church and state, part 1

     The oldest description we have of the problems that can arise between church and state is in the Bible. The ancient people of the Bible had a priesthood, which became hereditary--only the sons of priests became priests. The priests were the only authority--they performed religious rites, but they were also the only government the people knew. Eventually the people wanted a king. They had encountered other people who had a king, and wanted one of their own. They got their king--but it didn't take long for the priests and the king to disagree over what the people should do. This is the oldest record of a conflict between church and state that I know of, and the conflict continues today--not just in our own country, but everywhere.
      Many "religious" people don't believe that they can support the state and be faithful members of their religion.  People who believe in supporting the state usually also believe that religion and the state can peacefully coexist. Both of these groups need to  understand one another better.

foreign exchange

     Foreign exchange is not all that difficult. Most people are just not used to thinking about it. Each country has its own money. You recognize American money--the green stuff with the pictures of American presidents and other founders of our nation. You can only spend American money in America. If you travel to another country, you have to "exchange" your American money for the local currency. The "exchange rate" at the time you make the "exchange" determines how much foreign currency you will get for your American dollars. The "exchange rate" changes frequently--the business that "exchanges" your money will have the latest rates. When you leave the foreign country, you can "exchange" any foreign currency you still have ( the money you didn't spend ) for American dollars again. That is how "foreign exchange" works on a personal level.
    What goes on between nations--foreign "trade"-- determines the exchange rate. On a fundamental level, you can't spend any money but the local currency, anywhere. So the only reason anyone would want American dollars, for example, would be because they want to spend them on something American. There would have to be something in America that they want to buy. Since there are laws everywhere, the something they want to buy would have to be something that our government and theirs would permit. It really is as simple as "trade" when you understand it. If we don't have any "stuff" that someone else wants, then our money is of no use to them. If another country doesn't have any "stuff" that we want, then their money is no use to us. Foreign exchange becomes more complex when we sell something to a foreign country, but we don't want to buy anything from them. Then we have "currency" ( even if the deal isn't made in cash ) from a foreign country, but nothing to spend it on. What happens next is more "exchanging"--we buy something we want from another nation, and pay them with the foreign currency. They may want the foreign currency because the nation it comes from has something they want. Or they may continue to "trade" both goods and currency, until each country has made a deal for something it wants.
     If a country has nothing to export ( sell to foreign nations )--either because it is too poor, or because no one wants what it has in surplus--it becomes very difficult, if not impossible to import ( buy from a foreign nation ) anything. It is called "foreign trade" for a reason. If there is really nothing to buy, no one will want the country's currency--so no one can sell them anything.  This leaves some countries, especially in this age of  technology, much poorer than others.

commission

     Many salespeople still work on a commission basis--something many of us were taught while shopping with our parents. Now that we are beginning the "shopping season" it may be a useful thing to understand. Commission means that the salesperson is paid a percentage of everything he or she sells. The wages of people who work on commission are often very low--and sometimes non-existent. They may get 4% of each sale they make, plus a small hourly wage. When an item is returned, the salesperson has to return the 4%. People often complain that salespeople are "following" them or that the salesperson seems "suspicious". These salespeople are probably just trying to make sure that the person they have been helping comes to them when they decide to buy something. If one salesperson helps a woman by bringing things into the fitting room, looking for different sizes, and offering suggestions, that salesperson expects that when the woman makes up her mind, she will buy the item from the salesperson who has been helping her. Otherwise the person who just stood at the cash register will get the 4%, and the salesperson who was helpful will get nothing.
     While shopping, if you can reassure a salesperson that you understand this--by repeating his or her name --or by otherwise showing that you have noticed him or her--you will find that the salesperson doesn't "hover" any more.

alphabetization

     Alphabetization means arranging words by order of their place in the alphabet. An alphabetized list begins with all of the words or names that start with the letter "A".  Then all of the words beginning with the letter "A" are arranged by the order of the second letter in each word--then the third letter, and so on, until each word in the entire list, no matter how long the list is, is arranged by order of the alphabet. This makes it easy to find any item on a long list. A computer can find something on a list for you, but if you need to search a list yourself, for any reason--taking attendance, checking off assignments turned in--alphabetizing the list will make the task much easier. Still wishing for an "app", or application that would alphabetize the items in a list for me.

Note--an old alphabetization "glitch" you may still run into--once upon a time, people were taught to put all of the names beginning with "Mc" at the beginning of the "M" list--ahead of the "Ma's". This made little sense, as the letter "C" would already go in between the "Ma" and the "Me". Anyone searching a list of names would need to look in both places, not knowing which "system" of alphabetization was being used. Most people now put names beginning with "Mc" in between "Ma" and "Me". There wasn't any need for the exception in the first place, and it makes it easier for someone else to find a file, or a name on a list.

Note #2--names beginning with "Mc" or "Mac" used to be so commonly confused that a type of scam was named after them--a "micmac" .
 

command and demand economies

     A lot of talk and writing about different political systems really ought to address different economic systems. Here in the United States, you may have heard the word "demand" used in the context of economics. Our producers are independent, and believe that they are manufacturing or importing goods according to the "demand" or will of the buying public. They decide what to manufacture or import based on what they believe the public will want--when the goods are produced. When they are wrong, the public doesn't buy the goods, or will only buy them at a discount. There is a  certain amount of financial risk involved--the public may not want the goods until they are reduced by 90%, for instance--but these losses are accounted for in the prices of the goods people do buy.   
      In a "command" economy, the means of production are owned by the state, which decides what should be produced, according to the anticipated needs of the people--what the people will need, when the goods are produced. This has been a popular economic system where goods were short and tough decisions had to be made, as there would be much less waste of goods and resources. There are also fewer choices for consumers--an odd notion to us-- we are used to many choices when we buy, and believe that offering a lot of choices is how to sell things. "Command " economies owe some of their good waste record to a general shortage of goods--when there is little to buy, consumers will eventually buy all of it, out of plain need--new shoes because old ones have holes, and so on.
     These are "textbook" examples. Most economic systems are really a mixture of these ideas. Our "demand" economy is subject to government regulation. A "command" economy may feel the pressure of the "demands" of the buying public. 
     Where the means of production are owned by the state, the people consider this a form of ownership by the people--there is no stock market, and no stock prices to rise or fall with business decisions.     
       We call a corporation owned by stockholders "publicly owned"--shares of the corporation are sold on the stock exchange, and protecting the price of shares is part of business decisions.
     This is a very basic outline. It becomes even more complicated when two countries want to trade with one another, and their economic systems are different.

omniscience

     Omniscience, as in being all-knowing, is usually attributed only to God, by people who believe in God. An argument to keep the theologians off the streets, I suppose. If you have been reading something, and the subject of omniscience is introduced, it may refer to omniscience in its literary form. When we say that an author is "omniscient", we mean that the author is privy even to the thoughts and beliefs of his or her characters. We know this because the author tells us when he or she tells us what the character is thinking. Some stories use dialog to tell us what the character thinks--we are privy conversations that happen when we are not there. But omniscience means we hear even the innermost thoughts and feelings--as if the author were a supernatural being or a god. After all, an author can create beings ( in print ), and do away with them mercilessly ( in print ). That matches a lot of notions people have about God or gods.

the right to keep and bear arms

     The "right to keep and bear arms" is guaranteed to American citizens by the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The argument starts when people disagree over what precisely is meant by keeping and bearing arms. For the purposes of the second amendment, most liberals decide that "keeping and bearing arms" means the right to have state militias ( like the National Guard ). Their argument is based on American history. The American colonists, before America won its war of independence from Great Britain ( England), had been drilling as soldiers--they called themselves "minutemen". The idea was to be ready to fight with only a minute's notice. They told the British this was in case they needed to fight the Indians. The British did not believe them, and moved on the guns and ammunition the colonists had stored at Lexington and Concord. This is what the famous poem "Paul Revere's Ride" describes, and it began the American Revolution. The colonists defended their stores of arms, and turned back the British army.  The battles of Lexington and Concord were immortalized in another poem, as "the shot heard 'round the world".
     The conservatives, for the purposes of the second amendment, have decided that the law is not to be "interpreted", and means just what it says--the "right to keep and bear arms".
     We, the people, as the authors of our own government, have the right to make and to change our own laws. This is what our elected representatives do for us. We regulate a lot of things, through the governments we have made, and certainly we have the "right" to pass laws regulating gun ownership and use. But wishing or believing doesn't make it so, and this time, the gun advocates are on legal high ground. Our laws are written in English ( or should be--a topic for another day ), and should not be subject to "interpretation", which means, in general, translating from a foreign language. Especially not when some laws are "interpreted", for some purposes, and other laws are taken as written. The idea of written law is important--so important that we should not permit anyone to chip away at it when it suits the purposes of the moment. Written laws mean that none of us are subject to the whims of a king or dictator--only to the laws made by our fellow citizens. The ideal is a "government of laws, not men". We the people made the laws, through our elected legislatures. We have set up courts to administer the laws--not to make laws, or even to decide what a law "means". If we cannot decide what a law "means", we need to urge our legislators to enact a new law--with a plain meaning. If we decide that we want the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed, we have to do that ourselves--with a new amendment to the Constitution. If one amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be "interpreted", all of the constitution is in danger of the same. If one law can be "interpreted", they might all be "interpreted"--and the government made by "we the people" won't really exist.