Now that winter is over it's time to reflect and move into the Growlerie for a few pet peeves.
Spring arrived this week, but Winter in the Great Lakes Region was nasty. It began late, but came on with a fury. Where is that global warming when you need it? The groundhog did not see his shadow, so we were expecting an early Spring. Does anyone have a recipe for Groundhog Pot Pie?
Do some designers ever think of functionality? A few instances of "what were they thinking" might illustrate what I mean. New company facility, new kitchen for employees, but no drawers in the cabinets which are too shallow to accomodate plates. Lovely looking computer kiosks with no room for the mouse. Wonderful, highly rated, washing machine with a top that has four different levels thereby making it awkward to balance a laundry basket and impossible to balance a detergent bottle or box. It was a women, who after hours of ironing her husband's shirts, designed the tapered point for the iron! It seems obvious that the designers seldom used their products. Look is not enough; it has to "work."
Finally, I repeat my futile lament over elections. It is a colossial waste of money--not to mention a sure way to turn voters off--to start the campaign process two years in advance of the election. When will our political leaders learn that limiting the time candidates have to convince the public of their suitablity for office will tighten the message, show "grace under pressure," and save tons of money. It's no wonder voter turnout is low. It is not survival of the fittest candidates, it survival of the richest. Where does the money come from? What favors are owed? Give us a break. Six months is more than enough time to present your qualifications. Start representing the people and govern.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
God's Justice
Let me begin by paraphrasing a story I read more than a dozen years ago in Parabola Magazine. The original tale was an “Epicycle” in this excellent magazine, but I regret to admit that I no longer have the particular issue, nor can I recall the author. Whatever its provenance, it is a story that has deeply influenced my life.
Once, very long ago, in a remote and isolated part of the world seven
children were playing in the woods. At the exact same instant the seven
saw a sack hanging from the low branch of a tree. Each reached the tree
at the same time. When they looked into the sack they discovered twenty
gold coins. This was more money than their entire village would have
ever seen in its history!
The children were puzzled. How could they divide the treasure so that each
received a “fair share”? Seven did not go evenly into twenty. After several
minutes of argument the children decided to take their problem to the village
wise man. As they approached his home, they debated possible solutions, each
child loudly and assuredly proclaiming their solution to be the best. When
the noisy group reached his home, the wise man greeted them with admonition.
“Why do you disturb an old man having his afternoon rest?” he demanded.
The children related the story of their discovery. They said they had come
for his help. He was asked if he would determine a just distribution
inasmuch as each had an equal claim on the treasure. The wise man agreed.
He asked that they sit quietly while he thought of a solution. After several
minutes he stood before the waiting children.
“I will make my determination, but first I must know if you want Man’s
Justice or God’s Justice.” The children were unanimous in proclaiming their
desire for God’s Justice. “Very well,” said the wise man. “Sit quietly and
you will receive what you have asked of me.”
He picked up the sack of gold coins and approached the children seated in a
row before him. To the first child he gave 2 gold coins. To the second,
3 gold coins. And to the fifth child he gave all the rest.
Not long after reading this tale, I encountered Barry Unsworth’s novel, Morality Play. Unsworth’s book was short listed for a Booker Award, but overlooked by many American readers. The story is set in the Middle Age during the later years of the plague outbreak. A young religious, Nicholas Barber, has run off from his Bishop to “follow the wisdom of (his) heart.” He takes up with a troop of traveling players being sent by their patron as a Christmas gift to another noble. Along the way the actors encounter Death and Murder.
The Medieval Morality Play was designed to teach the faithful a lesson about the eternal struggle between Good and Evil to gain control over the soul of man. Everyman is probably the best known play of this type. The characters of a Morality Play represent qualities like Virtue, Ignorance, Vice, Poverty, and Justice. In Unsworth’s book “Justice” has a threefold representation. It is a thematic motif, a character that represents the King, and a role in the play.
As the story unfolds the troop’s leader has decided to break from the traditional Miracle, Mystery and Morality Play formats and present something heretofore unknown, a secular play based on the local “Murder of Thomas Wells”. Thomas was a child, heinously attacked. A deaf mute young woman is accused; the law demands her execution. The players seek the truth by interviewing witnesses. The facts they uncover inform the script of their “new kind of play.” The facts of the murder point to the noble household of Richard de Guise. Disclosure of the true facts places the acting troop in great danger.
This players’ revelation inadvertently provides the visiting King’s Justice with leverage in the resolution of an ongoing power struggle between the King and Lord Richard. Lord Richard’s son William, the “flower of knighthood,” is the guilty party, aided and abetted by the de Guise Confessor. Political expedience frees the accused young deaf mute. The confessor, a pandering monk named Simon Damian, must face his Maker, appropriately at the hands of the townspeople. But does Sir William, the true murderer, escape unscathed? Certainly he will never be charged in the King’s court. That bargaining chip is too good to use on trifles.
Our protagonist, Nicholas Barber, is dismayed when he states that this outcome “is an example of the King’s justice.” He wonders, “What of God’s?” The Justice tells Nicholas that God’s Justice “is more difficult to understand,” However, God’s Justice will not to be denied. The murdered boy, Thomas Wells, had contracted plague before his abduction and passed it on to his killer. Sir William will not live through the night.
How do these two stories elucidate this discussion of justice? Classical philosophers have debated the nature of justice, considered by the Greeks to be one of the four key virtues. In The Republic – Book I, Socrates and Thrasymachus debate the concept. Thrasymachus declares that “Justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man’s own profit and interest.” This would seem to be the case when the King’s Justice uses the truth of the murder to coerce Sir Richard’s compliance. Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus’s definition, believing that justice is the burden of the strong. Socrates explains that injustice creates division, hatred and strife, while justice promotes harmony and friendship. He states that the just soul and the just man will live well because their excellence is not frustrated. Their discussion of the nature of justice recapitulates the confrontation of right versus might. Is justice expedience, Unsworth’s book suggests, or is it a measure of men and states not characterized by what is pragmatic, as the naïve Nicholas Barber believes?
Are the origins of justice to be found in political, social, or egalitarian ideals, or in some inalienable natural right? In the Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Aristotle stated that “the just is the lawful and the fair.” He taught that justice promotes personal harmony and social comity. He distinguishes among particular forms of justice. These include “one kind that is manifest in distribution of honor or money,” i.e. that which can be divided. He goes on to state that “the just is—proportional.” Aristotle hedges his bets. “Distribution must be according to merit in some sense.” In this sense justice becomes a “species of the proportionate” or an “equality of ratios.” One fails to understand how the wise man’s distribution according to “God’s Justice” is proportional. Surely each of the children had an equivalence of claim.
In the Ethics Aristotle distinguishes another particular justice as “one that plays a rectifying part in transactions between man and man” whether voluntary or not. In the Unsworth book, the hanging of the Monk reprises the primitive maxim of justice, “an eye for an eye.” In general however, this type of justice is not relevant to our discussion.
Aristotle devotes a great deal of time discussing political justice, which he describes as part natural and part legislated. It is natural inasmuch as it “everywhere has the same force and does not exist by people’s thinking this or that.” It is also constructed, in part legal, “that which is originally indifferent, but when it has been laid down is not indifferent.” In this latter instance, legal justice varies and is not everywhere the same but “political justice exists only insofar as it is governed by law.” He continues, “Law being the rational principle because man must act in his own interest.”
The self interest of a King is more complex than that of a man. In Unworth’s book Nicholas Barber imagines another setting where Kings are subject to more complex and ambiguous standards of political justice. If political justice is to prevail the King’s Justice must act in the self interest of the State, which is preservation of that State. His actions require strength which supersedes Nicholas’s idea of fairness. In Pensées, Pascal states, “Justice without strength is helpless, strength without justice is tyrannical…Unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.” Failure of the Justice to reveal and punish the true murder of Thomas Wells is an injustice to the victim, but it is not an unjust act by the King’s representative.
And God’s Justice? The King’s Justice explained, “It is not King who visits us with pestilence.” Sir William contracted lethal plague as a direct result of his injustice to Thomas Wells. The pestilence seems appropriate, not tyrannical. Sir William’s condition has a satisfying element of the ironic. Perhaps this irony reflects the knowing smile of God.
On the other hand, God’s Justice to the children does seem tyrannical. One expects that in the wise man’s distribution of the gold coins division, hatred, and strife will surely ensue. Harmony and balance within the village will be destroyed. What jolts us in this story is that our expectation of fairness is frustrated. We are expecting constructed justice. Even an admixture of two and three coins given to every child would satisfy some sense of proportion. What we get is discomforting.
In Prejudices, 3rd Series, H. L. Menken may have best hit the mark on God’s Justice when he wrote, “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.”
Once, very long ago, in a remote and isolated part of the world seven
children were playing in the woods. At the exact same instant the seven
saw a sack hanging from the low branch of a tree. Each reached the tree
at the same time. When they looked into the sack they discovered twenty
gold coins. This was more money than their entire village would have
ever seen in its history!
The children were puzzled. How could they divide the treasure so that each
received a “fair share”? Seven did not go evenly into twenty. After several
minutes of argument the children decided to take their problem to the village
wise man. As they approached his home, they debated possible solutions, each
child loudly and assuredly proclaiming their solution to be the best. When
the noisy group reached his home, the wise man greeted them with admonition.
“Why do you disturb an old man having his afternoon rest?” he demanded.
The children related the story of their discovery. They said they had come
for his help. He was asked if he would determine a just distribution
inasmuch as each had an equal claim on the treasure. The wise man agreed.
He asked that they sit quietly while he thought of a solution. After several
minutes he stood before the waiting children.
“I will make my determination, but first I must know if you want Man’s
Justice or God’s Justice.” The children were unanimous in proclaiming their
desire for God’s Justice. “Very well,” said the wise man. “Sit quietly and
you will receive what you have asked of me.”
He picked up the sack of gold coins and approached the children seated in a
row before him. To the first child he gave 2 gold coins. To the second,
3 gold coins. And to the fifth child he gave all the rest.
Not long after reading this tale, I encountered Barry Unsworth’s novel, Morality Play. Unsworth’s book was short listed for a Booker Award, but overlooked by many American readers. The story is set in the Middle Age during the later years of the plague outbreak. A young religious, Nicholas Barber, has run off from his Bishop to “follow the wisdom of (his) heart.” He takes up with a troop of traveling players being sent by their patron as a Christmas gift to another noble. Along the way the actors encounter Death and Murder.
The Medieval Morality Play was designed to teach the faithful a lesson about the eternal struggle between Good and Evil to gain control over the soul of man. Everyman is probably the best known play of this type. The characters of a Morality Play represent qualities like Virtue, Ignorance, Vice, Poverty, and Justice. In Unsworth’s book “Justice” has a threefold representation. It is a thematic motif, a character that represents the King, and a role in the play.
As the story unfolds the troop’s leader has decided to break from the traditional Miracle, Mystery and Morality Play formats and present something heretofore unknown, a secular play based on the local “Murder of Thomas Wells”. Thomas was a child, heinously attacked. A deaf mute young woman is accused; the law demands her execution. The players seek the truth by interviewing witnesses. The facts they uncover inform the script of their “new kind of play.” The facts of the murder point to the noble household of Richard de Guise. Disclosure of the true facts places the acting troop in great danger.
This players’ revelation inadvertently provides the visiting King’s Justice with leverage in the resolution of an ongoing power struggle between the King and Lord Richard. Lord Richard’s son William, the “flower of knighthood,” is the guilty party, aided and abetted by the de Guise Confessor. Political expedience frees the accused young deaf mute. The confessor, a pandering monk named Simon Damian, must face his Maker, appropriately at the hands of the townspeople. But does Sir William, the true murderer, escape unscathed? Certainly he will never be charged in the King’s court. That bargaining chip is too good to use on trifles.
Our protagonist, Nicholas Barber, is dismayed when he states that this outcome “is an example of the King’s justice.” He wonders, “What of God’s?” The Justice tells Nicholas that God’s Justice “is more difficult to understand,” However, God’s Justice will not to be denied. The murdered boy, Thomas Wells, had contracted plague before his abduction and passed it on to his killer. Sir William will not live through the night.
How do these two stories elucidate this discussion of justice? Classical philosophers have debated the nature of justice, considered by the Greeks to be one of the four key virtues. In The Republic – Book I, Socrates and Thrasymachus debate the concept. Thrasymachus declares that “Justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man’s own profit and interest.” This would seem to be the case when the King’s Justice uses the truth of the murder to coerce Sir Richard’s compliance. Socrates disagrees with Thrasymachus’s definition, believing that justice is the burden of the strong. Socrates explains that injustice creates division, hatred and strife, while justice promotes harmony and friendship. He states that the just soul and the just man will live well because their excellence is not frustrated. Their discussion of the nature of justice recapitulates the confrontation of right versus might. Is justice expedience, Unsworth’s book suggests, or is it a measure of men and states not characterized by what is pragmatic, as the naïve Nicholas Barber believes?
Are the origins of justice to be found in political, social, or egalitarian ideals, or in some inalienable natural right? In the Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, Aristotle stated that “the just is the lawful and the fair.” He taught that justice promotes personal harmony and social comity. He distinguishes among particular forms of justice. These include “one kind that is manifest in distribution of honor or money,” i.e. that which can be divided. He goes on to state that “the just is—proportional.” Aristotle hedges his bets. “Distribution must be according to merit in some sense.” In this sense justice becomes a “species of the proportionate” or an “equality of ratios.” One fails to understand how the wise man’s distribution according to “God’s Justice” is proportional. Surely each of the children had an equivalence of claim.
In the Ethics Aristotle distinguishes another particular justice as “one that plays a rectifying part in transactions between man and man” whether voluntary or not. In the Unsworth book, the hanging of the Monk reprises the primitive maxim of justice, “an eye for an eye.” In general however, this type of justice is not relevant to our discussion.
Aristotle devotes a great deal of time discussing political justice, which he describes as part natural and part legislated. It is natural inasmuch as it “everywhere has the same force and does not exist by people’s thinking this or that.” It is also constructed, in part legal, “that which is originally indifferent, but when it has been laid down is not indifferent.” In this latter instance, legal justice varies and is not everywhere the same but “political justice exists only insofar as it is governed by law.” He continues, “Law being the rational principle because man must act in his own interest.”
The self interest of a King is more complex than that of a man. In Unworth’s book Nicholas Barber imagines another setting where Kings are subject to more complex and ambiguous standards of political justice. If political justice is to prevail the King’s Justice must act in the self interest of the State, which is preservation of that State. His actions require strength which supersedes Nicholas’s idea of fairness. In Pensées, Pascal states, “Justice without strength is helpless, strength without justice is tyrannical…Unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.” Failure of the Justice to reveal and punish the true murder of Thomas Wells is an injustice to the victim, but it is not an unjust act by the King’s representative.
And God’s Justice? The King’s Justice explained, “It is not King who visits us with pestilence.” Sir William contracted lethal plague as a direct result of his injustice to Thomas Wells. The pestilence seems appropriate, not tyrannical. Sir William’s condition has a satisfying element of the ironic. Perhaps this irony reflects the knowing smile of God.
On the other hand, God’s Justice to the children does seem tyrannical. One expects that in the wise man’s distribution of the gold coins division, hatred, and strife will surely ensue. Harmony and balance within the village will be destroyed. What jolts us in this story is that our expectation of fairness is frustrated. We are expecting constructed justice. Even an admixture of two and three coins given to every child would satisfy some sense of proportion. What we get is discomforting.
In Prejudices, 3rd Series, H. L. Menken may have best hit the mark on God’s Justice when he wrote, “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.”
Sunday, March 11, 2007
How to Evaluate Health Websites
10 Things To Know About Evaluating Medical Resources on the Web - Adapted from CAMBasics Document*
Introduction: The number of Web sites offering health-related resources grows every day. Many sites provide valuable information, while others may have information that is unreliable or misleading. This short guide contains important questions you should consider as you look for health information online. Answering these questions when you visit a new site will help you evaluate the information you find.
1. Who runs this site?
Any good health-related Web site should make it easy for you to learn who is responsible for the site and its information. …for example, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is clearly marked on every major page of its site... [Responsibility may rest with an organization, institution, company, or individual. In the case of personal authorships credentials and affiliations should be clearly represented. ]
2. Who pays for the site?
It costs money to run a Web site. The source of a Web site's funding should be clearly stated or readily apparent. For example, Web addresses ending in [".gov" denote a government-sponsored site; “.org” denotes an organization or association; “.com” a commercial site.] You should know how the site pays for its existence. Does it sell advertising? Is it sponsored by a drug company? [Does it rely on donations?] The source of funding can affect what content is presented, how the content is presented, and what the site owners want to accomplish on the site.
3. What is the purpose of the site?
This question is related to who runs and pays for the site. An "About This Site" link appears on many sites; if it's there, use it. The purpose of the site should be clearly stated and should help you evaluate the trustworthiness of the information. [Sites that market services and/or products will usually have motivations that differ from those that primarily provide content only. ]
4. Where does the information come from?
Many health/medical sites post information collected from other Web sites or sources. If the person or organization in charge of the site did not create the information, the original source should be clearly labeled. [Is the information provided within the parameters of normally accepted medical information? Is it unbiased? ]
5. What is the basis of the information?
In addition to identifying who wrote the material you are reading, the site should describe the evidence that the material is based on. Medical facts and figures should have references ... opinions or advice should be clearly set apart from information that is [factual, i.e.] based on reproducible research results.
6. How is the information selected?
Is there an editorial board? Do people with excellent professional and scientific qualifications review the material before it is posted? [Is the quality of the website accredited by a reputable organization like HON? ]
7. How current is the information?
Web sites should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. It is particularly important that medical information be current. The most recent update or review date should be clearly posted. Even if the information has not changed, you want to know whether the site owners have reviewed it recently to ensure that it is still valid.
8. How does the site choose links to other sites?
Web sites usually have a policy about how they establish links to other sites. Some medical sites take a conservative approach and don't link to any other sites. Some link to any site that asks, or pays, for a link. Others only link to sites that have met certain criteria. [Are the links maintained and checked regularly? Is there an alert when the link takes you outside the referring website? Carefully evaluate the new website according to the principles of evaluation listed in this document. ]
9. What information about you does the site collect, and why?
Web sites routinely track the paths visitors take through their sites to determine what pages are being used. Some health Web sites ask you to "subscribe" or "become a member." … this may be so that they can collect a user fee or select information for you that is relevant to your concerns. In all cases, this will give the site personal information about you. [Check the “Policy” and “Privacy” statements on each website to determine the what, why, and how. ]
Any credible health site asking for this kind of information should tell you exactly what they will and will not do with it. Many commercial sites sell "aggregate" (collected) data about their users to other companies—for example what percentage of their users are women with breast cancer. Some…may collect and reuse information that is "personally identifiable," such as your ZIP code, gender, and birth date. Be certain that you read and understand any privacy policy or similar language on the site, and don't sign up for anything that you are not sure you fully understand. [Be especially circumspect when using support and chat websites. You may want to establish an anonymous email.]
10. How does the site manage interactions with visitors?
[Is there an internal search engine or a site index? Is the interface easy to use?] There should always be a way for you to contact the site owner if you run across problems, have questions, or need feedback. If the site hosts chat rooms or other online discussion areas, it should tell visitors what the terms of using this service are. Is it moderated? If so, by whom, and why? [It is always a good idea to spend time monitoring the discussion before joining in, so that you feel comfortable with the environment before becoming a participant. ]
Note: The original NCCAM publication is adapted from a fact sheet produced by the National Cancer Institute. It is not copyrighted and it is in the public domain.
[ASK YOURSELF: Is the website information provided in ACCORD with the good practices listed above? Accurate, Credible, Current, Organized, Relevant and fully Disclosed ]
*Additions in [ ]; Ellipsis (…) indicates omission from original document.
National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
Publication. No. D337 Updated December 2006
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/webresources Accessed August 23, 2007. Revised January 2007; March 2007
Introduction: The number of Web sites offering health-related resources grows every day. Many sites provide valuable information, while others may have information that is unreliable or misleading. This short guide contains important questions you should consider as you look for health information online. Answering these questions when you visit a new site will help you evaluate the information you find.
1. Who runs this site?
Any good health-related Web site should make it easy for you to learn who is responsible for the site and its information. …for example, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) is clearly marked on every major page of its site... [Responsibility may rest with an organization, institution, company, or individual. In the case of personal authorships credentials and affiliations should be clearly represented. ]
2. Who pays for the site?
It costs money to run a Web site. The source of a Web site's funding should be clearly stated or readily apparent. For example, Web addresses ending in [".gov" denote a government-sponsored site; “.org” denotes an organization or association; “.com” a commercial site.] You should know how the site pays for its existence. Does it sell advertising? Is it sponsored by a drug company? [Does it rely on donations?] The source of funding can affect what content is presented, how the content is presented, and what the site owners want to accomplish on the site.
3. What is the purpose of the site?
This question is related to who runs and pays for the site. An "About This Site" link appears on many sites; if it's there, use it. The purpose of the site should be clearly stated and should help you evaluate the trustworthiness of the information. [Sites that market services and/or products will usually have motivations that differ from those that primarily provide content only. ]
4. Where does the information come from?
Many health/medical sites post information collected from other Web sites or sources. If the person or organization in charge of the site did not create the information, the original source should be clearly labeled. [Is the information provided within the parameters of normally accepted medical information? Is it unbiased? ]
5. What is the basis of the information?
In addition to identifying who wrote the material you are reading, the site should describe the evidence that the material is based on. Medical facts and figures should have references ... opinions or advice should be clearly set apart from information that is [factual, i.e.] based on reproducible research results.
6. How is the information selected?
Is there an editorial board? Do people with excellent professional and scientific qualifications review the material before it is posted? [Is the quality of the website accredited by a reputable organization like HON? ]
7. How current is the information?
Web sites should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. It is particularly important that medical information be current. The most recent update or review date should be clearly posted. Even if the information has not changed, you want to know whether the site owners have reviewed it recently to ensure that it is still valid.
8. How does the site choose links to other sites?
Web sites usually have a policy about how they establish links to other sites. Some medical sites take a conservative approach and don't link to any other sites. Some link to any site that asks, or pays, for a link. Others only link to sites that have met certain criteria. [Are the links maintained and checked regularly? Is there an alert when the link takes you outside the referring website? Carefully evaluate the new website according to the principles of evaluation listed in this document. ]
9. What information about you does the site collect, and why?
Web sites routinely track the paths visitors take through their sites to determine what pages are being used. Some health Web sites ask you to "subscribe" or "become a member." … this may be so that they can collect a user fee or select information for you that is relevant to your concerns. In all cases, this will give the site personal information about you. [Check the “Policy” and “Privacy” statements on each website to determine the what, why, and how. ]
Any credible health site asking for this kind of information should tell you exactly what they will and will not do with it. Many commercial sites sell "aggregate" (collected) data about their users to other companies—for example what percentage of their users are women with breast cancer. Some…may collect and reuse information that is "personally identifiable," such as your ZIP code, gender, and birth date. Be certain that you read and understand any privacy policy or similar language on the site, and don't sign up for anything that you are not sure you fully understand. [Be especially circumspect when using support and chat websites. You may want to establish an anonymous email.]
10. How does the site manage interactions with visitors?
[Is there an internal search engine or a site index? Is the interface easy to use?] There should always be a way for you to contact the site owner if you run across problems, have questions, or need feedback. If the site hosts chat rooms or other online discussion areas, it should tell visitors what the terms of using this service are. Is it moderated? If so, by whom, and why? [It is always a good idea to spend time monitoring the discussion before joining in, so that you feel comfortable with the environment before becoming a participant. ]
Note: The original NCCAM publication is adapted from a fact sheet produced by the National Cancer Institute. It is not copyrighted and it is in the public domain.
[ASK YOURSELF: Is the website information provided in ACCORD with the good practices listed above? Accurate, Credible, Current, Organized, Relevant and fully Disclosed ]
*Additions in [ ]; Ellipsis (…) indicates omission from original document.
National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
Publication. No. D337 Updated December 2006
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/webresources Accessed August 23, 2007. Revised January 2007; March 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
