China suffers from a "spiritual vaccum" says Mistress Killer

The Los Angeles Times just ran a story about the return of the "second wives" (concubines or mistresses) to China. When the Communists took power, they outlawed the practice; now that capitalism is entering (again) into China, the problem is on the rise. That is to be expected as China now has a "commodity economy" in which anything is for sale. Companies have been created for the sole purpose of tracking down the cheating spouses.

Wei Wujun (famous private detective) hit the nail on the head, perhaps unknowingly, when he said that the problem was a spiritual vaccum. As long as anyone, regardless of location or ancestry or government, tries to fill the "God-shaped hole" with anything other than God, it will be a spiritual vacuum.

As China experiences growing pains associated with their changing economy, the answer is not far from them. The answer is not a return to Mao's ideology; the answer is not having more money; the answer is not even having a change in government. As long as "materialism is... their god" there will be trouble. Opening the doors (or Wall) to Christ is the only answer.

Wei Wujun was wrong on one area, however. It is not "many people with power and money are never satisfied" but rather all people who try to have just money.

Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless. Ecclesiastes 5:10

Foreign Student Numbers Drop

US Colleges are very good. Look at how many people from outside the US come attend them. The situation is good all around for the most part -- the US gets to import the best and brightest of the student population of which many stay in the US. The students get benefits such as the education and jobs. However if a trend starts developing of enrollments being down, then the situation will worsen.

We already have a bad situation in science and engineering: "In many schools they account for the majority of graduate students in science and engineering. The United States is not producing enough engineers to maintain its global lead in that field. That is among many of the conclusions in the book I'm currently reading: The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century.

Bird Flu

The bird flu is coming. I find it amazing that just when humans start to think that they can be in charge of themselves and rule over the earth with their own power (science, technology, etc) something comes up that baffles the best and brightest. Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, and now the flu.

God is the one in control. But human pride keeps us from admitting that we are not. Storms of life will come and only those who have built their life on Christ will stand.

Debate is good for education, for science, for life.

Debate, a discussion involving opposing points, is good for education. Simple memorization of facts (or fiction) does not teach how to think or rationalize new ideas. Real education is not memorization. Educators should not be teaching what to think, rather how to think. In the science classroom, opposing views should be taught. I strongly disagree with Kansas Board of Education Member Janet Waugh:

"Why not be honest and say it is a faith issue? I personally believe in the biblical version of creationism, but I don't believe that my beliefs should be taught in a science class."

If you have two valid, yet opposing, views both should be taught in the classroom. Students should be taught to take conflicting theories about the same facts and decide for themselves which they find has more credibility. Anything less than that is not education.

I disagree though, with the Kansas board deciding to change the definition of science to include "supernatural explanations of natural phenomena." That is not science. Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Science cannot establish God or any other supernatural being. However, science can point to a supernatural explanation of the natural phenomena. The key difference is that science is not the study of the supernatural explanation but the study of the natural phenomena.

I don't understand, though, why the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association would revoke copyright privileges if the new curriculum was invoked. Do they want to stiffle debate and thereby stifflng education? Or are they just financially motivated (which would make no sense because they would lose the profits from the book sales)? Further study is needed.

People who haven't learned how to think in school are at a major disadvantage in life. Schools failing to teach that fail at their primary mission: preparing students for life.

Playing Politics with Education

While I don't know what started this, nor how it came about, today brought sad news to the world of science education. Rather than being able to present a valid, yet different, theory to science, the opponents have decided to win the battle by drowning the competition. By showing that those who support 'Intelligent-design' will lose their position on the school board, it forces educators to be silent for fear of losing their jobs. Intimidation and fear factors should not be used to slience valid educational activity.

Christmas Celebration- Brought to you by Christians in Jail

Although the headlines proclaim Chinese get prison time for Bible delivery, I find the real story to be more frustrating:

Imprisoned Falun Gong and Christians are forced to manufacture Christmas lights for export, according to Friends of Falun Gong and human rights activist Harry Wu.

Assuming the charges are correct, I wonder if those who manufacture the lights know what they are used for? How would you feel if you were forced to make Christmas lights while in jail for being a Christian? Sure enough, I checked the lights I bought last year and the package says "made in China." Were those made by my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? I'll never know. But what I do know is that I'll never look at the lights in the same way again. Will I choose not to purchase Christmas lights again? I don't think so. And my wallet dictates (along with store selection) the cheaper product -- made in China. This isn't the first time charges like that have been made.

On a much more encouraging note: doing the math of the charges, Cai Zhuohua, Xiao Yunfei, and Xiao Gaowen have been incredibly busy: Accused of distributing 200,000 Bibles in 10 years, that equates to 18.26 Bibles per day each.

Time to get busy.

Chinese Spy Ring

Just in case anyone thinks that because the cold war is over we don't need to worry about espionage: Four arrests linked to Chinese spy ring. This is why my job is still important.

Foolhardy Protective Measures

The idea of protecting students is honorable. The focus on keeping students safe online is admirable. Banning a tool, rather than teaching students to use it wisely, is foolhardy and does not educate or protect students. Thereby failing to accomplish the original goal.

Schools, businesses, and other such entities who own technology and let others use it can make rules on what to do on their systems (such as restricting employees from using the office computers to instant message or visit chat rooms). Furthermore, private schools can, and should, be allowed to set rules on how students are supposed to act outside of school. Private schools enter into contract with the student (actually the student's parent/legal guardian) stating that for so much money the student will be educated, and that both the school and the student will abide by certain guidlines. The school is justly able to set restrictions on in and out of school behavior.

My issue is not that the school shouldn't be able to make rules on out of school behavior, rather it is failing to educate the students. Students should be taught to exercise good protective measures when online. Don't give out information such as home address, telephone numbers, schedules, or any other personal information that would make the student vulnerable to identify theft, predators, and other dangers. The government refers to this as OPSEC. Teaching students to employ good OPSEC would be much better for the students long term.

Attempting to completely ban a technology (such as blogging) is fruitless. Especially when teenagers (among others) are embracing it at the current pace. Enforcing such a technology is also prohibitive. It is impossible to search the entire web (if you can figure out how to do it, you could put Google out of business) and extremely time consuming to constantly monitor students' actions outside of school. Moreover, proving that a particular has and maintains a blog or personal space site is a difficult burdon. If the school were to choose to follow with suspension for the violator, what if another student actually created the site and impersonated the supposed violator? Or how could the school prove that a claim from an actual violator of a third party impersonating the actual violator is false?

Blogging is not going away any more than email or telephone calls. Thinking that banning blogging is going to protect the students is just as foolish as thinking you can close your eyes and the bad guy along with his threat will disappear. Educate on the threats and how to mitigate them.