New Spirit

Patriarchy and King's Kids

2011-09-12T10:14:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia defines patriarchy as such:

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

On the whole I have no problem with this clinical definition EXCEPT for the part about privilege. I would replace that word with "responsibility."

The standing definition seems to imply (without directly saying of course) that the purpose of a patriarchy is to serve the desires of men if a man's role in a patriarchy were limited to sitting around having grapes plopped in his mouth by beautiful women. History of course has never allowed any society to be run this way and the few households that ran this was were not sustainable. And whatever criticism can be laid at the feet of patriarchy it must be acknowledged that it does have the ability to sustain itself across generations.

What is missing in the modern discussion of patriarchy is that the role of the patriarch is to serve his dependents NOT to be served by them. His role is provider and protector. He worked in the fields, fought in wars and built the city walls, that was his job.

Of course many will still be glad that patriarchy is greatly diminished in Western Society. And I have never solved the struggle between egalitarian and patriarchical models for myself and my family BUT if we are to reject patriarchy, let us reject it for what it is rather a straw man.

Which leads me to my reaction of the Prosperity Gospel argument that God provides material wealth to those he loves just as a good father provides material needs to his children.

The problem with Prosperity Gospel which is most difficult is that it does have a Biblical basis. to listen to the Christian critics one would think that those who teach to Prosperity Gospel basically throw the Bible out the window and make the whole thing up for their own interest. The Bible has a ton to say about God providing for the needs of His people, Old and New Testament. However the Prosperity Gospel defenders make the same mistake of the critics of patriarchy: they assume that the purpose of wealth and power is for those who have it simply to enjoy to it without regard to responsibility to others.

To be sure one aspect of wealth is gain your desires. But that is only one part of it and by itself lacks meaning leading to despair. Those who celebrate the Prosperity Gospel state, with great faith, that they are the King's Kids... and that IS how Christians should see themselves. But imagine a good King who had a child who took all of the gifts and privileges of royalty and squandered them on pleasure and vanity and self interest. Wouldn't that King be grieved and ashamed of their child? Wouldn't the good King want their child to serve the Kingdom?

This is especially troubling of metaphor if you continue the metaphor and say the Kingdom is in a state of emergency and many of the King's Kids have been kidnapped and lost (like Disney's Tangled). What an outrage if a prince and princess were delighting themselves with balls and tourneys while their royal brothers and sisters were in enemy hands!

So I agree those of us who trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have been adopted into the family of God and can expect help and provision from our Heavenly Father. We truly are King's Kids but the Kingdom requires responsibility and not privilege.

The Least Privileged Position

2011-07-15T14:48:00.001-07:00

In philosophy club, Chris brought up the classic Platonic distinction in art between composer, performer and audience. He noted that much of the philosophy of art deals with deciding which position is the most privileged. Of course, all of them are necessary but I responded with irony "I don't know which is most privileged but most certainly the creator is the least privileged!" There was some agreement there and Mike shared how of all the song he has written it was the one he spent the least time and energy on that received the most praise. I have heard enough singer song writers say something along the same lines.

But this wasn't what I meant, my humility as sometimes being a creator is not related to the reception of the audience... unless you consider yourself the audience. I have never loved anything I wrote or been proud that it came from me. I have been tickled with a little poem and surprised by what comes out of me from time to time but nothing I've written has been "my baby" so to speak. The frustration and humiliation of being a creator of art (for me) is that I am as much an audience to something (Someone) else. I am a witness to something powerful and beautiful and meaningful beyond my ability to express and when I try to express it all I can say is "That's not right!"

The classic Bruce Lee line where the Master says "When someone points to the moon do not look at his finger." Art (as I understand it) is always a finger pointing to something (Someone) which can not be plainly stated and in some ways I agree with Heinlein that the only joy of writing is being done.

2011-07-15T14:48:00.000-07:00

Psalm 119:1-8

2011-04-26T11:03:00.000-07:00

Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible; it is one super super long Psalm (poem/song) with the first letter of each stanza being the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet (or so I am told). The unifying theme is God's Law.

The Law is a prickly subject (as this Psalm explores). The problem is that humans have some kind of nature (born that way and what not) and the Law often times requires that those who follow the Law deny their natural desires. That means there is a constant tension between what any person wants and what the Law expects.

This difference gets highlighted in the various issues of sexuality quite often but it applies across the board of behavior. Just like a person has a natural desire to do all kind of things with their genitals so too does a person have a natural desire to do all kinds of things with that gun or with their money or their words.

The Psalmist does not deny this conflict (contrary to popular belief the Bible rarely hides from the difficult questions) but rather makes it the central theme. But the perspective will a little unusual to modern ears because it assumes that the Law is good and human desire (though normal) is not good when it contradicts the Law.

In particular I like Psalm 119 better than other Psalms because the speaker laments his own sinfulness rather than cursing the sinfulness of others:

1. Blessed are the undefiled in the way,
Who walk in the law of the Lord!
2. Blessed are those who keep His testimonies,
Who seek Him with a whole heart!
3. They also do no iniquity;
They walk in his ways.
4. You have commanded us
To keep Your precepts diligently.
5. Oh, that my ways were directed
To keep Your statutes!
6. Then I would not be ashamed
When I look into Your commandments.
7. I will praise You with uprightness of heart,
When I learn Your righteous judgments.
8. I will keep Your statutes;
Oh, do not forsake me utterly!

Verses 1-4 seem sort of standard advice: You will be happy if.... Now my secular friends and I might have different ways to fill in that blank but from a structural stand point most advice starts the same way: "You will be happy if...." These verses give a little more detail saying not just to walk in the way of the Lord but to do so with a whole heart and with diligence. So half-way obeying is not going to cut it.

Verses 5-8 make a dramatic shift and suddenly the Psalmist is transformed from the Pharisee in the temple thanking God for making him into such a good person into the tax collector in the temple afraid to look up but just asking for mercy.

Freud would not be surprised by this transition from high ethical standards to anguish and guilt but I think many in our society would be. All too often morality is seen and used as a weapon against non-believers and those who do not meet up with a person's definition of what is good are shown wrath. This is commonly understood happening in a religious context but covers almost any standard of human behavior: are you a good parent, are you punk, what kind of wine do you drink etc. These standards are most often used to judge other people and less commonly (though not unheard of) used to judge one' own self. And not surprising when we judge ourselves we often tend to be a lot more understanding.

This self inflicted judgment is the next step in maturity because when a standard is used against one's the standard has been judged to be good in-its self. I have never heard of someone really getting down on them self for not being goth enough (after high school any way) but the standard that people use to terrorize themselves is used because it is believed to be actually Good, more worthy than ourselves.

Though Freud would disagree with me (along with many others) the belief that we are not Good is the first step towards the possibility of an ethical life. Now how the Bible would describe the rest of the steps is a topic for another book of the Bible.

Gay Stereotyping

2011-04-16T13:22:00.000-07:00

Not long ago one of my younger friends posted some shock rocker thing on Facebook and commented that she thought they were gay because of the way they dress and look but their songs are about doing stuff to girls.

I kind of jumped the gun telling her to not be ignorant and that sexual orientation has nothing to do with fashion, or masculinity/femininity. She deleted my comment. I was a bit short with her and she knows me as a Christian. I assume the thinks means I voted for Prop 8 (true) and hate gay people (not true). So that is probably why she doesn't care what I think of her stereotyping gay people.

I am used to being ignored for being argumentative on Facebook so I didn't take it to heart... but I often post a quote "The casualties in the war of ideas are people." And while I pretty much don't care about government politics and how the money is divided up (up to a point) I do care what people think of gay people... especially people who want to supportive of them... because the consequences of these actions cut to the heart of who people are. Unlike Prop 8 this actually matters.

Now the LGTQ community is not going to be giving me any medals for enlightened thought any time soon. We have pretty serious disagreements about sexuality but one this point we are on the same page: Homosexuality has nothing to do with outward appearance. There are plenty of people living up the stereotypes but this is only a fashion statement. I assume this fashion statement is socially constructed as a kind of solidarity with a community which will not reject the person for their sexuality. A person can mimic some stereotype, just like an actor, but the tone of voice, length of hair or choice of occupation has nothing to do with how people have sex.

I guess one of the reasons I care so much is because I had to go through it. I was a pretty gentle little boy in a family with five pretty masculine older brothers. They weren't that bad but there were times where I was made to feel that since I wasn't as tough or athletic as my brothers there was something wrong with me. That wrongness was expressed through the word "gay." Now this was before I even knew what sex was, let alone homosexuality. There result was a lot of pain and confusion.

Now I am not super worried about this girl spending the rest her life assuming every gentle man prefers sex with men and every female mechanic prefers sex with women. Most likely in the next couple of years she will move away from Fremont to San Fransisco (or the equivalent) and meet people in the lgqt community not from Fremont. She'll meet "normal" looking, outrageously masculine, feminine and utterly bizarre people... some of whom prefer sex with their own gender or multiple genders. After a little while in Babylon she'll know better but I still don't want her to put people in boxes till then.

Singleness

2011-04-05T12:44:00.000-07:00

A preface to this blog is my short story "Sensible People." If you haven't read it (shame on you) here is the link:
http://newspiritezk3626.blogspot.com/2010/07/sensible-people-final-draft-before.html
It will be referenced in this blog.

For those who don't know "Sensible People" was largely inspired by my first real attempt at a relationship since becoming a Christian (and pretty much since high school). The original title was "The Short and Unsuccessful Courtship of a Bitch Named 'Michelle'" which is an AWESOME title. But since I still went to church with Michelle and was reading the story at our Regen art show I felt that would have been inappropriately combative. Michelle was in no way bitchy and even though the original inspiration of the story was our short and unsuccessful relationship the story took a life of its own and "Sensible People" is the correct title.

So every now and then at Bible study during prayer requests I will ask for prayer about singleness. Most of my Christian life so far can be called contently single. I would joke that being single is my spiritual gift and I am think in many ways I could serve as an example of how to be godly in singleness (and humility). But over the last few years this contentment has changed to a need for intimacy, partnership and relationship. So we bring up our needs in prayer.

Now when asking for prayer from friends who know you pretty well you will not only receive prayer but also well meant advice. I try to bite my lip when I feel compelled to fix people's prayer needs rather than lift it up to God (like requested). I can not tell you how successful I am at simply hearing prayer requests and then praying about it without telling people who to avoid needing that prayer request. Ask someone else how I do with that.

Jesse has no qualms about giving advice with his prayers. But that's fine, Jesse knows me pretty well, has a decent head on his shoulders and will actually pray after giving the advice. His advice to me is something like "Stop dating the same kind of girl."

I have thought long about that advice since I am not sure what "the same kind of girl" he is talking about. I mean, what did Michelle and Jennifer have in common aside from going out with me for a short time and being committed Christian?

And then I thought about Pam... I never dated Pam. She was older than my mom and I never knew her when she wasn't terminally ill with cancer (of which she has since died).

I was very fortunate to know Pam at a time and place in her life when there was no pretense or boundaries. I was her weekly ride to chemotherapy and she talked about whatever she wanted to talk about and I listened. I don't think it is possible to be as open as she was in so short of a time without cancer.

One time waiting in the doctor's office she talked about a time she was asked out by a guy from her church. It was years and years earlier, long before she had dealt with cancer. She said how she asked around a little bit and everyone said he was a stand up guy so she agreed. He took her to a concert of some kind and they were having a good time. But then he ordered a glass of wine and she said it was like strike one, two and three right there. Now it wasn't that she had come from a background of alcohol abuse or anything but she immediately decided she wouldn't see him again.

That pretty much sums up the few relationships I've been in. Michelle's break up makes more sense since I made a lot of rookie mistakes but that is after years of perspective, but at the time my reaction to it (like Jennifer and other even shorter and more unsuccessful attempts) is consistently confusion.

So I think I have discovered aside from an insistence on faith in Christ and a tendency to like book smarts I would say my type is: women who are not ready for a relationship.

I certainly did not think of Michelle like a dog hit by a car on the side of the road going out with her, Jennifer either. But there is something very similar in how I approached girls I am attracted to and how I tried to care for that dog (whose name I never learned). There is a slow and steady movement, a patience and careful intention. To be sure there is all kind of baggage too, I mean I would never go out with a girl like the famous Liz (my first love, who broke my heart and went out with my twin brother).

But every relationship I have attempted in the last decade has been in some ways an approach towards a girl who I sensed in some ways was very hurt. There is always this hope that if I am careful enough and gentle enough and patient enough we can meet at a point in time where she can trust again.

So far no dice... and I did ask out a girl who was totally not my type... but she thought I was inviting her to coffee so I could lecture her about something. When I made myself more clear she gracefully begged off.

And the end of Pam's story about the the guy striking out for drinking a glass of wine she said "And a while ago I was at a concert and had a glass of wine myself, so I guess I've grown."

City on a Hill

2011-03-30T15:45:00.000-07:00

One of the constant struggles for a Christian seeking to follow God is to find the balance between showing righteousness (as understood by God) and resisting sinfulness (as understood by God). In church you will sometimes hear someone say "There are only two things you can do in this world which you can't do in heaven: sin and teach people about Jesus." The implied question is "what should our life be about?"

Some people believe that when someone becomes a Christian they some how can or some how ought to be able to resist sin in all situations and live with perfect integrity. This is not what the Bible teaches and not what has ever happened. Rather Christians are still tempted and sometimes allow themselves to be carried away, which is heartbreaking for God, the individual and all other Christians. In that sense it is one of a Christian's calling to resist sin in themselves and flee from things that influence them towards sin while chasing after things that influence them towards righteousness. This need has caused many Christians to flee from their world and society in order to live a more righteous life.

The problem with this is first that the isolated Christian or community is still infected by sin and though they may sin less (maybe) they still sin. So it is not as if withdrawing from the world really solves the problem.

But more important complete withdrawal is against God's will. The escape from sin was accomplished by Jesus Christ's death and resurrection and hiding from this wicked world does not accomplish it (otherwise we wouldn't have needed God to save us). But more than that God has specifically called Christians to be in the world, like a contrast to the normal worldly world.

Jesus described the believer's role like salt, which brings out flavor in food and also in His day was also for medicine. He also said His followers should be like light (a city on a hill) which people could clearly see or like a lamp on a table which exist specifically to be different than the darkness around it. This points to the Christian's need to be in the world of regular people and showing what God is like.

But in that same part Jesus reminds us that we are not supposed to be like the world, if a salt loses its saltiness no one would keep it, a lamp under a basket is useless. Christians are not just supposed to be in the world with Christian bumper stickers but in the world while also different from the world.

The problem and conflict for a believers is that just as the light of Christ found in us can influence people in the world towards Christ... so too can people in the world influence the believer towards the world. "Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Cor 15:33) So there is a kind of balancing act where a Christian needs to soberly and wisely understand when we are showing others what God is like through their good conduct, self-control and grace towards others ... and there are times where we are falling into the same kind of thing that everyone does.

I haven't got it all figured out but I think the answer goes something like this: recovering alcoholics should not hang out bars.

Philipians 1

2011-03-12T10:31:00.000-08:00

"And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God." Philipians 1:9-11

So I am not like Paul. I don't travel from town to town helping start new churches. Sure I tithe and teach Sunday school twice a month but the general life structures (work, school and so forth) is pretty much the same as it could have been if I had never become a Christian. One might say that Christianity might have once been useful to get my life on track but now that my life is "on track" Christianity seems to be window dressing to an otherwise normal life. This kind of thinking is horrifying when compared to what the Bible seems to expect (imitating Paul who imitates Jesus).

But at the same time I can say with confidence that despite my many weaknesses and failing that my life is defined by following the call of Christ. There is growing knowledge and discernment. This is usually concerning my own weaknesses and failings but also about God's grace through Jesus Christ, which alone is sufficient to justify my life despite my weaknesses and failings. There is growing approval of what is excellent and fruit (actions) of righteousness.

Paul had the circumstances available to travel from town to town. His old life was traveling from town to town (though to destroy not create Christian churches). The circumstances of my life are very much different in structure.

In theory I could leave this life structure behind, become a missionary and imitate Paul in that respect... but to do so would be to abandon my family. Now certainly there are Biblical precedents to support this decision but in my heart of hearts I do not think this is what God calls me to (there are also Biblical precedents to support this decisions).

In truth if I were left to my own inclinations, like say in the after-life, I would be much more inclined to live a some what isolated life, reading and writing in the quiet of my room till about lunch, then spending the day listening to my friends and family play music and hike with a small group through shady forests or perhaps at a misty beach. Dinner with the larger community followed by a bonfire where we all sing "Holy, holy, holy." Then off to bed.

I believe that this sort of life is waiting for me and I will start some of it here and now... but for the most part I do not chase after this in the way normal people chase after the things they want. Though Jemuel and Nitzsche disagree I firmly believe that this life, this world is not our home and not all we have to work with. So before I get what I really want I chase after what God has put in front of me.

God put apostleship, church founding, letter writing and prison in front of Paul and he ran towards it though it was, as he said, like him being poured out of a vessel. But in front of me God has put three imperfect, needy women in my family who have been abandoned by every man in their life and live on the razor edge between destitution and despair... and so like Paul I am being poured out like a vessel on what God has put in front of me.

Now if Paul and I are incorrect about this another world and another life after this one then I would have been much wiser to chase after my own inclinations here and now. But though I struggle I am putting my chips on what the Bible says as opposed to Nitzsche or who ever.

Job 33-35

2011-02-25T14:23:00.001-08:00

So Job's critics have been silenced and Job gave a three chapter speech summarizing his innocence. This speech was a summary of most of Job's earlier speeches in that it glorified himself and criticized God's actions in even allowing Job to suffer.

After this a fourth different critic answers Job AND his critics:Elihu. Elihu is different from Job's former critics in that he answers Job's actual words and focuses on God's greatness rather than Job's sinfulness.

I doubt that Elihu would be very compelling to modern humanist understanding. His message is similar to Paul's "Does the clay have the right to judge the potter?" This goes against modern sensibility which rarely says but fully rests upon the idea that human understanding is capable of the deepest insights and no level of knowledge is beyond human wisdom.

Elihu responds concerning God

If he set his heart to it
and gather to himself his spirit and his breath,
all flesh would perish together,
and man would return to the dust

this will be continued in Job when the Lord shows up to answer Job "Were you there when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

It is not pleasant for man to think about the brevity of his life or the limitation of his understanding. I remember an old Star Trek, Next Generation where Cpt. Picard in his debate with Q asserts that Q's problem with humanity is its potential to be like a God. Certainly that is Nietzsche's perspective, though he wouldn't use that particular word.

To which I boldly reply: "Nuh uhh."

Job 28

2011-02-21T15:40:00.000-08:00

Job starts with something in between Hamlet's "What a piece of work is man..." and Sophocles' "Manifold are the uncanny, yet nothing looms or stirs more uncanny than the human being...." Job describes the mighty works of man and sees them with a wonder and novelty as if he were an outside history and seeing it for the first time. If you think about it there is something unbelievable about man digging deep, deep into mountains to find jewels and training the soil to grow bread.

But Job is not praising man but setting up a contrast. In the first eleven verses it is about the infinite faculty of mankind to seek and find what he desires, but then at verse twelve he sets up what man cannot find:

But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?
Man does not know its worth,
and it is not found in the land of the living. (28:11-12)

Job then goes on in verses 13 through 19 to say how impossible it is to buy wisdom and then in verse 20 asking logically (though rhetorically) "From where, then, does wisdom come? And where is the place is understanding?"

Now the answer might be considered Bible stereotype; it comes from God, of course; but in the context the answer is very significant because for the first time in a long time Job is recognizing God and praising Him. It is at the end of the chapter that Job states the origin of wisdom: "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding."

Job 25-26

2011-02-14T12:08:00.000-08:00

For some reason I am not sure I had notes on Job 25-26 already written in my Bible. The reading comprehension of these two chapters is pretty simple: 25 are six verses which simply say that God is so mighty no one could understand Him. Here is a memorable line:

"Behold, even the moon s not bright,
And the stars are not pure in his eyes;
How much less man, who is a maggot,
And the son of man who is a worm." (25:5-6)

Of course, this is the voice of Bildad not Job or God. But Job's answer (full of faith) is interesting because it denies nothing of what Bildad says... while refuting it completely. But his early line "With whose help have you utterer words,, and whose breath has come out from you?" is telling in context with the preface to Job's troubles. Seeing how the Enemy's goal is to get Job to speak against God, Bildad, Eliphaz and Zophar's speeches seem to be serving the Enemy's goal.

Job's answer is to say how mighty God is and expands on His power. He describes God's power opening the grave, splitting the heavens, stilling the sea and piercing the fleeing serpent and then (and this is the key line for my understanding):

Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways,
and how small a whisper do we hear of him!
But the thunder of his power who can understand? (26:14)

This leads to what I wrote whenever-ago:

Job has faith. His speech seems to support what Bildad said but Job has a different conclusion. Even that man can never be pure in God's eyes is an arrogant statement. Truly, Job agrees that the Lord is beyond our comprehension but that presupposes it is also possible for God to be so mighty as to also love man, to be able to see him as pure and make it true. Bildad assumes too much knowledge of God and puts limits on His power.

I still agree with myself from back whenever-when.

Job 23-24 and Nietzsche

2011-02-11T09:44:00.001-08:00

This is a very exciting place for me because I believe that God has revealed the meaning of a book of the Bible to me. Let me unwrap that statement.

I do not mean that there is some magical, secret meaning of Job which has been revealed to some special servant of God (me). That is silliness; Job is an open book, literally. Every book in the Bible is open, written plainly... yes even Revelation and Daniel. Sure there is some research that helps in the understanding (genre, context, maturity and so forth) but on the whole the Bible is translated well enough into the English language and anyone who can read can understand it.

What I mean is that I believe that I have reached enough understanding of Job to actually teach it to other people. I already knew the main theme: God allowing suffering and needing an answer to this. But I knew all of that from the introduction written by editors, not by my own reading of the book. I knew from reading the last (very readable) chapters of Job that he would be reconciled with God and what not but now I can see the movement within the long winded speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar how Job came to understand his own faith and the unrighteousness of the counsel of E, B and Z.

Certainly my new understanding is sophomoric just as it is in Revelation, Galatians, John and the other books I think I know well enough to teach but here I am... a sophomore for God!

These two chapters are a big step in revealing Job's progress. He rightly describes God and has a surprising (divinely inspired) knowledge of his own destiny with God. It is Davidic in its faith that God will acquit him and that he will be answered (rather than rejected) by God. But this acquittal is still fearful because he sees God as mightier than him. God is not a benign, slightly senile grandfather who would never ever say anything bad about his delightful chubby grandchildren... but He is a righteous judge who for reasons unrevealed and inexplicable does not reject Job.

The second chapter in the speech might appear as a digression where Job questions God's judgment in allowing the wicked to proceed in relative peace and harmony but this does not show a lack of faith in god but a true knowledge of His character. Much later in Revelation (9:6) the saints who sit before the alter after being slain for the Word of God ask the same thing "How long, oh Lord? How long?" This questioning is not an accusation of injustice but a hunger for the justice believed to be coming. Job asking and wanting and caring for the kind of justice which is the character of God means that Job understands what God is really like.

...

I have started the task of wrestling the philosopher Nietzsche (now referred to as N) . Philosophy club has started "The Genealogy of Morals." N is describing the trend of his past writing up to this point and in some ways will be summarizing it. It starts with his task to describe the history of how Western society has come with its current ideas of good and bad.

He describes that long ago (maybe he would say originally) the idea of good and bad were associated with the ability to return good for good and bad for bad. A good person was someone who could pay people back for what they did. So Achilles was a good man because if you hurt him he had the capacity to hurt you back. If you blessed him, he had the means to pay you back. But a bad person (despicable, disgusting, common) was someone that even if you did good to could not or would not repay you. And if you harmed that bad person he could or would not repay you. That was what the ancient people (according to N) thought of as good and bad. And by this understanding goodness was much more associated with strength (of various kinds) than intention.

I'd like to write further but have a dentist appointment.

Job 22

2011-02-10T16:19:00.000-08:00

Eliphaz restates (though with more force and specific detail) his original criticism of Job: he must have deserved what he got.

The specific criticism is no light weight stuff considering the nature of God's character:

"Is not your evil abundant?
For you have exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing
and stripped the naked of their clothing.
You have given no water to the weary to drink,
and you have withheld bread from the hungry.
The man with power possessed the land,
and the favored man lives in it.
You have sent widows away empty,
and the arms of the fatherless were crushed."

This is the kind of stuff God takes very seriously. Of course most times the prophets warned against God's judgment for these sort of behaviors they were warning people but rarely (if ever) telling weeping people in the street "I told you so."

There are two problems with Eliphaz's criticism:

We the audience know that they are inaccurate. Now if the book of Job were a history of a king or noble we might consider chapters 1-2 as fluff written under the guidance of mighty hands but Job is written less as a history and more as a parable or drama. It may well have been historical but that has nothing to do with how it was written. So as an audience we can not think of Eliphaz's criticism as accurate or even sincere because god has described Job as a just and righteous man and Eliphaz has enough knowledge of Job's life to know it. Eliphaz knew what sort of life Job lived and would know that he was not such a wicked oppressor. This makes Eliphaz seem a vicious, vicious mocker.
But suppose that we take Eliphaz's statements as more humanitarian finger pointing rather than malicious lies one would wonder what sort of life Eliphaz lives. If he correct that any person who lives a comfortable or rich life is counted wicked while there are still poor people then who is counted innocent at all? Who could escape Job's fate? Certainly not Eliphaz, he was a peer of Job. If he was not as rich as Job he most certainly was in his neighborhood. Eliphaz ought not have been judging Job but quaking in fear.

My application of Job is starting to materialize:
Do not be like Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar
I live a sweet, sweet, sweet life. It is filled with all kinds of comforts and confidences that mostly began around the time of my conversion. Most of the stuff I am praised for was not true before I was a Christian. There is this tendency to think how lucky (if not smart) I was to be a Christian and to make the solution to other people's woes: be more like me. "Are you poor and struggling? Be more like me!" "Are you depressed and suffer from low self esteem? Be more like me!" "You want God's blessing? Be more like me!"

Though I hope this sort of thinking is rare but it is a danger. The truth is that even though I have received a crap load of blessing from God and have found great joy in following God but God does not love me more than those who suffer, I have not earned my blessing and God is worthy of praise without these many blessings I have received.

And there is an important remembrance: the greatest joy of my conversion was at day one. It was knowing that God loved me. I like having some financial security, good looks and respect but I would give all of that up in favor of knowing God's love. Or put another way I can imagine living poor and ugly and disliked... but I would never go back to my life without Jesus Christ, not for all of the gifts this life could offer.

This is not a great statement about my character but a simple observation: the poverty in God's family is richer than the wealth in the world.

So don't be so judgmental, Mikey.

Job 21

2011-02-09T10:37:00.000-08:00

Here Job finally answers, for himself though probably not his critics, the question of instant karma. His critics have been saying that he must have sinned against God to have such horrible things happen to him because "that is just how it works" (paraphrase). With powerful language Job answers them:

"How often is it that the lamp of the wicked put out?
That their calamity comes upon them?
That god distributes pain in his anger?
That they are like straw before the wind.
and like chaff that the storm carries away?
You say, 'God stores up their iniquity for their children,'
Let him pay it out to them, that they may know it"

Job spends most of the chapter talking about how pleasant their life is, their children singing and dancing, their calves born healthy and the weather so nice... with dinner parties and egg salad though they say to God 'Depart from us! We do not desire the knowledge of your ways." If they are so wicked as to hate God then why are they not destroyed like Job has been?

I some how doubt Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar will acknowledge Job's point. Jesus however certainly agreed with Job here pointing out "God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust" and when a tower collapsed killing the workers people said it was because of some sin Jesus said "Be careful or something worse could happen to you." But my favorite would be in the Gospel of John when his disciples asked Jesus why this man was born blind, "For his sins or the sins of his parents?" Jesus does more than refute the instant karma argument which says if you do evil, evil will come to you, he answers why God who is all powerful, all knowing and all loving would not just allow but perhaps even to causes someone to be born blind. Jesus says "It was not for this man's sins or his parents' sins that he was born blind but so that God's power could be shown through him." God allows suffering so that He can reveal His character by comforting and healing that suffering.

Of course, the counter argument from the peanut gallery is "Wouldn't it have been better if God had simply never allowed any suffering to enter the world? Wouldn't the man still have an argument against God for the first 30 something years spent blind." My only answer is that we can not answer that question for other people. It is insufficient to answer this question "in theory" for someone else.

Now the cured blind man in John could have perhaps said "God you were wrong to have made me blind." But theoretical philosophers, such as myself, cannot say with justice if God's healing was worth the suffering endured. We can only answer for ourselves.

For myself... I have suffered a fair share of undeserved calamity, most of it in the first ten years of my life. I don't know how you can say "it could have been worse" fairly but certainly I have met people who have endured much worse. Still the result of what I did suffer caused great despair and my old motto "my world is cold and without hope" was not melodramatic but a common sense (almost bored) assessment of my life up to that point.

I can say for me who has suffered that God's healing extended through time and made the whole of my life a blessing rather than a curse and I praise Him and His wisdom in allowing what has happened in my life.

Job 20

2011-02-08T14:38:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Job seemed to have made a breakthrough of sorts... and I peeked ahead to see that in chapter 21 he is going to make even more progress... but today I was stuck with Zophar's non-response.

I say it is a non-response because it does not address anything Job actually has said. But the interesting thing about this chapter is that out of context it is not at all contradictory with the main thrust of the Bible. The chapter is a lengthy description of how short the time of the wicked is and that in the day of the Lord's wrath they will lose everything.

In context of Job the unstated point is that Job's situation mirrors the situation of the destiny of the wicked so he must be one of the wicked. Zophar's way of thinking might be described as ideological. It has an idea of how the universe works and insists that evidence meet that idea rather than wrestle with the occasions of contradictions.

This kind of thinking is human (all too human) but completely unfair to Job.

...
In unrelated Biblical news I have heard an interpretation of the Pearl of Great Value and the Hidden Treasure from Matthew 13 that I like. The pastor said "The common interpretation of this parable is that we Christians are the person finding the pearl or treasure which is faith in Jesus..." and the funny thing was a soon as he said that I immediately knew and agreed with what he was supposed to say... because OF COURSE we aren't the ones winning the kingdom of God by being so wise and self-sacrificing.

The Christian does grow in knowledge of God's supreme value and imitates Christ in sacrifice but not even the best of us was so wise to seek or know God... but rather we were sought after by Him and purchased by Him through Jesus Christ (who is God). In the parable we are the treasure, the pearl and Jesus is the one who finds us and gives all He has to purchase us. There are other contextual signs which strengthen this interpretation and though they are valid really it is in knowing my relationship with God which informs this interpretation.

Some might say that imagining myself the treasure Jesus would give everything to purchase seems more egotistical than imagining myself wise enough to know and seek God... but I am not saying I am worth the cost. I am saying Jesus believes I (and those saved) are worth the cost and He proved it by accepting a death on the cross.

Job 19

2011-02-07T12:17:00.000-08:00

Exciting developments in Job today!

Job actually answers his friends' arguments. Up to this point since Job has been smited by the Enemy (with the Lord's permission) the book has been a back and forth of Job lamenting his situation and his frenemies blaming him for his situation. Neither side would listen or respond to the other but would restate their original position with greater passion. It was sort of life an abortion debate.

But then in this chapter for what seems to be for no reason Job answers his Bildad. His answer is not super righteous but it ends even more surprisingly. His answer is something like "Well MAYBE God is punishing me for some sin" which had been Bildad and Eliphaz's argument " BUT He is the one who put me in this situation to begin with." Job then goes on to list all that God has done to him and then degrades back into lamenting how horrible his situation is and how horrible his friends are to criticize him.

I am in some ways critical of Job's reasoning here, but am forgiving because he is in the middle of a terrible, terrible tragedy. All of his kids have been killed, his livelihood destroyed and his body is falling apart... it would be weird if his arguments were sound and logical. Suffering does not work this way and those cool, logical commentators on their own tragedy seem more damaged than those pulling out their hair, tearing their clothes and pouring ashes on their head.

But the end of the chapter is even more illogical. If I wrote it myself people would (perhaps correctly) that the change in character was too abrupt and did not make sense. But suddenly Job says despite the fact that he is wrongly accused, and unjustly punished and better off dead that some day, even after his flesh is destroyed, he will see God with his own eyes and his Redeemer lives.

It is the most quoted part of Job in the Evangelical circles (Amy Grant I think does a song which samples from Job and the chorus is the line "And I know my Redeemer lives") but what hit me this reading is how out of character it is for Job and for the stage in religious development at the time.

Job one of the least Jewish/Israeli books of the Old Testament. From the text itself it is pretty hard to tell exactly when it was set, really anywhere in between Judges and the Exile would make sense but I haven't seen anything in the text to say it could not have been set in the days of Abraham or Maccabees.

But that Job would suddenly say "I know I will see God with my own flesh... even if my flesh has been destroyed" seems totally unlike so much of the Old Testament. I would wonder where the idea would even come from.

Secular scholars would have their own nice, little answers but their method presupposes that the universe operates according to secular rules. Though they rarely state it at the beginning of their answers; everything they say interpreting religious texts could begin "Since God does not act in the universe we suppose...." That is fine for secular thinkers but however well developed their answers it is all based on a philosophical position which I do not accept.

So for me, believing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has, does and will act in this universe see the question of how Job comes up with this surprising resurrection idea is a little different. Of course the secular answer: "Job probably heard it from some Egyptian or Babylonian religion" is not impossible but I would tend disregard it because after Moses foreign religious ideas would make one the worst form of blasphemer. If Job was influenced by Egyptian or Babylonian religions then the original audience of Job would see him as a sinner and all of Eliphaz's and Bildad's criticism of him would be valid. The lesson of the story would be "Believe in Ba'al leads to destruction" but so from a purely literary standpoint it would be essential that Job does not go to other gods for comfort, though he rail against the Lord God.

This is too long so I am going to stop.

Job 18

2011-02-04T17:38:00.000-08:00

What a jerk that Bildad is! But at the same time, I don't think there is a single condemnation he brings before Job which is not ultimately accurate. Those who love wickedness and hate God will be destroyed and nothing will be left of them... but what Bildad says nothing about (perhaps knows nothing about) is God's mercy.

On Judgment Day it won't be the good guys who were awesome, smart and strong enough to love God who remain. It will be those who received mercy.

What makes mercy, mercy is that the person who receives it does not deserve it. I mean if my sins were all just a big misunderstanding which were not really my fault then salvation would be justice not mercy. To receive mercy means, by definition, to not deserve it.

Now to know you are saved by mercy rather than justice actually can put you in a rather awkward situation. You know you don't deserve God's love, to enter into his presence, you are unfit to untie His sandal. But at the same time you are compelled to enter into God's presence, to know Him personally, to be received by Him.

As far as I understand the basic Islamic position this is where you end up, not worthy to know God but accepted as a servant/slave. And it is logical, it makes sense. It is mercy enough of God to not smite you and it is pretentious to imagine you could have any sort of relationship with such a holy one beyond that of tolerated worker.

The only way a sinful human could even in theory move beyond this status (which is in itself undeserved grace) would be if God Himself demanded otherwise. What makes a Christian able to call God Almighty "Father" is that this is what He names Himself.

And so a Christian is like a beggar sitting at the outer gates of the Temple who is sent for, washed, clothed and brought past the hall of Gentiles, the hall for the women, past the hall for men, past where only priests may enter and into the Holy of Holies where only the High Priest could enter (once a year with the sanctifying blood still fresh) and presented to God Himself as a Son.

It would be unthinkable if it were the will of anyone other than God.

Job 16-17

2011-02-02T15:07:00.000-08:00

I'm continuing my exploration of Job and now Job answers the rebuke of Eliphaz. Eliphaz had been continuing his original position (16 chapters later) that God must have a reason to punish Job so it must be Job's fault. Job now continues his original position (16 chapters later): my comforters are lousy, I'm dieing in despair and have no one to comfort me despite my innocence.

What really struck me was the end of Job's speech: "If I hope for the grave as my house, if I make my bed the darkness, if I say to the pit 'You are my father,' and to the worm, 'My mother,' or 'My sister,' where then is my hope? Who will see my hope? Will it go down to the bars of the grave? Shall we descend together into the dust?" (17:13-16)

Before I knew Christ's love I wasn't too different from Job. I certainly imagined myself innocent, and perhaps I was like Job in having no role in the calamity that befell my life. But what really pained me and brought me to despair was not what actually happened in my life. That was bad sure, but that wasn't my problem. It was this sense that I was completely alone and without any hope. The general trend of all life seemed like a steady downward spiral, perhaps I could find some comfort that the descent was slow or steady but it was all leading to a big, dark drain from which there was no escape.

I had had plenty of comforters who told me (perhaps correctly) that my life wasn't that bad. "Just be happy" Liz Cassidy would always say. But these Eliphaz and Bildad's failed to recognize was that the problem was that life did not have a recognizable hope.

Maybe if I had read Sartre I could have made up my own hope but in so far as life has actual reality that would only been a comfort before the abyss swallowed me up.

The only real comfort, is the comfort Job sought: to know God as a father rather than judge. That can make sense of our comfort and wipe away all tears in the way nothing else can. That is the hope I proclaim, found through Jesus Christ, trust worthy and true.

Job 15

2011-02-01T14:19:00.000-08:00

My Bible studies have been sort of lax the last year and so I am hoping to give it some structure by posting my post-thoughts on a blog. I don't believe in magic bullets in spiritual exercises where "If you do x,y,z you will be blessed..." but at the same time I do think that there is intrinsic merit in studying the Bible, sharing your thoughts and doing this with regularity (practiced).

Job 15 is a continuation of a back and forth argument between Job and three of his friends about whether or not God was fair to Job. In the first few chapters we learned why Job's life so suddenly fell apart but the characters in the book only know that all of the sudden Job has lost everything.

The discussion starts reasonably polite where Job is in pain and asking why God has done this to Him and his friends saying that God is fair and Job must have done something to deserve it. That dialog has gone back and forth several times and each time it gets a little more tense and hostile.

By chapter 15 one of the friends, Eliphaz, says God is so holy that nothing can insist upon any goodness in His sight... "how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water!" (v. 16)

Now verses 1-15 I agree with completely... but at 16 where Eliphaz suggests that his friend, who he has shared bread with, is a wicked, wicked man shows a real disconnect. I don't know why he thinks Job is so horrible all of the sudden but I think it is because Job has suffered. He believes, as was not uncommon in the ancient world, that God only allowed the wicked to suffer but never the innocent. I had heard the same sort of argument used to justify the cruelty in the Hindhu caste system: "they deserve to be untouchables because of what they did in their last life."

This is of course a logical error: "God punishes sinners with suffering, you are suffering THEREFORE you must be a sinner." is the same sort of statement as "When it rains the street is wet, the street is wet THEREFORE it must have rained."

But for me even if it were not such a classic logical fallacy it would still be wrong... because Eliphaz knows (as only Eliphaz could) that even if he were a better person than Job... he wasn't that much better. If Eliphaz really thought God was punishing Job it should have scared the heck out of him because he could (should) be next.

The Bible is pretty clear that though God does judge the wicked and the just with punishments and rewards in this life there is still a lot of rewards for the wicked and punishments for the just. Early in Job there is one answer as to why this happens but that is not interesting to me right now. It is enough to know that even if I lived a life more justly than Job I could still expect a fair share of tragedy. Much of the Bible would suggest that this just living would result in greater tragedy here and now.

Entering the Holy of Holies

2010-11-27T22:58:00.000-08:00

So I'm a bit of a Bible Geek... kind of. I know that there are plenty of people who know the Bible way more than me and I don't think that the kind of fact retention is actually spiritual but it's just the kind of guy I am. I mean I'm pretty close to the same way with Lord of the Rings but that doesn't mean that I actually like the book better than some thirteen year old kid who is reading it for the first time.

So I sometimes think about the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Solomon and just think it is cool. Cool, like a +5 Sword of Transformation cool. I think part of it started with Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (melting faces and what not) and as outrageous as the stuff in that movie depict what the Bible describes is so much more over the top if only because it is described in such a realist way. For example it is described how the High Priest (who is only allowed to enter once a year) has a rope tied to him so that if he is struck dead that the other priests can pull him out of the Holy of Holies without being struck down themselves. It is just cool in a very dorky D&D way.

When ever I read Old Testament stuff I always put myself in the shoes of the person messing up. I am almost always the masses of Israel falling into transgression that they should have known better, I am rarely the one bold Prophet who is willing to call people on it. So when I think about the Temple, and what it would have been like for the people of Israel I think it would have been terrifying... but still so captivating.

The Temple held the Ark of the Covenant which was a sign that God was with the people, inside of the Ark is a jar of mana (from when their ancestors wandered the wilderness), the staff of Aaron (the sign of the priesthood) and the freaking stones the ten commandments were broken on (Oh my freaking gosh!). To be an Israelite and know your history was to be terrified because your ancestors did not accept God's mana, they had rebelled against the priesthood and broke the commandments. To think about the Temple and the Holy of Holies and the Ark of the Covenant is to see the holiness of a real God and the real sinfulness inside of yourself. The only way I can imagine it could be stood was because once a year God allowed one person, the High Priest, to enter into the Holy of Holies and make a sacrifice of blood for all of the people.

In so many ways it sounds just like all of the same stuff that all of the people were doing religiously four thousand years ago, appease an angry god, blood of a goat, gold for the temple yada yada. But for me I am constantly putting myself in the story and so by the time there is a temple to worship at I have already heard God's promise of more children than the stars, I have seen how the Lord led that family into Egypt and I have seen how the Lord led that family out of Egpyt and in the wilderness and out of the wilderness into the Promised Land. I have seen all of it and the whole way through I have been messing up and every time the Israelites (I) have mess up in retrospect it seems so dumb.

"Why did they rebel against God? He just lead them out of Egypt!"
"Why did they rebel against God, again? They are just going to fall back into slavery!"

And so when I get to the time of Temple worship I can understand the fear of this layered temple where first anyone can come to pray, then the level only Jews can enter and then the level only Jewish men can enter and then the level only priests can enter and then the level only the High Priest, once a year, can enter, and I understand how much a person would want to enter the Holy of Holies but it would be so terrifying, so much bigger even than the High Priest. I can see both the fierceness and the beauty of the Lord God Almighty and feel both the aversion and attraction of even just the idea of holiness (to say nothing of the reality).

And then in my own life, every day I am a jumbled mess of sins and perversions and corruptions and hypocrisy. But I think about what it means to be a Christian and before bed I read a Psalm... except the Psalms are so often written from a righteous perspective that the only way I can believe them is if it were Jesus the one saying them. So I read the Psalm but am imagining what it would be like to be able to say the same. And then I often have the mental image of how the New Testament says that as a Christian I am the Temple and inside of me is the Holy of Holies with its gates and its layers which would prevent the least of sin to enter and the only way I can imagine it would be possible to enter is a blood sacrifice from the High Priest.

As a geek I know that the Indiana Jones response, close your eyes and hopefully God won't smite you, would be correct. But as a Christian I know that the sacrifice has been made and at any time I can enter the Holy of Holies and be in the presence of a God so holy I am tempted to capitalize even His adjectives.

It is like water for a thirsty soul and I just wish I could share it, that continues to be my wish.

New Short Story

2010-09-15T16:54:00.000-07:00

I'm working on a new short story. This is what I have so far:

On Sunday, January 1st, 1950 Scarlet made one New Year's Resolution: to stop going to church. The minister had read than morning from Revelation 2 "thou sufferest that woman Jezebel... commit fornication... I will cast her into a bed... great tribulation... I will kill her children..."

"I was only going to be politer," she explained to her mother, "and if they can't extend me the same courtesy I see no reason to continue the hypocrisy.

"Besides," she added nonchalantly. "I've read Nathaniel Hawthorn and understand how all of that really works."

Honey had not read Nathaniel Hawthorn but neither had she read the Bible outside of a church building. She feigned scandalization with the appropriate signs of outrage and fear but she had never once denied her daughter any desire and was not about to start now that she was a smart, independent young woman. Honey insisted that her granddaughter continue to attend church, for decency's sake, and with that was able to keep appearances. Honey might not have any great confidence of her place in the Kingdom of Heaven but knew where she stood with the neighbors. Honey and granddaughter would continue to be polite for a few more decades until the neighbors stopped caring, died or moved away.

Scarlet only had one child intentionally: Angelica Pearl Elder, born in late December 1956. Angelica would eventually become the only sincerely religious member off the family since the Grand Old Thornburg but in the pleasant carefree Fifties she was her mother's precious angel.

Scarlet had intended to keep Angelica's father, as she had intended to keep every man she had married, except the first, of course. Still if any man tried to get one over on her she would tell him to go right to hell.

"Go to hell, you bastard," she'd say with her cigarette pointed like a gun at his head or heart or lower still. She'd flick a touch of ash in his general direction, turn around, drop his ring on the floor and walk away.

...

I pretty much know everything I'm going to say in the story. It is just a matter of getting the words down.

2010-07-20T18:17:00.000-07:00

Michael Gardner

3701 Carol Ave #4

Fremont, Ca 94538

(510) 673 2991

ezk3626@gmail.com

"Intelligence plus character- that is the goal of education." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge." - Albert Einstein

"The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts." - C. S. Lewis

“Genius without education is like silver in the mine.” -Benjamin Franklin

Professional Profile

A recently credentialed teacher with experience in classroom and small group K-12 instruction, comfortable in our diverse Bay Area population, seeking to advance his teaching qualifications through special education experience as a teacher, intern or paraprofessional aid; eager to share a love for learning and help develop a lifelong habit of self-improvement in myself and others.

Key Qualifications

§ California Multiple Subject Credential

§ 1000+ hours of classroom experience K-12

§ Student teaching in 4^th and 1^st grade, including a blended combination class of main stream and special education students

§ Classroom control and organization skills, capacity to follow or create lesson plans

§ Proven dependability and stability; mature but warm personality

Employment

· Lead Chess Teacher, Know Chess (December, 1999- June, 2008); class instruction, room organization, child safety, parent communication

· Restaurant Server, Trainer, Outback Steakhouse (November, 2000- present); Red Robin (September 1996- January 2000); serving customers, training employees, teamwork

· Community Volunteer, The Crossing (September 2003- September 2006); small group instruction, teenage experience

Education

§ California State University Hayward

Multiple Subject Credential (Summer 2010)

B.A. of Philosophy. (Summer 2008)

§ Ohlone Junior College

(September, 1996- December, 2001)

§ Kennedy High School

(September, 1992- June, 1996)

Professional Ambition

I found myself called to the great need and personal interest in Speical Education during my time in the credential program and was fortunate enough to gain a lot of experience in my student teaching placement. I am registered to begin Level 1 Credntial this Fall part time and am seeking employment in that field either as a special day teacher, intern or paraprofessional aid leading to a career in Special Education.

Depressed Friend

2010-07-20T15:30:00.000-07:00

So I had lunch with some of the guys and it was cool. Mike (Muffin) naturally steered the conversation to topics that he could dominate the conversation which is totally Mike. But with the guys usually you can engage as much as you want and Mike is actually good about sharing time... it is just if you don't care he will let the topic be comics, WoW and himself.

The purpose of the hang out is because one of the guys is leaving. He's moving back with the family to middle-of-no-where, Utah. It is kind of the suck but at the same time he needs a change real bad. He's really depressed and doesn't know how to deal with it. He's pretty closed about it... in an angry sort of way.

I guess I am used to dealing with people I care about being depressed... which doesn't mean I am really good at it. But it doesn't freak me out or surprise me (unless it makes me late for something). But having depressed friends is the suck. There is so little I can do, especially if they only want to say so much.

I can and will be praying for my friend which I guess would have been the best thing to do in any event seeing how the problem is spiritual rather than psychological or physiological. I am sure those things contribute but human nature is self destructive and the only way that can really be helped is through a new nature.

I just hate that my friend is suffering.

Jesse's Bible Study

2010-07-16T20:45:00.000-07:00

So I've made Jesse's Bible study on Tuesday nights my regular small group Bible Study. In a weird way I feel like a loser because I need someone else's small group rather being so awesome I can make my own small group. But like Marssellus Wallace said "that's just pride [cussing] with you." In another weird way I feel like I am imposing but "cuss pride."

It is neat to go to someone else's Bible study because they ask questions and see perspectives I wouldn't normally ask or see. For example when reading about Ezra the High Priest Jesse asked us what sort of thing did Ezra do, that we as Christians who are priests, also are called to do. I guess application is not one of my strong points... not asking questions either.

I've had a sort of renaissance of post-exile understanding. Certainly that is a esoteric field of knowledge but it sets the scene for the Israel that Jesus will be born in.

I've heard the history of humanity as described in the Bible put in a neat little alliteration: creation, curse, covenant, Christ, church. I would add "kingdom" and "collapse" between covenant and Christ.

"Sensible People" final draft before professional editting?

2010-07-12T12:32:00.000-07:00

Christian is slowly progressing through stop and go traffic in his old ’89 Honda Civic. The car was named “Angelica” after his mother since it was difficult and undependable. He had gotten the car as a gift from the church where he was saved (for some purpose or another) but no one feels saved in traffic. His mother and teenage sister were with him on this drab but bright California winter day. His sister was also named after their mother but everyone called her Gee or Gigi. No one called their mother by her name either, but always and only Mom. She was not a well respected woman but no one doubted her maternal instincts. Between the one Angelica being called Gee and the other Mom you would have thought that the car was named after a dream girl or something like that.

Gee sits in the front seat staring out the window without speaking or listening. She has shotgun over Mom because she is a pregnant. Mom sits in the back cheerfully giving advice about pregnancy and motherhood. “Pregnant girls always get the front seat,” Mom explains to no one so that it seems more like a recitation of scripture rather than a conversation. “They are special. A gift. They need to be treated that way. You believe in God, you should know that.”

“You don’t even go to church, Mom.” Christian says half- heartedly.

“When I was pregnant your father always bought me flowers.” Mom continues without hearing.

In sensible families when a sixteen-year-old girl gets pregnant sensible mothers start talking about abortion or maybe adoption. Mom talks predominantly about milk. “Growing babies need a lot of nutrients,” she says. Mom would start keeping a gallon of milk in her van for her daughter and grandchild.

Neither Gee nor her mother had any idea how to take care of themselves. Mom lives in a van. Gee floats between welfare provided hotel rooms, friends’ couches and worst case scenario a warm and concealed dumpster. Mom burned all of her bridges with sensible family members with her learned helplessness and uncompromising morality. Gee’s pregnancy alienated anyone who might have pitied her for her eccentric mother. To sensible families both have become useful instructive tools in passing on sensible family values:

“You don’t want to end up like that Gee girl.”

“It is such a shame about that Gigi.”

“I blame her mother.”

“You could always move into my van.” Mom says hopefully.

“No, Mom!” Gee explodes impatiently. “I keep telling you I don’t want to live in your smelly van!”

“I just worry about the baby.” Mom says defensively dropping the subject.

Christian has not yet burned all of his bridges with his sensible family members. He is actually held in rather high regard. He could hold two jobs while going to college, had never been arrested, paid back what he borrowed and borrowed rarely. He actually agreed with Mom about the vibrant joy that is growing in his sister but was just sensible enough to keep this private. This discretion seemed to be a tight rope walked between two worlds. He did suffer guilt because he lived in a rented room in someone’s house while Mom lived in a van and his sister lived where she could.

Sensible people congratulated him saying that it was proper and fitting that he take care of himself first. “You got to look out for number one,” they would whisper to him as if they were conspirators. Christian did not resent them but between Mom’s influence and his conversion he had never developed the sensible belief that his self interest was the highest good to be achieved in one’s life. He was not that sensible. Secretly he planned to support Mom and Gee but believed that they would be best cared for by him graduating college.

Strictly speaking Christian might have been a saint but he was not perfect. The very least of his sins was that he was a selfish driver. On the freeway there is an exit which other than leading off the freeway also leads directly back to it. Using this as a shortcut is the grown up equivalent of cutting in line. Christian was perfectly aware he was stealing someone else’s spot and ultimately making more traffic for those behind him. If his mother thought about the ethics of driving one tenth as much as she did about milk she would say something to shame him. But with a growing baby in the car, she was content so long as her son did not go over the speed limit or change lanes too often.

Despite his conscience Christian is overpowered by a desire to go faster than 10 mph. It was during that small happiness he was attempting to steal that Gee saw her crawling along the side of the freeway.

“Christian! Pull over! Pull over!” she called out urgently almost panicking “There’s a dog on the side of the road!”

Christian was scared for a second but then was relieved it was just a dog. If Mom had not been in the car he would have kept driving but she who birthed him, cared for him and protected him until he grew up into the man she always knew he would be was there so there was only one way he could go. The whole family was sentimental about animals and Christian not the least so. He only needed the most to be reminded what he really believed in.

Sensible people think of Christian as a sort of pet moral figure, the kind of saint that fits on the dashboard of an expensive automobile. They pat him on the back, make sure he doesn’t drop out of college and say how great it is he likes to go to church. Christian accepts this cheap applause and does not bother to correct those who misunderstand him.

Because of the gift of his mother’s heart Christian was resolved. He knew what was right. Without a word he pulled over on the side of the freeway and got out of his car. He didn’t expect much. If a dog gets hit on the freeway there was only one way it could go.

It was cold enough, by California standards, to wear a jacket. He only owned one jacket. His mother’s sensible step-dad had started a tradition a couple years earlier of buying all of the grown grandchildren matching ugly jackets. It was not known if he knew with what irony they received this gift. But for the frugal patriarch buying six Christmas presents for under $75 forgave all crimes of fashion. Some might say that he is cheap but for many of his sensible grandchildren a simple Christmas visit or even a phone call was too expensive a gift to give. The steady disintegration the sensible family made the old man’s Christmas shopping less and less costly; year by year the picture of amused faces in neon denim jackets had grows less and less crowded. This family disintegration had also been a serious blow to the homeless community who had cause to give thanks for the grandfather’s frugality. Soon after Christmas the local panhandlers were beyond pitiable in their lime green and feces brown jackets.

This year however Christian kept his jacket. It showed Mickey Mouse inviting others to a theme park that Christian had never been to. He had inherited his Gramps’ meanness about money out of necessity. This jacket wasn’t too bad. Christian might not wear everything he had been given but would rather go without than pay $20 for something he liked better. Aside from that he had become touched with affection for his Gramps, who faithfully (though not extravagantly) remembers grandsons who never remembered him on Christmas or any other day.

Buttoning his jacket Christian trotted along the side of the freeway. His mother had moved to the driver’s seat and said she would take the next exit, turn around and wait for him on the overpass they had driven under. “I worry about being on the side of the road with the baby,” she explained.

Christian headed back towards the overpass, which rose above the freeway and the frontage road that was an entrance to, an exit from and shortcut through the freeway. The frontage road was separated from the freeway by a cement divider but the frontage road was separated from a large open field by a short fence made of an interval of short wooden posts that held up a rail designed to bounce back reckless drivers. The field was newly landscaped with sapling trees and tanbark meant to beautify the long stretch of crowded concrete. The occasional traffic along the frontage road was impatient hotshots, like Christian, who would aggravate the traffic for others just to be able to drive 40 mph for ten seconds.

It was with the drone of indifferent motorists that Christian first saw her lying down in the tan bark ten feet away from the frontage road. When Gee had seen her, she had enough will to crawl but now lay like one dead. Christian knew there was only way it could go. His mind immediately thought of nightmare stories he had known, where monsters with human faces would throw a bag of unwanted kittens into a lake. This same kind of creatures might take their dog for a ride and make a quick stop on the side a freeway. These amazingly sensible people would then return to their other dependents with stories of a farm where their dog could play with lots of other dogs and be happy.

This dog, however, had a collar and tags. It was more likely that she was a lost dog. Her family was only human and even the noblest of dogs doesn’t know better than to explore an open gate, never knowing or believing that it could lead to dying on the side of the freeway. Maybe pictures of this dog being hugged by happy children already were posted on telephone poles and shops in the neighborhood she would never see again. From a distance Christian could read her tag; her name was “Michelle.”

Michelle was a mutt with some pit bull. Her coat was cheaper than Christian’s jacket, red and brown and black and white. She had been a puppy not long ago but her carefree days were behind her and would never return. She had been hit by a car, and it had crushed her hip or broke her hind legs or cracked her spine. She lay down whining in way that sounded both like her prayers and her last rites. There was only one way it could go.

Christian had been called to be with Michelle in her pain, suffering and humiliation. All of which would most likely define the end of her life, as it does for most of us. Christian had been raised with dogs and cats, strays and domesticated. He imagined himself somewhat of a dog-whisperer, able to charm skittish and abused animals into trust or acceptance. This would not work out very well with Michelle. Though he only courted her with love and sympathy they never became friends. Though for his part Christian was always her friend.

The best advice is to never get close to a strange dog. All dogs are defensive and protective creatures; even a friendly dog will bite when startled. It is best to make your presence known and if the dog is willing to let it come towards you. Michelle would not approach anyone in friendliness or ferocity ever again. Without the use of her hind legs she was not a dangerous dog unless someone came close. But getting close is just what Christian had a mind to do. Christian could read the tag with Michelle’s name but she had another tag which identified her family, those who would rush from their sensible plans to be with their loved one if only to be there at the end.

With this in mind Christian lowered his head, keeping it submissive and if he had a tail would have put it between my legs. He reached out his hand slowly, flat and low for Michelle to smell. This is good manners when dealing with dogs but Michelle was not accepting invitation. She started to growl to let Christian know that he was not welcome but he still inched forward. She tensed to sit up and begin what might have been a bark or a bite. But this put pressure where she was most hurt and all that came out was a sharp whine. Christian’s jumped back which caused Michelle to also jump back despite the pain. He approached again, slow and close to the ground. He hoped that she would trust him, either out of intuitive kinship or in desperation. He only came for her good, and she certainly didn’t have any bite left in her. But each inch he moved towards her she whined, growled and with anguish jerked two inches away from him. He moved forward in pained compassion, and she moved back in pain and more pain. Hopelessly she began urinating on herself as she still desperately tried to escape the only man who loved her. Seeing her shame and the end of her life Christian wondered how he had imagined he had ever known the meaning of love or pity before this moment.

At this point Christian’s main concern was no longer his own sensible desire to avoid being bitten but that in pain and ignorance Michelle was throwing herself further and further towards the freeway. The fence which bounced careless drivers would not stop a crawling dog from meeting one more indifferent or malicious motorist.

Christian backed away and began to circle around so that if Michelle did back away from him then at least she would also be moving away from the freeway, its indifference and death. He took off his jacket and held it front of him like a matador. Michelle never took a suspicious eye off of him but was confused enough that he could drape the jacket, the little warmth he had, over her injury and shame. She lay under her jacket like one already dead; content to move no more.

Sentimental sensible people would be greatly moved by a man giving his only jacket to a dying dog. They wouldn’t be wrong to think it was caring but it was only a small victory. Christian had given up something he had been given and didn’t really like. Elsewhere in the world a mother hen was devoured by a fox while covering her chicks under her wings; a gentle husband and father placed his mortal body between his family and the horrors of war. Even they did not face great battles, any talk of pacifism or flight would be a betrayal; it would be an abomination. Up to this point Christian had not fought a battle or earned a victory; he had merely displayed the bare nakedness of the man he was raised and saved to become.

Christian’s battle was not for Michelle’s life, which was lost before they met. His battle was to revenge her against the indifferent and sensible slayer of men and Michelle. Her only help would come from those greater than him. Animal Control, or whoever, would subdue, sedate and save her, read her name and call her family. Christian knew there was only one way it could go.

Long ago Tinsel, the majestic German shepherd, had been put to sleep by Christian’s mother. It was after a long life that was being over-overwhelmed by illness and anguish. She was humanely put to rest surrounded by the loud weeping of a caring family. Mom believed that Tinsel was the canine personification of her own motherly spirit. She was the only one who could have made the decision and she painfully chose out of love. Still Mom had stayed in bed for a whole week after the experience. Sensible family members did not understand how the end of Tinsel’s life was the beginning of Mom’s homelessness; just as Gee’s pregnancy was the beginning of her recovery.

The only desperate hope Christian held on to was that Michelle would breathe her last surrounded by her weeping family in the same way. This would require the aid of those who carelessly passed him by as if the walls of their cars demarked the end of creation. Christian was not against technology and though many of his friends and peers had cell phones Christian did not. This was simply a matter of expense and it was a time in Christian’s life when a cell phone would have been a luxury rather than a way of life. This put him in the blessing and curse of poverty: the need to ask for help.

Though little time had passed the traffic on the freeway had cleared up enough so that the average speed was somewhere between twenty and thirty miles per hour. After the pace the motorists had been enduring this would have been quite delightful. This pick up in the pace on the freeway made the even greater speed of the frontage road more tempting like a bite of food increases rather than decreases the appetite.

Speed is a powerful stimulant. It seems to promise that if one could just move quickly enough they could escape the four walls of their cars and the four walls of traffic and the four walls of the prison of their sensible little life. The addiction of speed is the belief that if a person moves quickly enough one day they will never needs to hurry ever again. Beyond the speed of light there is a place where one can sit restfully surrounded by happy children and a family dog. Those tempted by the delight of increasing power and control of their environment are those least likely to slow down and help someone on the side of the road. After all people could get robbed or killed that way. It was not sensible to stop on the side of the freeway to help a stranger who might need help, not sensible at all.

This illusion would be Christian’s enemy. First, he politely stood by the side of the frontage road imagining that someone would see him, slowly and safely come to a stop and ask him if he needed help. He then tried calmly waving to the passing cars. Christian would have waved a little more urgently but felt that this would have frightened motorists. Many sensible people who admired and respected Christian also believed that he was a little naive.

The traffic, however, was more than indifferent to his need. Several cars belligerently honked their horns at him as if I were disturbing the sanctity of their octane powered orgasm. One car slowed enough to throw a soda at him while yelling obscenities. This is a sensible reaction and should be expected if you think about it there was no good reason for him to be at the side of the road in such a way.

It was after this that Christian would have to face my true battle. He realized he could not make the indifferent care anymore than I could heal Michelle’s wounds. But up to this point he had been reasonably sensible or at least polite to the sensibility of others. He had always walked the line between what is sensible and what is right. His silence let it appear that he gave lip service to Moloch while in my heart he never cherished those golden calves. Christian certainly wanted to live in peace so far as depended on him but at this point meek and mild would have been a betrayal to his calling. So Christian stepped out into the middle of the frontage road that had taken Michelle’s youth away, he placed his mortal body in the middle of the road so that none could remain indifferent.

He wisely didn’t actually want to be hit so did wave his arms energetically, but his legs were firmly placed on the solid ground. He didn’t think it was likely that even the heady pleasure of speed would lead someone to actually run him over but it was not outside the realm of possibility. Certainly at this time he was not placing his trust in a general respect for the sanctity of life. If anything he would say his only protection was the belief that running him down would have been more of an inconvenience than stopping for him. But beyond that he was putting his trust in the fact that there actually are some things worth dying over.

Christian stood defiantly in the middle of the road that yearly killed more men than handguns. There were no witnesses except a dying dog and yet Christian was standing in front of the whole world of sensible people and openly declaring “I am not one of you!“ He was placing his immortal soul between the world and the horrors of hell. Christian’s character had never been one resolved to conflict and confrontation and if it had been his own heart pushing him forward he wouldn’t even have had the strength to cry for Michelle. But the author and perfector of a living heart was inside of Christian propelling him forward in ways he did not yet understand. At this moment Christian stood in the middle of a highway for no greater reason than the fact that a dog was dying on the side of the road.

The first car he tried to stare down was a beat up pickup truck with an elderly Mexican man in the driver’s seat and a dog in shotgun. The driver didn’t resent seem to resent Christian for holding him up. His eyes did not accuse him of insubordination, of being part of a divine rebellion. He seemed mildly concerned but unworried as if it was just someone in need in of little help.

“Do you have a cell phone?” Christian shouted out as politely as possible.

He poked his head out the window and answered “No.” with a heavy Mexican accent. Christian moved aside to let him pass. The man paused and asked if anyone was hurt. “A dog on the side of the road.” was Christian could say and felt rather stupid.

Behind the pickup truck a car had been forced to stop because of the considerate Mexican’s question. The car honked at him and Christian and the whole world for being so cruel to it. That car had a man trapped inside who yelled obscenities at Christian as it passed.

Christian would have to make war against the freeway a second time. As soon as there was a break in the passing cars he planted himself in the middle of the road again and waved his arms to be seen. This time the car he stopped was an expensive Jaguar with a successful seeming business man in the driver’s seat. He seemed to personify all of the hopes and expectations Christian’s sensible family members had for him. Expectations he was now openly rejecting.

Christian met the drivers eyes immediately locked in what would become a battle of wills. The motorist immediately looked into Christian’s demeanor and knew this was nothing the motorist would consider an emergency.

“Out of my way,” the his eyes commanded as the sun shined brightly on his expensive automobile.

“No.” was all Christian’s eyes said.

“I could just run you over,” his eyes threatened. The powerful engine purred in bloody readiness.

“And increase your insurance premiums?” Christian’s eyes mocked, his proximity to sensible people taught him the depths of their hearts.

“Well,” the motorst’s eyes reasoned, “I could just move ahead slowly. You couldn’t stop me.”

“Oh,” Christian’s eyes laughed, “But I might scratch your lovely automobile.”

“Ugh,” the motorist’s eyes relented in guarded desperation. “What do you want?”

Christian felt no embarrassment that he extorted charity from this man, this man who still hadn’t even opened his window to find out what was needed.

“Do you have a cell phone?” Christian yelled out while making a phone signal with his hand. The man nodded and reached over to pick up his top-of-the-line PDA cell phone. Seeing his expensive toy a sense of power grew in him. When his eye contact broke from Christian his anger increased again. When their eyes met again the man’s eyes raged like a lake of fire.

Christian signaled the numbers “nine, one, one.”

“Oh, you better believe I am calling the police,” the man’s eyes said. But Christian was immune to his rancor. It was impotent rage. Perhaps he would never join the motorist’s country club or wouldn’t get that home loan but Christian was not one of him. The motorist had called the highway patrol and that was all he required. Christian had won.

Now, if Christian weren’t white he might have been a little more nervous about having to explain all of this to a police officer. But as it was, he was not only white but a clean cut white kid with no criminal record and a list of reference from pastors, school teachers and sensible home owners declaring that he was a “a good guy, a little naïve but a good guy.” So Christian was content to walk over to the fence where he could see Michelle’s slow and painful breathing without disturbing her. He pleasantly smiled and waved at the Jaguar as it drove past him to God knows where.

Christian sat a good ten minutes before anything happened. He saw his mom drive by on the overpass and imagined his mom and sister seeing him sitting by the side of the freeway doing nothing. But as he sat there next to the freeway a woman in her car saw him, slowed her car down and came safely to a halt. She got out of her car and walked towards Christian asking “Do you need any help?”

Christian’s first reaction was that there must be something wrong with this woman. This would have been easy to explain if she were ugly seeming or lonely seeming but she was just a normal woman neither too young nor too old. Then their eyes met.

“There is so much to live for,” her eyes pleaded. “Don’t do it.”

This woman thought he was thinking about suicide. She had stopped on the side of the freeway and exposed herself to danger from cars and maybe a dangerous man. Christian blushed like Adam meeting Eve. Embarrassed he spoke words about this dog on the side of the road but his eyes said “I am one of you.”

“Are you going to be okay?” she asked as he looked down at the ground.

“Oh, yeah, animal control or whoever is on the way and my mom is waiting with my car up there on the overpass.” Christian couldn’t say anything else except to thank her for caring and she drove away.

Not that much longer a highway patrolman approached Christian. He had parked his cruiser somewhere further down the road where it wouldn’t be in danger of being hit. He was a muscular black man and walked towards Christian behind dark sunglasses and one hand near his holster.

It took the officer about two seconds to figure out what Christian was not: crazy or dangerous. Most people with any experience with authority quickly come to see Christian as a tall and rather well behaved child. Still regardless of what the highway officer thought he saw in Christian he was trained to be exceedingly polite and exceedingly careful, his hand was only away from his holster once.

“Good afternoon, sir,” he said with authority. “What seems to be the problem?”

“Did someone call you about the dog?” Christian asked naively.

“No, sir,” he replied. “I received a call about a pedestrian on the side of the highway.”

“Yeah,” Christian answered half laughing; half embarrassed “That would be me.” The call to the police probably had a lot stronger words than “pedestrian.” Christian explained briefly about seeing the dog and not being able to get the tags. “So I tried to get someone to call animal control.”

He didn’t mention a lot of things. But his jacket on Michelle and his eyes said a lot more than his words. After this the patrolman softened a great deal. He was still very businesslike and efficient but he put his authority away as if he was off duty and dealing with a young man he had seen grow up.

Christian turned the whole thing over to him. There was nothing more he could do. He noticed that he actually pretty cold. The patrolman was talking into his radio Christian stopped paying attention to him.

“Well,” the officer said after a minute, “animal control is on their way. Where is your car?”

“My mom is up there on the overpass.” Christian said pointing. He could see Angelica driving past.

“Go ahead and walk up there from here,” he said.

“There is nothing more I can do,” Christian thought to himself unconvincingly. Most likely Michelle would die alone, if she wasn’t dead already. Her guardians would receive a phone call that was cold and clinical telling them that she had been hit by a car. There was a chance that they could have been called before Michelle was euthanized. She could die surrounded by weeping, caring family members. But there was also a chance her family was rich and could buy all of the medical costs to give her a new hip or legs or spine. She would soon be happily playing with other dogs on a farm far away from this freeway and all of our sinfulness. “There is nothing more I can do,” he said to himself again and received no comfort from the words.

But before he left the highway patrol man took off his sunglasses with his left hand and looked Christian in the eyes while shaking his hand with his right. “Well done, young man,” his eyes said.

Still Christian walked towards the overpass feeling like a failure when the Word of the Lord came upon him and declared “If I would send you, Christian, a beloved one, to care for a dying dog what would I not do your brothers and sisters whose need is just a great?” Like most miracles this message was in one ear and out the other.

When Angelica pulled up Christian was shivering.

“What happened?” Gee asked.

“She was hit by a car. I got someone to call animal control.”

“Did they say what they were going to do for her?” his mom asked as she scooted over to let him drive. “I mean she will probably need surgery!”

“Damn it, Mom! Don’t be stupid. They are going to put her to sleep! No one does reconstructive surgery for stray dogs on the side of the road! Grow up!”

“Jeeze, Christian,” Gee said after a minute, embarrassed by Christian’s inexplicable and uncharacteristic anger.

“Well, you don’t know what they are going to do,” Mom said defensively. “But if decent people were in charge of this world, even stray dogs would get everything they need.” In her own hurt she added “You should learn to control your temper.”

Christian didn’t say anything and before long his mother was continuing on and on about everything pre-natal. Gee was again silently staring out the window and Christian drove on, as if nothing had ever happened.

If You Can Laugh About It You're Okay

2010-07-12T09:48:00.001-07:00

So when Jenny told me that she didn't think the relationship was going to be able to go any further I was surprised and disappointed but not horrified or depressed. We were both really careful about our hearts when it was good and bad. I am actually impressed with how God has changed my heart since Michelle. That was a shorter courtship but knocked me on my butt for a good year. It's a week later and though I still have lingering thoughts I'd say the only reason I'm not back on Eharmony is because of the price tag (if any decent souls want to take a collection that will be cool).

The hardest part I think was having to tell Gramps. I think he really had his hopes up. He's worried he's going to die before I get married. So I go over to tell him on the pretense of getting plums and hang out for a bit to just shoot the breeze with him and My Ling. He asks the normal question: why. I never ask a girl breaking up with me why. I'm surprised that so many people think it would be a legitimate thing to say to someone telling you they are breaking up with you. I know I have character flaws but I'd much rather hear about them close friends, family, the Bible my conscience, coworkers, talk show hosts, random strangers and terrorists than from the girl breaking up with me.

I share my insecurity that it is about how much money I make how it looks bad that I've spent the last ten years working in a restaurant. Then My Ling puts in her two cents saying "No, she doesn't break up with you because you're poor... she breaks up with you because you're ugly!" And then she laughs and laughs. I also laugh and if you can laugh about it you're okay.

2010-03-10T19:57:00.000-08:00

Below is a Youtube link to a song that can make me cry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EzeW5KoPUI

The song is a story about a young teenager who's friend who is dying of cancer and how his pubescent romance complicates the situation. But it is not just out of sympathy for dealing with death that moves me but how what happens to us at that age casts such a long shadow and how little we can understand what it is that is happening to us. It is no surprise to me now how often my Mom would think and reflect on that time in her life.

When I was thirteen... ha ha I simply would not post all of the stuff that happened at that age but I can say that I am pretty sure the next couple of years were a mild case of PTS. Up until Christ revealed Himself to my heart that time pretty much unconsciously defined me. I remember Liz always saying "Michael why can't you just be happy?!" I had no answer and most of the time I didn't even know what she was talking about.

In Christ that time has not ceased to be influential but has a whole different direction. I think of the blind man in the gospel of John. He didn't forget that he had been blind but that made his belief and joy all the greater. That story certainly resonated with me when I first read it. Christ's influence has been like a stone dropped in a pool that ripples both directions of time, so not only my future has a hope but the despair of the past is dispelled with a clarity.

The real difficulty of my younger life was a feeling of existential abandonment and with dried eyes I saw that I had never been alone, that a strong hand had always been in my life from the darkest most difficult times till... well till Revelation chapter 21.
...
My meeting with the Special Ed program went well. I didn't completely charm the head of the department but that's fine. I will have to been in school for a heck of long time still but God's will be done. It is not like my life is really on hold anyway.

How to Ruin Your Life (Jemuel) with Long Digressons

2010-02-27T12:57:00.000-08:00

Jemuel is going to be moving in with our sister Coral and the boys next month. I think it is a great thing for her and the boys and Jemuel. I cannot even imagine how hard it is to be a single mother... well maybe I can imagine since I was raised by one but the point is that it is not the best way to be a parent. Kids (and my nephews in particular) are wonderful... but they also require a lot of you (my nephews in particular). So Jemuel's moving in is a real godsend.

On the whole Jemuel's life is a contrast to the general guy response in our family which is "You are on your own." The women in our family are all high needs with children to take care of and most of the guys are off doing their own thing. I don't want to be too harsh against my brothers because we are all pretty much abandoned children as far as our fathers are concerned and our fathers were also abandoned children as far as their fathers are concerned. And really our family is just an extreme case of the national trend, parents divorcing with the husband's standard of living increasing while the wife's standard of living decreasing. The father visits on weekends, the mother takes care of the children Monday through Friday.

So Jemuel is (in very Jemuel fashion) breaking apart from mainstream culture... but he said something that I thought was worth exploring from a Christian perspective. He said that he thinks that moving in with Coral will be a big help for her and hopefully wouldn't ruin his life. Now if you are familiar with the family history this makes a lot of sense and if you don't know the details of the family history you aren't going to hear it here (you eager eared gossips!). But I want to unpack what he has said.

How I interpret the statement is that he wants to help but he also wants a degree of independence to pursue his calling into music, enjoy some peace and quiet from time to time and not end up broke. This is perfectly reasonable and I think this need should be protected even for parents with their own children. A husband and wife raising children owe it to their children to model a life which is not child centered. Now of course kids are a huge responsibility and need a lot of attention and care (and money) but this responsibility should not be mistaken as having a life which is child centered.

Certainly their are a fair amount of parents whose life might accurately be described as child centered. Many of these parents would even defend this position, "my children are my life" is an extreme statement but not so extreme as to evoke a shock in our society. I maintain that child centered thinking has been damaging to children and society.

The term was popularized by Dr. Benjamin Spock's book "Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care" and has largely been the norm of parenting in America for the last fifty years.

The problem with a child centered home is how it is experienced by the child. The child does not experience a home or world which is centered around the benefit of growing minds but rather a home and home which is centered around themselves. Such children come to see the world as existing for their own benefit and comfort and pleasure (as can be seen in the baby boomer generation).

Now Jemuel is only an actively concerned uncle, giving more than is expected in our selfish society. But in a father or husband to want to protect his calling to music, his desire for peace and quiet and to not go broke would be to go against the notion of a child centered home. Such pursuits would be called selfish and destructive to the child's well being. I believe the opposite is true.

A child who sees a father, mother (or uncle) who has a purpose or calling in their life which is not centered on that child sees an example of maturity they can grown into. A child who sees a father, mother (or uncle) who's stated and acted purpose in life is to care for that child the child sees a slave who they will not want to grow up to become because being served feels better than serving. In the same way a child who sees parents who love each other more actively then they love their own children sees an example of a marriage worth growing up into. A child who sees a world which does care for them but has other higher priorities gains access to a live which is not automatically self centered.

Now going back to that... even if a caring uncle (or father or mother) has strong boundaries to protect their calling, their sanity and their financial responsibilities they are still going to ruin their life. It is impossible to escape, everyone (every single one) who loves other people is walking down a path which invariably and without exception will always absolutely ruin that person's life... or at least it will feel that way sometimes.

Now it will only feel like they are ruining their life, but here the sociology 101 adage applies "things which are perceived to be real are real in their consequences." So if any person makes a decision to make a sacrifice for another person (like Jem is doing) what is going to happen is that they will be faced with a time when they will want something and they will have to choose between the thing they want and their commitment to care for someone else. Now the actual sacrifice may actually be a small one (no watching football this Sunday, getting out of bed thirty minutes early once) but it will feel like your life is being ruined.

This is not an issue of selfish and unselfish people, good people and bad people (mostly because there are no unselfish, good people!) but everyone will feel their desire as the core of their being, that is how it will be experienced. In retrospect it might seem like a small small thing, but in the grip of the desire it seems to give up this one thing will be the last step off of a cliff with no bottom, to this person it will feel like they are choosing between life and death, freedom and slavery, happiness and unhappiness.

Now Jemuel is a stand up guy, in my judgment (that high and mighty standard) capable of more unselfishness that most anyone I know. In the list of virtuous people he is somewhere between me and Ghandi... and I think he will gain a lot from moving in with Coral and the boys BUT that benefit will only come after he has stepped off of the cliff of ruining his life several times.

Ten Commandments

2010-02-26T10:53:00.000-08:00

I was looking up the Apostle's Creed for some reason or another and read how the early church, the majority of whom could not read, would learn their faith by reciting the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Apostle's Creed.

I have been on a Ten Commandment's kick since then. I've been working on meditating their meaning on my life and seeking to live more by them... and yes Legalism Police I know I will not ever be made right with God by seeking to follow the Law. Still since I have been saved by my faith in Jesus Christ it makes sense that I would seek to obey Him.

Ten Commandments (summary)

You shall have no other gods besides the Lord.
You shall not make your own gods and serve or bow before them.
You shall not speak the Lord's name in vain.
You shall remember the sabbath and keep it holy.
You shall honor your parents (its for your own good).
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.
you shall not lie.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not covet what other people have.

In case folks are interested, the Lord's Prayer:
"Our father, who is in heaven, holy be your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done, in heaven as in earth. Give me my daily bread, forgive me my sins as I forgive others. Do not tempt me but save me from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom forever and ever. Amen."

The Apostle's Creed isn't from scripture and was only used in the western part of the Roman empire and so is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox. But they share the same faith in Jesus Christ as all other Christians and I cannot see any objections they would have (but what do I know!):

"THE APOSTLES’ CREED
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was
crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose
again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion
of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life
everlasting. Amen."

This was quoted directly from the Presbyterian "Book of Confession" I do not know if there is a less Elizabethian translation without sitteth's in them. In case anyone thinks that Eastern Orthodox would have issue with the "catholic church" remember that catholic means unified/universal. So I also believe in a catholic church because there is only one kind of Christian. Denomination is a fashion statement and does not make or necessarily exclude a person's relationship with Christ... and really I am not the guy who decides who is a Christian or not anyway.

"Creepy Guy Teachers"

2010-02-25T11:09:00.000-08:00

I was having a conversation with a group of friends about my experience at teaching so far. I have just gotten used to the 1st grade class I am placed in and was talking about the difference between teaching 1st and 4th grade. I concluded with the often repeated statement that I am just as comfortable with 1st and 4th graders but think that 4th graders are a little more comfortable with me than 1st graders are.

One person, meaning to be supportive, added "Plus you don't want to seem like creepy guy teacher."

My initial response was that actually there is a great support for men teachers for younger grades, especially because of the high rate of fatherlessness.

I never thought of the profession in terms of gender role. My dad wasn't around very often in the second half of my childhood but when he was a teacher. And Gramps had plenty to say about hard work and the correct way to use a lawn mower (he still does!). I have been brought up thinking of instructing and educating as a masculine endeavor. To be sure I have had no shortage of women in the family who were very interested in the importance of education and I could say that they were the stronger influence but the point is that in my background there would be nothing considered strange or unnatural with a man developing the mind and character of a child.

Well, I guess in this department I am an unusual case. The most common reaction from adults to learn that I am going into elementary teaching is first surprise followed by the same encouragement "They need more men teachers."

But the more I thought about the friend's statement about creepy guy teachers the more insulted I feel. The underlying meaning is that many people feel (and are justified in feeling) that men cannot be trusted around young children. My experience has been that this feeling is particularly strong in churches.

I know a lot of people who have told me that they were abused as children and I am under no illusions as to how very common and how damaging it is. I share the militancy of abuse survivors to ensure that children must be protected from this abuse... but one of the damages done by abuse is the destruction of trust and an enduring suspicion against all people (and men in particular).

This suspicion has touched the national psyche so that there is a commonly held view that there is something unnatural and dangerous about a man who is around children. If I saw a man watching children at a playground it would most certainly enter my mind that he might be "a stranger" or unsafe and I should keep an eye on him... and I'm the guy at the playground most of the time!

I'm not really insulted by the friend's comment but am frustrated because there is no defense that could be given. Nothing is more suspicious than a denial!

But the worst part is how much is lost because of the removal of men from the raising of children. I was exceedingly fortunate in the quality of the women who helped raise me but there is something all together different in how and what was little was contributed by the men. I learned more than how to fix a flat tire and mow a lawn from Gramps. Dad's laughable attempt at talking about the birds and bees made a much deeper impression on me than I realized "So... uhh... I'm guessing you guys like girls now? You... uhh... hold hands... well it gets much more complicated after that."

The men in my life were imperfect (like the women) but their influence was literally undercut and much of this was influenced by a fear and distrust against all men against which they had not deserved. And so the world misses out.

Incompletely unrelated news I know a lot of women who ask "Where are all the real men?"

Why Study Philosophy

2010-01-20T18:15:00.000-08:00

"You have long been aware of what you mean when you use the expression 'being.' we, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed."- Plato Sophist

When I posted that I was reading Martin Heidegger a friend commented "Why not slam your head into a wall, it will be quicker and less painful, but with the same result." In one sense it was a ridiculous statement as he specialized in engineering in college while I specialized in professional philosophy. It might be like me suggesting that since I, myself, never understood calculus that it must be without meaning and not worth another person studying.

But really it might be thoughtful to ask if philosophy (or metaphysics more specifically... or ontology much more specifically) has any value as a study. A common American, pragmatic, response is "What is the practical application of philosophy?" but this question has an unstated (and rarely explored) assumption concerning what it valuable. The pragmatic who says "What is the practical application of your study" actually means "Can your study produce technology* by which I might use for my own purposes?" This question might be valid, especially if I am asking for funding from the pragmatic, but as it is stated disguises itself as a moralistic question whereas the question as I believe it to be is not concerned with right or wrong but the application of power.

It saddens me to answer in the affirmative, philosophy has displayed powerful practical (that is technological) for the use of those who grasp it. It is without great reflection that we learn that between 1600 and 1800 monarchy was near completely eliminated in Western Europe and without reflection the role "ideology" has played in the mobilization for war since then. In no time in human history has what people believe been as influential, powerful or dangerous and this has occurred through the application of philosophy. Of course if you were to ask the people affected by the application of philosophy they would not recognize themselves as such. They would see themselves as motivated by the truth, be it "freedom" "racial purity" "revolution" or whatever. They would see themselves merely as "on the right side."

Certainly history has shown that those who have no interest in philosophy can be influenced, if not controlled, by it. But this is not why I value philosophy. Neither is it to resist the power others might have on me through the application of philosophy, though this would be one of the other practical advantages of philosophy. Certainly if my motivation was power (or even just for protection against the power of others) philosophy as a primary means would be one of the more round-about means to that end. It would be more expedient to study law, warfare and economics with just enough philosophy to ensure you are autonomous enough to not "drink the cool-aid" than to make philosophy the the focus of the advancement of my own purposes.

The reason I study philosophy and Heidegger is because (despite its possible round-about practical applications) that philosophy is a means for approaching meaningfulness. Granted, philosophy is not an absolute means to approaching meaningfulness. One need only meet a wise and learn'd philosopher quite capable of distinguishing between Kant and Descartes but who is little more than a dusty and little read collection of quotations. But still there is another kind of stereotype which is typified by the young idealist who is searching for truth. That idealist often finds himself drawn towards philosophy and though it might lead him in circles and to all kinds of intellectual fantasies we must admit there is something particular about philosophy, as a subject, which naturally attracts those who are interested in what is actually true.

It should come to as no surprise that philosophy, as a means to meaningfulness, is something which must be left behind or rejected as an ultimate path in favor of a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ... but my Bible study starts soon so I'm out of time.

*by "technology" we could include non-physical techniques of persuasion such as advertising.

Notes on Avatar

2010-01-16T11:14:00.000-08:00

Hey spoilers... but really they don't spoil the movie:

My first reaction to the movie was a hatred for the 3D glasses. Yeah, yeah, so cool but really I think the huge screen was cool enough and don't care if things look like they are floating in front of me. I don't think anyone even unconsciously stops thinking they are in a movie theater because of special effects. A good story can do that but smell-o-vision can not.
The movie plot is a clear cut and paste archetype: Dances With Wolves, The Last Samaria being the examples that come to mind: a warrior, usually wounded in order to represent their spiritual crisis, leaves his home country to a wilderness frontier place where he encounters a foreign, primitive seeming culture which adopts in order to learn about the new-coming invaders. The warrior learns to respect the "primitive" culture and to understand that it is a sophisticated society with great spiritual lessons. The old culture rears its ugly head and the warrior must reject his old culture in order to help his new family... usually this results in a defeat that is a moral victory since the sophisticated spiritual culture did not betray their values even when faced with destruction. The wounded warrior generally survives the destruction and acts as a social critic... I mean truth teller about the spiritual deadness of his home society.
My general reaction to the wounded warrior adoption plot is that you don't have to go to Japan to find a society which is spiritually based... you just have to go to a decent church. I'm sure that if Japan made a movie like this the wounded warrior would be adopted by a Christian missionary because the unfamiliar nature of the society would mask the imperfections found in all human societies. Really if there is some kind of spiritual truth which that foreign society was tapping into... that spiritual truth can be found in the country, city and suburb. If there is a God He is God everywhere, not just special places.
Though I very much in favor in living a life which is spiritually based and not controlled by consumerism and vice (I believe there is a natural relation between the two). I really liked Jake's assessment of tempting the tree people out of the tree "We have nothing they want, what are we going to give them... Bud Light? Yeah right."
I really liked Sigourney Weaver's character... though it was strange (and I'm sure no accident) that she was the only one of the tree people with large boobs. Still I like that kind of tree hugging liberal (and they love it when I refer to them that way).

Alright I've already posted plenty. I need to write my TPA.

Time

2009-11-28T15:48:00.000-08:00

So way way back in the day I was introduced to the ancient Greek philosophical problem of how time functions. It involved a footrace that could never end but I never got it, but I think I do now.

IF time is perfectly measured by moments then movement would be theoretically impossible. So if Heracles were running a 40 yard dash that race could be described as a collection of moments BUT there would be an infinite number of moments which described Heracles going half way to the finish line, those moments would literally never end. If time is only the collection of moments we could ALWAYS find a moment in which Heracles is half as close to the finish line. Since this number of moments is literally infinite it would be impossible for Heracles to reach the finish line. He would simply continually traveling half the distance for eternity.

Evidence shows that a moving object can and does reach a target and I do not consider myself qualified (or interested) to solve the problem, but at long last I at least understand the problem.

School Progress

2009-11-23T14:59:00.000-08:00

I am about half way through the teaching credential program. It has been a long day coming... I mean it took me about three years just to get into the program because of minor but intractable bureaucratic errors on my part. But I see God's hand in this since during that time the CSUEB credential program was just losing their key administrators due to retirement and implementing the new TPA test. And also I would have finished just in time for near economic collapse.

That collapse may still come but till then I will continue working towards a career that both has meaning, integrity and some money. To be sure there is not a super lot of money in teaching by American materialist standards but the starting wages for a teacher seem like a million bucks to me. There is a part of me I need to remind that I am working for God and not money because it seems so nice to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment, health and dental, weekends off and some clothes which are not specifically for work. Lower middle class seems like a dream... heck I might even be actual middle class!

But I am not working for the money. I could make money plenty of ways, but I am good at teaching, it recharges instead of drains my batteries. I like being in a class and helping students grow from mistakes and developing a sound mind and sound character. It is a life worth living.

...
Yesterday I got to sit with someone crying her eyes out. She is overwhelmed by her life and dealing with the past and present and didn't see it ever getting better. My comforting words felt pretty flat and meaningless in that strange, helpless world of tears but I believe what I said. I am proud of how she has been growing in the past years, opening and not closing her heart to others, growing to trust God one day at a time and wanting healing. I could wish the same on myself. And though she still felt the same except one day older I still believe that in God Himself there is healing and hope, for her and me as well.

Response to "The Dispossessed"

2009-10-28T06:02:00.000-07:00

At Jemuel's recommendation I read "The Dispossessed" by Ursula La Guin. It is lamely billed as "anarchist utopia science fiction" which mostly gives reasons not to read the book rather than actually give you any idea what it is about or if it is worth reading. It is worth reading.

There may be spoilers.

As a novel
The structure of the novel caught me off guard in that it was somewhat interesting. Science fiction in my experience is very A to B with space ships or something. Even Ray Bradbury, who I hold in high regard, wrote almost exclusively this way. La Guin structured this book so that after the first chapter (the present for the protagonist) we are without any indicator taken to the protagonist's early childhood. The next chapter continues in the present followed by the past again, but always moving forward.

The structure is still something like A to B but really it is something more like A to 1 to B to 2 to C and so forth except in theory the chapters could have been put in full chronological order and maintained a cohesive structure. The stepping back and forth to different times, once understood, was enjoyable and carefully revealed the character of the protagonist, his relationships and the settings of each time.

Purely as a writer I say it works but would hope that La Guin does not use this structure in multiple books. Certainly an artist plays with a mode or gimmick in multiple projects but if the artist never clings on to the mode for no real reason it becomes obnoxious. It would be especially offensive considering the ideals of the protagonist to be a part of novel but mechanical trick of the trade.

As a utopia
Jemuel described the anarchist society the protagonist comes from as "a realistic anarchist society." Hearing this I started the book with my magnifying glass to find clear hypocrisies, idealistic self denials and impractical solutions to the human condition (sinfulness). However I found Jemuel's description to have been quite accurate; La Guin had not intended the society to be a utopia at all. The people were sometimes jerks; life sometimes was hard; there were problems which the ideals of the society could not pretend to solve. Half of the past part of the story is the protagonist struggling to achieve an actual anarchist society in the anarchist society, to push the society to their own ideals.

The anarchist society was a moon of a earth like society (in a mode not unlike the past Cold War era). The two were meant to contrast each other and to La Guin's credit she does not deny the virtues of the hierarchical society the protagonist spends most of his time. Really she goes overboard to highlight the splendor, power and effectiveness of such a society. In contrast the anarchist society seems difficult but relaxed, sociable but overly casual, there are fewer boundaries to hold people in or protect them from the difficulties of others.

Most interesting about the anarchist society is the protagonist's general discovery that it had slowly replaced the freedom of individuals with the tyranny of social expectation. Though that tyranny is almost non-existent compared to the conventional use of the word. The big consequence of breaking social expectation is not much worse than being unpopular... rather than being shot at with machine guns from a helecopter.

Still with a surprsing few number of modifications the anarchist society could easily fit into my understanding of a realistic Christian society (though we'd have many of the same failing what with our sinful nature and all).

Christian Response
La Guin's anarchist society was most different from my understanding of a realistic Christian society in its sexual mores.

It is an obnoxious subject to disagree about because the blatant hypocrasy of almost everyone involved. It is difficult to even speak of the subject. I have encountered a chaotic blend of leanred rules, guilt and lust which leads almost everyone to strongly and irrationally defend or attack a sexual mores depending on circumstances and mood rather than any guiding principle. And the few non-Christians who are capable of navigating their sexuality without chaos are more private about it for fear of attack from the mass majority of angry people who don't really know what they believe about sex. I have heard many criticism of Christian sexual mores but rarely have I heard that the Christian sexual life is unclear.

Regardless of uselessness (and stereotype) of the Christian objection to a differen sexual standard I would be false to not explore the Christian reaction to the anarchist sexual mores. It is not the most important part of their society... but it still stands out.

The anarchist society operates in a socially constructed mode where consentual sexual activity between adults is politely kept private but beyond that has no other social standard or expectation. So people have sex when they feel like it with whoever feels like doing it. You get a room, you do your thing and its not that big of a deal. OR if you feel like it you have a lifetime partner and sex is something only shared with that partner. The partner model is shown to be the anomoly and in small ways causing friction to others but on the whole not very unusual. Still as the story progresses the protagonist does make a commitment to a partner and their relationship is indistinguishable from a successful marriage.

The Christian objection to the ideal La Guin imagines is based upon the principle that the structure and rule of Christian sexuality are made for our benefit and protection rather than to opress or supress sexuality. The criticism of La Guin's ideal is that it imagines that most of the cause of modern sexual unhappiness is socially constructed. If that were the case (and disease and preganncy were managed) in theory the only needed step would be to change the socially constructed mores: problem solved.

I'm getting tired and want to write about what the anarchist ideal does very right so I am not going to argue about it other than to say that the Christian position is that a undeniable part of sexual problems are beyond social construction.

One way La Guin's anarchism meets with Christianity is in the nature of work/play. In the anarchist society the two words work and play are the same word. In one part everyone does the kind of work/play that they feel inclined to do. So there are a lot of hobbies, of a sort. The people jsut do what they like, be it music, building, driving, physics, science or whatever. Passion focuses vocation. But then everyone takes a time doing mundane jobs which need to be done BUT they are done as an act of service to the people. One could say that they are done out of love.

This is not very different from the Christian model. I am going to be a teacher because that is what makes me come alive. I switch on when I'm in a class room. I would say God is calling me (existentially) to this path. But still there are some things I do which I "just got to do." But these supposed obligations when perceived as an act of love are transformed (if only in my mind) from a boring task to a supreme act. I get switched on when I teach but this does not compare to the high of helping someone in need.

Okay I'm going to go to sleep.

A Serious Man by the Cohen Brothers

2009-10-11T17:09:00.000-07:00

Yeah, there are spoilers but for the most part that is permissible; I mean how much would it affect a person's appreciation of "The Big Lebowski" to know beforehand who had taken the money?
Because of the inaccessibility of the film at this time all quotations should be considered paraphrases.
Lastly, this is going to be a full blown paper, not a casual review. If you want a review here it is: if you liked most Cohen Brothers movies you'll like this one. Just be warned it is most like "Barton Fink" of all their films.

...
When I was fifteen my Mom sat her remaining children down and made us listen to "She's Leaving Home," a little noticed Beatles song on "Sgt Pepper's Lonelyhearts Club Band." Already a fringe figure in the family, my mother had little influence in the future direction of our lives. She seemed to grasp at what little hope she had and stressed how important it was that we understood that song. At sixteen I said "yeah, yeah, yeah." but did listen and in future Beatle enjoyment paid extra attention to the meaning of that song.

The Cohen Brother's latest film "A Serious Mind" is the kind of movie I would show my children if I felt that their lives were heading towards soullessness and I had little influence to use to steer them towards a meaningful life. Sadly, there is no one I think that would understand the movie as I do... unless it is my Mom. The central theme of "A Serious Man" can be found in the film when the ancient rabbi quotes the Jefferson Airplane song: "'When the truth is found to be lies/And the hope within you dies,' what... do... you... do?" The central theme of "A Serious Man" is that the neat, rational paradigm of twentieth century America has shown itself to be false and offers no hope for those who trust in it. This theme is expressed through the setting, of the 1960's, where American society came close to social collapse, the struggle of Larry Gopnik, the protagonist, who is looking for meaning in his troubles while desiring to believe in an ordered, moral, meaningful universe in the midst of life shattering problems. The theme which is mostly seen as the struggle of Larry has consequences on his whole family but it is mostly clearly shown in the danger to his son. His son seems largely indifferent to his father's troubles though he is not ignorant. At school his main concern is getting twenty dollars, at home his main concern is the reception of his television. But regardless of his ignorance and indifference it is clearly shown that the Larry's failure to find an answer will still be a storm which his son must endure.

From "Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin

2009-10-09T09:27:00.000-07:00

Do me a favor. Read this passage from the anarchist sci-fi book "Dispossessed" and think of the description as a type of archetype, then answer the question at the end. It's not hard but I am curious.
"Since he was very young he had known that in certain ways he was unlike anyone else he knew. For a child the consciousness of such a difference is very painful, since, having done nothing yet and being incapable of doing anything, he cannot justify it. The reliable and affectionate presence of adults who are also, in their own way, different, is the only reassurance they can have; and Shevek had not had it. His father had indeed been utterly reliable and affectionate. Whatever Shevek was and whatever he did, Palat approved and was loyal. But Palat had not had this curse of difference. He was like the others, like all the others to whom community came so easy. He loved Shevek, but could not show him what freedom is, that recognition of each person's solitude which alone transcends it."

In so far as you can recognize the archetype of the "stranger in a strange land," inncoent alien loner do you identify with the character, wish to know the character or dislike the character?

Supreme Court

2009-10-05T13:30:00.001-07:00

So the Supreme Court will be meeting soon and that always interests me. Pasted below is a brief summary of the major cases from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/05/MNR119VTSS.DTL

My reaction to the cases will follow:

Campaigns: Whether federal and state laws that ban corporate and labor union contributions to political campaigns and political parties violate freedom of speech.

Guns: Whether the Second Amendment, which the court interpreted to guarantee an individual's right to own guns for self-defense, applies to state and local governments.

Cross: Whether an 8-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Animals: Whether a federal law making it a crime to possess images of cruelty to animals violates freedom of speech.

Terrorism: Whether federal laws that make it a crime to give "material support," including legal training and medical aid, to groups designated as terrorist organizations are unconstitutionally vague or over broad.

Juveniles: Whether a state can sentence juveniles to life without the possibility of parole for crimes other than homicides, such as rape or robbery.

....

Campaign finance: In a society where voters make decisions based upon emotional sentiment rather than responsible citizenship how much money allowed directly into national campaigns is a non-issue. Big money (corporations and unions) still spends a lot of money by contributing to non-profits which let us know that Sen. Kerry was a coward, Gov.Palin is a nut job and if you vote this way the terrorists won.

I see no compelling reason to change this particular limit and no compelling reason to hold fast to it. A responsible citizen informs themselves and is resistant to propaganda voting intelligently for the good of their conscience, family and nation. Where these responsible citizens exist money has a limited influence. Where these responsible citizens are overshadowed by consumer conformist no campaign reform can save democracy.

Guns: This case is a refinement of a recent SC decision to forbid D.C. from banning all citizen gun ownership. Based on a constitutional argument gun ownership must be protected. "A well armed citizenship is the best defense from tyranny" or so the argument goes. I support some forms of limitation of gun control but agree with the precedent of the previous ruling which forbids any universal ban.

Cross: I understand two broad ways of interpreting the First Amendment's religious clause: pluralist or secular. The first says that legally all religions (*"most all" not "all all") must be tolerated in the public arena. The second says that all religions are forbidden in the public arena. My understanding of this case (and most of the similar recent cases) are from the secular interpretation. The cross cannot be allowed on publicly funded land because no religious artifact is to be allowed on any public function because allowing the statement "In God we trust" on a dollar bill is equivalent to a state religion.

I tolerate the idea of a pluralist society because I recognize the necessity for toleration in a democracy but have no respect for the secular position. If the case was challenging that the Christian symbol was given competitive edge over some other local religion I might side with the case but to say that you just can't have a religious symbol on government property I reject.

Animal: Nah, besides would it apply to PETA's anti-meat propaganda too? There would have to be strong, thoroughly reviewed almost uncontested scientific support that possession of such images resulted in further crimes. This isn't child pornography we are talking about.

Terrorism: I don't know if the laws are over-broad or vague but strongly believe that criminal laws should be specific and clear even if they involve terrorism.

Juveniles: I think that would fall under cruel and unusual punishments.

Free Will (FW) vrs Predestination (PD)

2009-09-29T15:53:00.000-07:00

Without getting into general epistemology (a severe handicap) my best understanding is that the Biblical support for PD is much stronger than it is for FW. My anecdotal experience has shown FW to be more popular in the church community but the reasoning is has been largely reason based rather than Bible based.

In my own reading of the Bible there are numerous clear examples of God overruling the free will of people, the most famous being the Pharaoh who had his heart hardened by God (Exodus 4:21 being just one of many many such verses in that book). He also allows Satan to overrule the free will of others such as in the case of Judas Iscariot.

In Romans 9 Paul speaks directly to this issue and his position clearly favors PD quoting the OT "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." 9:16 goes so far to say that salvation does not depend of man's effort or DESIRE. To answer objections that this might make God unfair Paul's response is rather heavy handed saying "who is the clay to speak back to the potter?"

I am not qualified to make a fully developed air tight argument but these examples from the Bible are not isolated.

object- empty starbucks sample cup

2009-09-25T15:43:00.000-07:00

I am working on my writing skill. This is mostly just an exercise in my prose. I describe a single object in a paragraph with out any deep purpose but simply for practice. The goal is mostly to create the image in the reader's mind... but I would not be surprised if occasionally my object became a symbol of some kind.
Empty Starbucks Sample Cup:

The empty sample cup sits forgotten on the far side of the coffee shop table. The corporate logo on the side of the cup are made to not face towards the man so that the siren can not look him in the eye.The short length of green straw points toward the man like an accusing finger: "He will not throw me away. He will not recycle. He will not purchase anything more." The inner sides of the cup are scraped of their whip cream imperfectly so that they form stretched clouds of sugar and cream dotted with the remains of the cinnamon garnish. The remains of the orange drink makes a shallow pool on the bottom of the cup forming a ring of rejection taken freely, used up and soon forgotten.

Poem from "The Glass Bead Game"

2009-09-22T19:22:00.000-07:00

Stages

As every flower fades and as all youth
Departs, so life at every stage,
So every virtue, so our grasp of truth,
Blooms in its day and may not last forever.
Since life may summon us at every age
De ready, heart, for parting, new endeavor,
Be ready bravely and without remorse
To find new light that old ties cannot give.
In all beginnings dwells a magic force
For guarding us and helping us to live.

Serenely let us move to distant places
And let no sentiments of home detain us.
The Holy Spirit seeks no to restrain us
But lifts us stage by stage to wider spaces.
If we accept a home of our own making,
Familiar habit makes for indolence.
We must prepare for parting and leave-taking
Or else remain slaves of permanence.

even the hour of our death may send
Us speeding on to fresh and newer spaces,
And life may summon us to newer races.
So be it, heart: bid farewell without end.

Ending of "The Glass Bead Game"

2009-09-22T19:05:00.000-07:00

"Oh! he thought in grief and horror, now I am guilty of his death. And only now, when there was no longer need to save his pride or offer resistance, he felt, in shock and sorrow, how dear this man had already become to him. And since in spite all rational objections he felt responsible for the Master's death, there came over him, with a premonitory shudder of awe, a sense that this guilt would utterly change him and his life, and would demand much greater things of him than he had ever before demanded of himself."

That is the last paragraph of the story. This book is hardly a story at all, there seems to be no conflict at all. If not for the last paragraph/sentence it would be a senseless tragedy.

As beautiful a book as it is "The Glass Bead Game" also makes me sad. It makes me feel separated from others because it is something so special and delicate to myself which I cannot share with others. Maybe I could read excerpts to bookish and pretty young women to hear their sparkling accolades. "Wow, that's really deep." But really in a way especially agreeable to myself the excerpts come in page long chunks rather than paragraphs, let alone sentences.

I guess that is just one of the preciousness qualities of a book in general. That it is so private. I can feel fellowship with a friend because of our mutual appreciation of the same book or author but ultimately the beauty of the book still belongs to us separately.

Sensible People

2009-09-13T11:19:00.001-07:00

Christian is slowly progressing through stop and go traffic in his old ’89 Honda Civic. The car was named “Angelica” after his mother since it was difficult and undependable. He had gotten the car as a gift from the church where he was saved for some purpose or another but no one feels saved in traffic. His mother and teenage sister were with him on this drab but bright California winter day. His sister was also named after their mother but everyone called her Gee or Gigi. No one called their mother by her name either but it was unconsciously accepted by everyone that her name was actually Mom. She was not a well respected woman but no one doubted her maternal instincts. Between the one Angelica being called Gee and the other Mom you would have thought that the car was named for religious reasons.

Gee sits in the front seat staring out the window without speaking or listening. She has shotgun over Mom because she is a pregnant. Mom sits in the back cheerfully giving advice about pregnancy and motherhood. “Pregnant girls always get the front seat,” Mom explains to no one so that it seems more like a recitation of scripture rather than a conversation. “They are special, a gift, and need to be treated that way. You believe in God, you should know that.”

“You don’t even go to church, Mom.” Christian says half- heartedly.

“When I was pregnant your father always bought me flowers.” Mom continues without hearing.

In sensible families when a sixteen-year-old girl gets pregnant sensible mothers start talking about abortion or maybe adoption. Mom talks predominantly about milk. “Growing babies need a lot of nutrients,” she says. Mom would start keeping a gallon of milk in her van for her daughter and grandchild.

Neither Gee nor her mother had any idea how to take care of themselves. Mom lives in a van. Gee floats between welfare provided hotel rooms, friends’ couches and worst case scenario a warm and concealed dumpster. Mom burned all of her bridges with sensible family members with her learned helplessness and uncompromising morality. Gee’s pregnancy alienated anyone who might have pitied her for her eccentric mother. To sensible families both have become useful instructive tools in passing on sensible family values:

“You don’t want to end up like that Gee girl.”

“It is such a shame about that Gigi.”

“I blame her mother.”

“You could always move into my van.” Mom says hopefully.

“No, Mom!” Gee explodes impatiently. “I keep telling you I don’t want to live in your smelly van!”

“I just worry about the baby.” Mom says defensively dropping the subject.

Christian has not burned all of his bridges with his sensible family members. He is actually held in rather high regard. He could hold two jobs while going to college, had never been arrested, paid back what he borrowed and borrowed rarely. He actually agreed with Mom about the vibrant joy that is growing in his sister but was just sensible enough to keep this private. This discretion seemed to be a tight rope walked between two worlds. He did suffer guilt because he lived in a rented room in someone’s house while Mom lived in a van and his sister lived where she could.

Sensible people congratulated him saying that it was proper and fitting that he take care of himself first. “You got to look out for number one,” they would whisper to him as if they were conspirators. Christian did not resent them but between Mom’s influence and his conversion he had never developed the sensible belief that his self interest was the highest good to be achieved in one’s life. He was not as that sensible. Secretly he planned to support Mom and Gee but believed that they would be best cared for by him graduating college.

Strictly speaking Christian might have been a saint but he was not perfect. The very least of his sins was that he was a selfish driver. On the freeway there is an exit which other than leading into the city also leads directly back to the freeway. Using this as a shortcut is the grown up equivalent of cutting in line. Christian was perfectly aware he was stealing someone else’s spot and ultimately making more traffic for those behind him. If his mother thought about the ethics of driving one tenth as much as she did about milk she would say something to shame him. But with a growing baby in the car, she was content so long as her son do not go over the speed limit or change lanes too often.

Despite his conscience Christian is overpowered by a desire to go faster than ten miles-per-hour. It was during that small happiness he was attempting to steal that Gee saw her crawling along the side of the freeway.

“Christian! Pull over! Pull over!” she called out urgently almost panicking “There’s a dog on the side of the road!”

Christian was scared for a second but then was relieved it was just a dog. If Mom had not been in the car he would have kept driving but she WHO BIRTHED HIM, CARED FOR HIM AND PROTECTED HIM UNTIL HE GREW UP INTO THE MAN SHE ALWAYS KNEW HE WOULD BE was there so there was only one way I could go. The whole family was sentimental about animals and Christian not the least so. He only needed the most to be reminded what he really believed in.

Sensible people think of Christian as a sort of pet moral figure, the kind of saint that fits on the dashboard of an expensive automobile. They pat him on the back, make sure he doesn’t drop out of college and say how great it is he likes to go to church. Christian accepts this cheap applause and does not bother to correct those who misunderstand him since they don’t think so highly of him to mimic his lack of sensibility about family or dog.

Because of the gift of his mother’s heart Christian was resolve. He knew what was right. Without a word he pulled over on the side of the freeway and got out of his car. He didn’t expect much. If a dog gets hit on the freeway there was only one way it could go.

It was cold enough, by California standards, to wear a jacket. He only owned one jacket. His mother’s sensible step-dad had started a tradition a couple years earlier of buying all of the grown grandchildren matching ugly jackets. It was not known if he knew with what irony they received this gift. But for the frugal patriarch buying six Christmas presents for under $75 forgave all crimes of fashion. Some might say that he is cheap but for many of his sensible grandchildren a simple Christmas visit or even a phone call was too expensive a gift to give. The steady disintegration the sensible family made the old man’s Christmas shopping less and less costly; year by year the picture of amused faces in neon denim jackets had grows less and less crowded. This family disintegration had also been a serious blow to the homeless community who had cause to give thanks for the grandfather’s frugality. Soon after Christmas the local panhandlers were beyond pitiable in their lime green and feces brown jackets.

This year however Christian kept his jacket. It showed Mickey Mouse inviting others to a theme park that Christian had never been to. He had inherited his Gramps’ meanness about money out of necessity. This jacket wasn’t too bad. Christian might not wear everything I had been given but would rather go without than pay $20 for something he liked better. Aside from that he had become touched with affection for his Gramps, who faithfully (though not extravagantly) remembers grandsons who never remembered him on Christmas or any other day.

Buttoning his jacket Christian trotted along the side of the freeway. His mother had moved to the driver’s seat and said she would take the next exit, turn around and wait for him on the overpass they had driven under. “I worry about being on the side of the road with the baby,” she explained.

Christian headed back towards the overpass, which rose above the freeway and the frontage road that was an entrance to, an exit from and shortcut through the freeway. The frontage road was separated from the freeway by a cement divider but the frontage road was separated from a large open field by a short fence made of an interval of short wooden posts that held up a rail designed to bounce back reckless drivers. The field was newly landscaped with sapling trees and tanbark meant to beautify the long stretch of crowded concrete. The occasional traffic along the frontage road was impatient hotshots, like Christian, who would aggravate the traffic for others just to be able to drive forty miles-per-hour for ten seconds.

It was with the drone of indifferent motorists that Christian first saw her lying down in the tan bark ten feet away from the frontage road. When Gee had seen her, she had enough will to crawl but now lay like one dead. Christian knew there was only way it could go. His mind immediately thought of nightmare stories he had known, where monsters with human faces would throw a bag of unwanted kittens into a lake. This same kind of creatures might take their dog for a ride and make a quick stop on the side a freeway. These amazingly sensible people would then return to their other dependents with stories of a farm where their dog could play with lots of other dogs and be happy.

This dog, however, had a collar and tags. It was more likely that she was a lost dog. Her family was only human and even the noblest of dogs doesn’t know better than to explore an open gate, never knowing or believing that it could lead to dying on the side of the freeway. Maybe pictures of this dog being hugged by happy children already were posted on telephone poles and shops in the neighborhood she would never see again. From a distance Christian could read her tag; her name was “Michelle.”

Michelle was a mutt with some pit bull. Her coat was cheaper than Christian’s jacket, red and brown and black and white. She had been a puppy not long ago but her carefree days were behind her and would never return. She had been hit by a car, and it had crushed her hip or broke her hind legs or cracked her spine. She lay down whining in way that sounded both like her prayers and her last rites. There was only one way it could go.

Christian had been called to be with Michelle in her pain, suffering and humiliation. All of which would most likely define the end of her life, as it does for most of us. Christian had been raised with dogs and cats, strays and domesticated. He imagined himself somewhat of a dog-whisperer, able to charm skittish and abused animals into trust or acceptance. This would not work out very well with Michelle. Though he only courted her with love and sympathy they never became friends. Though for his part Christian was always her friend.

The best advice is to never get close to a strange dog. All dogs are defensive and protective creatures; even a friendly dog will bite when startled. It is best to make your presence known and if the dog is willing to let it come towards you. Michelle would not approach anyone in friendliness or ferocity ever again. Without the use of her hind legs she was not a dangerous dog unless someone came close. But getting close is just what Christian had a mind to do. Christian could read the tag with Michelle’s name but she had another tag which identified her family, those who would rush from their sensible plans to be with their loved one if only to be there at the end.

With this in mind Christian lowered his head, keeping it submissive and if he had a tail would have put it between my legs. He reached out his hand slowly, flat and low for Michelle to smell. This is good manners when dealing with dogs but Michelle was not accepting invitation. She started to growl to let Christian know that he was not welcome but he still inched forward. She tensed to sit up and begin what might have been a bark or a bite. But this put pressure where she was most hurt and all that came out was a sharp whine. Christian’s jumped back which caused Michelle to also jump back despite the pain. He approached again, slow and close to the ground. He hoped that she would trust him, either out of intuitive kinship or in desperation. He only came for her good, and she certainly didn’t have any bite left in her. But each inch he moved towards her she whined, growled and with anguish jerked two inches away from him. He moved forward in pained compassion, and she moved back in pain and more pain. Hopelessly she began urinating on herself as she still desperately tried to escape the only man who loved her. Seeing her shame and the end of her life Christian wondered how he had imagined he had ever known the meaning of love or pity before this moment.

At this point Christian’s main concern was no longer his own sensible desire to avoid being bitten but that in pain and ignorance Michelle was throwing herself further and further towards the freeway. The fence which bounced careless drivers would not stop a crawling dog from meeting one more indifferent or malicious motorist.

Christian backed away and began to circle around so that if Michelle did back away from him then at least she would also be moving away from the freeway, its indifference and death. He took off his jacket and held it front of him like a matador. Michelle never took a suspicious eye off of him but was confused enough that he could drape the jacket, the little warmth he had, over her injury and shame. She lay under her jacket like one already dead; content to move no more.

Sentimental sensible people would be greatly moved by a man giving his only jacket to a dying dog. They wouldn’t be wrong to think it was caring but it was only a small victory. Christian had given up something he had been given and didn’t really like. Elsewhere in the world a mother hen was devoured by a fox while covering her chicks under her wings; a gentle husband and father placed his mortal body between his family and the horrors of war. Even they did not face great battles, any talk of pacifism or flight would be a betrayal; it would be an abomination. Up to this point Christian had not fought a battle or earned a victory; he had merely displayed the bare nakedness of the man he was raised and saved to become.

Christian’s battle was not for Michelle’s life, which was lost before he knew. His battle was to revenge her against the indifferent and sensible slayer of men and Michelle. Her only help would come from those greater than him. Animal Control, or whoever, would subdue, sedate and save her, read her name and call her family. Christian saw there was only one way it could go.

Long ago Tinsel, the majestic german shepherd, had been put to sleep by Christian’s mother. It was after a long life that was being over-overwhelmed by illness and anguish. She was humanely put to rest surrounded by the loud weeping of a caring family. Mom believed that Tinsel was the canine personification of her own motherly spirit. She was the only one who could have made the decision and she painfully chose out of love. Still Mom had stayed in bed for a whole week after the experience. Sensible family members did not understand how the end of Tinsel’s life was the beginning of Mom’s homelessness; just as Gee’s pregnancy was the beginning of her recovery.

The only desperate hope Christian held on to was that Michelle would breathe her last surrounded by her weeping family in the same way. This would require the aid of those who carelessly passed him by as if the walls of their cars demarked the end of creation. Christian was not against technology and though many of his friends and peers had cell phones Christian did not. This was simply a matter of expense and it was a time in Christian’s life when a cell phone would have been a luxury rather than a way of life. This put him in the blessing and curse of poverty: the need to ask for help.

Though little time had passed the traffic on the freeway had cleared up enough so that the average speed was somewhere between twenty and thirty miles per hour. After the pace the motorists had been enduring this would have been quite delightful. This pick up in the pace on the freeway made the even greater speed of the frontage road more tempting like a bite of food increases rather than decreases the appetite. Speed is a powerful stimulant. It seems to promise that if one could just move quickly enough they could escape the four walls of their cars and the four walls of traffic and the four walls of the prison of their sensible little life. The addiction of speed is the belief that if a person moves quickly enough one day they will never need to hurry ever again. Beyond the speed of light there is a place where one can sit restfully surrounded by happy children and a family dog. Those tempted by the delight of increasing power and control of their environment are those least likely to slow down and help someone on the side of the road. After all people could get robbed or killed that way. It was not sensible to stop on the side of the freeway to help a stranger who might need help, not sensible at all.

This illusion would be Christian’s enemy. First, he politely stood by the side of the frontage road imagining that someone would see him, slowly and safely come to a stop and ask him if he needed help. He then tried calmly waving to the passing cars. Christian would have waved a little more urgently but felt that this would have frightened motorists. Many sensible people who admire and respect Christian also believe that he is a little naive.

The traffic, however, was more than indifferent to his need. Several cars belligerently honked their horns at him as if I were disturbing the sanctity of their octane powered orgasm. One car slowed enough to throw a soda at him while yelling obscenities. This is a sensible reaction and should be expected if you think about it there was no good reason for him to be at the side of the road in such a way.

It was after this that Christian would have to face my true battle. He realized he could not make the indifferent care anymore than I could heal Michelle’s wounds. But up to this point he had been reasonably sensible or at least polite to the sensibility of others. He had always walked the line between what is sensible and what is right. His silence let it appear that he gave lip service to Moloch while in my heart I never cherished those golden calves. Meek and mild was nice and fine but when the horn signals the charge a person must either slink away a failure or else valiantly lift his banner high and proudly charge towards the front.

So Christian stepped out into the middle of the frontage road that had taken Michelle’s youth away, he placed his mortal body in the middle of the road so that none could remain indifferent. He wisely didn’t actually want to be hit so did wave his arms energetically, but his legs were firmly placed on the solid ground. He didn’t think it was likely that even the heady pleasure of speed would lead someone to actually run him over but it was not outside the realm of possibility. Certainly at this time he was not placing his trust in a general respect for the sanctity of life. If anything he would say his only protection was the belief that running him down would have been more of an inconvenience than stopping for him. But beyond that he was putting his trust in the fact that there actually are some things worth dying over.

Christian stood defiantly in the middle of the road that yearly killed more men than handguns. There were no witnesses except a dying dog and yet Christian was standing in front of the whole world of sensible people and openly declaring “I AM NOT ONE OF YOU!“ He was placing his immortal soul between the world and the horrors of hell. If had been Christian himself it would have been too great of a trail but he was not alone and if any victory was to be had it was because of this truth. Still at this moment Christian stood in the middle of a highway for no greater reason than the fact that a dog was dying on the side of the road.

The first car he tried to stare down was a beat up pickup truck with an elderly Mexican man in the driver’s seat and a dog in shotgun. It was rather anticlimactic. The driver didn’t resent seem to resent Christian for holding him up. His eyes did not accuse him of insubordination, of being part of a divine rebellion. He seemed mildly concerned but unworried as if it was just someone in need in of little help.

“Do you have a cell phone?” Christian shouted out as politely as possible.

He poked his head out the window and answered “No.” with a heavy Mexican accent. Christian moved aside to let him pass. The man paused and asked if anyone was hurt. “A dog on the side of the road.” was Christian could say and felt rather stupid.

Behind the pickup truck a car had been forced to stop because of the considerate Mexican’s question. The car honked at him and me and the whole world for being so cruel to it. That car had a man trapped inside who yelled obscenities at Christian as he passed.

Still Christian would have to make war against the freeway a second time. As soon as there was a break in the passing cars he planted himself in the middle of the road again and waved his arms to be seen. This time the care he stopped was an expensive Jaguar with a successful seeming business man in the driver’s seat. He seemed to personify all of the hopes and expectations Christian’s sensible family members had for him. Expectations he was now openly rejecting.

Christian met the drivers eyes immediately locked in what would become a battle of wills. The motorist immediately looked into Christian’s demeanor and knew this was nothing he would consider an emergency.

“Out of my way,” the driver’s eyes commanded as the sun shined brightly on his expensive automobile.

“No.” was all Christian’s eyes said.

“I could just run you over,” his eyes threatened. The powerful engine purred in bloody readiness.

“And increase your insurance premiums?” Christian’s eyes mocked, his proximity to sensible people taught him the depths of their hearts.

“Well,” the man’s eyes reasoned, “I could just move ahead slowly. You couldn’t stop me.”

“Oh,” Christian’s eyes laughed, “But I might scratch your lovely Jag.” Christian’s eyes said nothing more.

“Ugh,” the man’s eyes relented in guarded desperation. “What do you want?”

Christian felt no embarrassment that he extorted charity from this man, this man who still hadn’t even opened his window to find out what was needed.

“Do you have a cell phone?” Christian yelled out while making a phone signal with his hand. The man nodded and reached over to pick up his top-of-the-line PDA cell phone. Seeing his expensive toy a sense of power grew in him. When his eye contact broke from Christian his anger increased again. It was as if a random pedestrian had knocked on the door of his home, his private residence, while he was in the bathroom, while he was on the toilet and knocked and knocked until answered and then had the audacity to come inside only to use his phone! When their eyes met again the man’s eyes raged like a lake of fire.

Christian signaled the numbers “nine, one, one.”

“Oh you better believe I am calling the police,” the man’s eyes said. But Christian was immune to his rancor. It was impotent rage. Perhaps he would never join his country club or wouldn’t get that home loan but Christian was not one of him. The man had called the highway patrol and that was all I required. Christian had won.

Now, if Christian weren’t white he might have been a little more nervous about having to explain all of this to a police officer. But as it was, he was not only white but a clean cut white kid with no criminal record and a list of reference from pastors, school teachers and sensible home owners declaring that he was a “a good guy, a little naïve but a good guy.” So Christian was content to walk over to the fence where I could see Michelle’s slow and painful breathing without disturbing her. He pleasantly smiled and waved at the Jaguar as it drove past him to God knows where.

Christian sat a good ten minutes before anything happened. He saw his mom drive by on the overpass and imagined his mom and sister seeing him sitting by the side of the freeway doing nothing. But as he sat there next to the freeway a woman in her car saw him, slowed her car down and came safely to a halt. She got out of her car and walked towards Christian asking “Do you need any help?”

Christian’s first reaction was that there must be something wrong with this woman. Then their eyes met.

“There is so much to live for,” her eyes pleaded. “Don’t do it.”

This woman thought he was thinking about suicide. She had stopped on the side of the freeway and exposed herself to danger from cars and maybe a dangerous man. This would have been easy to explain if she were ugly seeming or lonely seeming but she was just a normal woman neither too young nor too old. Christian blushed like Adam meeting Eve. Embarrassed he spoke words about this dog on the side of the road but his eyes said “I am one of you!”

“Are you going to be okay?” she asked as he looked down at the ground.

“Oh, yeah, animal control or whoever is on the way, and my mom is waiting with my car up there on the overpass.” Christian couldn’t say anything else except to thank her for caring and she drove away.

Not that much longer a highway patrolman approached Christian. He had parked his cruiser somewhere further down the road where it wouldn’t be in danger of being hit. He was a muscular black man and walked towards Christian behind dark sunglasses and one hand near his holster.

It took the officer about two seconds to figure out what Christian was not: crazy or dangerous. Most people with any experience with authority quickly come to see Christian as a tall and rather well behaved child. Regardless of what the highway officer thought he saw in Christian he was trained to be exceedingly polite and exceedingly careful, his hand was only away from his holster once.

“Good afternoon, sir,” he said with authority. “What seems to be the problem?”

“Did someone call you about the dog?” Christian ask naively.

“No, sir,” he replied. “I received a call about a pedestrian on the side of the highway.”

“Yeah,” Christian answered half laughing, half embarrassed “That would be me.” The call to the police probably had a lot stronger words than “pedestrian.” Christian explained briefly about seeing the dog and not being able to get the tags. “So I tried to get someone to call animal control.”

He didn’t mention a lot of things. But his jacket on Michelle and his eyes said a lot more than his words. After this the patrolman softened a great deal. He was still very businesslike and efficient but he put his authority away as if he were off duty and dealing with a young man he had seen grow up.

Christian turned the whole thing over to him. There was nothing more he could do. He noticed that he actually pretty cold. The patrolman was talking into his radio Christian stopped paying attention to him.

“Well,” he said after a minute, “animal control is on their way. Where is your car?”

“My mom is up there on the overpass.” Christian said pointing. He could see Angelica driving past.

“Go ahead and walk up there from here,” he said.

“There is nothing more I can do,” Christian thought to himself unconvincingly. Most likely Michelle would die alone, if she wasn’t dead already. Her guardians would receive a phone call that was cold and clinical telling them that she had been hit by a car. There was a chance that they could have been called before Michelle was euthanized. She could die surrounded by weeping, caring family members. But there was also a chance her family was rich and could buy all of the medical costs to give her a new hip or legs or spine. She would soon be happily playing with other dogs on a farm far away from this freeway and all of our sinfulness. “There is nothing more I can do,” he said to himself again and received no comfort from the words.

But before he left the highway patrol man took off his sunglasses with his left hand and looked Christian in the eyes while shaking my hand with his right. “Well done, young man,” his eyes said.

Still Christian walked towards the overpass feeling like a failure when the Word of the Lord came upon him and declared “IF I WOULD SEND YOU, MICHAEL, A BELOVED ONE, TO CARE FOR ONE DYING DOG. WHAT WOULD I NOT DO FOR OTHERS WORTH SO MUCH MORE?” Like most miracles this message was in one ear and out the other.

When Angelica pulled up Christian was shivering.

“What happened?” Gee asked.

“She was hit by a car. I got someone to call animal control.”

“Did they say what they were going to do for her?” his mom asked as she scooted over to let him drive. “I mean she will probably need surgery!”

“Damn it, Mom! Don’t be stupid. They are going to put her to sleep! No one does reconstructive surgery for stray dogs on the side of the road! Grow up!”

“Jeeze, Michael,” Gee said after a minute, embarrassed by Christian’s inexplicable and uncharacteristic anger.

“Well, you don’t know what they are going to do,” Mom said defensively. “But if decent people were in charge of this world even stray dogs would get everything they need.” In her own hurt she added “You should learn to control your temper.”

Christian didn’t say anything and before long his mother was continuing on and on about everything pre-natal. Gee was again silently staring out the window and Christian drove on, as if nothing had ever happened.

Blogs Please

2009-08-24T14:31:00.000-07:00

My friends don't blog enough. It seems like the only way I can sort of keep up with people is by their facebook status but really I like reading my friend's paragraphs. Growing up means we do not have the same amount of time to invest in each other and I miss the specialness of my friend's personalities. Each of them has a certain flavor that is distinctive and says "this is me."

Reading blogs is, for me, second best to spending several hours sitting in a coffee shop talking about nothing or everything. Actually reading blogs is third after lengthy involved correspondences... which it seems only I am the least bit capable of.

But so it is. I know who my friends are and time can only diminish that to a certain point. I am lucky to have so many good friends to miss and fortunate to know we are going to be important to each other even if we never spend as much time as we did in our twenties.

Car Troubles

2009-08-10T16:25:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I had attempted to go to the beach on a beautiful but hot summer day. Half way there Victoria (my car) started to over heat. It has had some overheating issues in past summers, especially if it sat idle after a long drives. I described it on Facebook and there was a general consensus that it was probably just my car being out of water and it was not that big of a deal. The next day there was no problem and no problem since then... though I never attempted anything like the Santa Cruz mountains.

Well Jem had an excellent (wonderfully planned) trip for the family to Felton. The feature was the Singing Saw Festival but really it was just an excuse to hang out with family and some of Jemuel's friends. The morning before Gramps expressed concern that maybe Victoria couldn't make a trip like that. I didn't think it would be an issue. I had made sure the fluids were fit and didn't expect any problems.

On the trip up Victoria started t overheat and by the time we got to the festival all of the water was out of the engine. I felt prepared. I refilled the fluids but she never stopped running hot. We drove slow up the mountain but she never stopped running hot. It was just me and my buddy Greg. We took a break in Los Gatos watched the second quarter of the Hall of Fame preseason game and checked the radiator fluids again.

We got maybe a couple of miles but she still ran hot. But the heat gage went way higher than it had ever gone before. I got scared so I got off the freeway and called for a tow truck.

Mike came to pick me up after Victoria was towed to a AAA auto shop and I went home.

Now I don't know that much about engines, if it is serious or expensive. My financial aid check should be in the mail any day now (I've been saying for seven days) but though I do struggle with fears and concerns I know that my life belongs to God and that He has wonderful, amazing, great, beyond belief plans for my life. I don't know if those plans include Victoria much longer... though I don't think the car problems are THAT serious, it is just that as important it was for me to be responsible enough to pay for a whole car loan my life is not measured that way.

I have and can again live riding a bike. I don't know how that will work when school starts up again but again my life iss not measured by the Credential Program either... though I will be begging, borrowing (not stealing) to make that work. The main point of my life, what I will be measure by is Christ's love for me. That is something I can rest secure with... though I'd like to drive Victoria for several more years.

full kant paper

2009-08-08T16:14:00.001-07:00

Godly Philosophy
Michael Gardner
Solomon wrote that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. Socrates said that his wisdom was to know he was not wise. It seems that Kant would say “by the proper application of reason I am wise.”Perhaps he could defend this break from the ancients by saying his enlightenment is the result of a mature wisdom. Still, for the individual in Kant’s path there is no place for humility except for the shameful self-incurred variety. This self-incurred humility either occurs in the individual who will not “boldly, dare to know” or else in the priest who, as a hired man, instructs others in the most difficult and costly life choices which he may or may not believe. Other than in the sad cases of cowardice and hypocrisy, no individual acknowledges anything superior to their own individual human reason. Rather each thinking man is lord over his own mind and looks to no other for wisdom.
Kant’s paradigm recognizes the possibility for error in reason but this is to be solved by free public discourse, which is of course just the massive application of individual human reason. It is only by this Darwinian environment of ideas that a subject of thought can become mature. This supposes that the great tragedies, the great follies and great evils of human history occurred because of a lack of applying human reason rather than through the relentless and reoccurring application of that human reason to tragic, foolish and unabashedly wicked ends. If human reason were naturally as trustworthy and noble as Kant supposes one would wonder how in human history it had been unnaturally subjugated so that the majority in Kant’s day preferred self-incurred ignorance. Either some humans used their reason to subjugate others and were near universally able to do so against other humans capable of reason or else some evil genius interfered with human’s reason so that the majority became clouded by ignorance. In either case Kant’s theory supposes that for no stated reason the subjugating humans will now no longer be successful or else that evil genius has for no stated reason ceased to cloud human reason. Kant’s paradigm supposes that in his day and age reason could rule when in past times it could not.
Biblical Christianity recognizes that human reason is intended as one of the greatest blessings from God. It should be strengthened, protected and encouraged in all people, just like we should all seek, protect and encourage physical or financial or social health in ourselves and other. But none of these obvious goods ought to be elevated or trusted with supremacy. We live in a world which corrupted by sin; our reason, body, world and society is infected with a changeable untrustworthiness. Scripture points out that in a man’s heart his own way almost always seems good, even when it leads to destruction. The mind can deceive itself and has a limit to how much truth it will accept. But even if the world were not corrupted, as it once was not, reason would not be meant to be the supreme judge of right and wrong. Reason is not meant to be our god.
What is more there are some issues which reason, even a sinless reason cannot answer but even in theory could only be answered by trust in God (faith). Suppose I have been promised by the God that I need not worry but all of my life will be redeemed by His righteousness. Reason can only judge what is evident and at hand. In the front of what by all evidence appears to be total annihilation reason would demand the failure of that promise. By definition, reason cannot trust beyond what it apprehends. So in the absence of loved ones, in grave danger and death reason can only respond with grief, terror and despair. But experience has shown us in many forms, great and small, that reason has shown itself false and faith, which responded with trust, courage and hope, has proved correct.
This raises the question why do I study the methods of reason and seek to teach others to do the same. The answer may not be pleasing to the rationalist paradigm which I acknowledge as common wisdom, but my answer is that I am following God. It seems God wills not only that we trust his promises but also that we begin to understand His will. Reason serves in this endeavor. His message does not depend upon reason but it is can be known by reason. Therefore a strong mind, capable of discussing abstracts, discovering error, asking questions and understanding answers, is a good thing and to be desired for all people. What is more that Kant’s model of a society of free exchange of ideas is also desirable because reason in its proper place, beneath God, is a good thing.

Cristian Critism of "The Wrestler"

2009-08-07T11:08:00.000-07:00

Note: Plenty of spoilers. I recommend you not read this if you think you might see "The Wrestler." If you are sensitive to nudity in movies, read the blog and do not watch the movie.

I watched "The Wrestler" last night. The movie advertised itself as "deeply affecting" and this was true. It started much like a documentary, simply chronicling the sad state of the wrestler. But the first half of the movie did not create much sympathy in me. It would suck to have been a famous wrestler then to be reduced to playing in small events but it seemed honest work. Randy the Ram was a part of a community that liked and respected him, it would matter to much to me that he no longer was a super star.

The strip club scenes were perhaps gratuitous but the director did an excellent job of making the Pam character a female equivalent of Randy. I would not wish Pam a better stripping career but can sympathize with the feeling of helplessness associated with aging and not being able to perform. My sympathy for Pam bridged to a sympathy to Randy. It was also touching to see that Pam and Randy did share a sincere friendship.

Yet, it was Randy's relationship with Stephanie, his estranged daughter, that was "deeply affecting." Absentee fatherhood is a serious American issue and the damage it does was very well represented. Understanding how it would change someone's life to be able to love and be loved by a long lost father broke my heart with caring and hope. I could also hope that the movie would not end in failure because Randy seemed too worn out and used up to screw it up... which did not end up being the case.

Jonathon pointed that Randy failed because "he could not give up his 80's rock and roll lifestyle." There is some truth to that and a night of sin did put him in a situation to fail his daughter when she was started to trust him. But that is not why Randy was destroyed. It was not sin that was his destruction but a lack of faith. When his daughter expelled him for his failure Randy was offered another saving grace in Pam but he refused to believe that there was a saving love outside of the ring.

The troubling part of Randy's decision is that there is a fair chance that he would have survived the match. He could have lived, lost Pam and Stephanie and gone back to his trailer alone. Really from an eternal perspective it didn't matter if he died in the ring or a month or decade later. Anytime left living without faith in the grace given him would have been the front porch of hell. Of course if he lived there is always a chance for him to receive grace but the film as a time-line did represent how a person could choose their own damnation.

My heart goes out to Stephanie because she too refused to believe in the grace given her. If she could have forgiven her father, endured through the hurt she could have saved her father and herself, too. The consequences of her refusal, though understandable, went beyond simply her life.

Less meaningful comments:
I loved the ridiculous nature of the wrestling: the bad guy begging, arguing with the ref. It was very silly.
Who in the heck is Micky Rourke?

1st Half of Kant Paper

2009-08-02T09:10:00.000-07:00

Solomon wrote that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. Socrates said that his wisdom was to know he was not wise. It seems that Kant would say “by the proper application of reason I am wise.”Perhaps he could defend this break from the ancients by saying his enlightenment is the result of a mature wisdom still for the individual in Kant’s path there is no place for humility except for the shameful self-incurred variety. This self-incurred humility either occurs in the individual who will not “boldly” “dare to know” or else in the priest who, as a hired man, instructs others in the most difficult and costly life choices which he may or may not believe. Other than in the sad cases of cowardice or hypocrisy, no individual acknowledges anything superior to their own individual human reason. Rather each thinking man is lord over his own mind and looks to no other for wisdom.
Kant’s paradigm recognizes the possibility for error in reason but this is to be solved by free public discourse, which is of course just the massive application of individual human reason. It is only by this Darwinian environment of ideas that a subject of thought can become mature. This supposes that the great tragedies, the great follies and great evils of human history occurred because of a lack of applying human reason rather than through the relentless and reoccurring application of that human reason to tragic, foolish and unabashedly wicked ends. If human reason were naturally as trustworthy and noble as Kant supposes one would wonder how in human history it had been unnaturally subjugated so that the majority in Kant’s day preferred self-incurred ignorance. Either some humans used their reason to subjugate others and were near universally able to do so against other humans capable of reason or else some evil genius interfered with human’s reason so that the majority became clouded by ignorance. In either case Kant’s theory supposes that for no stated reason the subjugating humans will now no longer be successful or else that evil genius has for no stated reason ceased to cloud human reason.
Considering these reservations against the infallibility of human reason it becomes necessary to explain why I study philosophy and am pursuing a career in education, which is primarily about strengthening
...

Practicing What I Preach

2009-07-23T12:16:00.000-07:00

In my Bible study of 1 John I point out that the word practice has two popular uses: 1) to do something "I practice law" 2) to do something with the intention of doing it better. This post is referring to the second kind of practice. I am trying to get better at doing the kind of annoying advice I give to most complainers, in particular the kind of complaints directed against other people.

I insist that the offended person look at the issue from the perspective of the other person, give them the best possible motivations, practice sympathy rather than judgment, etc.

So I was recently slighted by some people in a not very important way but it still hurt my feelings. The strict interpretation of my constant advice is to train my thoughts against imagining their dislike of me. It is all too natural for me to start thinking "They don't like me... I don't fit in... I am an outsider." [I am aware of the "embrace the solitude" individualist perspective and reject it as inhuman]. My advice would be to train your thoughts against the negative interpretation of their actions and focus on the best interest of others. But that is not happening...

So I practice what I preach. I might not win this fight or it might take months to convince myself that these people do not dislike me or if they do that it a mistake on their part, or something like that. Until then the best I can do is practice at it. I have been disliked before, fairly and unfairly and there have been times with increased time together I have made new friends and earned respect (this happens a lot at work where my offensive nature sometimes gets the first impression). and it is possible that a person can get to know me and still think little of me and that is something I have been okay about (I have never been bothered by those who dislike my attitudes toward money).

So I guess what I practice at this point is 1) not dwelling on the hurt/offense 2) not striking out at others because of it. It is a mental battle which I might sometimes lose but that is why I want all the more to practice what I preach. It is better to try to live in peace with others and mess up then to separate from any who offend (anyone can) or not even try to live in peace.

btw sometimes separation is the best path but even then the hope is for some future re-connection and this particular case is nothing so drastic. That is a sort of nuclear option.

"Fiscal conservatives grumble over tab for reform"

2009-07-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

pre-script: Hey Martin, I just tagged you because I know this is one of your core issues, but you aren't specifically mentioned.

The SF Chronicle posted an article(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/20/MNAR18QUG7.DTL) about House Speaker Pelosi having difficulty getting her ten year, trillion dollar Health Care Reform Bill through the Congressional Budget Office. It is a pretty ambitious bill, covering pretty much anyone making between 43K and 88K, excepting illegal immigrants. I am guessing that exception is a compromise to make the bill more palatable, but think that the courts could very easily make it so that immigrants would have to be included or else throw out the bill if it were passed. There is a pretty high tax increase for those making 350K and businesses with payrolls above 250K and an even bigger bump for individuals making more than a million.

However, Democrats which the article repeatedly names as "conservative Democrats" have criticized the bill because it will almost certainly increase the federal deficit. I think that if the bill is having trouble in the house (the most radical part of congress) that it will die in the Senate (which is always more conservative). But what is more interesting to me is the politics within the actual Democratic Party.

The article reads: "Liberal Democrats warned conservatives that there would be hell to pay if they brought down the president's top initiative and denied health care to millions, while conservative Democrats warned that mounting federal debt and new taxes, especially on small businesses, would be the party's undoing."

I'm always interested in battles for the heart and soul of a party, Republican or Democrat. I usually root for the moderates on either side

Mandatory Reporter Paper (review)

2009-07-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

Ahoy hoy,
This is my paper review for the law roudntable in Dr. V's 5311 class. If you are tagged it is because you are either in my credential program or else are on the teacher track as well. Feedback is okay.
If it seems a little long for the roundtable assignment... I think you are correct.
BTW pastors are also mandatory reporters.
p.s. team 50 don't forget the cover page.
....

Roundtable 1

Law Roundtable- Mandated Reporting
Sabina Nizami
Michael Gardner

TED 5311
Dr. Bette Vervais
July 16, 2009 In American it is estimated that one in four children are victims of abuse. This can be physical, sexual and emotional, but it all has long lasting, and even generational, effect. As teachers we have a special role on the lives of our students, spending more hours during a week with the child than any other adult. Students will look up to, trust and depend on us. This creates a responsibility which we can not morally abandon. But as teachers there are also legal requirements and protections concerning abuse and the reporting of abuse which we need to know. This discussion will introduce the legal standards of teachers concerning reporting observed and even suspected abuse, including our legal status as mandatory reporters, how to correctly report abuse and some signs of abuse.
As teachers we are legally classified as mandatory reporters. This means that we must report abuse and suspected abuse or else face the risk of up to six months in jail and a fine of up to a thousand dollars,# to say nothing of thee possibility of seriously endangering a child. Congress passed the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act in 1974 which states:
a mandated reporter shall make a report to [the police, sheriff’s department, county probation department or county welfare department] whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment has knowledge or observes a child knows or reasonably suspected has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.#
This report is expected to be made as soon as practically possible by phone and must be followed by a formal written report within 36 hours.
Being a mandated reporter also provides legal protection form civil and criminal prosecution for reporting abuse and suspected abuse. This means that you can not be sued for reporting a reasonably possible suspicion. You also can not even be identified as the reporter unless there is a court order to that effect.
It is not necessarily expected that every mandated reporter should be an expert at diagnosing or recognizing abuse but the law defines the reasonable suspicion we must be “objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based on the facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position… to suspect child abuse or neglect.”# We can list some signs but ultimately what the law requires is something like common sense, depending on your experience and training with cases of abuse.
It is natural that when the subject of child abuse is made someone’s responsibility that it would cause strong feelings that are difficult to deal with. It might even be normal to want to avoid the issue. However, even aside from our legal responsibility we should remember that the reason we choose to teach. We want to improve the lives of people when they are most receptive to help. It is a great gift to teach children to read, strengthen and expand their mind but it pales in comparison to helping preventing abuse. It is even possible to save someone’s life. We can not save everyone but we can and we must be willing to make a difference.

Why I Write

2009-05-05T08:56:00.000-07:00

Ha, ha, the obvious answer (obvious if you write) is that I write to get these thoughts out of my head. I heard someone say something I've said about my own writing: it is like vomiting on a piece of paper. In mentality I actually agree with Robert Heinlein (or his character Lazarus Long "it is perfectly acceptable if you write just so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and wash your hands when you are done."

But I guess what I am trying to articulate is what I think is beneficial about writing or any kind of art. What is actually good about Jemuel or Martin's music, Mike's comics? I don't think this will be why we do it but maybe could be a standard by which I (or some other high and mighty A-hole) judge our overall success. I think what makes art different from mere self expression (which is good and fine) is that art provides the audience (and artist) a vocabulary for understanding their feelings.

For example, Martin has a number of kinds of songs, love songs, sad songs, intimate songs, ironic songs, etc. and while I do enjoy his romantic "baby baby baby" songs they don't "teach" me any new understanding of my own feelings. That is not because of anything missing from his songs but because the message of those songs is already very well developed in our vocabulary/understanding. But he has a couple of "she did me wrong" songs which do delve to put a difficult experiences into a form both the artist and audience can in some ways understand, accept/reject and articulate.

This understanding of art can be seen in how passionately younger people feel about their music. I once saw a ten year old girl lip syncing to a No Doubt song (this was a while ago) with all of the feeling AS IF she had any understanding what it felt like to go through what the song was about. I see now that she was actually practicing feeling that way and by sharing in their art got a glimpse (inoculation?) of how it really felt.

And though I am certainly prejudiced towards the literate/articulated portion of this: understanding the words; it has to be acknowledged that much of this internal vocabulary is from the music or pictorial aspects as well. For example (I'm lame) when I hear the beginning music or Lord of the Rings or (more respectable) the beginning music or "Silent all These Years" there is a non-literate understanding which I remember. If I look at "the Howl" or "starry nights" I do have a feeling. It might not have a very appropriate word attached to it as if all internal activity had an equal dictionary expression: "Silent all these Years" is = and exactly = to pensive. Making that definition longer does not solve this foolishness as if "Silent All These Years = and exactly = pensive+sad+healing+growing.

So when I write I am in some ways simply expressing myself, but rather than only letting the inside out I also steer my understanding towards a kind of expression. I imagine that my audience is someone like a teenage version of myself and I want him to be able to understand what he is feeling and what is happening. And that is the part of art which I am not the least bit shy about.

Happy Martin? You were mentioned.

Cycle of Doom

2009-04-21T09:31:00.000-07:00

"Get right back on the horse" means that if you are learning to ride a horse and it throws you off that you should get right back on the horse. This teaches both you and the horse that eventually this will be mastered. A fall need not need define you.

When I fall it is for two reasons: there is something I want which naturally leads towards falling and the horse itself will throw me off.

The problem with the "get back on the horse" analogy is that both my desires and the comparative strength of the horse are hard wired... they are a part of our definition.

This leads to what Jackson's sermon called the cycle of doom: you try, fail, try harder, succeed for a while and then fail again (repeat to infinitude). This can lead to amazing accomplishments but never to peace, joy or success. For example, let's say my dad had been on the cycle of doom. As a young man he was a violent and wild father. He had some humbling experiences that taught him how horrible this could be so he tries to change. He does pretty good for a while but then loses his temper, hits the bottle and wakes up on the street. So he tries again and does a little better for a little while but then he loses his temper again and hits the bottle and maybe something else. This continues for forty or so years until near the end of the life he is a grizzled and humbled mountain man at AA who with pain and wisdom hard earned speaks of the effect of alcoholism. This old man is an amazing accomplishment and those who know only this part of his life say "What a great man."

My dad would never say this about himself because he knows his wisdom was built upon beaten sons and wives, abandoned children and self destruction that defies belief. The naive idealist would say "Oh but look at all the wisdom he has achieved and the good he has done! Was it not worth it?" I can say with some knowledge that my dad would give a friendly laugh like when he heard my teenage ideas but at his funeral all the people who knew him best were wounded by him. The tone of those who were his sons and wife was that of a terrible forgiveness born from grief and helplessness.

Imagine there was a president who through a lack of wisdom or experience did horrible horrible things which destroyed the lives of many people. But through his missteps the president became a better wiser person and at the end of his (or her) life did nothing but restitution. Would it undo the damage? Could his or her planted trees, children books read and moral lessons bring one dead son to life, heal the wounds?

The cycle of doom at it best produces toothless but wise old men and women who powerful but unwise men and women can safely ignore. And to tell the truth usually it does not even produce this. Most old people I know have a few teeth left and regret their age more than the lives they lived.

This is is why the best the secular position can offer is resignation. "That's the way it is." "It's the way of the world." "What can you do?" "Just get back on the horse."
...

The thing about learning to ride a horse is it is not something you actually do alone. You are never the first person who says "Get back on the horse."

The problem with the fall is that it resulted in two things I can not change: what I want and the strength of the horse. I might focus my desires so that I trade heroin for television and a prostitute for a wife (pick you addictions my dad said) but I can not change that I like to sit down and feel good or that sex is desirable.

The only way to escape the cycle of doom is help from someone who is not subject to it. Most world religions give fine, fine help to focus the cycle of doom to less destructiveness... until they mess up and kill a bunch of people and destroy families and communities burning the innocent and helpless alive for no reason at all.

The only escape is help from Someone who is not subject to the cycle of doom.

Heidiegger's last meaningful quote, at the end of his life, (and my favorite things about existentialism) was "Only a god could save us."

Entitlement

2009-04-10T15:15:00.000-07:00

A political party is a somewhat random conglomeration of different interests that pretend to unite in order to share influence with each other. So let's say your key issue is the second amendment, the right to keep assault rifles. The NRA by itself certainly has some influence and political power in itself but when they are also backed by corporate deregulationists, small government advocates, pro-lifers, NAMBLA or whoever that lobby becomes more powerful. To be sure those lobbies may not care much about hunting or handguns but their passive inclusion grants a degree of extra legitimacy.

In "America The Book" the Daily Show writers mock this a little saying to someone thinking of running for office "do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion." (108) I can not help but imagine that a lot of these political alliances are arbitrary, what does government spending have to do with the abortion? Nothing except that all intelligent people think exactly as you do on this and all other subjects.

I've sensed a degree of antagonism or at least unease from the Libertarian branch of the Republican/conservatives I know who in particular do not favor the joining with social conservatives. There are varying reasons for this ranging from being a member of NAMBLA to anarchist tendencies. I will not be arguing for or against it, but was interested in making a some what logical connection between the politics of morality and government programs.

For my discussion I am distinguishing between Christianity and social conservatives. Of course it must be recognized that in American and most of Western civilization Social conservatives follow some variation of something like Christianity. But I distinguish the two based upon their stated objective:

Christianity's purpose is to declare God's message of redemption through Jesus Christ, equipping believers to do His will and caring for the needy.

The purpose of the social conservative is to enforce a set of moral rules, punishing transgressors and rewarding adherents but with the purpose of social harmony.

The two might sometimes join sides as Christianity does believe part of God's will is that we avoid sin and a social conservative might regard the church structure of Christianity as an expedient to their goals, but they are not the same. This can be seen in that their are Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist, Communist and all other kinds of social conservatives who are actually opposed to Christianity.

All of that to say why social conservatives are allied with fiscal conservatives! In particular when it comes to welfare and similar programs there is a logic between the two because one of the tenants of most social conservatives is the importance of hard work, earning one's own way and being a PRODUCTIVE member to society. When the government seeks to provide for the needs of some of the population it undermines the ideal that moral citizens ought to pay their own way. A fiscal conservative might not care how a welfare state will effect the character of society but a social conservative can scarcely be thought to think of anything else. So the two can be seen to share some common interests.

Poker is a game of odds and character

2009-04-05T12:28:00.000-07:00

So I took Nate to play poker with the Outback guys and he said almost nothing the whole night and played maybe ten hands (and he slow played those ten) and he walked with maybe seventy bucks. That is a lot by our group standards.

So the first part about poker is simply knowing what the good hands are, knowing the odds. That is the easy part, a little math or a little experience and you are fine.

But the hard part for me is wanting to play every decent hand. There is something about an K/2 unsuited that says "this is your hand" and like a fool I play it. I joked once that the trick to paying poker is hating Satan. Satan says "play that hand" and so you have to say "I rebuke you Satan."

Kind of silly, but the point is that poker requires a degree of character. That is the kind of skill required, not simply the odds but the character that does not chase after every hand because "you never know."

Nate has that kind of character.

Ha ha if the game weren't some kind of spiritual exercise I wouldn't like it!

diet and exercise

2009-03-30T09:57:00.000-07:00

So about last January I joined a gym. I'd been "thinking about" exercise for a super long time but in general I considered my motivations clouded by vanity and pride. I was sort of concerned about my long term health but that thought was always over shadowed by this impulse to be sexy. I am pretty sure if I were considered unbelievably attractive to women I wouldn't do much with it because with some believably good looks, a degree of charm and a certain kind of confidence I still do not have sharp teeth, so to speak. It is kind of like why I am not tempted by fast cars; my Honda is fast enough and if anything I ought to be slowing down. But that generally held personality did not prevent all kinds of static like influences. I still am partly a product of main stream America so there is an ingrained thought "muscle, sexy, good."

So I never joined a gym or worked out.

But Nate did. So when he kept doing it and invited me it felt more like a way to connect with a buddy and get healthy and it was an inexpensive gym (huge factor).

So I worked out with Nate and sometimes Jesse and Adam Richman.

To best summarize the positive change is described late on most Sunday nights. I will be driving back to Fremont taking Bev back to her Dad's house from Oakland. She invariably passes out. I would pick her up and carry her inside. Before hand I would think "Pretty soon Bev will be too old for me to do this." But I hadn't given her a ride home in a while after working out and the first time I lifted her it was amazing. That was after just a month.

What I have found that an increased real and perceived strength also increases my sense of manhood. Granted masculinity is a troubled concept, either in short supply or else exaggerated to peversity, but I have found in my walk with God that it is something which is a part of His creation. Manhood is something shaped by social construction but it is also a real thing, with a Godly purpose.

Now increasing and strengthening this virtue does have dangers... just like increasing education or horse-power has dangers. I am depending on the Holy Spirit and good friends that my interest in growing stronger does not ever exceed my interest in becoming holy.

Dexter and Jonathan

2009-01-29T12:19:00.001-08:00

So one cool part of house sitting for Gramps is that I can keep up with Season 3 of Dexter on On-Demand.

I was introduced to the show by Jonathon. I liked it but I think that Jonathon and I have very much different interpretations of the show based upon our lives. I see the whole serial-killer thing as less than secondary the main thrust of the show and why it is successful is because the character Dexter is going through the kinds of things that are completely normal for a guy: compartmentalization, trust issues, the emotions of women. Jonathon seems to focus on the alienation that Dexter feels as if it were something particular to a small set of special people: serial killers and other moody loners.

I don't think there is any way to convince him that aside from killing people Dexter is a completely normal person and the way he processes emotion is common place. But oh well.

Dexter and Jonathan

2009-01-29T12:19:00.000-08:00

25 things

2009-01-27T12:28:00.000-08:00

Rules: Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish.)

1. I was not tagged to do this by anyone
2. I'm doing this instead of prepare for tonight's Bible Study
3. I am very arrogant and prideful and vain and am happy when people recognize this.
4. I get cold pretty easily and consider it horrible.
5. I keep the feet heater on in my car even in hot weather... I guess you could say I have a permanent case of cold feet.
6. I have only had one kissing girlfriend in my life and wish I hadn't had that many.
7. I do not consider myself shy.
8. I do consider myself judgmental.
9. I have coffee with my grandfather every Sunday morning.
10. I respect the idea of dogs more than cats but like/dislike animals on an individual basis.
11. I believe I am great with children.
12. I refuse to lose any argument with a child.
13. I freely admit to a child when I was wrong.
14. I defer to a child's parent authority regardless of what I think about their parenting abilities.
15. I do not like to cook for myself or others.
16. I probably eat very poorly.
17. I have never had more than five hundred dollars of credit card debt.
18. I am listening to the soundtrack to "Edward Scissorhands" right now.
19. I hate it when a text has a word underlined because of spelling errors. I especially hate it when it is a word that I am going to keep... like "scissorhands."
20. My sister is pregnant and when people ask me when she is due I can only shrug and guess something like three months.
21. I voted for President Obama and President Bush.
22. I wonder when Obama will no longer be underlined as a misspelled word.
23. I respect Jemuel more than anyone I have ever met... but do not want to be more like him!
24. I do not believe Jemuel will ever cease to be considered a misspelled word.
25. I will not tag anybody with this list.

Pres. Obama on Defense

2009-01-26T13:28:00.000-08:00

President Obama has posted his position on all the big issues. In the following weeks I'm going to comment on his position. Check it out for yourself at www.whitehouse.gov but watch out my porn blocker won't let me go to www.whitehouse.com who knows what that means! who knows what that means.

Disclaimer I am very much a layman when it comes to military issues. I have values but not a whole lot of knowledge about the nuts and bolts of how it works. Here is what the President says:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will invest in a 21st century military to maintain our conventional advantage while increasing our capacity to defeat the threats of tomorrow. They will ensure our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed.

Invest in a 21st Century Military
meh... aside from funding what is the military asking for?

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground:
I would support an increase of military population but are we talking about accountants/cooks/janitors/bureacrats necessary for the militray to function or actual fighting soliders.

Leadership from the Top:
I am in support of this.

Lighten the Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families:
sounds nice

Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Fully Equip Our Troops for the Missions They Face:
okay

Review Weapons Programs:
I guess this is a nice way of saying that we will not be continuing n the Star Wars proggram.

Preserve Global Reach in the Air:

The Air Force gets the first nod. Meh, I'd give it to the fighting soliders which exist in all of the branches of the military.

Maintain Power Projection at Sea:

second nod to the navy.

National Missile Defense:
yeah they are cutting down missile defense

Ensure Freedom of Space:
yeah they are cutting star wars too

Protect the U.S in Cyberspace:

cool

Restore the Readiness of the National Guard and Reserves
Equip, Support, and Modernize the National Guard and Reserves: "They will make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff..." that seems huge to me and will ruffle a lot of feathers but I think will help maintain our local military population.

Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability
Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:

meh, I am sure someone in the field understands this better than me.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
If this is a means to split the military into fighting troops and support personel (with different classification and benefits) I support it.

Restore Our Alliances
Engage Our Allies in Meeting Our Common Security Challenges:

that's nice... we'll see how it goes.

Organize to Help Our Partners and Allies in Need:
"win hearts and minds in the process"
okay sounds cool.

Reform Contracting

Create Transparency for Military Contractors:

meh

Restore Honesty, Openness, and Commonsense to Contracting and Procurement:

I've heard that no-bid contracting is bad... that is about it.

President Obama on Civil Rights

2009-01-22T10:13:00.000-08:00

President Obama has posted his position on all the big issues. In the following weeks I'm going to comment on his position. Check it out for yourself at www.whitehouse.gov but watch out my porn blocker won't let me go to www.whitehouse.com who knows what that means!

CIVIL RIGHTS

President Barack Obama has spent much of his career fighting to strengthen civil rights as a civil rights attorney, community organizer, Illinois State Senator, U.S. Senator, and now as President. Whether promoting economic opportunity, working to improve our nation's education and health system, or protecting the right to vote, President Obama has been a powerful advocate for our civil rights.

* Combat Employment Discrimination:
I am in favor.

* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
I am in favor with reservations.

* End Deceptive Voting Practices:
I am strongly in favor.

* End Racial Profiling:
I am strongly in favor though I recognize this will make law enforcement more difficult. But better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent be punished. If you disagree I suggest you volunteer to be the innocent who is punished.

* Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support:
I strongly support.

* Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: President Obama and Vice President Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.
I left the text on this one because the title does not suggest the text.
I am in favor, though believe that the classification of sentencing belongs to the judicial and legislative branch. The executive branch enforces the law; it does not write it.

* Expand Use of Drug Courts:
I am strongly in favor.

Support for the LGBT Community

* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
I am in favor though with reservations.

* Fight Workplace Discrimination:
I am in favor.

* Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples:
I am neutral.

* Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:
I am not in favor with this position but without great interest.

* Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell:
I am not an expert on the specifics of this law but in general believe that this issue ought to be deferred to military personnel rather than civilian politicians.
Therefore I oppose this issue.

* Expand Adoption Rights:
Breaking with social conservatives I oppose a ban on gay adoption. We are all sinners and there is no reason that this one particular sin ought the be given extra weight in determining worthiness to parent. I wouldn't oppose allowing it to carry some weight but to be an absolute bar is unmerited.
Therefore I am in favor.

* Promote AIDS Prevention:

* Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS:
In the last ten years this issue seems to be less and less a LGBT issue, but of course I support government action to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.

On the Internet Again

2009-01-22T09:56:00.000-08:00

I love getting my responses on the internet! This was posted on ESPN.com from the AFC West mail bag asking if the Chiefs should fire Edwards:

Michael Gardner from Fremont, CA: As a Raiders fan I am fortunate to have a good friend who is a Chiefs fan. Seeing Edwards performance from his perspective I see enough positives to wish my team had that much light at the end of the tunnel... and I have seen enough negatives to know he wouldn't have lasted this long in Oakland. It seems a good rule of thumb to ask "What would Al Davis do?" and then do the opposite. Of course, that puts me in a contradiction because Al Davis would have fired Al Davis a long time ago

Dan Savage, Rick Warren Debate

2009-01-21T12:14:00.001-08:00

I wrote:
In your response to "Faithful Obama Girl" you refer to Rick Warren as a "gay-hatin', right-wing Christian bigot." I found this confusing. I can understand that he represents a political/social faction which has an agenda opposed to your own. I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine how any criticism of a gay lifestyle takes a sinister aura when it has a religious basis. However, is it accurate to describe Warren this way? Certainly, he does speak against the gay lifestyle, but would you say that anyone who does this is a hateful bigot? Is there a difference between the beliefs of Rick Warren and those of Fred Phelps?

I could understand if you described Warren (or myself) as a dangerously deluded Christian fanatic because you believe that our beliefs naturally lead towards the hateful bigotry of Phelps. I would disagree but differentiate between that description and the one you gave.

A Biblical Christian

President Obama

2009-01-20T12:51:00.000-08:00

In the past my normal response to the election of a new President has been blase. To a certain degree that is still I feel; however the peaceful transition of power is an amazing event in any nation and I believe that it only occurs with the blessing of the Lord, God Almighty.

As a Christian I hope the best from our new President and will continue to support our nation through this new era, as pleases God. Until Jesus returns and reigns on earth it is the duty of all people to work to live in peace with their government because He gave the government the authority it has. So I will be continue to pray for the leaders of my nation, giving the correct respect, paying my taxes and obeying laws.

I voted for President Obama, though without great enthusiasm. But as an actively engaged citizen am fully prepared help our new president lead our nation towards righteousness as is pleasing to our lord Jesus Christ.

p.s. I also look forward to the day "Obama" does not show itself as a misspelled word by my spell check.

Calvinism Continued

2009-01-19T13:54:00.000-08:00

So I am currently at chapter 12 of "The Basic Ideas of Calvinism 6th ed." and find myself not just agreeing with Calvinism but enjoying their style. It is pretty rare for a text book to get points for style but all that really means is that sometimes the author will say things I have also said.

For example concerning the chapter "The Best Form of Government" that author says "The best guarantee of the workability of a government lies not in its form (monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy) but in the moral and spiritual fiber of its people. With good people almost any kind of government will work. With absolutely depraved people no type will work." I've long defended that view and enjoy hearing someone else say it.

As for the controversial beliefs of Calvinism I will comment. But in my own tip of the hat to Calvinist methods am not commenting on the truth of the doctrine but upon its Biblical-ness:

Foundational Principle: So the basis of Calvinism is declared to be the sovereignty of God. In the text all denominations are ascribed a basis that is more like a prejudice or special emphasis. For example Baptist might emphasis conversion, Pentecostals the Holy Spirit, Roman Catholics the unity/catholicity of the but Calvinist believe that the most important Christian principle is the truth that God is in complete absolute control of everything and that nothing is out of His control.

I can imagine the dangers of each of these position. The Baptist who says "Don't worry about me I accepted Christ years ago." The Pentecostal who feels the Holy Spirit wants them to have sex with their girlfriend. The Roman Catholic who obeys a Papal decree despite its obvious ungodliness. The Calvinist who refuses charity to the oppressed because it must be God's will. But like with form of government these denominations are great if they are practiced by faithful Christians and without value if they are populated with faithless hypocrites.

If I were to present what I believe is the foundational, most important first principle of the Bible it would not be the sovereignty of God, but the identity of God. Sovereignty is a part of the identity of God, so is salvation, Spirit and unity of believers but the foundation of God is "I AM." It is not God's sovereignty that is first but God Himself.

Working Out

2009-01-16T11:45:00.000-08:00

So I've started working out. :(

I think Kirstin's reaction to this pretty much summarizes how I think of lifting weights. She said "What's that about?"

I have long valued the idea of regular exercise but have recognized that my main motivation for working out would be to look sexy for hot chicks. I have always lived this sort of double life between being vain and having contempt for vanity. In general though I have stayed away from this because I wouldn't trust myself if hot chicks were throwing themselves at me.

So with my motivations so murky I never exercised.

But recently Nate started working out. I've never worried about other people's motivations. He asked me if I wanted to start exercising too. I said yes because I do need to exercise if I am going to live past fifty and also it is just something to do with the guys. If the guys are getting together to jump off of bridges I would totally be doing that too.

It is a fact that in no way shape or form could I imagine working out by myself. I mean, it's hard! But with a group of friends, it is just what you're doing. So three days a week I work out with Jesse, Nate and Adam Richman.

It is a huge encouragement love fest. It is all "you can do it" "come on, come on" and "yeah, good job." It's high on positive affirmation and low on the pretense and posturing I often associate with stereotypical physical activities.

Jesse and Nate are currently on vacation in Peru (praying for your safety and Spirit guys!). So it is just Adam and myself. It is pretty cool making a new friend.

True Story about the Nature of Superheroes

2009-01-14T14:46:00.000-08:00

So Jacob (nephew age 5) is ALL about Spiderman. He wants to be Spiderman when he grows up. After seeing Spiderman 3 he decides for certain he wants to be red Spiderman (the good guy). That's encouraging. Spiderman 3 got a lot of flack from comic hipsters for its black and white moralistic themes, but it has been useful in talking to Jacob about the nature of forgiveness and strength.

But one day he proclaims "I am red Spiderman! Issac is black Spiderman! Let's fight!" Issac (nephew age 3) loves to fight too, but I say "No way Jose! Isaac is not a bad guy. He can't be black Spiderman."

"Well then who is he?" Jacob asks.

"Uh... Issac will be Batman." I say.

"Okay, I am red Spiderman. Issac is Batman. Let's fight!" And so it goes. :-)

But a while later Jacob asks me "Well who are you, Uncle Michael?"

I think for a minute, then stand up strait and strong saying, "I am Superman!"

"Okay," Jacob says, "Let's fight."

...
Next week I take the boys to Crossroads and afterwards am giving Nate a ride to work. Nate is wearing a Superman shirt; Jacob sees this and confronts me with dread seriousness.

"You aren't Superman!" he says with accusation. "He is!"

Well this will not stand. Monday I actually pay full price for a piece of non-work related clothing and buy a Superman shirt. I wear it next Sunday but on the way I find out that Isaac has fallen out a window! I rush to the hospital worried sick and when I see him in the hospital bed it is only worse. His face is a cut up and he is doped up and I am tearing up just thinking about it.

I gently take his hand filled with pain. He looks up at me with wonder in his eyes and says "Superman?"

We smile in spite ourselves and I says "Yes, it's Superman."

Then his eyes squint dangerously and he half says and half growls "I'm Batman!"

I knew he was okay.

"The Basic Ideas of Calvinism- ch.2 The Place of the Bible"

2009-01-13T19:01:00.000-08:00

"If God is the all controlling thought in the [Christian] system [as opposed to God and some other equally important principle], it is natural then that the [Christian] will want to see all things as God wants him to see them and aim to carry out God's will in all things. From this fact one can readily infer what place the Bible will occupy in the system and the life of the [Christian]. He will make God's Word the canon, which means the rule, for his life. It will be the rule of faith (which guides his intellect) and practice (which determines his daily duty)."

I replaced the word "Calvinist" with "Christian" as seen in the brackets. Up to this point in the book I have yet to encounter any position which I do not consider the definition of what it means to be a Christian.

I interjected the line "as opposed to God and some other equally important principle" because I have encountered plenty of people who are supportive of Christianity as far as it supports their co-principle. So a Republican or Communist might quote from the Bible but is not troubled by parts of the Bible which do not support their view. It is my belief that the contemporary danger within the church is not paganism or outright rejection of God but a half-allegience where God is tolerated as opposed to obeyed.

Feeling good

2009-01-13T13:00:00.000-08:00

In "Amelie" they sort of mock that Amelie's parents enjoy emptying something cleaning the inside and then putting everything back in again. I cleaned my car yesterday and feel GREAT about it. I think that pretty much describes what I disliked about "Amelie."

Of course, that is easy for me because I am perfectly secure with that I am not living a banal life.

My response to the positive feeling of a clean car has been to play a lot less video games and to write more letters.

But in addition to cleaning my car I have also started exercising with some of the guys and have gotten back into personal Bible study time. I am not particularly interested in the casuality of it all, but I started the exercise first.

The Depraved Nature of Man

2009-01-07T17:45:00.000-08:00

I am reading an introduction to the tenants of Calvinism.

I like the way the book approaches the issue. It is a text book that I found but starts by wanting to establish the fundamental principle of Calvinism. The idea of Pre-destination and the depraved nature of man are the most controversial Calvinist ideas but it makes sense that they are not the key, fundamental be-all end-all of any system of thought.

The author establishes that "the sovereignty of God" as the central theme of Calvinism in the same way that the catholicity of the church is the central theme of the Roman Catholic church or salvation through grace is central to Lutheranism. But that is not what I'm writing about.

What I disagree about is the statement "the Bible maintains that man is totally depraved." It is not that I am a huge defender of the mankind and am dead set against the idea that we are depraved... it is that through my reading of the Bible I could not say that it says that man is "totally depraved."

Perhaps the statement is poorly made by Calvinist or maybe it means something other than the common use of the word. The common use of the word, in my best understanding, is that to be "totally depraved" is to be completely without any boundaries or conscience at all, to be a maniac and fully without any virtue at all, worthy of nothing except destruction.

Where Calvinism and I agree is that the Bible presents a picture in which each man is on a path that either leads to perfection with God, through Jesus Christ or else is on a path that leads to total depravity. Everyone is sort of good and sort of bad but if extended towards eternity we are progressing/digressing towards one state of the other. If that is what Calvinism states then we agree... but they state it poorly... they state it incorrectly.

But if my understanding of what it means to be "totally depraved" is correct then the Bible does not present or teach that people are currently depraved. It also does not present or teach that only Christians or Jews are the only kind of people who have virtue. For example Jesus makes a point about some virtue that his contemporaries posessed and he said "Even pagans do this." This would suggest that not all pagans are eating their children.

How I would state the issue in a way I believe best describes what the Bible says over all is that without divine intervention all men are on a path that will lead to complete depravity and that our best efforts are insufficient to solve this. If I interpret the Calvinist tenant that way I have yet to encounter any problem with their theology (so far... I'm like on chapter 2)

MacBeth

2009-01-07T17:28:00.000-08:00

Jemuel is starting a tradition of giving experiences for Christmas intead of stuff. He started by taking Bev to the Nutcracker but found out that ballet actually doesn't do much for Bev. Maybe she is rooting for the mice.

This year he took her to the circus and me to see a local production of MacBeth.

It was excellent. I was already a big fan of the play but this was about as well done as you could imagine it could be done on a stage of that size.

Excellent points:
In Shake plays one of the difficulties is that the characters will sometimes talk to the audience tell you what they are thinking. It is sometimes kind of awkward in modern times because it seems kind of out of place. To solve this the directors would darken all the lights except for a spot light on the character's face and then put on tense sounds/music. It worked really really well.

The guys who played MacBeth was able to master the shades of a noble who needs to impress the other nobles, the wishy washy husband, the tormented warrior and the kick ass fighter. That is a wide range. Some of the times I was completely taken in by the charms of a fighting man and at other times thinking "you bastard!"

The music/sound overall was well crafted and only added to the atmosphere, never taking away. It was interesting and yet also natural feeling.

Weak point:
Not so much a weak point but I had some issues with Lady MacBeth. She was portrayed as fun and frisky instead of the scheming and dominating. I always thought of her as one of the most evil baddies in Shake but this lady Macbeth was almost a victim.

Also not super weak but costumes were only so-so. They weren't horrible but didn't add a whole lot. Sometimes suits sometimes clean and ironed biker clothes. Meh.

But still over all I'd give the play a A- and recomend anyone interesting in spending 25 bucks to do it... unless you hate Shake.

Liz Phair and that girl at Outback

2008-12-29T14:43:00.000-08:00

I was listening to Liz Phair's "Exile In Guyville" and I was moved by great sympathy for that girl at Outback with a reputation. I first learned about the reputation a gwhile back when so-and-so skipped out of poker with the guys to "hang out with her." I usually don't here about people's bad repuation because 1) people imagine that I am offended by sex 2) I am snide towards most forms of gossip. I wasn't very surprised to learn that girl had a repuation for putting out without commitments but immediatly felt sorry for her.

First, I also learned that night that despite my Christian principles that I am much less condemning towards sexual immorality. I don't know how much "they" are hypocrites but I was certainly suprised to hear some people speak against that girl and so-and-so for "hanging out." But in retrospect I must admit that Outbackers I have known have never been casual sexual practioners... or at least they have kept it quiet enough to stay off of my radar.

Second, I felt sorry for her because I can only imagine how she felt that she would call up an ex-boyfriend to "hang out." I am sure they both had fun but can not imagine that either of them felt very good about what was going on.

But blah, blah, blah, later I heard that some other Outbacker had started going out with some other Outbacker and then heard her tell him she didn't mind him hanging out with girls that were his friends... except for "you know who." Since I was almost eavesdropping (no inent but they were in a public place) I didn't ask who "you know who was" and after thinking about who they both knew and think that it was her.

Later when that couple broke up or something the guy got a big bruise on his arm and said that girl had bit him when they were both drunk.

To be sure it is all incomplete information and I am trusting my instinct on a lot of connections but I guess on the whole it doesn't really matter.

But then I am listening to Liz Phair's first album and am impressed by the musical sound but even more by how foriegn what she is singing about but yet how sympathetic it is. I can not help but thinking about that girl at Outback. I wonder is this what it feels like to be her? I think about how powerful words can be against a woman, how vulnerable a woman's heart is. I also feel how careless I will be as a husband and how much damage I might do and how much I don't want to hurt my far future wife.

But mostly I think that girl at Outback is trapped, in slavery if you will, by what she is doing.

So much to pray for...

Review Cohen Brothers Reviewed

2008-12-23T10:37:00.000-08:00

After "No Country For Old Men" I declared that the Cohen Brothers were my favorite directors. I haven't seen all of their movies and I haven't loved (or even liked) all of their movies but there has been consistent and long lasting greatness in their career in entertainment, talent and message.

Entertainment means did I actually like watching the movie. Lots of things can be entertaining... I mean I actually enjoy "Wild Strawberries." This grade is 50% did I enjoy it and 50% do I think others would.

Talent means that the movie is well directed, acted and written. "Memento" would get a good grade here but not everywhere else.

Message means that I affirm and agree with what I believe the movie to be "really about." Some messages, like Sandler's family values, are almost accidental and who cares what "Ace Ventura Pet Detective" was about. But generally if a movie doesn't get a good grade here I won't re-watch it or own it. I remember my first viewing of "The Godfather" as one of the best movie experiences of my life but do I need to see it again and again? Not really.

So here is a quick grading of the Cohen Brothers movies I've seen:

"Raising Arizona"
Ent: B+
Tal: B
Mes: B+
It has been a long long time since I've seen it so I was conservative with the grades. Chances are pretty good if I saw it again I would bump all those grades up a notch.

"Miller's Crossing"
Ent: B-
Tal: B
Mes: B+
I've only seen it twice. It was like a regular mobster movie except there is some kind of existential dilemma that confuses things. That struggle makes it less enjoyable but more meaningful.

"Barton Fink"
Ent: D
Tal: B
Mes: B-
This movie is everything people hate about movie snobs. The only reason it didn't get an F in entertainment is because if you are a movie snob you probably LOVED it. Still John Turturro is an amazing actor. He seems so natural to these awful art pieces but fit right into "Transformers" That in itself is worth five Oscars.

"The Hudsucker Proxy"
Ent: A+
Tal: A-
Mes: A-
Let the era of greatness begin! This was my favorite movie from '94 till I saw "Rocky" in 02. Talent was in some ways only good (B grade) but Jennifer Jason Leigh is unbelievably great and the set design is like a 1950s fairy tale.

"Fargo"
Ent: B
Tal: A
Mes: A
I'm glad it took me so long to see this movie. If I had seen it in 96 I'd have missed the key strengths. In some ways it is "Miller's Crossing", a crime movie with an existential dilemma, except that the message is seamlessly drawn in the movie.

"The Big Lebowski"
Ent: A
Tal: A
Mes: B+
This movie should get lower grades in entertainment and talent and ought to be like a much better "Barton Fink" except for that for some reason a lot of people "got it." I don't know why they got it but the results are undeniable. It was from this movie that I finally discovered the consistent theme of Cohen brother movies.

"O Brother, Where Art Thou?"
Ent: B+
Tal: B+
Mes: A
The popularity of this movie gives it a slightly better grade. It was also from this one that I learned that a consistent feature of Cohen brother movies is that they get better and better with re-watches unlike many Wes Anderson movies.

"Intolerable Cruelty"
Ent: B-
Tal: C
Mes: C+
I don't even like to think of it as a Cohen brother's movie. It is mediocre, Clooney is always charasmatic but can not make it re-watchable. I think this one was tampered by the Zeta-Jones' people.

"The Lady Killers"
Ent: C
Tal: C
Mes: C+
Maybe Hanks has people too, but this one is nothing great. I think the ending was what it ought to have been... but that is about all I could say about this one. It isn't bad but adds nothing.

"No Country For Old Men"
Ent: A
Tal: A
Mes: A+
Similiar to "Miller's Crossing" again in that it is a crime movie with the existential dilmia. But this time it is not seemlessly encorporated but hits you like "the stonethe builders rejected." But where "Fargo" exceeded in existential dilemia this exceeded in crime movie. Muffin hated Chigurh thinking he was supposed to be "pimp" but the Cohen's don't have "pimp" bad guys. The bad guys are always chumps. His rejection of the character is what people ought to have all done.

"Burn After Reading"
Ent: C+
Tal: C+
Mes: C
...meh. Maybe this one will make more sense when I have been middle age delt with the mid-life issues that these guys are dealing with. I am pretty sure the characters are supposed to be charactures of mid-life conflicts. I think the message is that none of these characters get it right. Inferior but not embaressingly so.

The Beach Boys vs. The Beatles

2008-12-11T10:38:00.000-08:00

Once, years ago, Nate and I were argueing over who was more influential The Beatles or The Beach Boys. John Pack, who would normally stay out of these kinds of arguements, gave a common sense answer the ended the discussion. He said "In most things like there is room for more than one opinion, but in this case you just have to admit it is the The Beatles."

Ha

Though there ought to be no doubt who was/is the "bigger" band there is something than has always been prickling at me.

Through out my teen years I exalted in the later greater Beatles albums. There are few bands who I can identify their songs based on the context of the album it came out from. I mean all Pearl Jam feel pretty close to the same to me... though I guess I might be able to distinguish some of the difference with a little effort. However there is something in The Beatles missing that is not missing from The Beach Boys.

The Beatles have blown my mind... but I have never in my life listened to a Beatles song and felt sympathy from the song. I have never felt like "A Day in the Life" let alone "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." But with the Beach Boys I have listened to songs (Pet Sounds in particular) and though it described ways that I have felt.

The Beatles are beatiful like an exotic bird but The Beach Boys is emotionally familiar and accessible. The Beach Boys says more about my life then the Beatles.

Maybe it is an American vs British thing.

Family Trouble

2008-12-09T11:57:00.000-08:00

I had a bad time with my Mom yesterday.

I think it started with playing too much video games on my lap top. I've sapped my spiritual energy on staring at a computer screen for hours all week. My bad.

Mom called me Saturday night around ten thirty pm. She is living in a hotel paid for by Social Security but is used to the Oakland/Alameda bus systems which runs all night. She ended up stranded in Union City Walmart with her electric wheel chair running our of battery power. She had been caught up in shopping at low low prices and didn't realize how late it was. What she wanted was not a ride but for me to meet her in Newark and drive beside her as she trekked the last mile to the Hotel 6. Now I am happy to help because I realize that the video games aren't at all important but there is no way I am going to do that. It makes me mad because it is so like my Mom. She never wants help she wants to be pampered. It makes me mad because the only reason she needs help in this instance is because she spent the last x hours pampering herself. Granted I was at this point pampering myself but if she had pampered herself x-1 hours she wouldn't have needed any help from anyone.

I say it would be a lot easier if we just lock the chair up at BART and then I drive her to the hotel until the next day when she can take the bus. (The chair weighs about three hundred pounds) She doesn't feel comfortable doing that, afraid that someone is going to steal her chair... even if it locked up and has no power. This makes me mad because when I need to ask for help I do everything I can to make it as easy for the person helping me. But then it seems like what she wants is not so much a ride home (simple help with a problem) but to be pampered (to see herself as a princess being served by willing inferiors). After some painful planning (intermingled with her harassing BART employee with requests for favors he/she doesn't want to do) we arrange for her to take the only late bus which luckily stops near my house. I will meet her there, we walk to my place, then lock up her chair, I drive her to the hotel and then the next day I can take her back.

My mom is a pretty cheerful person and most of the walk she is chatting about the neat little hat and slippers she got at Walmart and about the possibly imaginary lice and worms that she has but several hospitals can not find or identify.

When we get to my place I pull the car around for her to get in so I can put her chair away. I open the door for her and she says in a tone that only her own children would understand "Did you turn the heater on for me." the tone says "if you didn't it is because you are not a gentleman" and this is really what makes me mad. Up to this point it is just me helping my mom who needed help. But this colors everything that has happened and will happen, I feel that my Mom is not needing help but wanting to be spoiled. It is not as if she couldn't turn it on for herself. But I guess she would have to be your mom to understand.

On the way back she mentions how she doesn't have nay food at her room and wants to stop at a fast food place for lunch and dinner. There is a long line at this point because the Jack in the Box is the only place open so late. I am getting so frustrated by how I feel that she doesn't appreciate my help but expects my service. It makes me feel bad about all the times I have ever helped her because it seems like I have just been feeding her mental illness. I try to talk about how the situation is making me very angry but it doesn't go over very well. She is instantly defensive and starts talking about how when she was a girl people always took care of each other and if my Dad were around and how my biological father and how I am bi-polar.

Now about the whole bi-polar thing. I know bi-polar people and I'm pretty sure that is not my problem, but I think what she was saying is that she didn't understand why I was mad and thought it must be because of some kind of brain malfunction. Up to this point I have been the dutiful servant/son. It seems very natural to her that since she is still Shirley Temple that men ought to dote and spoil her like they did when she was six. That I would be mad seemed out of nowhere.

I drop her off at her room as she yells at me for being sick and disturbed.

The next day I get into an argument with Coral about similar subject: about how she accepts and receives help and care from me but does not find ways to return help or care to me. Her defense is that she doesn't make money so she has nothing to give. But that is another whole post. At the time I was also mad at Amber for the same thing but later I realized that Amber and I had had these conflicts a year or two earlier and managed a better understanding and give and take relationship based up mutual friendship, loyalty and respect.

I make plans to pick up Mom then next day. She schmoozes me into promising to pick her up early for the excellent Motel 6 complimentary coffee. It occurs to me later that I was schmoozed but that doesn't bother me. If a good sales person charms me I respect their ability to make giving feel like receiving. BUT because I was up to 1 am driving mom around and wake up at 7 on Sundays and have long trying Sundays (this one even more trying)I accidentally oversleep Monday morning. Yeah, my bad, but very much out of character.

But let's not be too quick to excuse me. I can understand Mom's frustration and anger after expecting coffee in the morning to have sit around and wait and have my phone be off. I can understand how that would feel. But because of my lack of spiritual strength I am in no mood to make up for it. She asks if we can stop somewhere to get coffee and I say no.

At this point I am just being an asshole. And then we pick up Amber.

Mom is all hostility. She is so mad about the coffee I become the personification of every man who has failed to treat her the way she deserves to be treated. Amber overlooks my stubbornness and gets into yelling matches with Mom defending me.

By the time we get to my place she is so mad she starts calling me the worst names.

...
Why I didn't get the coffee.

Once years ago I had a similarly themed argument with Mom. This was when she wasn't in a wheel chair. after an hour of her insisting that good decent people always got coffee and donuts for her and me insisting she didn't appreciate or respect what I did give we stopped arguing. Then she comes up and asks me to give her five cents.

My mom is not helpless or stupid or crazy. I wouldn't deny anyone else the coffee, especially if I was two hours late! But I won't be my mom's donkey (to borrow one of her terms). In retrospect...
no retrospect yet.

They Might Be Giants

2008-11-24T16:03:00.000-08:00

Way back in high school I discovered the fun of D&D and the joy of They Might Be Giants around the same time. I think more of TMBG more than all of the gaming I have ever done but not as much as the friends I gamed with: gaming < TMBG < friends.

I am more familiar with the general album progression of TMBG than I am with pretty much any band except The Beatles. I can imagine that their first album could have been a pretty hip but obscure hit with some music intellectuals but everyone would agree that they as a band could never make any song as good as "She's an Angel." I know some people who might say the same thing even today. Then the next album, Lincoln, comes out and the same music intellectuals hold it as an artistic curiosity of sorts but clearly "Ana NG" is the best that they will ever produce. And so it goes with Apollo 18... and then Flood.

In some ways it must be admitted that Flood is the quintessential TMBG achievement. As far as commercial success and radio play it doesn't get any better than that was. But it remained a niche kind of thing. The next round of albums are enjoyed by fans and maybe still by musical intellectuals though they are no doubt no longer impressed by the novelty. TMBG has always been novel and intellectuals view this as a virtue in itself but eventually even novelty stops being novel.

In my gaming group TMBG was always held in high regards but only Adam was obsessed. But what I really appreciated about them seemed like a private pleasure: the poetry of TMBG. They have excellent lyric rhythm and it is actually fun to recite some of their songs. My head must bounce with the rhythm of their songs. I must admit that they are one of the more influential artists on certian kinds of my writing.

They are greatly appreciated for their continual sense of playfulness. They don't make you laugh but always smil and if you dance to TMBG it is never cool but always like a child. I do not try to be a silly person but the way I am silly is like They Might Be Giants.

Response to Laura part 1

2008-11-14T12:23:00.000-08:00

To my friend Laura,

I hope your would recognize the respect I have for your response at least from the fact how much time I have put into my response. This response has three goals; the first is to defend my own position. I believe that this will be the least agreeable to you but also the least open to criticism because it is not and does not try to be a rational position. Secondly, I will be presenting the most rational defense for the defense of marriage. This will be the least agreeable to me but is a response to your passionate belief that this position is indefensible and incompatible with any moral person. Lastly, I will respond to specific questions and points in your letter to me. I will do this first because I hope it will facilitate the second goal.

Part one

You pointed out the large amount of time spent on evaluating the word “prejudice” specifically. You later said " I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it.” This preoccupation with specific words is not an accident but particular to the method of philosophy and also becomes very important when engaging in legal matters. We often hear about “the spirit of a law” but in most legal proceedings it is “the letter of the law” which rules absolute. Really, the spirit of the law only becomes legally relevant at the upper court level (State Supreme Court). Therefore it matters a great deal which specific words we choose. If you feel inclined take a look at what is the most accessible part of the State Constitution (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1). In this we quickly sense how specific even the most general portion of the law strives to be.

In terms of a philosophical nature it is also important to spend time defining and choosing terms so that we can be certain that the other receives the intended meaning. For example when someone says “this is a right” because of my own world view will often unconsciously interject “this is a God given right” and then sometimes their statement comes across as nonsense. As a thoughtful thinker I do have a responsibility to filter my own interpretation of a statement with my understanding with the paradigm of the speaker but a philosophical method is used to help both sides in this task. Another benefit of such formal methods is that it forces us to cool our passions which may be appropriate but are not helpful in building understanding.

As to regarding the use of the term “homosexual,” I was very intentional in selecting that word. I had never hears that it had a negative connotation but wanted a word that was as accurate as possible. You used the term “gay” but specifically only speaks of men who are homosexual. Certainly in casual conversation it might be acceptable to use that term more generally but for the reasons stated above. I am familiar with the designation of “gay/lesbian/bisexual/queer/transgender” but this is unwieldy even as an acronym “glbqt.” This is also does not work when specifically dealing with homosexual marriage which does not relate to bisexual or queer or transgender in the same degree. I don’t imagine there will be any superior designation but I am open to suggestion.

When I said that “the state or the voting population decides…” you objected saying ”the state had decided…” I think both of us wrote incorrectly. The way it worked is that the court specifically decided and as such it became the official position of the state (the law) but then the voting population changed the constitution and the official position of the state changed. It is an issue of balances and checks. The court’s power is limited by the people’s ability to change the constitution and the people’s power is limited by the courts rulings and both powers are limited by executive branches ability to not enforce certain laws. My only objection to this situation is that it is too easy to change the state constitution. All that is needed is a minimal majority of the voting population on a given election year. The requirement to change the US Constitution is much more difficult and I feel this is better. But this won’t be changing any time soon since it would essentially be taking power away from the people to the courts and executive office. But in our democracy there is no absolute unchangeable statement with the possible exception of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights).

When I said "To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." you asked for a clarification. I believe that it is disappointing in the same way that a tax increase is disappointing but not oppression because as I stated earlier that the benefits of marriage are not a right recognized by the state but a gift for perceived merit. Certainly you disagree but recognize that not receiving a gift though disappointing is not oppression.

You said “Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. It’s in our constitution.” I agree and even will provide the actual text of the state constitution which supports the statement: “Sec. 7 (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.” In an earlier letter I had missed this text and criticized the Court’s ruling as a poor reading of the state constitution. The central question to the later rational argument for the definition of marriage as specifically is concerning the nature of homosexuality is whether or not that it constitutes a “class of citizens.” But as for your statement I am in agreement as clearly said in the state constitution, though the passing of Proposition 8 changes the legal nature of marriage.

This leads to the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Defenders of marriage believe that the lobby for homosexual marriage is corrupting the spirit of marriage whereas the lobby for homosexual marriage believes that the defenders of marriage are corrupting the spirit of the constitution. But at this moment the letter of the law is clear, but not unchangeable.

The last specific point of yours I have not yet addressed is your repeated mention of the idea of gender not being so clear cut. Though there are examples of xyy (or is it xxy?) from a biologist’s perspective there is no question of two clear cut sexes. The biology of mammals is not political or socially constructed. The sexual organs serve a particular purpose: reproduction. But we do not live in a purely biological world, thank God. However if a person is born with a weakened immune system, or eyes that do not work we do not say that it is a new kind of person. Instead we say that something happened which made it so that their body is incomplete or faulty. As a Christian I can and do believe this does not make them any less valuable but just afflicted by the messed up nature of this universe.
There is a tendency, for social reasons, to highly emphasize our identity with our gender. This makes the examples of intersexed persons troubling to some, but from a Christian perspective male and female is exactly equal in our identity as a person loved fully by God. If a person is born with uncertain genitals or if they destroy their genitals through accident or surgery it does not and can not change this essential identity.

As for the question of who they may marry. If I were in charge of that policy I would probably legally classify them with the gender they were originally classified with at birth. If gender is socially constructed then it is arbitrary what gender they are designated and there is not danger of making the wrong choice. If we have a true gender I can think of no current method to discover this and as a policy maker would make the decision which is most efficient.

Problem with Poems

2008-11-12T19:28:00.000-08:00

First Date
I sat waiting for you when we said we would meet.
There was a single pink rose laying next to me.
I had bought a whole bouquet but that was "too much."
Eleven more rested in the back seat of my car.

You did arrive, a little late, but smiling and pretty,
"Thank you." Why did my rose once look so beautiful
But is brown and bruised when I offer it to you?
We talked not knowing each other, you said "I'm rambling."
I'm rambled too; we took turns, gave chances, we talked,
Got to know each other and saw myself from your view.

I didn't make you laugh; I didn't make you smile;
Insecure, I say I'd like to see you again.
Insecure, we make arrangements, a second date.
I go home unsure, but my car smells like roses.
09/27/06

This is probably my best poem.
But the bummer is that particular attempt at a relationship didn't last very long (mostly because of her deal) but still did inspire a very good poem. Now if I dated a lot that wouldn't be such an issue but now when I find someone who I am willing to swallow my pride enough to ask out and when we go out (of course she will say yes... duh) but I do not produce some very good piece of art it will be no good.
"Why didn't you write a poem about our first date?"
But really the poem wasn't so much inspired by Michelle because I wrote it before I knew her at all. It is about humility that is a part of reaching out to another person. Ha ha of course I think it also communicates why I am still single: I am horrible at dating! But I like that about myself and if I were to make a resume for my qualifications as a man in the bullet points would be that I do not think so low of women as to be completley comfortable good ones.

Laura's Letter

2008-11-11T18:59:00.000-08:00

Letter to Michael...
I think that you spent too much time on my incorrect use of the word prejudice. I see what you are saying and I think the words oppression (as you used) and discrimination (treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit) would be better words to use, so I will from now on.

You said "There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks." Yes, it appears that the LGBQT community has not had to face the same tragedies of blacks (or jews for that matter), but that doesn't mean they haven't suffered - I know gay people who have been kicked in the head while being called queer, threatened and even raped. And it certainly doesn't mean that any injustice they experience is right just because it may or may not have been as intense as the injustices faced by the black community--and I'm not saying you were suggesting such.

"You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt)." Yes I do, but that is not my main argument, nor can I prove that in any way, nor do I try to use that as my argument.
When I say ALL people should be treated equally, of course I am not talking about "active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state." I think you are getting hung up on the words I am using, language can be a tricky thing and I find myself being hindered by it more than being helped by it. "The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons." - Yes, lets talk about that!

You said "When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits." Perhaps the state does, but that does not mean it views gay marriage as NOT being beneficial to the state. In fact a common stereotype is that "gays" have lots of money and therefore the state and economy would probably benefit from same sex marriages for obvious reasons. But the reward for what? Being straight? Perceived merit-what does that mean? That straights have a perceived merit that gays don't? Perceptions are not reality.

"When the state or voting population..." Actually it was only the voting population that decided this issue. The state had decided that same-sex marriage was legal since banning it would be unconstitutional..."decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them." Yes they are post-judging them! That was my point, thank you for making it for me :)

"The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality." Wow, first off, the term "homosexual" is considered offensive (http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/gay039s-anatomy/200810/the-terms-homosexual-and-the-n-word) just fyi. But this is the heart of the matter that we're getting into. This is where I think it is wrong to believe that being gay means you are not equal to others (ie. straights), but that's my OWN belief. I understand that. People can think blondes are better than brunettes, ice cream is better than cake (I do), even think whites are better than blacks, but LAWS cannot be made on these discriminations, prejudices, bigotries, whatever word works best. Making a law as such, would be oppression.

"To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression." Why is it disappointing? How is it not oppression?

"The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality." OK, lets hear them. Some I already have heard and I don't know if this is what you have in mind to bring up: -The bible says...- I don't mean to be rude or inconsiderate towards your faith or anyone else's, but it doesn't matter what the bible says in the eyes of the law. Or at least it shouldn't, church and state are separate. -Gays can't procreate- No, but they can provide loving households to children in need. Also, that argument implies that marriage is a contract entered into to procreate, when in reality many straight couples do not procreate because they can't, don't want to, or for other personal reasons. To say "but they CAN" isn't always true, because some people cannot.

Once again, whatever you or anyone else believes or feels, when it comes to the law, the law can't discriminate. Its in our constitution, I'm not making this stuff up.

Another big part of my argument is that some people are not born "man" or "woman" they are intersexed. Its our society that FORCES these people to pick a side. But I would argue to a man of faith, that these people were made "as God made them" and are who they are. What I've learned is that gender is not as clear cut as most of think it to be. What about those who get sex changes? Who do they marry? Do they get a "Marry Anyone You Want Free" card?

Basically I see 2 solutions- marriage goes back to the churches and the state only deals with legal contracts OR all responsible, consenting adults can get married.

Sincerely,Laura

Military and Honor

2008-11-11T09:28:00.000-08:00

Not too long ago I was having a conversation with Martin Murray about Senator Obama (he had not yet won the election) and he said the things he expected the senator to do if elected. Martin is politically very principled and would not give any politician a free pass. Martin does not "hope" President Obama does these things, he expects them to be done. But he finished with "... and end the war in Iraq." Mostly to be sly, I added "With honor. You got to win those Red states." But I thought about it and think that there is more to ensuring that "our brave boys" blah blah for the camera. In general this tendency is worthy only a laugh but there is something essential to guarding, respecting and most important expecting honor from our military.

At one level the military is just a bunch of people with a lot of very very dangerous weapons. Really just one of those small Coats Guard destroyers I've seen in the bay could shut down all naval traffic in and out of the bay, an aircraft carrier could destroy the entire infrastructure of the Bay Area in a matter of days. We don't have many army bases around here that I know about but I imagine a regularly stocked US army base could out-gun all of Oakland without breaking a sweat (think artillery on the other side of the Bay followed by tanks supported by infantry with real machine guns... and all of this is pretty close to WWII technology. I can only imagine that their killing power is much greater now.

Because we have had a stable democracy for so long it is difficult to imagine and easy to dismiss the idea that a part of the military could do this. This is a wonderful circumstance to be in, but just keeping one eye on the state of the world and a decent understanding of history we easily recognize that this is an unusual situation. It is important to acknowledge the reasons that the military, which is so much more powerful that the civilian population consistently submits to the will of the civilian government.

To be sure part of this is self-interest. With the military industrial complex and a strong economy there is little reason to overthrow the government. But I can't help that thinking that many people, if they think of the military at all, believe it is somehow subdued by our Constitution or the mighty will of the people. They watched "V for Vendetta" and imagine the military as impotent without central leadership... which the civilian government controls. This supposed impotence is largely self-imposed. The military trains (brain washes) the ideal of chain of command thoroughly in its members but really a bunch of guys with guns can do what they want.

Which takes us to the idea of civilians (such as Martin and myself) insisting that our soldiers be keep their honor. It would seem strange to what we call common sense that this honor is more valuable than even one human life. That does seem to be the conflict, a bunch of Blue State people wanting the end the war to spare human tragedy, save lives and promote peace and a bunch of Red State people harping about "ending the war with honor." It is easy to imagine how the peace lobby supporters would have trouble understanding this conflict.

How I understand it is that the United States military is a semi-religious institution, it is almost a cult. The regular "soft" civilians are not simply toughened up and taught to shoot strait but there is a great emphasis on the ideals of the military which we will call simply "honor." This is the ideal though perhaps not the fullness of practice. The desired result is a new kind of person.

What kind of person does the military strive to produce? Obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous. But these traits are not permanent reprogramming but a somewhat willing mask based upon the mythology of honor. This honor can be stripped away by disrespect and shame. That is part of the real argument against burning the flag. So-and-so mentioned that in his boot camp an extraordinary effort was to impose this idea that the flag must always be respected. It is a kind of religious symbol. The disrespect of that symbol does more than hurts the feelings of patriotic citizens; it destroys the power of the symbol. If soldiers have been living obedient, selfless, efficient and dangerous lives "for the flag" find that perhaps the flag isn't such a big deal then it is all the easier to drop the obedient, selfless and efficient lifestyle they impose on themselves but they remain dangerous people.

2008-11-10T12:23:00.000-08:00

This post will demonstrate why I will never be the spokesman for any political issue. I swim in an ocean of words and am not suitable for mass consumption. It is ironic considering "my side" made a big deal about not wanting to redefine the word marriage because my main response to your letter is that you are using some words rather loosely.
In particular you use the word "prejudice" carelessly. I know what you mean when you are saying it, just like in "The Princess Bride" we know what Vincitti (sp?) means when he says "inconceivable!" but it is still not the correct use of words. Prejudice is when we prejudge a person based upon some sort superficial standard. For example when server X decides that this table will be a bad table because they are black, they are being prejudiced. This phenomena is a kind of mildly offensive form of foolishness that is in many ways unavoidable. They way formulate the world is to make or recognize patterns and use them as an expectation for future experience. So Jacob (my five year old nephew) just yesterday had a still yet undeveloped expectation that a lemon would be tasty like an orange based upon they way it looked. He now knows a little better. This pattern recognition/pattern projection is natural and develops all kind accurate and inaccurate prejudices. When used in social situations prejudice usually is forming expectations based upon the way someone looks, dresses or by associations. This is what the word prejudice means, but is not how I sense you are using it.
What I imagine when you get so passionate about people and friends who "have views that are prejudice." Is a collage of past associations with that word so strong that it would be more fitting if you wrote that "people have views that are PREJUDICE PREJUDICE PREJUDICE!!!!!!!!" When we were children and school teachers taught us about the Civil Rights movement they were somewhat limited by our own child understanding of the world and what is permissible to say in front of a child and also their own un-reflective and ignorant beliefs of the actual historical and moral questions. So they could not go into depth about what was really going on in the South so instead would say what was a little more digestible to children "White people in the South did not like black people. They were prejudiced against them. But Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. came to speak against prejudice so that everyone could be friends together (insert a clip from the "I Have a Dream" speech)." This is perhaps the best that we could hope for in the circumstances but one of the consequences is that the word "prejudice" has been loaded with many things that has nothing to do with the word. As a child we (perhaps only unconsciously) understood that what was going on in the South was much more bloody and reprehensible that white people not wanting to be friends or share drinking faucets with black people. Lynching, voting suppression, terror attacks are not issues of prejudice but has (usually only unconsciously) been associated with the word prejudice.
I think a better word in these circumstances is "oppression." I do not get the impression that you are passionate about people not being friends or accepting homosexuals or homosexuals getting less service at Outback because of server X's preconceived notions. Those are personal and social issues that can not be solved through a ballet measure. Oppression is something that is institutional and can be dealt with via political means and is worthy of our moral outrage.
For me the issue of Proposition 8 is whether or not it is oppression. To be sure there is oppression that the homosexual community has been made to endure throughout our nation's history and that is inexcusable. Much of this has come from within the doors of churches to the shame of the practitioners of my faith. But understanding the movement behind Proposition 8 and the movement against it I have to say it has no right to associate itself with the struggle for equal legal standing and the oppression of the black population in much of our nation. There are crimes against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation but it nothing on the scope or scale as the institutional disenfranchisement and terrorism against blacks. You could argue that this Proposition is be the first step in that direction but this is a heavy burden of proof (but a noble undertaking to attempt). But as of yet I (and a reasonable majority of voting Californians) are not convinced of this.
To be sure there are embarrassing examples of foolishness and wickedness supporters of most causes. There are those who supported Prop 8 because "God hates fags" and other inexcusable, intolerable and abominable reasons. Equally true there are opponents of Prop 8 who hope to relax social social sexual mores for their own perversity (NAMBLA is the easy to accept example). But we can not casually use these examples as real arguments against our sincere opponents. Teaching chess we have had students who make a bad move with the hope that their opponent will make a much more foolish move. As instructors we correctly instruct our students to plan as if your opponent will make the best possible move. In the same way let's examine and argue against the best cases of our opponents. Let me explain what I believe to be the best argument in favor of Proposition 8.
You wrote "for the LAW all people should be treated equal and have the same rights" but this is not, has never been and never should be the case. In the most egalitarian society (which we ought to strive to be) equal rights for all is not the ideal. The ideal is equal rights for all responsible persons. Defenders of Equal Rights would not say (even in principle) that active murderers, children and acknowledged enemies of the state ought to have equal rights with responsible citizens because in case the party in not willing or capable of serving the betterment of this society responsibly. As such it would be right and responsible to take away some of their rights. Proven murderers, through due process, have some of their rights taken away. Children are not granted the rights reserved for adults. Enemies of the state are sometimes rightly even refused the right to live. But up to this point we have only been talking about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" (or happiness).
A person can lose their rights by their actions. "Rights"does not refer to something that no government has any right to ever take away. If it did, no government would accept any rights for any of it citizens. "Rights" refers to powers, blessings and rewards that a government has limited ability to infringe upon. My "right" to be alive does not mean that my government may never lawfully take my life but instead means that there are limited and (ideally) well defined circumstances in which a government can lawfully kill me. The same thing applies for my right to move about in liberty and try to acquire property (aka secular happiness).
When it comes to the social and legal benefits given to married couples (social acceptance, tax status and the like) I do not believe that these are rights that the married population deserves outright. Those blessings are not a right acknowledged but a reward given by society for perceived merit. The state for holds the position that marriage (what is being called "traditional marriage) is beneficial to society and therefore is granted certain benefits. When the state or voting population decides that homosexual unions do not deserve the exact same legal status (which marriage provides and civil union only partly provides) they are not pre-judging homosexuals but post-judging them. The statement is that homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality.
To those who believe the two are equally beneficial to society this is disappointing but it is not oppression. The logical next step in this letter is to go over the rational (rather than emotional) reasons that homosexuality is considered to be lesser than heterosexuality. I am very willing to go into this. However this has been a long letter so far and before we could go further I think we would need to refine the positions so far. No doubt you would find weaknesses that could be stated more clearly or even thrown out all together. Let's see where we are at this point and then decided if it is profitable to continue.
Most sincerely and with warm regards,Michael

Fatherlessness

2008-11-09T17:02:00.000-08:00

This is not a blog about not having a father or having ambivalent feelings about a father... that is a normal enough in this day and age but is not what this is about. Rather it is about one of the parts of aging which is when you stop having people above you to go to for advice, comfort and/or aid.
I have struggles occasionally with this and that and sometimes I think to myself "I wish there is someone I could go to with this problem." There are plenty of people I can (and do) go to with my problems but it occurred to me recently that all of these people are peers and not superiors. Sure, I am pretty stuck up guy who is not very likely to ask anyone for help... and I see myself as naturally superior to everyone else (I say this to my shame not my credit) so it is not completely surprising that I should have few people I look up towards in this archetypal "father" way. But when I say "I wish there is someone I could go to with my problem" I am actually not thinking of going to a peer (Jem or Jax) to share my struggling and confess my failing. Rather what I am usually thinking is "I wish I knew someone strong enough to carry me in this situation."
The modern independent tendency is to look down on any sort of thought like that. But I reject that as unnatural and dishonest. Most "brave independent" men and women reek of weakness and insecurity to me. I respect the Stuart Smally's of the world who are strong enough to admit their weakness and move forward.
It is not as if the existential father figures in my life ever actually thought it wise to take all of my problems away and provide me a life of ease. It would not be an manly act of love to treat even a child this way. Like C.S. Lewis said, a father would be happy with any faltering steps and failures of a child but no father would be content with a child who refused to learn to walk. The best I ever got (possibly the best a person could get) is a strong hand gently holding my own.
As a child this is mostly just father and mother, but there might have been a teacher here and there. As time went on, in my life parents faltered and my problems became more complex. I was lucky to have some terrific teachers and some reasonably wise friends. Sure, teenage wisdom is a very temporary help but I was grateful for what I received. In college after entering into Christian fellowship I have been extraordinarily fortunate (blessed even) with mentors. It is possible that I leaned a little too hard and expected a little too much but God (the eternal existential Father) prevented too much damage.
But now as a man I find that my mentors have become peers and when I find myself struggling beyond my wish for strength I am compelled to move forward as best I can. I have heard that some have found this feeling liberating, others have described it as terrifying. I am struck by the fact that it is surprising. a year ago I would have thought myself too arrogant to have had any thoughts for a superior to carry me through the hardest paths.

Fallout 3 post-review

2008-11-04T10:13:00.000-08:00

A preview of a review of Fallout 3:
Last summer I was still bummed out about a woman who decided I wasn’t worth going out with. One particular weekend I let my sister borrow my car for the weekend and the sermon at church was about “the gift of being single.” I am thinking about this message, pissed off, riding my bike and the wind is blowing against me. I think to myself “If Jackson wants to buy an Xbox 360 he needs to go through Janelle and she would probably not think very highly of it. I’m single. I can buy an Xbox 360 if I want. I’m going to do it! That’ll show her!”
But the game that made me want a 360 instead of a PS3 or computer or whatever was Fallout 3. I had gotten the first Fallout back in ‘99 because it was one of the few games available on Mac. I really liked the non-linear plot and interacting in a world with choices with consequences. I re-played the game again about four year ago and it was still cool. The sequel was a very good addition and the general criticism of sequels being simply the original but bigger didn’t apply since the nature of the game was so open-ended it didn’t hurt to have a new bigger game.
So then I see a commercial for Fallout 3 somewhere online. It was pretty short but it ended saying “Fallout 03… Fall 08” and I am excited. It would not be until after I bought the 360 that I realized that it was the summer of 07. So I spend a year playing this and that game especially Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It was put out by the same company which was producing Fallout 3. Also open-ended and awesome and beautifully done and a huge suck of my time.
Then finally Fallout 3 came out.
I have probably already put in forty hours of game time in the week since it has come out. I keep expecting my friends to start an intervention or something but one of the actual gifts of singleness is a lot of free time. I am still working and even hanging out. If anything I have given up coffee shop time and sleep for the game. BUT I will not be continuing this pace for very much longer.

Actual review of Fallout 3:
The first criticism I heard online about Fallout 3 was that it would end up being “Oblivion with guns.” This did not sound too bad to me because Oblivion was one of the best games I have ever played… but at the same time I understand part of what they were saying. Fallout had a flavor and a spirit in its style of RPG that was sometimes dark and gritty or morally ambiguous. Oblivion was more black and white and had a heroic flavor rather than grittiness. Also I always felt that the greatest strength to Fallout was the social system where you could have all kinds of conversations with different people and what you said had an affect on the story of the game. Oblivion’s social system was pretty lame. It was more of a mini-game to advance plot lines. Fallout 3’s creators heard a lot of rumbling about this and managed to create a system very similar system to the original Fallout series with the neat addition to give new dialogue options based upon skills and perks. My character is a science based pulp hero and in conversations I can short cut plot quests and add interesting tidbits based upon my high Intelligence or Medicine skill. Once I even had the option to reprogram a medical droid because I had a computer based perk.

Combat in Fallout 3 is almost nothing like it was in the originals but this makes sense sine they were a turn based system. That was okay ten years ago, it was just fine. But in a console centered world that wouldn’t fly for a half a second. They have an aiming like function (as far as I can tell this is the only reason to have high agility) that took me a while to figure out but once I did feel that I a terror to evil-doers in the waste land.

When it comes to combat in an RPG there are two ways to mess up. The Final Fantasy system is just simply too easy. I never had the slightest challenge unless it was requiring the patience to monster crunch to level up so I could walk through the big boss. The other is when there are too many deaths. Re-loading sucks a lot of fun out of the game especially if I have to go over the same plot of land ten times. In general what I want from an RGP is a system of combat that requires medium skill and wise character advancement. If I spent all of my points to advance my social skills I deserve to get my butt kicked in a hard fight. Buy if I spend my points well to balance the various needs of the game and I don’t rush the super-mutants with my bbgun I don’t want to die very often.

One of the Oblivion based fears was the enemies advancing at the same rate as the character. In Oblivion you could easily walk through the whole main plot as a level two character fighting level two monsters. This is lame. Fallout 3 has some of this but certain areas are simply lethal to beginning characters. But as I went up levels and felt that Raiders were chumps suddenly some kind of post-apocalypse bear practically pulled my arms off. It was pretty cool and I had to start walking around a little more carefully.

I beat the game with the ultra-good guy character. I enjoyed the game but considering how many hours I put in such a short time I think it is best that I not start another game any time soon.

Propostition 8

2008-10-27T17:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I had three rather lengthy, unrelated conversations about Proposition 8. This is an attempt to change the state constitution to specifically describe marriage as only between a man and a woman. In 2000 the voters of California passed Proposition 22 which did define marriage between a man and a woman but that law was struck down earlier this year by the California Supreme Court with the justification that it violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution.
The short answer to my position is "I'm a Christian so I do not support the idea of homosexual marriage." I do not expect this to be very persuasive and indeed I am not seeking to be persuasive but instead honest. I think the rational for homosexual marriage is philosophically consistent with humanism (as best I understand its tenants) but if I agree with secular humanism it is largely accidental.
The world I live in is largely cast in a humanist light and my position is not just misunderstood but in some ways is not understandable. Humanism is specifically rationalistic and anything which can not be explained or argued about is beyond comprehension. I say (somewhat mock innocently) "I just want to obey God." The humanist asks me properly how I could know what God wants me to do and I just shrug. I could give rationally acceptable answers, there are deist camps in humanism, but that would be dishonest. I do not know God's will soley from the Bible, that is I do not recieve God's Word like a computer accepts programming. Rather by faith when I hear God's Word and seek to obey God's will somehow become clear in a less articulate and private medium that is beyond rationality.
So my three discussions concerning Prop 8 were rather subdued because I did not enter into them as a rational humanist. There are fair and perhaps very strong arguements against homosexual marriage but if I were to research and present these arguements I would hiding my faith in God behind dieistic rationalism as if my faith were not good enough on its own or needs something to make it approvable to others. Also I would be dishonest because these many possible arguements are not my actual reason for my position. Like I said earlier my position is quite literally "I am a Christian therefore I do not support homosexual marriage."