garrulous extemporaneous superfluous

Morality in the Streets

2011-08-17T22:57:00.000-04:00

Last week the news (especially the BBC) carried quite a bit of coverage of the riots in multiple cities in the United Kingdom. Rightly so.

This year there have been a lot of people taking to the streets. The "Arab Spring", as some have called it, had lots of people in various places taking to the streets for protest and hopes of political or economic change. Some ending peaceably. Some still raging on with conflict.

But it seems like the events in the UK are different. People took to the streets - and to some degree it may have been influenced by economics and politics - but on the whole it seemed that it was mostly just angry mobs, seeking to turn the chaos they were creating into some personal gain. Looting and 'smash and grab' seemed to be the hallmark of the 'assemblies'. There was no call for policy reform or demand for regime change. It was opportunistic greed and anarchy. Lawlessness.

What I find interesting in these kind of events ist what's said about it by rational, self-controlled and in-charge types. Or, more poignantly - what's NOT said.

On the way to work, I tend to listen to 'the Beeb" (BBC) because I often have my radio set to a public station. (judge not) My default morning news source has a British accent (or accents - they certainly vary!) simply because I'm lazy and don't change the station.

I found fascinating what I wasn't hearing. Most of the news bits and bytes surrounding the aftermath of the riots centered around things like the judicial system and how they were handling the arrest, detention and processing of so many people - many of whom are minors. But there was also a great deal of talk from the leadership. Parliament and Prime Minister and Police.

If you take out all the wrangling over how the government should respond and how officials did and didn't react, there's not a ton left. But what you are left with is intelligent people talking about people who were acting criminally. They spoke of these people being from depressed areas. How some had insufficient services and resources. The blight of uninvolved parents and guardians and it's effect on them. They talked about how to make the rule of law and it's application better compel people to behave properly.

What I never heard anyone say about it was anything about morality. Specifically the word "wrong."

Now - don't be confused by that. A great deal was said about laws and the breaking of them. But I don't think that legality and morality are about the same thing. The legal question has to do with laws and the breaking of them: External actions. Morality also has to do with law, and the breaking of it - but of a different sort. It's more all-encompassing. It's about internal evaluation. Morality has to do with the internal world, and the bedrock level beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Everyone has this. It doesn't have to be taught.

External laws and punitive actions have an effect on our behavior - to a point. But only to a point, which varies from person to person. If you were to take away all influence of external laws - take away all possibility for punishment, I think you would get a good read on what people's true internal morals are. People who truly do believe that it's wrong to lie would continue to be honest. People who may say that lying is wrong but at bedrock level believe that personal gain through lying is morally acceptable would not be honest. No sir.

The fact that all societies have laws governing behavior and punishments for when those laws are broken is really a reflection of humanity's moral state. And it's not a pretty reflection. People, left un-compelled by an external authority of law, would tear society apart. And each other. Just look at places today where the government is incapable of controlling factions and ethnic groups. Horrors galore.

The British politicians aren't talking about the morals of the rioters. The reality is that the mobs happened because those people were willing to make it happen. Morally, (internally) they didn't have a real problem with those actions - especially when (for whatever the real reasons were) the capacity of police to compel external obedience to the law was diminished or non-existent.

In this day and age, there's a real fear to 'push morality' on people. Morality is seen as a personal thing and if you insist that I hold myself to a particular moral standard, then you are assigned a place with the Nazis and street preachers. How dare you try to compel me to be a certain way, morally. Who are you to say which moral standards are superior!? How dare you condemn me!

This is absurd. On the external side, what are laws? Isn't that exactly what they are? Are they not a forced morality? Whether you believe that murdering someone is justified or not doesn't matter when you get to the court room. The law is that murder is wrong. The penalties are severe. (and rightly so) All laws are a standard that is placed on a society for what is right and wrong. We don't vote for our laws.(except in California)

But again - the law is external.

Politicians, legislators and the like create more and more rules to govern our behavior - but external laws can't do that. They can compel certain actions or curtail others - but they don't have the capability to control hearts and minds. Or to motivate goodness. They never can.

What's needed for a healthy society are people with good morals. And I believe some moral systems are better than others. (I actually think one moral system is best.) Morally sound people govern themselves - they are compelled by an internal sense of right and wrong. For those kinds of people, the government doesn't need to compel them very much. People who are compelled only by external laws do not form a healthy society because governments can't catch everything and everyone. They just might get away with it. And as that possibility increases, the likelihood that they'll break laws will also increase.

So when I see greed induced riots all over the United Kingdom, what concerns me isn't the effectiveness of policies, or the capacity of police to enforce the law. What concerns me is that so many people would consider it alright to behave in such a way. That, to me, is the biggest issue - and one that no amount of legislation will be able to do anything about. The problem is far deeper than the law, and the dangers for us all are far greater. Perhaps we should start talking about that?

What we need is a clear set of laws for the internal, moral world. And there too we need someone who has the capability to know when those laws are broken and can effectively punish. Is there such a person? Is there such a moral law?

And - what we REALLY need is someone who can change us. Because even if the law written in our internal world is crystal clear and the recording and punishment of lawbreaking is absolute - we still break the law.

What we need is a change of heart. A change of desire. a change in our nature. Because, after all, the laws (internal and external) exist solely because we need them. Left to ourselves, we'll tear each other apart.

But who, then, could change us?

Your Massively Important Smallness

2010-11-08T03:58:00.000-05:00

Some months back I saw a post on a friend's facebook page that I found intriguing.

It was a photo of a plaque on which were written a number of scientific statements intended to give perspective to the reader. I'm not sure where it's from, or who took it, but the final statement was strikingly... well - ironic. So much so that I laughed when I read it, but not because it was funny.

Here I mean "ironic" not in the wryly sarcastic way it's often used, but more like this: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

But before I get to the punchline, let's define some terms so we know what we're talking about here. I'll post the photo below, but first let me point something out. Or, ask a question really. What is science?

It's likely that the answer would vary depending on the frame of reference. Who I'm asking. What their field is. Where I'm asking. But broadly. Generally. What is it? How would you define it?

Very broadly, very generally, let's ask our long-dead but still relevant friend Merriam Webster. Here's what he (or his ghost) has to say.

Science. noun

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Good. Broad and general definitions. Thanks MW. Please note some important consistencies. First, that science deals with knowledge. "Well, duh." But second, it's not ALL knowledge - at least not all at once. A body of facts, a system of study, a branch of knowledge, or knowledge of facts/principles which are gained through systematic study. And Third - most of the time this deals with the physical, observable, natural world.

(Math, you could argue is an exception, but basic math still operates as a representation of the physical world. i.e. the number 2, while an abstraction and conceptual, still represents the concept of 2 of some thing. So does E=mc2)

In other words, we know a broad definition of science is that science is knowledge narrowly defined. It peers into the world for answers, but it does not stand on the edge of a canyon at sunset taking panoramic photos, then heading home. No. It goes down into the canyon with specific questions. How was this formed? What kind of rock is this? How deep and wide and old? Then is asks more questions based on the answers to its questions, drilling deeper and deeper. It builds a picture of the canyon by looking closely at its parts - it's physical, observable, testable parts. Science, at least as I learned it, seeks to be objective. It describes objects and the processes that govern them. Agreed?

But hey - weren't we talking about some funny plaque about 20 minutes ago, or something? Oh yeah. Back to the plaque. Let's go line by line, then I'll plop in the pic.

Line 1: "You are 1 person out of 7 billion people.

Is this testable and observable? Can I show this to be objectively true? Yup. Hard to count, but possible.

Line 2: "on 1 planet out of 8 planets"

Yup. Testable, observable and objectively true. (sorry Pluto, you're out of vogue)

Line 3: "in one star system out of 100 billion star systems"

Again- yup. Harder to count, but observable.

Line 4: "in one galaxy out of 100 billion galaxies"

Yup. Ok.

Line 5: ... well - read it for yourself.

"and you are enormously insignificant"

Here is where I laughed. I did.

First - and this is enormously petty - but I don't think you should say something is enormously insignificant. Utterly or ultimately maybe. How can insignificance be enormous? That's as dumb as calling something "enormously petty." Petty things are small.

But, more significantly; Is that last line testable? Observable? Empirical? Does is deal with systems governing the natural world or the nature of the physical world itself? Nope. It's a value judgment. It's a statement of worth and relationship. It doesn't belong at the end of that list. To say that we have no significance at all is far too broad.

This is a value statement. Speak of mass, or electromagnetism or gravitational pull or chemical properties when you speak of my significance and I will concede. We're not physically significant relative to the incomprehensible scale of the universe. But value statements are subjective, not objective. There is a story going on in value statements. There is a subject and some consciousness that forms/comprehends a relationship of some kind to it.

The author seems to think little of me - he tells me that I am enormously (snicker) insignificant. But I don't believe him. He doesn't believe it either, otherwise why design, build and post a plaque saying so? If I am completely insignificant, why even pander to me by trying to convince me of it?

And consider the marvelous significance of our ability to even do science, and understand physical laws! That physical matter can be so organized and structured that it becomes aware of itself and desirous to understand and make use of the properties of matter is incomprehensibly significant. It dizzies one's consciousness to consider that fact alone. Self awareness? Goodness. Is there any other place in the universe where this happens? That we can even consider this questions is remarkable!

The invocation of the word significance (or really, ANY words) itself is a robust objection. Language!? Now we're beyond a single self aware consciousness and on to interaction and communication between ourselves and others conscious 'matter.' Have we observed any other matter in the universe that willfully tries to communicate with other sentient matter? Only here. If someday we found conscious life elsewhere, would that be insignificant? And to apply the word significance means that it's not simply transfer of data, but evaluation of what data is of more importance to us.

Ok - enough. But when I see things like this I laugh first, then shake my head. I love science. It's been an incredible tool for understanding the nature of the world we live in. The knowledge of what the world is like gives us incredible capacities to make use of it, to enjoy it, to preserve it. But science makes a lousy worldview. And it makes a lousy standard for human significance. And there's where the problem lies.

As a basis for making value judgments and moral decisions - science is insufficient. You cannot scientifically derive meaning, beauty, love or happiness from the physical world because they are relational, conscious-driven concepts. They are real AND they are non-physical.

There are many to whom science becomes their religion - where only the physical world exists and is our source of origin and purpose, but this means they must find a way to explain emotions, a sense of meaning and personal consciousness from only physical/chemical means. They will deny their own humanity in the process.

Either our consciousness and internal lives will become a physically pre-programmed robotic response, or they will become illusions - tricks of our physical mind which are in fact unreal. Lose your will, or lose meaning. Either one reduces us to rubble. There is no meaning, or love, or purpose, or consciousness in a physical-only world. Only chemistry and physics.

But no one can live like that. The author of this sign probably looked up to see the billions of billions of billions of stars and felt real, non-physical mind-blowing awe, began thinking about his place in the world - and got it wrong.

Smoke Signals

2010-09-08T11:21:00.002-04:00

I'm sure the blogosphere is buzzing over reports today on a little church in Florida that has made plain and public it's plan to burn copies of the Koran in a bonfire this coming weekend - on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Let me make 2 points, or offer a view without too much flailing and gesticulation.

We live in an age of hyperbole and marginalization, where one side demonizes and makes their opponents and their view as crazy as they can. In this case, that doesn't seem to be too hard. I'm sure there are a ton of viewpoints flying around making the "Dove World Outreach Center" to be insane and haters and a litany of other colorful name giving.

I suppose my first point is - let's hold up a mirror. My reflection is the reversal of what I actually look like - the image of me that I see is flipped. If I were to hold a mirror up to this situation, it seems to me that it would look pretty similar on both sides.

On one side is a minority of believers whose theology is at the more extreme edge of their faith, seemingly full of hate and willing to do hateful acts in retribution toward their enemies. On the other side is a minority of believers whose theology is at the more extreme edge of their faith, seemingly full of hate and willing to do hateful acts in retribution toward their enemies. (is there an echo?) Granted, one side has been willing to do more severely damaging and evil acts than the other. Let's hope that reality doesn't cross the mirror's boundary.

Terry Jones, the pastor of this little church, may argue that he's just trying to purge the world of lies and false teaching, but I have a little trouble imagining Jesus showing up to the book burning, much less organizing it.

I don't think that Islam is true. I think its spread is causing problems around the world because of its large radical elements and percentages who act on that thinking. I think it's oppressive to freedom, to women, to open inquiry - but I also know that my job as a Christian is to take a different tack in opposing it - or any other falsity.

It's pretty clear, if you're at all familiar with Jesus' teachings, that love is the currency of change. That we're to love our enemies. That the approach to change people's worldview is to do so by speaking about and demonstrating to them a better way. That vindictive cycles of hate and revenge cannot bear the weight of forgiveness and kindness and love. Bad worldviews are not dissolved through sheer reason, or bombs or aggrandizement - they are supplanted by better ones.

While Mr. Jones might think he's doing something bold and significant on the side of truth, I think the smoke that rises from those hundreds of burning books will only be seen from the other side of the world as a confirmation and a call. A confirmation of their suspicion that Americans in general, and Christians in particular, are their enemies. And a call to retaliate. Until they're shown something better - why wouldn't they?

And I wonder what the 'World Outreach' is in the Dove World Outreach Center. For Muslims the world over this week, it will be more of a World Outrage Center.

Second Point - and I'll make this one REAL short.

Let's also 'thank' the news media yet again. Being a conduit doesn't mean you're neutral.

When streakers (for whatever reason) cross fields in sports events, the general policy is not to broadcast the stunt. The cameras turn away. Why? Because by sending it out to the world you are rewarding the nut-case and encouraging similar actions for others that I also don't want to see naked.

But not the news media. Their insatiable appetite for 'that which will make you watch us' seems to override what prudence demands. The BBC themselves, in their article on this point out that...

Gen David Petraeus, the top US commander in Afghanistan, said on Monday that the action could cause problems "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world".

"It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems," he said in a statement.

And they even help us understand the situation by reminding us of previous events....

There were deadly protests in Afghanistan in 2008, when it emerged that a US soldier deployed to Iraq riddled a copy of the holy book with bullets.

And further lives were lost in Afghan riots in 2005 when Newsweek magazine printed a story alleging that US interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet.

The story later turned out to be false and was retracted by the magazine.

Yeah, Newsweek - you can retract an incorrect story, but you can't retract the 'deadly' part of the protests. Too bad. Did you cause the reaction? No. But you happily pumped it out there. So, you're a bit culpable too. You're not the crazy, but you're glad to report it. People will die.

Thanks Newsweek. Thanks news media. While this whole new situation is certainly illustrative of a problem that exists, there is a part of me that thinks the news outlets would do better to turn their cameras away from this streak of naked hostility.

Perhaps I need to know this - but can we report on this after the fact, quietly and with tactful forethought? I'd prefer that to your salivating and showing up early to the book burning with a camera man and several sets of billows.

BBC Article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457

I took the liberty of editing the original photo. Hope the Associated Press doesn't mind. Terry might.

The Praise of Spring

2010-05-10T12:17:00.007-04:00

What a wonder - spring!

Which with subtle scents
Gently beckons to me
On soft, cooling breezes
To pause in marvel and praise.

Somewhere, unseen honeysuckles
Send good news of life and beauty
Borne on the wind;
"The cold and death are done!"
They cannot help but cast,
To all who may receive,
The news and aroma of life anew.
Once a forecast
And now a foretaste
Of what is yet to come.

What a worshipper - spring!

Which, with it sensuous sights
Bids me kneel in grateful adulation.
Behold the azalea; altogether common
Yet it somehow gathers
earth and air and light
(All more common than itself)
And transforms them to flowers!
Fragile and
Fragrant and
Flagrant in hue.

And the peonies in their peak,
Too heavy with dew-soaked praise,
Bow their beauty toward the ground.
Glistening beads of gratitude
Laid before Him who
formed the earth
and moves the air
and speaks the light.

Is the world so rich adorned
With sights and scents of Spring
a foreshadow, A fleeting glance
which points us toward a King?

A Good Boy?

2010-05-07T13:04:00.003-04:00

Philly news last night lead with a story that left me scratching my head.

The initial line was something like "stock market takes a historic plummet - but first, in Coatesville tonight protesters marched to the local police station."

So my first surprise (but not really) was that a sudden drop in stock value (nearly 10%!) was a runner up in the evening news. That's a big drop, but apparently made less newsworthy for the fact that the market also made up two thirds of its loss by the closing bell. Apparently, the already jittery market was tipped into panic by someone's keystroke error: a 'B' instead of an 'M' which does matter when it preceeds '-illion.'

But the top story, as mentioned above, centered around a local town and some of the events that went on there yesterday. We'll get to the protesters - first what happened.

Here's the shorty short version: Police in the neighborhood started following a car driving with its lights off. (around 11pm) When they ran the plates, it came back as a stolen vehicle. They attempted to stop the driver but he continued to drive. The news deemed it a 'low speed chase.' It ended with the car flipping over after it struck several other cars. The driver in the accident died in the crash. He was partly ejected from the SUV when it flipped, and it crushed him. Horrible.

The surprise here was that he was a local kid, just 13. The police thought he was trying to find a place where he could quickly exit the car and run away, avoiding capture. So he wasn't wearing his seatbelt, which undoubtedly would have saved his life.

Enter the crowd. Family and friends gathered together and marched in protest to the local police station. At this point the news showed footage of people being interviewed. Friends talking about how bad this was and that the kid didn't deserve to die...etc. The most forceful soundbites came from the tearful aunt, who said he was a good boy. He was just a good boy and he didn't deserve to die.

Some people claimed that they were shooting at the car and that they had run into it, prior to it flipping. One kid, tears flowing said "He was 13 years old - why did he have to die? Why couldn't they just stop the car? Why'd they have to kill him?"

And so there was a march, protesting the behavior of the local police. The two officers were put on administrative leave, pending the investigation.

First off, let me just say that yes - this is horrible. It's awful that this child died, and died in this way. It is tragic and my condolences to the family and friends. How terrible.

But there is something in human nature that's absolutely puzzling. What is it about us that always wants to pin blame and responsibility on someone else? I do it. I'll bet you do it. It's been going on since the beginning. We're inherently uncomfortable with being to blame, especially when we really are. It's as if wrong-doing goes against our very natures, yet we are wrong and guilty and lawbreakers at times and that feeling of 'this isn't what I'm supposed to be' persists. What seems to be the default then is to move that right blame to another person. Or circumstance. Or system.

Really, let's say you're a cop in this situation. Your job is to protect people, their property, their rights and their safety. Hold people to the laws.

While on patrol, you see a car driving through town, well into the night with no lights. Maybe they just didn't remember to put their lights on? We've all done that. So you follow him. Maybe there's more to it? So you run the plates and it comes back that this vehicle has been stolen earlier today. So you put your lights on, let's pull this guy over.

He doesn't pull over, he continues to drive. He's not speeding away, trying to outrun you, so you keep following them. No need for drastic measures yet. Call in for backup. Use the loudspeaker to tell him to pull over. Maybe he's violent and armed. Better be ready and call for help.

It seems he might be going slow so he can ditch the car and run into the night. Then the car sideswipes a couple others, reals out of control and flips over. You find the driver pinned under the car. He's a kid. A 13 year old kid.

From my perspective, I don't see anything critically wrong with the cops' behavior. Let's say they did bump him or try to stop him using their vehicle. I don't see a problem with that. Police are trained on how to make forced stops if needed. Did they shoot? Investigation says no weapons were discharged. Is there any hard evidence that they did, or just local hear-say?

And let's assume something here. From the police perspective, it's some person driving a stolen car. That person either knows it's stolen or he doesn't. If he doesn't, why wouldn't he pull over? All they know is that the car is stolen and the unknown driver is refusing to stop. What they don't know is who the driver is. Could be a violent criminal who is armed or a charmingly disoriented grandmother.

If the dispatcher came across the radio and said it was 13 year old boy, what would they have done differently? For those angry with the police, what do they think the police should they have done? Not pursued him because he was going slow? Just stopped?

Dispatch: "Pursuing officers: Be advised, the driver is a 13 year old"
Cop:"13?"
Dispatch: "Affirmative, he's just 13"
Cop: "Roger that, dispatch" then turning to his partner "He's just 13. We just passed a good coffee place. Let's turnaround for some caffeine. I need a pick-me-up. We'll worry about him in 3 more years."

Ridiculous. It's a stolen vehicle. If it was mine, I'd want them to get it back, and I'd want them to catch the guy who did it.

Perhaps emotions take over, and I understand that. I just wish news outlets would be a little more rational and fact reporting. Another quote they aired from the Aunt was "A car like that doesn't hit the curb and flip. They [the police] killed that little boy." "He didn't deserve to die like this"

Again, respectfully. No he didn't, and this is a horrible tragedy, but why are we so afraid to own responsibility? Little Johnny wasn't just a good little boy.

Maybe he stole the car, but I think that's irrelevant. He broke all kinds of laws. He was driving a car - at 13! He was driving a stolen car. (at 13) He refused to stop for the police.

Little Johnny (not his real name) made bad choices which, so sadly and tragically, resulted in his death. Good people don't steal cars, joyride in them, drive when they're 13 and run from police.

Am I saying he was a completely evil person and deserved what he got? Absolutely not. No 13 year old deserves to be crushed by a car. He may have been a great kid. I'm sure he was worthy of love and was lovable. But I'm also sure he was breaking good laws.

He, like the rest of us, was a mixed bag. Full of good, but capable of and practiced at breaking rules. His bad choices led to a situation in which he died - as a result of his own actions.

Let's say he was just joyriding, lost control at the same place and time and died in the same way. What would we say then? ( I wonder, really. ) Would people say that they intersection was too dangerous, or that SUV's tend to roll over too easily? Or that the car owners should have secured the vehicle better? The street should have been better lit? I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Johnny shouldn't have been in a stolen car. He shouldn't have been driving. He should have had his lights on and when the police tried to stop him, he should have. He didn't. And something tragic happened. What we should say is that he made choices that were wrong, put him in danger and he died as a result. And we're heart-broken, sad, regretful and disappointed to the utmost that his life ended like this. We loved him and we miss him terribly.

But isn't it interesting that when we do something wrong, it's only when the law givers or law-enforcers show up that we talk of guilt? And we often blame them. I do that.

I tend to turn everything in to a mirror to look at myself in. Maybe I'm a little too self-absorbed? But I do see a moral tale here - and a clear reference to a greater, but parallel story.

If there is a God, and he's a righteous law-giver, there's something to this pattern. We break the laws and think it's (for the most part) pretty fun to do so until we're faced with the unpleasant point when we must own up to our behavior. We're guilty, the laws are good (and for our protection, really) and justice must be served. When the light shines on our wrongdoing and shameful acts, we'll either run from the light, or, if there's no other option - fight. Deflect the blame to someone else - or in a real act of twistery, accuse our accuser.

And what's both crazy and beautiful about Christianity - and utterly unique, is that it makes an audacious claim; The lawgiver and law-enforcer is also our rescuer. And we, who are about to be crushed under the results of our defiance, are offered an exchange; own up to our defiance, turn from it and have Him knock us out from under the car - saving our lives at the cost of His. Or let the results of our lawbreaking come down squarely on us.

What a crazy notion. Could such a thing be true?

Meanwhile, we're mourn for that local kid.

Black Smoke Monster Song

2010-04-10T23:17:00.003-04:00

Hoping to find a more convenient name for Dead-Locke's new identity as the black smoke monster on LOST, some time ago I wrote (i.e. ripped off) a little tune and revised the lyrics. I propose we call the Locke-Monster "Puff" and here's his song...

Puff the Black Smoke Monster

lives by the sea

and tosses people - tears them up

On a show on ABC!

Puff the Black Smoke Monster

May be a Deity

Imprisoned on an island jail

that moves around the sea

Puff the Black Smoke Monster

He's longing to be free

And now that Jacob has been killed

(Big finish) Well, We'll just have to see!

Poetry Slam?

2010-03-22T23:44:00.002-04:00

A friend and I have been having a little "poem war" through Facebook. We work with each other so we get to laugh and kid about it. But I've tried to up the ante - especially with my last little entry:

Children fear the thunder, but the power's in the bolt.
It's strength is not cacophony, but measured by the volt.
The little ones, pajama clad - it's thunder they're afraid of
to those distressed, let me divest;
Tis light that thunder's made of.

And so dear friend, let me contend
That rhyming is just thunder.
So let's do more, (though it's a chore)
and aim for works of wonder.
Lines erudite and full of might
in syntax rife with meaning;
these are the things our poems should bring
- like bolts of beauty gleaming.

We'll see if she'll take the challenge to go deeper.

Post-Modernity in Science?

2010-03-10T00:41:00.003-05:00

Hackers recently distributed emails from climate research scientists, making them look like they are massaging the truth in favor of Global Warming (or the now popular super-unhelpful term 'climate change.') This has caused some interesting dialogue (or monologues) over the issue - and maybe raised some new ones?

I was pretty surprised to read an article by two guys on the BBC's site earlier this week.

Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz wrote an article, which seems to try to educate the general public in the way that science is done, perhaps to defend the emails which were leaked, and scientists roles in producing scientific discovery and progress.

I'm a little alarmed. It seems, science as I knew it, has succumbed to the amoeba of postmodernity. Here's an excerpt: (with British spelling)

How science has evolved

The understanding of science as a social activity has changed quite radically in the last 50 years.

The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge.

Instead, warranted knowledge - knowledge that is authoritative, reliable and guaranteed on the basis of how it has been acquired - has become more sought after than the ideal of some ultimately true and objective knowledge.

Warranted knowledge places great weight on ensuring that the authenticating roles of socially-agreed norms and practices in science are adequately fulfilled - what in other fields is called quality assurance.

And science earns its status in society from strict adherence to such norms.

For climate change, this may mean the adequate operation of professional peer review, the sharing of empirical data, the open acknowledgement of errors, and openness about one's funders.

Crucially, the idea of warranted knowledge also recognises that these internal norms and practices will change over time in response to external changes in political culture, science funding and communication technologies.

YOINK! Catch the bolded parts? (my bolding) The language is thick and heavy, but please note that the gist of this is that the new trend in science has begun to delineate between 'excellence' of science and objective empiricism.

Warranted knowledge - how you got to your conclusions (peer reviewed, sharing of data, open funding sources) has norms that will change due to politics, funding and the way it's communicated.

Am I reading this wrong? Do you think this is just about science's interface with society and society's understanding, or is this about how science is done?

I originally stuck this on facebook (forgot to post here first) and a friend pointed out that Pharmaceutical Companies fund their own studies, and thus retain the ability to control what results get released, thereby assuring that they'll be able to promote the good and subdue the negative, or dangerous.

Is that what I want from science? Perhaps that's what I've been getting for a while?

If science abandons concepts of truth, empiricism and objectivity, it's just another rudder people (with or without scruples) will use to steer public opinion toward desired results. And won't we wind up in Pilate's shoes - unable to recognize truth. "Quid Est Veritas?" indeed.

Here's the full article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

Christmas Push

2009-10-04T00:30:00.003-04:00

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?

2009-08-20T10:47:00.002-04:00

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

2009-08-12T14:39:00.004-04:00

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?

2009-07-07T13:16:00.004-04:00

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

2009-07-06T00:38:00.003-04:00

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

2009-05-29T11:33:00.003-04:00

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

2009-05-12T14:05:00.002-04:00

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.

2009-04-22T00:07:00.006-04:00

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

2009-01-17T00:07:00.007-05:00

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...

A Taste for More

2008-08-22T00:43:00.011-04:00

You and I are sensate creatures, but just barely.

At the core of who we are, we are hard-wired with a desire to have our senses engaged, pleasurably so. And not just to a small degree - we want to have full and rich sensations which keep pace with our capacities.

Just think of the vital role in our lives played by simple things such as music, beauty, the flavor of food, and the smells and textures of the world. Without them, wouldn't life be a cruel march to the grave? Simple existence just isn't enough for human kind, we want richness and depth. It's how we're made.

I recently heard a story on public radio about the importance of and distinctions between taste and smell. The doctor being interviewed dealt with patients who had lost most or all of their capability to smell. Most of them due to some kind of brain trauma or disease. This loss was life-altering.

For many of these unfortunate people, two things came as a result; depression and paranoia.

Much of the depression in their lives was tied to food - which, if you think about it, is a major component of daily life, in time, energy and attention. As it turns out, around 90% of food's bouquet, aroma and flavor - most of the experience really - is tied up in smell, not taste. Taste works on a more rudimentary level, dealing with texture and general food information. (salty, sweet, bitter, sour...etc)

Without smell, everything is like oatmeal - the unflavored kind. Bland and unappealing. You and I are probably unaware of just how much joy is derived from the experience of eating. (And may we never know, if loss is the only way to know the extent!)

The paranoia set in, they said, through fears stemming from a lack of info. Did I bathe adequately, or do I have severe body odor? Is this milk bad? Is this meat putrid? What if something catches on fire and I can't smell it? Could there be a gas leak in my house?...etc. You can't be sure about those things without the ability to discern scent, and you can see how paranoia would creep in if you couldn't.

All this just from the loss of the ability to smell!

I write all this to reinforce this thought: Our senses are an absolutely critical component to our well being, and our enjoyment of life.

Now, let me propose something. Something simultaneously horrible and thrilling.

What if you were born with almost no sense of smell (and therefore taste)? You wouldn't really understand what you were missing. Someone could try to explain to you what more there might be. That would be horrible, even if you didn't really realize what you were missing. Horrible because you were so far away from what you are capable of experiencing.

But what if some brain surgeon could fix the problem? What if, after years of eating food that never had taste, the next day you could enjoy the full experience of the culinary arts?! You would be overwhelmed and shocked - and thrilled to no end! Every new food would be a symphony of joy and sensation. (with the notable exception of lima beans, which are irredeemable.) Adjectives would abound!

What if that's us - the whole human race? But the damage is not limited to the sense of smell... it effects every physical sense and every aspect of our lives - physically, mentally and spiritually. This means we might not even know there is anything wrong with us, and we're used to living this way - in a starkly limited capacity. There would be so much more we'd be capable of, if everything was as it should be. Someone could try to explain to us what the full restoration would be like, but the words would fall short since we have so little context. Horrible!

This is the reality of living in a world that is damaged - a world that has been cursed. In biblical terms - a "fallen" world, detached from God and distorted from what it was meant to be. We, because we are also fallen and damaged, don't know what it's like to be fully as we were meant to be either - fully human, meeting our fully capacity physically, mentally and spiritually. Because he knows, God could describe to us what that might look and feel like, but the words would be lost on us. What a sad state.

Here again is the thrilling part: What if we can be restored?

Think about that proposition just in the context of deadened physical senses: If we all experience our senses now at a tiny, tiny fraction of our full capacity, yet we still derive intense joy and pleasure at that meager level, how much more pleasurable and joyful would complete sensation provide? It would be indescribable!

Try to recall the most savory, rich and abundantly wonderful food you've ever had. Relive those first few seconds of experience and sensation, the surprise at its excellence, your delight as more and more of its complexities and flavors reveal themselves to you. You linger on it, savoring that first bite - utterly pleased and satisfied for one delicious moment... but it's only a moment.

What if that moment could be magnified exponentially? A thousand times? A million times? In intensity, quality and duration? Would you want that? Shoot, I would. Words would not describe that level of pleasure - elation, rhapsody, rapture, bliss, thrill, ecstasy? Nothing would capture it.

I want that kind of pleasure bonanza. I really like those moments of deep joy. I'd love more - especially if it was massively better! If that is restoration, that's what I want. Add to that the idea that it's not only our physical senses that would be restored, but every aspect of our person. Everything would be amazingly intensely better and ridiculously shockingly good. All of life would be elation after elation. (and magically delicious)

Next question: when you think of Heaven, what comes to mind? Fogginess maybe? Mistiness, perhaps? (London in Winter?) Boring, probably. But not intensely thrilling. Deeply pleasing, Pervasively enjoyable. (To be fair, there isn't too much detailed description about what Heaven - restored creation and humanity - would look like. Like trying to explain ripe, fresh strawberries to someone whose palate can only perceive texture, perhaps any detailed descriptions would amount to words wasted?)

I wonder about what restoration of our full personhood would look like. The Bible is pretty clear that we live in a world that is cursed, and we are as well. Death and rot pervade. But this is not as it was intended, and God will one day restore things to the way they were meant to be. (for those that love him and want restoration - but it's on His terms.)

I'm theorizing about the extent of our diminished ability to sense and feel, and what the reversal might look like, but here's the real point - shouldn't we want that change? Shouldn't we long for restoration - once we're aware it's available?

(Totally Parenthetical Get-Me-In-Hot-Water-Thought: Sometime, I'd like to have a conversation with the deaf community about their reluctance to restore hearing to deaf folks, and shunning of those who do. I know it's a tight culture of sorts, but, very respectfully, I can't understand why individuals would pass on restoration of their hearing when it's possible. Are there any other disability groups that are so unwilling to let go of what they do not have?? If you gain what was lost, must you lose what you've got?)

Too often most of us are easily satisfied with our present deadened state. We chase after our diminished and broken (and sometimes inappropriate) means of satisfaction and experience when so much more is offered. Perhaps it's ignorance, perhaps it's fear of the surgeon's knife? We tend to not let go of what we have, good or bad, for what is not fully known. But here I am stepping on a popular quote from C.S. Lewis. He is talking about rewards given for behavior here, but I think it dovetails with my point. Why not let him speak:

Indeed, if we consider the
unblushing promises of reward and the
staggering nature of the rewards promised
in the Gospels, it would seem that Our
Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but
too weak. We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased.

"The Weight of Glory" - you should check it out, whatever you may believe.
Read the entire piece here: http://www.doxaweb.com/assets/doxa.pdf

In any case, my point is that we tend to have a bland view of what a restored world might hold for us. Peace and tranquility - sure, but we rarely consider that we will be fully ourselves again, and we were obviously intended to experience (if we just talk about the physical stuff) sights, smells, textures, sounds and tastes - far, far, FAR more fully than we do now. We rarely view Heaven in terms of richness, intensity and depth of those sensations, much less everything else. We make it boring. We should want more than we have, because in reality we have so little.

Nor should we want less! Some religions tell us that the way to happiness, or "oneness" or the goal we should strive for should be the abolition of our desires. Whoa! Not what I want! Quite the opposite. To borrow a line from my favorite band; "I want to feel and then some, I have five senses, I need thousands more - at least!" (Over the Rhine, The World Can Wait)

I want more, not less.

But more isn't only what I want. I don't want every feeling and sensation to simply be intensified. What I really want is intensification of joy and reduction (actually elimination) of pain and sadness and evil, not just higher highs and lower lows. (And herein lies a whole big topic of why no everyone goes to heaven and holiness and justice and sin and not-so-fun stuff. )

Is restoration something you want? Do you have a taste for more?

I don't have a tidy wrap up for these thoughts. And, for better or worse, there's more that could be brought out of this line of thought. But I'd love to know a couple things from you (O imaginary readers).

How happy do you want to be? Seriously.

What would you be willing to give to get there?

(Christians) Do you think there is something wrong with desiring happiness, or more intense joy and pleasurable experience? Why/Why not? How could unleashing those desire help? How could they hurt?

When you think of the concept and prospect of Heaven, what comes to your mind? Be honest.

What do you do with the reality of our mixed nature? We want good things, but we're bad too. How do you justify being part of a restored world? How do you know now where true and lasting satisfaction and happiness lie? (there are tons of counterfeits!)

Love to know your thoughts.

Spanglish

2008-07-23T23:28:00.003-04:00

I've been watching a lot of children's television lately.

I've got a growing family, and the little ones like the morning cartoons. We let them watch public television because, frankly, most of the "kids" cartoons these days are just bad. Super violent, anti-adult and FRENETIC. Crazy constant ridiculous pace. It's no wonder kids can't pay attention to anything.

And then the commercials! Wow. They simply don't need to watch those. Since they don't, my kids aren't aware of how unhappy and unsatisfied they must be. Surely they must be unhappy and unfulfilled! If only they had xxxxxx. Over and over. Blah.

Anyhow, Public TV stuff is great. Nice shows, no commercials. But one growing trend has me scratching my head a little bit. Its seems that many of the shows want my kids to learn Spanish.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love for my kids to learn another language. I myself know just enough Spanish to get by - which has been pretty handy on several occasions. Spanish is a wonderful language, and I've found Spanish speaking peoples (generally) to be warm and welcoming.

But I'm not really sure about the intent of having morning cartoons, and especially the little "educational spots" in between shows, highlighting and teaching the Espanol Equivalents to English words and phrases. Why are they trying to teach my kids Spanish?

Is the goal to make the Spanish speaking population feel more welcomed and comfortable? To make the English speaking kids more accepting of the Spanish speaking population?

It's not really a big deal, but I am curious about the purpose of it. It's presence doesn't really bother me too much, but I can't clearly tell the intent the producers and writers have from watching it.

Maybe I'll ask write a letter and ask them some preguntas. (that's Spanish for questions)

the Fact of Faith

2008-04-21T22:58:00.008-04:00

With the movie "Expelled" coming out, there is bound to be some reaction - even if for just a little while. Until the next celebrity stunt, political gaff or overly-reported tragedy.

With that in mind, I thought I'd throw out an idea about the concept of faith, and how it's far more a fundamental part of our lives, whether you are religious or not, than most people suspect. Let's start by defining some terms...

Here are some definitions of faith;
Oxford English Dictionary: Faith - noun 1. Complete trust or confidence
Dictionary.com: Faith - 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Here's a generalization, but it's generally true. Scientists and naturalists, for the most part, say that faith is blind; that it is the belief in something despite a lack of evidence, or - some might say in spite of the evidence. Mostly they are talking about religious faith, which, for most in their camp equates to someone choosing to believe that something (God, supernatural, spiritual...etc) exists even though there is no evidence or proof for it. To them, these people are to be pitied, or educated, or in some cases committed.

Blind faith. I think that is the phrase that many equate to belief. But let's step back a second and think about the nature of facts, knowledge and faith - especially their relationships to each other.

I don't like the Oxford definition above, because I think that the idea of complete confidence isn't really a reality for most people. In fact, I don't think that anyone operates on that level of confidence - if their honest.

Here's why - we're finite, and we therefore have limited knowledge. Really limited, if you care to think about it. Of all the information in all the universe, a brash claim is that we would even know a tenth of 1 percent of it all. No way.

So when we say we have a certain knowledge of facts, we're making an inherently limited (but assumably reasonable) claim. We can't gather information about something, for instance - a physical 'law' like gravity, in all possible places, times, conditions and circumstances. We never have a complete picture or truly comprehensive knowledge.

This doesn't mean we don't have knowledge, just that it's not complete. We can make reasonable assumptions and assertions based on repetition and consistency and therefore operate on a principle or law assuming it is true, but we can't say definitively that something like gravity is always as we observe it here and now - because we cannot test that claim in all places, in all times and under all circumstances. We have knowledge about the world around us, but it is inherently limited in it's scope.

Here we are even speaking about things like cold, hard science. Every theorem and experiment rests squarely on the shoulder of assumption. Reasonable assumptions for the most part. The chemist assumes that oxygen will behave in a certain way in certain circumstances, that a combination of two elements will achieve a certain reaction, that chemical X will behave as it has in the past in the same situation. Does the chemist absolutely know? No, not really. But he is reasonably confident it will, otherwise he won't be mixing potentially deadly ingredients together.

Or scientifically, let's push a little father out of the lab. The reason good science is good is because it has been tested and refined to a very high degree of consistency. Assumptions are then a pretty safe bet. When we shoot a spacecraft off to another planet, I doubt that the project includes repeated tests and experiments to determine the force of gravity that the Earth imposes. We don't keep checking the mass of the planet and prove every time how big it is and how much it weighs. That data has been collected, tested and refined to a point where NASA probably just has some data on hand which it adds to the plan. There is trust that the data - which they themselves have not produced and tested - is good and correct.

Here's what I think faith is: reasonable trust based on incomplete knowledge.

If you'll accept that definition of faith, then let's agree that faith is a part of everyone's life - yes even the noble scientists.

There's a balance between both ends of that equation. Knowledge means that there is information collected - it's not complete, and so there is a chance that it doesn't conform exactly to reality - i.e. that the knowledge is untrue. But it's gathered and used to process our action. The extent of that knowledge and it's nearness (or distance) to comprehensiveness will then, if we are reasonable, effect our level of trust.

For example - should I walk out on the icy pond?

My knowledge is incomplete. I don't know if it will hold me for sure. But I know that it's been pretty cold for the last week. I assume that water generally begins to freeze around 32 Fahrenheit. I see that it is frozen all the way to the edge. It looks thick. I weigh 200 pounds. But I can't know for sure if it will hold my wait.

My trust level should be informed by reason. If all the information I have seems to be accurate and compelling to me that it will be safe, I'll enter into an action reflecting faith, or trust. I'll walk out. But if my data is less sound. (there was a warm-up this weekend...the ice looks a little thin) I might not be willing to take an action of faith. I might opt for more information gathering - like throwing a heavy rock out or putting some of my weight on the edge and observing.

In the reasonability component there is also the element of risk vs gain. I have much more to lose when crossing an icy lake than when, say, trying a new flavor of yogurt. But put one of my children out on the ice, badly hurt, and my reasonable level of risk will change.

When things go wrong is when faith is unreasonable, or when the an action or belief is reasonable, but the information and assumptions were far from reality.

Unreasonable faith is the realm of insanity or delusion. That's trust and action DESPITE the information, despite the risk. I knew a mental patient that could verbalize that eating random mushrooms may kill him, but he ate them anyway. (he lived, but still didn't see the connection) That's an unreasonable action.

Reasonable faith can still result in a very poor outcome. Take for instance the 2 crane collapses this year in New York City. Workmen loaded and used the cranes - which passed inspection - and reasonably operated in faith that all would work as it should. Their actions, though completely sensible, resulted in calamity because the reality was very different than their information and assumptions. The inspectors either overlooked problems, or worse - turned a blind eye to them.

So, all day, you and I take faith-based actions. Whenever I choose something, unless something is wrong with my ability to process and evaluate, I am exhibiting trust at some level in the information I have, which is not complete.

The bigger questions then become:
How incomplete/sufficient is my knowledge?
How reasonable is my trust in what I know?

Parenthetical thought: (the opposite of reasonable faith would be unreasonable fear. Healthy people don't operate this way. I could live in total fear all the time because of my limited knowledge. Do I know for sure that no burglar will enter my house while I sleep? Do I know for sure that a fire won't start in the living room? Do i know for sure that no meteor may crash into my office while I work? Do I know that someone on a cell phone might cross the yellow line and hit me? That my hamburger isn't laced with poison? That my phone isn't tapped? No. No to all. I don't know for sure that these things won't happen. But they are unlikely. I take small precautions like locking my door, installing smoke detectors and paying attention when I drive. But I don't live in a bunker, I don't distrust everyone. That we don't know anything for absolutely certain shouldn't completely prevent us from any action. It just means we take precautions about the more likely risks, or small efforts toward unlikely events [life insurance] and know that the rest is rare and nothing that should debilitate us. If we can't make that distiction we're back to the mental hospital or in a life of reclusive internal self-incarceration.)

So all that being said - let's turn to Religion.

If faith is a component of everything we do, religious belief shouldn't be any different. The major mistake people make is in assuming that only in the realm of spirituality and religion is there no information available to make reasonable decisions.

The fact gathering may look a little different than something like genetics, but not unlike other things we trust in - like the fact that Abraham Lincoln was a president. I have no personal experience with that - just information from others who were there, and corroboration.

Religious Faith is just a sub-category of faith in general, but the same principles apply. What information do you have? How reliable is it's source? Are there others who will corroborate the information?

Where science and religion really have their differences is not really in the realm of reasonability - it's in the area of presumption about what constitutes valid information, which is a whole different topic. (of volumes of books)

Naturalism would say that the physical is all there is and there can be nothing more. Religions - in particular Christianity - would say that there is also an immaterial, super-natural aspect to the world with a very real God at the center of it all. Your presumptions about that will play a major role in what information you consider to be valid and what choices you will make.

And when you evaluate the risk versus gain factor, this becomes the most important matter in our lives. Our lives here and now, and our next life - if indeed there is one - will be fundamentally accurate or catastrophically wrong based on what we assume about the nature of reality and the faith-based-actions (which is really all there is) which we make as a result.

No reasonable faith comes without information - but information needs to be tested. To walk through life giving it no thought, no evaluation at all is too big of a risk. It's a blind walk across a barely frozen pond.

It's Elementary

2008-03-10T14:41:00.002-04:00

I saw a "readability rating" graphic on a friend's blog. Apparently this website checks your blog's readability level and determines how smart you have to be to comprehend it. So I did it for mine.

What I was hoping for was this:

That would be nice, wouldn't it? To have a blog that you have to be a genius to appreciate? Ego stroking - yeah.

Of course, what I actually got was this:

Hmm. Should I be disappointed? Insulted?

Should I up the difficulty of my verbiage? Reduce amicability toward the puerile? Aim for more esoteric and enigmatic synthesis and structuring within my circumlocutory sentiments, expressed herein?

Nah. Let the 3rd graders come and weigh in, if their moms let them.

Almost Shocking

2008-02-13T00:02:00.007-05:00

Wow. It's been a while since I smelled that smell.

I have a studio art degree and during my college years I enjoyed a wide variety of classes in the fine arts. One that was particularly fun, given my penchant for pyromania, was sculpture. Why? Because they had arc welders. Big old welders that could easily weld together thick hunks of steel. Nothing quite like welding - it's an all senses experience; the crackling sound, the eerie light through the visor, the sensation of heat and tiny bits of very recently molten steel bouncing off you (mind the hair!) and the smell. Hard to describe the smell. Kind of an ionized, burnt-air smell. You can even taste it in the air.

Anyhow - that's what my kitchen smelled like today. Actually, with the exception of the heat and molten bits, I was taken back to the bowels of the art building. Wow.

A few years ago we replaced the plugs in our kitchen. Still not sure quite how the guy before us wired it all - weird. I'm no expert either. But above our sink there was a little flouresant light that never really worked. I was 99 and 44/100 % sure that when we redid the outlets, we cut the line to the light. Oops.

So - life lesson learned. Always assume that the wires are live, and kill the breakers. I didn't.

Wanting to take that light out to make room from some wine glass hanger things ("things" the verbal equivalent of large gap filling foam, while we're in the hardware/homeowner theme)
I grabbed my trusty Cutco Super Shears, which really are amazing. They cut through anything. Then, with 99.44% confidence, I went for both the black and white electrical wires in one shot.

It was SPECTACULAR.

Happily, I was unharmed. Unshocked - electrically speaking, but shocked by the eerie light, crackling and that certain smell. Unexpected. I was also a bit wide eyed to see the state of my super shears. There are high carbon steel, and are at least 1/8th of an inch thick on each side at the cutting surface. It's been a while since I've seen such nice arc marks. Check it out:

Hooray for non-conductive plastic handles. Brilliant!

Not that I have any readers, but if you are counting that's two molten metal accidents here at my house. (see the grill entry a year or so back) At least ones that are worthy of blogging. I wonder what will complete the hat trick?

So tomorrow, when I go to cap those two wires, before I try to strip the wire you better believe I'll be shutting down the breaker to the kitchen - to the whole house might be better. Or the neighborhood.

Drug Free School Zones?

2008-01-20T14:15:00.000-05:00

What's the deal with some signs?

Most signs have a directly discernible intent, whether it be to advertise a business, or inform a driver, or give direction.

There are some signs though, that I'm not really sure about. I see one of them around quite a bit. It's the "Drug Free School Zone" sign. You've seen it. (here's an iStockphoto of one)

I don't really understand this.

Who is this for? What's the purpose of such a sign? Is it true?

If this is meant to be a statement of location or condition, akin to "This is the Santa Fe Trail" then how do I even believe it? Is this school zone really drug free? How do they know that it's true? Do they regularly do drug screenings? Go house to house and make sure everyone is clean? Just putting up a sign doesn't make it so.

And who is this for anyway? Passers by, homeowners, school kids...drug dealers? Assuming that the function of a sign is to inform, it's hard to know just who the audience for this one is.

In terms of supply and demand, this could be an advertisement for nefarious characters. "Hey, we've got no drugs here in this area... the market is wide open for you, the drug dealer looking to expand your market, and there's no competition here yet - hence the sign ... welcome!"

Wouldn't it be more effective and honest if there were a sign like "increased drug law enforcment area" or "drug related offenses doubled" or something. It's the drug free part that seems silly to me. The sign just sits, whether a drug deal is happening right there or not.

If it's talking about a law - well, in terms of illicit and illegal drugs, aren't all zones of the US supposed to be drug free? (Unless, perhaps, you're a peyote toting Native American) This sign doesn't really create or inform of any special laws that I'm aware of. Why create a sign like this? It's not like there are signs for "Drugs OK School Zone." Like designated smoking location. This is a Dooby Do Zone. Go ahead, pot head. Mmm-no.

So, I don't get it. It's it just wishful thinking? Saying something in the hopes that it will self-produce that happy state? Not sure.

Just a small question. One of those things around that I don't really understand, but thought it would be nice to not understand it together. Not that anyone is reading this.

A Year Later

2007-12-13T12:34:00.001-05:00

Not quite a year ago, my Dad died.

Just wanted to re-visit some perspective on it, which I still hold to. Lots of my friends seem to have been going through similar circumstances, so I wanted to plunk this down.

From January 8, 2007

It is a strange thing to lose a parent – to see your father die. All the family is here at home making funeral arrangements for a man who we half expect to come walking down the steps at any moment to join us. It is the finality of the parting that feels most strange. As I write, I recall that exactly one week ago we were all together celebrating the new year and a delayed Christmas. How different the gathering in the living room feels on this Monday.

My Dad began to take his faith more seriously during the last 5 years. I had no doubts as to where he is. I also had the honor or writing him a tribute letter before his open heart surgery in May. There have been many things leading up to this week that provided some closure for all the family. Still – we feel the loss.

People will often say (and I’ve probably been guilty of it in the past) that “death is natural – it’s a part of life.” It is not true. We were not meant to die, to leave work undone and part company with those we love. Death is most un-natural. We are made for eternity and for relationship. And so, right now despite our pain and grief, we see Jesus’ gifts of life, eternity and future reunions as all the more amazing and beautiful. The finality of death and separation has been revoked for those that know God. We feel it now, but I will see my Dad again. We will have a very happy reunion and an eternity of relationship. That is what awaits us. How gracious our God is!

But for now, I will cry. Quite a bit.

Fuzzy Lines

2007-08-28T23:21:00.000-04:00

I recently rented and watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, and despite the bloodiness of it, rather enjoyed it. Very well done. But this isn't a movie review entry.

Here's what is interesting to me in this - the viewpoints and reactions that I've read about the film. Let me zoom in on one that made me laugh out loud.

If you look up Apocalypto on iTunes and read reviews, you'll find an entry by Baern titled "Decent movie. Highly misrepresents the Mayans though" What I want to pick on is one of his comments. I'll quote it...

"Another issue is how the sacrifice ritual is seriously misrepresented and exaggerated. Mayans didn't sacrifice a bunch of people all in one day; they sacrificed one person every couple weeks or so. The movie makes them look like bloody monsters!"

The movie makes them look like monsters!? I had to laugh at the absurdity of it. Here's the logic:

Gibson portrayed Mayans as monstrous. How?
He depicted them as performing multiple human sacrifices in one day.
Baern says this is unfair: They are not bloody monsters. Why?
In reality, they only sacrifice about 2 human beings each month.

!?!

That's what I call a fuzzy line. (Granted, this was probably an off the cuff, not too thought out review, but whoa!) Baern is saying that the Mayans were not really monstrous, they didn't kill large numbers of people to appease their gods, they killed them at a much lower rate - only one every 2 weeks or so.

Baern seems to think that what makes a human-sacrificing culture egregious is found in the quantity of human sacrifices, not in the fact that human sacrifices are taking place. C'mon Mel - I can't believe you depicted Mayans as cruel people. It's not like the killed people every day! Just some days. Jeez! For Baern, Mel crossed a line he'd drawn.

We get what I call a fuzzy line when we begin making moral distinctions based on subjective opinions of "appropriateness." The lines seem to revolve around numbers, severity, or frequency of some kind of behavior and what I think is too many, too much or too often - it's fuzzy because people draw the line of right and wrong so differently.

I think it's human nature that, much of the time, we'll draw our own lines of "here is where too far, too much begins" but we base the moral location of those lines just below where we perceive ourselves on the continuum of morality.

In other words - when we decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, we rarely will self-condemn. We consider ourselves pretty good, and "wrong" must be something less than our own personal goodness.

The problem with that is that we all have different perspective on what's too far. If we base right and wrong simply on personal preference, should we condemn perverts, or violent men or financial scammers?

You could, and people do, argue that what we do is go with the good old American majority system. That would counter "obviously" egregious behavior. Let the voice of the people determine what's right. We're call something normative if there's a majority that agree it's ok. Of course, this thinking breaks down when the majority is wrong. (which, I suspect is a lot more often than we care to admit - consider 80's hairstyles) If we based our laws and morality on such a system, we'd have no such thing as speed limits. We might also have a problem when it comes to slavery. The majority thought it was good. The majority was wrong.

What we need are non-subjectives in terms of right and wrong. We need someone outside of ourselves to establish objective rules, truth, right and wrong. We need a standard to measure by.

I recently installed baseboards in a bedroom of my house. If I had a guy making cuts for me on the compound miter saw and I was telling him how many inches and at what angles I need the cuts, I would in no way want to have subjectivity about how long an inch is. I was us to operate on the same system, with the same establishment of standards. Otherwise, I would probably get some rather useless pieces of baseboard.

I think the same is true for those fuzzy lines of morality. Baern's complaint about Apacolypto was in terms of how many human sacrifices made a culture barbaric. Two per month, to him, didn't seem that horrible.

The presence of human sacrifices makes the society barbaric. The conversation about how many they make falls under the heading of frequecy, not in the debate of whether it is monstrous or not.

The conversation about whether we are, as human beings, good and righteous seems (in my mind at least) to be pretty clearly answered. (look at history!) When I compare myself to others, I think I'm talking about he wrong issue. Complicity and comparison are two different things. I think we would be better served if we talked a little bit less about comparitive morals, and talked a little bit more about the fact that we're all in the same camp and don't measure up to the standard of Good and Rightous and Whole. Those are more productive and more interesting conversations.

Murk

2007-07-22T03:30:00.000-04:00

Oh murky heart:
What lurking monsters lie
twisted and billowing
beneath your solemn surface?

Only to me faintly known.

Still they seem;
Unseen and poised.
Until unbid perturbants disturb
their tulmultuous serenity,
and extract a toothy toll!

Cooling, clearing water come!
That these muddy monsters,
plain made, may be speared!
By some Fisherman of men.

And I'll be fully known!

30

2007-07-22T02:45:00.000-04:00

I think this is my 30th post.

If this were my job, it would only be about a month's worth at 1/day. Perhaps I don't have much to say - or perhaps in each blog I say too much. Long-windedness. Ugh.

Right now I'm in Colorado. (which, incidentally, some native Coloradans will emphatically insist that you should pronounce incorrectly. Why anyone would want to take a nice, open and pleasant Ahh sound [as in Avocado] and replace it with a hyper-nasal American Eah [as in yeah] is beyond me. Good night! We make such gross vocalizations in the US as it is!)

Ok - shorter John, shorter.

Right now I'm in Colorado. Been here most of the summer. One of the things I think I like most isn't really attached to the state. It's the sky.

Perhaps I've had more time to notice. Perhaps the flatness just before the mountains makes it more accessible to the eye. Perhaps it's better here? (altitude?)

In any case, the sky just seems to beckon me to look - and snap a few photos now and again. I've seen many spectacular sunsets, rainbows, storm systems, billowing clouds, cobalt skies... it's been pretty soul-satisfying.

I remember a bunch of years ago, again in Color(eah)do, I was camping in a local river canyon with some friends. I've been in the country before, but never quite this remote - far, far from any other lights. It was the first time I fully grasped what the term "milky way" pertained to. (other than the chocolate encased fluffy whatever-it-is) I had no idea that there were that many stars visible to us. It really was a creamy swathe in the sky. I was DAZZLED by the heavens above. Innumerable, Incredible, and sadly - Invisible, at least for most of us, most of the time.

Doesn't it seem ironic that the little lights that man makes, so obscure the great lights of the heavens above? The garish eclipses the glorious?

It's been a refreshment for me to again lift up my eyes and look to the heavens this summer - day or night. Our little lights, our little glories just don't have the awe-ing power that a breathtaking sunset has. Or the sensory feast of a fast moving evening thunderstorm. Or the canopy of glimmering, exploding stars - stretched and spinning and the farthest reaches of my eyes.

When's the last time you stopped, looked up and took it in? We're walking around on a Master's canvas, and we so infrequently take a moment to absorb the inexhaustible brilliance in which we are enveloped. Oh - sad, sad we.

Bird in Hand

2007-06-17T23:33:00.000-04:00

I'm writing this from Colorado. (whoo-hoo!)

Every two years or so I travel to Colorado for work, staying there for a significant amount of time. I love it here. If you've never visited, you should. I'll leave it at that, because Colorado is only the context for my comments, not the subject.

Two years ago here in Colorado I was sitting about 15 feet up in a tree. I had some time during a training session where I was challenged to go reflect on my personal life and how I was doing; spiritually, emotionally, relationally...etc. There was a beautiful and climbable tree nearby and I figured that was just as nice a place to think about myself than any. I was wrong.

What happened was that I wound up just soaking in the natural world around me. I couldn't quite stay focused on personal inventory. I was too absorbed in the tree, the sound of the wind, the dappled heat of the sun. The front door of my mind was locked, and my (often odd and meandering) internal dialogue just wasn't happening. What I would discover later is that the lessons that day (and I think, most days) come better through the back door of our minds - informally and somewhat unexpectedly, like an old friend popping in for a visit. My lesson that day would come, rather oddly, through two birds - the first of which landed just above me in the tree.

Very Large Tangential Aside: I like the idea of back door paradigm change. I like the analogy and I like the mechanisms of the uncontested entrance. What I mean is that when we want to challenge someone else's thinking and viewpoint, with the intent of changing their minds about some subject, we who are not so shrewd (especially Christians) tend to approach people at the front door. By this I mean, we come formally and directly - on topic with our best argument forward.

The problem? Door to door salesmanship is dead. Growing up at my parent's house, if people came knocking on the front door, we put our guards up. It would invariably be someone selling something, or wanting something, or a Jehovah's Witness. (there's a whole 'nuther blog topic!) Our goal when we answered the door was generally to dismiss them. (if we answered the door!)

Friends came to the back door. It was never locked. It was just a screen door - not a huge formal front. When someone showed up at the back door, we weren't guarded or defensive - we were ourselves. Maybe you didn't have a home like this, but I did.

If you really want someone to change their thinking it will generally happen incrementally, and you need to sneak in the new view around back - through a joke, a story, a movie, a comment - some vehicle that carries within it a different world-view. Rather like a Trojan horse, but not in a "let's decimate the city" way. Something appealing which has, implicit within it, a viewpoint or moral or message.

Stories do that. Movies do that. I think many people don't look at what they watch on TV or in theaters and ask the questions: What is the moral? The point? The Worldview. The fact is that all stories contain one, in one fashion or another. And there is the back door teaching and shift. When you or I watch or listen to or hear something without discerning what it teaches us, we are unconsciously hearing, at least in part, the viewpoint and beliefs of another. They are making their argument through the backdoor, where we are not consciously holding up our viewpoint to theirs and evaluating. It's coming in, albeit by increments, uncontested.

I'm not saying this is bad necessarily. What I'm saying is that it's shrewd and effective - over the long term. What I do think is bad is when you or I never give thought to this effect. I'm more likely to actually think about the viewpoint of, let's say, a Jehovah's Witness if it's given to me in a creative and gentle manner, rather than through a front door assault which makes put up defenses. I DO want to hear another person's viewpoint and worldview, but I don't want it to be forced and awkward and assaultive. I also don't want someone sneaking it in with zero awareness on my part. That feels like brainwashing and manipulation.

I guess what I'm saying is for real communication and life change to happen in the realm of how we understand the world, we're overly guarded to directness and underly aware of subtlety. What I need to do if I want to communicate effectively is knock on the back door. I need to communicate in a way that doesn't raise walls on the hearer's part, but also doesn't skulk about not showing my intent.

Maybe I'm nuts, but this is what I would most like to do. How? That's the real issue. At any rate, back to the tree I was in (it relates)....

So, a small bird (a sparrow, if you care) landed just above me in some of the branches. The first thing that popped into my head was "wouldn't it be cool if that bird would just come and land on my finger or hand - just for a few moments." So, on a whim, I said, out loud "God, it would be so cool if a bird would land in my hand - just a silly little selfish request." And I held out my hand - in an act of faith.

What happened next was unremarkable: My arm got tired.

Or maybe the bird took off. I can't really remember. Oh well, guess the answer was 'no.' A few minutes later I went back to the session I was a part of, having enjoyed the stay in the tree, but with little in terms of front door reflection on my life and what I need to work on.

The back door lesson came later, and I didn't even realize it right away.

That afternoon I rode my bike to pick up a rental car - I couldn't get a ride. The crazy thing is that it was well over 100 degrees that afternoon and in Colorado where there's much less atmosphere between you and the sun, it's intense.

Riding down a small side road I saw a bird in the middle of the street - another sparrow. As I approached I expected her to fly away. She didn't. As I passed I got a closer look - this little bird was probably overheated. It sat almost motionless with its mouth agape, baking on the asphalt. I kept riding another few seconds when compassion got the better of me.

There was no traffic so I went back. The bird never protested or fled as I approached, I scooped it up and place it in the coolness of some dense bushes at the side of the road. She never struggled or seemed afraid. She just hopped off, almost gratefully, into the shadows.

Probably a full 60 seconds later I answered the knock at the back door of my mind. "Hi!" said the friendly visitor, "Just stopping by to ask you a few things real quick: Didn't you pray a little while ago that you'd hold a bird in your hand? Hmm. Well, what's it tell you about yourself and about God (to whom you made this request) that your desire to experience something you thought would be neat for you was answered, a little different than you expected, and was used to secure the benefit of another?"

There were more lessons I learned from that little back-door experience than hours of front door contemplation could have yielded. And those lessons stick.

Stoicism, Blame, Speculation, Blindness, Absurdity and the News

2007-04-24T23:53:00.000-04:00

Virginia Tech just happened a week ago. April 16, 2007.

For my part, I am shocked - but not surprised. This sort of thing fits right into my world view, so I am not taken off guard by these events, but I am horrified and wounded by them.
I've cried a bit, even more so because I have friends who work there - friends who personally knew students that were killed.

Since this has dominated the news media for the past week, I've about had it with a few characteristics of the networks and news mills as they drone on and on. Yes, I need to know that it happened. Yes, I want to know more fully the details of these events. Yes, it is all worthy of commentary and processing. Yes. But...

There are a few things about the news media that have been the passing of the kidney stone for me this week, and I guess (to push the simile too far) that this is the place where the stone hits the water for me. This will be where I get them out of my system. Relief at last! Some you will think unfair, irrelevant or unlikely to change - but this is my blog. Go write your own.

So - as per the title of this installment....

Stoicism. When I first began to realize just how gigantically tragic this shooting spree was, not to mention the methodical manner in which is was carried out, I realized this was a horror we've not yet known - well, we have, but to a scale we've not yet experienced. In this case, what I wished for was someone on the TV to shout "Oh no! This is unbelievable! There is something terribly wrong with this world! This is horrible, absolutely horrible! Oh God, please help them." and weep. Or have an expression of anguish, or tears, or be visibly sickened - something - anything.

I could see some emotion, or hear it. But for news like this I just wish there was a value for empathy, expression and appall. The anchors were so controlled and composed. The soundbites so polished and formal. When there is a tragedy, I want someone who will feel it with me, I want someone to weep for that which is unjust and terrible. I don't want a composed professional. I want someone who will be human and feel it deeply.

That one is all me, and I know this isn't something that will likely change. I just hate that the rawness and emotion of it gets filtered into a news blurb. Unfair you say? - maybe.

Blame. That's really the point - right? At least that's what comes out of the gates pretty early. The shooter killed himself, so whom shall we blame?

Within hours I heard/read/saw reports on things like: The inferior-to-other-schools' security on campus. The lack of an immediate lockdown orders. The ease of purchasing weapons in Virginia. The mother, the father. That he wasn't expelled for previous issues. The mental health system not confining him. His fellow students lack of interaction with him....on and on.

Message: It's about who we can blame.

A friend and co-worker of mine said it well. He mentioned that the news, and many people, seem to take the view that the world is not messed up, and for the few things that seem to be amiss, if we just have the right systems in place it can be perfect. No it can't. No way. We live in a corrupted world, and systems of control and safety are good, but they can't change the very nature of the world. We need something beyond us for that.

But - it's much more convenient to blame someone or some thing - or better yet: some system for screwing up in this case. It's not that this world is fallen, it's just that X screwed up. And now, back to our illusions of goodness. Perhaps this is more of an American bubble. We don't really know pain and chaos like many other places in the world.

Speculation. I'll keep it short. It seemed like, in an effort to fill space, that the media is willing to throw any speculations it can out there to keep you roped in. After all, the news really is about having the latest, greatest news, so they can have the most viewership, so their sponsors (and more sponsors) will generate more revenue.

So, since it's a business and the business is selling (semi-sensationalized) information (sometimes true information) the model seems to be 1. report what you know 2. Make lots of show-stopping speculations and leaps about what you don't and 3. buttress correct (or close) speculations with later facts as they arise, ignoring your ridiculous guesses.

I'd rather have truth, undressed-up. But that doesn't seem to be sufficient anymore.

Blindness. See above a bit. Let's face it, right up there with journalistic integrity and the noble desire to disperse truth the the world, there is the need for ratings. Perhaps for some that is really the greatest commandment. To be most watched. (sponsored, payed, profitable - it's the same ball of wax)

So - to show the tapes the killer made? Are you blind? Don't you understand? Those tapes legitimize him. They encourage others. They validate his actions (not condone, but validate) and give him a voice to the masses. He was crazy, he was mentally unstable. To show that was - I hope - an act of blindness on the part of the networks.

I hope it was lack of wisdom. I really do, because the alternative is that they knew it would have a legitimizing and validating effect for other unstable people, but the value of sensationalism bringing ratings and viewership was a value higher than social responsibility and safety. I hope it was just stupidity and ignorance and blindness. But I have a feeling it was "let's show it anyway."

And that is not a good sign.

Absurdity. This is my biggest one, personally. I watched these horrible reports about bloodshed and death and tragedy - which were immediately followed up with.... a commercial. Whatever they were. A car ad, a food ad, a vacation ad...insert just about anything.

The contrast was startling. One moment I'm peering into madness, violence, loss and suffering... and then moments later I have some dulcet voice telling me that my life will be so much more fulfilling and worthy if I just have this kind of car, or eat these kind of cheese puffs, or use the makeup, this hair gel.....etc.

Anyone else see the absurdity of this? What's really important? It certainly comes out in an event like Virginia Tech: Love. Relationships. Courage. Health. Safety. Faith. Family. Life.

Pardon me, but who the hell cares about what shaving cream I used this morning? It doesn't matter. Half the stuff that is advertised is successful because people are overfed, under-challenged and bored to death. They've lost sight of what's really of value and buy the lines (carefully crafted) that "this is what you need to be fulfilled, happy, and have sexy partners dangling from your arms."

Never has our self-indulgent consumerism seemed more crass and absurd than in the midst of the news last week. What brand of toilet paper I use doesn't matter. It really doesn't, but we're constantly being pushed to believe that it actually makes a difference in the quality of our lives. What a sham. It's a lie.

So for my part, I'm remembering that...

We should know about recent events - but we need not make vast speculations about the unknown.

Finding someone to blame only ignores the real problem - the world really is broken.

Truth is satisfactory - in the order and portions that it comes, and sensationalism is more theater than fact.

Blindness about our actions is sad, but preferable to knowledgeable disregard for their impact.

What's really important probably has little to do with what is advertised as being so.

For my part, I'm also praying for everyone at Virginia Tech - including the news-media, who will just move on to the next sensational something.

Nudity on my Xbox

2007-03-25T01:24:00.000-04:00

People get naked with me on my Xbox.

I'm baiting you with that - what I mean is that they are being who they really are. And that's what really disturbs me - sort of.

I have joyfully wasted many an hour playing video games online via my Xbox Live account. For any theoretical readers out there who theoretically don't know what that means, here's the super brief explanation. (sorry gamers) Basically, you hook your Xbox up to the Internet, then you can find other people playing the same game and play with/against them. The service that provides this arena is called Xbox Live through bungie.net, and I think I recently read that there are more than six million subscribers.

Anyhow, here's what I find sociologically and psychologically interesting: besides gaming, the online environment gives an arena for people to be who they really are.

I play Halo 2 mostly, and most people have a headset that allows them to speak and hear others speaking. (I can only listen) If you ever go online for any time I think you will be shocked by what you will hear - by what people say to each other.

I'm not talking about good old bad language and cursing. Shoot - you can go hear that in most places. (cable, for instance) What I'm appalled by is the content and intent of their speech. Slanderous, racially charged language. Threats and harassment that is sexual, mocking and vicious. Words bristling with ego and the debasement of others. On and on. Some people open their mouths and utter horrible, horrible things toward other human beings - willful malice and attempts to wound them.

Some might argue that this arena, this environment, provides a venue that encourages that sort of thing. I think this suggestion doesn't go far enough. I think that this online venue doesn't cause anything - it just removes something.

What it removes is the normal sense of public shame. There are no social repercussions for anything that is said there. I could use racial slurs, directed at a specific ethnicity, and there are no consequences. Others can sound off against me but there is no real world feedback, e.g. a punch in the face. If I were to talk to someone standing in front of me like that, I would likely be beat to a senseless pulp. And I should be. Online, people speak with others whom they will never meet, have no existing relationship with and bear no risk of accountability for their behavior.

That's what disturbs me most. When you have complete impunity, what comes out is really you. Social norms and fear of judgment restrict us from saying everything that pops into our minds. "Healthy people" filter out things that are socially inappropriate and may cause them shame. But it seems that when the fear of judgment or getting caught are removed, people will do and say some terrible things. Case in point - my cohorts on Halo 2. (And me. Let's be honest - though I don't slur racially, I've said a few things to opponents that I'm a bit embarrassed about!)

But what we call "healthy people" are just the ones that manage to filter out what they are really thinking, or would really like to say. The thing about people is not that they allow those things to come to the outside - it's that we don't; it's that all of us have those things on the inside, but with some self control, we can keep others from seeing that they're there. We can hide that which is bad. Behave well, though we're not thinking well. Our issue as humans isn't only behavior, it's also motivational and internal.

Jesus called us on it. If you're not familiar, he was talking and teaching about what real "goodness" is. He cites the external behavioral conventions and saying of the day; "you've heard it said...." then states what most people would agree on: Don't murder, don't be unfaithful to your spouse...etc. Then he ups the ante; "but I say..." and he moves us to the internal world - he gets to the (mostly) hidden reality of our hearts.

Read it for yourself. It's in the book of Matthew, chapter 5.

He seems to be concerned not just with how we act, but who we are - for-real, internally, when there is no fear of being caught or reprimanded, when we think we'll get away with it. That, I think is where we need to deal with who we are. That's the starting point; the heart. And that's the point, if we're honest, when we realize that our behavior might point to being a good person, but our inner thought life...we might not be all that good.

This is the starting point - our reality of need, rather than the illusion of goodness. We're all flawed and need some work. Those who seem so well behaved? Does the internal match the external? I'm not sure, and I can't be. It's between them and God.

Meanwhile, I'll hang out with some of the potty-mouths online. Whether they know it or not, they're naked and exposed. They're who they really are. I need to be more that way with God, and then ask for and allow change to happen to the areas that need some work.

When I'm playing with them and hear what they're saying; if it's a good day, I'll pray for them. If it's a really good day, I'll remember to pray for me - I'm not that different, I just hide it better.

My Un-Understood Grief

2007-02-11T23:15:00.000-05:00

Well. For catharsis' sake I make this entry.

My Father died just over a month ago.

How should someone respond to that? I sent out lots of emails and phone calls asking for people to pray for him as his condition declined in the hospital. (It was just a hernia repair, which cascaded into the unbelievable.) When it all abruptly and surrealy ended, I informed them of the loss. Now, nearly everyone I know has need to make mention of it.

What should people say to me when they see me? (Like this is all about me - but let's run with this line of thought.) What can they say? Mostly I hear "I'm so sorry" and ask me how I'm doing.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking I don't appreciate their empathetic mode or their desire to know if I'm dealing with the grief "well." I do. The thing is, I think, that we as Americans in the modern era don't have much skill or practice with this type of thing. It's far less common, this personal familiarity with loss than I think it must be in most other parts of the world. We're awkward about it. I'm awkward about it.

My Father has died. I have, obviously, never before comprehended the full weight of that. I probably don't now, nor will for some time. When people ask me "How are you doing John?" I get irritated - not for the reason you think. More because I'm not sure how to respond.

How am I doing? At present I think I could answer that one of two ways.

Option One: I could have a conversation with them about the fullness of my Father's life, how he reared me, his moments of weakness and withdrawl, our level of intimacy, what strength he passed to me, what failings I have had to overcome, and the new strangeness of this reality; that your parents (if all goes relatively well) are the ONLY constant - the singular relationship in which you find yourself engaged since before you are able to remember. They always have been - like some relational mountain. There is no other such relationship. I could try to have a conversation - when people ask - about the simultaneous absurdities of being no where close to full realization of what this loss means and trying to heal. That conversation, I think, would do me a lot of good. But I haven't had it yet. (not even with myself)

Option Two: I could say "I'm doing fine."

So, what's irritating about this is that I can't really give either answer. The first option isn't an option, because in nearly every instance that I see my friends and co-workers, the context, the timing and the personal investment are probably all not up to muster for a full answer. Americans really just want to hear a one minute update. Really. With the exception of a few close friends, that's what I want when I have conversations too.

Option Two I can't go with. While people do want a synopsis, there should be some genuine element to it. Plus, the dialogue is "How are you doing with your Dad's death?" and I answer "I'm doing just fine." I'm doing a pretty big disservice to myself (that would be a bit more than an oversimplification) and to the memory and impact of my Dad. I'm fine with my Dad's death? Right. Now they'll think I'm in some kind of denial, or we had some kind of estrangement.

What I need is a 2 minute answer. But there is none. So, I usually wind up saying a few cliches and trying to give some information that is a little bit vulnerable and sincere but doesn't required a major time commitment or beg further pursuit.

Is that unhealthy? Shallow?

I'd really rather not talk about it much if I can't probe it deeply. I hate it right now that it most often comes up in small talk. I say a few "yeah it's hard"s then transition into talking about my Mom, who has more to adjust to. (Which is so true, but in part might be a dodge.)

The my most appreciated responses thus far? Honestly? Those who've said something like "John, we will continue to pray for you." I hope that's true. That's really what I want. They have cared. They know I will somehow need more support and prayer. They don't presume I could tell them what I'll need and they don't ask me to encapsulate the next few years of processing and self-discovery right then in a sound bite. They also recognize that if I need Option One with someone, I can probably ask someone who is willing to wade through it all with me.

I do need to wade through sometime soon - with someone who knows. Because the fact of the matter is - you comprehend that this type of loss will be far reaching and depth shaking when that day inevitably comes, but no amount of articulate explanation and theoretical empathy can match a knowing "Me too... Me too."

I miss my Dad.

Whew - Fall!

2006-12-11T16:50:00.000-05:00

Well - it's been quite some time since I've written anything down.

It's not that things haven't been bouncing around my head, or that I haven't had any desire to get some of those thoughts (and mis-thoughts) down, I've just not really had time.

I just finished what was my final semester working on a college campus. I'm transitioning to an office-type job within the same organization. I'm looking forward to some things that will be different, in particular having a role that will allow for some more creativity. Though, I will miss the personal contact and interactions with students. I will miss that quite a bit, which does cause some sadness.

It's been a bitter-sweet thing - this leaving behind of one world for another. Resistance or hesitancy about transition seems natural, although we tend to think that we should feel otherwise. After all, even if you know something good is coming, we tend to not want to let go of what is already familiar and experienced. At the other end of transition, something great lurks. (this is a chief hope, isn't it?) But it's unattained. Smokey.

Smoke is real. I can see it, I can smell it, I can even interact with it. But it's hard to grasp. That's what promises of the future feel a little bit like to me. Perhaps it's my pessimistic bent, but I'm a not-so-interested-in-the-two-in-the-bush type.

Anyhow - I let go of this 10 year interaction with students a little hesitantly. It's been a busy fall, and it's a little hard to say good bye to what is familiar and loved. Especially when it's people. But, I have a feeling that I'll enjoy this next stage of life - until I have to slowly, cautiously be coaxed to open my hand, relinquish control and move to the next thing. I should be more open handed I think.

After all - in a campus environment you have to get used to letting go. Students only stay for 4 or 5 years and then we part company. I suppose then that the thing I'm most sad about it giving up the view of that parade. It's been such a joy to watch students come, grow, learn, change, and head out. It's been a good seat, with a great view. It will go on - students will come to college, learn who they are, who God is and catch a vision of their future - smokey as it may be - and depart for it. I'll just have to enjoy that from a distance.

I wonder what things I will fall in love with next? The thought that love, with all its entanglements and surprises, is transferable and lasting is really the thing that makes the future tenable.

Night

2006-09-10T02:09:00.000-04:00

Twilight passed.

The luminous sojourner
again glides his way across
a pin-pointed canopy.

His pale efforts to expose
cannot reveal that which
is apparent to me here;

The muted songs of night,
the Still for lack of light.
The solitude,
my day's repast,
in which I take delight.

My Day in Court

2006-09-10T01:42:00.000-04:00

I rehearsed my defense for a couple months.

Last week I was in court. I was the defendant.

Without getting to over-zealous, I had a run in with the evil empire that is the local parking enforcement. Here is a rule to keep in mind: By choosing to park anywhere in a college town, you have automatically revoked your rights. College towns have helicopters hovering overhead with meter maids that zip line in within seconds of the moment that parking restrictions become effective.

Shoot - I wasn't going to get too over-zealous.

Here's the short explanation. I was rendezvous-ing with my wife to swap cars. Parking restrictions began on this street at 5. I waited with my car from 5:00 to 5:07, when she arrived. She was pregnant, had to pee so we went into the home of our friend, in front of which we had parked. We said hi. She peed. We said thanks and goodbye, returning to our cars at 5:12 - each of which had a ticket. (I could still faintly hear the helicopter flying off that had just zipped in the parking Nazi.) We got one at 5:10 and one at 5:11.

Man. I was mad.

Karen (our friend) had 2 parking passes for guests, but we thought in the time we'd be there we wouldn't need them. Indeed - it may have taken her 4 minutes just to find them!

So - two tickets totalling $30. No way was I paying.

Here's the short story on how it works. You refuse to pay. They send a court summons. You plead not guilty. You pay the fines + some hefty court costs. ($115 was what I sent in!) You come on your appointed date. You plead your case for not being guilty. Then comes the verdict.

I'll tell you how it played out in a minute, but for now here is what was really really interesting to me:

I was scared to death.

Weird huh? I really believe that I was in the right. My thoughts - rehearsed in my head for days and days prior: the purpose of the law is to protect residents from having random non-resident people (OK - students) from leaving their cars parked on resident's streets all the time, causing inconvenience and loss of room to park. I was a guest of the resident, I was there for 5 minutes with the resident, and there is certainly, or should be, enough flexibility in the law for pregnant women to pee at a friend's house. I truly believe that I didn't deserve those tickets.

Yet - I was in the court room and my heart was pounding. I was not coming in with a lie. I wasn't really angry with the meter maid (from her perspective, I couldn't expect her to do any differently) and I felt that justice would support me.

So why was I so intimidated and nervous?

I think the answer has to do with authority. In the court room, I have rights (and happily in the American system whether you think it's broken or not) I didn't really have anything to fear for my personal well-being. But in terms of my case - of the judgment, decisions, penalties and effects, the judge had complete authority. What he decided would be what happened. I could present my perspective, but he had authority, true authority to make his determination reality.

To enforce this sense of authority, the judge sat really high. I was surprised and hadn't thought about this. The room was small, maybe about twice the size of my living room. But when I stood up and seated judge looked at me I was still a good couple of feet below his eye level. I'm over 6'. He was near the ceiling.

I was in no personal danger, I felt I was in the right, but I was still pretty intimidated. This over a couple parking tickets.

I believe that one day we all will have to stand before a Judge. He will not be evaluating one particular instance of infraction, but the whole of our lives. His authority will be total. His ruling will be completely accurate - nothing will be hidden or manipulated. His ability to carry out a sentence will be sure. Everything we've ever done will be laid bare, seen for what it is.

The thing with a court case is that you're either proclaimed guilty or not. The issue isn't whether you have done more good than bad, the question is "did you break the rule or not?" We have all broken rules. This should cause a reaction in us - something must be done.

This is what the Bible is all about. God doesn't want us to bear the sentencing, so he gives us an opportunity to settle - out of court. Do you know what it is? Ask me. I'd love to tell you.

For my situation, I broke even. (Which is really a win in a parking ticket case in a college town!) The Judge decided that I'd pay one ticket, and he would dismiss my wife's ticket and the court fees. I could have (should have) waited by the cars while she was in our friend's house. Seemed like the best I could get, so I was pretty happy. Glad to pay the $15. I didn't bear the full weight of the penalty - just a little.

That's a good deal - in the case of parking tickets. . . and life.

They're the Problem

2006-09-05T02:32:00.000-04:00

I blame everyone but me.

But I think I might be "normal."

If by normal I mean "typical." I tend to shift blame to others - or, more popular for me, my circumstances. (Turns out I sound more like Curly from the 3 stooges than I'd like: I'm a victim o' Coicumstances - nyuk nyuk nyuk.) I don't want to be a jerk or have character deficiencies. Nope. So, my gut response is blame shifting. Make someone or something else the jerk. You probably do it too.

I think this is why the public speakers and preachers I get the most out of are the ones that make me own my problems. I think that's why when I have occasion to speak, I'd like to be able to limit gracious talk and dole out some truth. (I wish I spoke better!) I think this is why Dr Phil is so popular.

Recently I had an almost-conversation where I wish I would have had the courage to shine a little light back at some people. (I also avoid conflict, which is why it's safer for me to blame circumstances rather than people)

At the start of this summer, I was in a shuttle bus heading toward a parking lot near the Philly Airport. We had been delayed, circling Harrisburg for a while before we came in to land. The shuttle driver pointed out the reason; "Parked right there is Air Force One. President is up at the nuke plant for a speech."

Regardless of your politics, we can all agree on one thing: It's the president's fault. It doesn't matter what or why - he's to blame. That's a convenient one, isn't it? He's leading and he's got all this control and I'm just a little somebody who has to deal with all the crap that comes around. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

That's the tack that the one guy in the shuttle went with. At the mention of Air Force One he talked about how rising gas prices were such a pain, and how the stupid president should do something about it. (Like what? Supply and Demand. We have nearly uncontrolled demand, the OPEC Nations largely regulate the supply. If we think it through, I don't think we want any president - regardless of politics - to start 'governmentalizing' major sectors of private industry. Imagine if every gas station operated like the DMV. Ugh.)

Anyhow - here are a couple questions I should have been bold enough to ask.
What kind of car do you drive?
Do you commute to work?
Ever use public transportation?
With how many people do you car pool?
What do you do to conserve energy/gas?

I didn't. I'm a weenie. But it was rather remarkable, as my friend and I drove home (rushing to beat the immenent highway shutdown for the returning President - who I blame for all the bad traffic on the way home) we decided to count how many cars in a row had just one person in them. On average, it was 9 out of 10 cars. Only 10% of cars had 2+ people, and of those, the vast majority were obviously families.

Shuttle Dude was wrong. I have the real power to do something - if a lot of I's can do something together. Consider: What would happen if everyone driving to work could just take a buddy. You know, I drive Luke in my car today, tomorrow he drives. No huge changes, like everyone goes public transport. Just simple 2 people car-pooling. Without doing any math or research, here are some potentials.

1 Commuting cars would use half the fuel they do now (That's a LOT!)
2 There would be nearly half as many cars during rush hour. (Glorious)
3 Less cars = Less congestion = faster commute with less stop & go = better fuel economy.
4 Reduced Fuel Consumption = Lower demand = lower prices.
5 More en route conversations with real people = less imbicilic morning radio hosts. (well, I can dream, can't I?)

Shoot - I could do way more than the president, if I actually did this. Problem: getting us all to do it. After all - the problem isn't me, it's those other guys. I need to have a Suburban Excursion to take my Armada on an Expedition to see the Sequioa. (I'll just take my Jetta, thank you)

Wouldn't it be great if we all took some ownership for stuff? If it's my fault, I can do something about it. If I blame you, I've just passed the buck. Nothing changed for the better, especially my ego. This would be great in lots of stuff - not just gas prices. Think of marriages, frivilous lawsuits, politics (gasp!) etc.

A little more personal integrity, honesty and ownership would be great for all of us.

And then we wouldn't have to watch Dr. Phil!

It's all his fault.

Ill Grill Thrill with Molten Spill

2006-08-20T16:50:00.000-04:00

My most practical advice piece yet. (my only one, actually) Here's my "I almost burned my house down and killed us all this month, but I didn't, and I lived so I can help you not almost burn your house down and kill yourself too" advice blog. (I'm thinking of making this a weekly series)

A friend donated us his old gas grill which we've enjoyed. Little did he know I'd be melting parts of it down to it's base metals. But we love it.

Oh - a word about the pleasures of having gas. (in my grill, that is) We had a charcoal grill which some people simply swear by. "You just can't get flavor from gas like you can from charcoal." I am willing to concede them this point, if they are willing to concede that the time to flavor increase ratio is too low. When I have time to go through the charcoal process, it will mean I've got lots of free time - during which I'm going to go out on a date or something. When you have 40 minutes to do dinner before you've got to be somewhere charcoal just won't do it. Imagine cooking directions like this; preheat oven for 45 minutes, then bake xxxx for one hour, but don't wait too long to start or you'll blacken it, or wait to long and run out of heat. So since I have gas (hee hee) I save meals and make up for what I lack in precision timing.

As you probably know, when you grill you need to burn off the stuff from the previous grilling. (unless you like grill jerky) Last time I decided to invest in the future; I'll burn off that stuff now! said I. So I took the meat off and cranked up the heat. In I went, ate, played with the kids, relaxed...etc.

Just before bed we were cleaning up the kitchen when it dawned on me: the grill.

It was no longer on. I was wondering how much propane we had left - and had it not been for the fact that it must have went out after just 3 hours, I'm sure I'd be blogging about what we salvaged from the ashes of our home.

I now have liquid metal (solder?) which dripped down onto the deck. The logo thing on the grill melted down half around the thermometer - which cracked from the heat. This sagged because the bolt and screw that held on melted! Plastic tray to the side? Melted away from the grill. Here are some pictures.

Anyhow - we're glad to still be alive. My advice to you is - be lazy. Wait to clean your grill until the next time. Or, I guess some of the non-flavor merits of charcoal: non-explosive, self-extinguishing.

Those aren't bad.

More than Echos

2006-08-01T22:03:00.000-04:00

My 2nd child was born just a week ago. Hannah. She's beautiful and my wife and I are thrilled. Even our son (2) seems to think she's pretty interesting. (we'll see if that one lasts!)

A thought that has been bouncing around in my head as I awaited her birth - how remarkable it is that my wife and I have created a life, and how significant that life is.

My worldview (which, though this seems intolerant in the present day; I think is the right one) has near its core the concept that we are eternal. We have souls that are enduring forever and life here and now in the world is but a foreshadow of the future one. We are not the source of our un-endingness, but have our very lives as a gift from God, and part of that gift includes eternity.

Anyway, with that worldview in mind, here is what is remarkable to me: My wife and I have now had a part in the creation of 2 eternal beings. For all eternity, there will be 2 additional persons that would not have existed if Rachael and I had not created them. (granted, our part is quite small in that act of creation, and still wholly dependent on God)

This might seem like a "well, duh" to you, but it really strikes me. I truly can shape the eternal future. Isn't that amazing? Our choice to have children will have real, direct and permanent effect on all of time. Forever will look different because we lived and loved and had kiddos.

When the bible talks about man being made in God's image this includes both being eternal, but also being a creator. Together, my wife and I have the capacity to create another life - one that will exist forever.

That is wild to me.

My life matters. The choices I make matter - not just in their immediate context and interactions, but forever! There are impacts and implications that will not be "echos in eternity" as the line from Gladiator goes, but they will be concretely eternal. I matter. My life matters. My choices matter - forever.

It's also interesting to me that having this temporary life here leading up to an eternal life elsewhere does not diminish this life's importance - quite the opposite. In this short span on earth, I will shape, to a humble degree, what that eternity will be like. This life is of gargantuine importance! It's a limited opportunity to make eternal impact.

Anything less cheapens it. I recently watched Aeon Flux. (which turned out better than it started) Without spoiling it, you realize that they are dealing with questions of immortality, quality of life and legacy. At the end there is a line that says "we're meant to die, and our job is to do the best we can and hope that the next generation will do better." (paraphrased)

This initially sounds poetic and true, but as I think about it - it's not. Just because death happens doesn't mean it's what's supposed to be. If it is supposed to be, why is it continually, in all cultures such a shock, a source of distress, a heart wrenching dissappointment? It certainly doesn't feel like it's the natural order of things. People throughout time have taken the opposite stance - regardless of culture or religious views. People cling to life, they strive to be cured of diseases, defy aging. Then they weep and somehow feel cheated when a mother, sister, son are taken away. It's not what we're meant for - we're meant to live. Death is completely unnatural.

Then, if my existence ends when I die and my hope is that the next generation to do better - well, that doesn't feel right either. If I no longer exist after I die - what do I care comes after me? There is zero benefit to me whether I have lived as a noble king or wretched pauper. If I'd been a self sacrificing saint or just sought my own personal comfort at the expense of others. It's irrelevant.

For the next generation then, the only concern I might have are for my kids and direct family. Other than that, I don't really care about anyone else. Why should I? (if I had that world view) But really - why will my kid's quality or quantity of life matter? If there is nothing after life here, then it doesn't really matter what life here was like - ultimately. If my kids live a great life, cure cancer, help countless poor and destitute and have monuments and statues named after them - what's the difference? They may as well have been murderous monsters if there is nothing after death. Ultimately, at the end of the human race our lives made no difference, because there isn't a greater context than the one we're in.

If there is just this life to lead and nothing afterward - all things to which we ascribe meaning and morality ultimately meaningless. All notions of purpose will be consumed by non-existence.

This isn't how people innately live either. People generally have a sense that what they do matters. They have a sense that there is a purpose to life. (even if they're not sure what it is, they still have a sense that there's one to be found) They have a sense that they could possibly do things that will outlast them.

Anyhow - with both my children, when they were born my first thoughts surrounded the idea of "potential." From their first minute of life I marveled that they too will have a hand in shaping eternity - hopfully with waves of goodness, nobility and selflessness. It will be their choice in the time they have here on earth.

I don't know how long they have, but I know that they whatever they choose to do will have much more than "echos in eternity" - They'll create very real, very lasting effects. I can't wait to see what they will be.

I think I'll go give them each a kiss and tell them how much and how long their little lives matter.

My Comment to Gum-Land (Breyer's)

2006-07-18T10:38:00.000-04:00

You might think I'm crazy for how much I am bothered by this, but that's fine with me.

I am disturbed by Breyer's Ice Cream and the changes they have made to their products. I recently noticed a change in texture and taste of their ice creams. With a little looking around I found out that they have suddenly added gums as fillers/binders - this after 130+ years without it.

I am perplexed and disturbed. I loved the quality, which they have compromised. What also bothers me is that they've snuck it in. Why after all these years?

I'm sure it's great for profit. Same prices, cheaper ingredients. (albeit reduced quality - but they're probably thinking no on will notice) But I don't like gummy ice cream, and Breyers was a source of much joy to me.

So - since I am crazy, I thought it might do me some cathartic good to let them know how I feel. The comment/letter I just sent them is copied below. Maybe I'm the only one who's noticed, or who cares.

-------

In the last year, I've noticed a change in the consistency and taste of your Breyers Products. It took me a little while to figure it out, and the answer has left me disappointed.

I'm a bit of an ice cream purist, and have loved Breyer's products. Simple quality ingredients = great ice cream. You were in a class of your own.

What I discovered recently was that you've incorporated gums into your ice creams. I had a several-year-old plastic tub of vanilla in my basement which I used as a storage container. When I compared ingredients with a recent box of vanilla, I saw the change. "Natural Carob Bean Gum."

You've joined the world of gummy ice cream.

I noticed a difference the first time. As did my sister & other friends. I'm doing them the service of showing them how the texture and flavor of a once great ice cream has been compromised. What I can't tell them is why.

Perhaps I am niave, but in my mind a great product will yield profitability. People know the difference, and quality stands the test of time. Perhaps there has been a fundamental value shift in your company? You've moved on from primacy of quality to profitability?

I'm moving on as well. You're now in the gum class, and I'll be looking for someone else to make a "pure" product. You've lost me.

BTW- the Double Churn campaign is a joke in my home. When we see the commercials we just shake our heads. Apparently creamy and gummy are synonymous to you.

We're not fooled. Good luck.

NOTE: Breyer's Promptly responded with a letter, and a coupon for free $5 worth of free ice cream. Apparently when you complain about low quality, they offer you more.
My wife read the letter to me over the phone while I was at work. Sadly, she then threw it away. I had hoped to post their reply here, so that no one could read it. (no one reads my blog) Alas.
So the gist of why they added gum was this: "quality control" They said that since they could not control whether or not the ice cream was maintained at proper temperatures during shipping, unloading, stocking, sale and trip to consumer's home, they made the decision to add "natural" stuff (gum) to help maintain it's texture...or something.
Whatever. If people were calling in because their ice cream melted a little on the way home - I'd say "shop closer to home." Or "why don't you get your frozen foods last when you shop. They'll melt less. And stop chewing with your mouth open - that's disgusting!"

Either way, I'm sad. The bright spot? In this area I can get a few kind of flavors of ice cream from Turkey Hill which are just the pure stuff. It's called "Philadelphia Style" and hooray for the Fatties in Philly. At least someone knows how to make gum-less ice cream.

So - bye bye Breyer's. And the Double Churn Commercials are still just double the joke.

Sadly - John.

A Deep Question

2006-06-15T00:39:00.000-04:00

I have often speculated about a possibility for the afterlife that may be deep. Here it is, and think how this would truly demonstrate the Justice of God. (Or simply demonstrate that I don't use my time for productive pursuits - case in point: blogging)

Are Cat Hell and Dog Heaven the same place?

And there you have it. My deep thought and my shortest entry - All in one and all for you, my imaginary reader.

Breaking the Magic

2006-04-18T00:13:00.000-04:00

Ba-zillions of dollar are spent by companies each year to compel the consumers of America that their products are truly necessary. After years of television, marketing experts have honed their craft to a point of magic. The know how to cast spells on the bulk of humanity. And it seems that those spells are pretty effective.

I find most of this bewitching to be pretty hilarious. I'm probably not the only one.

I just watched a hair dye commercial. I myself could be considered a candidate for such a product. I'm not that old, but my hair is a nearly-black color, and the white hairs seem to be multiplying around the sides. (oddly, and annoyingly enough - the white ones actually grow faster than the dark ones. Which, for my monthly hair buzzing means that I have little white wings protruding all over the place.) My hair is beginning the graying process, and people are starting to notice - and verbalizing it to me.

So I am in that target group - the still young guy who is suddenly becoming gray niche. This and many commercials could grab me. They don't.

For me, I break the magic through one or two methods.

1. When I watch a commercial, I ask myself "What is the literal message that the imagery would lead me to believe." or "What is being visually communicated."

2. I often ask these questions and watch the commercial with the volume muted. This way I can focus on what the images are telling me, rather than being told about the product. Most commercials are selling a feeling or an idea - and the product is tied to that emotion.

So - for instance - tonight I watched a few commercials in this way. The most stunningly ridiculous was in fact....the hair dye bit.

An unhappy, frowning man with some gray hair applies the product. Suddenly, there is a gorgeous, significantly younger, nymphomaniacle women who is all over him. He's now happy, desirable and he takes her to his home where he is tackled on the bed by her - breasts pressing him down - as he turns off the lights. Implied sex ensues.

Real message of commercial: Our product will get you sex with hot women.

Of course - that's not what the product is for. That's just what the subtext of the product is saying. That's the emotion they're appealing to. "This product will make you more desirable, it will make you feel younger, and look younger."

So what, you say. That's consumerism. Well, what's really going on isn't a positive. Here's why.

I think that much of our consumerism is built upon the foundation of fear. Think about this for a moment. How many products could you name that are targeted to counter just these 3 fears/concerns?

1. Reduced attractiveness/desirability
2. Physical Signs of Aging
3. Unhealthy Habits/Lifestyles

With just those three, I'll bet you'd fill a sheet of paper if you watched an average day's TV and kept a running list. It's amazing!

Here's my profound caveat: The problem is the solution.

The solution that these commercials offer is problematic. They address deep, broadly felt and very much real fears. People are aging. Our culture does have an unhealthy value on looking right. We do judge people by their sexual desirability. We do become sick. Some of us do need more money. We are overweight and unheathy. We're bored. We have serious medical conditions. We will disappoint, deteriorate, and die.

But the solutions these products offer up against those fears are, at best, superficial. They don't deal with the real problem - just the external perceptions. The problem isn't that my hair is gray, the problem is that my life is short, and these white hairs are a visible sign that my time is running out.

What I'm afraid is happening is that we are deluding ourselves. We think that these products can somehow save us from the real issues. And distracting yourself from a real problem through a temporary and superficial solution is no solution at all.

I am getting older. (So are you!) I could spend my mental energies, money and time seeking solutions to fight that. (hair dye, diet pills, cosmetic surgery..etc) But if that's been my focus, it still won't change that reality. What it will do is prevent me from asking better questions.

Questions like: What legacy will I lead my children? What am I doing today that will outlast me - have a positive effect on future generations. What things, if I don't do them now, will I wish I had done when I am old. Have I considered my eternal destiny - God, faith, and the afterlife? What are the most important things - what should I live for? What AM I living for now?! Will I have regrets based on the way I am living now?

But we aren't asking those questions. We're spellbound. Bewitched by the empty promises we see played out before us. Our hearts are captured by the possibility of being cool, or being found sexy. We're worried that we're looking more wrinkled, fatter, older. (we are) I could be more significant with a new car, a new technology toy. I could save a few dollars with this offer, this company, this product. I could be seen as younger, cooler, wiser, wealthier, smarter, happier if only I...

Snap out of it! Happiness is never found in externals but in eternals. And life is definitely not in what other people think of those externals. Decode those slick tricks, those crafted commercials. Watch them with the volume off. (better yet just turn them off!) Evaluate their promises. They're absurd.

No. Find out what will last, seek God, seek eternity, seek real life, seek wisdom to live today. Life is now - but it might not be tomorrow. Make the most of it. Turn off the TV and live what you've got.

I'm letting my grays show. They're real, and they are reminders. (My wife thinks they're sexy!)

Peter Parker's Good Fortune

2006-03-28T02:15:00.000-05:00

With the advent of widespread popularity of SuperHeroDom in movies and general culture, many have become familiar with "lesser knowns" of these characters. (indeed - the massive attraction to the superhero architype would be an interesting study from a sociological perspective - is this a felt need? A replacement of God, or a re-packaging of Greco-Roman mythology?)

For many, there seems to be some bizarre delivery of their powers. Through sometimes odd circumstances, normal people wind up with some new or augmented abilities. (if this is reoccuring mythology, the shift seems to have gone from "the gods are like us" to "we are becoming the gods." This too would be an interesting thing to explore, if it's there.) The Hulk, Wolverine, Fantastic 4...etc.

One such transformation that has long puzzled me is Peter Parker into Spider-man.

I am not so much confused by the premise of how he gets his powers, but more so at the tremendously good fortune Peter Parker had in receiving the augmentations/manifestations of spidery attributes that he did.

Consider his gifting: amazing strength and durability, augmented reactions, ability to adhere to and climb walls, webs spinning and his "spidey sense."

Why is it that Peter Parker only gets the good stuff? Consider some of the other possible attributes arachnae; independant mandbiles with poison laden fangs, 8 eyes, complete body hair, 8 seven-jointed legs, and the junk in the trunk: an enormous abdomen.

Similarly, his positive changes could have manifested very differently. What if his durability also came with an exoskeleton? How fortunate for him that his web slinging ability was in his wrists/hands and he doesn't just shoot spiderwebs out of his butt. (imagine him swinging around the city by his butt - doesn't quite inspire the same awe and respect, does it?)

[here I will grant my lack of superhero knowledge and say - I think in the 70's cartoon, he actually had a device that produced the spider silk for him, (market that Peter!) whereas in the recent movies, it was an anatomical feature. Which is true to the original, I do not know. But I do know that the mental image of spiderman swinging around by his butt is a irreducable souce of amusement for me]

So - Peter Parker: most fortunate of superheroes.

Though it's not shown, I'm sure he must have a strong penchant for eating flies.

What Katrina Victims Taught Me

2006-03-23T11:20:00.000-05:00

Most things here in New Orleans are not very well populated. There aren’t a lot of stores open, and many of the residents of some city sections are not back yet. Yet, there seem to be at least 2 places that are up and running - and very well populated.

In the first category are the churches. They have become recovery centers, food distribution points and temporary homes for out of state volunteers. Right now I am staying in a tent city run by a local group of churches. Good News Camp. There are 600 here. All kinds of people come here each day to be fed, cared for and ministered to.

In the second category are the bars. They are also well populated and may have been some of the first stores to be up and running. (judging by the quantity I’ve seen) They also attract people of all types. They are all over the city.

One could argue that, in some way, both of these places are serving the same purpose: escape from the pain of the present.

The bars offer something to numb that pain. Through alcohol, some people are able to escape from the depression, the loneliness, the hopelessness - by forgetting. Though only for a few hours, (or in some cases an entire evening)

The churches and relief efforts also offer an escape from the current pain. People let their hearts and minds escape to the future - to the possibility of something better than today.
They can move past their harsh present by dwelling on a better future.

Both means allow people to cope, but they are not equal.

Alcohol, though it may provide an escape, produces nothing. After the temporary relief, the user must return to the same reality - nothing has been done to change it. If the bars or the bottle are my method of dealing with unpleasant reality, there is little possibility of that reality changing. I will need to numb myself to that reality again tomorrow.

Faith and Hope, on the other hand, empower the heart to action. If I believe that a better day awaits me tomorrow and the day after that, I can participate in bringing it about now. I need not be debilitated by it. Hope trumps despair. It allows the bearer to continue on, fully acknowledging reality and moving despite it.

We had many opportunities to hear from some of the hardest hit residents of New Orleans. Some were deeply embittered. Some were defiantly hopeful. The contrast was wide.

Ida Mae, and elderly women whose home we gutted, told us about the 4 months she was away from New Orleans. She lived one week at a time in various places, than settled in for 2 months in Texas before she could come to a relative’s apartment in the city.

She was a hopeful one. She was fun to be with. She talked with us about how bright the future of her city could be. She was grateful for all that she still had. (it fit in one suitcase) She seemed to be grateful now for what had not yet come.

Others told us that if you live in New Orleans, you really need to drink in order to deal with it. They were not so hopeful. Nor were they very pleasant. They seemed to focus on what won’t fix itself and who was to blame. They could not see a better future. They had no hope, other than to avoid the problems.

I wish I were more like Ida Mae, but I fear I fall into the numbness category. I’m not living in a disaster zone but I don’t really need to be. I seek to escape and distract and numb myself from the shadowy parts of my life.

What if each of us faced the dark parts of ourselves with the perspective of faith and hope? What if we were unwilling to ignore, numb and distract ourselves from our own badness? Could we simultaneously acknowledge our 'sinfulness' and embrace a solution? (a whole other discussion is whether we need outside help to make it better!) What might the solution look like?

These things are worth thinking about - for all of us. And they are worth doing something about - for all of us.

What Doctors & Farmers Should Have in Common

2006-02-03T16:13:00.000-05:00

This winter I found myself in an emergency room with a major poison ivy issue. (later I found out that it was something else) It was late at night, and the ER doctor was a little bit insulting.

Have you ever run into a cocky doctor? You know, the kind that presumes that they are an apex human being? Everyone else is certainly stupid or inferior by comparison. They are presumptuous, arrogant and think too highly of themselves and their skills.

This is not my opinion of doctors in general. There have been several in my family, and I have a half dozen friends who have recently completed Med School. They are great. Most doctors are wonderful, caring people. However, I find it curious when I see arrogance creeping in through their career choice.

Dear doctors: Your profession is on par with the humble farmer. Don't believe me?

Consider these similarities.

1. You, like a farmer, work with a complex life-system that you yourself do not create. It is pre-existent to your role. Neither you nor the farmer can take credit for it. You are working on something that was created outside of your influence. You can seek to understand it, but you cannot take credit for the system itself. You are mechanics.

2. You, like the farmer, must play by the rules of that pre-existent system. There are pre-set limits to what can and cannot be done, there are extant processes and timings and interactions that happen within that system. Neither you nor the farmer can fundamentally alter them. Your lines of work enhance, help or coerce processes that are already possible. Occasionally, you might be able to alter or suppress them, but you cannot create new ones.

3. You, like the farmer planting his seeds, do not fully understand or control the life process. You are environmentalists; you can create the most favorable conditions for your desired result, but you cannot make that result happen.

The farmer turns the soil, fertilizes, plants the seed and waters all in the right time frame but then he must wait - and hope. If the seed itself does not germinate, he has wasted his efforts. For all his soil preparation, control of conditions and timing, he cannot make that seed do what he hopes it will. It is not determined by him. He is at it's mercy because he is not ultimately in control.

Can you see the similarities with the humble doctor? Is it a more complicated system? Yes. Granted, there is much study and knowledge to be acquired, but at its foundation, the doctor does all he can to create an environment favorable to healing and good health, but he does all that and waits. He hopes. He is also dependent on that pre-existent life system to do what it should.

He may aid, augment, replace, remove, medicate and manipulate but he still is dependent on the system itself.

Happily for us all, most times the seed does sprout, grow and mature. Happily for us the body often heals, responds and recovers. I am glad for the environmentalists who raise the likelihood of food and health, but I do not think that they (or we) should move past the reality that we are all dependent - no matter how much we know.

We are not the creator, we are gardeners - and this from the very start of it all.

Cookie Monsta

2006-02-01T23:05:00.000-05:00

My wife was away at a retreat for a few days this week and I was on Dad duty - all on my own. I actually love it. Would do it full time if I could. We have a great time together. (I do, anyhow!)

While we were watching Sesame Street, I had an epiphany: Cookie Monster sounds an aweful lot like I'd imagine Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar would with laryngitis and sugar-induced excitability.

Don't know what that means, but I just needed to point it out. I will enjoy the show more now.

(Dat good Coookie!!!)

Defrost Me

2006-01-28T23:58:00.000-05:00

Hello imaginary reader!

It's nearly February and for the most part the weather has been unusually mild thus far. One snow, a couple short stretches of bitter cold, but all in all - not bad. Just today I was out in a sweatshirt with my 1.5 year old kicking around his mini soccer ball. Spring like! Yay.

A few years ago my wife and I bought a van. It was a total God-send. We had a newborn baby, my wife was staying home, I was commuting 30 minutes and it just made no sense to leave her car-less. Driving me to work everyday felt too much like middle school when I constantly had to bum rides from my Mom - usually when I missed the bus by 3 minutes.

The Van has been great. We had 1000 bucks. We asked a mechanic friend to be on the lookout for something coming in that looked good and was in good shape. He said that never happens, but ok.

I kid you not - 2 day later an old lady shows up with a 1990 Voyager: 91,000 miles, in great shape, No mechanical problems...etc. She says to our friend "Do you know anyone who wants to buy my van? I just drive it to church on Sundays and I'd like to get around $1000 dollars for it." Main reason she's selling; "it's a little to high for me to get into very well anymore."

We picked it up that night.

The lady was sweet and thrilled that we were so excited about it. We were grateful that barely prayed prayers had been answered. Suddenly and weirdly cool.

The one drawback is this: The van has no heat. On particularly cold days it's brutal. I've been an unhappy combination of too poor/too cheap to get it fixed. I drive that one in the winter. The fam won't get near it.

I'm quite a sight on the highways. Really. I look like Kenny from SouthPark. (please don't watch that show) I look like I'm trekking to the north pole, with just my eyes showing from an enormous puffy coat.

Several of my senses become muted, or mooted. (not a word) I'm practically deaf. Less protected portions of my body become uncomfortably numb. I have zero peripheral vision. Sometimes I just pull my hood back a little to see if I'm about to cut someone off. On really cold days I don't. (sorry)

But - it's Pennsylvania. It will not always be cold. I'm grateful for the van, but I don't treat it so well. Not like our Jetta, which we paid nearly new prices for. So, I do wonder if there is some kind of inverted principle at work here.

Jesus once told a story to illustrate love and gratitude. Who loves more? Someone forgiven a little bit, or someone forgiven enormously? Great story, but convicting.

I can't help but wonder if I would take better care of the gift-van if I had paid 10,000 for it rather than 1000. This makes me worry about my own gratitude level. The van was quite a gift, but I don't always see it this way. I often think - well, we don't need to do XX for the van - we only paid 1000 for it.

Why is it that I still remain most concerned about the things that have the most benefit to me? It's as if my response is dictated by my perception of return and investment. How much do I do that with my relationships? My parents? My wife? My kid? What about systems that I've benefited from? Schools, teachers, pastors? What about God?

I am pretty sure that I am called to a different economy. It's hard, but its true. I'm called the be other centered. To be compassionate with friends and enemies. To care for others in need. Help the orphans, the widows. To be a giver, not a taker.

If I'm too wrapped up in what I can afford, or what is helping me - I'll miss the point. I'll miss the sweetest portions of life. I want to live as a grateful person. A giver. That's hard sometimes.

Right not my son treats every little gift we give him as if we have given him the whole world. We hand him a wooden spoon to play with, and he's THRILLED. He wears those expressions right there for us to see, and that response thrills us. We love giving him good gifts because he really appreciates it. He beams and it is our delight and joy.

For me as an 'adult' I forget that - on both ends.

On the receiving end - I can be genuinely glad, grateful and overjoyed that people and God give me gift of all kinds. How cool it is to be a recipient of someone else's good will and kindness.

On the giving end - I want to have that effect on people. Bring them joy and gladness. Be the giver of good will and kindness.

It seems to me that if I do one well, I'll be likely to do both pretty well. One feeds the other.

So, me, quit playing down the gifts. Get excited and grateful over how good people are to you. Let that spark your desire to do things to make others glad. Even if I don't get the heat the van fixed, I need to make sure my little heart is the one body part that doesn't become cold.

The Age of Hyperbole

2006-01-10T02:51:00.000-05:00

This is probably the greatest blog entry ever.

Or...at least I could claim that it's true.

Have you noticed that kind of phrase on TV and in advertisements? These days we are in the Age of Hyperbole: A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say during a football game, or basketball game (...insert sport here) something to the effect of "This freshmen, or rookie.. blah blah... is probably one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century." or "this play will go down as one of the most remarkable ones in history."

Or TV commercials. Gosh. If you can remove yourself from their carefully crafted spell, they're really quite ridiculous. The greatest sale ever, the opportunity of a lifetime, it vastly improves the quality of my life. (How a garlic chopper improves the basic quality of life for someone, I have no idea. Heck, if that's true hand them out to the poor. Ship them to 3rd world countries. Except, garlic chopper are made in 3rd world countries?...Umm...) On and on.

So what. This isn't a big deal, it's just stressing the point they're trying to make, right? No harm done.

Well - maybe. But when it gets to the point that everyone is trying to accentuate their position by exaggeration, won't we lose our grip on truthfulness? Take for example the phenomenon of "shock." on TV. You know what I mean. Some network promises that this next episode will be so shocking...you know the speil.

The thing is, that as more and more people try to draw you in with shock, you, the sap headed viewer become decreasingly sensitive to that shock. So they have to do something more shocking. Which you will later, probably become desensitized to. But then everyone tries to use it to draw you in.

When I think of this one, I think of the whole lesbian/gay thing on TV. At first, just having a gay character was a shock. Fast forward and we have gay kissing on some shows (gross) and, not just a token gay character, but shows built around homosexuality. This is not good for anyone, not good at all. (I hear that it is now illegal and discriminatory to make negative comments about homosexuals or homosexuality in Canada. So, cousins in the great white north, you're welcome to come after me - but as of recently you'll have to have a passport to get across the line. Deal with it, A.)

Beyond big picture moral stuff, think of the effect on communication. Consider the resume. It is now so endemic that people exaggerate on their experience, abilities and character, that certain aspects of resumes have become unhelpful. If you can make you're burger joint experience sound profoundly remarkable, what am I to think? What's really real. Who's really the person I want? A truthful and helpful resume would probably get the shaft. So hyperbole becomes a requirement if you want to have a chance.

So - in my mind, I think the age of hyperbole is a bit annoying, if not harmful. Why can't we just speak plainly and truthfully about things. Call things what they really are. When does true truth get a shot? That seems more helpful to me. But, you might say, it's human nature to exaggerate, and try to make things we're invested in - especially ourselves - seem better than they are.

Sure, I would say, but it sounds more like a problem with humanity in general than with this particular time in history. These days we're just more slick at bending things. We're all shaders of truth.

Straight shooters might just call it lying. Isn't that shocking?

Minor Addictions, Major Profits

2006-01-06T13:45:00.000-05:00

I have been embittered by reality.

Not long ago I met with a friend from high school. We hadn't seen each other for quite some time, so there was a good deal of life to catch up on. I enjoyed meeting her husband who is a pretty cool guy. Good time with us all together.

An interesting factoid came up during our conversation that has been bugging me ever since. He has ruined my enjoyment of gourmet coffee drinks. He used to work as a barrista at Starbucks, and he let me in on a little secret.

I'm not much for coffee, but I am minorly addicted to caffeine. (Maybe it's major?) Since I don't like coffee for the most part I have to use other vehicles for getting that drug into my system. But - the one drink I actually do like (quite a bit I'm afraid) at Starbucks is their Fappuccino.

I mentioned the above facts to my new friend, which prompted him to spring the secret on me. "Hey - take a guess what a medium Frappuccino costs Starbucks"

Here we enter into a pre-existing point of bitterness for me. I already resent paying what I considered to be a ridiculous price for something I see them putting mostly ice into! But I'm dumb enough to pay it.

My best jaded guess was around a buck. I thought "Hey, they charge around 3 or 4 bucks, and that seemed like a pretty hefty profit margin."

Apparently I am insufficiently crass. I guessed way too high. According to my friend, the medium Frapp costs this exorbitant bean company just 25 cents. This includes the cup, the straw and the works. 25 cents! Do the math. If I buy a $0.25 drink and pay $4. That means, for frapps, that for every $1 they put out, they will get $16 back. A profit of 15 times the cost! Wow.

Now, I'm even more bitter when the Starbucks urge strikes. In fact, I find it hard to justify giving them that much of my money and have stopped to get a drink less frequently. (I have NEVER bought food there. Cookies are like, $20 each) Now it feels like I'm making a corporate donation when I but something there.

There are at least 3 things that this drives me to conclude.

1. I have a greater appreciation for the bartering system in other countries. Perhaps in China I could go to a starbucks, have them tell me the total, laugh, then start trying to work the price down. I bet that I could get them down to a reasonable level - perhaps getting 2 Frapps for the price I normally pay for one. I could try this here, but I think they would be the ones laughing.
(I guess they're already laughing now...all the way to the bank!)

2. Caffeine is an addictive substance. This I already knew, but the reality that millions of Americans will go out of their way on a daily basis to shell out an extraordinary amount of cash for an inexpensive beverage points to some kind of addictive substance. Who, unmedicated and sober, would knowingly cough that much moolah up for a cup of chocolate, bean water and ice? Chemical dependence is no joke.

subpoint 2.5 - this is why caffeine-free coke sucks.

3. I have grown in assertiveness. I am normally pretty understating and relaxed about other people's mistakes - perhaps a little too much empathy, not enough antipathy. The one good thing about this new eye-opening knowledge is that when the Starbucks barristas and barristos and barristoids mess something up, you better believe that I'm going to make them replace it, or make it right. I better get their best stuff when I make my $3.75 donation.

The Dangerously Tyrannical Nature of Open-Mindedness

2005-12-20T11:58:00.000-05:00

OK, this one is a rant. (I'm not fond of rants)

I am really surprised at the ruling by a federal judge in the matter of the Dover, PA fight over a 30 second statement in the public school system. The school board mandated that the following should be read once at the beginning of the sections about Darwinistic Evolution:

from the Associated Press:

Text of the statement on intelligent design that Dover Area High School administrators had been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

Wow - please note the abundance of deviously designed rhetoric to undermine science. Ugh. Let me summarize:

You are about to learn about the theory of evolution. Theories are not proven, but give tested explanations and are open to more evidence and adjustment. There is another school of thought about our origins, which you may look into on your own time, called Intelligent Design. There is a book in the library about it, but that area is for your own pursuit and your family's. Keep an open mind. We are standards driven and will prepare you to know evolutionary theory.

Or, let me give you the short short version. "We're about to teach on Evolution. Some people have another idea, which if you are curious about you may study on your own. Up to you, but we test you on evolution."

Now THAT, is one insipid and nefarious statement.

The part that seems especially threatening is having an open mind. We can't have that. If evolution is the best theory, why would people be so threatened about other viewpoints. What's also interesting is that the statement says "The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families" - with the notable exception of evolution. That origin of life viewpoint is mandated, and apparently not open to evaluation or competition.

No - what we really need, in regard to this issue, is a closed mind. Nothing else in there. We can't have any heretics bringing in false theories and beliefs. (Sounds like a religious person's viewpoint to me)

An open mind is simply too dangerous to be encouraged. People might be duped into thinking they have options. Or duped into thinking for themselves. I don't really care what the conclude about the subject. I care that they cannot even mention that you have an option, or point toward something else. Open mindedness - too dangerous to encourage or sanction.

Good thing no one will read this! I might be in trouble.

Preponderances O Conferences

2005-12-19T00:17:00.000-05:00

I've not written here for some time. Though, since I've written so little this could hardly be considered a break in my "normal" pattern of blogging. What does normal mean anyhow?

I think part of the reason for not writing, besides laziness or addiction to Halo, is the fact that my job has had a ridiculous number of conferences in the last 2 months. Here's the quick list:

I've been to Western PA, Southern VA, Coastal NJ, Central IN. In the coming several months I will be to Washington DC, a woodsy retreat center in PA, New Orleans, West Virginia and a couple I probably don't see coming.

What is it about the concept of a conference that makes it seem like the answer to problems, or communication?

The word conference itself defines what those times should be about. Conference comes from the word confer which means: To meet in order to deliberate together or compare views; consult

Though on one hand I find it irritating that I've had so many conferences recently - meaning, in the last 10 years - I must say that I also find it interesting when I think about human communication.

It seems that we were designed for face to face communication. With all the technologies and mediums we have now in this "communication age" it seems that we can't get away from the need or desire or efficiency that comes from actual human interaction.

No email, video conference, phone call or satellite hookup can compare with the efficacy and efficiency of human interaction and conversation.

In fact - to be fair - I think that this personal contact becomes even more important these days. I think of my email. I get a barrage of them all day. They range from inept and misspelled attempts to get me to enlarge my manhood, to notes from people I love. The bulk of them are people trying to communicate something important for me to do, or send, or talk about. But what happens is that I get so many of those impersonal requests, that they are mostly lost on me. I don't have time to answer this somewhat important email because I have to get through the other 30 that could be important. Gross.

It's now become so easy to communicate so little with so many. Isn't technology great?!

No - I need to have conversations with other humans. In person is best. I'm moved to action, to inter-action and to be able to communicate and say yes or no right there. They have to ask for things of me to my face, and - because it's a human relationship - I have the ability to change, refuse or modify expectations. Not so with email edicts.

I also have the advantage of being able to hear and talk about the heart and reasons behind the views and jobs I'm given from my bosses and colleagues. It's not just some "do this" thing, it's attached to people I care about, and want to help.

I guess my complaint about my preponderance of conferences then is this: I like the interactions, but I'd prefer to have them here at home. It's more the travel and time away from my normal interactions that I resent, rather than the interaction and the facile nature of communications there. I think I'll have a better attitude if I keep that in mind.

So, If you want to interact with me on this point or have some comments - just drop me an email. I'll probably read it, and just might - might reply.

Death Row Community College

2005-10-30T14:04:00.000-05:00

This past week I was scoping out a small community college in southern Virginia.

The name of the school is John Tyler Community College. Who was John Tyler, you might ask? (as I did) You might need to brush up on your American History (as I do) for he was the 10th President of the United States. Who knew? (though I actually have heard the slogan they used to promote him; "Tippacanoe and Tyler Too." Catchy. I might vote for him in the next presidential election. Why not? If dead people can vote, http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101295/article009.shtml why not vote for dead people?)

So after clearing that up, I and a couple co-workers set out to give out some Freebies on campus. Alas - the administration wouldn't allow it. More accurately, the person who does allow that kind of thing was in Holland digging for tulips or something. The people there were unwilling or unable to give us permission to distribute some free stuff - which could be a blog topic in itself. But hey - who gets paid to do more than they have to do to get paid?

So, in lieu of actually giving out unauthorized freebies, we thought we'd informally survey a few students. I began the conversation with 2 guys sitting on some couches outside their classroom. Before I knew what was going on, everyone attending an English class was there. Interesting mix of people. Interesting mix of conversations.

Tattoo Dude: "Hey - did you guys do the reading for today?"
Several people between the ages of 18 and 67: "what?! There was an assignment? Explicative."
Tatoo: "yeah - it's on page 125."
18-67 Year Olds: "zip. flp flip flip. Ok - lemme skim it."

Someone quoted part of the article which said - I kid you not "No one is really poor. They're just pre-rich." Brilliant. Perhaps this guy thinks the starving-poor of the world are also not actually malnourished - they're just pre-dead.

In another section of this crowd, there was a conversation between a guy who looked like his name should be Gunther and the very small but sassy crippled girl. They were making fun of each other. I shall leave this up you your imagination. Surreal.

In the midst of this fray, I tried to ask a couple questions. A few of the students responded - some with anecdotal references to the Family Guy, and some with real responses. Several were pretty surprised to hear that John Tyler was a president of the US. Then, Gunther began to read some internet webpages he had printed out. They were letters from Death Row Inmates, and they were pleas for penpals. He read them out loud to the group.

These letters spoke of the intense loneliness of men slated to die. Some spent 23 hours a day in solitary. They were very honest and desperate, yearning for someone to write them. They were hungry for someone to bring some meaning or significance into their world; someone, anyone who would dialogue with them by way of letters. Their present isolation from society seemed even more severe for the fact that ultimate separation was coming on a known date and time. To me, these pleas for connection sounded like requests for some kind of last meal for their souls. One more good thing before the end.

I felt so sad. But that changed very quickly.

In response to these naked cries for human connection, Gunther (who was apparently the apex Community College English student) began to make fun of their grammar and spelling. He mocked them for their poor parts of speech, for their apparent lack of educational prowess. "Ha ha! They are so stupid! Listen to this one!"

Unbelievable. Apparently Gunther could only see the ink on the page. Behind those molecule-thick markings were men who were dying, and all he seemed to care about was pointing out their lack of writing ability. Wow.

I really wanted to say something, but just then the class opened up and everyone shuffled off. What would I have said anyhow? "You selfish jerk!! Don't you care about other people, you moron!?" Hardly a compelling prod toward empathy.

But, this was one of my better moments of empathy. I felt sad for Gunther's callousness, and I felt sad for the desperate inmates. Right then I could see a contrast between his bad reaction and the response that I was having. But to be honest, I'm not really sure how many good moments I have.

If I had to bet, I would wager that the majority of people are hungry for connection. Most of us are at best somewhat relationally malnourished. Sure, we all have lots of events and technologies and people around us to make us feel connected and filled. But my impression is that few of us really connect on that deep soul-nourishing level that we all hope for.

The thing is, unlike those inmates, it seems that few of us really relate how needful we really are. We're too proud to be honest. There is strike one against my day to day empathy for others. They aren't very open about it, so I'm less likely to recognize it.

Strike two for me is that I know this. If I stop and think about it, I know that people want to be pursued and loved. But I forget this (willfully maybe?) and pretend like everyone is fine - if not in my inner view, at least in my outward expression. I'm the callous one.

Strike three for me is that I'm the Gunther. Oh sure - maybe I'll react well to those desperate cries for help, but most people aren't that vulnerable. So I'm not that empathetic. In fact - often times I'm the one who's making fun of other people. Occasionally for grammar, but more for smaller things. The way they talk, their personality quirks and shortcomings, their job performance, physical appearance, the way they drive. (Empathy is the emotional roadkill of the highways. If you could hear what I think about other drivers!)

In short - I need a double shot of humility. I'm getting that, slowly. I'm being worked on, and am way better than I used to be. Still need work though. I want to have the kind of humility and empathy that I had for those prisoners with the average Joe. I want to want to connect with the heart of the average guy walking down the street, or my neighbor. I was to be that kind of a person.

But what about you? I'm curious what things for you have made you more empathetic. What gives you the courage to reach out to others? I'd really love to know. If you love other people - what is it that gives you that? And I'm wondering if you're deeply, richly connected with anyone. Are you? Hey - I'd love it if you were my penpal. Lord knows I need more honest connection. Perhaps you do as well.

My roof is on backwards

2005-10-13T20:31:00.000-04:00

This weekend, we were inundated by nearly 7 inches of rain.

Saturday morning I laid down to take a nap, but, as I was falling into the fog of sleep, I shot out of bed when the house imploded. A big chunk of bedroom ceiling decided it liked the view from the floor better and made its way there in a hurry - along with gallons of water and some rather soggy insulation.

Ah - the joys of home ownership.

I won't bore you with a wordy rant about the slippery climb up the ladder and the hour on the roof in the rain (at least it was a tropical system, and the rain was rather warm for October in Pennsylvania) with tarps and a staple gun. (what qualifies something as being referred to as a gun anyhow? And why do most of my paragraphs have more content lodged in parenthesis than actual paragraph body? Guns though - my beefy friends are said to have "nice guns" but that doesn't follow if it has to do with the capacity to shoot a projectile. Maybe muscled men's big arms shoot invisible bullets of perceived inferiority? For that matter, caulk guns barely get their projectiles out, yet they are called guns. Why call it a gun? It's the same principle as a tube of toothpaste, but I don't refer to that as a gun - cool as that might sound. "Honey...where's the Crest-gun?" "In your toiletry and gun kit. You'll need to reload it." Cool. What would the neighbors make of that? But - I was talking about my roof, wasn't I?)

So - my roof.

Today the son of the actual contractor whom we called came out and looked at the spot where the water was definitely leaking in. Ok, send in the son. Lots of people have roof issues - sure. I'm a home maintenance idiot anyhow, so a roofer's 3 year old probably exceeds my frighteningly small roof vocabulary. So, tell us all about it just-learned-to-drive teeny-bopper roof boy. What do we need to do?

The answer: "Just caulk it."
"Caulk it?!" says I.
"Yeah" he says, "it's coming in this hole just below the gutter. If you fill that up with caulk or something, it should keep the water out."

Here I must explain a few things to you. (or the theoretical you whom I imagine might actually read this someday for some reason I can't imagine. The reality is that this blog - like most others - is probably just self servicing. A figurative "place" where uncontested vanities and delusions of widespread literary significance can grow unchecked by and unfounded in reality. But it's fun - ain't it?) Ok - cessation of digression.

Just caulk it.

The thing you need to know; I already know that this solution is ridiculous. On a clear day I can see New Jersey through this hole under the spouting. What's more, in that balmy rain I pulled back the metal "flashing" (I learned a new word pertaining to roofs & siding! Yay!) and found that the only thing holding the "wood" together was the "moss" that was covering it. The wood was so rotted and wet... well - fruitcake would be a much more substantial building material.

So, caulk itself, unless there's some magical caulk I don't know about, can't be the answer.

"Umm - Caulk? I think the wood up there isn't in very good shape, would you take a closer look at it?" I was at work and talking to the kid on the phone.

After a less teenager-ish examination, here's his new story:

The previous owners/roofers
1 Didn't remove the old roof before adding the new one.
2 Put the flashing on upside down.
3 Didn't stagger the layers, so there are huge seems running down the roof
4 Put the bottom layer on upside down. (on top of the old shingles)
and therefore it can be concluded that they...
5 Had no idea what they were doing.

What's even more intriguing is that they managed to put the edge layers on upside down ALL AROUND THE HOUSE. My entire exterior wooden framing might be less stable than last Christmas' fruitcake from Aunt Ethel.

So, in effect, behind the 1970's avocado yellow aluminum siding, my entire house is probably being held together by moss.

We should sleep well tonight, and every night - until the first hard frost.

I Dream of Bikini

2005-10-03T16:53:00.000-04:00

Last night my wife had a dream.

In her dream, she was in a bikini contest with some other ladies, but felt pretty confident about the outcome. The reason for this assurance of victory: I was the judge of the contest. She thought "surely he'll pick me as the winner."

This sounds like a nightmare to me. If I don't pick her, I'm in serious trouble on the home front. If I do pick her, I'm in less trouble, but still in trouble on the home front. Mainly for that fact that I took the job of comparing my wife with all the other ladies.

I can imagine a doomed conversation later on.

Wife: So John, you felt that I was the clear winner?
Me: Sure did babe! You're dreamy.
Wife: No bias there, you really felt that I compared well with the other nearly naked women?
Me: Um, well, you... You more than compare, you're in a class so far above them all. Not that I was really comparing, even though I had to. So I guess I was - but you won! Yay!
Wife: So if I hadn't won, who would you have picked to win?
Me: (now realizing the impending train wreck) Uhhh. Let's, ahh - let's stay out of the theoretical, shall we?
Wife: I mean, surely in your mind there was a runner up? Right? If you made her the winner, why would you have? What about her would have made her stand out to you?
Me: Are you getting warm? I'm warm.
Wife: Really, what would you have done if I weren't even in the competition? Would you have enjoyed judging it?
Me: It's really hot in here.

Fortunately, it was just a dream, and there was no final judgment about the winner in it. This has spared me explaining the actions and attitudes of the dream-me, and led me to a valuable preventive lesson through my wife's active subconscious.

Namely:

Never be a bikini contest judge, especially if your wife is competing.

This advice I give to you freely and without cost to you. Have a good day.

Waffle Cone or Petri Dish?

2005-09-26T16:24:00.000-04:00

For quite some time I've enjoyed Breyer's Ice Cream. Not just orally, but also intellectually - in terms of "ice cream theory."

By this I mean the fact that a side by side comparison of Breyer's with most other name brands would reveal a stark contrast in ingredients. Unlike Breyer's, many brands have much more to offer in terms of "goo." After the initially unsurprising list of substances like milk, cream, & sugar - one finds things like guar, carob bean and xantham gums, carrageenan and caulk from your Aunt Edna's vintage 1950's bathroom.

Being an art graduate, I recognize binders when I see them. The gummy stuff in many ice cream tubs is something that holds the ingredients in suspension - to reduce separation and increase consistency. In this case, apparently, to make that consistency more moss-like. (interestingly, carageenan is a kind of algae) I would imagine that this additive also pads the profit margin. After all, algae just sorta shows up - it's available for whoever wants it. (and who wants it?)

Anyhow

When some friends in my bible study brought over some ice cream for dinner the other night, I couldn't help but notice a difference. When I partook of the Breyer's Snickers Ice Cream, something seemed amiss. My tastebuds indignation was proven righteous when I looked at the ingredients. Sure enough - gum. Gum in my Breyer's.

I hoped to blame a non-Breyer's source for this adulteration, so I also checked the Vanilla "extra-creamy" which had no surrogate-branded ingredients. I found that at the corporate level, "extra creamy" simply means "extra-gooey." It too contained some of the bounty of the microbe-farm. (And dare I ask what produces "guar?" Sounds like something emitted from an insect's butt - shudder! "Hey - wait a second...these aren't flecks of vanilla!")

Anyhow - my intellectual enjoyment of said ice cream is bound up in its simplicity. A handful of common ingredients, albeit rich ones, mixed together for my delight. Does it get runny quickly - yeah! It's just a couple liquids and sugar whipped up and cooled down. But it's pure. It's yummy. It's intellectually beautiful. It might bring my life to a premature end, but I will be fat and happy on all counts. (unless heart attacks actually hurt - but don't burst my bubble)

But now, I've found this troubling insight. Gum in my Breyers!? Have they now added a division for algae production? Couple of guys with big slimy tanks full of who knows what, just watching the algae grow? What's going on? Perhaps it's clandestinely referred to as the "Breyer's Cultural Division" if you catch my meaning.

I can't help but feeling like I've been let down. The box still says "all natural ingredients", but I no longer know what that means. Indeed - algae is pretty natural. But so are lead and mercury. What should I do?

Sadness. I have no pithy analogy or illustration about life here. I'm just sad that there is gum in my bowl, and I just want to know why. WHY!?

Oh well. There are worse things in life.

If I stop by an ice cream stand in the near future, maybe I'll ask for a Petri dish instead of a waffle cone. But then again - for me personally, I'm going to try an avoid eating algae, mold and anything that sounds at all like "Xantham"

May I Rest in Peace

2005-09-15T00:52:00.000-04:00

What's the deal with sleeping?

Whatever it is, I could sure use some. I've been going hard the last few weeks with work (starting things up on campus) and bonus work (creating the video promo for our Christmas Conference. You can check out the finished product on the website... www.christmasconference.com ) and man am I tired. Had a couple 3 hours of sleep nights. Oof.

I'm easily sidetracked, which leads to taking longer to get work done, which leads to staying up late and sleeping less, which tends to make me easily sidetracked. the Wee Hour Spiral. Perhaps I should watch some reality TV. Gosh - those shows. Apparently little brainwave activity on the reception end of them, and the creation end of them. But I should be finishing my video now, but since I'm blogging, I'll stay up late to finish. Ah well, no sonorous snoring tonight.

So, instead of doing the sleeping thing, I'll muse about it. (if I could blog while I slept - now THERE would be something useful - though I'd wager my subconscious mind is in desperate need of spellchecking)

But why sleep? I know why I need to - so my contacts cease burning. But ultimately why - farther back, when it all started?

If evolution is true, what naturalistic advantage could have arisen from sleeping? If this gave some incremental benefit to your sex life (or a-sex life in the case of lower life forms) thus making you more "evolutionarily successful" when would that have come into the mix? Early on? Paramecium siesta - probably not. You'd have to go to higher life forms that actually do the sleeping thing.

Having watched a number of wildlife specials, it has dawned on me that most higher lifeforms fall into the biological classification we know as "Meat." (the subcategories are something like; 1) Things I will eat 2) Things I won't eat and 3) Chinese Food, which exists in that foggy state between 1 and 2. This is more true of Chinese Chinese food, which is much better than American Chinese food, in part because of its mysteriousness.)

Anyhow, where is the evolutionary advantage for the first member of the heard who takes the plunge into unconsciousness? "Hey - you other gazelles just jump and frolic around for while. Me? I think I'll lay down for a little while on this buffet table and be completely unaware of my surroundings."

The chocolate chip cookies on my counter have as much of a chance. I know that there are biological reasons that sleep is good, but there does seem to be something more to it, doesn't there?

I have a 13 month old son, whom I love with everything in me. Watching him sleep is great. He sleeps well too. I think sleep, at a metaphysical/spiritual level, points us to a Father. Little John falls into the 'meat' category, and in wilder times when the food chain isn't as linear for us, he's at risk. Especially as a little kid. Little more chance against some wild animal than my chocolate chip cookies have against me. (I expect their defenses to remain low, but hope his will increase.)

John can rest because I am here. His dropping into unconsciousness (though he can't ultimately resist it) points to my presence. I will be there for him - to protect, to supply, to comfort and love him. He can sleep at ease, with no fear of what may come while he is dreaming, because I am his Father, and I would die to save and protect him.

For me, when I do manage to sleep, I rest pretty well. I believe there is a Father who, like me with my son, is there and vigilant. Perhaps I rest even better than little John (or should anyhow) because my powers to love, protect, watch and supply are limited by my own humanity. Very limited. God as a Father is unlimited. I can sleep soundly and secure. Not that bumps, bruises, scrapes, cuts and minor head trauma won't come in my life, but He's there for those as well.

An Old Testament verse comes to mind, something like this: "He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps." I can't watch my son all night - I too must succumb to my needs. But there is one over whom no one must watch, for He watches over all and has no needs.

My sleep then could be an expression of trust. A physical need for restoration and regeneration, but also a spiritual need to be protected and other-reliant. I love that John sleeps well. He trusts us, and that makes me pretty stinking happy.

For those of you who call Him Father, I hope you go and sleep soundly tonight. I think Someone will be there, watching, listening...and smiling.

Goodnight John. Goodnight Father.

Team Powerwasher Power

2005-09-07T15:57:00.000-04:00

I spent most of the day on a ladder.

Had the day off today to compensate for a few Saturdays and I feel like I did a few Saturday's worth of work today. I powerwashed my house, and I'm peculiarly aware of some muscle groups - particularly of the arm variety.

The interesting thing really is that I paid for today's use of the powerwasher over a year ago. Early rental deposit? Nope. Unhappy customer credit? Nope. Bought it last year and forgot I had it until now? Nope.

Typically, I imagine most people would go one of two directions with the "I think I'll powerwash my house despite what the experts recommend and I'll need a powerwasher to do so" urge.

Alternative one is to add this tool to their tool belt. (It would be horribly uncomfortable to have a powerwasher strapped to your belt, so please remember that literalism can kill) There are a myriad of people like this where I live. Big houses, proportional shed, loose cash falling from them like Fall leaves. Between them and selling gargantuan packets of screws to people who need a total of 20 is why a local Home Depot can do a million in business on a good weekend. So, I could have fallen into category one.

Alternative two is the rental route. Again we find ourselves in Home Depot. (I find myself in Home Depot quite a bit more often than I had realized I would since buying a house. In fact, should I choose to disassemble my entire home, I'm sure I could find a bin, shelf, aisle or box for the sum total of it's parts at the store. There are probably 100 unrealized houses strewn across the expanse of that place. Rather than buying all those parts and assembling a fine, new home, I have chosen the "home replacement plan," wherein I slowly - over the course of decades - completely replace my home piece by piece. In the homeowner world, I'm more of a hemopheliac than an organ replacement. I suppose I should prefer the financial bloodletting to a major system failure. But what should I do with my 200 count boxes of screws left lying around after I use the 20 I need? Horrors! Now I need to buy another shelving unit! Sorry - was this a rant? Where was I?)

Ah yes - Rent. I could have rented my powerwasher. This is more up my alley. Though I chaff at the realization that after just 10 guys rent the $500 powerwasher for $50 a pop (please note my stellar math skills - It's an art degree that I have) it's all butter for the store, I do realize that it's the only way I'm going to have a powerwasher with which to powerfully wash. I 'own' it for a day but the real owner rakes in money like Fall leaves.

So did I rent the powerwasher? Nope. Nay - nor did I buy it. Well, sorta.

Turns out that a third alternative exists. One I don't usually think of. (Ok, a 4th really, but theft will lead to owning nothing and the only powerwashing going on would be in my brief and hyper-paranoid prison showers) So, there's another way for me to clean up the place.

Last year one of my new neighbors (I had just moved in) came to my door. Someone had the bright idea of harnessing the power of community. I live in a development based on the cul-de-sac (good concept, awful word) and probably 10 of the families in the immediate vicinity decided that instead of running out and buying it themselves, and instead of renting it for one stressed day - we'll use the power of community and get the best of both possibilities. I gladly wrote him a check for $50. I haven't used it until now, but I've lost nothing. I'll use it again sometime soon, and it won't cost me a thing. (ok - overpriced gas)

I wonder what else I miss along these lines? What other aspect of good community could help us all, were we to actually talk to our neighbors? I think there must be significant benefits that we miss out on when we're a society of loners - of fence builders and door closers. How many people really know their neighbors? What if, instead of a powerwasher, I could go to community for help with raising my kid, or a ride to work, or a hard situation? Could my $50 emotional investment yield a return of $500 in wisdom? Help? Love?

Of course - that depends. We share the powerwasher, but it has a regular place it's kept. Will everyone put it back when they're done? (it's 1 AM and as I write this it's sitting on my back porch - Hypocrite!!) Will they clean it up? Maintain it? Keep the parts, the directions and the warranty? Misuse it? There is a lot that could go wrong. It's a risk. My $50 could have been blown in the past year if the wrong kind of people were in it with me.

So far they haven't been. My neighbor knocked well. There are some in the neighborhood who were not asked. Some are not known, some are known - and were not asked. While there is wisdom in selection, you just never know.

For my part, I can't control the others in team-powerwasher. (But I could hose their flowerbeds if it got ugly) The person I can be responsible for is me. I can be the guy who is safe to invest in. I can be the guy who follows through and cares for our little community. I can be the door that others are able to knock on. That much I can do. If everyone follows suite, we should be ok, and I'll be powerwashing for years to come.

If I want the benefits of the community, I need to invest a little of myself and I need to follow through with caring for others' investments. To that end, I think I'll go put away the powerwasher.

And maybe someone in the cul-de-sac might need part of a box of screws.