honoring a photographer

this is incredible

in honor of Kenji Nagai, still taking pictures after being shot,
in Myanmar yesterday.

who has the huge balls, and who has the tiny balls?
who brings light and who has something to hide?
who has honor, and who does not?

Net Neutrality | Tiered Internet

In the past i've blogged about the dire consequences brought upon us if the telecommunications companies strategies for a tiered internet were to become a reality; and i underscored that net neutrality is foundational to all that is holy and good and pure and descent and right.

Given the context of yesterday's post... this depiction of a tiered service should scare the crap out of you as you begin to comprehend the ramifications of such system not just on you - but on the future of the rest of the world.


a few thoughts from google on the subject.

$100 Laptop

File this under "shit that makes an incredible amount of sense". i am so insanely pumped to see this product becoming a reality.

i see the hundred dollar laptop as a systematic solution to not simply bridging the digital divide - but to addressing so many imbalances in the world.


coupled with web2.0 portals such as wikipedia, and online applications like googledocs - this item represents a real opportunity for many to join the world...

this isn't rice or an aids vaccine. but since the information age started a little while back, some of us believe that ideas are what really change things.

think.

think what this means.

if people knew

• that FGM is unnecessary and ironically sick
  
• the aids virus doesn't wash off with a shower
• a tyrant is just a local thug
  
• that injustice has a voice
  

this is the proverbial feeding of the five thousand brought to life.

what i've learned

this morning c span radio asked the nation what it had learned since 9/11, six years ago. some people didn't hear (or chose not to answer) the specific question asked, and instead called in to reminisce.  i think c span asked a great question though - even though i was disappointed by ninety percent of the answers.

since 9/11, i've learned that people all over the world just want to live their lives. they want a job, they want a family, they want to care for that family, and they want to live in peace. and i've learned it's only the very few that think threats, fear or violence is an acceptable solution for dealing with conflict.

this is true for school age children. they want to have friends, want to do well in their classes, and want to eat lunch with their friends. there are the very few school yard bullies who think threats, fear or violence is an acceptable solution for dealing with their problems. kids that do so miss recess because society doesn't agree.

this is true for high school kids. they want to have friends, get along with their teachers if possible, get a decent grade if nothing else, have lunch with their friends, and also form serious relationships. their problems get more complex, but for those few who resort to threats, fear or violence to address their problems, they get expelled or grounded because society doesn't agree.

this is true for adults. they want to have friends, get along with their bosses if possible, get some decent pay if nothing else, have meals with their friends, form serious relationships, and at some point maintain a family. their problems get even more complex, but for those few who resort to threats, fear or violence to address their problems, they get sent to prison because society doesn't agree.

this is true of groups of people too - up to and including countries.  they want to have relations with other countries, get along with the big dogs if possible, create a descent standard of living for those dependant on them if nothing else, share resources with their friends, and of course, really complex relationships are the inevitable result. but for those few who resort to threats, fear or violence as a means to address their problems... it's justified.

success

two friends, Alan and Ken have recently written on a similar topic from a similar perspective (although with opposite polarities) and I wish to add a thought that speaks to a common thread that i see in both of these.

the fundamental issue at hand is that pastors are routinely treated poorly - without compassion - perhaps even, as a machine.

and while this is deplorable, i can't help but wonder if pastors haven't brought this on themselves?

it's almost like there is a contractual arrangement in place to make one person the fall guy.

so while i'd like to get excited with Alan that one church started behaving like a church, and while i can commiserate with Ken that church's find it acceptable to work their pastors like dogs, I have a hard time expecting a change in the near future.  insanity is doing the same thing but expecting a different result.

start with a resume, go to an interview, get scrutinized publicly, contracted for a salary, put on a (spiritual) pedestal, worked to the bone, expected to perform tirelessly, required to grow numbers, to please stockholders, board of directors, the deacon board, prepared to be fired "at will"... what part of this looks shittier than a big corporation? ok, all of it does. all of this looks shittier than a big corporation - because those are corporations and you can expect to be treated like shit by the black soulless tarball whose bottom line is money... but this is supposed to be church.  turns out the church has it's own bottom line figure: "numbers".

so pastors subscribe to this regime and write books about being purpose driven and build the kingdom of heaven here with their own hands and get put on a pedestal and actualize their leadership and/or charisma and become powerful, involved in politics and successful...

and now we need to ask if being successful has gotten us where we set out to be?