We must : twenty-two notes on the way to self-perfection / by Swami Chinmayananda.

http://www.archive.org/details/wemusttwentytwo00chinuoft

The United Methodist Church at 40: What Can We Hope For?

The necessity we face for the future of Methodism is the re-invention of traditions. To re-invent traditions is to re-visit the past with all of its richness; to discern what in our tradition is most central to Christian faith; to analyze those parts of our past that continue to give life; to discern and build upon what is of value in the newly emerging tradition; and to reflect on those aspects of the neglected and rejected past that challenge our present perspectives and practices. To re-invent traditions is to develop new perspectives and practices from the building blocks of the past and from the fresh movements of the Spirit in the present. To do so is to recognize that Christianity in general, and Methodism in particular, is marked by traditions that have continually been passed on, critiqued, eliminated, created, and re-invented for the sake of a living Christian witness. What we can hope for is that God is there in the future already, pulling us toward God’s own New Creation.

Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should We Care?

BACKGROUND: In a 1994 Ninth Circuit decision on the remand of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Judge Alex Kosinski wrote that science done for the purpose of litigation should be subject to more stringent standards of admissibility than other science. OBJECTIVES: We analyze this proposition by considering litigation-generated science as a subset of science involving conflict of interest. DISCUSSION: Judge Kosinski's formulation suggests there may be reasons to treat science involving conflict of interest differently but raises questions about whether litigation-generated science should be singled out. In particular we discuss the similar problems raised by strategically motivated science done in anticipation of possible future litigation or otherwise designed to benefit the sponsor and ask what special treatment, if any, should be given to science undertaken to support existing or potential future litigation. CONCLUSION: The problems with litigation-generated science are not special. On the contrary, they are very general and apply to much or most science that is relevant and reliable in the courtroom setting.