Marc Breault Ramblings

I have many interests ranging from religion to NFL football. This is a place where I ramble on about whatever I feel like rambling about.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

How Many Business Analysts Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb?

How Many Business Analysts Does it Take to Change a Light bulb

With this being an election year, you often hear a lot about budgets, reducing costs, and making things more efficient.  All political candidates promise to balance the budget, reduce costs, and make everything better.  But in order to do all of these things, we need to understand why things cost so much in the first place.

I have been working in the IT industry for a long time.  I started off as a programmer and I am now a business analyst.  Back in the good old days, back when IT cowboys were IT cowboys, changing a light bulb was easy.  You just changed the damn thing.  You didn’t even ask any questions.  Over the years, however, bean counters and analysts got more and more involved until the mere act of changing a light bulb has become an expensive exercise.  Obviously, I am using light bulb changing as a metaphor but this metaphor illustrates what has happened in today’s businesses and government departments.

Here is how it works today.  Some bright spark in senior management decides it would be really great if someone could change a light bulb.  This bright spark might even be the CEO.  This grand vision is passed down to middle management.  Middle management must first try to align this grand vision with the company’s overall vision and strategy.  How does changing a light bulb fit into the strategy?  Is this act consistent with the company vision?  If it is not, then middle management must spin this initiative so it does fit in because when you get right down to it, senior management does not care whether their grand initiative aligns with anything.  A number of strategy meetings are held.  Eventually, once changing a light bulb does align with the company strategy and vision statement, middle management can then worry about cost.  At this point, middle management requires some luck because if the company changes senior management and goes through a restructure, senior management will toss out the current strategic direction and vision statement and come up with a brand new one after going away to some really cool location and spending an expense filled week in luxury coming up with the new vision statement and strategy.  At this point middle management must perform the analysis of light bulb changing all over again but only after making sure the new senior management still wants someone to be able to change a light bulb.  But let’s assume middle management got lucky and senior management stayed in place.  It’s time for. . .

The business architect.  The business architect takes the light bulb changing initiative and tries to fit it in with all of the other business activities.  After a number of meetings a new business architecture diagram is created with light bulb changing taking its proper place.  At this stage the business architect needs a little luck because if senior or middle management changes. . .well, you get the idea.

Next, the light bulb changing initiative is turned into a project.  The project manager needs to commission people to provide an estimate of what is needed to get this grand initiative from conception to reality.  A budget needs to be created and interdepartmental fighting begins for the limited dollars.  If light bulb changing comes from the top or really close to the top, then the departments fight over who gets to carry this out because success means an easier climb up the corporate ladder.

The project manager creates a really nice presentation complete with cost projections, revenue projections, benefits to the business, and risks if the business does not change light bulbs.  This goes to the steering committee, which is usually made up of senior management, and final approval is given probably after a few tweaks here and there.

At long last, enter the humble business analyst.  A business analyst gathers the requirements for any initiative and this is no exception.  Requirements I hear you ask?  What requirements?  This is simple.  Someone needs to change a light bulb.  But we business analysts are not paid the big bucks for simply writing down obvious requirements.  Heck, business analysts aren’t really paid big bucks but that is beside the point.  We’re paid to ask the really tough questions based on the very real principle that despite all the processes which have gone before, senior management have no real clue what they really want.  By the way, in fairness to senior management it is often the case that not until detailed analysis takes place do we truly know what we really want so my previous statement is not a dig at the intelligence or lack thereof of senior management.

In this case, some of the really tough questions a business analyst asks are:
·         Does this apply to one specific light bulb or does light bulb changing need to work for all light bulbs?

OK wait, before I go any further, you the reader might say “what an absolutely stupid question to ask, of course this should apply to all light bulbs.”  Not really.  It all comes down to the money.  Businesses often start off with a grand vision but then that gets reduced when cost comes into it.  Most of the time, the final answer to this question is “We’d really love to be able to change any light bulb anytime, but this is not feasible now so let’s just concentrate on the one light bulb.” 

OK, now back to the really tough questions the BA must ask.
·         What type of light bulbs does this apply to?
·         What is the safety legislation around changing light bulbs?
·         Who is qualified to change light bulbs?
·         What are the approval processes involved before a light bulb can be changed?
·         Where do we get new light bulbs from?  If we engage a regular supplier, we need to get Legal to draft up a contract.
·         What do we do with the old light bulbs?
·         When do we change light bulbs?  For example, do we change them after they have gone out, or do we need some sort of scheduling to anticipate when a light bulb is changed so we experience no outages whatsoever?  If we do have scheduling, does the scheduling agent push a notification to someone alerting them that a light bulb needs to be changed, or does someone simply check the calendar?  And if we do alert someone, what should the alert look like?
·         Do we need an inventory system to keep track of light bulb stock levels?  Do we want an automatic ordering facility to kick in once light bulb levels get low.  And how do we define what a low level is?
·         What is the tolerance level for light bulbs?  How long should these light bulbs last given normal usage?  How much energy should these light bulbs require?  We must perform energy to luminosity analysis to determine the optimal light bulbs.
·         Who will prepare the tender document to source a supplier?

And that’s just a few questions.  There are many other things to consider.  How do we ensure the people delivering light bulbs to the premises are not terrorists?  How do we check light bulbs for explosives?  Do we need qualified chemists for this?  And on and on it goes.  Then, of course, these questions need to be answered and documented before any light bulb can change.

Thus, the short answer to how many business analysts does it take to change a light bulb is zero because business analysts never change them.  They just find out who does, when they do it, and whether they are allowed to stand on one leg while doing so.

There are cases in which heavy duty analysis and planning is required.  If you are designing and building a nuclear submarine, you had better get it right.  The light bulb example serves to show how often trivial things get blown out of proportion within organizations.  I have worked for many organizations and government departments over my 30 year career in IT and I can say with absolute assurance that this sort of thing happens all the time.

If you think governments are immune to this, think again.  Consider the example of entry forms into the United States after September 11.  I am an American who lives in Australia so I often enter the USA from an international location.  I did this sometime after September 11 and was shocked to see the entry form contain this question.

Are you a terrorist or do you belong to any terror organization?

Oh my God are you kidding me!  We can laugh about this but think of what had to happen for that question to appear on the form.  I remember thinking wow, they might as well ask me if I am carrying drugs or whether I belong to an organization which distributes illegal drugs.  Then I discovered those questions were also on the form.  Anyway, think about it.  Somewhere in the bowels of a government agency, planners got together after politicians or management set a mandate to fight terror.  Someone had to propose the wording.  Then the wording needed to be checked to make sure it did not lead to profiling or did not offend some group or race.  Once approved, the new forms needed to be printed en masse.  Then they needed to be distributed to airports and ports all over America.  People had to be trained to deal with these questions.  What if someone answers yes?  Does that mean they are a terrorist or could it mean they are a smartass?  Maybe both.  So training was involved.  How much money went into perhaps the most ridiculous bureaucratic form in world history?

Despite what many people may think, there are some very smart and very good senior executives out there.  Some politicians are also smart and capable.  The problem is, however, that many in positions of leadership are either too incapable or too lazy to truly make an enterprise or government agency more efficient by removing all the ridiculous costs associated with changing a light bulb.  Many leaders are graduates of the hack and slash jobs school of cost reduction.  They are either unaware of, or uncaring of technologies or solutions which could preserve jobs and reduce costs.  They lack the ability to think outside the box enough to run a streamlined and efficient organization.

Like the managers who approved the ridiculous terrorism question on entry forms, they are only interested in protecting themselves and damn the cost.  I hope those running for office this year are able and willing to take the massive costs out of changing light bulbs in today’s organizations and government departments.  It requires flare and hard work and mostly putting the right people in charge who are not afraid to actually make things more efficient and not hack and slash their way to cost savings which ultimately leads to inferior products and services.


Thursday, February 18, 2016

Some Thoughts and Perspectives on the Black Lives Matter movement

The Black Lives Matter movement has gained some traction and notoriety in recent years.  The movement began after the death of Trayvon Martin (black) was killed by George Zimmerman (white) in 2012.  I should point out that Zimmerman was actually acquitted of the murder.  I should also point out that the jury was comprised of six women, none of whom were black and five of whom were white.  You can read what Black Lives Matter has to say about itself on their web site which is located at http://blacklivesmatter.com/who-we-are/.  I found their definition of themselves fascinating and sad at the same time.
Basically, this is the gist of what Black Lives Matter are saying.  It’s all the fault of white people and the government.  Black lives are degraded and treated like garbage by white people and the government. 
Trayvon was one black guy killed by one white guy in 2012.  According to the FBI’s Homicide Table 6 for 2012, there were 192 other black people killed by white people making 193 black people killed by white people in total for 2012.  What a travesty.  During the same year, 431 white people were killed by black people.  In other words, there were 2.23 times more white people killed by black people than there were black people killed by white people.  This leads me to ask the people who belong to Black Lives Matter, “don’t white lives matter too?”  There were more than double the number of white people killed by blacks, then there were black people killed by whites.  Why is it then that only black lives matter?
While in 2012, 431 white people were killed by black people, a staggering 2,412 black people were killed by other black people.  This means that black killers murdered 5.6 times more black people than black killers murdered white people. 
In 2012, 193 black people were murdered by a white killer.  2,412 black people were murdered by a black killer.  So this means the number of black victims who were murdered by black killers was 12.5 times greater than black victims murdered by white killers.
I suggest that black lives matter should concentrate more on stopping black people from killing other black people before they concentrate on white people killing black people.
To be fair to Black Lives Matter, this organization is about more than just black murders.  They deal with mistreatment of blacks by police as well as other ways in which black people are mistreated or treated unfairly.  It does seem blacks are profiled more than whites even though the number of homicides perpetrated by white killers was roughly equal overall to the number of homicides perpetrated by black killers.  In 2012, there were only 21 more homicides committed by black killers than there were by white killers.  This shows that white people seem more interested in killing other white people, then they are killing black people.  In fact white killers took out 13.5 times more white people than black.
So let me summarize all of this.  It’s really simple.
·         A lot more black people were murdered by black killers than were murdered by white killers.
·         White killers murdered way more white people than black people.
·         More white people were murdered by black killers, than there were black people murdered by white killers.
I can only conclude that the people running Black Lives Matter are either unaware of these numbers, or are ignoring these numbers.  In fairness to them, they are concerned with more than murder statistics.  I believe, for example, that black people are profiled by law enforcement much more than white people are.  This is unfortunate given the roughly equal number of black and white killers.  That is, the number of white people guilty of homicide is very close to the number of black people guilty of homicide.  And while I do not have statistics, it seems to me that more black people live in poor areas of America than white people.  So there is definitely some inequity.
But the 2012 homicide numbers show that blaming everything on the state, or on white people, is irresponsible and actually does more to hurt the black people this group supposedly represents than either the state or white people do.  Why?  Because black people need to take responsibility for themselves.  When you have blacks killed by blacks greatly outnumbering blacks killed by whites, it is the black community who must ask why this is?  Obviously black lives do not matter to black people.  Why should they matter to anyone else?
I know this is harsh, but you have a situation in which black men beat up on black women.  Black killers murder black people.  Black pimps prostitute black women, and black drug dealers push to black users.  To put it simply, black lives must matter to black people first, before they can find the equality they are seeking. 
Yes, the government can and should do its part.  Yes, many whites feel uncomfortable around blacks.  Yes, black culture differs from white culture in many ways.  But when movements like Black Lives Matter blame everything on them without taking a good hard look at us, they do more harm than good because they mask the problems within the black community, and those problems need to be solved by blacks, for blacks.
I can honestly say I never suffered racial discrimination even though I am half Japanese.  My Dad was in the military so we moved around a lot and I observed, even at a young age, that black people were treated more harshly than other minorities.  In my case, if I was treated unfairly, it was more likely to be from other Japanese, not from other white people.  But I am legally blind and I have experienced more than my fair share of discrimination because of this.  Much of the discrimination I experienced was unconscious or even well-meaning.  For example, people took pity on me when they had no need to. 
I learned a long time ago that I could sit around and talk about how unfair everything is.  Why can’t I see like normal people?  It’s not fair that they can drive but I can’t.  I wish I could do <insert something> like other normal people can.  And on, and on, and on.  And the irony is, most of my list of unfairnesses are true.  It’s really not fair that most of you can drive and I can’t.  The irony is that realizing these things is next to useless.  You can sit around and wait for them to fix it.  You can wait for them to make things right.  But they are never going to, at least not completely.  That’s because they have many other things to worry about.  The best person to rectify things is you

In other words, the downtrodden black person may well be right about many injustices in our society.  I think, for example, we have school segregation again but this time along economic lines.  And since areas of poverty are inhabited by a lot of black people, the education of blacks suffers.  But they aren’t going to care as much as you.  In this instance, the government who are they have many other issues, like what China is doing in the South China Sea, North Korea, the effect of the falling oil price on US oil based industries, and on and on.  You are just one more issue in a long list of issues.  So my advice to Black Lives Matter is simple.  Make black lives matter to other black people.  Stop blaming the state or white people even if you are right in some cases.  Doing so is useless.  If you are poor, work harder just as I had to work harder to make up for my disability.  It’s not fair but who cares.  Some things are worth doing regardless of whether the circumstances are fair.  It’s not easy.  It’s much easier to blame everything on them.  But if black lives truly matter, you must bear some of the responsibility.  Otherwise, black lives will continue not to matter.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

What Was Manny Thinking?

What Was Manny Thinking
Nike cut ties with Manny Pacquiao over comments directed against the LGBT community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual).   I didn’t see his actual comment on Facebook because it was taken down, but he apparently said people in same sex marriage were worse than animals.  So what was Manny thinking?  How could anyone say something like that?  This is a case in which social media is ill equipped to have a deeper understanding of a thought process or of an issue.  I realize many who were exposed to Manny’s comments might say “Who cares.  This is not worth exploring more deeply.”  But given this is a polarizing issue, I think it is worth exploring.  Manny apologized later stating that he was sorry for hurting people, but he stands by his opposition to same sex marriage based on the Bible and that he loves the LGBT community with Christian love.  For the sake of argument, let us assume Pacquiao does not emotionally hate LGBT’s.  What was Manny actually thinking?

Let us pretend the apostle Paul lives in our society today, and that he did not live 2,000 years ago.  For those unfamiliar with Christianity, the apostle Paul was the most influential Christian thinker in the Western part of the Roman Empire, and did more to shape early Christianity than just about anyone else.  In fact, a strong argument can be made Paul was more influential than Jesus himself, but of course, Jesus was the founder of Christianity so I won’t go into the influence debate here.

So then, suppose Paul lived today and suppose Paul posted the following on Facebook.  All Bible quotations which follow are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.
 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,  and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. (Romans 1:26-28 ).
The outrage on social media would be massive, assuming Paul was a well known figure.  Paul would be accused of homophobia and discrimination.  Not only does Paul call out homosexuality, he links this with a debased mind.  How can a so-called religion of love like Christianity engage in such hateful thinking?  Before passing final judgment on Paul, and calling for his Facebook account to be revoked, and calling on all endorsement deals with Paul to be terminated, let’s look at Paul’s overall argument.  Whether one agrees with Paul’s argument or not, at least this might help people understand where Christians like Pacquiao are coming from.

In this part of Romans, Paul tries to explain how mankind came to be in the state it is in now.  Paul comes from a paradigm in which mankind started off with a close connection to God, but over time, because of sin, that connection diminished and, in some people, was severed.  I will begin with Romans 1:20.

Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; (Romans 1:20 ).

Here Paul states that God’s eternal power and divine nature are invisible, but that these things can be understood by what we do see.  This means people are without excuse for being ignorant of Gods eternal power and divine nature.  The interesting phrase here is divine nature.  Paul had three Greek words to choose from, a masculine, a feminine, and a neuter word.  Paul chooses the feminine here.  While there are linguistic underpinnings to this, Paul’s choice must be taken into account because it explains his later words about homosexuality.

In other words, the world is full of dualism:  light and dark, cold and hot, and male and female.  These things which we see all around us, provide insight into God’s divine nature.  Thus, the male and female duality which is all pervasive in the world, provides us insight into God’s nature.  Although Paul does not quote Genesis directly here, his choice of the female variant of “divine nature” shows that Paul had this text in Genesis in mind.

So God created humankinde in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27).

It is abundantly clear that Paul understands the male and female nature of the world – and remember both Hebrew and Greek attach gender to nouns making the male and female nature of the world even more pronounced than in our English speaking society – as revealing God’s own nature.  Indeed, Genesis states point blank that humankind, to employ a politically correct translation, is created in the very image of God and that the male and female nature of humanity is a part of that image.

Now that we have establish Paul’s basis, we can understand what follows in Romans.  Remember Paul’s intent here is to explain how humanity changed as a result of ignoring the fact that the visible things in this world reveal God’s divine nature.

 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools;  and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23).

The first descent Paul discusses is the descent into idol worship.  This is difficult for people today to understand because most people today do not worship images.  People like Roman Catholics have images in their churches, but the vast majority of Catholics do not worship them.  That is, they do not attach any supernatural powers to those images.    But this was not so in ancient times.  In ancient times, many people did worship images and did attach powers to those images.  We still have vestiges of this today whenever a statue of the Virgin Mary weeps.  But it must be said that even in ancient times, images were thought of as representations of a god or goddess.  Anyone who learned even the basics of Greek mythology in school knows that very human passions and behaviors were associated with the gods.  Zeus had a wandering eye and had affairs with a number of mortal women.  His wife Hera was jealous and sometimes reacted violently against Zeus’s illegitimate offspring.  The story of Hercules is perhaps the most famous example.  Of course, the more cynical men of the time believed Hera drove Zeus to it, but that is a discussion for another time.

The point Paul is making here, is that God’s divine nature has aspects which we can understand by the visible world, but that it is still a divine nature, an eternal and immortal nature.  Gradually, humanity made God more and more human and this eventually led to the veneration of animal representations of God.

 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:24-25).

The natural descent continues.  First, humanity degraded God and transformed God into representations by human and animal images.  This naturally led to the degradation of humanity.  Humans began to degrade or disrespect their own body, which was created in God’s image by exchanging the truth about God for a lie.

And what truth did falling humanity exchange for a lie?  One of those was the understanding that the divine nature of God is understood by the male and female nature of the creation.  And this brings us to the passage I started with which describes homosexuality.  In Paul’s mind, homosexuality is a sin because it is a perversion of God’s divine nature, which is a blend of male and female.  As I said, Paul’s use of the feminine word for divine nature – in Greek this is one word – is telling and should go a long way to explaining why Paul includes homosexuality as part of his explanation of humanity’s descent into debauchery. 

Remember Paul begins this by saying that people are without excuse.  (Romans 1:20).  This is because, again according to Romans 1:20, the invisible things of God can be understood by the visible world.  So in this respect, and from Paul’s point of view, the people engaging in such practices are worse than animals because animals do not know better.  Humans are supposed to know better. 

Hence, the “worse than animals” perspective advocated by Pacquiao probably means that LGBT’s should know better but they do not, whereas animals do not know better.  Of course, I do not know Pacquiao personally so I could be completely wrong.

Nike had this to say about Pacquiao’s comments.

We find Manny Pacquiao's comments abhorrent,  Nike strongly opposes discrimination of any kind and has a long history of supporting and standing up for the rights of the LGBT community.

I would expect Nike to say something like this.  They are a dollar driven company and have to look out for their profits.  Nike is not evil because of this.  If this causes sales of products to drop, they have to protect their bottom line.  What I take issue with, however, is the choice of words Nike employs.  Is Pacquiao guilty of discrimination?

Remember that Pacquiao is a deeply committed Christian and he is stating a belief based on one of, if not the most influential thinkers of his religion.  Is it wrong for a religious person to state his religious beliefs?  Of course, some religious beliefs are discriminatory.  For example, the Bible says that a blind person cannot be a high priest.  So that rules me out even if we pretend I am of the tribe of Levi.  That is discrimination, but it is also something supposedly stated directly from God himself.  What are we to do?  Our society calls for the freedom of religion, but it also calls for antidiscrimination.  These are both very good qualities of our society but sometimes the two ideals collide and that is when we become uncomfortable.

It should be noted that the early Christian church was not nearly as patriarchal as the church later became.  Women held positions of authority in the early church, for practical reasons as well as for spiritual ones.  Some of Paul’s words supposedly denigrating women are misunderstood as they are actually Paul refuting subservient beliefs about women.  Of course all this must be understood against the backdrop of the society of that time.  Paul was not a 21st century sensitive new age guy just as we are not first century Roman citizens.

Paul’s treatise does not sit well with many today.  Today, most people look at the world from an evolutionary paradigm in which, to grossly summarize the theory of evolution, we crawled out of the jungle.  Paul has an opposite paradigm.  In his paradigm, the world started off as perfect, and went to the dogs thereafter because of Adam’s transgression.  Paul also believes in God and the sanctity of what we call the Old Testament today.  Many in our world believe in neither of those things.  So it is difficult for many people today to give Paul the time of day because to them, the very assumptions he starts with are wrong.

But I think what people need to understand about Christians is that most Christians do not hate LGBT’s.  At least, they don’t hate them in theory.  I do think many Christians of today need to realize that theory and practice are not always aligned.  For example, I have no doubt that in many churches of today, if a cross-dressing transsexual showed up to church puffing away on a cigarette after being on the town the night before, most members of that church would be extremely uncomfortable.  I also think that the backlash of the gay community against Christianity has caused many Christians to dislike gay people emotionally even though in theory they “love them.”  In other words, Christians are not immune to being influenced by antichristian sentiments and actions. 

But whether you agree or not, it is a belief of the vast majority of Christians, that homosexuality is a sin.  It is also the duty of every Christian to recognize sin and call for repentance, both for themselves, and for others.  If a Christian does not try to turn a person away from sin, they are guilty of a sin themselves.  Of course, this creates a backlash of its own.  Christians are accused of a “holier than thou” attitude when, in fact, they are merely doing their duty.

On the other hand, because homosexuality is a sin for most Christians, this has led many Christians to make assumptions about these “sinners” which are stereotypical and unfounded.  The whole “born this way” debate is one such example. 

Christianity must confront some issues, and these issues go well beyond a debate about whether homosexuality is right or not.  What if evidence contradicts the Bible?  The creation versus evolution debate is one in which this question is at the forefront of awareness.  What if LGBT’s are really “born this way?”  How then can they be “without excuse?”  And so on.  Christianity needs to examine and come to grips with what neuropsychology is telling us.  Neuropsychology does not have all the answers, and opinions on many aspects of this discipline are divided, but the practice of simply ignoring science because of an understanding of the Bible must stop for Christians, and Muslims for that matter.  That Medieval way of thinking is Medieval, and not reflective in any way of what 21st  century thinking should be.  ISIS is an extreme example of where Medieval thinking leads but history has shown us that any ideology, when held to extremes and the exclusion of any other possibility, leads to such extreme behavior.

At the same time, the LGBT and the politically correct communities of today need to understand that Christianity is not an example of blind, unreasoning hatred of all things gay.  Christian beliefs on this subject stem from a paradigm which differs from the mainstream.  It also stems from the veneration of holy writings and a desire to follow a higher power.

Pacquiao’s comments were ill advised because social media is not equipped to handle a sustained and reasoned dialog on any issue.  Saying people in same sex marriages are worse than animals is bound to be misunderstood and engender strong hostile feelings.  And the backlash against Pacquiao himself may well be terribly unfair because his comments are not understood in context.

Many societies are deeply divided over the same sex issue.  Many same sex couples feel discriminated against.  On the other side, many religions feel threatened because they are not allowed to express their beliefs.  Social media has done two things.  On the plus side it has helped raise awareness of these issues.  On the minus side, it is not a medium designed for reasoned, constructive dialog which has at least a chance to lead to some sort of rapprochement.  I think if we all stepped back and thought about this, we would realize that LGBT’s are not the lust-crazed mindlessly debauched examples of fallen humanity that some Christians believe they are on an emotional level, though Paul’s words are certainly divisive on this issue.  On the other hand, Christians are not mindless homophobes devoid of any sympathy or understanding toward LGBT’s.  I use the word sympathy here not in the sense of feeling sorry for – though many Christians do feel this way toward LGBT’s – but in the sense of understanding where LGBT’s are coming from.

Perhaps the issue is much simpler than all the theology and rhetoric.  Perhaps we should start out by simply trying to be friends with one another.  Once you are friends with someone, it is difficult to see them as stereotypical caricatures.  It is much easier to do this when we keep our distance from one another.  So let’s start there.  Let’s try to befriend one another and get to know one another better and see where that takes us.


I would like to acknowledge www.biblia.com as the source of all biblical quotations.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

Should President Obama Nominate Scalia's Replacement

With the Death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Obama gets another opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.  This is one of the most important things a US President can do.  Naturally, Republicans are up in arms over this because Obama is likely to nominate a liberal leaning judge.  Donald Trump has even gone so far as to call on the Republican led senate to delay the appointment until after the next election.

This call by Trump illustrates what is wrong with Trump.  Trump would rather cripple the functioning of the US government for nearly a year in order to have the opportunity to get a Justice in which agrees with his ideology.  If the election were a month away, then such a delay might make sense.  But a US President has the constitutional authority to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court and the senate has the moral obligation to allow any reasonable candidate to take up such a position.

If Obama were a Republican, I would expect him to nominate a justice and I would expect Democrats to allow any reasonable candidate through, even if that candidate does not agree with their ideology.  Of course, nominations have been rejected in the past.  One would assume that such rejections were based at least in part, on reasonable grounds.  Yes politics always plays a part, but the senate does have the right to reject nominations.

However, to call upon the senate to reject any nomination Obama makes simply because Obama is making the nomination is not something any Presidential candidate should advocate.  The Judicial Branch of the government is just as important as the other two and to deny any President from exercising their constitutional right simply based on ideology is a travesty. 

I have long suggested that over time, and I do not know how long that time will be, the US faces the danger of turning into a dictatorship just as all other republics have eventually.  Hopefully not, but this is a real danger.  Whenever you have someone with the mentality of “I’m right and that means I can play fast and loose with the constitution” you risk dictatorship.  Americans are becoming more and more polarized and that also increases the danger of devolving into a dictatorship. 

I can understand many conservatives who hate Obama are frustrated by the “bad timing” of Scalia’s passing.  The United States has had three two-term Presidents in a row.  Both Clinton and Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices.  Now Obama gets the chance to nominate his second appointment.  Our Constitution was framed to allow the fortunes or misfortunes of time to shape the Supreme Court thus leaving to chance the ideological makeup of the court.  If the Senate has become so entrenched in their “I’m right” mentality that they cannot bring themselves to allow any Obama nomination to succeed Scalia, then the United States is truly in trouble.  If Obama nominates a reasonable candidate, that candidate should be appointed.



Thursday, February 11, 2016

Surfing the gravity waves through history - now we know they really exist

In celebration of gravity waves being observed thus proving once again Einstein’s general theory of relativity, I think the following scripture is appropriate.

Bless the Lord, O my soul.
O Lord my God, you are very great.
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
wrapped in light as with a garment.
You stretch out the heavens like a tent, (Psalm 104:1-2).

This text encapsulates the history of religion and science better than just about any other scripture.

Medieval Times
God is great and awesome and his works are so grand we can’t understand them.  So don’t bother please.  Let the church tell you what you need to know when you need to know it.

Age of the Enlightenment
What a quaint primitive metaphor this is.  Imagine, comparing the heavens to a tent.  I suppose on a starry night you might be able to say this but fortunately, we are much wiser now so we don’t need to waste our time with things like that.  We’ll let the poets write stuff like this.

Einstein
Hey everyone, guess what, the heavens really are like a tent, and I mean, like tent fabric.  The heavens are a fabric and space/time is a fabric too.

Establishment science and religion
Einstein, you are a nut case.  You scientists, I mean really.  First you tell us there’s this thing called an ether.  Then we find out it’s a vacuum out there and now you’re telling us it’s like a sheet or canvas up there.  What will they think of next?  Obviously this passage represents the imagination of the writer.  And while we’re talking about that, the resurrection of Jesus is also imagination.

February 11 2016
A.    Einstein was right.
B.     The Bible is right (at least about the tent part).  We Christians, of course, would say the entire passage is right.
C.     The passage is the beginning of a beautiful poem which employs a number of metaphors to describe the universe around us.
D.    All of the Above.

Imagine that.  After all our so-called enlightenment, the answer is “all of the above.”