Hōdee Zahaas

My new (superficial) fascination: preppy clothes

2011-12-14T13:43:00.003-05:00

I'm what I would consider a sloppy prep or a half-assed prep. I love tartans, sweaters, oxfords, ties, sport coats and khakis. I don't dress up (suits) much except occasionally where work requires. But I like wearing pseudo-preppy clothes around the house or in town. I generally dress the look down with jeans. Up top, I look preppy. On the bottom, I'm pretty laid back.

In my search for great plaid coats and such, I've stumbled across some interesting websites. This one, Wasp 101, is another blogger site. It's got some cool stuff on it. Check it out for yourself.

http://wasp101.blogspot.com/

Look, fashion isn't important. I don't pretend that how I look matters in the grand scheme of things. I try not to take too much pride in shallow things like looks or appearance. But I like to show myself in a way that matches how I view the world. I'm a traditionalist, and I think the way I dress reflects a modern traditionalism. Again, it doesn't matter. I have nothing to prove to the world, but it feels good to when the outside expresses what's inside, if that makes any sense.

You can always let 'em keep it

2011-07-23T11:24:00.002-04:00

I often wonder why people that are strongly in favor of governmental programs and increasing taxes take tax deductions themselves, especially wealthy Hollywood-type liberals. If you want well-funded government programs, why shelter so much money? In fact, why take deductions at all? You could just let the federal government keep your money.

This is less true for middle or working class folks. They can least afford to pay taxes. But they'll never have the power to make the rich pay their share.

Well-behaved women

2011-07-23T11:20:00.001-04:00

Women who have "Well-behaved women seldom make history" bumper stickers, seldom make history.

Thank you

2011-06-29T00:08:00.003-04:00

Thank you for being a father when, although I believed I was long past needing one, I needed one as much as ever!
Thanks for sharing your heart with me. Sometimes even the student wants to know that the mentor is human.
Thanks for genuinely caring. You could have just pretended you do. Actually, you would have been wiser to do everything by the book; safer for all concerned. You never let "the rules" get in the way of real love and concern.
Thank you for allowing me to share some of your burdens. Lord knows that you shared plenty of mine.
Thank you for helping me to see myself more clearly, more positively.
Thanks showing me what I have to offer others but encouraging me not to give up on myself.
Thank you for reminding me what the true meaning is of Godly redemption. It's not striving for perfection. It's the struggle and it's not given up or shying away from it.
Thanks for reminding me that it's going to OK to grieve and to miss you.
You're leaving at a time when I feel like I can least afford that. But is there ever a good time to say goodbye, to grow up or at least grow outwardly, and move on? No, endings almost always feel wrong.
I don't hold it against you, but I'm going to miss the hell out of you.
The future's so cloudly, but thanks for reminding me that when the clouds clear, it's bright on the other side.
I wish you the best. I wish you all the success and happiness you deserve. Thank you for everything. With much love, more than you can imagine, I say Godspeed as you move along the new path He has set before you.

Politicians = Weiners...err...wieners

2011-06-07T12:33:00.003-04:00

I do my damndest to avoid Hollywood and Washington sex scandals. One, we're all flawed and I feel a tad hypocritical delving into flaws of others, regardless of whether their sins differ from mine. Two, and maybe more importantly, I feel almost sick at how giddy people get over the prurient details of sex scandals like Clinton-Lewinsky, Tiger Woods - every woman on the planet, Schwarzenegger-the maid and now Weiner's wiener. I am convinced that we love to see people, especially men, mess up so we can wave our collective finger at them in judgment.

The irony of it all is that we are schizophrenic when it comes to sex. We say that anything between consenting adults is OK, but an actor picking up a prostitute or a politician sending picks of his bulging underpants are not fit to act, lead, what have you. I also notice that very little of the extreme judgmentalism we see comes from the so-called "Religious Right" or "religious fanatics." People of faith seem no more willing to attack our failed, flawed Hollywood or Washington idols than the amoral, porn-loving Average Joe or the hardcore feminist.

I've written this before in the context of Tiger Woods' troubles, but I feel I need to vent some more on the topic. We, society, make these man what they are! We put sex in their face 24-7-52. We say that sex outside of marriage is cool. We "celebrate" homosexual or other non-traditional expressions of sexuality. We buy pornography in various forms by the tens of billions of dollars a year. We sell beer by showing pretty girls in nice bathing suits. We even put women having orgasms in shampoo commercials. We dangle the fruit in front of men -- and trust me, we guys need no assistance thinking about sex -- but then all but destroy the man who eats it.

This society gets off on others' misery. Conservatives, liberals, supposed moderates, even the apolitical. We love to see a former hero brought to his knees, especially if it's over sex. We love to make the wife or girlfriend of the dumb bastard the victim. I wonder why we don't see the so-called "pervert" as the victim of our own sex-obsessed culture. I wish I knew why we like seeing these deviants writhe in pain, have to make public apologies, give up their careers and parade their supporting families out in front of cameras.

Perhaps just as bad as society's treatment of our fallen gods is the way in which politicians capitalize on these stories. Democrats and Republicans beating up on each other over the moral failings of members of their respective parties is such a turn off for me that it is one (of many) reasons I don't think I'll vote in the next election. I hate the idea that the parties feel like they can't win the debate on substantive issues, but need to gain ground by exploiting the miseries of failed men and, worst of all, their wives and kids. Thus, the title of this blog. Politicians that make these scandals the issue instead of real issues are the true wieners in my view.

American society is trash. I wish we could take it out and put on the curb.

When cars were still fun

2011-03-19T22:02:00.002-04:00

The last few days have been lovely outside, at least for late winter in Michigan. The sudden surge of spring is probably what caused me to dig out some Beach Boys discs to spin while out on the road.

Anyone familiar with the Beach Boys knows that they really built their careers singer about cars, beaches and girls. In the early to mid 60's, they weren't the only ones to crank out mega-hits about automobiles. Groups like Jan and Dean and Ronnie and the Daytonas capitalized on the Beach Boys' success, making hits of their own like "Little Old Lady from Pasadena" and "Little GTO." Even the Beatles got in on the game with "Drive My Car." Of course, in the 50's, rock pioneers like Chuck Berry had already turned writing songs about cars and driving into something of an art with tunes like "No Particular Place To Go."

There's a tendency to blow off songs about cars as pure fluff. What meaning could we possibly assign to a song about drag racing or cruising around in a convertible? Perhaps more than you might think.

I used to believe that pop songs from the 50's and 60's like "Little Deuce Coupe" and "409" were nothing more than money grabs. When Lennon and McCartney wanted some cash, one of them would say to the other, "Okay, let's write us a swimming pool," and they'd go write their next mega-hit. Other artists of the day weren't much different and it's easy to imagine that they wrote songs about cars for one reason alone: money. People loved those songs and bought them by the millions.

The question that raises is why did people love those songs? Was it just that those songs were catchy? Not likely. It seems to me that those songs connected to people on a genuine emotional level.

40-50 years ago, cars still captured peoples' imaginations. Those were the day of $0.25 a gallon gas, Sunday drives, cruising, drive-in movies and diners and street racing. That was the era of the hot rod. The social life of a young person (fortunate enough to own or have access to one) revolved around his car, unlike kids today whose lives revolve around their cell phones and computers. Thus, to sing about cars and driving was to sing about life.

There are no songs about cars these days, at least not in the pop world. Sure, cars get mentioned in some pop and hip-hop songs, but the car and the driving are not the focus of the song. My theory is that because cars are no longer fun.

With gas at nearly $4.00 a gallon and growing movement to "go green," people see cars as either transportation from point A to B, some sort of necessary evil or status symbols. The affluent want to be seen in their opulent automobiles. White educated middle class folks seem to go for practical, meaning safe, fuel efficient, reliable...but not fun.

There seems to be guilt associated with vehicle ownership for Gen X'ers on down. If you drive too much, you're either destroying the planet or you're spending on gas and maintenance money with which you can't afford to part.

If there's any pleasure in driving, it comes from being in a nice looking ride. To some, cars are just huge gas-powered pieces of bling. Think of the favorite luxury item you own. You might love it. You might love displaying. You might beam with pride when you wear it. I'd put money on you not describing it as "fun." If anything, you might be uptight about it. "What if it gets stolen or broken? What would I do?" you probably think to yourself everytime you pull it out.

There's no going back at this point. Resources are only getting tighter. Gas will only get more expensive. Alternative fuel vehicles will never be the center of your social life. They'll never be fun, largely because no one wants them to be fun.

Here's to a by-gone era.

"Parallel Lives": Racism behind the NFHA Diversification push

2011-02-17T23:31:00.004-05:00

This is downright offensive, and I'm not one that gets my underwear in a bunch very easily over racial stuff. OK, maybe I am sensitive to racial issues. Usually, though, I don't feel this level of offense. This time, though, it's different.

The new National Fair Housing Alliance radio ads pushing neighborhood diversity essentially say that all white people look, act and think a like and you can learn nothing from living with a bunch of other white folks. That much is stated explicitly in the ads. Also explicit is the notion that living next to people of different backgrounds will make the lives of you and your children "richer." Of course, that assumes that such people actually have something of interest to offer. They must have some sense of culture to share. If' they're a bunch of Jerry Springer watching mouth breathers, I wouldn't expect to learn much from them.

What's similarly implied is that white people have little or nothing to offer our society. Communities can only experience true growth and vitality by getting a little piece of this and a little bit of that from various folks in the melting pot. The evidence for this is never stated. Granted, we're talking radio ads, not scholarly treatises. But I suspect there's no real data that proves "people of color" to be any better contributors to their communities than plain boring-ass old whities.

You can hear the ad I heard this morning at this link
http://www.aricherlife.org/docs/NFHA_ParallelLives_60_NO_SF.mp3

I've seen this stuff from many angles, despite the fact that I'm just a generic white guy. I grew up in an all white neighborhood, but I was raised by a Puerto Rican father with dark skin. Some -- very little -- Spanish was spoken in the house, we observed a few customs on occasion and ate our fair share of Puerto Rican dishes. I had to deal with racial comments directed at home because of his accent or the color of his skin. Blacks, Arabs, Hispanics or other so-called "people of color" would not have been welcome, at least not by some.

I also spent a considerable amount of time in my grandmother's neighborhood in Detroit. By the late 70's, a neighborhood that had been all white in the 1960's, was almost entirely black. The 3 remaining white families on the block clearly were not welcome to stay, at least not by some of the neighbors. There are very ugly, frightening incidences directed toward us about which I'd rather not speak at the moment. I can say, though, that while many blacks made it known they wanted Grandma out, others came to my rescue when I'd get picked on by neighborhood bullies.

That is to say nothing of my experiences living in a college community or in the two places I've lived as an adult. Every where I've lived has had a different feel to it. No two places have been alike.

Alot of that is somewhat beside the point. Ultimately, trying to get to why I'm bothered by this radio ad and the National Fair Housing Alliance. Besides the radio ad's blatant anti-white racism, I'm teed off by the lie that people that "look alike," meaning have the same skin color, must be alike. In the all white neighborhood in which I grew up, no two families were a like in anything other than skin color. Some went to church. Many did not. Many rooted for the Detroit Lions. Some rooted for other teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers. Some were alcoholics. Some were teetotalers. Some were educated (meaning they had college degrees) but most others were lucky to have graduated from high school. Many could fix cars. Some wouldn't even bother trying. Some ate traditional dishes past down to them by their parents or grandparents. Others lived on McDonalds and Little Caesar's pizza. We didn't even speak a like. Because more than a few families were descendants of transplants from the south, some kids even in my generation talked a little like "hillbillies." Some even said, quite amusingly, "I'm part hillbilly" when sharing their ethnic background. You get the idea.

The same was true for my grandmother's mostly black neighborhood in Detroit. We didn't know the neighbors as well, personally, but we saw how they related to us. Some were quiet and kept to themselves. Some were "decent church-going folk." Others were troublemakers and bullies. Some came to my defense, protected me. Others bullied and intimidated me. The neighborhood was a bad place to be, but that wasn't because everyone was the same. They just weren't.

In that case, contrary to what the National Fair Housing Alliance would tell you, diversity was actually a divisive thing. There were three white families, one Mexican family and a Chinese-owned business on the corner of the block. When people didn't get along, that was usually triggered by someone in the neighborhood wanting to rid the area of the remaining white families. There was resentment expressed toward the chinese business owners. Not surprisingly, that business left the city maybe 30 years ago.

I had rich experiences growing up, but not because I was exposed to all the cutesy little things some would have you believe comes with diversification. I saw the ugly, hateful side of it. You know what I learned? Some people make lousy neighbors, others make good ones. Color doesn't seem to be a factor. I also learned that people kind of prefer to live with their own kind, so to speak. That's not because every single one of them is a clone of the other, but because commonality creates a comfort zone. I know that's changing, and that's probably a good thing. But it shouldn't change based on a lie. It shouldn't change by telling people, "Hey, you should live with people of color because white folks are all the same and you can't have a 'rich life' living with them."

If you want to live in a mixed neighborhood, do it! There are positives. If you don't want to for whatever reason, don't do it. You'll learn plenty from whomever it is that you live around and deal with on a daily basis, regardless of skin color.

Karma's a Bitch

2011-02-15T09:39:00.001-05:00

Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism addresses the overlapping issues of God as a judge vs a God of love and how a "loving God" could send people to Hell. He essentially says that the notion of a wrathful, judging God who could condemn people to an eternity in Hell is a huge barrier to belief in Christianity or even in the Christian God.

I do see and hear this a lot but it has never been a hang up for me. Sure, I've wondered how God could send "nice people" to Hell, people that act kinder, gentler, more lovingly than some Christians. That's always sat a little funny with me. But I also see that most people aren't as "good" as they think they are and many are downright evil. I recognize in myself enough bad that would otherwise deserve some punishment in the absence of sort of grace or mercy. I also recognize that while I might be think myself to be more "good" thand "bad," there's no handy-dandy cosmic scale I can look at to measure how much 10 lies, 4 thefts, 13 acts of lust, etc weigh against 7 holding doors open for people, saying please and thank you anytime I'm in public, telling my wife and daughter "I love you," or doing a great job at work. What's the point system on which I can rely to measure my "good" vs my "bad"?

That brings me to the next point that is stuck in my craw. People apparently are hung up that God could judge and punish people, but they have no hangups, whatsoever, about human being extracting some amount of revenge against wrongdoers. Many might no longer believe the death penalty is a just punishment, regardless of the crime or wrong. But they would see mental and emotional, perhaps even physical, torment as fair game.

More subtley yet more pervasively, westerners these days love themselves some "karma." Of course, they don't have the first clue on what Buddhists or Hindus have to say about karma, at least not with any specificity. It's a complex and varied spiritual concept and definitions vary between eastern religions. Americans like to say, "Well, it means 'what comes around goes around.'" Not exactly. Hinduistic karma's closer to the Biblical concept of sowing and reaping. However, it has to do more broadly with cosmic cause and effect:

Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended expression or consequence of natural acts. Karma means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, that governs all life. The effects experienced are also able to be mitigated by actions and are not necessarily fated. That is to say, a particular action now is not binding to some particular, pre-determined future experience or reaction; it is not a simple, one-to-one correspondence of reward or punishment.

Karma is not fate, for humans act with free will creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness; if one sows evil, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate response.

If we say that post-modern Americans have gotten it partially right and that what comes around goes around -- which is a cousin belief to Christian sowing and reaping -- we must also say that they accept the idea of cosmic judgment and retribution. People in our society really love this idea. Do a google search of "karma is a bitch" (apologize if the word offends anyone) and you'll see that people revel in the idea that someone that does something bad has something coming to him/her in return, often worse than the original offense. You can get "Karma is a Bitch" bumperstickers. I have friends on Facebook that put "karma" out there whenever a villain gets what's coming to him.

Modern, supposedly rational folks have no qualms with cosmic retribution (not tied to any physical or scientifically observable force in the universe mind you, and not even clearly attributable to a someone or something who could guide it.) Yet, they can't accept the idea that God could be the agent of retribution (or reward.) Why must God only reward people (for their sins and shortcomings) but we mere mortals get to sit back and enjoy "karma" crushing our enemies' souls, destroying their lives or just plain gettin' 'em back for their bad behavior?

The truth, I believe, is that people love vengeance. They just don't want to face the fact that God could be the agent of that vengeance and such vengeance could be directed at them. Karma's for "the other guy," the one that does really bad things.

Crumbs for the Little Dogs

2010-11-22T11:25:00.001-05:00

Matthew 15:21-28

21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." 23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." 24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25But she came and knelt before Him, saying, "Lord, help me." 26And He answered, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs." 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table." 28Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

In this text, we see a number of things: rebuke; rejection; modern minds may see ethnic bigotry; persistence; love; disdain; unwavering faith; miracles; reward; affirmation; prayers answered; acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord.

Verses 21-22: 21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon."

A Canaanite woman – Women were not, to put it mildly, highly esteemed in 1^st century Palestine. They were, at best, second class citizens. Jesus, as we have seen in other places in the Gospels, acknowledged womens' important roles in the kingdom and affirmed them as blessed and beloved of God. Ultimately, we see that pattern repeated in this story, but not in these verses. That she was a Canaanite hints at the rejection – or apparent rejection – we see in the next few verses.

The Canaanites were dispossessed of their land as far back as Abram. Genesis 15:17-21 tells us that the “Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates...'”which included the land of the Canaanites.

Both before and after the covenant in which the land of the Canaanites is given to Abra,, God promises children to Abram – later Abraham – and promises he will be the father of many nations, with descendants numbering as the stars. See Genesis 15:5; 17:6-8. In fact, in 17:8, the land of Canaan is promised to Abraham. This “everlasting covenant,” as it relates directly to the Canaanites, is repeated in Psalm 105:10-11.

The Canaanites had a long history of struggle with God's people. The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. Abraham's descendants, both through Ishmael and Isaac, were descended from Noah's son, Shem. Historically, they had been devotees of Baal and even sacrificed children to that idol. Apparently by Jesus' time, some level of enmity existed even though Israelite Jews and Canaanites lived in close proximity.

Verse 23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us."

What is the significance in Jesus not answering her plea? Some commentators suggest that pattern seen elsewhere in scripture, and born out in our own lives, is that God does not always “answer” when we call, at least not in the short term. Others suggest that the silent was actually communication. John Calvin, in one of his commentaries on this chapter, supposed that Jesus, while silent, “spoke within the mind of the woman.” He added:

In this way the Lord often acts towards those who believe in him; he speaks to them, and yet is silent. Relying on the testimonies of Scripture, where they hear him speaking, they firmly believe that he will be gracious to them; and yet he does not immediately reply to their wishes and prayers, but, on the contrary, seems as if he did not hear.

The deafening silence in response to our supplications can be one of the greatest tests of faith. Waiting for an answer also reminds us who is in charge. What is one of the first things we deal with is parents? We struggle to find the appropriate balance between promptly caring for our children's serious, immediate needs – food, changing a diaper – and being at their beckoned call. God, assuredly, does not struggle with that but there is, nevertheless, a parallel. Sometimes He, as father, makes us wait because that is best for us.

Other commentators suggest Jesus was simply steeling the resolve of the woman. Faced with his initial silence, she had to choose between pressing forward with her petition or giving up hope, maybe rejecting God altogether. Earle, Sanner and Childers, in the Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol 6, p 149 cite Carr: “Jesus, by his refusal, tries the woman's faith that He may purify and deepen it.”

Verses 24-25: 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25But she came and knelt before Him, saying, "Lord, help me."

When Jesus does answer, without directly granting or denying her specific request, i.e. that her daughter be delivered from demonic possession, He explains His purpose is to minister to His own people. As the woman did in verse 22, she reaffirmed His lordship. This, to me, has several interesting facets. First, one not a member of the “house of Israel” recognizes the Messiah. “Son of David,” according to John Calvin, was (to paraphrase) a messianic marker. Thus she, a foreigner, perhaps even a pagan (as opposed to a “God fearer” Gentile), acknowledged the lordship of the Jewish Messiah. Second, she personally acknowledged His lordship over her! She gave herself over to Him, surrendering herself, calling on His saving mercy.

Remarkable in this story is the tie-back to the covenental theology of the Jews. I am certainly no scholar and know little or nothing about the intricacies of that belief structure. But it's hard to miss Jesus showing Himself to be a good Jew steeped in the Old Testament. As various commentators have noted, Jesus' ministry really never reached beyond Judea. The Apostles, of course, carried the message to the Gentiles, spreading it all over the Roman Empire. Jesus, though, really ministered primarily to His own people. Here He expressly refuses – or at least hesitates – to extend the blessings meant for God's people to Gentiles.

A fascinating parallel is Abram/Abraham's “everlasting” blessing with God at the expense, if you will, of the Canaanites and others. Jesus' blessing, tied up in His Father's covenant with Abram/Abraham, was refused to this lowly Canaanite woman...or so it first seemed.

Verses 26And He answered, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."

Little disagreement is found over Jesus' meaning when He responds by telling her it is not right to cast “the children's bread” “to the dogs.” If He didn't call this poor woman a dog, a major insult in that culture, He certainly compared her to one. Earle, Sanner and Childers argue that Jesus actually might have uttered this with a nudge and a wink as something of a rebuff or rebuke to His disciples. The original Greek does not refer to a “dog” like a filthy street dweller despised by that culture, but as a “little pet dog” with which children would play. If so, there was no rebuke in His response. It was an inside joke between Him and the woman.

We tend to see Jesus in a terrifically serious light. Some of that is because we have only text, without benefit of facial expressions and body language. Any modern day American who tries to communicate by text and email knows that meanings can be completely obscured, indeed lost, when all you have to go by are words on a screen. Mark Driscoll, in his book Religion Kills, argues for a funny Jesus, a man with a great sense of humor. If some of the minority commentators are right, this might be one example of our Lord busting some chops.

Covenantal theology reappears. John Calvin explains the significance of the “children's bread” as:

To make the meaning plain to us, it must be understood that the appellation of the children’s bread is here given, not to the gifts of God of whatever description, but only to those which were bestowed in a peculiar manner on Abraham and his posterity. For since the beginning of the world, the goodness of God was everywhere diffused—nay, filled heaven and earth—so that all mortal men felt that God was their Father. But as the children of Abraham had been more highly honored than the rest of mankind, the children’s bread is a name given to everything that, relates peculiarly to the adoption by which the Jews alone were elected to be children

Thus, Jesus was not being distantly metaphorical. Children were God's chosen ones; His adopted kids.

Verse 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table."

This one verse is packed full of theological punch! It is heavy and rich, like spiritual cheesecake. The next verse gives this one its full weight and meaning but I will still address them separately.

Crumbs are “small fragments, especially of something baked (as bread.)” One could not live on crumbs. Usually they are discarded. Here, they are left for the dogs. Not given to but left for the dogs. They are so small as to amount to almost nothing. These crumbs have fallen to the floor. It is hard to know what importance this idea held in that culture but we, in a society of overabundance, where our poor are fat, it's hard to conceive of being pleased with crumbs on the floor.

Moreover, consider how the Canaanite woman's willingness to take the crumbs contrasts with our 21^st century conception of Christianity. Think of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” that we hear preached on cable TV. God, we are told, wants to give you everything your heart desires because He loves you! But is that what we see in this story? No. We see a master that wants us to want and be happy with only the crumbs!

It must not be ignored whose crumbs are being lapped up; the crumbs from the master's table. His crumbs – whatever they might be – are better than abundance from other sources.

Verse 28Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Dovetailing nicely with the discussion on verse 27 is Jesus acknowledgment of this woman's “great faith.” She was willing to take a little – even after apparently being rejected or at least put off for the moment due to her race. She endured what may have been great personal insults. Yet she persisted in calling on Jesus to save her child.

The crumb concept is fitting in an ironic way. She and Jesus saw her as asking for very little, but what could be more important to a parent than the healing of an afflicted, suffering child? A lesson in here, maybe, is reflected in that irony. When we ask for the right types of blessings from God, He sees them as little things. God's kingdom, we see in scripture, often operates in contradictory ways: the first shall be last; the meek shall inherit the earth; he must increase, I must decrease; you must lose your life to gain it, etc. Be willing to take the crumbs and God will richly bless. Maybe a more apt way to put it is that the crumbs will satisfy your needs, another apparent contradiction; defying human logic.

There are parallels, too, between this woman's great faith and the faith necessary to move mountains. Not to make too much of the “crumbs” concept, but as Jesus said, having only faith the size of a mustard seed is necessary to move mountains. Having faith enough to accept the crumbs from the master's table is sufficient to cause you to experience in an almost inexpressible miracle.

More likely, as with the mustard seed, the issue isn't quantity but quality. What God gives us, even if we think it is not enough, is sufficient! That little mustard seed, similarly, grows into a large tree, as Jesus explained. Willingness to take the crumbs amounts to great faith because it necessitates reliance on God. Analogously, planting that mustard seed with the expectation that one day it will turn into a great tree – a hope that must battle some doubt – requires belief, nurture and, most importantly, patience!

The Call

2010-11-05T22:31:00.003-04:00

I've been wrestling with some kind of "call" by God to "ministry." I don't know what that means. It waxes and wanes, but the call has been there for a few months now.

Right now, I'm a bit stressed at work. If I could just be a lawyer and focus on the actual substance of my job I might feel better. But I find myself working the phones and trying -- with staff help -- to line up a bunch of witnesses for a trial. For one reason or another, I can't seem to get to the point of actually working on the trial stuff itself.

At the moment, the last thing I want to do is work or think of work. But it's all consuming. When work gets like this, sometimes I run to God. Sometimes I run away from him. Now I feel like I want to run away from work, into the safe arms of some sort of work that has actual meaning and purpose.

This is a lousy way to look at work, especially for a Presbyterian. We, after all, helped make the so-called Protestant Work Ethic what it is. Work, for work's sake, has value in that worldview. Now, though, I struggle to see value beyond my paycheck. I only see value in service to others on a spiritual level. The stress, though, puts me in a position of not seeing value in the work that I am given to do.

Within a week, I'll get a short reprieve and life will be good again...

Rush Limbaugh, M.Div.

2010-09-30T14:50:00.005-04:00

Yesterday, I had the distinct displeasure of hearing Rush Limbaugh attempt to define the "tenets" of the Christian faith, and fail miserably in doing so. I have nothing against Mr. Limbaugh, particularly. I'm also not a huge fan and I'm certainly not a "Dittohead."

The context of Rush's remarks was that President Obama recently said, in trying to articulate why he is a Christian, that he holds to the Golden Rule (though he didn't refer to it by its moniker) and (rather oddly) that he should be his brother's keeper. Limbaugh, in suggestion that the President doesn't understand his own declared Christian faith, had this to say on yesterday's show:

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have to forgive me here, but -- and not disputing -- President Obama says he's a Christian, that's good enough for me. And there's a lot of people who do not know details of their own religious belief. But the Golden Rule is not a precept of Christianity. I hate to point this out, but the Golden Rule does not emanate, originate, from Christianity. And this brother's keeper business? That's not Jesus. I hate to say this, but Jesus Christ did not talk about brother's keeper. That is from the story of Cain and Abel, and even that story is misunderstood. The story of Cain and Abel -- my brother's keeper does not mean, "I'm going to take care of my brother or take care of my sister". The story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed Abel, and then he said he had no idea. He denied it. He denied killing Abel, and then said to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Meaning, "What, is he my responsibility? He's not my responsibility, I didn't kill my brother." Now, a lot of people misunderstand all this, but the Golden Rule doesn't come from Christianity, and Cain and Abel is not, "I'm going to take care of my brother and I'm going to take care of my sister," and Jesus Christ has nothing to do with either one of them

***

RUSH: The code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon. Many people's first experience to the Golden Rule is actually... like my brother, David, told me that he first heard of the Golden Rule when he opened up a fortune cookie at the Purple Crackle Club in East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, and the fortune cookie had the Golden Rule in there as a fortune. How many of you have you seen the Golden Rule as a fortune in the fortune cookie? Now, the code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon, which is modern Iraq. Ancient Babylon is modern Iraq. You could even find the story of Cain and Abel in the Koran -- sorry -- the Holy Koran, as Mrs. Clinton points out. And so was the Golden Rule. I'm getting a lot of e-mails that the Golden Rule is in the Old Testament, that it's in the New Testament, but it's the Code of Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, do unto others. But the point is, I am my brother's keeper. There is an effort -- the reason why this is important, there's an effort by the left to say that Jesus was a socialist, and they are using this to turn many evangelical people into global warming people. We are the stewards of the planet and so forth.

What Limbaugh is (quite foolishly) suggesting is that because the Golden Rule, in some other expression, predates Christian, that it's not a tenet of the Christian faith. Mr. Limbaugh simply does not understand Christianity.

If you believe that the "tenets" of the Christian faith are expressed in the New Testament, you need only look to the New Testament to see if the Golden Rule is in it. By golly, it is! Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 7:12, " Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." As recorded in Luke 6:31, "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise."

It is completely and utterly irrelevant that the Golden Rule might be expressed outside the New Testament or even in some form or fashion in the "holy books" of other faiths. The point that Limbaugh made was that the President, in paraphrasing the Golden Rule and pointing to it as evidence of his personal Christian faith, did not express a Christian belief.

That would be like saying that because the concept of "democracy" did not originate in the United States, valuing democracy is not valuing an American ideal or belief. If Limbaugh were correct, any expression of Christian beliefs that incorporated the Ten Commandments would not be expression of Christianity, at all, but of ancient Judaism. That, of course, would be foolishness.

Mr. Limbaugh should stick to politics and stay away from teaching the Bible.

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout

2010-09-20T11:25:00.002-04:00

International Burn a Mosque At Ground Zero Day

2010-09-10T23:54:00.003-04:00

I am no fan of Islam, radical or otherwise. But that's not really what's on my mind. It's 9/11, the on-again-off-again "International Burn A Koran Day" at the tiny church in Florida was originally set for today. Protests against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" still rage in NYC. President Obama is wringing his hands, worried about how these storms of controversy will cause us Americans to be perceived abroad. Meanwhile, Pastor Terry Jones somehow appointed himself -- probably not entirely by accident -- the voice of American Christianity. These are exciting, scary, and even bizarre times.

With that as a backdrop, a few things have been nagging at me.

At the risk of being judgmental, I don't understand why Pastor Jones and his church members fail to see that they would be forsaking Jesus's commands to love your neighbor as yourself and to do unto to others as you would have them do unto you just to prove that they have the right to burn some books. Just because you have the right to offend someone doesn't mean you should.
I must confess that I have been impressed (at least somewhat) by the willingness of at least one Imam to talk to Pastor Jones and make a promise to approach Imam Rauf about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. It's nice to see that Muslim leaders -- at least a few -- are willing to at least consider that things done in the name of their faith might possibly be the cause of all this backlash, what the media is calling "Islamaphobia."
That our President, General in Afghanistan and Secretary of State are concerned that the burning of a few so-called "holy books" would put "Americans in harm's way" or "endanger the lives of our troops" in Afghanistan or Iraq proves precisely what many "Islamaphobes" have been trying to say: Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of war, terror and death. That we have to be concerned that Muslims would kill human beings over the burning of a few hundred copies of their "holy book" is a pretty good indicator that something is aschew in that religion. Bibles are destroyed in other countries, but Christians don't murder people in retaliation.
I appreciate, as indicated, that Muslims are now forced to start considering why there is a backlash in this country. But rather than go on the defensive, why not spend time, energy and resources to de-radicalize elements within their own faith? If all the terror committed in the name of Islam is really the work of "a few extremists," the de-radicalization process shouldn't be terribly difficult. Instead of trying to convince me your faith is a "religion of peace," why don't you show me that you do not tolerate murder in the name of allah? In other words, do some housecleaning and then get back with me on your sales pitch.

Ground Zero liberalism

2010-08-15T07:28:00.004-04:00

The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" seems to be the topic du jour in the culture wars. As G. K. Chesterton advises, it is good to put forth the points on which there is agreement before taking the contrary position. I agree that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, both as I read it personally and as a matter of law, permits Muslims to erect mosques on the private property of their choosing, subject to zoning and other "reasonable" restrictions (that apply to everyone.) If you consider yourself a liberal (small L) and your "support" of the Ground Zero Mosque is on First Amendment Grounds alone, I think we find ourselves in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. The mosque must be permitted.

But, what I observe amongst liberals -- and it's not just with this particular issue, but has been repeated many times post 9-11 -- is some sort of support of Islam on what I think could only be broadly labeled as "tolerance." It's the typical liberal viewpoint that "I'm OK, you're OK (unless you're a white, Christian, male Republican.)" Except that I never get the impression genuine tolerance is being expressed. Rather, leftist support for Islam seems like a "stickin' it to the Man" attitude. It's a case of, "Let's see, Christians don't like Islam and I don't like Christians so I'll say Islam is OK." I know there are people that so hate what they believe to be Christianity that they support anything that could not be possibly mistaken as Christian.

I'll put it plainly. If you are a Liberal, in the post-modern western sense, and you do anything but vehemently oppose Islam, you are a fool and a hypocrite. Those things you say that you dislike about Christian fundamentalism are the foundations for Islamic morality, but are heaped on by the gallon. Islamic morality is also enforced by violence and terror. Islam's followers don't believe religion is a "private matter." You might want to read up on Sharia law or just take a gander at how things run in Iran to see this is the case.

You think conservative Christians are "hateful" for opposing gay marriage? How does it sit with you that (supposedly) 4,000 people have been executed in Iran since the revolution for being homosexual? You don't like that fundamentalist Christians believe that the man should be the "head of the house" -- you probably don't understand what this even requires of the man? How do you feel about women being stoned in Muslim countries for allegedly being adulteresses?

Do you like the idea that fathers and brothers (in diverse places across the Muslim Middle East) will murder girls in their own family if a husband reports back that the young lady was not a virgin (meaning he could not tell that she was)? There should be nothing more abhorrent to you than "honor killings."

Islam is not progressive. Islam is not "inclusive." Islam is not "tolerant." Muslims are not "pro-gay." Islam's followers are not anything that you think that the rest of us should be. So why aren't you speaking out against them? Other than the old worn out line that "Islam is a religion of peace," Muslim don't even pretend to share post-modern western liberal values. So why do you support them streaming into our country, building their places of worship wherever they like?

You will rue the day, and it may be in our lifetime, when they are of sufficient numbers to, within a democratic system, influence government policy. You'll wish the mean-spirited Euro-American conservatives were in power, suggesting you home-school your kids and honor your husbands.

Silversmiths of Artemis

2010-08-05T10:04:00.003-04:00

Artemis or Diana was the chief goddess in Ephesus in the first century. She, of course, is mentioned in Acts. Chapter 19 describes how the Apostle Paul was run out of town because his proseletyzing was based for the business of the silversmiths who made little carved idols of Artemis:

²¹ When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” ²² So he sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, but he himself stayed in Asia for a time.
²³ And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. ²⁴ For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana brought no small profit to the craftsmen. ²⁵ He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. ²⁶ Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. ²⁷ So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed,whom all Asia and the world worship.”
²⁸ Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” ²⁹ So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s travel companions. ³⁰ And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. ³¹ Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater.

Acts 19:21-31(New King James)

This story in particular caused me to pause and ask, "Who are today's silversmiths of Artemis?" We always hear about some person promoting this or that belief, system, self-help technique, diet, or even religion. Often, at least secondarily, they enjoy considerable monetary gain as a result. What I don't hear asked much is, "Who stands to gain (materially) by ridding this country (or even the world) of the Gospel?" Materialiasts -- which, I think include hardcore socialists and well as dedicated money-minded capitalists -- have to acknowledge much of human action (good and bad) is done for some sort of material gain.

Who stands to gain in the United States if the Christians withdraw from society as was demanded of Paul in Acts 19? I have a list:

Pornographers. Forget all this nonsense about freedom of expression. Sex is a drug and pornographers peddle it to make money. Lots of money. They don't provide people with pleasurable experiences in the name of charity. I've checked various sources and seen a wide range of numbers. I don't think being accurate about the dollar amount of the porn industry is especially important since we are talking about billions of dollars. Consider that something like $10 to $15 Billion moves through the American economy per year for "adult entertainment." Do you think the purveyors of "adult entertainment" like Focus on the Family calling for social change in this area? As certain as I'm sitting here typing this, I know that they don't want mental health experts convincing the public at large that sex addiction is real and destructive, a view that many secular health professionals seem to hold these days.

Public colleges and universities. I've seen first-hand how the social agendas of the members of various departments -- bureaucracies really -- are anti-Christian, anti-traditionalism. Those in academe don't want to hear opposing views, really. They want to ensure that tuition and tax dollars continue to roll in to fund them promoting their own worldviews. For such a small minority of people, those that run our public colleges and universities really act as oligarchists. A Christian society, meaning some sort of plurality of practicing Christians, is a threat to them. So they silence Christians or, worse yet, demand that their views conform to the new standards. Perhaps I am turning this around, putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Maybe they are motivated not by the money the schools rake in but by their social and political agendas; the funding just ensures they can continue to promote those agendas. But we see that they have created a society in which the need for their services ensures their continued funding and, therefore, continued existence. They've convinced us that the only way to "get ahead" or to "be successful" in life is to get a college degree. Indeed, college grads do considerably better (in many social categories, not just income) than people without degrees. I'd not quibble with that. While I would not go so far as to say that this is some sort of purposeful conspiracy or grand scheme, I do believe those in academia recognize a sea change in society's moral outlook would be bad for (their) business.

Hollywood. An entire book could be written on this subject and I won't try to tackle it at length. I feel comfortable declaring, though, that an orthodox Christian worldview is bad for the movie-making and television industries (and the modern entertainment industry more broadly.) Remember the furor created over The Last Temptation of Christ? Who could forget all the hub-bub over The Da Vinci Code? Surely those controversies drove people -- tens, maybe hundreds of thousands -- to the theaters in those instances. But imagine if people actually decided they were not going to fill their heads with some of the stuff that Hollywood produces. Imagine millions of people refusing to set foot in theaters because the movies had objectionable themes. What would happen if hundreds of thousands of Christians stopped going to or renting movies produced by studio A or starring actors B, C and D. That was the kind of effect Paul was having in Asia by proclaiming the gospel.

Jesus said, "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22. Will we be hated because we, as Christians, are bad for business? Do they already hate us because they perceive a threat to their lucrative livelihoods?

Surely the 18 year old skeptic about ready to start college, who doesn't have two nickels to rub together, can afford to be philosophical about Christianity. He can dislike it because it doesn't jibe with what he has been told in school about "tolerance" or "acceptance" or "open-mindedness." But not everyone is that kid. He'll see things differently at 40 than he does now.

Sacrifice

2010-07-29T23:33:00.003-04:00

It's safe to say that the orthodox Judeo-Christian view of remission of sin is that something must be sacrificed, a blood offering must be made, to appease God's wrath or stay His judgment. I've never really quibbled with the truth of that, but I've never quite understood why that is the case. Couldn't He accept us doing jumping jacks or cartwheels as acts of repentence? Couldn't the giving of alms take the place of the physical sacrifice of either an animal, under the Judaic cultic practices, or a Man, i.e. the crucifixion of Jesus, God incarnate? After all, God is God, right? He could accept any mode or act in remission of sin. Or could He.

There's an incredible amount of theological and philosophical study on this issue. I don't claim to know what most of the great minds think about it. I don't claim to have new thoughts, but only thoughts or ideas new to me.

Like my fellow modern man, my personal inclination is to say that there's something incredibly cruel, even wrong, about killing an animal -- to say nothing of a sinless God-Man -- to appease God's anger at my sins. It seems unjust in a way. I don't fault skeptics for finding it so, but I, through faith, trust that God's plans and ways are better than any of which I could possibly conceive.

It must be remembered that the sacrifice rituals performed as laid out in Exodus and Leviticus were nothing like vicious acts of bloodlust. While it's true a spotless (innocent) animal died in the process, the offered animal was eaten by the priests. Understanding that, only vegetarians and vegans would be left to say that no justification, whatsoever, for the sacrifice could be made on modern terms.

While it is hard to come to grips with its unpleasantness, its ugliness (again, to our modern way of viewing things), I see that is precisely why ritualistic sacrifice might have had to occur. Certainly modern people would be troubled that their wrongdoing cost a cute little lamb its life. If I knew something had to die to clean up the mistakes I made, and that this process would need to be repeated as my sins piled up, I might be more hesistant to err. I might be more willing to exercise discipline, to try to flee temptation. I might take more seriously my faults.

What would seem more unjust than to kill an innocent man for the crimes of another? To us, there is not much we would find more appalling. Yet, that is the lesson of the cross. Someone else was tortured to death for your lies, lust, anger, violence, cruelty, pettiness, impatience, gluttony, or hatred.

You might be man or woman enough to live out your life according to your own will if you knew that only you would have to account for that. That might seem contrary to our selfish natures, but I've heard many people in my life say they didn't mind the idea of Hell. They say, half jokingly, half seriously, "Oh, what does it matter, I'm going to Hell anyway!"

But consider that, to make up for those shortcomings, someone else had to die. What if someone else already died a horrible death to clean up your mess? Would knowing that cause you pause to examine your life?

Roman Catholics believe that Jesus' crucifixion is -- and this is my way of explaining it -- re-enacted in the Mass and that Jesus daily presents His crucified body before the Father to stay His judgment, to cover your sins. If that is the case, you can't be content to say, "Well, He already died and we no longer sacrifice animals so this is taken care of."

Ultimately, a blood sacrifice is a deterrent. It's a wake up call. You already have your own soul to account for; do you want another's blood on your hands as well?

God's Story: A Five Act Play

2010-06-13T11:20:00.002-04:00

I prepared this for a recent presentation at our local Church's Theology on Tap. It is a commentary on N. T. Wright's book, The Last Word. I've not corrected (the several) typographical errors in it.

****
“GOD’S STORY: A FIVE ACT PLAY”
or
“WHAT WE MEAN BY ‘AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE’”
Adopted from The Last Word, by N.T. Wright
For Theology on Tap, June 8, 2010

“God said it, I believe it and that settles it.” Some of you have heard that phrase. It’s

the sort of thing you’d see on a bumper sticker on a big old Cadillac, driven by a white haired lady.
I heard one southern preacher repeat that phrase and say, “It doesn’t matter whether I believe
it! God said it and that settles it!” For someone like my grandmother, who took everything in
our Holy Bible at face value and cared nothing for what anyone else might have thought of her for
it, that type of approach to the Bible was completely sufficient. Those of us, though, who have been
confronted by a clever skeptic or the typical post-modern American who cares little for what a book
thousands of years old might have to say, “God said it and that settles it!” doesn’t really cut it.

What does it mean to say that “God said it”? Even if I want to believe it, how am I to know
exactly what to believe? What no longer applies – like animal sacrifice – and to what must there be
strict adherence? How are we to know these things? How do debates, which end up back at the
“authority of scripture,” get resolved? The issue of scriptural authority is not settled even within the
church as a whole and certainly not amongst scholars and theologians.

We could fill libraries on the subject, but one resource I found helpful was The Last Word:
Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. I am doing the
book an injustice to sum it up in a sentence, but I will anyway. Essentially, Bishop Wright takes
what something of a middle-of-the-road approach between Biblical literalism and liberalism. For
Bishop Wright, there is no doubt that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but he attempts to make
sense out of that, give some tips for how it be read so as to bridge the gap between competing
views of scripture. My talk focus on highlights I personally found most helpful.

“Authority of Scripture”

In the Protestant tradition, Bishop Wright urges, emphatically, that the Bible is both the
authoritative “God’s Word” and that it should be translated and understood “literally.” But, unless
you’re like my Grandma, those ideas, without explanation, don’t get you very far.

He argues, “‘Authority of scripture’ is a shorthand for God’s authority exercised
through scripture.” God, not the Bible, is our authority. While that seems simple, sometimes that
gets missed, especially on the conservative side.

The Five Act Play

I found Bishop Wright’s description of the Bible as a “five act play,” each act being distinct,
fitting in its time and place, as extremely helpful. The acts:

1. Creation
2. The Fall
3. Israel
4. Jesus
5. The Church

We are living in the Church age, not Creation, not the Fall. We cannot return to Creation.
We do not walk with Jesus through first century Palestine. We live in the age in which the Bible,
mostly the New Testament, is the foundation for our faith, the guidebook for Act 5.

An analogy demonstrates this point and helped me sort out how we might make sense out of
the debate over the validity of, say, the Old Testament in the post-modern world. Why might we
not still sacrifice animals and keep slaves or observe the Jewish food laws? He explains:

When travelers sail across a vast ocean and finally arrive on the distant shore, they leave
the ship behind and continue over land, not because the ship was no good, or because their
voyage had been misguided, but precisely because both the ship and voyage had
accomplished their purpose. During the new, dry-land stage of their journey, the
travelers remain...the people who made that voyage in that ship.

Perhaps the best example of this line of thought anywhere in the New Testament is one of
the earliest: Galatians 3:22-29, where Paul argues that God gave the Mosaic law for a
specific purpose which has now come to fruition, whereupon that law must be put aside,
in terms of its task of defining the community, not because it was a bad thing, but
because it was a good thing whose task is now accomplished. But, as the whole letter
indicates, the people of God renewed through Jesus and the Spirit can never and must never
for get the road by which they had traveled.

(Last Word, pp 57-58.)

Tradition and Reason

The modern and post-modern worldviews tend to elevate “reason” over tradition. In the
extreme, there is no place for tradition that cannot be supported by reason. Most people, though,
really don’t know what they mean when that hold to that type of view. Obviously we as Christians,
Protestant and Catholic, give varying degrees of importance to tradition but all see it as important.
It seems we fight amongst ourselves over how much weight to give each in all matters of faith,
including the scriptures.

Bishop Wright, an Anglican, makes a pretty good case for harmonizing both tradition and
reason. With regard to tradition he says:

Paying attention to tradition means listening carefully (humbly but not uncritically) to how the
church has read and lived scripture in the past. We must be constantly aware of our
responsibility in the Communion of the Saints, without giving our honored predecessors the
final say or making them an ‘alternative source,” independent of scripture itself. When they
speak with one voice we should listen very carefully. They may be wrong. They
sometimes are. But we ignore them at our peril.

(Last Word, p 117.)

Secularists, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and even theological liberals would dismiss much or
all of scripture on the grounds of reason. But the church, I believe, should embrace it as a vehicle
for revelation. The place of reason, Bishop Wright says, in applying scripture is:

Likewise, reason will mean giving up merely arbitrary or whimsical readings of texts, and
paying attention to lexical, contextual, and historical considerations. Reason provides a
check on unrestrained imaginative readings of texts (e.g. the proposal that Jesus was really
an Egyptian freemason...)

‘Reason’ will mean giving attention to, and celebrating, the many and massive discoveries in
biology, archaeology, physics, astronomy, and so on, which shed great light on God’s world
and the human condition. This does not, of course, mean giving in to the pressure which
comes from atheistic or rationalistic science. We must never forget that science, by
definition, studies the repeatable, whereas history, by definition, studies the unrepeatable.

(Last Word, pp 119-120.) Reason does not become an “independent source” of authority, over
scripture and tradition, but is a “necessary adjunct” to them.

Honoring Scripture, i.e. Making it Authoritative

He proposes five (5) ways of honoring scripture, i.e. making it authoritative.

A Totally Contextual Reading of Scripture:

Where Bishop Wright parts company with Christians on maybe the more fundamentalist end
of the spectrum is with his rejection of scripture as a compendium of “timeless truths.” He does not
say, of course, that scripture has no meaning for us in the modern age, but that it has context and is
rooted in the places and times of its writing:

We must be committed to a totally contextual reading of scripture. Each word must be
understood in its own verse, each verse in its own chapter, each chapter in its own book,
and each book within its own historical, cultural and indeed canonical setting...All scripture is
‘culturally conditioned.’ It is naive to pretend that some parts are not, and can be treated as
in some sense ‘primary’ or ‘universal,’ while other parts are, and can therefore safely be set
aside.

(Last Word, p128.)

A Liturgically Grounded Reading of Scripture:

Essentially what Bishop Wright means by reading scripture liturgically is that it should take
“central place” in our “public worship,” regardless of tradition. We shouldn’t avoid verses we don’t
like:

There is simply no excuse for leaving out verses, paragraphs or chapters, from the New
Testament in particular. We dare not try to tame the Bible. It is our foundation charter; we
are not at liberty to play fast and loose with it.

(Last Word, p 132.)

A Privately Studied Reading of Scripture:

While Bishop Wright does not express it in exactly these terms, one of the criticisms leveled
against the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura (or even more extreme views of scripture and the
individual) is that too much of an emphasis on personal study can easily lead to heresy. You can
imagine that a group like the Branch Davidians became what they were because a mentally ill man
like David Koresh was left to figure out scripture on his own and, worse yet, teach it to others.
Charles Manson thought he was fulfilling the events described in Revelation when he ordered his
“family” to go on a murdering spree.

He does say that “western individualism” tends to make “personal reading” primary and
“liturgical reading” secondary, and posits that the order should be reversed, as he did in the book.
He treats private study as more of a function of personal devotion, but stresses it has a purpose in
the larger body:

If it is part of the privilege and duty of each Christian to study scripture, and to read it
devotionally, it is important that the wider church should be able to hear what individual
readers are discovering in the text. Of course, not all private readings will come up with
significant new insights; but many will.

(Last Word, p 134.)

A Reading of Scripture Refreshed by Appropriate Scholarship:

Bishop Wright describes “Biblical scholarship” as “a great gift of God to the church.”
Holding to the Reformation’s “emphasis on the ‘literal sense’ of scripture,” he explains that we are
not necessarily wise to “take everything literally,” but instead must, “‘discover what the writers
mean’ as opposed to engaging in free-floating speculation.” (Last Word, p 135.) So, for instance,
the literal sense of a parable is its intended meaning, not treating it as an historical anecdote.

Biblical scholarship should “explore different meanings,” not for the sake of being modern or
scholarly, but because, “Any church, not least those that pride themselves on being ‘biblical,’ needs
to be open to new understandings of the Bible itself.” This approach prevents us from “being blown
this way or that by winds of fashion,” or, “being trapped in our own partial readings and distorted
traditions...” (Last Word, p 135.) He’s careful to caution liberals about “thumbing their noses” at
“cherished points of view,” reminding them the purpose of biblical scholarship is to “serve the
church.”

A Reading of Scripture Taught by the Church’s Accredited Leaders:

By leaders, Bishop Wright is referring to not only to church hierarchy and pastoral staff, but
to Sunday School teachers and home group leaders. He reminds us that church hierarchy are often
muddled in the business of running the church and, thus, do not have the time to give the church
“careful and prayerful study of the text;” they turn to old sermons in the can. The “leader’s” role is
primarily to teach, he argues:

If, therefore, those called to office and leadership roles in the church remain content merely
to organize and manage the internal affairs of the church, they are leaving a vacuum exactly
where there ought to be vibrant, pulsating life...[H]ow much more should a Christian
minister be a serious professional when it comes to grappling with scripture and ...If we are
professional about other things, we ought to be ashamed not to be properly equipped both to
study the Bible ourselves and bring its ever-fresh word to others.

(Last Word, pp 138-139.)

I like that he, following the Reformers’ reference to the sacraments as God’s “visible
words,” says that sermons should be “audible sacraments.”

Summation

What I like about these five (5) points is that they are very organic and all fit
together nicely. We might wish to consider whether we can appreciate scripture and
allow these different approaches to it to help the word become authoritative in our church
body and in our personal lives.

Be Ye Separate Part 1: Public Prayer

2010-05-18T11:16:00.003-04:00

The culture wars are being fought over hot button socio-religious issues and some of those issues not only seem to be further distancing (in a negative way) Christians from society, but they are even dividing the Church itself.

I would like to start flushing out what I see as a new perspective that I'm gaining. It's new to me, but I don't pretend or claim it to be a new idea. This perspective has existed, in some form or fashion, almost over the entire life of the Church. But it's new or different in the sense that I don't hear other evangelicals holding or pronouncing this perspective.

In short, I'm starting to believe that the best thing for both the Church and society is for Christianity to be removed from the public (and by that I mean governmental, not societal) sphere. I hope explain why as this series (I don't know what else to call it) continues.

II Cor. 6:14-17 says:

¹⁴ Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? ¹⁶ And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you^{b]" class="footnote">[b]} are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”^{c]" class="footnote">[c]}

¹⁷ Therefore

“ Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”^{d]" class="footnote">[d]}
¹⁸ “ I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty.”^{e]" class="footnote">[e]}

I hope to explore and apply this commandment to the way I feel some of these societal (legal, political) issues to be unfolding and I'll start with public prayer.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is well known to most politically astute Americans. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Entire books could be and have been written about the import of this most sacred amendment and how it has been changed -- I'd argue corrupted, poisoned -- over the last 60 years. I am not going to take that approach here.

Here are some cases which have applied to public prayer. Engel v Vitale (1962) stands for the proposition that required recitation of a prayer, even non-denominational prayers, are unconstitutional. Time set aside in public schools for religious education is also unconstitutional. Zorach v Clauson (1952).

More recently, in Santa Fe Ind School Dist v Jane Doe (2000) the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional student-led prayers which were to be broadcast over the public address system before high school football games.

We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance...But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment." wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

Similarly, Prayers delivered by clergy at official public school graduation ceremonies are unconstitutional. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 (1992).The fact that a prayer is nondenominational or voluntary does not render it constitutional. The U. S. Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on whether student-initiated nonsectarian graduation prayer is constitutional, and the lower Federal courts disagree on the issue.

School officials, employees or outsiders must not offer prayers at school assemblies. Even if attendance is voluntary, students may not deliver prayers at school assemblies either. Collins v. Chandler Unified School Dist., 644 F. 2d 759 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 863 (1981). See Santa Fe Independent School district, supra.

There's little or nothing left of school-sanctioned prayer and student-initiated prayer might only be permitted under very limited circumstances.

I notice in these cases -- and the cases involving "Under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" on money, or the Ten Commandments in public buildings -- those arguing for public Christian prayer try to sell a non-sectarian prayer to get around the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The idea is that if a prayer is not exclusively Christian it cannot be offensive or coercive and, therefore, should be permitted. Federal courts haven't seemed to buy that argument, at least not broadly.

That is where I, as a Christian, think it's time to rethink this battle! What good is a non-sectarian prayer and why would we as Christians want people to say that prayer? Why would we want non-believers to say a prayer to a God which they refuse to serve? Will God bless a nation of people who say words they don't mean for the sake of tradition?

Jesus, before teaching us how to pray (the Lord's prayer), clearly and unambiguously addressed the issue of public prayer and cautioned against it. Matt 6:5-7 says:

⁵ “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. ⁶ But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.^{a]" class="footnote">[a]} ⁷ And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Then, of course, Jesus commanded us to pray to "Our Father, who art in Heaven..."

Does Jesus condemn all public prayer in these passages? I do not believe so. The verses suggest that the intention of one's heart is at issue. If you're praying to be seen, to be thought of as pious, you pray in vain. Any public prayer potentially runs afoul on such grounds. We should at least question the motivation for prayer "on the street corners" before doing it. Even a prayer to the One True God could be an error if done out of improper motivation.

Likewise, the Ten Commandments get at this:

³ “You shall have no other gods before Me.
⁴ “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; ⁵ you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, ⁶ but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Exodus 20:3-6.

It seems to me that a prayer to anyone but the Lord God is a prayer to another god. That, it seems patently obvious, is idolatry. For me personally, I'd rather not pray than pray to some amorphous god that is representative of that being adored by various faiths of the world. That god is not God!

President Obama is well known for his non-sectarian public invocations. People are starting to take notice and question whether or not that approach makes any kind of sense or, worse yet, does damage.

"The larger danger isn't for the Obama administration, it's that the prayer becomes so vacuous," said Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College and an editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. "That, to me as a person of faith, is a larger worry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

See also this blogger's excellent article http://chrisberryonthe.net/2009/01/08...

Conclusion:

I think it's time to stop fighting this battle. Instead of pushing for insincere, if not idolatrous, public prayers, let's try to win souls. Let's put that energy and money into serving people in the name of the True God.

Strangely dim

2010-05-17T11:50:00.000-04:00

There's some risk in saying what I'm about to say. One, it could be taken as preachy or holier than thou. Two, it could appear prideful or suggestive of some belief of having arrived. I present this humbly and in awe of God's power, and not my own.

As a kid one of the worship songs frequently sang in our Church was "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," written by Helen H. Lemmel in 1922. The refrain goes

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His Glory and Grace.

If you know me well you, might be scratching your head. I tend to feel very uncomfortable with this kind of flowery expression of love for God. Maybe it's my masculinity fighting against sentimentality.

More than the specific words, though, I am struck by how true the refrain is in my life. While I wouldn't express it the way that the song does, it captures it perfectly. The more I get to know God through studying the Bible, communing with Him through prayer, and sharing my thoughts with other believers, the less important the things of "the world" are.

This type of change can happen over a short period of time. Just a few months ago, I was focused on music and writing and whatever my (secular) hobbies and interests were. But God has turned my mind both inward (looking at my spirit) and upward (looking to Him.) I find myself losing interest in things that even weeks ago captured my imagination.

I will readily admit that this type of transformation, if you want to call it that, has taken place in my life in the past. In each instance, it has "worn off," as if it were a fad or trend. I suspect that my corrupted human heart and mind tries to flee from God -- rebel against Him! Hopefully that is not the case now.

Whatever the future holds I do not know. But I am certain that the more you focus on God the less important everything else will be to you.

For Ernie

2010-05-05T11:28:00.004-04:00

William Ernest "Ernie" Harwell died at age 92 after a year-long battle with cancer. Everyone from Michigan -- and baseball fans from around the country -- knows (and most likely loves) Ernie. He was a Hall of Fame broadcaster, a giant in his field.

Bloggers are blogging. Facebookers are posting memorials. Email reminiscence are spreading. Message boards are lit up. Thousands are paying tribute to Ernie on this sad day.

The theme I keep seeing over and over is how Ernie is and was so much a part of our memories, often of simpler, happier times. A lot of us connect Ernie's golden voice to lovely Michigan summer days spent in the backyard, at the park or on the boat with our fathers, uncles or friends.

I'll always link Ernie Harwell and Paul Carey's radio call of Detroit Tigers games to days spent with my Pop. I see him in the backyard, working on some new project, fixing up the boat, cleaning fish, digging a well, working on one of the cars or even gardening. Pop, who passed away in 1997, liked me to believe that he wasn't a Tigers fan, but he always had the game on the radio if he wasn't watching it on TV. In some way that is hard to describe, Ernie connected me to Pop and for that I will forever have great feelings for Ernie.

But those feelings, which a lot of us Detroiters share, are not the measure of Ernie's greatness. I prefer to think of Ernie as a great human being who happened to be a very gifted broadcaster. I'm convinced that you'll not find a single person on this planet that would have a bad thing to say about Ernie. He oozed kindness, humility, warmth, friendliness and a genuine love of people. You didn't even have to know him to know that about him. He was one of those people that you could just tell was not faking it. He was genuinely a person of tremendous character, as evidenced by his involvement in our community.

More than that, he professed Jesus as his savior and, unlike a lot of us, actually demonstrated that by his actions and deeds. He was one of the few public Christian figures I've followed in my life that appeared to actually have Christ-like qualities. I'm not deifying him, but only suggesting he had what Christians refer to as the "fruits of the spirit."

We all knew this day would come and we knew it would come sooner rather than later. It is, in a way, sad that it is now here and he has now passed. But I'd like to believe he is rejoicing in heaven and God has said to him, "Well done thy good and faithful servant."

Tents of Shem: a new online community

2010-04-19T12:46:00.002-04:00

I've been asked by a dear friend to help him with a website. I feel very important to have the title of "Admin." Seriously, I love what the site is all about and I'm pleased to share it here.

http://www.tentsofshem.com/

For us, this is a Christ-centered online community where we'll tackle any number of topics. We hope both Christians and non-Christians will join and participate in the community. All are welcome.

Look! Squirrel!

2010-04-19T12:42:00.002-04:00

When I started this blog I made a commitment of sorts that I would regularly post, mostly as a way of continually working through whatever creative urges I might have.

Since then I've picked up other hobbies: other blogs, playing bass, heavy reading and study, wasting time on Facebook, and, now, I'm administering another website.

I've not forgotten this little blog, but work, family, the grind of daily life, hobbies and other stuff have kept my focus elsewhere. I hope to write more here in the coming months.

Untitled cultural critique no. 1

2010-03-29T21:37:00.002-04:00

What follows is scattered, unorganized and rambling. It's rather free-form and somewhat influenced by the meds I'm taking to kill a crippling headache. But here it is anyway:
*****

Until I had something like an epiphany yesterday, I viewed the United States -- or at least certain elements here -- as preserving western culture. I've been very defensive on this point, despite hating certain aspects of our culture, mostly the trashier elements. The truth, though, is that several decades ago this country started down the road of culture toward an elevation of pop culture above high culture, history, tradition and faith. Pop culture is no longer culture as such but is nothing more than a hodge-podge of entertainment opportunities.

Reality TV
Celebrity worship and stalking
Obsession with sports
The complete blur between news and entertainment
Abandonment of objective journalism
Music made by and for pretty people
Grossly disturbing views of beauty
Sex sex sex

There is little that is high or elevated. Nothing is sacred in Post-Modern America. If it dulls your senses -- mindless crap on TV -- or gets your adrenaline pumping (MMA), it's good.

The closest we get to spirituality these days, without being blatantly "religious," is to do yoga.

Traditionally western spirituality, primarily European brands of Christianity, seems to be in serious decline. Churches have to come up with various ridiculous gimmicks to get butts in the pews. The only western music left is pop-rock. Easter is about the bunny. Christmas is about shopping and eating until you can't move. Thanksgiving is about getting wasted on the "biggest bar night of the year." I won't even talk about what the mouthbreathing frat boy party types have done to St. Patrick's Day.

If the people didn't have Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and Keith Olberman telling them the "truth," they wouldn't have a clue where to find it for themselves. Reading and self study are out; the History Channel (a great resource, no doubt) and wikipedia are in.

Americans seem hell-bent on being European. At least the elitists on the left do. Europeans seem to be coming more American, though they're not honest enough to cop to it.

It seems to me that much of what made the western world free, prosperous and progressive has been thrown out and replaced with cheap, plastic imitations.

America is not preserving western culture. It is destroying it, at least the more classical variety. In some ways are critics in the east are right and have been right for awhile.

The more I see this the more I find myself wanting to withdraw.

Admittedly I'm a product of Post-Modern American culture. I like popular music, I love the internet. I like sports and enjoy being entertained. Yet, I feel myself slowly peeling away. TV here has been replaced with books, some limited movies and even contemplative time (music, prayer, study, writing.) I care not for the goings on of celebrities. I'm more interested in St. Augustine, John Calvin, the Founding Fathers and C. S. Lewis had to say than what Limbaugh and Olberman think.

There is no longer a place for people that see things in this way. We're eccentrics. "Boring." "What, you don't have cable? What's wrong with you? Too cheap?" "You don't know what's going on with Tiger Woods?"

The politics of "outrage"

2010-03-19T13:48:00.002-04:00

I can’t remember the last time I went to yahoo, msn or some news site and did not see some story in which a person or group was expressing “outrage” over the thoughts, comments, actions or deeds of another person or group. “______ outraged by _____ who _____.” “Group expresses outrage over _____ comments.” Just troll the online news sites and you’ll see this is true.

It’s not really my place to challenge someone else’s emotions or feelings on an issue. Sometimes how you feel about something can’t be helped. I do notice, though, that this “outrage” is very often over general comments made by one person or group, usually something perceived as offensive. Maybe I’m not very sensitive but I’m amazed at how often the “outrageous” comment or thought seems rather benign or trivial. Think of the “outrage” by “immigrants’ rights groups” over the “illegal alien” Halloween costume last fall. Consider the “outrage” expressed by strangers over Tiger Woods’ numerous infidelities.

Whether right or wrong, it seems that people in this day and age – and this seems global – enjoy being angry. It’s as if they relish declaring “outrage” in public. I’m not sure what people would do if they couldn’t be angry. I’d like to think their lives would be better if they let things roll off their backs more easily.

Am I outraged by their outrage? No. But I’m definitely a little amused and slightly confused by it most of the time.

Those that have gone before me

2010-03-17T16:02:00.005-04:00

On this St. Patrick's Day, as in holidays past, I reflect on the lives of my Irish ancestors. Sadly, I know little about the lives of those that came to America from Ireland other than names, and dates of birth and death. I can imagine, though, that they lived hard lives. The Ireland of the mid to late 1800's was not a particularly hospitable place except for those of the Protestant ascendancy. The famine nearly gutted the country. Those that survived the famine but could not escape to the "new world" were not left with little opportunity.

Coming to America couldn't have been much easier. Civil war era Irish immigrants often ended up on the Union Army. Anti-Irish bigotry in the U. S. was high into the early 20th century. Nothing was handed to those that came here; they had to make their way.

I believe that my great-great grandfather was killed in a railroad yard in Detroit when he was crushed by train car. There was no worker's compensation scheme at the time and his wife was left to raise my great-grandmother and other children on what money she could scrape together by doing laundry for the Catholic church.

I really wish I knew more stories like this. I know that they bore burdens I could not even imagine in soft, cushy, post-modern America. The blessings I have are at least indirectly the result of the great sacrifices they made. If I could say one thing to those that have gone before it would be, "Thank you!"

(The photograph is of the church yard of Bangor Abbey, County Down, Northern Ireland, the resting place of some of my Irish (Protestant) Ancestors.)

What place, then, for a creator?

2010-03-07T20:33:00.003-05:00

Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time is a fascinating book. I can't imagine there's a better primer out there explaining space-time to ordinary folks like you and me. I'm glad I've read (almost finished) it.

I must admit, though, to my bias. I believe in a creator. I'm not a literal Biblical creationist in the sense of believing that in the span of 6 earth days as we know them God created everything we see. But I do believe He is the creator in some form or fashion.

I was concerned that reading something like this book might shake my faith. I feared that rational, scientific data and argument would punch holes in my worldview, my cosmological view and, ultimately, my personal faith. Much to my surprise, Dr. Hawking, quite inadvertently, has bolstered my belief in God.

How could that be? Hasn't our modern understanding -- knowledge -- of the universe eliminated the need for a creator? Surprisingly, the view Dr. Hawking refers to as the "classical" modle of the universe, i.e. that, it is finite, has boundaries and presently expanding at the same rate in all directions, is the adopted position of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Vatican embraced wholeheartedly the "Big Bang Theory" because it holds that the universe had a beginning, precisely what is suggested in Genesis. Dr. Hawking would agree that a boundary-less space-time, begun at a point of singularity, would suggest the necessity of an "appeal to God" as the spark (since there is no better explanation, seemingly.)

Not surprisingly, Dr. Hawking and others in the scientific community are not content to leave it at that. Perhaps they are right to continue to probe these questions. However, Dr. Hawking and some colleagues seem hell-bent to get around what the observable universe shows.

This is not the place to address Dr. Hawking's "proposal" in detail. Frankly, I am not sure I could explain it to anyone, certainly not in a more intelligent, easy-to-understand way then he does in the book. I suggest you read Chapter 8 to get a grasp of what the "proposal" is.

To grossly oversimply his position, Dr. Hawking argues that any understanding of the universe should incorporate relativity and quantum mechanics. Because the laws to which the universe now holds did not apply in the trillionths of seconds after the start of the "Big Bang," a new model should be constructed such that the laws always held. To do that, Dr. Hawking proposed an infinite universe with a boundary, a universe which has always been:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time, 1996, p. 181.)

As of the time of writing the book, Dr. Hawking was careful to say, "I'd like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite 'without boundary' is just a proposal. It cannot be deduced from some other principal." (Hawking, p. 175).

So what's the harm in this proposal? I suppose there is no harm in us humans asking these questions and coming up with the best answers that can be deduced. My gripe (among many), if you will, is that scientists, often in their arrogance, fail to explain that how thin some of the evidence is for their conclusions. Dr. Hawking admits that observable universe lines up with the "classical" model. Why abadon a model that fits the evidence for one that is purely theoretical and, worse yet, not supported by the evidence?

Maybe I am naive or just ignorant. I'd not be shocked if I turned out to be both. But I was surprised to see that Dr. Hawking's proposal is based on "imaginary numbers" and simple "mathematical devices" he admits are "tricks":

That is to say, for the purposes of the calculation one must measure time using imaginary numbers, rather than real ones. This has an interesting effect on space-time: the distinction between time and space disappears completely. A space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of the geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two. In Euclidean space-time there is no difference between the time direction and directions
in space. On the other hand, in real space-time, in which events are
labeled by ordinary, real values of the time coordinate, it is easy to tell
the difference – the time direction at all points lies within the light
cone, and space directions lie outside. In any case, as far as everyday
quantum mechanics is concerned, we may regard our use of imaginary time and Euclidean space-time as merely a mathematical device (or trick) to calculate answers about real space-time.

The book details the reliance on "imaginary numbers." Again, I suggest you look more closely at it if you want your own understanding. Still, it seems to me that an appeal to numbers that do not exist and which are not part of "real space-time," i.e. the space-time in which we actually exist, seems like foolishness at best and bad science at worst.

Paranoia might be driving my feelings on this. But I can't help but feel this type of scientific approach is all some kind of shell game, designed to direct attention away from the evidence of divine intervention in our universe. It appears that science simply isn't content to coexist with belief in the Almighty (or an almighty), even when the evidence dictates it should.

Full circle

2010-02-11T15:30:00.004-05:00

He's 15. Blind. Confused. Somewhat incontinent. Shaky. Very little of the spunky, fiery personality he had is left. But he's still with us and seems to some of life's pleasures. Clearly, though, the end is not too far off.

As I walked him this morning -- in the bitter cold -- hoping to get him to go to the bathroom outside, he straggled behind and frequently stopped, causing me (accidentally) to drag him. When he walked, it was as slow as he could go without falling over.

Frustration gripped me, the cold increased the tenseness in my muscles. "Come on, Fritz, just go to the bathroom already!"

Then it hit me. I flashed back to his days when he was in "Puppy Kindergarten" class at one of the local big box pet stores. It was Spring 1995 and I was still living at home. He was the cutest little puppy, a ton of fun, a bit aggressive, but very likable. I loved him and I was glad to take him to obedience training just to spend time with him.

Even though he graduated, he was a poor student. While other puppies dutifully walked in the circle on their leashes, Fritz would dig in his heels and make me drag him. The instructor -- a lady I cared for not at all, who had an obvious dislike of Mini Schnauzers -- insisted that I drag him until he capitulated and would walk at my side. During the walk sessions, he spent more time on his back legs and butt than on all fours. It was particularly funny when he did this to the instructor. I felt a bond with him; I was glad he was sticking it to the teacher.

He was pretty easy to house train. But there were accidents he had in the house as a puppy. It was typically my job to clean up his messes. I didn't like it but I understood that it takes puppies time to learn the ropes.

The flashback left me with a love and warmth for this animal that I had forgotten was there. I felt sorry that he is moving toward the end of his life, that he's physically failing and that he doesn't have the vibrance he did a decade ago. I felt a little guilty for worrying about the inside of the house and for dragging him out in the bitter cold. I remembered that old dogs can't necessarily control when and where they go to the bathroom. That's no longer a luxury they have.

I was happy and sad to remember him as he had been. I was glad he's still here but questioned whether or not that should be the case. I was thankful that he has given my family all those years of unconditional love, companionship and entertainment.

Most surprisingly, I realized how much the end looks like the beginning.

For Rabbie

2010-01-24T21:44:00.004-05:00

Tomorrow, January 25, is the 251st birthday of Scotland's great poet, Robert Burns. In his honor we'll toast with whiskey, sing songs and enjoy the love of family and friends.

Here's one of his most famous and beloved poems, "To A Mouse," in both the Broad Scots and English

Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty
Wi bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
Wi' murdering pattle.

I'm truly sorry man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth born companion
An' fellow mortal!

I doubt na, whyles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen icker in a thrave
'S a sma' request;
I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
An' never miss't.

Thy wee-bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's win's ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' waste,
An' weary winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

That wee bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
Has cost thee monie a weary nibble!
Now thou's turned out, for a' thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the winter's sleety dribble,
An' cranreuch cauld.

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Still thou are blest, compared wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

Small, sleek, cowering, timorous beast,
O, what a panic is in your breast!
You need not start away so hasty
With hurrying scamper!
I would be loath to run and chase you,
With murdering plough-staff.

I'm truly sorry man's dominion
Has broken Nature's social union,
And justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth born companion
And fellow mortal!

I doubt not, sometimes, but you may steal;
What then? Poor beast, you must live!
An odd ear in twenty-four sheaves
Is a small request;
I will get a blessing with what is left,
And never miss it.

Your small house, too, in ruin!
It's feeble walls the winds are scattering!
And nothing now, to build a new one,
Of coarse grass green!
And bleak December's winds coming,
Both bitter and keen!

You saw the fields laid bare and wasted,
And weary winter coming fast,
And cozy here, beneath the blast,
You thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel plough past
Out through your cell.

That small bit heap of leaves and stubble,
Has cost you many a weary nibble!
Now you are turned out, for all your trouble,
Without house or holding,
To endure the winter's sleety dribble,
And hoar-frost cold.

But Mouse, you are not alone,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes of mice and men
Go often askew,
And leaves us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!

Still you are blest, compared with me!
The present only touches you:
But oh! I backward cast my eye,
On prospects dreary!
And forward, though I cannot see,
I guess and fear!

How can it be that...

2010-01-20T22:13:00.003-05:00

you take the White House after the most unpopular US President of the last 100 years

your presidency is historic

you win the election by a huge margin, destroying your opponent

your party handily controls both houses of Congress

the other party, the GOP, is declared "dead," "irrelevant," "out of step with the American people," and virtually any other negative you can imagine

you were (supposedly) given a mandate by the American people, or were at least told by the mainstream media that you had that mandate

you win the Nobel Peace Prize (for talking nicely to/about Muslims, while sending more troops into enemy territory)

you have the keys to the country in your pocket...

but you and your party can't even pass health care reform or hold a Senate seat occupied by a Kennedy, in Mass., for decades.

I cannot imagine how the Democrats can be given anything other than an F for their party's overall incompetence.

I recognize that I'm oversimplifying a number of issues. I also recognize that other parties have done more with less. Look at the agenda that Newt Gengrich and the Republicans in 1994-96 were able to push while the White House was occupied by a Democrat. Love them or hate them, that crew knew how to get stuff done.

"Imagine Peace" *

2010-01-02T00:38:00.001-05:00

I pulled into the parking lot of my favorite coffee shop this evening and right away I saw two cars with the same bumper sticker. Both said "Imagine Peace" and had little pictures of John Lennon's face. Anyone that knows me knows that I'm quite a big Beatles fan. I'm not sure that "fan" is really even the right word. I'm something of admirer of John Lennon...as a singer, songwriter and guitarist. As a man, he was quite flawed, despite being quite brilliant. I don't think there was ever much he ever modeled in life other than dysfunction. He was a drug addict, a drunk, abusive to his first wife, a lousy father to his first son. He could be immensely cruel. He was violent. He was a tortured soul.

John's credibility as a peacenik is based on a handful of pop songs and a few publicity stunts he pulled in the name of "peace." By the way, "peace" it should be understood, was essentially the absence of armed conflict. Mr. Lennon never really had much to offer in the way of inner transformation, probably because he never found it, no matter how hard he tried, no matter where he searched for it.

Does anyone find it ironic, if not hypocritical, that he could put out a song like "How Do You Sleep?," a vicious, blistering, scathing attack on his former songwriting partner and one-time best friend, Paul McCartney, on the same album on which he asked the rest of us to "imagine all the people living life in peace." John, I think I might have been more easily able to see your vision of a "brotherhood of man" if I thought you had actually believed in it yourself, if you actually could have managed to "live life in peace" with your former bandmates.

There's an old saying, "Change starts with me." To me that means that before I expect others -- especially the rest of humanity -- to change, I must change myself. I don't hear that message come through in too many of John's songs. What I hear is a lot of sloganeering, pep talks for hippies, heads and lefty intellectuals.

Why is it that today's leftists so identify with John Lennon and "Imagine"? One reason, I believe, is that his murder made him a martyr. That painful event -- it still saddens me 29 years later -- had to be dealt with, at least in part, with fond remembrance. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily; it just is. We do not like to speak ill of the dead. On the contrary, when they mean a lot to us, we tend to deify them, especially if they had been cultural icons. Another reason that he made "peace" cool, catchy and fun. Songs like "Imagine," "All You Need is Love," and "Give Peace a Chance" are all quite catchy. They're great sounding songs. But it is because they are pop songs not backed by actions, I personally find them hollow.

John Lennon did not invent the concept of global peace. He wasn't the first one to "imagine" it, either. 2000 years ago, Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves and told us, "Blessed are the peacemakers." He truly preached and lived peace and love. But it's not cool to put his face on bumperstickers or associate him with the peace movement. If you're not a Christian, you can find other models for peace that would be better than Mr. Lennon. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi immediately come to mind. Those men didn't just talk or sing about peace, they lived it.

Why does this bother me so? I'm not quite sure. I just know that I have a strong distaste for the martyrdom and deification of John Lennon. It smacks of idolatry. It also seems to be misplaced. If it were up to me, people would think more critically about their heroes. Perhaps we'd do more than "imagine" peace. We might actually start practicing it.

*This is a rant. I'm not going to make a lot of effort to organize my thoughts. I'm just gonna put these thoughts out there, kind of stream of consciousness style.

A strange year

2009-12-29T10:15:00.003-05:00

Thinking back over 2009, I've found it to have been a rather odd year. I wouldn't call it a great year, nor was it horrible.

I speak personally, not broadly or globally, by the way. Why I have been blessed not to have been directly negatively affected by the miserable economy, something of a malaise has seemingly set in, especially here in Michigan. Even though things have been mostly good in my personal life, it's been hard to ignore the shared social dysthymia. The negativity seems to rub off to some degree. There's a good in that. I've been able to remain thankful for the blessings I have by the constant reminder that people around me have things much worse.

One celebrity death really bothered me. Mark "The Bird" Fidrych passed away back in April. I can count on one hand the celebrity deaths that have really shook me and affected me deeply. For whatever reason, his was one. It was a low point in the year.

Our family has had numerous personal challenges. But we've enjoyed some triumphs as well. Those, perhaps, are too personal to share in detail. Ultimately I believe those things have drawn me closer to my wife and daughter and certainly to God. At least it would seem that way.

An old friend of mine nearly died several times. Waiting for a friend -- the mother of young children -- to either get better or die is quite hard on the system. One does not even need to be particularly close to be jolted by something like that. Thankfully she appears to be making a full recovery and should be home with her family soon.

I tried as best as I could to unplug from the larger world this year. I don't really read the hard news, I don't watch TV, I don't follow domestic or international politics. I'm paying as little attention as possible to things like Michael Jackson's death and Tiger Woods' personal troubles. You could say that I've buried my head in the sand. I'd say that I've tried to reduce stress and give up fretting about things over which I have no control. That approach has been quite liberating.

2009 has been a year of seeking to know more about God. I think I started the year considering the possibility that either He does not exist or that He doesn't exist in the way or form which I have always understood him to exist. That feeling seemed to pass, helped along by reading about the conversion of a former world-renown atheist who is now a theist. By fall I had not only gotten past these little feelings of doubt, but I went hard the other way. I've been thirsting for knowledge about who God is, not as much in an experiential way but more in an intellectual way.

More to come... (maybe)

The great setup

2009-12-11T22:17:00.004-05:00

Trash culture. I hate it! I do my level best to ignore it. We don't have cable and I don't look at tabloid internet sites. But you'd have to live up in the mountains in Tibet to avoid the Tiger Woods story. I don't know the details about his affairs and I certainly don't care to know them. If it were up to me, I wouldn't know anything at all about his personally life.

The world we live in, though, is not my ideal society. We feast on the misery of others. We build them up to great heights by paying attention to the details of what they wear on the red carpet and what their babies look like. We load their bank vaults by going to see their movies and watch them play their games. We make them American royalty but commit regicide as soon as they make a mistake.

This is exactly what we are seeing with Tiger Woods. Before he was even eligible to turn pro, we anointed him the next Jack Nicklaus. Corporations, with money from us consumers, made him a millionaire many times over with endorsement and advertisement money. Would they have paid him if you didn't buy their products? No. All that wealth is really a gift from you to him.

But now he has sinned -- multiple times. And the finger-wagging, name-calling, and judgment has begun. A man who was two weeks ago a hero -- practically a national treasure -- is now a pariah. Women especially seem to be tearing him to shreds over his (inexcusable) infidelity. It's interesting that JFK, RFK and Bill Clinton are still seen as heroes despite their identical moral failings, but that's another story for another time.

The moral outrage over Tiger's philandering is particularly galling to me. Is that because I don't think he was wrong? No. Am I galled because I don't think affairs with multiple women isn't serious? No. I'm peeved because: a) the moral outrage seems disproportionately high; b) the people most loudly calling for his head fail to recognize Tiger has done really what our society has, in many ways, said is acceptable. People scoff at the notion of traditional values. Marital fidelity is one of those cornerstone moral principles that is fluid and situational. We crucify Tiger woods for cheating but say nothing about the 50% or so married average Joes and Janes that do exactly this. Worse yet, we encourage divorce for those that are "unhappy," whatever that might mean.

Even more to the root of the matter, we have created an amoral sexually charged culture that encourages sexual behavior outside of marriage. If it doesn't matter if are married before you have sex with each other, why should it matter if you have sex with someone while married to another? What's really the difference? It's just a pleasure activity, after all, right?

Men are taught to be hyper-sexual, less so by their male peers, than advertisers and corporations who stand to make fortunes by selling us beer by showing us guys partying with young, beautiful bikini-clad girls. Why do we expect men to behave in dignified ways when we promise them all the sex they can get if they wear the right aftershave?

Our society is sex, sex, sex. Porn is now "mainstream" and "normalized." But if you have sex when we tell you not to, you deserve our wrath. We dangle it in front of our young mens' faces and tell them not to have it.

If I could wave a magic wand, I would de-sexualize as much of the media as possible and give people books to read instead of TV to watch. Perhaps that would break the cycle of making kings for the purpose of later pulling down their kingdoms.

Wolverines developing a seige mentality

2009-12-07T15:38:00.002-05:00

I know it's a pretty tiny sample size, but I get a lot of sense of what is happening among U of M fans -- the true blue bloods, not so much the Walverines -- talking to my U of M fan/season tix holder co-worker. He knows a lot of people in/around Schembechler Hall. He's become quite the fan of mgoblog and likes to relay to me stuff said/written there.

I've noticed lately that he wants to talk about the Rather Hall fight. He's repeatedly said Winston shouldn't have been able to "walk from jail onto the practice field," and, by comparison praises Rich Rod for dumping Milano (the kid that beat the crap out of Steve Kampfer) and Justin Feagin.

His new thing is to constantly bitch about Rosenberg and the Free Press. He goes on and on about how the Freep never bothered talking to "victims" of the Rather Hall fight and only talked to parents. He complains about Rosenberg's "hatchet job" on Rich Rod and the whole extra practice crap. UM's not getting a fair shake in the media, especially Rich Rod, as far as he is concerned. He says this is the general consensus.

The hardcores are circling the wagons. They're getting defensive about the way MSU is covered vs the way UM is covered. The local media is now "out to get them" (my words.)

But when I gently suggest to him this has been the way MSU has been treated for 30+ years, he likes to pin that back on Perles, Ferguson and all the division that has been in the program. He doesn't seem to want to consider that the media made more out of the negatives and less out of the positives.

This is an interesting time to watch UM football (the program, not the games.) You can almost smell the fear and paranoia.

Are biofuels really the answer?

2009-12-01T15:29:00.002-05:00

I'm all for alternative, non-petroleum-based fuel sources. I look happily forward to a future fueled by wind, solar, geothermal and hydrogen.

While biofuels have their advantages, they might be making the supposed "global warming" problem worse. The reason is simple: massive deforestation is taking place to meet the explosive demand for land for biofuel crops.

This is not a newly recognized problem. Environmentalists have been watching this happen for several years now and have tried to point this out, but no one seems to want to hear about it.

Here's just one article on the subject.

http://www.truthout.org/article/biofuels-boom-spurring-deforestation

Now that's the Christmas spirit!

2009-11-28T11:13:00.003-05:00

UPLAND, Calif. (AP) — Police say a Wal-Mart store in Southern California closed its doors for several hours before dawn after some Black Friday shoppers began fighting over bargain merchandise.

Lt. Jim Etchason says officers in Upland, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, were called to the store at about 2:44 a.m. and helped herd customers into the parking lot.

The store began allowing groups of customers back inside shortly before 6 a.m.

Etchason says by that time, everybody was getting along.

He says there were no injuries and no arrests.

Wal-Mart changed its procedures for Black Friday crowd control after a guard was asphyxiated last year when crowds broke down the doors of a store in New York state.

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-black-friday-wal-mart-ruckus,0,5568605.story

The older I get and the more stories I read like this, the more I think I'm going to follow the Puritans and not celebrate Christmas at all. The holiday has drifted so far from any sacred meaning that it's is almost laughable to think of it as some sort of holy event.

Remembering the Mayflower Compact

2009-11-24T15:24:00.003-05:00

As Thanksgiving approaches, some of us traditionalists think back to the harrowing experiences of the first English settlers in what is now the United States. My first ancestor to reach America's shore, George Aldrich, came here somewhere between 1628 and 1631 (I've seen various dates), after the initial wave of so-called Pilgrims in the early 1620's.

Of course we all know of the Mayflower, the most famous of Pilgrim ships. What doesn't seem to get much attention in post-modern America is the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the British colonies. It's a beautiful expression of their loyalty to God as well as king and country.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

For me this is a good reminder of the religious foundations of this great nation.

Swine Flu (?) hits home

2009-11-16T22:40:00.001-05:00

It's possible my daughter has contracted H1N1. She's miserable and it is believed that the friend she spent much of the weekend with caught it from her little brother. Nothing is confirmed, but supposedly Swine Flu is the only flu really being seen in the area.

I'm not worried about the long term affects. I'm sure once my daughter gets passed whatever she might have, she'll be fine. The "scary" part is waiting for whatever this is to cycle through the rest of us in the house. It will be complete chaos if our daughter is sick and my wife and I can't work. Or, perhaps, it would be completely chill with all three of us laying around, moaning and groaning, doing nothing.

We'll see.

Defend the poor and fatherless...

2009-11-01T16:30:00.003-05:00

³ Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
⁴ Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 82:3-4. The Bible (both the Old and New Testament) is full of this type of admonishment. This is neither the time nor space to fully expound on that topic. But if you doubt that Jews and Christians are called to live in this way -- whether they've done successfully is a different matter -- you do not have a good grasp of the Judeo-Christian morality.

What I hope most honest Christians would tell you is that to care for others isn't simply a nice thing to do. It's a commandment. In fact, in its most general form that is the "greatest" of all commandments:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" ³⁷Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' ³⁸This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 22:36-40.

One of many points of debate between observant Jews and Christians and atheistic secular humanists is the role that altruism plays in the world or, more to the point, how it got here in the first place. Christians would typically say that good put care and concern for our fellow man at the core of our being. It comes from above and did not evolve accidentally.

Humanists, looking at it from a scientific point of view, point to altruistic traits in various animals species as evidence that it can (and did) evolve through natural selection. That, of course, is something of an oversimplification of the position, but you get the point. Ultimately, atheists would say altruism, like everything else, really exists by accident. Google "altruistic bees" for more sophisticated discussions on this point.

I'm not a man of science. I know enough only to be dangerous (probably more to myself than others.) But I do grasp that evolutionistic altruism would tend to violate the principle of natural selection. A lot of scientists agree and say, for that reason, that what we see in nature is "pseudoaltruism," acts that appear to benefit others at the expense of the actor, but which ultimately benefit the actor.

To me that is all highly fascinating but, as far as human beings go, it's beside the point. If you believe a revealed, personal God exists, like the God of the Bible, you might find that altruism is something external or, perhaps, that it is a command. You might believe -- and your belief would square with the Bible -- that we should act to benefit others, even at great personal cost, and even if we do not want to do so.

The atheist has no such conviction, or at least need not have one. In the natural world, caring for the poor and infirmed is actually detrimental to a species because it either maintains an organism that should die, thus diverting resources away from healthy ones that will be replenishing the gene pool, or it causes weak organisms to create (weak) offspring. I am reminded of this by my wife when tending to the plants and flowers. She has reminded me a number of times to cut away dead flowers, leaves and stems so that resources can be divided to the healthier parts of the plant.

Of course we humans would never be so animalistic to apply that kind of thinking to human relations. We'd never starve or kill the sick, bedwetters, homosexuals, mentally disabled, Jews, or any other "undesirables." We'd never think of sterilizing humans to protect the gene pool.

Back to the point. Christians -- honest ones -- have to care for their fellow man whether they want to or not. All kinds of good, kind-hearted atheists or non-believers of other stripes might (and certainly often do) care for people, but they don't have to. Without an external moral compass, one that supersedes their own personal will or longings or desires, they would be right, based on their own view of nature, to disregard the needs of everyone else but themselves. That they often don't follow what they believe to be the way of nature suggests that they are bathed in the light of Christian morality, whether they like it or not.

Upside down and backwards

2009-10-25T21:01:00.005-04:00

I just finished watching Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story, a nice film about the extraordinary life and talents of Dr. Ben Carson, perhaps the world's leading pediatric neurosurgeon. His story is incredibly inspiring, to say the least. But the inspiration is not what is gnawing at me at the moment. The movie suggests that Dr. Carson has been handsomely, materially rewarded for his brilliant life's work; that was hardly a focal point of the movie. Yet, it occurred to me that perhaps doctors are not paid enough.

Oh, sure, many doctors in our society have nice homes and nice cars. They "rake in the big bucks," as Joe Six Pack might say. This is not the time and place for a full blown discussion on the matter, but there are a lot of doctors that will tell you it is getting harder and harder to make a nice living practicing medicine. The shortage of primary care doctors and nurses we keep hearing about in the discussion of health care is, my guess, due in part to salary. How much money do you have to make to repay $200,000 in student loans? The answer: a lot!

I recently heard a so-called "expert" on health care and insurance matters weighing in on the health care reform debate. With regard to insurance, he in essence said that it should not function with a profit element. I've heard others over the years suggest that doctors themselves make too much money, either stating outright or implying that they should work for the good of mankind.

The juxtaposition between the movie and some of the talk coming out of the health care debate struck me. Doctors don't make enough money. What could be more important than our health? If you're humanistic and you assign the highest value to your life on earth, one would suspect that your health -- and the health of others -- would be your highest value. After all, if you don't have a quality life, or life at all, you have nothing. It seems simplistically obvious, but doctors and other health care workers provide us the goods and services we should value most high. One would think, then, they we should pay the most or most generously reward those that serve our highest values. Our society is not like that, though.

We reward professional athletes, TV and movie stars and popular musicians most richly. We also talk about them more. I, frankly, had never heard of Dr. Carson and his amazing contributions (in God's name) to mankind. But I did hear that Madonna supposedly had an affair with A-Rod and that Jessica Simpson's dog was carried off by a coyote. All those folks I mentioned -- and probably their pets -- are worth more than just about any doctor you can name.

This suggests to me that entertainment is our highest value or at least a higher value than our physical and mental health. Tom Cruise makes $20Million for each bad movie he does, but bright kids don't go to medical school because they can't make enough money to pay back what it costs for the education.

Instead of socializing medicine, could we please socialize entertainment? Let's expand the paygrades and payscales of athletes and actors and actresses across the board. Pay them a comfortable wage for entertaining us and make entertainment more affordable. It seems more in line with the values we give lip service to if we were to pay a dollar to see a movie and $40 for a visit with my doctor rather than to pay $10 to see the movie and expect someone else to pick up the cost of the office visit.

There are things more immediately necessary to our well being than even medical care. Food, clothing and shelter are much more basic needs and they are universal. Yet, we have not taken the profit motive out of any of those. Do you think Gap would sell clothes if it were not allowed to profit by doing it? Would chain grocery stores stay in business if they were expected to operate at break-even levels? Would builders manufacturer homes to feel good about themselves? The answer to those questions is the same: no. Since we have no problem letting others make profit by providing these essentials, why do we complain about doctors or hospitals operating for profit?

Thankfully, there are still great people out there practicing medicine. Let's hope that we continue to reward them, perhaps more graciously than we do.

MOXIE

2009-10-13T17:00:00.002-04:00

A society of Jimmy Jets

2009-10-13T13:28:00.010-04:00

Like Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange, eyes pried open, the images are unavoidable. Murder, sex, economic downturns, famine, lying politicians, spoiled-brat professional athletes, kids floating away in spacecraft-shaped balloons – human misery. It's all there, no matter where you go. The only relief from the retinal assault is the momentary splash of the drops on the eyes.

Oh, it's not quite that bad. One can hide in closets or maybe in the shower, I suppose. But dare venture out in public and you will be bombarded with flashing, flickering, blinking images? Why, because there are TVs everywhere

Gas pumps

Elevators

Bathrooms

Hallways at fine inns and hotels

Restaurants

Churches

Mini-vans and SUVs

Even in attorneys' offices (not the lobbies, the offices themselves.)

If someone came here from the past he'd find a very Orwellian-looking world, with “tele-screens” in places once thought unimaginable to most rational people. It's not so much that Big Brother's watching us, but we're certainly watching him. We can't even eat a bite of food or even use the bathroom free from “news” and information, the overwhelming majority of it having nothing whatsoever to do with our daily lives. There's just too much TV.

Americans try to slow their racing minds by Yoga, meditation and some very enlightened-sounding practices. They might not have racing minds if they weren't cluttering what is left of their non-working time with TV. Dr. Timothy Leary once famously said, “Tune in, turn on and drop out.” Apparently his listeners thought he was talking about television. It's too bad he didn't say, “Tune out, turn off and drop it out the window.”

All of this reminds me of the almost prophetic brilliant little poem by Shel Silverstein from his collection, Where the Sidewalk Ends, "Jimmy Jet and His TV Set"

I'll tell you the story of Jimmy Jet --
And you know what I tell you is true.
He loved to watch his TV set
Almost as much as you.

He watched all day, he watched all night
Till he grew pale and lean,
From "The Early Show" to "The Late Late Show"
And all the shows between.

He watched till his eyes were frozen wide,
And his bottom grew into his chair.
And his chin turned into a tuning dial,
And antennae grew out of his hair.

And his brains turned into TV tubes,
And his face to a TV screen.
And two knobs saying "VERT." and "HORIZ."
Grew where his ears had been.

And he grew a plug that looked like a tail
So we plugged in little Jim.
And now instead of him watching TV
We all sit around and watch him.

Out of the mouths of babes

2009-10-09T00:28:00.001-04:00

An often misquoted and misunderstood biblical phrase, “out of the mouths of babes,” is loosely used to convey the sense that children, perhaps unfettered by world-weariness, often express wisdom that is beyond (or at least forgotten by) their elders. Sadly, in my experience, that is not often enough the case.

I read a nice article in today’s Plymouth Observer entitled “Sending a Message: Kids divided on texting while driving ban.” You can read the entire article here: http://www.hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910080660

The article is quite an eye opener. Oh, it’s not shocking that kids would text while driving. Maddeningly, I see this happening almost daily. The people who can least afford to be distracted on the road, inexperienced drivers, yack on their cell phones incessantly and text with an alarming frequency. I’m actually surprised these days when I pass a teen driver that is not on his or her phone. And I’m not exaggerating.

What did shock me in the article is that some of them, knowing the danger they are putting themselves and others in by distracted driving, think a ban on driving-while-texting is a bad idea or it goes too far. Here are some of the more disheartening quotes from some local high schoolers:

Kristyn Sturtz, a 16-year-old Plymouth High School junior, said she has stopped text messaging while driving, but she opposes a federal ban because “people are going to do it anyway” and she believes the law would be ineffective.

Still, Sturtz said, “I know people who have gotten in crashes (while texting). No one has gotten hurt, but cars have been totaled.”

Ah, the old “people are going to do it anyway” reason for not passing laws. I suppose we should take the drunk driving statutes off the books because people continue to drink and drive.

This young lady admittedly texts while driving but won’t stop unless the feds step in and ban the practice:

Kara Bongiovanni, a 17-year-old Canton High School senior, said she doesn’t typically initiate texting while driving, but she reads and responds when others text her. “I try to make it to a red light before I respond, but I do read it while I’m driving, though,” she said.

Still, Bongiovanni said she would stop texting while driving altogether if state or federal lawmakers impose a ban — an idea she supports.

Apparently it seems advisable to her only to read texts while driving but not actually respond until she is at a red light. This is at least a step in the right direction.

This boy perhaps expresses the most startling sentiment of all: he regularly texts and drives but the law should find a “middle ground” to regulate his behavior. An all out ban, he seems to suggest, would disconnect his poor soul during his commute:

Alex Gravlin, a 16-year-old Salem High School junior, said an outright ban goes too far. He suggested efforts to find “a middle ground” in the controversy, although he isn’t sure what it would be.

Gravlin said he often prefers quick text messaging over formal phone conversations, and he said it’s a practice he engages in “from the time school gets out until I go to bed.” He conceded he texts while driving “every now and then,” but he usually tries to do it when he is stopped at a red light.

I hate to sound like a finger-wagger, but this is a safety issue. Drivers that feel this way could kill themselves or others.

There’s another issue at work her, too. People just can’t seem to unplug even for a few minutes, teens in particular. This thinking is lost on me. Why is responding immediately to some inane teen jibber-jabber more important than paying attention to the road for a few minutes?

Now this kid gets it. She seems to have a head on her shoulders:

Amy Paladino, a 17-year-old Canton High School senior, said she has completely stopped sending or reading texts while she is driving, and she supports a ban.“I never text while I’m driving. I just let them pile up until I’m done driving,” she said, adding that she became fearful after seeing stories about people who have died while texting and driving.

“I don’t want that to be me,” Paladino said.

See how simple that is? If only more of her peers would listen to her.

unOriginal Sin

2009-10-02T15:35:00.010-04:00

I'm a Christian and consider myself more or less a fundamentalist. In my case that means I believe the Bible is true and tells literal, objective, truths. Like many things in life, though, that's not without qualification or exception. Even the most conservative Bible believer would have to admit that some things in the Bible are not intended to be taken literally but, rather, are figurative, symbolic or allegorical. It is hard to imagine that most of what is in the Book of Revelation will occur exactly as it is written and described. Jesus told parables to explain principles, but they weren't stories that had actually occurred as told.

For the last few years, I've had to come to grips with this issue as it pertains to the creation story told in the Book of Genesis, man's origins, God's role in our creation, evolution, etc. Lately I've settled comfortably into accepting that the Bible as a whole, and Genesis in particular, can be (and is) true in its essence but not literally true in every respect. Being frank, I do not believe, for instance that the entire earth and all the creatures on it were created in 6 (human) days within the last 10,000 or so years. I do not take as scientific fact that woman was created from the rib of man or that Adam and Eve lived in a garden paradise.

There's no place here to say why I no longer believe those things, but let's just say my doubt about the literal truth of the creation story goes back to this: there was no one there witness creation unfolding as it occurred. Who was around to see light created and set apart from darkness? How are we to know when the creatures of the earth were created since that occurred before life was breathed into Adam? Unlike the life of Jesus, which was witnessed and observed, no one was around to see the void that was the earth before God set his hand to all the finishing touches.

Certainly, I have no problem believing God created us through processes that the Bible never intended to describe nor which its authors could have understood or explained. Darwinistic randomness makes no sense to me at all and "intelligent design," or something close it, seems the best explanation of how things came to be.

Because so much of the creation and origin of man story in the Bible is, to me, figurative, I do not buy that sin necessarily originated in two people. The amazing thing that hit me the other day though is whether or not Adam and Eve literally ate from a "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the Garden of Eden is beside the point. Whether or not sin originated in those two naked people, somewhere in Mesopotamia, really doesn't matter a whole lot. What matters is that sin did originate somewhere. It's here and there's no getting around it. There's no denying it. There's no avoiding it. Only a fool could look at the whole of human history -- or even the last few months of news -- and conclude that sin does not exist.

Even beyond that, what struck me for the first time in my 38 years of life is that I am daily confronted with choosing between God's plan for my life or my own plans. I am daily tempted to eat from the proverbial tree, disregarding the warnings of dire consequences. Often times I do not eat; other times I do. The "fall of man" plays out in me continuously. I will not be able to give an account to God that pins my failings on Adam. I am tempted, I have ate and, but for God's grace, I would be expelled from paradise. The story of the fall of Adam and Eve is story. It's my story. It's our story. It may not have ever happened -- or it may have -- all those thousands of years ago somewhere in present day Iraq, but it happens daily with me. I have to choose between God's system and man's system. I pray for the strength to choose wisely.

Go State!

2009-10-02T09:39:00.004-04:00

Tomorrow's MSU's biggest (football) game of the season. The Spartans take on the hated Wolverines of the University of Michigan. Michigan's off to a great start this season and MSU is...well...off to a not-so-great start. But the winner of this game is not decided by past records or even what has happened so far this season. The game will be won or lost on the field (obviously) tomorrow. Throw out the record books! Throw in every other ridiculous college football cliche that comes to mind.

As bad as State's season has been so far, a victory over Michigan wouldn't shock me at all. MSU's probably not as bad as the record suggests and UM's not as good as its record suggests. Gun to my head, I'd pick the Wolverines to win. But I have a pretty good feeling about this game. I say it's a 55-45 chance UM wins. Why? I don't know. Even people that know alot more about college football than me often get these things wrong.

Go Green! Go White! Go State!

How is it that...

2009-09-27T22:48:00.003-04:00

Spider-Man can stick to walls if he wears gloves and shoes? Wouldn't his spider-sticky skin need to make contact with the wall to stay on it?

Gym etiquette rules you won't see anywhere but here

2009-09-16T09:35:00.003-04:00

If you belong to a gym, you know that most of them post safety and etiquette rules like "Please re-rack weights after use," or "Use a spotter for all heavy lifting." The standard rules, for the most part, are good ones and make lots of sense. Sometimes, though, the rules that posted are maybe those that should have been posted first.

I've been going to my gym for 15 years and and I've seen all of the following violated. Perhaps that has happened because no one bothered telling my fellow gym members the rules. So I'll post the rules here so everyone is on notice:

In the community shower (no stalls), do not shave or otherwise groom your nether regions. Please perform all personal hygiene of that nature at home.
Do not give yourself a haircut over one of the lockerroom sinks. If you must cut all your hair in the lockerroom, please remove all of it from the sink, floor or from wherever it falls.
Do not flatuate, either audibly or silently, near someone while he or she is lifting weights.
Listen to your own music through headphones, not through speakers attached to your CD or MP3 player.
Benches are not tables or storage areas for towels, purses, MP3 players, cell phones, water or drink bottles, membership cards or any other personal items. Do not make your fellow members ask you to remove your personal belongings from benches or other equipment so same can be used for intended purposes.
Do not ogle or stare at nude fellow club members.
Do not ask fellow club members what types of lotions, powders or creams they use on their bodies.
Do not talk incessantly to strangers, especially about your workout regimen, what music you like, or what you think of the President's health care plan.

I hope this list helps.

Football's back! But...

2009-09-06T08:42:00.003-04:00

I'm having a hard time getting excited about it. Five years ago, I lived for college football, mostly for Michigan State football. I loved spending entire Saturdays -- or as much of those days as I could manage -- watching games from all over the country. The turning point for me came when MSU's coach was John L. Smith and his teams only managed four (4) wins a few seasons in a row. Some might say I jumped off the bandwagon. I never stopped loving MSU football, but when they bottomed out it was a wake-up call for me that there are more important (and entertaining) things in life than college football.

The last few years I've tried to carve out enough time each fall Saturday to watch the Spartans. I make no time for other games, even ones that would be great to watch. Family and other personal time is more fun when it's balanced with a little football, and vice versa.

Yesterday I watched the Spartans trounce lowly Montana State, 44-3, in the season opener in East Lansing. The game, quite frankly, was boring. When there is nothing at stake, it's simply harder to enjoy the game. I don't regret spending 3 hours and $25 to watch the game at a local watering hole, but I don't think I would have been heartbroken to have missed the game, either.

This fall I'm actually more excited about the Beatles remastered CDs than I am football. Surely that will wear off once I actually get my box set from amazon.com. For now, though, hearing that great music remixed and remastered is all I can think about (in terms of entertainment.) It's hard to focus on much else. Next week can't come soon enough.

Mean Janeane

2009-08-31T19:27:00.004-04:00

I had the displeasure of reading "What puts the ROFL into Janeane Garofalo and Her Liberal Lefto-Pink Comedy" interview in the August edition of The Word (an otherwise superb
Brit music and entertainment rag.) A few things jumped out at me. The interview was example no. 478 of why I couldn't care less what celebrities have to say about the world. It was also one of thousands examples out there of how supposedly "compassionate, open-minded" lefties often show themselves to be nothing more than hateful, angry, spiteful, bitter people who would silence anyone opposing their world view.

I used to like Ms. Garofalo back in her The Ben Stiller Show days. Today, though, I really have no use for her. She's just another pissed off Hollywood type. She's supposedly smart, but she misses the irony of the bread and butter of her stand-up routine: trashing conservatives. Her reaction to the so-called "tea party protests" staged across the US a few months back was to call its participants a bunch of "teabagging rednecks." In the article she calls conservatives that oppose gay marriage "those closet queens" who are "so full of self-lating vitriol and hatefulness." Maybe the most blatant example of her bitterness is: "Look at it this way -- you have to be damaged goods to respond to the message of a right-wing movement an dyou have to be even more damaged to want to share that message with your tribe."

Where is the open-mindedness in that? Where is the "I'm OK, you're OK" spirit of this liberal age? Wouldn't a true liberal -- if he or she were sticking to the rhetoric of "inclusiveness" -- say, "Hey, we disagree with you on the right on the facts," and leave it at that? Name calling is what people do when either they've lost the argument or fear the other side.

Negotiating from a position of strength

2009-08-18T11:22:00.001-04:00

I left a courthouse this morning after a completely unfruitful meeting. On the way into the parking garage I was greeted by one of the regular street guys. (I don't know whether he is homeless, but he hangs out in the area.) Normally this gentleman says, "Hey, what's happening?" and we go our separate ways. Today, though, was different.

As I approached he put his arms up in the air and greeted me like an old friend. Being the friendly guy I am, I stopped to chat.

"What's going on, fella?" I asked.

"Oh, man, just trying get me a little something to eat."

"Would you take two dollars?" I asked, as if I were obliged to give him anything at all.

"I'd take $20 but I know if I ask you won't give it to me, right?"

"Right. That's not going to happen," was my response with a smile.

"OK, two dollars will work."

"Here you go. Get some food."

"Thanks man, have a blessed day, brotha."

As I walked away I laughed at myself, not for giving him the money, but because I asked him if what I offered was sufficient. What kind of negotiating is that? In the business we call that "bargaining against yourself."

The exit from the parking garage took me right past my new friend's spot. I looked over to see him talking on a cell phone.

Being tacky and desperate, apparently, is now a crime

2009-08-11T18:21:00.003-04:00

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/20358847/detail.html

Cops: Father Used Son To Pick Up Women
Child Asks Women To Meet Father, Police Say
POSTED: Tuesday, August 11, 2009
UPDATED: 1:15 pm EDT August 11, 2009

UTICA, Mich. -- Authorities say a 48-year-old Utica man faces a disorderly conduct charge after he used his 7-year-old son to try and meet women in a park.Utica police Detective Sgt. David Faber says the man instructed his son on Sunday evening to ask women "if they would like to meet his dad so he could have a mother." When the women in suburban Detroit's Grant Park "would refuse, the boy would get upset and cry."Faber said the women rejected the suspect. But his ploy unsettled several men in the park and led to a confrontation.The man was arrested and posted a $100 bond. He is scheduled to appear in court within 10 days.The suspect told police he is divorced and has weekend visitation rights.Police will notify Macomb County Child Protective Services.

What this man allegedly did was pretty tasteless. I was certainly desperate and a bit creepy. There's something mildly offensive about it. But a crime? I thought we had the right in this country to be embarrass ourselves now and again.

Really, the Utica police and prosecutor need to find something better to do than waste tax payer resources on this.

Horrifying, disgusting, disturbing and funny all at once

2009-08-07T14:21:00.001-04:00

I've been reading James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. It's incredibly good, much better than I expected.

Today I read JJ's recount of a priest's lecture about Hell and judgment given to a group of young Catholic schoolboys on "retreat." This bit goes for pages, but it's loaded with brilliant bits. This one stood out for me. It made me cringe and laugh (out loud.)

The horror of this strait and dark prison is increased by its awful stench. All the filth of the world, all the offal and scum of the world, we are told, shall run there as to a vast reeking sewer when the terrible conflagration of the last day has purged the world. The brimstone too which burns there in such prodigious quantity fills all hell with its intolerable stench: and the bodies of the damned themselves exhale such a pestilential odour that as saint Bonaventure says, one of them alone would suffice to infect the whole world. The very air of this world, that pure element, becomes foul and un-breathable when it has been long enclosed. Consider then what must be the foulness of the air of hell. Imagine some foul and putrid corpse that has lain rotting and decomposing in the grave, a jellylike mass of liquid corruption. Imagine such a corpse prey to flames, devoured by the fire of burning brimstone and giving off dense choking fumes of nauseous loathsome decomposition. And then image this sickening stench , multiplied a million fold and a million fold again from the millions upon millions of fetid carcasses massed together in the reeking darkness, a huge and rotting human fungus. Imagine this and you will have some idea of the horror of the stench of hell.

I wish I knew why that made me laugh because I don't think it was intended to be funny, at least not in the context of the story.

Healthcare rant

2009-08-03T13:03:00.003-04:00

Setting aside any concerns I have about "national health insurance," "single-payer insurance" (nice euphemism) or "socialized medicine," I want to address a gripe I have with my fellow Americans. Maybe
"nationalized" health care is the answer. I'll leave that to the experts. But irrespective of the answer to that question, I'm convinced that my fellow Americans turned into a bunch of crybaby sponges.

I understand that there are some significant gaps in health coverage in this country. I get it. I also think that people are too quick to ignore that we have the best health care services and technology in the world. Improving access to those services and/or technology shouldn't require a complete overhaul of the system. It would certainly be supremely foolish to take steps that would tear that down.

Nevertheless, what I tend to hear people say isn't that they can't get the health care they need, but that it's "expensive." Well, folks, the best things in life are expensive. That's just the way things are.

A dear friend of mine was complaining this past Friday how much he resents that hospitals and doctors "screw you in the ***" to provide treatment. He didn't seem to answer how the doctors and nurses are supposed to be paid, how the medical equipment is supposed to be purchased and maintained, or how the ulitilites are supposed to be paid by the hospital or clinic without there being a charge. There is a lot of overhead in healthcare, and the better the care the more it's going to cost. The better the automobile, the more it's going to cost. What's the difference?

I'd suspect that my disgruntled friend, if he stopped and thought about it, would rather get the best care at a higher cost than lousy care at bargain basement rates. Perhaps not. Perhaps he wants limited care that doesn't cost him a thing. I know I'd rather have top-notch care. I only have one body, one life.

My biggest gripe with Americans is that there is developing an attitude among them that they are entitled to health care at someone else's expense. I've heard people bitch and complain about having to pay for visits to their doctors' offices who have $1,200 TVs and who do Vegas a few times a year. You really think you have money in your pocket to entertain yourself but that money should not be used for your most basic need, i.e. your own health? Really? Sorry, but I don't want to pay for your health care if you don't care enough to pay for your own.

No one (or more accurately, very few) complains about having to buy food (especially when they eat out) or having to pay for housing. But your medical care is just as basic as those things. Why wouldn't you pay to take care of yourself? You pay to stuff your face at the local buffet, so why not kick in $50 for your doctor's visit?

You're not owed a thing. Reexamine how you prioritize your spending and then we can talk about whether I should chip in to help pay your medical bills. It's time to grow up.

Intentionally misleading title?

2009-07-29T15:49:00.004-04:00

I stumbled on the following internet news link headline/title at yahoo.com

Darwin's 150-year-old theory vindicated...by jellyfish

("Darwin's 150-year-old theory vindicated...by jellyfish," my.yahoo.com, 7/29/09").

Based on that title my suspicion was that the article would explain how Darwin's theory of evolution, which is 150 years old this year, is supported, or even "proved" by jellyfish.

It turns out, however, that the article is about the 50-some year old theory of Charles Darwin's grandson, also named Charles Darwin, about role wildlife plays in creating ocean currents. Here's the heart of the article:

PARIS (AFP) – Creatures large and small may play an unsuspectedly important role in the stirring of ocean waters, according to a study released Wednesday.

So-called ocean mixing entails the transfer of cold and warm waters between the equator and poles, as well as between the icy, nutrient-rich depths and the sun-soaked top layer.

It plays a crucial part in marine biodiversity and, scientists now suspect, in maintaining Earth's climate.

The notion that fish and other sea swimmers might somehow contribute significantly to currents as they moved forward was first proposed in the mid-1950s by Charles Darwin, grandson of the the legendary evolutionary biologist of the same name.

But this was dismissed by modern scientists as a fishy story.

In 1960s, experiments compared the wake turbulence created by sea creatures with overall ocean turbulence. They showed that the whirls kicked up by microscopic plankton or even fish quickly dissipated in dense, viscous water.

On this evidence, sea creatures seemed to contribute nothing to ocean mixing. The clear conclusion was that the only drivers of note were shifting winds and tides, tied to the gravitational tug-of-war within our Solar System.

But the new study, published in the British science journal Nature, goes a long way toward rehabilitating the 20th century Darwin, and uses the quiet pulse of the jellyfish to prove the case.

The scientific findings in this article have nothing to do with Darwin's 150 year old theory. I recognize that article title is different at the source, but the link title is what the reader first sees and clicks to reach the article.

My first, somewhat paranoid, reaction was to think that the article was purposefully misleading to draw readers. My second and even more paranoid reaction was that the title was intended to suggest to those that didn't read the article that new research on jellyfish has somehow strengthened the theory of evolution. Does Yahoo and/or the AFP hope to subtly prop up a controversial theory like evolution because of some socio-political or religious agenda?

Perhaps I'm overthinking this.

Thank you, Frank

2009-07-20T12:44:00.004-04:00

When I look back on my childhood, I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of course, a miserable childhood: The happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood.
People everywhere brag and whimper about the woes of their early years, but nothing can compare with the Irish version: the poverty; the shiftless loquacious alcoholic father; the pious defeated mother moaning by the fire; pompous priests; bullying schoolmasters; the English and all the terrible things they did to us for 800 long years

So opens Frank McCourt's Pulitzer Prize winning book, Angela's Ashes, Sadly, Frank passed away yesterday at 78 of skin cancer-related complications.

Angela's Ashes, if not the best (non-fiction) book I've ever read, is certainly my favorite. It moved me in a way that no other book has. Mr. McCourt's ability to express sorrow in vivid but often humorous ways is unmatched. Though I'm hardly a literature expert, I'm somewhat well read. His lyrical style is as good as any I've seen.

Something about his writing, including his subsequent books, 'Tis and Teacher Man, reached all the way to my core. I found Angela's Ashes at a time in my life when I was trying to find myself. As a spoiled American I certainly could not relate to the depths of the poverty and misery experienced by McCourt familyand their confederates in Limerick, Ireland during the Great Depression. But there was a familiarity to it all.

At that time in my life, in the process of trying to find my own identity, I latched on pretty heavily to my Irish ancestry. Looking back, I think that was my way of connecting to my father who gave me most of my Irish blood. Perhaps, though, there was more to it. Maybe, just maybe, our DNA has a "memory" of its own. Those ancestors of mine that left Limerick, Ireland for America in the late 1880's likely experienced their own "miserable Irish Catholic childhoods." In a symbolic sense, Angela's Ashes, for me, was akin to finding one's great-grandfather's diary in the trunk in the attic. It wasn't my great-great-grandfather's story, but it certainly could have been.

Whatever the case may be, Frank's writing helped patch some holes in my existent. More accurately, Angela's Ashes caused me to look at myself and those who came before me with more depth of clarity, with more of an eye toward the long strands that connect our history (or family history) to us today.

Reading 'Tis and Teacher Man were less heady than all that. All stories that have beginnings need endings and these two books rounded out the story that we all wanted to see end happily. By those books I was reminded that no matter where you come from, you can make something of yourself with a lot determination and a little dumb luck. It never hurts to be reminded of that.

All that aside, Mr. McCourt's books are fantastic reads. They are highly entertaining. For the hours of reading pleasure I had, if nothing else, Frank deserves a big thank you.

God bless you, Frank. Thank you for sharing your incredible life with me/us.

"Support Your Local EVERYTHING!"

2009-07-14T07:28:00.003-04:00

So read a bumper sticker on a vehicle I was behind yesterday. Next to that sticker was one for the local university-affiliated public radio station. The car, not surprisingly, was headed toward that university, which is Ypsilanti, Michigan.

What immediately jumped out at me was that the car was a Honda Accord. Anyone familiar with Ypsilanti knows that in it or around it, GM and Ford both manufacture vehicles (or major parts of vehicles, like transmissions and such.) Ypsilanti is a short drive from the Motor City.

I'm not one to get to preachy. I don't admonish others to "buy American"; it's not my place to make that decision for people. Lots of true patriots buy cars with foreign name plates.

What I does get me, though, is that people that do not practice what they preach. In this case, this person's "local EVERYTHING" includes American manufactured domestic vehicles. Literally, there are vehicles that are "local," but she chose a car made in Tennessee or perhaps even Japan. Perhaps the bumper sticker should've said "Support Your Local (Almost) EVERYTHING" or "Support Your Local EVERYTHING (Except Major Purchase Items Like Vehicles").

I'm not sure what's more inconsistent, that bumper sticker on that car or the one I saw last year with a drawing of a cell phone that said "Hang Up and Drive." When I passed the driver of that car he was, you guessed it, talking on his cell phone.

Withdrawing

2009-07-08T10:06:00.003-04:00

Balancing friendships with work, family life and just the day-to-day responsibilities of adulthood is very difficult.

It's easier, actually, just to let something go. Marriage and family obviously is the most important, so it's the friendships have to get the ax. But that does not happen without consequence.

The solution: build walls. Stay nestled safe behind them.

Lake Huron

2009-07-06T08:57:00.004-04:00

Before I get to the point, here's a little bit of background. We're blessed here in Michigan to be surrounded by the incredible (indescribable) Great Lakes. There's nothing better, in my opinion, than beautiful freshwater shoreline.

Unfortunately, the closest bit of Great Lake to us is the strip of Lake Erie that touches the southeastern corner of the state. Although much cleaner than in the past, Lake Erie seems too dirty. The water is dark and mirky. The surface in the swimming areas is silty, slimy and squishy. The state and metro parks along that stretch aren't particularly scenic. Park users litter and leave cigarette butts all over the beach. In a word: ugly.

To get enjoy clean Great Lake water but not have to drive over three hours, last summer we decided to see what Lake Huron was like in the Port Huron area. My fear was that it would be too industrial there and, thus, dirty. I was wrong. We enjoyed a great day at Conger Lighthouse Beach. The water and beach areas were clean, the crowds were nice. The drawback was that the current was a little too strong near the mouth of Lake Huron (it ends there and flows into the St. Clair River.)

Yesterday we trekked up to that area but went a few miles farther north/up the shore. There we went to Lakeport State Park. If you're looking for a nice park in that area, I'd recommend. It's not big on amenities, but the beach is nice, the water is clean and there is plenty of picnicing areas. The beach is pebbly/stony, but about 100 feet out from shore there is a nice sand bar. Outside the designated "swim area," there is another nice sandbar.

Along the beach is a marshy area where the kids found frogs, turtles and other little critters. We also saw a family of snakes on the support beam of the park's pedestrian bridge/overpass.

All in all it was a very nice day. More than that, I'm starting to realize that Lake Huron seems to be a rather unappreciated body of water. Everyone in our state knows of the beauty of Lakes Michigan and Superior, but there's never much mention one way or another about Huron. If we were considering buying lakefront property, I'd be happy to be there. I also think it's worth the 1.5 hour drive to make semi-regular day visits.

The Farce of July

2009-07-03T08:54:00.002-04:00

I love my country and I love July 4. Maybe that's why I get dispirited every year in the run-up to the big day. It's great that people get together with family and friends, BBQ, go to the beach, watch fireworks, etc. It's a holiday. It's also a badly need day off for some who work too hard and too much.

All those things should be secondary byproducts of the holiday. The 4th is not about picnics and being out in the sun. It's about remembering the sacrifices that were made to make this country our own, to govern ourselves, to be free of the arbitrary decisions of a crazy (literally) king halfway on the other side of the Atlantic.

Just stop to consider what guts it took for the Founding Fathers to declare independence. Many of them were landed gentry. They were set. British practices, no doubt, were in some cases taking money out of their pockets. But I've not seen evidence that any of them were turned to paupers because of English taxation or the like.

The decision to split from mother England was largely made on principle. The risk: their lives. Back then, treason was punishable by death. It was certainly treasonous to attempt to oust the Kingdom of Great Britain from America. After all, this was a British colony. The reminder of the risks taken by the signators to the Declaration of Independence is stated plainly in the last sentence of that great document:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

It's not my place to tell you how to celebrate this great holiday. This certainly should not be understood as condemning or judging folks who try to make the holiday a celebration of family or friends or just a fun day off work. I just hope that the "true meaning" of the celebration does not get lost in all the fun.

What took you so long?

2009-06-27T13:45:00.005-04:00

Nearly four years after the IRA permanently put its arms "beyond use," i.e. decommissioned, the Ulster Defence Alliance and the Ulster Volunteer Force, announced that those groups are also decommissioning. It appears that this is on the first stage of the Protestant paramilitary decommissioning.

I'm interested to see the reaction by Unionists/Loyalists and Nationalists/Republicans. I'm not convinced that they are happily coexisting, but this certainly can't hurt moving those communities closer together. The hardliners will never be happy, I'm afraid.

Injuries stink!

2009-06-21T16:00:00.001-04:00

I hurt my back yesterday working out. I feel like an old man now. It's very frustrating being sidelined by injury. Oh well. Maybe I need the extra rest.

Would you let me finish?!

2009-06-10T11:08:00.004-04:00

Here's an exchange I find more and more common at drive-through windows:

Distorted Voice Through Crackly Speaker: Hi, welcome to ____. Would you like to try one of our ____ meals? It's only $___.

Me: No thanks, I'd like a...

DVTCS: Go ahead with your order when you're ready.

Me: I'd like a _____ with...

DVTCS: (Interrupts) Would that be all?

Me: No. I'd also like a ______ and I need 2...

DVCTS: (Interrupts again) Anything else?

Me: Yes! I would also like a _____ blank and that's it!

DVTCS: Would you like fries or a drink with that?

Me: No. (Grits teeth) Just the ____, the ____ and the ____.

DVTCS: Thank you your total comes to $5.** (unintelligible). Please pull around.

Me: I'm sorry, how much was that? I couldn't hear it.

DVTCS: $5.**

Me: (Mumble to myself, "Ah, forget it. She can tell me the total at the window.")

Fast food places are frustrating in this way. Either the suggest sell you and won't let you get your order out the way you want it, or they don't let you finish placing your order. The speakers at those places are so lousy you can't understand half of what they say.

That's my rant for the day.

Witness to a death

2009-06-09T11:07:00.003-04:00

At least once a year I am lucky (or unlucky) enough to be in court when some case or matter of notoriety is being heard. It's not uncommon to see TV crews outside of the courts that I frequent. Sometimes I'm actually in the courtroom where the matter is being hard. Yesterday was just such a day.

While waiting to see the judge, I sat through the hearing on an injunction to halt the demolition of what remained of Tiger Stadium. For legal reasons that aren't terribly exciting or dramatic, Judge Edwards agreed with the City of Detroit and the Economic Development Corporation that complete demolition should not be further delayed. In essence, the court seemed convinced that because there appeared no likelihood of any sources of funding that could save the stadium and the costs to keep her standing were mounting, that the rest of the building should be scrapped.

Tiger Stadium was a site for so many of my fondest childhood memories. But I said goodbye to it 10 years ago when I walked out of it for the last time.

Leaving a piece of her shell standing for a yet additional indefinite amount of time seems pointless. Perhaps the people in this area that have strong feelings about the stadium issue, one way or another, can move on and devote time and resources to improving other sites within the city. Lord knows that Detroit needs all the help she can get.

"Real men" don't use duct tape

2009-06-04T22:46:00.003-04:00

For the last few days, I've noticed my favorite local sports talk station running commercials for some sort of "real man" contest that involves duct tape. Duct tape?

I'm not so stiff that I don't recognize it's all in good fun. I also have noticed that people are serious about using duct tape to fix stuff on their car or around their house. That's kind of the guy's thing right now: "I can fix anything with a roll of duct tape."

Fellas, duct tape is for duct work. It's not for keeping your mirror on your car, for the handle of your hockey stick, or for repairing a torn window screen. A "real man" would only use that stuff in a pinch and only temporarily.

When I was in college, I had my car window smashed in early spring. I had to drive home 80 miles without a window, so I had to use duct tape and visqueen to cover the hole. That "fix" held me over for about a week until I could get a replacement window. Then I took part my car door and dropped in the glass myself. After putting the door back together the window was like new. If I could fix a car window for about $50 and maybe 2 hours of work, any "real man" could. If you guys are driving around with duct tape and plastic for a car window, you need to turn in your man card.

My dad fixed stuff all the time. He made permanent fixes. Duct tape was never involved. Learn to fix stuff. . . the right way. That's what a "real man" would do.

Bloodlust

2009-06-01T13:03:00.006-04:00

There's a snobby, sophisticated part of me that tries to convince myself that I'm not a typical couch potato pro sports fan, that I have a rich, fulfilling life not determined or affected by watching other men play a game. I do have a rich, fulfilling life, but I'm kidding myself to think that sports isn't part of that. Sports in general is much lower on my list of priorities than it had been in years past. But it's important.

Right now I'm riveted by the Detroit Red Wings' annual deep playoff run. I wish I didn't care because it's affecting my sleep and my ability to do all the other things I love. But I can't tear myself away from it. As many problems as there are with the NHL, pro hockey's gotta be the most exciting sport there is. I just can't get enough.

I love being angry at the biased broadcasters. I love hating the "goons" on the other team. I go crazy when the Wings put the puck in the net or get into a scrape with the other team.

It's animalistic and a little scary. The amount of excitability in me is nothing short of shocking. It's a tame form of bloodlust...and I crave it.

The Detroit Red Wings, once again, seem to be in control of the Stanley Cup finals. The series is by no means over, but odds are they will win it and bring home the Stanley Cup for the 5th time since 1997. I can't wait for tomorrow night. Bring on game 3!

Nine

2009-05-25T23:13:00.004-04:00

I can't believe it! My little girl is 9! Well, she'll be 9 in two days.

Parents will understand the paradox that the years seem to have flown by, yet, it seems like an eternity since she was a baby. Without photographs or video -- luckily we have a lot of both -- I would hardly remember what she sounded like and looked like when she was small.

The so-called "tween" years are a lot of fun. I love watching her grow. I'm convinced that my daughter, somehow, is my purpose, my raison d'être. As she becomes more mature, more of a complete (for lack of a better term) person, I see my destiny, in a sense, unfolding. It's really cool . . . and kind of scary. I just hope that I've done the right things so far and will continue to shephard her through this crazy life until she is ready to start her own flock.

I love her so much! She's my baby girl! I can't wait to tell her this in the morning.

Happy Birthday, Munkins. You're the best thing -- or at least tied for first with your mom -- that ever happened to your old man.

Quixtar, TEAM and Me: The End

2009-05-18T21:08:00.005-04:00

PREFACE: A few months back I decided to write in several parts my experience as a member of TEAM (f/k/a Team of Destiny) and as a Quixtar "Independent Business Owner" (IBO.) I left the story for awhile but return to it now, skipping over all the bits in the middle and going right to the end.

As I have previously stated, I have no particular axe to grind with individuals in this industry or these organizations. I just want to chronicle how it worked out for me.
_________________

When I last left this tale, I was just starting to get into the business. Someday I'll return to some of the happenings that took place while I was going full steam ahead, trying to build the business, but not today.

I knew I was effectively done in the business in February 2007 when I attended a monthly TEAM seminar in Saginaw, Michigan. The featured speakers were Tim and Amy Marks. Prior to that seminar, I had tried very hard to get some prospective IBOs and one active IBO in my downline to come with me. My wife was (and had been) ill, leaving me to attend the seminars by myself. Not only is it a bit lonely to sit in the stands by yourself, it's not easy to build your business if others are not enthused about it.

I sat that evening in the nosebleed seats of the Dow Center listening to the Markses talk about all their stuff. I'm not interested in their material wealth -- which TEAM people are encouraged to flaunt -- or that they get to spend time with their kids, at least not after hearing about it all several dozen times. I certainly didn't want to hear it as I sat there alone in the stands, watching others talk about their success while my business seemed to be dead in the water. Besides that, I think I was struggling with some low grade depression. My wife was ill, I was working hard at work and in TEAM/Quixtar, it was dead of winter and I was spending lots of money to be in that cold, dark place, wearing a suit on a Saturday night. It was miserable. I was done, though unofficially so. I left the Dow Center in tears knowing my dreams were not going to be met, at least not this way.

Not too long after that February seminar, I did my taxes. The amount of financial failure was almost shocking. From June through December 2006, I think we spent over $6,000 in travel, hotel, books and CDs, meeting and seminar tickets, website and membership fees, dining, parking and other expenses related to the business. I made a whopping $93 "income" in return. $93! Even better yet, the $93 was taxable income (offset, of course, by my massive losses.) You know where the $93 came from? That was our aggregate "rebate" on products we bought through Quixtar/Amway. We spent roughly $2,500 to get that $93. How's that for "passive, residual" income? At least I got to write off the $6,000 plus as deductible business expenses.

Anymore involvement with TEAM after that was purely out of obligation or guilt. I attended a few weekly meetings and kicked around the idea of attending the national seminar in St. Louis by myself. It didn't happen and I'm glad I didn't waste the time and money. I also stopped taking calls from my upline/mentors. Everytime I talked to him, my failures just felt heightened. TEAM does a really good job of trying to convince you that you can succeed. The problem is that if you don't see success -- I saw virtually no signs that I was going anywhere -- you feel like you are letting down TEAM, yourself, your family and God almighty Himself.

We stayed "on system" for another few months, meaning we had CDs shipped to our house weekly. That stopped after my wife emailed our uplines that June and asked to take us off system. For 2007, I made ZERO dollars and had about $2,000 in expenses, maybe a little less. Again, I got to write off those expenses as business losses. I would have rather had the cash in hand, though.

You can read elsewhere how TEAM leaders split with (were kicked out of) Quixtar in the summer of 2007. To their credit, guys like Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady made themselves targets of the Amway crowd by constantly nagging Quixtar to lower its prices. The final straw came, as I understand it, when Woodward, Brady, Billy Florence, and some others raised hell over Quixtar taking on the name Amway. They knew that "selling Amway" would be the death of many of us. It was hard enough to sell Quixtar's system to people but to call it Amway would have been damned near impossible.

As much as I admired their principled stand against Amway -- I never wanted to be part of that company -- I was disappointed that Woodward et al changed their tune on Quixtar. When I was in TEAM, essentially signing up people as Quixtar IBOs, I was trained by TEAM that, for numerous reasons, this whole thing was not a "pyramid scam" or one of those "pyramid thingies." But when Woodward and the others split from Amway/Quixtar and lawsuits started flying, what did they allege in court pleadings that Amway/Quixtar was? You guessed it. An "illegal pyramid scheme." Interesting how that changed overnight.

I've been away from TEAM, Amway/Quixtar and the people I knew from that business for about 2 years now. I'm happier not being in the business. Still, though, I felt anchored to it in some weird way. I also felt the need to defend the business model when I've seen criticism of it online. Perhaps that's just my way of convincing myself I hadn't made a poor decision and wasted lots of money. As much as we did, indeed, waste a lot of money, I think both my wife and I grew in positive ways from the experience. I see success differently. I think I know a bit more about business, I know a lot more about myself, and I know what types of things fit my personality type. Rather than me needing a complete overhaul to fit within a fairly rigid system -- I couldn't even choose my own tie or suit colors -- I try to take the strengths I have and apply those to the things I have to do and, when possible, adapt to new or unfamiliar circumstances. I see the value in growth or adaptation but not to the point of self denial or, worse, self death.

My life in TEAM, though over a few years back, was effectively buried for good a few weeks ago. I held onto thousands of dollars of CDs and books in the event I ever got back into the business. Once it became obvious I was never going to return to the business, I held onto all that stuff hoping to sell it. I put ads up on craigslist, offering that stuff for next to nothing, and go no response. Months went by and that crap took up a full box in our garage. Trash Amnesty day came along -- you can throw out anything you like other than hazardous materials -- 2 Fridays ago and I decided, "Aw, to hell with it. Put all that stuff out at the curb and see if some of the garbage pickers want it." Within hours, those books and CDs -- hundreds -- were gone. Only book style packs were left and I'm sure they ended up in the trash.

A smile came over my face when I saw someone else had taken all that material. Part of me hoped that whoever took the books and CDs would learn something. Another part of me thought, "Ha ha! Sucker!" And yet another part of me was simply glad to have them gone; they were symbols of failure I no longer wished to keep in my life.

Life on hold

2009-05-14T15:06:00.003-04:00

The hobbies and things I love the most: writing, exercising, playing bass, and reading have all been on hold the last few weeks. Why? Because the Detroit Red Wings are in the playoffs. They're sucking up a lot of my free time. I love it but I feel disconnected from my routines.

The problem isn't just that there are games to watch, but that the damned games (3 of them) have started after 10:00 p.m. Craziness. I've stayed up until 2:00 a.m. or later 3 times in the last week or so. It just throws off everything.

I write about sports a fair amount on this blog, but I'm actually not a huge sports fan, at least not compared to a lot of guys these days. There are men that do nothing but watch sports every night of the week. I try to keep time for my family, Church and hobbies and keep sports watching to a minimum. But when the Red Wings are in the playoffs or MSU's in March Madness, I have to watch. I just can't pull myself away from the games. I make all the sacrifices I can to see every play.

The Red Wings are playing game 7 of the Western Conference semi-finals tonight and the winner moves onto the conference finals. Tonight's game is huge. I just have to see it, no matter how rusty I'm getting on bass or how little sleep I will get. And I won't regret it at all.

Random stuff I don't understand (Part 1)

2009-05-07T16:01:00.002-04:00

Braille at drive-up ATMs -- Drive-up ATMs are always situated so that the driver's side of the vehicle has access to the screen and keypad. So why do they almost always have information on them in Braille? If a person is so vision impaired that he or she must read in Braille, what is he or she doing driving? Walk-up ATMs are a different story, altogether.

Handicapped parking spots at a fitness center -- I know, I know. At least in our state, all public places that have parking must allot a specific number of spots for handicapped parking. For nearly every public place out there, that law makes sense. We want disabled people to have easy access to public places. But that makes little or no sense at a gym.

The gym to which I belong has has 4 handicapped spots in front of and to each side of the front door. There is no elevator inside the building but it is a two story facility. If you want to use the second floor, you have to be able to get up the steps. Otherwise you're stuck either using treadmills and stairclimbers, weights or the swimming pool.

Whatever the case may be, if you are in the gym it is to exercise. If you can exert yourself enough to get into the pool or up the stairs, you can walk or wheel yourself from anywhere in the parking lot. If you can't move an extra 50 feet is there anything you can do in the gym? I'm not blasting handicapped folks or begrudging them a good parking spot, just wondering what the point is in parking right next to the door of a fitness center.

There will be more brilliant observations from me *wink* as I make them.

"Well, well, well, look what the cat dragged in."

2009-05-03T21:17:00.004-04:00

Oh dear lord. That was one of a number of simply awful bits of dialog in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The writers of what otherwise could have been a really good comic book movie took every cliche that one could seemingly brainstorm and threw 'em all in the movie.

I'm not going to attempt a full review of the movie. Critics who get paid to do that stuff would do a better job than me. Let's just say I like the movie because I've liked all the X-Men movies and Hugh Jackman is great as Wolverine. I forgive it a lot of deficiencies because of the subject matter.

Much of the acting was subpar and, as suggested, the dialog was even worse. Also, the timelines in the movie didn't match either the comic book history or even the movie itself. I think the Marvel purists will probably go nuts about stuff like that.

All its failings aside, it's a good shoot 'em up...errr...slice 'em up flick. It's worth the price of admission unless you have particularly discriminating tastes. Just be prepared for some real groaners.

Until NPR mentioned it . . .

2009-04-27T08:53:00.005-04:00

it never occurred to me that Mark Sanchez, the USC quarterback drafted by the New York Jets in the first round of this weekend's draft (no. 5 overall), is "Mexican-American."

I watched USC a few times last season. I certainly recognized the last name Sanchez as being latino. But I never viewed him as a "Mexican-American quarterback" or a "latino player." That type of thinking, to me, is foolishness. He's an American. He's a football player.

Giving NPR the benefit of the doubt, I think the angle it was trying to take by discussing, in detail, Mr. Sanchez's ethnicity was to highlight that it apparently has significance in the latino community of southern California.

I'm not sure why, though, that would be especially noteworthy. It is not as if Mr. Sanchez is the latino Jackie Robinson of football. He's hardly the first latin player in the NFL. As of the 2007 season, there were no less than 24 latinos in the NFL. http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/27860

He definitely isn't the first high profile latino in American pro sports. Latin American players essentially dominate Major League Basesball.

My favorite baseball player as a kid (who played a bit before my time) was Roberto Clemente. Not only was he Puerto Rican, he was of African descent. I think I was drawn to him because my Puerto Rican father was a big fan and told me stories about what a great player he had been. But I wasn't drawn to him because he was Puerto Rican. Had he been a lousy player, he would have gone unnoticed.

Which brings me back to the point. If we truly want to be a "color blind" society, we should stop looking at people as members of an ethnicity and, instead, look at them as people who have things to offer society. Mark Sanchez will succeed or fail on the field regardless of his last name or the country from which his ancestors came. He'll either be a good quarterback or he won't be. He'll make us all proud if he works hard and does his best.

Born gay?

2009-04-24T10:42:00.005-04:00

This isn't gay bashing and shouldn't be understood that way. But I think it's fair game for critical discussion and it's ok for us heterosexuals to talk about the issue.

The rationale I hear most for the acceptance of homosexuality and, by extension, for the expansion of gay rights is that some folks are just "born gay." A relative, who is very conservative, recently said to me, "Science will soon prove that people are born gay. They cannot help it. Why would anyone choose that lifestyle. It's too hard."

Anyone who has had even a high school level psychology course is familiar with the age-old debate of nature vs. nurture. Are we born with certain traits? Does our environment shape who we become? Or are we a combination of predispositions and environment? The debate has never been completely resolved, but I've always understood that the medical and mental health communities long ago accepted the idea that we are born with certain traits and/or dispositions and our environment shapes us.

For whatever reason, though, that answer has not been good enough for some when it comes to the question of sexuality. If I were an alcoholic, no psychologist in his/her right mind would ignore environment in attempting to help me. There's not a decent professional out there who would say, "Ignore what happened in your past. You are an alcoholic purely by accident of birth, by random genetic dumb luck." So why do we do this with sexuality?

There's a very interesting article from CNN entitled "Why women are leaving men for other women."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/23/o.women.leave.menfor.women/index.html

It's just an article. Its (the article's) conclusions or assumptions really carry no wait as far as I am concerned. But it quotes some interesting studies that suggest that it's hardly a matter of genetics which orientation we choose or live out. If you find that notion offensive, take issue with the so-called experts.

Here are some interesting bits from the article, with emphasis added by me:

But experts like Binnie Klein, a Connecticut-based psychotherapist and lecturer in Yale's department of psychiatry, agree that alternative relationships are on the rise.
"It's clear that a change in sexual orientation is imaginable to more people than ever before, and there's more opportunity -- and acceptance -- to cross over the line," says Klein, noting that a half-dozen of her married female patients in the past few years have fallen in love with women. "Most are afraid that if they don't go for it, they'll end up with regrets.
* * *
Feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, Ph.D, a professor of English and gender and women's studies at the University of Kentucky and author of "Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body," also agrees that in the current environment, more women may be stepping out of the conventional gender box.
"When a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things," she says.
"So it makes sense that we would see women, for all sorts of reasons, walking through that door now that the culture has cracked it open. Of course, we shouldn't imagine that we're living in a world where all sexual choices are possible. Just look at the cast of 'The L Word' and it's clear that only a certain kind of lesbian -- slim and elegant or butch in just the right androgynous way -- is acceptable to mainstream

***
Over the past several decades, scientists have struggled in fits and starts to get a handle on sexual orientation. Born or bred? Can it change during one's lifetime?
A handful of studies in the 1990s, most of them focused on men, suggested that homosexuality is hardwired. In one study, researchers linked DNA markers in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome to gay males. But a subsequent larger study failed to replicate the results, leaving the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association to speculate that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes, including environmental, cognitive, and biological factors.
Today, however, a new line of research is beginning to approach sexual orientation as much less fixed than previously thought, especially when it comes to women. The idea that human sexuality forms a continuum has been around since 1948, when Alfred Kinsey introduced his famous seven-point scale, with zero representing complete heterosexuality, 6 signifying complete homosexuality, and bisexuality in the middle, where many of the men and women he interviewed fell.
The new buzz phrase coming out of contemporary studies is "sexual fluidity."
"People always ask me if this research means everyone is bisexual. No, it doesn't," says Lisa Diamond, Ph.D, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah and author of the 2008 book "Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire."
"Fluidity represents a capacity to respond erotically in unexpected ways due to particular situations or relationships. It doesn't appear to be something a woman can control."

These aren't anti-gay right wingers drawing these conclusions. These are studies (or at least observations) done by highly educated folks at liberal institutions. Anyone questioning the validity of them would be hard-pressed to do so on the basis of some sort of anti-gay bias.

Are these conclusions valid? I certainly wouldn't die on that hill. I'll let the so-called experts defend their own work. They certainly are consistent with the very broad concept that who we are -- all aspects of our lives -- is shaped by many factors.

Guess this guy's nationality

2009-04-23T14:05:00.002-04:00

I found this quote in a recent issue of Conde Nast Traveller. The person to whom this quote is attributed is no one you'd know. This is from a sort of person-on-the-street type of feature. People from various countries described their experiences or feelings about traveling in America or Americans in general. I think this man's ethnicity is obvious from his comment. He said:

Americans have some problems understnad what's happening outside the United States. The newspapers here have no news from oustide the U.S. except from Iraq. It's a closed country. Americans go everywhere, but just to fight. Other differences: Here you need to tip, tip, tip. We are not used to this. And Americans say, 'Hi, how are you?' a hundred times a day! It's awful! They don't care about the answer.

I won't tell you where he's from but I'll give you some hints. In the last 100 years, we Americans have gone to his country twice "to fight" but not because it was our fight. We fought and died there because his countrymen couldn't or wouldn't do it themselves.

After our second visit to his country "to fight," at his country's invitation, we were invited "to fight" in Viet Nam. See, Viet Nam had been a colony of his country but it lost control of the colony and asked for our country to help save it from independence.

This is to say nothing of the many, many places his country has gone "to fight."

I agree that it's "awful!" -- dreadful! -- that we Americans ask, "How are you doing?" The nerve! I think it would be better if we adopted the practice of this gentleman's home city (here comes another hint) and treated tourists and guests rudely who do not speak the language or understand the local customs.

As for America being "a closed country," we obviously aren't closed enough. After all, we let this guy in for who knows how long. America has amazingly open borders. It's still the place people want to come for a better opportunity. They bring with them their cultures, religions and practices. America, for good and bad, is the global village.

In terms of news and information, there's not a freer, more open society in the world. Despite what our foreign critic believes, news of the world besides Iraq is easily found here. Perhaps what he does not understand is that many of us don't have the time to care about what his happening all over the globe at any given time. It's enough keeping track of our daily lives. There's no place in our lives for the goings on in Turkey or Malaysia or whereever.

Maybe what his real beef is that his country sees itself as the cultural center of the western world but it is essentially irrelevant in terms of global politics. It's a mere shadow of its former imperial self. His countrymen are so concerned about its slipping place in the world that they legislate cultural content for TV, radio and such. My "closed country" allows all sorts of political, cultural and entertainment content to be aired. We decide things here on merit more than country of origin.

So, did you guess this guy's nationality yet?

More on Mark "The Bird" Fidrych

2009-04-22T21:33:00.004-04:00

For the first time in years a celebrity death has really touched me. I don't know why, but the death of Mark Fidrych last week has bothered me. I'm not talking about being sad in the sense of, "Aw, gee, that's too bad. He was a swell guy." I mean I've actually felt sad, some twinge of real grief.

My best guesses as to why I've been bummed are: 1. Mark was a pretty decent guy; 2. he represents a special part of my childhood. I never met the Bird, but friends of mine did and they raved about how great and gracious he was. Pretty much everyone in the media that dealt with him had good things to say. He was also that person -- caught up in something even bigger than himself -- that draws in a kid. His magic rookie season is the sort of thing that really captures a little boy's imagination. He must have captured mine and remained there in the recesses of my mind all those years.

Whatever the case may be, he's been on my mind. I was happy to find there is a little video clip of his 5-1 win over the Yankees in 1976. Pay attention to his excitement and embarrassment over the crowd's reaction. It's really cool. There are some great outfits on the fans, too.

God bless you, Mark. Thanks for being part of my childhood.

http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200904144137207

Phoniness or respectful?

2009-04-16T17:15:00.000-04:00

I've been reminded lately of my tendency to talk about the same issue one way with a certain group and another way with another group. When speaking to group A, I might be really harsh and express my feelings unequivocally. I might even come off as offensive to others with different opinions. But discussing that same topic with group B, I might dance around the issue a bit, suppress my feelings. I certainly lay off some of the stronger language or rhetoric.

Am I a phony? Perhaps. I'm willing to admit that I am flawed.

I'd like to think, though, that I'm being respectful of both groups A and B. It's not that my feelings or beliefs are different, I just present them in more delicate ways depending on the circumstances.

I feel conflicted by this tendency in me. I've done this all my life. Maybe it's a positive character trait and not a flaw, but part of me tells me that I'm dishonest.

Whatever the case may be, I'm not going to force a change. I'm not going to be that guy that people don't want coming around because he's an overbearing, opinionated bore.

The Bird is the Word

2009-04-14T09:09:00.009-04:00

It's funny how there are watershed years in life; periods in which amazing things happen, life takes a different course, memories get cemented.

1976 was the first year like that for me. It was America's Bi-Centennial, which was celebrated with vigor in school. A bit of American pride post-Viet Nam and post-Watergate was restored. We celebrated my 5th birthday early by going to Disney World during the Fourth of July holiday. I got my first bike. Baseball became a passion.

Why did I fall in love with baseball that year? Mostly because my Uncle Bob loved baseball and he took me to a lot of Detroit Tigers games. On the grander scale, I fell in love with the game because of rookie sensation Mark "The Bird" Fidrych. He electrified Detroit like no athlete since. Even Hall of Famers like Isaiah Thomas, Steve Yzerman and Barry Sanders did not capture the attention of people in this city -- and across the country like The Bird.

Fidrych was a helluva pitcher. I was too young to remember what he did as a pitcher, the record books say he was 19-9, with a 2.34 ERA, and completed 24 games. He was the Rookie of the Year, starting pitcher in 1976 All Star game and was number 2 in Cy Young voting. Unfortunately a shoulder injury (later found to be a torn rotator cuff) wrecked his career.
The memory I do have of him is being at a game that year with my uncle. I don't know who the Tigers played or what the score was, but I know Fidrych pitched and I know they won. Tiger Stadium was packed to the rafters. It was about as loud as I ever heard it. On the way out of the stadium, we stopped behind the lower deck fence, right next to the right field foul pole. Uncle Bob threw me up on his shoulders so I could see the Bird come out up the dugout to a standing ovation. I remember him off in the distancing waving to the fans with his cap, standing on the top step of dugout as the fans went wild. The roar of the crowd shook my body, hurt my ears. But it was great.

One of the Detroit newspapers had free iron-ons that said, "The Bird is the Word" and my grandma got two copies of it and a packet full of white t-shirts. The first iron-on came out backwards but the second worked. I wore both shirts until they were filthy.

As his career disintegrated and new heroes came and went, the Bird slowly faded from glory. But he never vanished. The Detroit Tigers and Fidrych always maintained great relations and Mark, being a great, humble guy, came back to Tiger Stadium for special events. He mingled with fans, signed autographs, was great with the kids. There's not a Detroit Tigers fan that was alive in the 70's that didn't love Mark Fidrych, even 33 years after his amazing rookie year.

Sadly Mark Fidrych passed away yesterday at age 54. According to the press reports he was found dead around 2:30 p.m. from an apparent accident that took place while he was working under his truck. Besides the tragedy of him passing away, the eerie thing for me was that I was at the Detroit Tigers game yesterday afternoon with my Uncle Bob, mom and my daughter. I saw a new Tiger wearing no. 20, pointed him out to my daughter and said, "Kiddo, no. 20 was the number of my favorite player when I was a little younger than you, Mark Fidrych." This was before word had gotten out that Mark had died. His was the only number I noticed yesterday. He was the only player from my past, my childhood, that I mentioned or even thought about. Odd.

Mark will be missed. My thoughts are prayers are with his family and friends.

Irony

2009-04-09T10:19:00.002-04:00

Everyone knows that Alanis Morrissette doesn't have a clue what "irony" means. She's taken a lot of heat (and deservedly so) for her moronic song, "Ironic." None of the things she mentions in the song, "rain on your wedding day" for example, are anything other than unfortunate events. Stand up comedians have gotten a lot of mileage out of this song, so no need to some comedy routine.

Alanis isn't the only person that doesn't know what irony means. I hear the word misused all the time. In fact, most of the time when I hear it uttered, it is used incorrectly.

One recent example had to do with the Michigan State Spartans playing in the Final Four at Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan. Some talking heads on TV talked about the "irony" of MSU playing in front of what was basically a home crowd, or as close as a team can get to play a Final Four "at home." Gentlemen, that's not irony. That's fitting.

Let's clarify what "irony" means. Webster's Dictionary defines it as:

2 a: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b: a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c: an ironic expression or utterance

3 a (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity b: incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony tragic irony

It's a pretty simple word, not hard to understand or use.

My Science Fiction teacher in high school -- best lit class I ever had, by the way -- hammered the concept of irony into our heads. He loved stories with ironic endings. "Irony is the twist in the story," was how he defined it as he turned his hand from palm upward to palm facing the floor.

One of the first stories we read in that class involved the death of a woman by her husband so that the couple could live together in eternity. The ending wasn't expected. The irony, teacher explained, was that, "He loved her so much he killed her," one of the funniest things any teacher ever said in all my years in school. That is irony.

Go State!

2009-04-03T15:20:00.006-04:00

It's impossible not to be excited about my MSU Spartans in the Final Four tomorrow.

The entire town's abuzz. For the first time that I can remember, folks here in the Detroit area have Spartan fever (this is Wolverine country, after all.)

I think State can take down UConn. Will they? I think State has a 50/50 shot at a victory tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it.

Go State!

Things I hate: cell phones and computer viruses

2009-04-01T14:37:00.003-04:00

Sorry to be negative, but I have to rant.

I'm sick and tired of people and their dad blasted cell phones. I was in a restaurant today and at least 6 cell phones went off within about 20 minutes. People that were there with others -- friends, co-workers -- kept their lunch guests waiting while they yacked on the phone. I couldn't tell you none of those calls were important, but what I could overhear -- and people tend to talk louder on their cells -- there wasn't much being said that sounded serious or urgent. Two younger women a table away, instead of talking to each other, fiddled with their phones and talked about what other people were sending/texting to them.

These are the kinds of things I see and hear daily. People making a lot of noise, but saying nothing, with their phones.

I guess it's none of my business if people are rude to each other on a one-on-one level. But the overall decline of politeness, the elevation of electronic communication over face-to-face talking (even while another person is 3 feet away!) is alarming to me. I cannot stand competing with a cell phone for the attention of a person I'm eating or hanging out with. Why did you invite me to the game? Why not just take your phone and text and yack all day?

I could go on and on about drivers on their phones, but I'll keep it short. I'd rather be on the road with a bunch of drivers that have had 3 or 4 beers than a legion of people driving with one hand while they chit-chat on their phones. I honestly feel I'd be safer around the impaired drivers.

As for computer viruses, I cannot imagine anything more childish -- sociopathic in away -- than to create a computer program whose primary purpose is to wreck someone else's (many others') computer. The Conficker virus, which is set to "go live" today, has everyone terrified their computers and thus, their personal and business interests, could be irreperably damaged.

If these clowns that wrote the Conficker virus are ever caught, I am 100% serious when I say that they should do decades in prison. They have no disregard for other people and the rest of us would be best served with them behind bars.

Schwew. Now that those things are off my chest, I feel better.

Elite

2009-03-28T00:27:00.003-04:00

My Spartans knocked off the defending national champion Kansas Jayhawks in a gutty come-from-behind win this evening. I'm not a basketball expert, so I'm not going to attempt a recap. But I do want to congratulate the Spartans for hanging tough and beating an excellent team.

I've lost track of how many trips Izzo-led Spartans have made to the Elite Eight, but chalk up another one!

Next up for MSU is Midwest no. 1 seed Louisville. If I were betting money, I'd say that Louisville would win that game. But I'm going with my heart. MSU wins a close one and heads to the Final Four.

March 24, 1996

2009-03-24T11:58:00.005-04:00

I arrived back from a law school trip to New York City on a bright but chilly Sunday afternoon. The first message on my answering machine made my heart sink:

Hey, kiddo, it's Uncle D. Your dad's in the hospital in Florida and he's not doing so well. We've got gramma in the car and we're driving to the airport to catch a flight down there. Call me as soon as you can. Love you. Bye.

As quickly as a I could I called my cousin Lisa up north. We talked for about half an hour. She didn't know a lot but knew more than I did. Sadly, she knew that Dad was in pretty bad shape and things didn't "look real good." We cried. We wondered what to do. We hoped and prayed.

I walked out and told my mom my dad was probably going to die. We cried. She comforted me.

It suddenly struck me try to call the hospital to get the details, maybe even talk to Dad. I was bounced around to several departments but finally was put in touch with one of the nurses in the ICU. Tearfully -- yes, she was crying -- she broke the news that Dad had passed away in the last 30 minutes.

I don't know to describe all the things I felt after that. Within days I was angry. My anger was directed at him. Nothing had equipped me to deal with his death. Oh, I managed to hold together, trying to be strong for my grandma. It was her loss more than mine, or so I felt at the time.

So many emotions and thoughts have come and gone over the last 13 years. There's not much of a point in reliving them. Despite not being one to normally mark anniversaries of things like this, I do find myself reflecting about my father's life, and our relationship, this day each year.

He wasn't the closest person to me nor was he the most important person in raising me, in making me who I am. In fact, he had a lot of shortcomings in that regard. But he was still wonderful. He's my dad. I hope he's well and I get to see him again. Slainte, dad!

The newest addition to our family

2009-03-22T10:27:00.005-04:00

No, we didn't have a baby. The likelihood of that is pretty low. But I did get a new baby, in a manner of speaking.

I've been really wanting to learn to play bass guitar. I didn't want to have to buy a cheap electric bass and then have to buy an amp and all sorts of gear. Since I'll be playing around the house, I figured I'd try to learn on an acoustic. The local music store, Blue Fish Music in Plymouth, had exactly what I was looking for: an inexpensive, decent sounding, easy-to-play acoustic/electric. It's a Dean EABC.

It doesn't have the knock out sound of a true electric bass, but I figure I can move up to something more powerful after I get comfortable with the instrument. I only paid $150 (out the door) so if I lose interest down the road, I won't have lost a lot of money.

So far I'm loving it. My fingers are aching from "playing" for hours last night and again a bit this morning.

Without a doubt, besides reading and writing, I've needed another creative source/outlet and I think the bass will be that. I tried getting back into guitar, but I just don't have the passion and patience to re-teach myself.

"God treasures you . . .

2009-03-17T13:03:00.001-04:00

like a pirate treasures gold." Those were the words of encouragement from my little girl a friend of hers (and our family) who is suffering from Leukemia.

When my wife read those words to me on the card, we both laughed. I can't tell whether my girl came up with that herself or whether it is a saying that's floating around, but it's cute and sweet, whatever the source.

"I don’t tolerate intolerance."

2009-03-16T23:54:00.004-04:00

I saw that sentence in the "about me" section of a fellow blogger's blog. At first I thought, "Gee, that's good." But then it dawned on me: isn't it intolerant to not tolerate intolerance?

I don't know if that's ironic, hypocritical, or simply inconsistent, but I can't seem get past the obvious contradiction.

Oh, sure, I know what the blogger was trying to say, but what he actually said is a contradiction. There are no two ways about it.

This is one of the problems with the absolutist-relativism (another contradiction, an oxymoron perhaps) of the politically correct elements of society. It "I'm OK, you're OK. . . as long we agree." Discrimination is acceptable as long as it is directed at those with which you disagree. Or, put another way, only the "tolerant" (narrowly defined) are "tolerated."

Maybe he should've just kept his rule simple by saying, "Don't say anything mean about anyone else." I think we could all agree that's a reasonable rule.

And the "Safety-Minded Parents of the Year Award" goes to . . .

2009-03-15T21:01:00.002-04:00

*drum roll* *brrrrrrrrt* *crash*

. . . a set of parents I was unfortunately with inside the local Trader Joe's this afternoon.

I'm not one to condemn others' parenting skills too often. This couple, however, allowed their daughter (about 8 years old) to come in the store on rollerblades. Yes, rollerblades. As if that weren't enough, their son was allowed to bring in his soccer ball and dribble it (with his hands, thankfully.)

This family caught my attention when the boy's soccer ball got out of his hands and nearly rolled under my feet as I was navigating around shoppers and in a narrow aisle.

This clan was one of the stranger sights I've seen in a store in some time.

An Irish-free St. Patrick's Day

2009-03-11T22:36:00.004-04:00

For most of my life I've observed St. Patrick's Day. For the last almost 20 years, it has been my favorite day on the calendar. In my younger days, I celebrated with lots of booze and fantastic music. More recently, SPD has been a family day. We have a nice meal and talk about what our heritage means to us.

This year I think I'm gonna sit this one out. In the past I was almost obsessed with my Celtic heritage (I'm Scottish and Welsh, too.) Irish history and politics were my passion. This time last year I was teaching myself the Irish language, and loving it.

But something happened that killed all that in me. I spent a lot of time on an Irish nationalist website. I went there for the cultural stuff, but I also believed I had found kindred spirits politically. Eventually they showed themselves to be things that I despise: Jew-hating, Iran-loving, America-bashing bigots. After some young punk on this particular website talked about how American GI's "raped their way through Europe" during WWII, I couldn't take it anymore. I left the website. I also shelved my Gaelic instruction books and CDs.

What I left there was the part of me that loved Ireland and the Irish people. I'd like to get it back but it's. . . just . . . gone. There's nothing there now. That piece of my heart is dead and I can't seem to revive it, try as I might.

In the wake of that garbage, I went back and re-examined how very little in my personal life has anything to do with a few sets of great-great grandparents finding their way over here from Ireland. I'm an American, I'm not an Irishman. I'm a Yankee, even. Other branches of my family have been in this country since the first few waves of Pilgrim ships started arriving in New England in the 1620s. That's probably more honestly who I am: a Yankee WASP.

It seems silly if you don't know what my life was like a year ago, but this is something like a death for me. Much of the connection (emotional, spiritual) I had to generations that came before is just nonexistent.

Maybe the holiday itself will re-ignite a fondness. For now, though, I plan on simply letting 3/17/09 pass as just another Tuesday in March. I'm hoping it doesn't.

The last gasps of winter

2009-03-06T09:30:00.001-05:00

Today’s a gray, cloudy, wet-feeling day. But it’s warm. Very warm! Spring is almos here; winter almost gone.

The crocuses are poking up through the thawing soil. The earth is the yellow-brown of winter slumber. Snow has disappeared everywhere except the big piles in parking lots.

Everything is grungy. Dirt. Salt. Mud. We await the cleansing of the coming rains.

Will it snow again? Probably. I’d put money on it snowing at least two more times. Today, though, we gather around winter’s death bed, waiting for the death rattle.

The Big Ten Champs

2009-03-03T23:27:00.003-05:00

Cheers to the MSU Spartans men's basketball team who won it's first outright Big Ten conference title in a decade.

This is a great Spartan team. Here's to hoping they do some damage in the NCAA tournament.

Why do bloggers blog?

2009-03-01T14:01:00.002-05:00

I was listening to a talk radio program today that focused on the negatives of the communication age. In the opinions of the host and guest, the internet, computer games, cell phone calling and texting, social networking sites like myspace and facebook, and IM'ing all too often disconnect us from "face-to-face" communication. We substitute real human interaction for electronic chatter. I had to admit that I agreed, but the the host and guest really said nothing new.

What stood out in that discussion was the guest's assertion that these things tend to be very "me-centered." The host called myspace, facebook (not blogging specifically but by implication), and other internet vehicles "emotional capitalism: the self is the commodity."

Now that jumped out at me. I had to ask myself why I have 4 blogs (each with different themes), post on various music and sports message boards/forums, and others focus much of my leisure time in this kind of electronic self expression.

The dirty secret is that I started this blog in the hopes of making money. I got hooked. My varied interests in life seemed to dictate the need for another blog -- one for each interest. I found myself talking with virtually no one around to respond, challenge, criticize, agree, question, supplement or otherwise add to my knowledge or understanding about these things. And I never made a penny.

The goal then became to use my blogs as something of a journal. Th was what I told myself, and there is some validity in that. But, if blogging for me were about chronicling my life (thoughts, emotions, ideas, history), I don't need to be on the internet to do that. I could just write that stuff down on my computer and/or on paper.

So why do I write for public consumption? I think I need to feel like my ideas matter. Deep down, I'm probably looking for recognition, perhaps even praise, from others. Maybe this is my way of feeling like a "somebody." In reality I am a "somebody" but what better (surface) validation can there be for that than the recognition of complete strangers?

I don't think I can answer the question posed in this title, at least not about other bloggers. But I think I answered it for myself.

If we really evolved from chimpanzees...

2009-02-24T13:08:00.003-05:00

how on earth is this cartoon "racist"? In that sense, it is nothing more than an acknowledgment that we are what we are: apes.

*Note: writer does not endorse this point of view. Writer also does not believe we are descended from apes.

My budding young feminist

2009-02-22T07:16:00.004-05:00

I don't know what I said exactly, but my eight year old's response, as she washed her hair and soaked in the tub was, "Why is it 'man-made'? Why isn't it sometimes 'woman-made?'"

She went on: "Why is it 'mankind?'"

I offered an olive branch immediately: "Well, we can always say 'humankind.'"

As if sucked through a vortex back to my college days, where a small number of women actually cared about such language matters, I asked defensively, "Where have you been hearing this stuff? Why does it matter?"

"Because saying something is 'man' takes away from the dignity [yes, I'm pretty sure she used that word] of women."

Wow!

I've always hated identity politics. I especially hate this kind of ticky-tack feminism. Let's talk about equal rights and equal treatment. Let's not get ourselves twisted in a knot over whether a female member of Congress should be addressed "Congresswoman" or "Madame Congressman."

Sometimes something unusual can occur when someone I love deeply states a view I find offensive (obnoxious or annoying are better terms): I listen and consider it instead of shooting it down. I'm not likely to change my mind on an issue like this, but I am still amazed my eight year old is in tune enough to consider the matter and give it voice. Good for her!

But please, please, dear Lord in heaven, don't let me raise a little leftie.

My one man boycott of Compuware-related businesses begins...now!

2009-02-12T13:35:00.003-05:00

Compuware is hiring Kwame Kilpatrick now that he's out of jail.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090212/METRO01/902120444

If Peter Karmanos thinks it's a good idea to hire convicted felon, Kwame Kilpatrick, to work him, I think it's a good idea, if possible, to not buy any of Mr. Karmanos's companies' good and services.

I know Mr. Karmanos cares about the City of Detroit, which makes this move puzzling. Kwame cost that City tens of millions of dollars because he of his thuggery, dishonesty and arrogance. That man might have been the worst mayor ever of any big city in the United States, but Pete K loves him for some reason.

I'm not a complete idiot. I know my opinion on this subject doesn't matter much. I do know, though, that I won't support local businesses like the Plymouth Whalers or Compuware Arena as long as Kwame works for Mr. Karmanos.

We all make choices in life and I'm making mine.

Izzo and the Spartans continue their domination of the Michigan Wolverines

2009-02-10T21:35:00.005-05:00

During so-called "Rivalry Week" on ESPN, Michigan State, once again, beat the lowly Wolverines. UM won the last two games in the series played at Crisler, but couldn't hold off the Spartans tonight.

Here are some blurbs from the Freep Press's article about the game

The Spartans have won 16 of (the last) 19 in the series.
Michigan had won its last two home games against Michigan State, but led the latest matchup just twice in the opening minutes.
* * *
Michigan State is 7-0 in true road games, joining Connecticut, Louisville and Utah State as the only undefeated Division I teams on opponents’ home courts.
The Wolverines have lost seven of their last nine and might’ve been tired against Michigan State, playing their third game in just six days.

I love it! UM's built-in excuse for being awful tonight was that they were "tired." Perhaps it's just that they are a mediocre, at best, team playing the team that should win the Big 10 this year and which is sitting at no. 9 in the national polls.

This never gets old. I hope the Wolverines are lousy for decades to come.

"'Fellowship' is Christian-ese for 'pigging out!'"

2009-02-08T08:07:00.003-05:00

That's an old joke from witch-turned-evangelist, Mike Warnke. It's spot on, too.

Our church home group yesterday got together to bowl, eat and play games. The only thing I excelled at was eating! I ate and ate and ate. The food was delicious, which was part of the problem. I generally lack discipline. Also I will be starting Lent soon, so I've been in the frame of mind that I should "pig out" now before the deprivation starts.

I am really paying for the overeating. I feel poisoned. It feels like an after-holidays hangover. I can't wait to be cleansed.

Random useless observation no. 1

2009-02-05T12:45:00.003-05:00

People like swimming pools.

Any hotel worth its salt has at least a pool suitable for wading. In most suburbs in America, there's hardly a yard (at least where kids live) that doesn't at least have a kiddie pool. You'll probably never say a bona fide mansion without a pool.

Even in the dead of winter, people like to swim. It is pretty common around here for families to rent hotel rooms just so the kids can swim.

When we took our daughter to Disney World for her 5th birthday present, she loved the parks and the rides, but she would've been happy to swim in our hotel pool (shaped like Mickey's head) for most of the stay if we would have let her.

I could go on.

Is there a football game today?

2009-02-01T09:13:00.003-05:00

OK, I'll come clean. I know today is Super Bowl Sunday. I have to admit that if I hadn't stumbled across CNN or MSNBC the last few days, I wouldn't know who was playing in it.

I love college football. Most of my football watching is limited to following the Michigan State Spartans. I no longer have the time or desire to spend 15 hours every fall Saturday watching the other games. I have even less inclination to follow the NFL. In fact, I dislike pro football. To me, it's boring.

The Super Bowl is an event. The game is secondary. I'm neither interested in the game or the event. Lots of folks love to have Super Bowl parties at their homes, at bars, private clubs, etc. But I don't need a football game as an excuse to sit in front of the TV and overeat. I could do that on my own if I wanted.

I've been to many Super Bowl parties but I just find them...boring. I might be the only male in America that couldn't care less about this game. I guess I care enough about it to tell y'all why I don't care for it.

I won't check the score. I won't turn on the game. I won't try to find out who won. I probably won't even have on the news. I'll probably find out the game outcome while I'm standing in line at the local deli and a TV is blaring the news of the week.

For the rest of you, I hope you have fun. I know this is a big day. For me, though, I think I'm going to be reading or writing.

Taking a break from the Quixtar/TEAM story

2009-01-29T12:05:00.002-05:00

My plan was and still is to tell my story about my short stint as a Quixtar IBO affiliated with TEAM. I planned to pick up the story at my attendance at my first monthly seminar. Because this story has so many layers, I am going to take a break from writing about it for a few weeks.

Just to whet your appetites, I will say that I had some fantastic experiences that I would like to describe. I also had some really difficult times, some intense moments of self doubt and frustration. Through all of it I'd like to think that I grew. I definitely see money differently. I also am still of the employee mentality, which is something that has to change in the lives of people that want to be successful in MLM's/direct marketing/network marketing businesses.

When the inspiration hits to pick up the story, I will.

Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath: lessons and reminders

2009-01-26T10:14:00.004-05:00

Forgotten on my bookshelf the last 5 or 6 years has been a set of John Steinbeck books, including his classic Grapes of Wrath. The books look really nice on the shelf, but I wasn't really drawn to them. Oh, I did read two pages of Grapes the day we put the set on the shelf but I quickly lost interest. Last week something drew me back to the book.

Since a week ago yesterday, I hardly put the book down. I'm a slow reader (good, but slow) but I devoured it at a clip of about a hundred pages per night. It is, without a doubt, one of the most powerful, moving, demanding books I've ever read. It's easy reading, written in the phonetic vernacular of its characters. Despite being loaded with themes, symbolism, and allusions, it moves along quickly like a pulp western. I found that I couldn't stand waiting to see what happened next to the Joads and their companions.

I'm hardly an expert on literature. I just know what I like and what I don't like. I know whether or not I am moved, changed. Grapes of Wrath changed me. At least in the short term, while under the book's spell, I see the world in a different light.

Dying to write about it, I was tempted to discuss themes and symbolism, to take on the larger messages of the book. I thought about discussing socio-political issues raised by the book. But I'm simply not qualified to do all that, and scholars make their living on dissecting, breaking down such things. I'll leave all that to them and to you should you pick up the book.

Lesson. Reminders. Parallels. Grapes is set in the 1930's, smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl migrations to California. (In many ways, it reminded me of -- or felt like -- Angela's Ashes which takes place at the same time in Limerick, Ireland.)

To hear people talk now, we're in another depression. People are fleeing my home state for work. Families are losing their jobs and their homes. Government help seems their only short-term option. The parallels are fascinating, yet, it's too easy to draw them, make much out of them.

The contrasts between then and now probably couldn't be more stark. Our poor, for the most part, have food, shelter and clothing. They even have access to medical care. Of course, we have a significant homeless problem, but today's poor generally have their basic needs met. My trips through our so-called "slums" or "ghettos" have shown me families living below the poverty line can still somehow manage to afford satellite TV! Dust Bowl migrants, if they could find work, were lucky to earn $1.50 to $3.00 picking fruit or cotton 10-12 hours a day. That many was barely enough to allow them to feed their families. Shelter was whatever could be found to shield them from the elements.

The reminder for me was how blessed and spoiled I really am. Grapes brought back to mind my grandmother's stories about coming of age during the Great Depression. She remembers her parents and siblings living on a turnip sandwich for dinner; they were happy to have that much (or little.)

It's a work of fiction. Steinbeck was criticized by some as taking liberty with the facts. He and other defended the historicity of the book. Whatever the case may be, Grapes is true and accurate at it's core: life can be hard and the human spirit can endure the most horrible of circumstances.

The book reminded me how soft I really am. Could I survive a job loss? Could we live on one income? What would we do if we could no longer afford our home? What if we had to scale back all of our discretionary spending? I've whined and complained in the past about feeling like I was not getting ahead, about feeling "tied to a job," about having too much work to allow me to keep my weekends free. Maybe I should be thankful for all the many blessings I do have instead of railing about those things I don't have. Grapes, more than our current economic situation, has put that in my face, forced me to reflect on what is important.

I know (or hope) I'll never be the same again.

My favorite moment of the 2008 Presidential election

2009-01-22T14:25:00.002-05:00

We're smack dab in the middle of Obamania. There is a lot of excitement about our new President and the new direction in which our government will be headed. The inauguration was not without flair and drama: millions in attendance, the President's rousing speech, the goofed up oath of office.

To me, all this is just an extension of what has been going on for the last year or more. It's all just part of the so-called "election cycle." And while it is great that the process gave us the first bi-racial President in history, I found this little moment to be my favorite. It might be one of the least significant things to happen, but it's still my favorite.