Seven, Eight, Set Them Straight

OK, I promised a few more comments inspired by The Argument Culture by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., so here’s the next one:

“I think this woman [who had politely asked a man in a non-smoking area to put out his cigarette, explaining that she had asthma] expected me to say she needs assertiveness training to learn to confront smokers in a more aggressive manner.  Instead, I told her that there was nothing wrong with her style of getting the man to stop smoking.  She gave him a face-saving way of doing what she asked, one that allowed him to feel chivalrous rather than chastised.  This is kind to him, but it is also kind to herself, since it is more likely to lead to the result she desires.  If she tried to alter his behavior by reminding him of the rules, he might well rebel:  ‘Who made you the enforcer?  Mind your own business!’  Indeed, who gives any of us the authority to set others straight when we think they’re breaking rules?” [Emphasis mine]

The question in the last line of this paragraph is supposed to be rhetorical — the expected answer being “no one.”  But I don’t think that’s true.  ”Any of us” is clearly too broad:  obviously police officers have exactly that authority, as do parents with their children and teachers with their students.  If no one has the “authority to set others straight,” the result is chaos:  everyone doing whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.  And nobody wants that.

But it seems to me that Dr. Tannen isn’t saying here that we shouldn’t take note when people are behaving badly or try to change their behavior.  In fact, she praises the woman in the example for doing exactly that.  Instead, I think she is concerned about the way we go about correcting others. 

One of the verses in the Bible most frequently quoted by non-Christians is Jesus’ teaching “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)  Often this verse is held up like a shield to defend the quoter against unwanted correction.  But I think Jesus’ meaning in that verse is the same as Dr. Tannen’s:  it’s OK (in fact, it’s necessary sometimes) to point out another person’s errors or faults, but it should be done with as much “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15) as we can muster.  We should judge (that is, we should discern error and offer correction) without being judgmental (that is, without attacking or demeaning).

At least, that’s the way I see it.

Thirteen

Something very special happened on this day in 1995: the most wonderful woman in the world became my wife. The past thirteen years have been the best years of my life because of her, and I just wanted to take a moment here to celebrate that and to thank her and to thank the Lord for bringing us together.

Preservation

Usually the method for preserving things (like photographs, historical documents, works of art, antique cars, etc.) involves keeping them out of the sunlight, controlling the air temperature and humidity around them, and if they have moving parts, not moving them too much.

I was taking a walk this afternoon and I had the ironic realization that the method for preserving our own bodies seems to be the exact opposite. It’s important to get out of our easy chairs and heated/air conditioned spaces and get some fresh air and sunshine and move those moving parts! Otherwise, we start falling apart prematurely.

OK, I know this isn’t a news flash. I just thought it was a neat thought and I wanted to share.

The Story of Stuff

If you’ve got 20 minutes to spare, check this out:  http://www.storyofstuff.com/index.html 

I know the whole environment thing is usually viewed as a liberal issue, but I’m conservative and this sure makes sense to me.  After all, it’s just good business to take the long term into account.  Besides, shouldn’t conserving the environment really be a conservative issue?  Just sayin’. 

Lunatic fringe?

I just started reading a book called The Argument Culture, by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., on the recommendation of a speaker at a job-related conference I attended a while back.  I have already marked three places (just in the first chapter) where she has made comments that I thought I might write a blog entry about — consider yourselves warned.

I probably don’t need to set this paragraph up, since it’s so early in the book.  Here it is:

“We love using the word “debate” as a way of representing issues:  the abortion debate, the health care debate, the affirmative action debate–even “the great backpacking vs. car camping debate.”  The ubiquity of this word in itself shows our tendency to conceptualize issues in a way that predisposes public discussion to be polarized, framed as two opposing sides that give each other no ground.  There are many problems with this approach.  If you begin with the assumption that there must be an “other side,” you may end up scouring the margins of science or the fringes of lunacy to find it.  As a result, proven facts, such as what we know about how the earth and its inhabitants evolved, are set on a par with claims that are known to have no basis in fact, such as creationism.”

Making this offensive statement against creation believers even worse, a few paragraphs later Tannen uses a much better example of a fringe position:  Holocaust denial. 

I wanted to comment on this not because Tannen’s “argument” against creationism is so outrageous, but because it is so common.  The problem with her argument (and the similar “arguments” made by so many others) is that it is no argument at all.  She merely asserts that evolution is a “proven fact” while creationism has “no basis in fact.”  Evolution believers are fond of pointing to their “mountain of evidence,” but press them to give even one example and you will usually get silence.  If they do have an example, it will generally fall into one of two categories:  a microevolutionary example, or a fossil record example.  Creationists don’t generally have a problem with microevolution.  Farmers have intentionally bred certain characteristics into their livestock and crops for centuries; it is no great stretch to imagine the same thing happening without human intervention.  As for the fossil record, it proves nothing.  The fact is, we have fossils that represent a wide variety of creatures over (it is believed) a long period of time.  Evolutionists explain this fact with a story:  a series of mutations occured that gave the mutant creatures certain advantages over the originals; eventually the originals all died, and this process was repeated many times throughout history.  Creationists also explain this fact with a story:  God made each of the creatures.  (There is some discussion about the timeline, but basically that’s it.)  Each of these stories adequately explains the facts.  The creationist story is only absurd if you start with the assumption that God doesn’t exist.  And I would like to remind Dr. Tannen and the other evolutionary believers that atheists are, and have always been, in the minority.  Theism is not a fringe position.

Of course, there is at least one other position:  theistic evolution.  My understanding is that theistic evolutionists believe that God involved Himself in some way in the evolutionary process — much like a farmer involving himself in the microevolutionary process of breeding, only on a larger and more mysterious scale.  I welcome any theistic evolutionist who reads this to explain in more detail.

My point is that creationism has the same “basis in fact” as evolutionism — no more, and no less.  We don’t have time machines, and so we can’t observe how all the different creatures came into existence in the long distant past.  All we can do is theorize.  So, let’s all try to have a little respect for each other.

Daylight Savings Time

Just curious…  Does anyone out there think that Daylight Savings Time (DST) is still useful for something?  I mean, other than as a semi-annual reminder to change the batteries in your smoke alarms?  I’ve heard that the reason for DST was to save on energy.  But I saw an article in my newspaper Sunday saying that a study done in Indiana showed that DST saved energy on lighting, but all the gain (and then some) was lost when they took heating and cooling costs into account.   Personally, I am not a fan of the sleep cycle disruption caused by shifting the day back and forth by an hour.  But I ask the question because twice a year I hear people complain about DST, but I can’t remember ever hearing anyone defend it.  And I wonder, how does something so unpopular manage to escape being legislated out of existence?  Please tell me, if you know.

Made in China

Walking through Wal-Mart, Target, or pretty much any “discount” store makes me wonder sometimes whether we make anything in the United States.  Most everything in these stores is labelled “Made in China,” although some are made in other faraway places. 

Is this a good thing?

On the one hand, we do get goods for lower prices, and a lot of people who might otherwise be unemployed and impoverished are getting a chance at a more prosperous life.  On the other hand, these low-priced products are often low-quality products and occasionally they are even dangerous, as recent headlines have demonstrated.  Low-priced products tend to become (or are even designed to be) throw-away products, and they end up clogging our landfills.  And since it’s cheaper to buy new stuff than to maintain or repair what we already have, a lot of American service jobs have simply disappeared.  This is in addition, of course, to the manufacturing jobs that have moved to China and elsewhere.  On top of all that, the fossil fuel that is used to transport these acres of goods halfway around the world adds to the pollution of our atmosphere.  Finally, think of the national independence we have lost.  Is it possible that we deal so cautiously with China because of our economic dependence as much as because of their nuclear weapons?

The sad thing is, we are doing this to ourselves.  Purveyors of Chinese-made products thrive because we live in a culture that values an immediate “good deal,” but generally forgets to consider long-term implications until they become immediate concerns.  We get a discount today, but we may find ourselves paying for it — with interest — down the road. 

Surely we can find a better way to promote employment around the world.