New Jersey (Newark). Pennsylvania (Haverford and Bryn Mawr). Connecticut (New Milford and West Hartford). Japan (Hiroshima, Okayama, Matsue, Matsuyama, Tokushima).

Ethnicity: Polish and Puerto Rican. (As they would say in the South: “Deal with it, y’all.”)

Education: Graduated from St. Stanislaus, B.M. School (now defunct), New York City, 1970. Graduated from Regis High School, New York City, 1974. Graduated from Haverford College with a BA degree, majoring in psychology, 1981 (affiliated with Class of 1978; many classes taken at Bryn Mawr College). Graduated from Fordham University’s Graduate School of Education with an MS in Ed degree, majoring in counseling, 1984. Graduated from New York University with a PhD degree, in counseling psychology, 2000.

Religion and Spirituality: My religion is the faith of the Latter-day Saints (LDS, known popularly as ‘the Mormons’). Within this faith, I have found it comfortable to situate myself within the Sunstone and Dialogue community (named for two independent LDS publications, in which I have published several articles; I have also presented at the Sunstone Symposia in Salt Lake City, Washington, DC, and Boston).

Other Affiliations: I am a member of Psi Chi, the national honor society in psychology. I am a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, where I have won significant awards from Divisions 1 (General Psychology), 32 (Humanistic Psychology), and 36 (Psychology of Religion). I am a Freemason, and, within Freemasonry, a member of the Scottish Rite and the York Rite.

Politics: Rational. During the 2008 American presidential campaign, I authored a “Mormons for Obama” blog.

Interests: Religion and spirituality; esoteric expressions thereof, as well, so my studies include such subjects as kabbalah and gnosticism. Social justice. Humanistic psychology. Transpersonal psychology. The psychology of religion. The psychology of worldviews (the assumptions that individuals and cultures have about life, the world, and reality). Futurism: the anticipation of future social consequences of demographic, social, and technological trends. The “liberal arts plus,” including the humanities, literature, the arts, and philosophy, in the light of the sciences. The psychology of self-transcendence (seeking to further some cause or connect with something greater than oneself).

Other blogs: I write regularly for "For Latter-Day Saints: Topics in Mormonism," in which I address topics that are of special interest to Latter-day Saints, and "Freemasonry: Reality, Myth, and Legend," in which I address topics that are of special interest to Freemasons. Anyone is welcome to read or comment on any of these blogs, as long as they keep the rules (see below). Items that concern the interface between general society and either the LDS faith or Freemasonry shall be addressed in this blog, "On the Mark."

The rules for those who leave comments: No personal attacks. No profanity. You are welcome to disagree with me, and quite vigorously at that, but infringements of the rules would lead to me deleting the comment and barring the commentator from future contributions.

Beyond that: Welcome.