Searching the Truth through Post-Modern Trials

Interpreting the Role of the Law

2009-01-08T16:34:00.003-05:00

Today, as I was driving, a couple stories were brought to my attention. These stories were back-to-back topics on the afternoon news with Tom Young, but had a connection that none of the callers brought up. This connection has been bothering me.

The first story is from the National Post, and is about a man who is being forced to pay child support to his wife for her twin 16 year-old boys, even though a paternity DNA test has proven that the children are not his. The judge determined that these payments were the responsibility of the man because he was the "was the only father the twins knew during the course of the marriage."

The second story was regarding Kimberly Rivera, and her attempt to claim redeployment to Iraq as grounds for a refugee claim. The context of this story is that she completed a tour a duty for the U.S. Military in Iraq in 2006, and upon information of redeployment, moved to Canada with her family to live in an effort to get out of her military duty. A judge threw out her refugee claims today, and order her to return to the United States by January 27 or face deportation.

These brief summaries do not do the stories justice, and I encourage you to read links for more details. However, for the purpose of my "connection," these will do.

As I was driving, I began realizing that the role of a judge has changed greatly from the Modern Era. From the development of Common Law in Britain until approximately 1950, the role of the judge was to determine through trial whether an act was right or wrong in accordance to the Law that was the standard in the instance. So a judge was given a standard to compare the act to in an effort to make a just decision.

No longer is this the case. The role of the judge has moved from deciding whether an action was in accordance with the law, to how the law applies to the action. This change has been fundamental since the baby-boom generation began to rebel against institutional structure in the 1950's.

In the first story, according to the Law, the man should not have to pay child support for the simple fact that child support is the responsibility of the biological parent of the child. As the DNA test confirmed he was not the biological father, he should be free of the responsibility to support the children. However, according to the judge, his actions of taking responsibility for the children from birth has given him the equivalent amount of responsibility as a biological father, and thus he is forced to continue paying the child support. Add to this that he was not told that there was even a chance that he was not the children's parent until six years after their birth, a length of time that caused him to have a parental relationship, and the interpretation of the law becomes even more questionable.

The Rivera case is another instance where the interpretation of the law was called into effect in order to come to a conclusion. Refugee status is reserved for people who, if forced to return to their native country, would face physical danger, or persecution for their religious views, race, or personal philosophy. While argued that, if forced to return, Rivera would be forced to face military duty in an insecure Iraq, or military discipline for deserting, but it was determined that her rights as a human would not be violated if she were deported, regardless of whether her personal views on the war were opposing the idea of redeployment. These cases bring me back to the original observation: that the role of the judge has moved from determining guiilt/innocence, to determining the context of the offence in regards to the law.

The first thing these judges both did was attempt to determine the victim in the case. In the Rivera case, they tried to place themselves as the victim of the United States unfair military contract. However, the judge (correctly) saw that the person breaking the law, in this case Kimberly Rivera, was the culprit, making the U.S. Military the victim of a broken contract. This decision, in my mind, was made based on the Law itself, interpreting the offence and the claim in regards to the action itself, rather than the action in context against the idea of whether the War on Terror is legitimate and fair situation for a person to be forced into. As I was listening to the radio, callers were saying that she should be given refugee status because the War is unfair, wrong, and information regarding the War is misleading and misrepresented. Seemingly lost on these people is the fact that the War is not on trial: the woman is.

Meanwhile, the judge that decided the man must pay child support for his non-biological twins, placed the title of victim on a completely different group. Essentially, civil-court or family court is a place where people can bring complaints of victimization to be heard and determined if legitimate. The man brought his complaint, that he was mislead to believe the twins were his offspring, to be heard, in the hopes that his financial responsibility would be negated. The basis of the complaint, that the responsibility for the twins belonged to the biological father, is legitimate, due to the fact that he was being forced to pay child support because he was believed to be the biological father up to this point. Thus, he claimed that he was the victim of misinformation.

The judge, however, completely disregarded his claim to victimization, and placed the status of victim on the twins. The problem with this is that the twins, while being involved in the proceedings of the court indirectly, had no real claim to this status in regards to the Law of responsibility being argued. The case was not about whether the twins deserved to be supported by two parents, but as to who was to be the second source of financial support. However, the judge succeeded in perverting the law to continue to place undeserved financial responsibility on the man, in the name of creating a better situation for the third-party children, while their biological father remains free of responsibility for his actions.

Once again, I was amazed at the callers who called in. I repeatedly heard that the judge was right because the children deserved to be supported. I am not one to argue that the children do not need to be supported. However, I will argue vehemently that the man is not responsible for children that are not his biological offspring. And I will argue it for a single reason: that if the woman had lost the case, and the man was freed of his support responsibilities, she would have been able to, as difficult as it would be, to find the man who fathered the twins, and search for financial support from him. She was in the wrong, and admitted as much, admitting to misinforming her ex-husband, being involved in an extra-marital affair, and having unprotected sex. Nowhere was her husband to be held responsible for these actions. Yet he is being held responsible for the result of the wrongful actions.

"But he has a moral responsibility, because he acted as father for all those year." And the anthems of bleeding hearts ring out! If we were to look at society, we would see many children that grow up with no father figure at all. The fact that this man took responsibility for the children in their house, helping raise them and support them for the first sixteen years of their life needs to be seen as a gift, not as a reason for continued responsibility. This is essentially a case of a father running out on his child, and another male coming into place as a role model out of the goodness of their heart. It is a gift, and the children were lucky to have this in place. It is not, however, a cause for punishment for the male role model. The financial responsibility lies solely on the biological parent, the person whose actions caused the birth of the children, because if it were not for their actions, the resulting children would not have been conceived.

This brings us back to the role of a judge. No longer does the judge hear both sides of the case, and then determine guilt according to the law. Now, the judge hears the context, determines the victim, then studies the results of the case against the law, then analyzes those conclusions against the context before determining the outcome of the case. Essentially, they determine if the law applies to the case, or if it needs to be reinterpreted to fit the situation to the judges' personal preferences, a process that they are free to embark on at any opportunity.

I feel that the necessity for reinterpretation is not nearly as prevalent as it is convenient. Judges have become political weapons for special-interest groups, and this bothers me. A judge should be put in place to determine if an action is against the law, not whether the judge personally agrees with the judgment. However, if a special-interest group wants a law changed, they merely take on a case under the law in question, and continue to appeal until they find a judge who is sympathetic to their cause.

If judges are to be used as vessels of political changes, then they need to be elected. Lifetime appointments, like those in the senate, are not to be used to affect political change, but to create a continuity in the application of political and legal clauses and causes. They are to be in place to create a stable environment. If the judges want to create a difference in the political sphere, they need to go through the same electoral process as politicians, in order to ensure that their sympathies are indeed in accordance with the will of the majority.

I, for one, am against the election of legal officials, due to a continuing fear of having judges make decisions on the basis of building their electoral support, and other corrupt practices. Instead, I would argue for a more strict list of decisions to be made in the cases. A judge should not be allowed to re-interpret laws, but enforce them and fairly decide if the law was indeed broken. My feeling is that, in criminal law, a judge should be given a list of acceptable decisions for each case, and told to pick the one that matches closest. This setting of parameters for the verdict would be the only way to ensure that the proper ruling is given. A judge also needs to write a statement stating why the verdict was decided on, and thus should be "judged" by a panel from the Supreme Court as to whether their decisions were acceptable against the Code of Law.

The reinterpretation of the Law should be left for a joint council of the Supreme Court, and a select group of elected leaders. Not included in this group is unelected special-interest groups, partisanship, and corporate/industrial/union representation. This would allow the interpretation of laws to become a election issue, without placing the integrity of the judges in a position to be undermined.

A judge has one of the hardest jobs there is. Determining whether a person is guilty or innocent is not a small matter, and seldom an easy decision. However, there is a need for ensuring that the intent of the Law is not perverted by personal philosophy or sympathy. The reason the Common Law was created, was in an effort to ensure that there was equality throughout the nation of Britain, both in judgment, discipline, and in the Law itself. Common Law was the basis of the Canadian legal system and code, and therefore the necessity for Common Law must remain the same: to create a code under which equality, both in the Law, the judgment of the Law, and the punishment under the Law, are available throughout the nation. Giving judges the ability to reinterpret the Law does not ensure this.

Follow the Law, and no one can complain. Make exceptions, and the Law is moot. This is the connection. Hats off to the judge of the Rivera case, and a strong warning to the other judge. This is what is needed for equality.

Restoration Project #4 and Counting

2008-12-13T07:47:00.003-05:00

Matt Clement.

I remember, in the early days of my fantasy baseball playing, finding out that the National League actually was a legitimate place to play. Until then, the only contact I'd had with the National League was watching the Blue Jays destroy the Braves and Phillies in '92 and '93. I remember that John Smoltz and Mitch Williams couldn't match up to Dave Steib, Dave Stewart, Tom Henke, Todd Stottlemeyer, and the rest of the pitching rotation. I remember Otis Nixon being so upset over losing the World Series, that he signed to the Blue Jays (presumably because he knew the Jays were better). And then, the Jays imploded ("rebuilt" is the official term), and I never heard from the National League again until Inter-League play.

But I remember Matt Clement. I remember all of the fantasy experts praising him. Matt Who?

This was the time when he was playing for the Chicago Cubs. These were undoubtedly his best years, from 2002-2004, with the 2005 season with Boston the followed being the one with the most potential before the shoulder injury hit and set him down. But, best years don't always mean good years.

I personally, when looking at a free-agent signing, don't put too much stock in records. In his career, Clement has never had more than 14 wins in a season (though he had 13 in 2005 before the season was cut significantly short by the injury). The reason I'm discounting these numbers is because he played for the Cubs and Padres that were struggling for the first part of his career, and then got hurt part way through his successful stint with the Sox.

Now, for the good part. He has cracked the 200 strikeout plateau once, and holds a K/9 ratio 7.8 over his career. These aren't bad numbers, and are typical of a #2 or #3 starter. He started over 30 games a season until he got injured. And his career ERA is 4.47, which is a little high, but still acceptable.

And then, we have last years stats. The rehab stint that lasted the entire season resulted in this:
"St. Louis signed him to a one-year, $1.5 million contract last January and -- between stints with Class A Palm Beach, Double-A Springfield and Triple-A Memphis last year -- Clement struck out 10 and walked 13 over 32 2/3 innings and posted a 5.23 ERA. The pitcher said his pitch mechanics were the main issue throughout the year." (Jordan Bastain, MLB.com)

Now, in doing my math, I think this equals out to 3.26 K/9, which is well below his average and 2.51 BB/9, which is almost a walk per game above his average. However, his ERA of 5.23 is atrocious. Add on that he was pitching in the minors, including single-A ball, and it only magnifies the problem, a problem that boils down to this: even minor-leaguers can hit this guy easily.

Yes, I know he was rehabbing. I know his velocity is back to normal (though it was only about 90mph to begin with, so that's not too impressive). But why do the Jays need another reclamation project? Zambrano and Ohka already flamed out last year. Yes, I know that Coach Arnsberg is a respected pitching coach, and I really cannot blame him for Zambrano and Ohka, because if he wasn't as good as believed, then Marcum, Litsche, and all the up-and-comers on the Jays staff would have flamed out as well. Instead, Ricciardi has got to give up the bargain hunting for pitchers.

Derek Lowe is still a free agent, as is Jon Garland and some other lesser names, yet the only name being bandied around in the Jays circle is (drum roll please)...Carl Pavano. The Carl Pavano that's been hurt most of the last two seasons, and got chased out of New York because when he did pitch, the American League sluggers used him to inflate their personal stats. Yeah, that Carl Pavano.

At some point, Ricciardi has to put his job on the line for a chance to win. If a top starter could be brought in to pitch behind Hallyday, the Jays would have a chance to make a run at it this year. Yes, the hitting needs some work, but Gaston has a way of getting his players to hit better than they actually can (for example, Ed Sprague, Roberto Alomar, John Olerude, Pat Borders, etc.). They need a #2 starter to give Hallyday breathing room, while not forcing the kids in the bottom half of the rotation into the pressure spots befare they are ready.

Reclamation projects can work out well, but it takes a keen eye to spot the potential and ability in these projects. Ricciardi doesn't seem to have the eye for these things, as proven by Zambrano and Ohka. Hopefully Clement will work out, but the best I see him is as a #4 or #5 spot guy. In fact, I think he would be a great #6 guy that they could keep around for the odd long-relief, and for when the rotation needs an extra day. However, he's not the middle of the rotation starter he's being billed by the staff as.

The Blue Jays have enough talent in their farm system that they don't need mid-30's washups rehabbing and taking time from their youngsters. If Ricciardi wants to take a safe road and hold tight, grabbing cast-offs like Clement and Pavano to create the perception of building a winner, let him try. But sooner or later the holes in the dam will become bigger than his fingers, and the fans will want a team that's a winner, and not just a contender. Then we'll see if Ricciardi really can swim with the big fish.

What Will Actually Last?

2008-12-04T16:39:00.003-05:00

Today was filled with anti-climax. No, the "coalition" is not governing (at least not until February). No, there is not going to be another election (at least until February). The Prime Minister is not dependent on the influence of the Bloc (do I need to repeat it?). And no budget has been released (guaranteed to happen by February). Oh, and Parliament gets an extended Christmas holiday, until almost February.

Come February, change may come. So far, however, all of the changes proposed as of today did not last beyond today, or at the very least are taking a sabbatical. Except for one.

Michaëlle Jean made a change. Of all the talked about players in the political drama that took place, she was the supporting actress that no one gave any notice of, save for Ed Schreyer, whose comments to the Globe and Mail did nothing but show his arrogance and the belief that he knows everything, as well as put undue political stress on the current Governor General. Ms. Jean was the only player who made a change that will last.

Pundits and officials warned her of the problems regarding setting a precedent. No one had done it before. The Governor General is supposed to be neutral. Let the Parliament play this out, and keep your hands clean. If you prorogue, you are showing that you have sympathy for the PC. And then the call came down...and a prorogue took place.

Predictably, the opposition parties are up in arms. They just saw their chance at gaining power be put on hold. However, under their breath they better be thanking their lucky stars that the PM has enough desire to lead that he would go and ask for a precedent to be set.

This two month period lends all of the parties a helping hand. The Liberals, if they were cunning, would speed up their leadership process and have a new leader when Parliament resumes. They would also work harder on the coalition deal with the NDP and, if necessary, the Bloc. Of course, this extra time could cause the coalition to dissolve, but that is the chances one takes when playing these games. In my opinion, the coalition would expire at approximately the same date, regardless of whether Parliament is in or not. It's only a matter of time before Layton's ego and clashes with whoever the Liberals choose for a leader. It also gives time for both parties to find out just exactly how much the Bloc are going to siphon out of the economic gas tank.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have a chance to build a budget that will force support. Harper took a chance, and it imploded. Now, the budget needs to be built in a way that causes the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc to have to vote for it. My advice now to Harper is to give as much as he can to what a "coalition budget" would look like. By doing this, he creates a problem where, if they vote it down, then bring in a near-identical budget, the public will ultimately turn on the coalition as well. Yes, this would be a sacrificing some of the Conservative code, but ultimately it pays dividends because he is still PM.

And even if all this takes place, we only have stability...until February. The Governor General, however, made changes today that will ultimately effect every person who takes the position after she retires.

The Governor General is, at the most basic point, the Queen's Representative in Canada. What this entails, other than drinking lots of champagne at different upscale functions, all on the Federal charge account, no one really mentions. The GG is head over all of the military, determining, on advice from the Federal government, the budget, distribution of awards, and other matters of military affairs, most notably in peace processes and international relationship building. She is also the person who calls Parliament to session, calls elections, and determines who is to be the Prime Minister (according to the election results).

However, for the last 100 years, this position has been nothing more than the (expensive) rubber stamp of tradition. We wish to maintain an ancestoral relationship to Britain and the Queen, so we retain the position of Governor General, and use it as a ceremonial post. Today, however, a real and political decision was made. A precedent was set. And the postion gained true value and influence again.

For the last 100 years, Canada's parliament has abounded in majority governments, where bills were passed with ease, and the majority of Canadians had their party in power. With the rise of some left-wing outliers (read: NDP and Green) and regional (read: Bloc and Alberta Seperationist) and special interest (read: Marijuana, Rhino, and every other crackpot) parties who stole votes from the "traditional two," minority goverments have come to be a current trend, if not a fixture.

Minority governments are an entirely different game from majorities. Bi-partisanship is necessary to pass bills. Whether this is gained through a constant coalition, or partnering for individual bills, is up to the governing party. However, it raises new questions, many of which were asked. And with new questions come new solutions.

I'm sure the GG's thought process went something like this:
Pros to Prorogue:
- We just had an election...why have another?
- The coalition is disorganized. We'll give it time to build itself, and see if they still like it.
- Harper is backpedalling, but he knows how to run a government (at least better than those other bozos). Let's see if he can come up with something good.
- It's almost Christmas anyways.

Cons to Prorogue:
- It's never been done before
- The opposition parties are going to whine alot.

Suddenly, the rubber stamp is not blind.

The GG is supposed to stand up for the constitution and people against the politics of the Parliament. Yes, she interpreted a clause different than previously. However, there is constant contextualization in the justice system, so why the big fuss?

It's because, for so long, the position was a joke. Suddenly, in a time of conjoined crisis, the position became relevant. Luckily, we had a person in the position who had the intelligence and guts to make a decision that, while disliked by some, stopped the chickens in Ottawa from thinking their heads had been cut off, and gave them time to figure out a way out of this stew.

"And the winner for best supporting actress in the worst soap opera of the season is..."

A Coalition for Why?

2008-12-03T15:15:00.003-05:00

All this talk about a coalition between the Liberal and NDP parties has caught my attention. I mean, you have to be in a commune to not have it catch your attention. However, I have been looking not at the coalition itself, or the firepower brought in to help it (Roy Romano, Frank McKenna, John Manley, et. al.), or the supposed problems with the Conservative party. Rather, I've been looking at the logicality of the arguments. Hence, I have been entertained greatly, but informed little.

Argument #1: The Coalition will be a better representation of Canada because it will be a representation of a majority of Canadians.

There are a couple problems with this argument. First problem is that not a single Canadian voted for a coalition government. In each riding, there was an NDP candidate and a Liberal candidate, and for all intensive purposes you can add the Quebec regional factor into this and place a Bloc candidate in the riding as well. Yet, surprisingly, there was no box to check that said "All of them except the PC party." Along with the regional bias, how does a coalition exist if it is necessary for them to have Bloc backing to maintain power? With the Bloc winning seats only in Quebec, by that very definition they cannot represent the majority of Canadians because the majority of Canadians do not live in Quebec. Also lost in this coalition is all but a very minimal amount of support between Winnipeg and Kelowna.

Mathematically, this statement again does not work. The majority of Canadians do not support the coalition. They may not have supported the PC party, but they also do not support the coalition attempt. To go further, less than 60% of Canada voted. So, if the Coalition has 62% of the representatives of the 60% of people that voted, even if all of the Liberal and NDP voters supported the cause, only 36% of Canadians would be given their political wish. And into that the fact that the gross majority of voters do not support this move, and you're looking at a 15-20% approval rating (infered).

Argument #2: Stephen Harper wants us to be like the United States of America.

Ok, so he might. In all reality, he is a very conservative Conservative. And, the USA is a prime example of a conservative industrial country. But, it looks like the coalition group just gave him his wish: we have a two party government. Moreover, when there is an election, the parties split. They are like conjoined twins that take up boxing. Harper has essentially limited his opponents by placing them all in a single party, and in doing so, has created a situation where they will be continually fighting due to their quite varied stances on issues. I mean, in all reality the Liberals are closer to the Conservatives than the NDP on most issues.

Argument #3: It's only for 18 months.

Wrong. See, there is this law that Harper put in saying that, unless brought down on confidence votes, the government has to stay in for 4 years. Yes, he broke the law. However, all the other parties jumped all over him for it, calling him a liar and a hypocrite. Imagine next election, when the PC are jumping all over the left-parties. How far do you think "well you did it, so why can't I" is going to fly in the eyes of the voters?

Argument #4: They have already brought in a crack team of financial experts to help stimulate the economy.

Well, they claim to have. However, Frank McKenna has already declined, John Manley claims he has not been asked, and Roy Romano has not spoked to anyone about it. I know that Paul Martin is pretty close to a one man team on this issue, but those were some big players, especially McKenna, that backed out. From the looks of it, McKenna figures he can accomplish more on his own working with TD Bank than he can with a "majority of Canadians" support.

Argument #5: Stephane Dion is ok to be a temporary Prime Minister, just until the Liberal Party's leadership debate.

This argument seems valid on the surface, but faces a major problem. No longer does Ignatieff, Bob Ray or Dominic Leblanc have to win the support of the Liberal Party members, but in the process also has to validate themselves with the NDP and the Bloc. Ignatieff has already been told that a place in the coalition government may cost him his chance at the leadership race. I have severe doubts that the NDP or Bloc would place the delicate reins of a coalition in the hands of someone who is as relatively inexperienced as Leblanc. Ray may gain from the situation, due to his time spent as NDP Premier of Ontario, but can you ever trust a turncoat? Basically, a coalition makes a messy leadership race more messy. And a messy leadership race may be just what the PC party will benefit from most.

Plus, as stated by Tom Young on Maritime News, the results from a national poll state that 64% of Canadians do not want Dion as Prime Minister. Even for a short time.

----------------------------

The coalition is a novel idea. Not new, as it's been tried before. I wonder sometimes why no one is bringing up the King - Byng affair. But that is for another time. I personally enjoy the talk of a coalition. And yes, it is a democratic solution to a problem. However, I believe it is ultimately ill-timed and rushed. If this opportunity had been placed in the voters' hands during the election, and it would work, I would be a supporter. However, I feel this is a back-door move made by the "losers" to grab at, what would undoubtedly be fleeting, power.

The major point-of-turbulence is the Bloc. They will ask for alot to maintain the coalition platform. Ultimately, too much. Then, with nothing to lose, they will take their marbles elsewhere, and we'll be back to an election. If it was the Green Party, there may be a chance at success. However, when the livelihood of Canada rests in a balance of power held by a separatist party, is there hope of anything good (or stable) coming from this marriage?

I am a supporter, and I am a critic. Above both of these, however, I attempt to maintain a logical view. If only more politicians would think with their head rather than their pride.

Changes made...The Advantage of Talk Radio

2008-11-28T13:31:00.004-05:00

This year has been crazy for me. Getting married, making my house a home, all of it has changed. I have officially finally graduated with a B.A in History, and will begin a MA in Teaching in January. My education is going. My job is going (full time at that). And my marriage is going. Not sure exactly where all the time, but life is going.

I'm currently searching for a new job...my current one is driving me nuts. This change is based on the fact that job stress should be the #1 factor in salary. In the mean time, however, I want to write.

As some may remember, I used to be a valiant blogger. My Xanga account will testify to that fact, at least until I left Alberta. Since then, my blogging has dwindled. However, I'm searching for a chance to use it to hone some journalistic skills, rather than a personal announcement of my love life/school work/social network.

So begins the editorial portion of my blogging. Please, advertise this...Help me. Subscribe, pass on the subscription. In return, I promise to give a valid and articulate argument. Contract signed.
_________________________________________________________________

Talk Radio. Yes, there still is such a thing. I'm not meaning the 24 Hour News Bombardment channels that are on cable television. I'm not looking at the radio stations that get the news for the day, put the track on loop, and allow for 15 minutes of commercials every hour. I mean talk radio.

Here in Moncton, I'm a big fan of News 91.9. I drive alot, so every day I get the chance to listen to Andrew Krystal and Tom Young (though Tom is out for surgery currently, with Rick Howe doing a superb job standing in). I listen for a number of reasons, but mostly because stations play the same music every day. When you drive as much as I do, you need a break. As much as I love classic rock, and the variety that it gives, I can't take it forever. Thus enters talk radio.

The basic format is an issue is raised, either by the host or an expert guest, with relevant information given, and opinions of the host and/or guest stated. This is followed by a portion where listeners call in with their opinions, giving the host or expert the need to explain parts of their belief, or to handle criticism. This format usually works quite well. There are exceptions of course, with the need to censor some callers being at the top of the list, but overall it is very effective.

The strength of talk radio is in the interaction that comes from the topics. TV and the internet are great places to have information given to you be experts. However, the ability to interact with the information is limited through these forms of media. Yes, you can blog about something (as I am doing right now), or you can write to the channel or the CRTC, but seldom can you argue the topic in the moment or hear how the expert deals with being contradicted or questioned. Talk radio allows you to do this as you are driving (except in Nova Scotia), working, or simply listening. You are given the chance to participate in a newsworthy discussion, a chance seldom gained by the general public.

The point of this post is that there is a need for interaction. It is a proven and stated fact that we are being bombarded with more information than ever before. The curse in this blessing is that our ability to process information has not grown at the same speed as the avaiability of information. We are no longer able to process all that we know. Rather, we are sitting wtih expiring knowledge in our minds, taking up space that could be used for processed information. They say the mind is like a computer: now imagine your mind as a computer with the hard drive full, out of RAM, and trying to learn a new task. Essentially, learning has become a stressful and taxing act, rather than a natural growth, and in an effort to minimize stress, we have removed the interaction point of learning in exchange for greater memory.

The problem this has created is a complete lack of interest in the application of knowledge. Take the recent election as a prime example of this. There was more money spent in distributing information about the parties, polling, and encouraging voting than ever before. However, the voter turnout was the lowest ever. People knew the issues being discussed, being given access to the same information that the party leaders had. Platforms were distributed, speaking engagements were set, and people were given every opportunity to learn about the issues. However, while this knowledge was available and fluent, it did not lead to an increase in voters. The reason most often given for not voting: no one cares.

Information has become valued on its own, while in actuality, it has no real value other than in its application. It doesn't matter if you know a political party's values if you cannot see how they will affect your life. Information needs to have a personality, and needs to be applied. If one cannot use the information they have, what is the need for the information?

Through my schooling thus far, I have worked at gaining knowledge. I have worked hard for it at that. However, I have realized in my last years of university, the years I have been bombarded with the most lectures, that it is the exercized knowledge that counts. If you cannot apply the knowledge, you did not learn it properly. On that note, if you do not need the knowledge, replace it with something more necessary or interesting that you can use. This purging of useless knowledge will essentially create less stress and more learning potential, while not affecting your useable knowledge. It is a simple streamlining of one's mental capacity.

In conclusion, let us return to talk radio. Talk radio is one of the few media sources that allows for immediate interaction with information. Through this, the necessity of the information is proven, and one can decipher both an opinion on the matter, and decide if they want to keep the information. It is essentially a sensible route of learning. It is also a format that can be used in many other facets of life. I am by no means promoting a utilitarian filtering of information; rather I am encouraging a return to searching for the value of the application rather than just a maintainance of the knowledge. At the most basic point, if you have it, use it. It just might work.

The Idea of Easternizing the West

2006-11-07T02:08:00.000-05:00

Parenting is the action that has the largest effect on how a person’s worldview. The roles parents exemplify in the formative childhood years create the basic social structures that will build a child’s subconscious traits. Following parenting, education is the most influential process in the development of a person’s worldview. Much of this education is experiential, coming outside of the classroom. It is the lessons learned from the trial and error of life. Other ideals, however, are taught within a school setting. Along with gaining necessary basic skills, youths are indoctrinated with the ideological training regarding the values of the institution in which they are enrolled.

Education began as a religious institution. From the medieval period, when school were run by monks, until the Enlightenment, education was religiously grounded and motivated by the Church. By the twentieth century, education had become much more of a secular institution. Religion, especially Christianity, was seen as distorting the scientific factuality of the teachings of schools. Many universities within Canada were essentially began by Protestant denominations, only to be secularized as the Church became less institutional following the Great War. However, there are still religiously affiliated schools, such as Atlantic Baptist University, that are working to find their place in the secularized society of today.

In his article, Fernhout notes that, “the Christian identity of the school not only touches everything that happens within its walls, but also expresses itself in the way the students are taught to engage their cultural environment.” This idea places a lot of responsibility on the institution. By setting out the standard of their education through a religious context, they must ensure that all of their facilities and programs run complementary to this theological standard. This includes the programs, as well as the professors and extra-curricular activities sponsored by the school.

In his lecture, Joel Carpenter notes how the influx of “southern Christians,” or Christian immigrants from Asia, Africa and South America, is affecting the religiously based educational institutions. The Southern Christianity differs from the Western Christianity prevalent in North America. Southern Christianity is based more deeply on the literal biblical principles of the New Testament. It is also much more expressive in its worship, including prayer and healing services. This expressivity has been dampened within Western Christianity in an attempt to retain the respect of the scientific community, believing that if Christianity can become a logical conclusion rather than an emotional choice, there will be less persecution and more conversions taking place. This belief of Western culture has been wrong, however, as Fernhout points out when he writes that, “the biblical story challenges the claims of the reigning worldview…“through the witness of a community which indwells the story the bible tells.” By ‘acting out’ the story, and by articulating what the story means in cultural areas such as education, Christian witness, to the truth of the Gospel Story.”

As Southern Christianity begins to affect the Western Culture, Carpenter argues that there must be changes made within the religious-educational institutions so as to remain culturally relevant. He believes that the focus of the institutions must become more multicultural-focused. This would involve the rebuilding of programs and curriculum, as well as the changing of the institutional atmosphere to a more culturally sensitive and open atmosphere. Thus, there needs to be a move away from the dampened Western Christianity towards this more vibrant Southern Christianity for reasons of remaining culturally relevant. Carpenter cites that 70% of Christians are now from areas encompassed by the “Southern” category. This indicates that if a Christian institution is to focus its attention on helping the largest demographic of Christians receive educational training that will be culturally relevant, and more importantly culturally sensitive, the Southern Christian must become the a model of student who fits into the atmosphere and culture of the institution.

Fernhout describes education as “a process of bringing a new generation into full participation in a way of life, so that eventually the new generation can take responsibility for shaping the cultural way of life into the future.”# Thus, with the purpose of these institutions being to educate, they become the vessel through which the cultural values of the next generation are shaped. The students gain worldviews partly due to a reaction towards the presentation and curriculum in school. As students are brought into contact with social issues, they are forced to react to the moral values portrayed within these situations. The influx of Southern Christianity will bring about a different cultural response to many of the social issues of modern day. Religious educational facilities must be ready to accept these new reactions and worldviews, and to work with them towards the furtherance of Christianity, realizing that they are the dominant Christian culture in the world.

Carpenter also says that new partnerships must be made with the Southern Church, gearing educational institutions to a more multicultural development. He argues that this is necessary because the Southern Christianity is moving northward in an evangelical expansionism. No longer is the Western Church distributing missionaries to these lands, but the Southern Christians are coming as missionaries to work with the immigrant and domestic populations of the North. This role reversal specifically demonstrates that it is no longer just the West teaching the rest of the world about Christianity; rather, the rest of the world is teaching the West what it has forgotten. Consequently, religious educational institutions must open doors to allow cross-cultural partnerships that will change the focus and atmosphere of the school into a more globally-oriented facility. This will allow for the greatest amount of growth within both the students and the school, and will bring about a new worldview for the students where the idea of a global community is much stronger, allowing for closer relationship with other groups from around the world.

Carpenter concluded his lecture by emphasizing the importance of accepting the new South into the ideological framework of the West. He projects that by accepting the Southern Christian immigrants, the Christianity of the West could be changed completely. He believes that Southern Christianity has the ability to bring Western Christians back to a biblically based standard of living. To do this, however, the West will have to accept the emotionality and spirituality of the Southern Christians, including the signs of the Spirit and healings, and acknowledge that they are indeed authentic Christians. By allowing the South to present Christianity, it will become real through a different cultural lens, bringing new insight in comparison to the Western Christianity that this generation has grown up around.

Fernhout writes that, “in rich Christian educational thought, the notion of a world and life view has been closely linked with the notion of a Christian mind. This linkage has the potential to significantly shift the meaning of world and life view.” According to Carpenter, the shifting of the Christian mind from Western Christianity to Southern Christianity needs to begin to change the worldview of Western Christians, allowing more openness to the global Christian rather than trying to retain the dominance the West held on Christianity. Conversely, the most effective facility to change a Christian worldview is at a Christian educational institution. By beginning to change the worldviews of those who are working towards being the leaders of the next generation, they are assuming to influence an entire generation as they begin to “take responsibility for shaping that cultural way of life into the future.”

In general, Fernhout and Carpenter agree on the basic arguments. They both see Christian education as a suitable and profitable facility for changing worldview to create a more vibrant future. Carpenter, however, spends much more time emphasizing the importance of accepting the new Southern Christianity, and allowing it the ability to influence the West in a way that will bring about a revival of Christianity. By encouraging a more global worldview within these educational institutions, students can become better equipped, both as Christians and as members of society, to deal with new problems arising as the idea of “global community” becomes a reality

Bibliography
Carpenter, Joel, Murray Lecture - Atlantic Baptist University, Moncton, New Brunswick, 2006

Fernhout, Harry, “Christian Schooling: Telling a Worldview Story” in The Crumbling Walls of Certainty: Toward a Christian Critique of Post-modernity and Education, eds. Lambert, I., and Mitchell, S. Macquarie Centre, NSW: Centre for the Study of Australian Christianity, 1997. p. 77

Snippet of Bernard Bailyn

2006-04-30T10:41:00.000-04:00

This is a portion of my Nature of History term paper. Interest is probably limited, but my time to write is to. For a full copy of the essay, email me at craig.allin@gmail.com. I will be happy to send you a copy, and am looking for open dialogue.
______________________________________
In his book On the Teaching and Writing of History, Dr. Bailyn is asked if he believes there can ever be comprehensive historical accounts, or rather with so much information being available, it is now impossible to create an account that is truly comprehensive.[1] His responds that he often doubts it is possible. However, he still wished to attempt to create a comprehensive history of even a segment or single society that would interest an author. He cites that, at the time, he was working on a large-scale narrative history of the early American population,[2] explaining that as he has worked through this information, with each segment of the story that one fits together, “you find five complications you had not taken account of.”[3] This is due to the vast expanse of information, ranging from government records to family genealogies, which one acquires in a project such as this. As more information becomes available, so also does the amount of inconsistencies increase. This means that a broader general picture can be reached, but irregularities begin to crop up in numbers that can cause trouble when reaching conclusions.

Bailyn continues with the introduction of technology to the historical studies. He purports that, by inputting genealogies, government records, and other documents, information such as birth and death rates have been computed and understood in a way that was previously unavailable. This is useful for understanding the demographics in areas such as the Old South, where this new quantified information showed that the white population was actually in decline, save for continuous immigration from Europe.[4] He recognizes that technical scholarship has had a large part in building interest for new areas of study such as Atlantic History, a field of study that is growing in popularity throughout the West.[5] Although this information can be insightful, Bailyn asserts the need for creative research for history to be useful and continue scholarly growth.

In an interview with Mary Lou Beatty, the topic of technological research was breached in regards to the expanding scholarship of European history. Bailyn asserted that many gains were being made by the use of computers to correlate information into a more informing picture.[6] By linking large portions of information as previously described, understanding and clarification of societal trends of the time are much easier to account for. This helps in acquiring an overview of migration and economic issues, making large amounts information available in concise formats.

The difficulty Bailyn sees in this technical scholarship is bringing the relevance and information to those who are not technical historians.[7] The creation of large amounts of information into tables and charts is helpful in understanding the general trends, but understanding these charts and tables is much more difficult than accessing information from a narrative source. The charge of creating applicable versions of the technical scholarship, allowing it to be related to the regular person, is the hardest part of the process.[8] The fact that technical scholarship holds little allure for the general public would suggest a continued use of narrative history as necessary, if only to inform those who are interested in history but are not trained historians. If history becomes the property of only the intellectual and trained scholars, it will lose its relevance to the remainder of society.

The other problem with the technical scholarship is that there are significant areas of study that contain little ability to be transposed into structured formats. Areas such as ideological research and social life are difficult to input and table in a way to create a broader view of the topic.[9] With his view of the importance of ideologies, it is understandable that he mentions the faults of the quantitative study of history.
Bailyn’s gradual evolution in perspective concerning the importance of ideologies in the creation of history, as well as his attitudes towards the research and writing of history, show the ideological periods through which Bailyn has lived. Being educated and doing his early scholarship during the Modern period, he focused on finding truth and structure in the growth of history. This influenced his beliefs regarding the primacy of ideologies in the fueling of historical events. Ideologies can be seen as the most basic element of any event, as they are innate in every person. Each person has their own set of values and ideals, elements that will shape their attitudes and reactions to situations in their life. Thus, by studying the consensus of ideologies, it is possible to gain an understanding of why and how events took place.

As he continued his scholarship and teaching, the societal ideologies of the West took a turn towards post-modernism. This brought about the questioning of the absolute values of modernism. Based on ideas of relativity of truth, the search for comprehensive and truthful historical narratives began to be seen as an ideal of the past. It was during this time that Bailyn began to allow for the introduction of outside circumstances as factoring into the events of history, rather than each event ultimately being the result of the ideologies of the participants.

That Bailyn’s career has stretched across two distinct ideological periods also accounts for his view towards the creation of comprehensive historical accounts. The fact that he holds hope for the ability to create comprehensive narratives is an attitude resulting from the modern belief that truth and full comprehension were possible. The doubts that have resulted in his inability to succeed at this are partially due to the increased availability of information with which to create the account. Meanwhile, his admittance that the hardest part of being a historian is understanding the mindset of the subject, an action that he finds nearly impossible due to the knowledge of the results of the events, shows his post-modern influences. By acknowledging that it is impossible to understand the ideology of the subject without bias, he is allowing historiographies to be nothing more than an historians understanding and perspective on the historical reality he is studying. Bernard Bailyn’s scholarship regarding the early history of America and the American Revolution were radical, creating new factors in scholarship and new interest in the historical roots of America. His emphasis of ideologies as the engine of historical growth, while often debated, was an invigorating proposition that created a basic structure for the events of the American Revolution and constitutional period. With a career spanning two distinct ideological periods, Bailyn stayed relevant, creating flexibility in his views and growing with new forms of research while not sacrificing the original belief that ideologies are the most important aspect of historical study.

[1] Bailyn, On the Teaching and Writing of History, 32
[2] Ibid. 33
[3] Ibid. 33
[4] Ibid. 34
[5] Bernard Bailyn, “Studying the Origins of Atlantic History,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 51, 27, (2005)
[6] Mary Lou Beatty, “The Past is Unpredictable: A Conversation with Bernard Bailyn,” Humanities, 19, 2, (1998)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.