Christmas Push

May I point out to you that Home Depot had all its Christmas Regalia out on display by September 25th this year? 3 months out.

Has the day become all that it was not?

He emptied himself.
He came meekly, with no pomp.
His goal: to meet our greatest spiritual need.

His day is crammed full.
It is gaudily advertised and promoted for months.
Its end: to fulfill our casual material desires.

And aren't we all distracted?

The Need to Fear?

There seems to be something about those of us who live in the very-developed world that I don't understand.

We are fundamentally healthy people, with access to incredible health care. Our lifespan is one of the longest in the world - probably in history. We're all relatively affluent, with much more than our basic needs for food, shelter and clothing being met. We are, for the most part, living in a safe environment, where there is law and order. Even natural events like earthquakes and hurricanes have reduced effects on us because of communications systems, building codes and infrastructure.

In the grand scheme of history, we enjoy one of the most safe living situations in the history of mankind. Yet, the news-media continues compel us to listen, read and watch by using scare tactics, dire warnings and fear.

Don't believe me? Here's an article from the reputable BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8211543.stm

Let me copy a few lines...

Candle use linked to cancer risk

Experts say rooms should be ventilated when burning candles

Candle-lit dinners may be romantic, but researchers are warning they could be harmful to health.

South Carolina State University experts analysed the fumes released by burning candles in lab tests.

They found paraffin wax candles gave off harmful fumes linked to lung cancer and asthma - but admitted it would take many years' use to risk health.

We are not safe, no not at all - say the 'experts.'

I have more important things to occupy my thoughts than trace amounts of benzene in the air while enjoying a romantic evening with my wife. If we lived our lives based off of the content of the news we'd live in constant anxiety and fear.

Let's take a big fat risk and focus on things that actually are significant and let's celebrate all the things we have to be thankful for - especially the remarkable protection, health and safety we enjoy every day.

And please, stop watching those 24 hour news stations 24 hours a day. Their job is to find something for us to worry about at all times.

Shark Tank

I recently quasi-watched a new TV show called "Shark Tank." Not really interested, but my wife wanted to see it and I can't totally ignore what's on.

What was on? Well, if you didn't see it the 'Sharks" are a group of gazillionaires who have entrepreneurial 'contestants' enter 'the tank' to present a product, business or idea. The contestants are coming looking for money - to expand, develop, market...etc. The Sharks have the money, the entrepreneurs have the new ideas.

Bottom line: Everyone wants money. Money.

The entrepreneurs want the money so they can use it to have a successful business - or a more successful business. They lack the capital to get a great idea off the ground (Or, in some cases, not so great) Some of them, to be sure, want to succeed SO THAT they will make tons of money. Some, however, seem to have a love for their product or idea and want to be a part of creating something - the money, while a major component of their dream, is not all that they're after. But they need it.

The sharks have crazy amounts of money. They're billionaires. In terms of needing money - they don't. Did I mention they're billionaires? There's no case of need for them. Yet, from every indication, they definitely want more. A lot more. In fact, they seem to NEED more. Certainly not because of lack of resources. There seems to be something else at work.

Many of the prospective partners ask for something in the range of $50,000 to a million dollars for something like a 15% share in the profits. The Wealthy laugh. They hurl insults about the ridiculousness of the initial offers. Their counter offers are something like half the company. Many times they want 51% of the company. (not just the profits)

Kevin O'Leary explains that he sees his dollars as soldiers he commands, which are sent out each day to take prisoners, bring them back and increase the size of the army. Interesting. Is that the ultimate goal? In a later episode, he asks someone with a very attractive idea if he wants to make great guitars, or make lots of money. For him, and probably the others as well, all it's about is making more money. More money, more power, more influence, more control. Using wealth to make more wealth to make more wealth to.... you get it.

Now don't get me wrong. I think wealth can be a great thing. Even massive wealth. There are things that wealthy people can do that couldn't be done without a centralized source of capital. There are even things that are at their root primarily about making money but give benefit to a great number of people. Consider life without sports complexes, museums, festivals, new products and services, things of high culture and artistic beauty. Those things enrich our lives and aren't really possible without inaugurating wealth to get them started.

Wealth is a tool, really. Like many things, it only gains its meaning and capacity for good or evil when it's made use of. And, according to my worldview, I believe it's a tool on loan. And there lies my concern and question for the poor sharks, who indeed are in a tank. What are you using the tool for? What's their end-game?

In the end, no matter what they have done with all their riches (and this goes for you and me too) they will lose it all. 100% guaranteed. Their stacks of $$ will be absolutely, irrevocably and completely gone. Or, more accurately, they will be gone. Parted from it, leaving it behind. Left to someone else. It is the fate of us all.

They will also be parted from all that their money accomplished - the buildings, businesses, banks, hospitals, charities and charter schools. Whether the buildings that bear their names are sweatshops or orphanages, They will leave all their material wealth behind.

There must be more. If we simply cease to be when we die, they may have something for the moment. But in the end, the prince and the pauper share the same fate and it didn't really matter. If there is more, if there is an eternal aspect to our being and we continue on, those that seek only wealth for wealth's sake are making a fool's investment.

And so, when I half-heartedly watch Shark Tank, I feel most sorry for the sharks. For the most part, what I see (presented by the program editors) is exceedingly wealthy people spending their time interviewing those who they can leverage to make themselves even more wealthy.

Despite all the comforts with which they can so easily numb themselves, their striving for happiness through riches may be an endless end which will ultimately leave them bankrupt.

How Dare You?

Today is Michael Jackson's funeral, and maybe I'm out of the loop, uncool or clueless, but though I'm sad that he died (and curious about his eternal destiny) I'm very ready to not hear about it much more.

Obviously others aren't. Quite obvious. But I don't understand some attitudes.

A recent BBC piece pointed out that some of the recipient of tickets to the memorial in L.A. (which were won by random lottery) have tried to sell one or both of their coveted prizes on ebay or craigslist - and have been met with vitriolic anger from the online community.

Here's a direct quote from the BBC's piece:

A Jackson family spokesman Ken Sunshine criticized those who would seek to make money out of the event.

"This is a memorial. Words can't describe how horrifying it is that people are ostensibly trying to do that. It's beneath contempt," said Mr Sunshine.

First thought: Wouldn't it just be cool if your last name was Sunshine? Who wouldn't want to hang out with you? "Hey Ed, want to go hang out with Mr. Sunshine?" Ed: "That sounds so very pleasant - sure!!" And thought 1.5: It's hard to picture Mr. Sunshine saying negative things... a burden that comes with the name I guess.

Second, What!? Let's step back and think about that for a second. Mr Sunshine and all the adoring but angry fans blocking winners from selling tickets are effectively saying that it's wrong to try to make money from the death of the 'King of Pop' and his memorial/memory.

At least if you're an individual. An easily identifiable individual. Shame on you for any gain from this loss!! How dare you!!?

But it's another story if you're a huge corporation or media outlet, isn't it? People are glued to watch the hours of TV 'news' and specials. Surely the broadcast execs aren't out to make money? You bet they are. They love tragedy and drama and whatever will get people to watch their shows. I seriously doubt that they're showing the funeral and all the retrospective stuff out of altruism.

TV is commercials, surrounded by content to keep you in place to watch the commercials. That's where the money comes from. That's how it works.

I'm also sure that Record producers are spinning up the DVD and CD copiers right now to handle the glut of increased Michael Jackson media and music sales. Shoot - they might even make a DVD of the funeral.

So, while I think it's in bad taste to auction off seats to a funeral, let's not live with the illusion that a figure as public (?) and popular does not create opportunities for those who will to make money and gain from his passing. It's just easier to single out individuals than to recognize that we as a society, out of curiosity, empathy or voyeurism, want to participate and benefit from such situations.

Sorry to put those clouds of reality out there Mr. Sunshine.

Pop Ups

Just a quick note. Really.

While poking around IMDB after watching the movie "Two Lovers" tonight, I had a pop up ad somehow get past my pop up blocker.

May I suggest this as an effective means to be not taken very seriously. Here's the ad:


That's right - get your degree from us. Don't let the giraffes fool you, this degree is legit.

Certificates and Other I can see. "Congratulations Bobby, through our online program you've matriculated to full day kindergarten.... here's your certificate."

But Doctoral? And what's up - the associate's giraffe looks exactly the same as the doctoral giraffe!!?? Wait a minute - My doctoral dissertation yield the same laminated giraffe seal as the fundamentals of movie appreciation associates degree? What a rip!

Incidentally - back to the "Two Lovers" movie (which I liked, but was a slow pace and a not-to-encouraging relationship head-shaker) may very well be Joaquin Phoenix's last film as an actor. If you haven't seen him lately, you can take in the summary version of his painful David Letterman visit from back in February. On YouTube search "Letterman Joaquin Pheonix" and try - TRY to absorb it. Oh yeah - it's real. Not a publicity stunt.

So that's it.

And if I work hard, I'm sure you can call me Doctor Biddle by the end of the summer. You can come by and see my proudly displayed Degree up on the wall - complete with giraffe stickers.

Engineering Appeal

It's Spring again, and we're enjoying one of the great benefits of this time of year: strawberries. Aren't strawberries amazing? Truly. Nothing quite like them.



I have a friend who has never tasted a strawberry. She's allergic. Tragic!! If that were me, once a year I'd consider getting the ripest, sweetest strawberries I could find, savoring the eating experience, and quickly washing them down with a Benadril Shake. Or maybe a strawberry Benadril shake? Hopefully they would cancel each other. Perhaps the emergency room lounge would be a prudent place to enjoy such a treat?

Last year we went strawberry picking. What stood out to me most from the experience, right after the strangeness of paying someone to watch you work, was the contrast between the ripe, small field berries we picked and the giant, lustrous store-bought ones. In fact, other than being the same berries, grocery store berries and the ones you might find in a field have little in common.

The ones we get in the store now absolutely astound us. They're the size of plums! Some aberrations are bigger. They're red red red. They're beautiful! You feel like they've selected this tiny percentage of berries - elite grade monster berries! All the supermodels of the berry world, right there for me. Look at those sexy berries!

But it's a trick, a ploy. Sure, they're big and colored like a peak-of-ripeness strawberry... but they're not. Below the veneer of red they're white and hard. And frankly, they don't have much taste. I haven't looked this up, but I'm sure that this has all been engineered. It's marketing. Surely these berries are bred and hybridized...engineered perhaps, with the goal to make them red, big, and hard. Of size and color to attract the consumer, a 6 on the Mohs scale for safe transport.

But I can't really blame the producers. It's a market economy and they strive to give us what we want - or at least what's attractive to us. The problem is that, even though I know better, I'm addicted to appearances.

Eyes closed, a red-ripe field berry blows away an engineered one. No contest. The real experience of strawberries is their taste and bouquet. There's a visual element, sure, but that's not the most important quality. But there's something about me that causes my visual perceptions to override the others. Why is that?

It's endemic though. In fact, most of my life I aim for appearances rather than more essential qualities. I want to look like my life is together, thoughtful, controlled and ordered. (It's SO not) I'm overly aware of how others might perceive me, and I craft my responses and image to illicit a favorable reaction from others. I protect myself from being hurt, reduce my relational bruising. I'm the super-market berry. Nice exterior, but hard and flavorless.

The most satisfying and freeing relationships I have are the ones where people really know me to the core. My issues, my faults, my unattractiveness; the real me, my internal world. They see my junk within and love me anyhow. I don't appear so attractive and grand, and I can be bruised easily. But those are the sweetest relationships - and I don't have many. They're not just casually packaged and picked up. They're cultivated, with great care, and they're work. But oh, the richness, flavor and satisfaction they can produce.

And, if that's true, consider for a moment that a relationship with God could be the pinnacle of satisfaction - where you can be most truly known, most deeply accepted, and most free to drop the tiresome engineering of personal appeal and be loved where you're at right now. That's dangerously sweet. Do you know him like that?

Next time you're in the produce section, let those big, attractive rock-berries remind you to take an introspective moment about your potentially sweetest relationships.

And go farther in to find the truly good ones.

The Generous Tree

The Generous Tree,
Arrayed in a veil of splendorous spring -
Color laden and at its glory's peak,
Looks down upon the humble earth
and says;
"Lowly ground unadorned,
Have my raiment now.
Let me clothe you; receive!"
It shivers down its envoys
to the dewy floor
and makes itself plain - for dirt's sake,
composing a lavish mosaic of singular hue.
And I marvel, reminded of an eternal spring
of generously lent royalty
showering down from above.

What you want, What you need.

I recently returned to my alma mater and was a little shocked, despite being warned, that the whole place had changed. Most of the academic buildings have undergone minor changes, mainly improvements and updates, but the big shocker was the on-campus housing.

Granted, most of the dorms, or "residence halls" as the PR spinners prefer, which have been replaced were quite due. Overdue, actually. Now attractive, imposing new buildings, mostly connected into a rambling conglomeration of architecture and landscaping, make up the new character of the my old University.

From the outside, it's a lovely change from the... well, whatever that spate of horrid 70's architectural aesthetic was called. Let's call it "Awefulism." The new buildings are modern, pleasing and impressive.

While I was there for my visit I learned that there was a massive effort to find out what the students living on campus wanted most from their housing. This data was then used to create and taylor a system which would be the most attractive and enjoyable living situation possible. They wanted to give the students what they wanted.

I even learned that there were 10 groups from other universities who were there to study the designs and theories behind the new setup. With all the research and planning, my alma mater's efforts are being held up as something to model other colleges after. Give them what they want!

The problem? Students don't like it.

Not so long ago, the standard "dorm" was made up of 4 basic areas.
1. A public bathroom with multiples sinks, toilets and shower booths.
2. A large public lounge/study area.
3. Humble box-shaped rooms which were usually shared by 2 students
4. A long hallway to connect it all together.

And I hated it.

I hated it because I had to share a small space with a pungent crazy Swiss guy my Freshmen...oops - First Year. (more PR corrections) I hated it because it made me interact with people I normally wouldn't, walk down the long hall and listen to their music, deal with their issues. I hated it because there were people who left the bathroom areas in terrible shape.

What I wanted then is what students want now - and are getting: Self-contained apartment-style housing on campus. A small room to yourself, your own bathroom or shared between you and your suite-mates, who live in one or two adjacent personal rooms. Some have a kitchenette. Some have a common area for the suite-mates, though it is very small. A hallway door which leads to the common area or entryway, with another set of doors to close off your apartment.

Students' chief complaint about new Residence Hall life? They don't know anyone. Is it any wonder? Apart from coming and going to class, there's not much reason to leave your personal space. Some floors hardly have any common areas

After so much survey and study, what they wanted apparently wasn't what they need. Why is it that so often what I want and what I need are totally different?

In my campus living experience, it forced me to interact with different people from different viewpoints, upbringing and cultures. Even if I didn't build deep relationships, there was a community there, a common experience. There was an availability. Doors were often open and barriers to interaction were few. These were great things for me, they were things I needed - but not things I wanted initially.

Is giving us what we want the best policy? What do we lose in doing so?

Consider the revolution in online social networking groups like MySpace and Facebook. They give you a space to make your own, post pictures, music, lists and updates about your doings and goings-on. A self-made window to your personality and personhood. You share yours and you can track your friends'.

A step further is Twitter, which is primarily status updates. It's all about answering the question "what are you doing right now?" You send in regular updates, via some kind of internet application (computer, mobile phone, text messenger...etc) about what you're doing, your attitude and interactions, you're location... all the little stuff. All the updates you make are posted to anyone who is tracking you.

In this way you can track any friend or family member (or moviestar) who is sending twitter updates and learn what they're doing, where they're doing it, why...etc. If you go to twitter's webpage you can watch a great little movie that explains the application.

Here's an interesting quote from the video: "It makes us feel connected, and a part of each other's lives."

And that's what we want, isn't it? To feel connected to others? To be a part of someone's life?

Here's the problem: Proximity is not Community. Information is not Intimacy.

What we want is to enjoy all the benefits and good stuff without having to deal with the rest. We want the distilled package. We want to enjoy community and intimacy with other people, but the real deal is a mess. It's full of the rest of life. The boring stretches, the stuff that causes conflict and pain, the things that make us uncomfortable, and me not always being of sterling character either.

But community without real, deep and true knowledge of each other - good and bad - is just a city bus ride; common location, common direction - but nobody really knows you, or really cares about you. And they are certainly not interested in your junk. (try telling your problems to a bus full of strangers sometime) Rich, sweet community is being fully known and fully accepted, and you don't get there behind closed doors. It means getting into people's lives, into their room and letting them in yours (even if your place is a mess!)

And Intimacy isn't just information. I might know all kinds of information about a person, but it's a sham if there aren't any shared experience, time spent interacting and talking, laughing, crying and doing life together. My guess is that famous people experience this all the time. I'm sure they have people come up to them who feel an intimate connection because they have seen the star on the screen, read about their lives and followed their career. But that information hardly constitutes an intimate relationship and an assumption that it does becomes just weird and annoying. Knowing me and knowing about me are principally different.

We know what we want - but what do we need in order to get there?

I think you need a community in which you can be accepted for who you are, and give acceptance to others - flaws and messed-up-ness included, and go from there.

I think you need a person who can identify with your life, your struggles, your triumphs. Weep with you, rejoice with you. Someone who can know you intimately and love you despite all your junk. (and roll up sleeves to help you deal with it)

I've got a pretty good idea who and where. Care to go a bit deeper?

God Probably Doesn't Take London Mass Transit

In London and the UK, an atheist campaign recently kicked off featuring ads on buses that stated plainly "THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." There are also quotes on the tube. (London's excellent subway system)


Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist and professor was a driving force and contributor toward the campaign. Here's his interesting quote about the matter.

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion"

Anathema, for you thought-free religious rubes, means "Something or someone that a person vehemently dislikes." (For you very-religious folks, vehement means "showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, intense.')

So, according to Dawkins' quote, the campaign will cause thinking to happen, particularly among the religious - who completely avoid it if possible. Religious people are those that don't think their position through, apparently. Religion and thought are incompatible.

Such statements can only be (honestly) made if you don't really care to think about it. Consider this: According to the wikipedia article on him, Dawkins' perspective is that

"faith - belief that is not based on evidence − is one of the world's great evils."

Faith, per Dawkins, is belief NOT based on evidence.

That is a strange assertion because no one - in the history of the world - has ever believed something without any evidence at all. NO ONE. Why?

Belief in something requires at least some knowledge, information, context or data (which are evidence) in the object of belief, otherwise you wouldn't even be aware of it. It would be like saying that I have faith that lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ is true. Apart from the familiarity I have with the alphabet, lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ bears no reference to an object or idea for me. No one has told me to what it refers or does, or in what context lbsoohwgWJ LPIJwhouWFJ might exist. I have no evidence for belief that it's real because I have no information. (I just hit my fist on the keyboard a couple of times.)

He's saying faith is belief in something you have no knowledge of.

To say I have faith in something but have no evidence for it is a strange claim. It's impossible.
Oops - Dawkins is trying to break down the door of the wrong house. What he really means, I think, is this: religious faith is based on evidence that Richard Dawkins rejects as reliable, accurate and true.

Is all evidence equal? No way. The real debate is not whether Religious Folks have no evidence for their position. (or the Atheist) No - the debate, fundamentally, is about what constitutes good, true and accurate evidence for your beliefs. And that is absolutely a different question, with different rules. It's the question of Epistemology, which deals with how we know what we know, and why we think we can know it.

Dawkins, as a staunch advocate of Naturalism and a scientist, probably works on the epistomological premise that acceptable evidence is limited to that which can be scientifically tested, observed and measured. In short - the physical world. (though I'd argue he's pretty handcuffed even in that realm)

Therefore any evidence for a religious position that cannot be subject to scientific testing is non-evidence to him. "Sorry chap, that doesn't count."

But that's where the debate should lie. Why does Richard Dawkins reject as true anything that cannot be repeatable in a laboratory? For that matter - why should we accept as true anything that happens in a laboratory? That's the bedrock debate, and different answers to what is legitimate evidence will lead us to different assumptions and beliefs. Should all evidence have equal weight? By no means. But should only one type of evidence be considered legitimate? I don't think so.

So, for my reaction to the buses and Hawkins' quotes above. Let me make 3 points.

1. Statements like "thinking is anathema to religion" are unhelpful generalizations and mindless. That's a sophmoric statement - the epochs of human history are littered with great scientists, philosophers and thinkers who were and are "religious." (Perhaps Dawkins might not believe they were actually real - from a strict scientific method perspective - you can't prove any of them existed. You have to jump outside repeatable, measureable, physical evidence in a controlled environment.) Dawkins career alone proves this to be false - he has to spend a lot of time diffusing the arguments of his opponents.

2. I Appreciate their honesty. "God PROBABLY Doesn't Exist" Thank you. Neither Richard Dawkins nor anyone else can say with certainty that He doesn't. (we're back to epistemology again - sorry.) 'Probably' is as strong as an honest atheist can get. Theists too, for that matter. From the physical, scientifically observable evidence, you can't make a conclusive statement about anything, really. Chemicals, atoms, gravity, light, mass, heat - all our scientific knowledge is based on the assumption that the physical "laws" all function every place and in every time as they do in our tiny slice of what we can observe. And that slice is tiny. No human knowledge is comprehensive and so all people (including atheistic scientists) operate on the basis of faith. The question is how good your knowledge is. (see my previous entry on "The Fact of Faith")

3. If the bus ads do spark more thinking and conversation and debate - huzzah! Bring it! God does exist, or he doesn't. You cease to exist when you die, or you don't. You actions matter or they don't. Regardless of which side you land on, let's agree that not choosing to engage in these questions is the worst possible choice. It is the most important quesiton. If this is your only life, don't go through it without some serious contemplation. If there is a life ever-after and your choices matter for eternity - even more so.

Oh, and my dear Atheists... Regarding the ad: I'm enjoying my life immensely, thank you. I do worry though - not that you might be right, because in the end if you are - it won't matter to me. I cease to be and I've lost nothing. (actually, the reality will be that we all lose everything) What I worry about, for your sake, is that Christian Theism is probably right and in the end, being wrong will matter completely and eternally. It seems too heavy a gamble. And I care about you, truly.

But, regarding all this, why stop with skepticism about God? There's a lot more to be unsure about!

Let's quote another Brit:

It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young skeptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." - G K Chesterton

Here are my suggestions, if we're going to be completely honest...