Back before space travel, people thought that space warships had windows, and lots of them. They were always shown cruising the stars with many multiple decks on aesthetically designed hulls replete with bright, shining windows. They look beautiful, really. Bright, luminous things against the harsh and deep dark of space. Obviously, these ships were designed for entertainment. The only reason to have windows is to see out of them and it assumes that little danger will come from anyone seeing in.
Real spaceships, at least the kind depicted in stories, don't have windows. They are warships. Light and heat are the most obvious ways to find things in the shadows of space and advertising your existence and location across the open seas of space is plainly stupid if you wish to live long and prosper. These ships are ulititarian, designed and built to perform particular functions, sometimes sleek, though mostly like giant black bricks, hulking massive boxes of angles, sliding silently as shadows across a moonless night.
The kind of ships depicted in space travel in the days before that was a feasible possibility could only have functioned as cruise liners, sight-seer voyage vessels that only orbited planets or occasionally cruised the well protected interplanetary lanes.
So it comes as no surprise that I was rather surprised by the sight of a well-light warship loping casually across the Vidusian Sea. It turned out of a corner of space and headed on a mark for my adopted home planet, ,docking lights carelessly lit, bright as a newborn star. Who would run such a rig?
Pirates.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Monday, May 9, 2011
In response to the Crisis in Higher Education via Ben Bunting
Well, that was an interesting take on things Ben. (If you're viewing this for some reason and are curious, see the original article and Ben Bunting's response.)
First, I'm sorry to hear you all are experiencing the pinch, Ben. It's going around these days and it's only going to get worse. I'm glad to see you're aware of that and are willing to accept the conditions you find.
I don't think I really have too many other comments on Ben's response, other than to be appreciative of his pragmatic view. I will say this about the way American culture throws its money away: it's not usually in the direction of more work. Color me unsurprised that Americans are unwilling to spend money on writing long papers on subjects that bore them and have no immediately important feedback on their lives. Color me unsurprised that the majority of people who do spend money writing long papers do so on subjects that don't bore them and do have some immediately important feedback on their lives.
This ties in really well with how young Americans view college economically. They don't see themselves as spending money on something that is going to require more work. No wonder the majority of students bring so little to and get so little from a collegiate curriculum!
I think this is a big part of the current crisis in higher education and education in general. It is a crisis of identity and social philosophy. We as a culture understand that life is hard. We as a culture have tried and continue to try to deny that a "good" life requires work and work does not guarantee a "good" life. "Good" being loosely defined around economic prosperity and social peace.
This has lead, in an odd way, to our current situation. Prior to World War II, the economic situation in this country was such that it was apparently obvious to the vast majority of the people that work was required in order to survive, even more to have a "good" life. After World War II, we were left in a situation where we had an economic advantage and a bunch of people who understood that work was required. So we worked. And we prospered because of the combination of our economic advantages and our work. Each of the succeeding generations built upon that prosperity but each put less work in because it became increasingly less obvious that work was required in order to have a "good" life. This is a well recognized tendency in the children of the rich, enough to have become cliche. As a society, we fail to recognize that we have become those children (a recognition that is not unnoticed by other societies, who are not rich children, incidentally). So now we have a situation where everyone in the society has expectations of prosperity but only a very few recognize what it will take to continue that prosperity. The way in which we gained that prosperity (working hard upon an economic advantage, one that often included utilizing the hard work of others lower down the ladder) has not helped clarify for us what the next steps need to be.
In our past, it was obvious in a way it is not now, that the future required investment in all manner of skills reaching broadly across the arts, humanities, and sciences. Our current state makes it less obvious that all manner of skills are necessary. We have achieved an incredible measure of the "good" life (and its society) that we desired in the days after WWII. We no longer obviously need to move forward and we assume that we need no maintenance.
Now the days will come when we see that maintenance is needed. It will be painful.
This crisis is aided by the achievement of our social philosophy. I'm having a hard time explaining this, but simply put, I think the academic world has been dragged down from its lofty heights to serve the middle working class, in no small part because we as a society felt it important to ensure that more people had economic opportunity. The social structure of our nation used to be ruled over by the economic elite. Because education is expensive, they were also the only ones who had any significant education, so they ruled over that as well. The social revolution of the middle 20th century changed that order. The social structure of the society is now run by the middle class as is the education sector. (It may well be that academia is one part of society for which there truly is a trickle-down effect. The few pursue the esoteric which eventually drips down through the layers of society to become the pragmatic.) Having the vision for our future decided enmasse will almost inevitably involve the kind of swooping back and forth wave-like patterns exhibited by schools of fish or flocks of birds. This is the problem of self-regulation: it is always reactive. We have twice seen this problem in our finance sectors, with the Great Depression and the Great Recession. One of the advantages of having a small ruling body is that it can help guide the group in such a manner as to avoid these great swings. Currently, our mob-led education sector is swinging toward what is considered pragmatic right now. Later, the mob will swing things back the other way. For those who think that a small group of business people are running higher education, the question must be who is running those business people? The answer is the those who buy the products. This is our capitalist system. We have asked for cheap economic and social prosperity. Since that doesn't exist, but we lack a ruling body that will tell us so (since the real leaders are the middle class mob and our designated leaders were put in place by that mob), those who can do so have sold us what they could: Cheap for now, the bill will come later.
I'm sure I sound like a jerk, but as crude as it may sound, I mean no judgment. Large groups act like mobs, even if they don't have the vehemence or attitude we associate with mobs.
I am in no way suggesting we go back to a system where there is such clear class disparity. Not at all. I and all I know have benefited tremendously from the current social structure. There has been an attempt, however poor, to do justly by all members of society, a goal that is absolutely right, a goal truly worth pursuing.
I do suggest that we as a society recognize that having small ruling bodies is advantageous to the present and future maintenance of our society. Let the days of "me, me, me" that have morphed into "us, us, us" now morph into "them, we, I, I, we, them".
Somehow I keep coming back to the same thing over and over: We are not a democracy. It was a wise set of decisions that ensured that. We really need to maintain the representative structure but we keep trying to undermine it and make it as much like a democracy as we can. The distinct operation of our various sectors should remain distinct. But I'm digressing...
First, I'm sorry to hear you all are experiencing the pinch, Ben. It's going around these days and it's only going to get worse. I'm glad to see you're aware of that and are willing to accept the conditions you find.
I don't think I really have too many other comments on Ben's response, other than to be appreciative of his pragmatic view. I will say this about the way American culture throws its money away: it's not usually in the direction of more work. Color me unsurprised that Americans are unwilling to spend money on writing long papers on subjects that bore them and have no immediately important feedback on their lives. Color me unsurprised that the majority of people who do spend money writing long papers do so on subjects that don't bore them and do have some immediately important feedback on their lives.
This ties in really well with how young Americans view college economically. They don't see themselves as spending money on something that is going to require more work. No wonder the majority of students bring so little to and get so little from a collegiate curriculum!
I think this is a big part of the current crisis in higher education and education in general. It is a crisis of identity and social philosophy. We as a culture understand that life is hard. We as a culture have tried and continue to try to deny that a "good" life requires work and work does not guarantee a "good" life. "Good" being loosely defined around economic prosperity and social peace.
This has lead, in an odd way, to our current situation. Prior to World War II, the economic situation in this country was such that it was apparently obvious to the vast majority of the people that work was required in order to survive, even more to have a "good" life. After World War II, we were left in a situation where we had an economic advantage and a bunch of people who understood that work was required. So we worked. And we prospered because of the combination of our economic advantages and our work. Each of the succeeding generations built upon that prosperity but each put less work in because it became increasingly less obvious that work was required in order to have a "good" life. This is a well recognized tendency in the children of the rich, enough to have become cliche. As a society, we fail to recognize that we have become those children (a recognition that is not unnoticed by other societies, who are not rich children, incidentally). So now we have a situation where everyone in the society has expectations of prosperity but only a very few recognize what it will take to continue that prosperity. The way in which we gained that prosperity (working hard upon an economic advantage, one that often included utilizing the hard work of others lower down the ladder) has not helped clarify for us what the next steps need to be.
In our past, it was obvious in a way it is not now, that the future required investment in all manner of skills reaching broadly across the arts, humanities, and sciences. Our current state makes it less obvious that all manner of skills are necessary. We have achieved an incredible measure of the "good" life (and its society) that we desired in the days after WWII. We no longer obviously need to move forward and we assume that we need no maintenance.
Now the days will come when we see that maintenance is needed. It will be painful.
This crisis is aided by the achievement of our social philosophy. I'm having a hard time explaining this, but simply put, I think the academic world has been dragged down from its lofty heights to serve the middle working class, in no small part because we as a society felt it important to ensure that more people had economic opportunity. The social structure of our nation used to be ruled over by the economic elite. Because education is expensive, they were also the only ones who had any significant education, so they ruled over that as well. The social revolution of the middle 20th century changed that order. The social structure of the society is now run by the middle class as is the education sector. (It may well be that academia is one part of society for which there truly is a trickle-down effect. The few pursue the esoteric which eventually drips down through the layers of society to become the pragmatic.) Having the vision for our future decided enmasse will almost inevitably involve the kind of swooping back and forth wave-like patterns exhibited by schools of fish or flocks of birds. This is the problem of self-regulation: it is always reactive. We have twice seen this problem in our finance sectors, with the Great Depression and the Great Recession. One of the advantages of having a small ruling body is that it can help guide the group in such a manner as to avoid these great swings. Currently, our mob-led education sector is swinging toward what is considered pragmatic right now. Later, the mob will swing things back the other way. For those who think that a small group of business people are running higher education, the question must be who is running those business people? The answer is the those who buy the products. This is our capitalist system. We have asked for cheap economic and social prosperity. Since that doesn't exist, but we lack a ruling body that will tell us so (since the real leaders are the middle class mob and our designated leaders were put in place by that mob), those who can do so have sold us what they could: Cheap for now, the bill will come later.
I'm sure I sound like a jerk, but as crude as it may sound, I mean no judgment. Large groups act like mobs, even if they don't have the vehemence or attitude we associate with mobs.
I am in no way suggesting we go back to a system where there is such clear class disparity. Not at all. I and all I know have benefited tremendously from the current social structure. There has been an attempt, however poor, to do justly by all members of society, a goal that is absolutely right, a goal truly worth pursuing.
I do suggest that we as a society recognize that having small ruling bodies is advantageous to the present and future maintenance of our society. Let the days of "me, me, me" that have morphed into "us, us, us" now morph into "them, we, I, I, we, them".
Somehow I keep coming back to the same thing over and over: We are not a democracy. It was a wise set of decisions that ensured that. We really need to maintain the representative structure but we keep trying to undermine it and make it as much like a democracy as we can. The distinct operation of our various sectors should remain distinct. But I'm digressing...
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
You just earned a rant...
Thank you, Dr. Dobson.
I know what he's getting at, and it's a wonderful idea, isn't it? And a truly good thing to strive for. It's a big part of the American Dream.
I'm speaking as a very single person here, so that does affect my point of view, but I kinda think that's hogwash.
What if the person you can't live without, *can* live without you? Time to hit the drawing board. Back to the end of the queue. What about all the people throughout the world that are married to someone who is not the person they "can't live without"? Even worse, it's only supposed to be the person you *think* you can't live without. Never had buyer's remorse, eh?
Marriage, what a beautiful institution, what a wonderful experience. What a damn responsibility, what an irritation, how much damn work it is being in a relationship you can't back out of!
If you want to get married, find someone that is worth spending that energy on. Because you're going to spend a damn lot of energy on that relationship, especially if you have designs on that relationship lasting for a lifetime. Make a good decision. Don't just do it out of love. Do it with love, and with an eye for all the problems, too. If you don't think you have the energy to make it work with this person, over, you know, the next thirty years... forget it. Maybe they're someone that you think is amazing and you can't live without, maybe they're "just" someone you think you can make it work with. Making it work is going to be the nuts and bolts of your relationship for the length of your marriage...
Settling for someone is not an advisable choice. On the other hand, if you find yourself on the steppes of Russia for the rest of your life, and you think getting married would be a good idea, settling for someone just might be the decision you have to make. Make sure you make it wisely.
A hugely important part of any relationship is being able to appreciate the image of God in the other person. You don't have to see it as such; I don't think that way about my friends, I see it without knowing I see it. But the longer you get to know someone, the more you are going to have to be able to see it, or the less you are going to be interested in that relationship. In my few years on this earth, this seems like something I am finding.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Theology 3
Evangelism
I am not an evangelist. I rarely tell people they should "get right with God" or that they should have a "personal relationship with Jesus" or that "God has a plan" for their life and aren't they interested in knowing what it is?
The thing is, though, I really am glad that someone evangelized to me. If someone hadn't told me that God existed and that I could be forgiven of the ways in which I'd done him wrong and have a in-good-standing relationship with God, I don't know if I would have gotten to know Jesus. And Jesus has been worth knowing. There's been a lot of other stuff that has come with my relationship with God. Knowing something about why I'm valuable as a person, which has made me much more comfortable in my own skin. is something I'm not sure if I would have understood without knowing God. Grace would probably not have been something I would have gotten to know, which means I'd still be starvingly hungry for it. But all those things or none of them, Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit have been deeply, deeply worth getting to know.
Which leaves me in a weird position of being grateful for something I have but not really doing much to help others have it. At least in a person to person way. I do pray for this for specific people, albeit with some lack in consistency.
One of the reasons I'm not fond of evangelizing is that I've met a lot of people, including myself. who have been wounded in some way by evangelism. A lot of the ways that people talk about
God, talk about Christianity, and try to get other people to become Christians has damaged a lot of lives.
I think a big reason for this is because Christians have lost sight of (if in fact they knew) the whole purpose of evangelism: introducing Jesus to people and helping people see what the reality between God and man is. And from a pragmatic standpoint, I think simply introducing people to Jesus would suffice. I'm not sure you can actually make a good introduction to Jesus without naturally including any other pertinent details. And as I talked about in a different post, one of the key things here is that you're introducing a person. Is it really that dissimilar to saying "Hey, John, I like you to meet my friend Dave. He's a really swell cat and I think you two would get on together well."? Granted, there's more to the whole situation than that, but I think that is fundamentally what the purpose of evangelism is.
It's God that we're after. It's knowing Jesus, knowing the Spirit, knowing the Father that matters. Introducing people to everything but the actual person of God seems...pointless. And it seems to me that a lot of people don't actually hear that when they listen to Christians. The moment you mention Jesus people respond very defensively, as if you're going to hurt them.
What I really want people to experience, what I want people to know in a definite, living way, is what a great thing it is to know Jesus, to know all of God. To know that God loves them, to know the wonderful peace of grace, to have found something solid upon which to live a life. To that end I could really care less about the religion of Christianity. I don't care if anyone becomes Christian from a religion standpoint, I just want them to meet and be friends with Christ.
I am not an evangelist. I rarely tell people they should "get right with God" or that they should have a "personal relationship with Jesus" or that "God has a plan" for their life and aren't they interested in knowing what it is?
The thing is, though, I really am glad that someone evangelized to me. If someone hadn't told me that God existed and that I could be forgiven of the ways in which I'd done him wrong and have a in-good-standing relationship with God, I don't know if I would have gotten to know Jesus. And Jesus has been worth knowing. There's been a lot of other stuff that has come with my relationship with God. Knowing something about why I'm valuable as a person, which has made me much more comfortable in my own skin. is something I'm not sure if I would have understood without knowing God. Grace would probably not have been something I would have gotten to know, which means I'd still be starvingly hungry for it. But all those things or none of them, Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit have been deeply, deeply worth getting to know.
Which leaves me in a weird position of being grateful for something I have but not really doing much to help others have it. At least in a person to person way. I do pray for this for specific people, albeit with some lack in consistency.
One of the reasons I'm not fond of evangelizing is that I've met a lot of people, including myself. who have been wounded in some way by evangelism. A lot of the ways that people talk about
God, talk about Christianity, and try to get other people to become Christians has damaged a lot of lives.
I think a big reason for this is because Christians have lost sight of (if in fact they knew) the whole purpose of evangelism: introducing Jesus to people and helping people see what the reality between God and man is. And from a pragmatic standpoint, I think simply introducing people to Jesus would suffice. I'm not sure you can actually make a good introduction to Jesus without naturally including any other pertinent details. And as I talked about in a different post, one of the key things here is that you're introducing a person. Is it really that dissimilar to saying "Hey, John, I like you to meet my friend Dave. He's a really swell cat and I think you two would get on together well."? Granted, there's more to the whole situation than that, but I think that is fundamentally what the purpose of evangelism is.
It's God that we're after. It's knowing Jesus, knowing the Spirit, knowing the Father that matters. Introducing people to everything but the actual person of God seems...pointless. And it seems to me that a lot of people don't actually hear that when they listen to Christians. The moment you mention Jesus people respond very defensively, as if you're going to hurt them.
What I really want people to experience, what I want people to know in a definite, living way, is what a great thing it is to know Jesus, to know all of God. To know that God loves them, to know the wonderful peace of grace, to have found something solid upon which to live a life. To that end I could really care less about the religion of Christianity. I don't care if anyone becomes Christian from a religion standpoint, I just want them to meet and be friends with Christ.
Theology 2
My last post made me want to write up a sort of tree of sources. I'll write it up in list form, though.
The first item in the list is the most basic, the primary source, the most basic aspect of reality from which everything else flows. Each item then flows from the last.
1. God exists.
2. God is a person (in three distinct parts, each of which is also a person. Strange.).
3. God relates.
4. God creates things.
5. These things include the universe, the earth, angels, and humans.
6. Some angels rebel against God, and so do all humans.
7. Apparently, the rebellious angels can't or won't repent of their rebellion.
8. Humans can, and maybe will.
9. God sees the rift between himself and humans (and, apparently, also all of creation) the rebellion creates as being a fixable problem.
10. God sets upon a course of action to solve the problem.
11. This course of action goes through a few phases culminating in God's only son dying as an intermediary sacrifice between humans and God.
12. The sacrifice is accepted and a means by which the rift between humans and God can be closed is established.
13. The means of restitution between God and humans must be chosen by each individual, it is not globally applied.
14. At a time of God's choosing, the realities set in progress by the creation of the universe are
stopped.
15. Judgement of each human's relationship with God is enacted.
16. Those who have followed the means of restitution enjoy continued eternal relationship with God, those who have not followed the means of restitution suffer eternal banishment from relationship with God.
I think it needs some further work, but even if incomplete I think that's the general gist.
The first item in the list is the most basic, the primary source, the most basic aspect of reality from which everything else flows. Each item then flows from the last.
1. God exists.
2. God is a person (in three distinct parts, each of which is also a person. Strange.).
3. God relates.
4. God creates things.
5. These things include the universe, the earth, angels, and humans.
6. Some angels rebel against God, and so do all humans.
7. Apparently, the rebellious angels can't or won't repent of their rebellion.
8. Humans can, and maybe will.
9. God sees the rift between himself and humans (and, apparently, also all of creation) the rebellion creates as being a fixable problem.
10. God sets upon a course of action to solve the problem.
11. This course of action goes through a few phases culminating in God's only son dying as an intermediary sacrifice between humans and God.
12. The sacrifice is accepted and a means by which the rift between humans and God can be closed is established.
13. The means of restitution between God and humans must be chosen by each individual, it is not globally applied.
14. At a time of God's choosing, the realities set in progress by the creation of the universe are
stopped.
15. Judgement of each human's relationship with God is enacted.
16. Those who have followed the means of restitution enjoy continued eternal relationship with God, those who have not followed the means of restitution suffer eternal banishment from relationship with God.
I think it needs some further work, but even if incomplete I think that's the general gist.
Theology 1
So, I have lots of thoughts about lots of things. And I've been wanting to write out some of my thoughts about God, Christianity, etc., in a more organized way for some time. Here goes nothing.
I don't really have a good way of introducing how important I feel this idea is, so that knowledge will have to serve as preface.
God is a person.
Like any person, he has thoughts, feelings, desires, goals, etc. Like all people, one of his innate inclinations is to interact, or relate, with his environment. On a personal level that would be you and me, and globally all people and everything everywhere. And like all people, he is real.
(For the my purposes here, I'm assuming that God exists and reality exists and that both can be known at least in the sense of interaction.)
The reason I think this is so important is that I believe it is the basis of everything that has to do with God. It is the thing that Christianity has as its most obvious lynch-pin after the existence of God. It is the moving force behind all the concepts and doctrines of Christianity. (And also Judaism, for those keeping score at home.)
Also, it is important currently because I feel it often gets left behind in Christians' communication about their faith, which affects everything about one's faith, including evangelism. For example, a popular phrase that I heard growing up in an evangelical environment was "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Well, if Jesus Christ is just a concept or an object, really anything besides being a person, that whole concept sort of loses its appeal and becomes confusing or at least esoteric. It would be like talking about a "personal relationship with your car" or a "personal relationship with happiness". Kind of odd thoughts, right? Rather on the periphery of the day to day realities of making sure you have enough to eat, a place to sleep, something to ward off the elements, etc. But if Jesus Christ is a person in the same way that I am or anyone else is, than that phrase immediately makes much more sense. Two people having a personal relationship is a pretty fundamental part of being alive, isn't it?
And it also removes the dogmatic and philosophic elements of the beliefs from the hypothetical realm. The story of God's interaction with man and man's interaction with God as told in the Bible can be seen not as a story but as a history. God can't be just a concept or an allegory or an imaginary device is he is an actually real, living person.
And I think people are much more interested in relating to a real person than some out-of-the-frame, complex deity-thing. Even more so if that person has your truly best interests at heart and has set out upon a planned course of action to ensure your best interests are met. If God loves me in the same way that my friends love me, that has some appeal. If he loves me even better than my friends, better than any (potential) romantic partners, well, all the better, I think.
And if God is a person and the Almighty Creator the Bible claims, than he actually does have some legitimate claim to how we live.
Because he's not a concept, not an object, he's a real person.
But if that's not made clear, what exactly is the virtue of this belief?
But because I believe God is a real person, I get an awful damn lot out of the statement "Jesus loves me".
Jesus loves you.
I don't really have a good way of introducing how important I feel this idea is, so that knowledge will have to serve as preface.
God is a person.
Like any person, he has thoughts, feelings, desires, goals, etc. Like all people, one of his innate inclinations is to interact, or relate, with his environment. On a personal level that would be you and me, and globally all people and everything everywhere. And like all people, he is real.
(For the my purposes here, I'm assuming that God exists and reality exists and that both can be known at least in the sense of interaction.)
The reason I think this is so important is that I believe it is the basis of everything that has to do with God. It is the thing that Christianity has as its most obvious lynch-pin after the existence of God. It is the moving force behind all the concepts and doctrines of Christianity. (And also Judaism, for those keeping score at home.)
Also, it is important currently because I feel it often gets left behind in Christians' communication about their faith, which affects everything about one's faith, including evangelism. For example, a popular phrase that I heard growing up in an evangelical environment was "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Well, if Jesus Christ is just a concept or an object, really anything besides being a person, that whole concept sort of loses its appeal and becomes confusing or at least esoteric. It would be like talking about a "personal relationship with your car" or a "personal relationship with happiness". Kind of odd thoughts, right? Rather on the periphery of the day to day realities of making sure you have enough to eat, a place to sleep, something to ward off the elements, etc. But if Jesus Christ is a person in the same way that I am or anyone else is, than that phrase immediately makes much more sense. Two people having a personal relationship is a pretty fundamental part of being alive, isn't it?
And it also removes the dogmatic and philosophic elements of the beliefs from the hypothetical realm. The story of God's interaction with man and man's interaction with God as told in the Bible can be seen not as a story but as a history. God can't be just a concept or an allegory or an imaginary device is he is an actually real, living person.
And I think people are much more interested in relating to a real person than some out-of-the-frame, complex deity-thing. Even more so if that person has your truly best interests at heart and has set out upon a planned course of action to ensure your best interests are met. If God loves me in the same way that my friends love me, that has some appeal. If he loves me even better than my friends, better than any (potential) romantic partners, well, all the better, I think.
And if God is a person and the Almighty Creator the Bible claims, than he actually does have some legitimate claim to how we live.
Because he's not a concept, not an object, he's a real person.
But if that's not made clear, what exactly is the virtue of this belief?
But because I believe God is a real person, I get an awful damn lot out of the statement "Jesus loves me".
Jesus loves you.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Infrastructure
Recently, there was a large gas pipe explosion in San Bruno, California that leveled an entire neighborhood damaging close to 40 homes, injuring 60 people, and killing 4. (Here's a nifty article about how news reports are often wrong and sometimes make things worse.)
Last night I watched a program on the History Channel about America's failing infrastructure.
One of the interesting things we will see in our lifetime is the collision of people's views on taxes and their need for infrastructure. It is quite commonplace for people to complain about their tax burden, and levies for schools and infrastructure fail so often it is almost cliche. The current climate in America leans heavily toward the idea that our resource distribution systems (gas lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, roads, dams, levees, waterways, etc.) are automatically granted us as citizens. Their continued existence is not something we need to concern ourselves with. These things are somebody else's job and are taken care of for us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our infrastructure, like all structures, require maintenance and replacement. This is true for fire alarms, toilets, refrigerators, stoves, cars, houses, boats, and so forth all the way up to roads, dams, bridges, sports teams, governments, and the environment. And just like all our in-home amenities, our out-of-home amenities like our free highways (freeways, get it?) must be maintained by us. We as individuals are responsible for the maintenance of everything we use. It may be someone else's "job" to do the actual work, but if we don't fund it and oversee it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Currently our infrastructure is unfunded and we as a society are not looking after it.
Oh, Burn Notice is on, see ya...
Last night I watched a program on the History Channel about America's failing infrastructure.
One of the interesting things we will see in our lifetime is the collision of people's views on taxes and their need for infrastructure. It is quite commonplace for people to complain about their tax burden, and levies for schools and infrastructure fail so often it is almost cliche. The current climate in America leans heavily toward the idea that our resource distribution systems (gas lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, roads, dams, levees, waterways, etc.) are automatically granted us as citizens. Their continued existence is not something we need to concern ourselves with. These things are somebody else's job and are taken care of for us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our infrastructure, like all structures, require maintenance and replacement. This is true for fire alarms, toilets, refrigerators, stoves, cars, houses, boats, and so forth all the way up to roads, dams, bridges, sports teams, governments, and the environment. And just like all our in-home amenities, our out-of-home amenities like our free highways (freeways, get it?) must be maintained by us. We as individuals are responsible for the maintenance of everything we use. It may be someone else's "job" to do the actual work, but if we don't fund it and oversee it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Currently our infrastructure is unfunded and we as a society are not looking after it.
Oh, Burn Notice is on, see ya...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
