Today a serial killer, who has been convicted of six murders and still is charged with twenty more, was sentenced. He was convicted of second-degree murder, instead of the charged first-degree. From what I understand in Canada first-degree has with it little possibility of parole, while second-degree has the possibility of parole in 10-25 years.
Well again, I do hate to be a Canadian hater, but it seems to me that I'm missing something important. In the states, and may God bless America, when someone is convicted of multiple murders, then he/she is sentenced to each murder. Meaning that a person will be sentenced to multiple life sentences. Not because the court system expects the person to die and come back to life each time, but the punishment fits the crime. The taking of life dictates being punished appropriately.
Anyways, the way the rhetoric is in the papers (or found online here), then Pickton, a convicted serial killer, will be eligible for parole in 25 years. Now maybe it just me, but it seems that serial killers are not expected to be reformed while in prison or counciling. Allowing the possibility of parole seems to me very irresponsible in this instance. Now my own beliefs would set Pickton on something alike Texas' "needle express lane". But if life in prison is it, then life it is. And if there seems to be an expected danger of the person when they are put up for parole, then maybe that danger to society needs to be kept out of society.
So unless I'm missing something, Pickton will be up for parole in 25 years. Since he is currently 68, then he will be 93. If the expectation is that he won't be able to hurt anyone because of his advanced age, then it still seems to me very irresponsible to allow such a man back out into society. A 93 year old man can fire a gun still, and so is society in a safer position than before? I just don't see the reasoning in having trust in the parole committee to 'make the right choice' when there could be actions taken to help ensure it? Now I won't sit here and criticize the Crown for not proving first-degree murder, because I think at this time it would be pointless. But I think that making the punishment logically fit the crime does make sense. Since Pickton has killed 6 women, possibly 20 more, then he should be expected to have 6 life sentences. The system as it is set up seems more appropriate to deal with one or two murders, where parole might indeed be a logical option. But there does not seem to be any expectation of hope for this man, and he should be permanently removed from society for the rest of his life.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Why I do not like Celsius...
Well, let's get one thing straight. I love Celsius... in the classroom or the lab! It provides for much better precision than Fahrenheit by far. Whether its for really big numbers or really small, it allows itself to be accurate and understandable. Water freezes at 0 and boils at 100. Those limits allow for easily understandable amounts that are relative to everyday situations. Basically, you have a nice round limit for water freezing and just a nice one for boiling. It makes sense. Lots of sense.
But when we talk about environmental temperature, things change. We aren't as interested in water freezing or boiling. Instead we are more concerned with what type of clothes we should put on. Shirts or sweaters. Flip flops or snow boots. Being relative is important, and frankly when someone is freezing their butt off, they probably don't care how close to the freezing level of water they are.
And so, here's 3 mathmatical reasons why Fahrenheit presents a better method for measuring temperatures than Celsius.
1) More range of options. F has 101 options for measuring relative temperatures: 0-100. Translating this into Celsius, the range for the same temperatures become -18 and 38, or 57 possible choices. Now obviously there are more options, in theory an infinite more. And many times we as humans use some of those options. But in general you will find these ranges the normative experience for a majority of people. This also leads to reason 2.
2) Better median. Which for you non-math people is the middle number. For F this means that if you start with 50 degrees, then you have 50 options on either side to describe the temperature (for most experiences). For Celsius it begins at 10 degrees, and goes to -18 on the low side, to 38 on the hotter side. Now, I'm not a specialist by any means, but starting with a system that uses a large minority of negative numbers just doesn't create a good system of effective communication.
3) The average deviation makes a LOT more sense. Comparing the two systems gives of course deviation of 1 per system. Meaning of course that the difference between 1 and 2 degrees of both systems is simply one. But again, comparing the systems, much confusion is created because there is a 1.8 difference between systems. Now this might be an argument for the universal use of Celsius, but then when one realizes that this standard is non-consenquential if universal Fahrenheit was used for environmental temperatures.
Basically, for the main experiences that a majority of humanity that go through, Fahrenheit presents itself as a more logical mathmatical system because its relativity is based upon human experiences instead of the experiences of water. This doesn't mean that the Celsius system isn't still appropriate for science. But within the human experience, it is the more relative system that should at least win the day. Call me an evil American empiracist, but at least the Fahrenheit system is closer to the human experiences. ;)
But when we talk about environmental temperature, things change. We aren't as interested in water freezing or boiling. Instead we are more concerned with what type of clothes we should put on. Shirts or sweaters. Flip flops or snow boots. Being relative is important, and frankly when someone is freezing their butt off, they probably don't care how close to the freezing level of water they are.
And so, here's 3 mathmatical reasons why Fahrenheit presents a better method for measuring temperatures than Celsius.
1) More range of options. F has 101 options for measuring relative temperatures: 0-100. Translating this into Celsius, the range for the same temperatures become -18 and 38, or 57 possible choices. Now obviously there are more options, in theory an infinite more. And many times we as humans use some of those options. But in general you will find these ranges the normative experience for a majority of people. This also leads to reason 2.
2) Better median. Which for you non-math people is the middle number. For F this means that if you start with 50 degrees, then you have 50 options on either side to describe the temperature (for most experiences). For Celsius it begins at 10 degrees, and goes to -18 on the low side, to 38 on the hotter side. Now, I'm not a specialist by any means, but starting with a system that uses a large minority of negative numbers just doesn't create a good system of effective communication.
3) The average deviation makes a LOT more sense. Comparing the two systems gives of course deviation of 1 per system. Meaning of course that the difference between 1 and 2 degrees of both systems is simply one. But again, comparing the systems, much confusion is created because there is a 1.8 difference between systems. Now this might be an argument for the universal use of Celsius, but then when one realizes that this standard is non-consenquential if universal Fahrenheit was used for environmental temperatures.
Basically, for the main experiences that a majority of humanity that go through, Fahrenheit presents itself as a more logical mathmatical system because its relativity is based upon human experiences instead of the experiences of water. This doesn't mean that the Celsius system isn't still appropriate for science. But within the human experience, it is the more relative system that should at least win the day. Call me an evil American empiracist, but at least the Fahrenheit system is closer to the human experiences. ;)
Monday, December 03, 2007
The Story of Samson
The importance of knowing Hebrew beyond simple translation, and the Samson narrative in light of the Davidic story.
Samson is known as a hero of the faith, yet normally despised among the lay people because of his sexual anti-heroics. Why is it forgotten that David, a "man after God's own heart," also fell victim to his sex drive, I cannot say. Both men should be seen within the same light, as men who the Spirit of God rested upon, but were not perfect. Both men's narratives were meant to be read in light of one another. Judges, written around the end of David's reign, has important insights for us today. I plan to just show some points that should help enlighten the Samson narrative- as narrative- and bring together an argument for hope as we enter Advent season.
The first thing to notice about Samson's narrative is that Samson is totally different from the other judges before him. Every judicial calling narrative up to this point in Judges is preceded by "the people called out to the Lord." When we reach chapter 13 though, once again the people have done what is evil in the sight of God, and God in return has delivered them into the hands of the Philistines. One expects then to see "and the people called out to the Lord." But the irony is that the people have NOT called out.
The people's downfall is further spelled out within the Samson narrative again. As recorded in 14:2, he goes to down to Timnah to seek a wife from the Philistines. In verse 3, this report it given: "Then his father and his mother said to him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all my people, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? Samson said to his father, Get her for me; for she pleases me well." What is to be done with this exchange? Obviously the parent's questioning is shown to be taken as an ironic rhetorical question. "Why can't you find a nice Jewish girl, Samson?" The expected answer which is not given, "Because there are no nice Jewish girls in the country. They have forsaken God, and turned their backs on Him." Samson is the only good Jew left in the whole of Israel. The people have not cried to God, and not one good Jew can be found. After the Samson narrative the people continue to go downhill. None of the following narratives show them concerned with external enemies, but only with those internal. The people are no longer in any standing with God, and can only be seen as wrong at every decision made. Judges 21:25 paints the picture clearly: In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Situated within this narrative then is this account of how the spirit of God comes upon Samson. Unmotivated by the people, one thinks of the comparison with David, obviously the other narrative Samson is connected with. Saul was the king that people cried out for, but the Spirit left him and rested upon David.
The place that the Spirit came upon Samson is interesting. Judges 13:25 The Spirit of Yahweh began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. Now, direct translation of the Hebrew just gives us transliteration of Hebrew places. A simple search of these names shows how scholars are primarily concerned with the geographical locations of these places. But this loses a lot of the meaning within the names. Mahaneh-dan means literally 'the camp of Dan.' But if we remember that Dan means 'judge' or 'judgment' in the Hebrew, then the entire phrase becomes 'the camp of judgment.' How appropriate for the scene of this judge's calling. Zorah is known as 'the place of hornets' and is to be understood as extreme infliction and pain. Eshtaol means 'entreaty' or 'petition.' The Spirit of God came upon Samson in the camp of judgment, between infliction and petition.
I cannot think of a great reminder of how we experience the Spirit than this one. When we are at our worst, and deserving judgment, between places of infliction on one hand and seeking God on the other, there is where the Spirit of God shows up. For sure God is with us always, but is there in the Valley of Death that the awesome power of God gives us strength through his Spirit.
Other resemblences to the Davidic narrative show up later also. Samson is known for killing the lion on his way to Timnah. Who else do we know that kills lions? David of course. Later when Samson returns by the lion's carcass, he finds honey growing in its mouth. Honey is the food of the gods, and a blessing when found. But who else do we know that finds honey and eats of it? Jonathan, after fighting the holy war of God basically by himself. As his father Saul restrained from war, Jonathan won a major victory. Samson is to be remembered (or Jonathan remembered) in this light. Honey connects to two stories of singular warriors of God.
The lion imagery used in the Bible is two-fold. On the one hand the lion is used as the antithesis of strength and nobility. Jesus is the 'lion of Judah.' But on the other hand, the lion is also the fierce, un-tamable creature of the wilderness that devours all that come across them. This is probably why the devil is seen as a lion in 1 Peter 5:8, and the beast that the dragon gives power to in Rev 13:2.
As we engage in the holy war against the devil, we must be conscious of where the Spirit of God will come upon us. It is never in our studies or in the libraries doing research. It is within the camps of judgment, between infliction of pain and our search for God. When we realize that we are but agents for God's fuller power, then He shall send down His Spirit upon His warriors. Although we are called to fight, it was Jesus' work on the cross that defeated evil. We have that hope to hold onto as we enter the season when the most people fail to realize this hope. When more and more people are acceptable to depression and loneliness, they need to be told to search for God. They are already in the camp of judgment, and God is more than willing to send His empowering Spirit upon them.
Samson is known as a hero of the faith, yet normally despised among the lay people because of his sexual anti-heroics. Why is it forgotten that David, a "man after God's own heart," also fell victim to his sex drive, I cannot say. Both men should be seen within the same light, as men who the Spirit of God rested upon, but were not perfect. Both men's narratives were meant to be read in light of one another. Judges, written around the end of David's reign, has important insights for us today. I plan to just show some points that should help enlighten the Samson narrative- as narrative- and bring together an argument for hope as we enter Advent season.
The first thing to notice about Samson's narrative is that Samson is totally different from the other judges before him. Every judicial calling narrative up to this point in Judges is preceded by "the people called out to the Lord." When we reach chapter 13 though, once again the people have done what is evil in the sight of God, and God in return has delivered them into the hands of the Philistines. One expects then to see "and the people called out to the Lord." But the irony is that the people have NOT called out.
The people's downfall is further spelled out within the Samson narrative again. As recorded in 14:2, he goes to down to Timnah to seek a wife from the Philistines. In verse 3, this report it given: "Then his father and his mother said to him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of your brothers, or among all my people, that you go to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? Samson said to his father, Get her for me; for she pleases me well." What is to be done with this exchange? Obviously the parent's questioning is shown to be taken as an ironic rhetorical question. "Why can't you find a nice Jewish girl, Samson?" The expected answer which is not given, "Because there are no nice Jewish girls in the country. They have forsaken God, and turned their backs on Him." Samson is the only good Jew left in the whole of Israel. The people have not cried to God, and not one good Jew can be found. After the Samson narrative the people continue to go downhill. None of the following narratives show them concerned with external enemies, but only with those internal. The people are no longer in any standing with God, and can only be seen as wrong at every decision made. Judges 21:25 paints the picture clearly: In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Situated within this narrative then is this account of how the spirit of God comes upon Samson. Unmotivated by the people, one thinks of the comparison with David, obviously the other narrative Samson is connected with. Saul was the king that people cried out for, but the Spirit left him and rested upon David.
The place that the Spirit came upon Samson is interesting. Judges 13:25 The Spirit of Yahweh began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. Now, direct translation of the Hebrew just gives us transliteration of Hebrew places. A simple search of these names shows how scholars are primarily concerned with the geographical locations of these places. But this loses a lot of the meaning within the names. Mahaneh-dan means literally 'the camp of Dan.' But if we remember that Dan means 'judge' or 'judgment' in the Hebrew, then the entire phrase becomes 'the camp of judgment.' How appropriate for the scene of this judge's calling. Zorah is known as 'the place of hornets' and is to be understood as extreme infliction and pain. Eshtaol means 'entreaty' or 'petition.' The Spirit of God came upon Samson in the camp of judgment, between infliction and petition.
I cannot think of a great reminder of how we experience the Spirit than this one. When we are at our worst, and deserving judgment, between places of infliction on one hand and seeking God on the other, there is where the Spirit of God shows up. For sure God is with us always, but is there in the Valley of Death that the awesome power of God gives us strength through his Spirit.
Other resemblences to the Davidic narrative show up later also. Samson is known for killing the lion on his way to Timnah. Who else do we know that kills lions? David of course. Later when Samson returns by the lion's carcass, he finds honey growing in its mouth. Honey is the food of the gods, and a blessing when found. But who else do we know that finds honey and eats of it? Jonathan, after fighting the holy war of God basically by himself. As his father Saul restrained from war, Jonathan won a major victory. Samson is to be remembered (or Jonathan remembered) in this light. Honey connects to two stories of singular warriors of God.
The lion imagery used in the Bible is two-fold. On the one hand the lion is used as the antithesis of strength and nobility. Jesus is the 'lion of Judah.' But on the other hand, the lion is also the fierce, un-tamable creature of the wilderness that devours all that come across them. This is probably why the devil is seen as a lion in 1 Peter 5:8, and the beast that the dragon gives power to in Rev 13:2.
As we engage in the holy war against the devil, we must be conscious of where the Spirit of God will come upon us. It is never in our studies or in the libraries doing research. It is within the camps of judgment, between infliction of pain and our search for God. When we realize that we are but agents for God's fuller power, then He shall send down His Spirit upon His warriors. Although we are called to fight, it was Jesus' work on the cross that defeated evil. We have that hope to hold onto as we enter the season when the most people fail to realize this hope. When more and more people are acceptable to depression and loneliness, they need to be told to search for God. They are already in the camp of judgment, and God is more than willing to send His empowering Spirit upon them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
