Person of the Year

When I heard who Time magazine chose to be their person of the year for 2006, I couldn't help but laugh. As the front cover suggests Time magazine named "You" as the person of the year. Basically, anyone who uses the Internet is the person of the year for 2006. So, congratulations, you too are the person of the year!

I find this to be rather lazy on the part of Time magazine. Rather than do research and come up with a person or organization that had a great effect on many people this year, they have simply said that lots of people are working together on the Internet. Part of their justification for this is:

"But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."

So, enjoy your new found fame, for, along with millions of others, you are The Person of the Year!

Intervention

Another interesting question was brought up recently as a result of email conversations:

There are so many terrible wrongs, genocides, and oppression throughout the the world perpetrated by immoral governments and brutal warlords. The question is, when, if ever, would it be right for a powerful country like America to intervene?

When is it right to intervene in the affairs of another country? If a country is able, as the United States is, to intervene in, and stop a genocide, is it right to violate national sovereignty to do so? When does intervention become invasion?

Let me try to draw an analogy. If you are armed, and see a murder or mugging taking place, is it not your duty, despite the fact that you are not a law enforcement officer, to intervene? Similarly, if you know that an entire people group is being whipped off the face of the earth, is it not the duty of anyone with the power to intervene and prevent the slaughter?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it gives a nation with great power near absolute power. Power does, indeed, corrupt, and if a nation were able to justify any military action as an act of mercy, would it not be a simple matter to begin conquering the world to "restore order?" This excuse was one that Hitler used for some of his invasions in WWII, and has been used many other times throughout history, sometimes leading to the most terrible genocides of all time.

The conclusion seems to be that allowing such great wrongs to persist is not the right course of action. It is almost as bad as condoning it. Ideally, genocides must be stopped. However, we must be careful that we do not become perpetrators of that which we are professing to strive against.

Is music in itself amoral?

An email conversation led me to consider the question, is music itself amoral. Is it morally neutral in and of itself?

In order to be amoral, music must be inherently neither good (righteous) nor bad (the absence or opposite of good).

Clearly the use of music is far from amoral, it can be used to praise God, and it can be used to mock, criticize, and drive people from Him. So, music can certainly be used for good or for bad.

I believe that you cannot separate something from it's use, especially an activity. Wielding a weapon can be used for good and for bad, and thus, I believe, is not amoral. Writing, speaking, art, theater, all these can be good or bad, they are not only used for good or ill, they are themselves good or bad.

Proverbs 8:13 says:

To fear the LORD is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.

How can speech be perverse if it is not bad? How can behavior be amoral if it is evil?

We are actually commanded to make music, to sing praises to the Lord. A few scriptures that show this:

Rejoice in the LORD and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart! -Psalm 32:11

Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord - Ephesians 5:19

Thus, music can be good. I don't mean good as in “nice,” but good as in fulfilling God's perfect will. How can something that we are commanded to do be neutral? Music that builds up, brings praise to God, and edifies the saints is good; it not just used for good, but it is good.

However, anything in this fallen world that can be good, can also be bad. Speech that is full of sinful messages is not only being used for evil, it is itself bad. Speech can be good or it can be bad, songs are the same way. Music that is full of profanity, drugs, and sin is not just being used for evil, it is itself bad.

Basically, you cannot separate an activity from its purpose. An activity with an evil end is itself bad. An activity with an end that glorifies God is itself good. Therefore, music is itself either good or bad, and is not amoral.

Old Fashioned Entrance Exam

The following is reputed to be the test that a potential employee had to take in order to work at Hewlet Packard:

Instructions: Read each question carefully. Answer all questions.

Time limit – 4 hours. Begin immediately.

HISTORY:

Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.

MEDICINE:

You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of Scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

PUBLIC SPEAKING:

2,500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.

BIOLOGY:

Create life. Estimate the difference in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probably effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis.

MUSIC:

Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.

PSYCHOLOGY:

Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramese II, Gregory of Nicea, Humorabi; support you evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

SOCIOLOGY:

Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.

MANGEMENT SCIENCE: Define Management. Define Science. How do they relate? Why? Create a generalized algorithm to optimize all managerial decisions. Assuming an 1130 CPU supporting 50 terminals, each terminal to activate your algorithm; design the communications interface and all necessary control programs.

ENGINEERING:

The disassembled parts of a high powered rifle have been placed in a box on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In ten minutes a hungry Bangal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Be prepared to justify your decision.

ECONOMICS:

Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist controversy, the wave theory of light. Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.