WorldCitizen

Gun Ownership

2008-06-26T18:10:00.002-06:00

Okay, I am a European. I find it strange that ordinary citizens can own guns in the USA. Americans with all their Wild West history and realities are strange to us Europeans who have faith in police authorities. But I have lived long enough in the USA to understand that relying on the protection of the police against evil is not enough. It is a dream that worked when the majority of society was (at least) committed to a semblance of civility. I now think that it is ridiculous to leave protection against murderous crooks exclusively up to overwhelmed police authorities.
Just because something is illegal, it does not stop it. Hallucinogenic drugs are illegal (I know I am on thin ice when I question the viability and rationality of the "war on drugs"... but that is another issue), yet the market and the resulting traffic are alive and well. The same holds true for guns. Crooks will always find ways to acquire illegal weapons; that is a fact! In light of this, it is wishful thinking--and criminal--to prohibit responsible citizens from legally acquiring guns for their own protection.
Let criminals be aware (and count the possible cost) that they might cross the line when trespassing with ill-intent into the lives of law-abiding, but armed, citizens--at their own peril.
My answers to two of the arguments that are usually raised against legal handgun ownership (i.e., increase in criminal activities, and more accidental deaths), are: 1) whether legal or illegal, criminals will always find ways to acquire guns, and 2) we do not consider outlawing automobiles despite the fact that nearly as many people are accidentally killed every year in the USA alone, as Americans who lost their lives in the whole Vietnam war.
I am a European who now believes that counting on the protection of police authorities is a luxury that in a free and democratic world is available to everyone, but not everyone will enjoy its benefits. I therefore am in agreement with laws that allow law-abiding citizens to acquire handguns for their own protection.
Am I saying that there should be no regulation at all? No, of course not. Just because alcohol is a legal and taxed product does not mean anyone can use it in any amount at any time. The same goes for guns; shoulder carried rocket launchers definitely do not seem appropriate personal protection devices.

Rethinking World View

2008-03-29T13:35:00.003-06:00

Rethinking World View
Bertrand's work reads like a conversation, peppered with anecdotes and thought-provoking questions that push readers to continue thinking and talking long after they have put the book down. Thoughtful readers interested in theology, philosophy, and culture will be motivated to rethink their own perspectives on the nature of reality, as well as to rethink the concept of world views itself.

Everything Is Spiritual

2008-03-29T13:24:00.004-06:00

DVD: Everything Is Spiritual
In the Hebrew Scriptures there is no word for "spiritual." And Jesus never used the phrase "spiritual life." Why? Because for Jesus and his tradition, all of life is spiritual. But what does that really mean? Great new DVD teaching by Rob Bell. Humorous and full of mind-bending and challenging cosmology content.

Amazing Grace & William Wilberforce

2007-04-27T18:54:00.002-06:00

The movie "Amazing Grace" is definitely worth watching (I admit I was pleasantly surprised--most Christian-oriented movies do seem lame). It was inspiring! It shows that speaking up and working on behalf of the poor, oppressed and exploited is a worthwhile and meaningful vision for one's life. It also shows that Christians CAN and probably should be involved in the public square of politics.
I suspect that Christians throughout history have contributed more to the betterment of society (and the human dignity and freedom we appreciate today) than they are usually given credit for; see: The Victory of Reason How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization What Has Christianity Ever Done for Us? For the Glory of God The Rise of Christianity Jesus Sutras Six Modern Myths about Christianity & Western Civilization Legacy of William Carey

LOST LUGGAGE

2006-02-19T11:17:00.000-07:00

Be Prepared
I usually shake my head in disgruntled fashion when I see fellow airline passengers allowed to maneuver large, so-called carry-on luggage through narrow isles, holding up others as they attempt (frequently without success) to weight-lift and shove it into overhead bins only to dislodge or scrunch and flatten hats, coats and other more reasonably-sized carry-on items.

But considering the lost-luggage statistics just released for 2005, I wonder whether I should stop checking in my luggage. Some 10,000 pieces of luggage a day were lost by airlines in 2005. While this is a sobering number, to be fair to airlines, this translates to fewer than 10 in 1,000 pieces, and most of them do find their way to owners eventually.

Well, I will at least make sure to think about which items I would not like to do without for a day or two on my next business trip, and pack them in my carry-on bag (for starters, my toothbrush, pillowcase cover, undies, socks... and picture of my family; I guess I'll have to purchase a wine bottle opener should the luggage get lost, as my trusty swiss army knife would be confiscated by the TSA).

Anti-Smoking Sentiments Reaching Fever Pitch

2006-02-17T11:22:00.000-07:00

VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF NON-SMOKERS?!
Okay, I don't get it. Let me see, this is America, where the free-market approach rules, where personal freedoms are cherished, where alcohol and tobacco products are legal, where you can go have lunch at salad bars or at artery-clogging grease joints, where you can put your extra money into savings or spend it at slot machines knowing they are programmed against you.

Why in the world do Americans let politicians meddle in the free market, and disallow restaurants, bars, mom-and-pop establishments to make their own decisions about smoking in their premises? We do not need big government to waste time and law enforcement resources on prohibiting the use of a legal product when the free market is and has been perfectly capable of addressing that subject.

You can go to wine bars, biker bars, gay bars, strip joints if you like (or avoid them if you don't). If I don't like hanging out in places frequented by rednecks, or those with chains hanging from their nostrils, I don't have to. Thanks to the free market, there are public retail establishments fitting any taste and preference, including non-smoking bars and restaurants that have increasingly been springing up in response to a changing taste and market.

Just as jobseekers and patrons concerned about their moral health are not forced to apply to or frequent gay or strip bars, those concerned about smoke in the environment are free to go to smoke-free alternatives.

The enmity and discrimination in some circles and communities toward smokers is shocking, and reaching an irrational fever pitch. I have witnessed an encounter in which a man waiting outside a hotel lobby, with his car running spewing the usual stuff, utter derogatory and hateful comments toward a smoker standing by a trashcan.

What will come next? Will they be lined up or hauled off? WHO will be next? Will the auto industry be sued for knowingly selling product that spews carcinogens? Will second-hand car smoke (or the alluring smoke from hamburger joint chimneys) lead to law suits or communities outlawing cars (and hamburgers)? Will the consumption of full-fat ice cream or hot dogs within city limits be prohibited? After all, obesity is now known to be more costly to society than cigarettes. (I am a non-smoker.)

THE REAL ENEMY IS RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY

2006-02-03T14:18:00.000-07:00

CULTURE CLASH OVER CARTOONS

The anger of so-called Muslims who scream, burn flags, and threaten mayhem and murder in response to European cartoons depicting Islamic motifs in less than a respectful manner, rings completely hollow, and merely confirms the rest of the world's opinions about these people's inability to think, feel and act in a rational manner.

If they are truly concerned about upholding an image of Islam worthy of inspiring admiration and respect, they would exhibit an equally-intense-and-public outcry in response to terrorists shaming Mohammed by invoking Islam's name when murdering countless innocent fellow(!) Muslims.

Their murderous anger to the by-comparison harmless cartoon depiction of their prophet is misplaced, infantile or symptomatic of a greater and strategic evil to be resisted at all cost. I personally hope that it is infantile.

Do they really think that Mohammed or Allah would fall over dead with consternation when seeing cartoons of themselves, and so must be protected? Religious adherents who think of themselves and their religion too highly and beyond criticism (or even prohibit and punish dissent and questioning) are enemies of humanity.

Their evil starts with the ancient sin of pride that blinds them to the fact that humans are finite and limited in their understanding. The danger arises when in their embrace of religion, which tends toward absolute and ultimate claims (especially the monotheistic variety), they ignore these limitations and claim for themselves infallibility.

(Someone said: "It is one thing to believe in absolutes, another, to believe absolutely." G.K. Chesterton said: "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.")

The only way to be faithful and true to both our finiteness and to the religion we genuinely "feel right" about, is to proceed with humility. True religion (and its followers aware of fallibility) will invite and allow questions and doubt, and be unafraid of dissent and criticism. Humility is and essential mark of true religion as it takes into consideration the possibility of being wrong. The alternative is religious fundamentalism practiced by fanatics and bigots who defensively (and insecurely) insist that their view is the only right and correct one.

Fundamentalists can of course be found not only among Muslims but also among my fellow Christians. What does it reveal but prideful arrogance and an irrational desire to be and feel right, when in the name of upholding respect for their religion, prophet or God, Muslims threaten murder of the very creatures God has made?!

The Muslim world has a serious disadvantage in that too many of its religious leaders not only encourage an unquestioned faith that maintains the status quo (and their power), but also discourage their followers from thinking and fearlessly examining their religion and tradition.

The Western world's advantage in this arena is that its freedoms of religion and of the press make it nigh impossible to hold on (blindly) to unexamined beliefs. Caricatures, humor and political or religious cartoons, while at times stinging, keep us humble and mitigate human hubris, and should be welcomed by any intellectually honest and humble mind; cartoons do not kill, human pride does.

By demanding an apology from Western governments, Muslims are now dangerously escalating this to a clash between Islam and the West.

Integrity

2005-12-14T19:24:00.000-07:00

MOST LOOKED-UP WORD OF THE YEAR
According to the Merriam-WebsterOnline Dictionary, the most looked-up word of the year 2005 is the word Integrity. This may bode well, as it is hopefully indicative that more people will concern themselves with the subject of integrity (synonym: honesty). Click here to read more and to see the other nine words in the top-ten list of words.

Generous Credit Card Companies? The Media seem to Think so...

2005-12-05T16:03:00.000-07:00

Credit Card Companies, Made to Look Saintly by the Media
What About the real Victims of Credit Card Fraud--No, not You and Me

The news headlines are full of alarming stories about the theft of credit card information. Headlines such a s "40 million Credit Card Users at Risk" communicate to the public in no uncertain terms that credit card holders (you and me) have reason to worry.

But, is that really the whole story? Are we, the credit card holders, the actual victims if our credit card information is used in fraudulent purchases? The news media, while initially alarming us with such possibilities, usually go on to tell us (correctly so) that the credit card companies will come to our rescue, and void any fraudulent charges. All we need to do is report suspicious and false charges.

In other words, we do not have to worry after all. Here, unfortunately, the story usually ends, and the credit card companies come out looking saintly and generous. The impression is left that they protect us by assuming the risks and swallowing the losses on our behalf. For years, I have thought so. Be honest, is that not the impression you had as well?

But now, after personally experiencing losses, I am embarrassed to realize that the media withheld or failed to report "the rest of the story," and I fell for the partial truth. The real losers of credit card fraud are neither the credit card holders nor the credit card issuers. The real and immediate victims are the businesses and merchants we frequent every day.

Here is how it usually works. During a sale the business takes the buyer's credit card information, and, after obtaining authorization for the charge from the credit card company, hands over or mails the merchandise in good faith; within a couple of days the business receives the funds in their bank account.

However, when a credit card holder subsequently questions or disputes a charge (even months later), the credit card company will without warning (yes, despite the authorization previously given) withdraw the money again from the account. The burden then rests on the business to provide proof of the legitimacy of the charge to affect a reversal. If that proof cannot be furnished (i.e., in the case of fraud), the business is out the merchandise AND the money.

Did the credit card company risk or swallow anything? no. Did the credit card holder whose information had been stolen lose anything? no. Who paid for the fraud? the merchant; end of story!

Why does this seem to be kept from the public, is it a secret? Why do businesses and business associations not stand up and insist on having this impression corrected? Is there some common good achieved by having the credit companies look so benevolent?

If we do not realize that the merchants we do business with every day are the actual risk takers and immediate losers, we might not realize that in the end, we ourselves become the losers by having to pay higher prices to offset the losses that merchants--and not the credit card companies--have been burdened with.

Here is a thought: U.S. Regulatory agencies should take a lesson from Europe where businesses are not the sole risk takers. Credit card issuers in Europe apparently have to share in shouldering the risks and losses incurred. Now, does that not sound appropriate?!