Elon Musk's New Twitter

 I'm following carefully the new Twitter. The Elon Musk Twitter. 

There's been a lot of changes since Musk bought Twitter. While he's proclaimed that he wants Twitter to be fully open to free speech, he quickly found that free speech includes speech that is broadly considered to be offensive. The major example is Kanye West,  who (possibly in a mental health crisis) posted something clearly racist and offensive to multiple groups. 

Musk has agreed to step aside as the leader of Twitter, but he's added since that he can't do so until a suitable replacement has been found. And therein is the problem. Few people want to lead such a difficult business that hasn't been profitable since it was created! And one mired in much controversy, from accusations of "shadow-banning" and muting of unpopular speech, to the recent evidence that Twitter actively cooperated with the FBI and perhaps other Governemnt agencies to monitor and mute those who were seen as a threat to the Liberal mindset. 

Free speech is a great idea. The United States has enshrined free speech as a fundamental, God-given right that all humanity is entitled to enjoying, without the ability of government to squelch speech it doesn't like. Certain other enumarated rights, such as the freedom to assemble, the freedom of the press, freedom to practice one's faith, and the rights of property and self-defense, are all connected to the right of free speech.

There have always been reasonable limits on free speech. An anarchist may believe in total free speech, without limits, but most people accept that it's unsafe, unwise, and thus morally repugnant to yell "fire" falsely in a crowded place. We generally agree that certain speech of pornographers and terrorists may be restricted; those who advocate violence and harm probably shouldn't be given as easy access to "the public square" as other speech does receive. 

But our nation was founded with acts that the current Establishment would find offensive and intolerable: the Boston Tea Party not only destroyed property but was a public expression of outrage against an unfair and injust government. 

Apparently, the colonial leaders were right in calling for the overthrow of their government, which did not represent them fairly, but the idea of insurerection or rebellion or even civil protests via free speech may be abhorant and intolerable to the current government! 

Every government seeks to protect itself; no government nor governor welcomes speech critical of its decisions and policies! 

The American Constitution bears within itself the foundation of insurrection. It containes both the processes by which the governemnt can be modified, including modifying the constitution, but also the provision that it is within the rights of the citizen to once again overthrown a tyranical government. Of course, no government sees itself as tyranical. 

The problem that Musk faces is similar to that the Courts faced many years ago. A judge said, "I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it." For Musk, it's about what speech is essential to the "social discource" whereby ideas can be heard, considered, debated, and perhaps accepted or rejected, versus speech that has "no socially redeeming value" such as violence, harm to others, etc. Should the Islamic Brotherhood or Caliphate be given unfettered access to Social Media? Should they be able to post videos and photos of beheadings of "infidels"? Should a government be able to livestream the public execution of a convict? Should pedophiles be able to post and exchange their content without moderation? Should sex trafficers be able to be virtual pimps and advertise their slaves online? 

Many of these evils will exist with or without social media; a pure "free speech" philosophy would allow all speech without regard to "social value." Any time we restrict speech short of unlimited free speech, we face the problem of content moderation, and what is the standard in each category for full censoring, or filter restrictions, or other means of regulating the content?

As well as considering the content being posted, we must consider the potential audience. While Twitter and most social media platforms have age limits to protect young minors, should a minor who is above the minimum age still be granted unlimited unfiltered access to all content? Or should certain content be restricted to "adults" (of whatever age)?

Nobody in their right mind wants to be responsible for managing Twitter, and Musk has found himself tryng to stear a "ship" that seems to have no rudder, tossed about by the fickle whims of its users, and subject to the hostile opinions of politicians, the media, and other prominent people. How does one rationally manage such a beast? How can one devise clear content policies and then provide active moderation? 

I don't envy Elon Musk!

What's the emergency flight plan?

 I recently was a passenger on several jet airplanes. Although I didn't see the cockpit, I know that there is a flight crew and a host of controls and indicators and gauges and sensors, all of which are necessary to control this complex machine and to ensure that it safely lands at its destination. The pilots and crew train constantly, and the manufacturer and the airlines communicate often about incidents and ways to better train so that other crews are prepared in advance in case something happens. 

But a pilot doesn't begin learning to fly by sitting in the captain's seat of a huge jet aircraft, but by taking the student seat of a much smaller plane. He has to learn the basics of flying, of the principles that keep the plane in the air, of takeoffs and landings, of communicating with the control tower, of making a flight plan and keeping to it. He learns on a simpler aircraft, with a smaller set of controls and indicators, and only later once he has flown solo and has earned his pilot's license, does he get a chance to apply for a job at an airline. Even then, he undergoes rigorous training and must climb the ladder from smaller planes and inferior rank to larger planes and higher rank. Only when he has had many years of service is he entrusted with the biggest and most complex of aircraft, the longest or the most challenging of routes, the greatest of responsibilities. 

Every now and then, a pilot encounters a crisis in flight. In these situations, the pilot (and crew) have to remember their training. They have to go back to the source. The basics of flying never change, even when one is in a crisis. You may remember Commander Scully, whose engines were damaged by by birds. He knew he couldn't return to the airport, so he flew a series of turns over New York City until he had aligned with the Hudson River, and having shed air speed, gracefully landed the jet aircraft on the surface of the river. Everyone evacuated, there were no major injuries, and he became a hero. 

Because, in the face of danger, he didn't panic, but went back to the source of his flying skills. He didn't have any training for this situation, but he had training in the fundamentals of flying that he was able to recall and apply to the new situation. 

Much of the "church" today is in some crisis or another. For some, it's abuse of minors. For others, it's financial mismanagement or even theft. And in many denominations, there's a growing crisis of even knowing what the "faith" actually is, as they abandon the Bible and argue that "a loving God will love every behavior." 

Frankly, I think a large part of the problem is that the "church" has forgotten to study the "flight manuals". It's forgotten the fundamentals of the work of the church and the life of the believer. It's adopted many things that weren't part of the original design descriptions. It's added things that may seem to be good and useful, but are deviations from the core duties and functions of the church.

The core functions are to "seek and save the lost," and to encourage believers in their daily lives, and to equip and train and instruct them in matters of the Christian faith, and to provide a community and assembly in which we can jointly worship God. More could be said about this, and perhaps I will in a later essay. For now, this seems to be adequate. Activities and doctrines that are not part of this core, may not be things that belong to the Christian church. They may be distractions that interfere with "just flying the plane," as it were. 

Some points to ponder, as we look at the instruction manual for guidance upon what is important to the church's mission and activities: 

• "The plain things are the main things, and the main things are the plain things." (Alistair Begg)
• "Where God is specific, we must be meticulous." (Ken Fatula)

The best way to uncover what the Church (and the believer within the church) is supposed to be doing, is to read the New Testament carefully and thoroughly. Get to know it, so you can tell if a false teacher is taking something out of context! For there will be false teachers; some motivated by pride of name and recognition, and others seeking wealth, and others intent on destroying what belongs to God and replacing it with something else. Some of these are fools, misled themselves, and others are deliberate in their deceit. If one studies the Scriptures, similar to the people in Berea did, you can test anyone's teachings and see if it's consistent with the Word of God.

The fundamentals of the faith, and the nature and organization and function of the church, are themselves clear and simple, if one studies the Word. The New Testament isn't a book of rules, but from the text we can see the instructions, corrections, reproofs, and examples about the church. We can learn these things if we open our minds to a close study. Of course, the doctrine goes deeper than just the "practices" of the faith; the means of salvation is pretty straightforward, but the various aspects of salvation go deep into spiritual law and philosophy! We don't need to understand all the deeper meanings and implications, but if we do study them, we'll better glorify God that His plan is so precise and powerful! God is a loving God and makes salvation available to all, but He requires a life of obedience, beginning with our proof of obedient faith. 

There's more that can (and should) be said, but the important thing to consider is, "Have you read the manual!?" 

Feel free to leave a comment. (Comments are moderated.) You can find me on Facebook, and several other places online. I'll be happy to hear your thoughts! 

How Will I Know When It's Love?

 Do you remember this song from the 1980's? At this point, some of my readers only know it as an "oldie" and others thought it was "too loud" for their ears! But many of my readers, being my peers, grew up on songs like this, and immediately can hear the guitars and synths and vocals blending in the pop rock melody.

I saw a post on Facebook about when a couple knew that "this was the one." I thought that this was a good question. There are many times we get into relationships in life, and we dream or fantasize about this person and how happy we will surely be when we are together.

A common story is of high school sweethearts, who thought they were in love, and before too long (or maybe it was too long) they break up. Their affections were based more on dreams, and less upon shared priorities and visions of their shared life. Or perhaps they never discussed the hard issues such as spending patterns, or how to raise their children, or whether relocating away from home was going to be good or bad. 

Driving home from Bible study this evening, I was thinking some more about how people in the Bible met. We all know the story of Adam and Eve, right? The text says that God knew that Adam, the first person, needed a suitable companion. After a "show-and-tell" of all the animals, and Adam recognizing that there was no beast that was suitable, God put Adam under sedation (a "deep sleep") and removed one of Adam's ribs. God transformed this rib, taken from Adam's side, into Eve, a complementary and compatible partner for Adam. Different biological designs for different biological functions, and different psychology in support of those different roles. And yet, they were made to be partners, co-helpers, and friends. Can you imagine Adam ever saying, "God, this woman you gave me? Are you sure she's the best mate available for me?" God's perfect plan and power made them ideal for each other, and any conflicts wasn't that of culture or background, but of selfishness and sinfulness. 

Another time, a rich tribal leader decided that his son needed a wife. (Did the son have any say in the matter? Perhaps he went to his father first, but the text doesn't say.) Recognizing that all of the available women in the nearby communities had cultural values that were too different from the ones in their tribe, this father sent a servant on a mission, and with detailed instructions describing how to recognize the proper woman! This father trusted that God would provide, and that the woman who was acting according to the description would be the one chosen by God to be his son's wife. The servant, whether in disbelief or in full confidence in his instructions, went to the distant homeland, where a woman was acting exactly as the father's descriptions said. It took a little persuasion and several days,but before too long the servant and the woman were on the long journey back to the tents and herds of wealthy Abraham. Thus, Isaac was presented with his wife, Rebecca, through God's direct intervention. (It wasn't a perfect marriage, but that's more their fault than anything else.)

So, what's my answer to the question? How did I know? Well, the story is still being told, but the first act of our life-play is near its resolution. It took two years of constant online communications, and a series of plans broken by the pandemic, and then almost a day of travel to finally meet! And then another 10 hours of travel to our destination. By law, we're engaged, at the end of the too-short visit. But like ancient cultures, we vowed before God to be husband and wife, and that's the commitment that really matters. Sure, the fees have to be paid, the papers have to be filed,  licenses and documentations all properly completed. As Paul said, "Pay to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Do what is required by the overseeing governments, as they're empowered by God. But, marriage isn't a secular thing to be regulated by the government, it's properly speaking a covenant between a man and a woman, in God's sight and with God's oversight. Marriage is more about the two souls, and their Creator; it's spiritual with an emotional and physical component; it's less about property and inheritance and beneficiaries and so-called "legal rights." Without God, the idea of "marriage" really has little meaning. We vow, "What God has put together, let no person interfere or tear apart." Marriage involves God, and the secular authorities are ultimately in a secondary role. 

Wow, this went a little different than what I first contemplated, when thinking about that Facebook question! Tell me what you think. Your comments will be moderated, and I'll reply when appropriate. You can also comment to the Facebook version of this essay. 

I look forward to hearing from you! I am trying to blog weekly from now on. If there's an idea, a news event, something in culture or current events or history, that you think I should write about, send me a message. I need your suggestions and feedback!

Night (The Long Dark Teatime...)

Sitting outside this evening, as the darkness deepened and the mosquitos were biting, I listened to the neighborhood slowly quiet down. Gone now are the quads (4X4/ATV) and the kids shouting, the cars comming and going, the signs of ordinary life.

There's no birds now, and with the clear sky I can see some stars (I'm in town, so many are washed out by the glow from the nearby city), and the ocassional jet flying high overhead, headed ... who knows where?

I'm writing on my old tablet, listening to music streaming on my phone to a Bluetooth speaker, and the phone is connected to a WiFi extender which is connected to a second Ethernet router, which is connected to my main router which uses slow DSL to be my bridge to the world. (I'm in a cell phone black hole, at the low spot on my side of town.)

I enjoy reading "what-if" fiction, and both fiction and pundits sometimes take a look at doomsday scenerios. What if there was a more serious pandemic? What if the culdera of Yellowstone erupted into the 10,000 year volcano? What if? 

And recently, some wise compassionate politicians in New York City chose to make a Public Service video, reminding many of us of how life was lived into the 1970s. In the event of a nuclear attack, go inside, get away from the windows, and wait for further instructions!

Sure, in the event of a nuclear attack, the danger  to many is the fallout, not the blast itself. Of course, if you're in the direct blast zone, like Heroshima, your chances are poor. But many would be outside the immediate threat, and the danger is the radioactive dust cloud. Staying inside, away from windows, gives you some chance to avoid the worst danger as the dust settles. And hopefully, it'll rain soon, washing the worst of the radioactive danger into the storm sewers and the waterways of the nation. 

And  then what? I suspect that many of our dystopian nightmare of a collapsed economy, collapsed infrastructure, loss of freight and goods incoming into the city, loss of power and water and telecommunications... all of this might come true, either directly because of the atomic blast, or indirectly from fear or gradual systemic failures.

I personally wouldn't expect to live too long, as a diabetic,  and many others would also die within the first month, first quarter, first year of the super disaster. Doesn't matter much which scenerio summons the death angel, it'll still wipe out a large portion of the population, even far from the direct impact of the disaster.  

On a cool quiet summer night, one can get a sense of what it might be like after the world effectively comes to an end. 

And then a car turns the corner, shedding a brief bright glare into my eyes, and I think it's time to go inside. 

(I need to find the spell check tool in Blogger! LOL Plus, I'm not used to this compact chicklet Bluetooth keyboard.)