Madness, Genesis 3, and Pogo

The madness of attempting to make sense of the world lies in the fact that much of the world does not "make sense". 

That is to say, less tautologically, that the world is broken and unless one's view accounts for this, the world will not make sense.  This is why economic theories from the left and right collapse when translated from theory to practice; why political systems fail to fulfill their promises of security and prosperity; why religion does not bring internal or relational peace; why mutually beneficial relationships dissolve; and why even ambitions completely within the apparent ability, power, and means of an individual go unfulfilled.

Will comment on this one later...but it's excellent.

http://pca.st/iyo7Om

Monkey's Uncle

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/pacific-islanders-ancestor

Tedious.  All humans have a common ancestor. 

It's interesting researching our genetic past, but declaring one group of people as being from a different species is... Specious.  Especially since we know modern humans have both Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal DNA.  Human beings are human beings, and some of this talk fuels true racism by giving it a "scientific" basis.

It's Settled

A new discovery about the fundamental complexity of water?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-have-discovered-new-state-matter-water-180961546/

On the one hand, very cool.

On the other hand, this is what makes me a skeptic of scientific determinism. "The Science is Settled!"... "Uh, no, wait a sec, you know that sort of fundamental substance that we've known everything about for, like, well, all of your life? Turns out..."

Dehumanizing Our Enemies

A Facebook friend (the childhood friend of a cousin) posted something that, for the last 85 days or so, is easy to find on one's FB feed: a 25 word-or-less rant condemning Trump and calling anyone who voted for him an idiot.  Again, nothing that all forms of media haven't been saturated with since the election.

I either accidentally or absent mindedly expanded the post and read the comments. Mostly a chorus of vulgar "amens", but one lady made a comment about Trump only being in office 9 days and cutting the guy some slack.  Now I understand that it's precisely what Trump has done in those first days that has many upset.  "Let's wait and see" isn't going to be an acceptable strategy to those who think the man is burning down the country.

Did anyone respond with that sort of information? I.e.  "Hey, we're upset exactly because this guy has done so many things we oppose in such a short time." No.

Instead the woman was vulgarly insulted multiple times and one of the posters hoped for this lady to be sexually assaulted.  I don't know if these people knew each other or were simply connected through our mutual 'friend'. 

I post items that could be deemed controversial at times, but I stay away from online sparring because it's generally fruitless.  But I couldn't help coming to the defense of this woman.  In an exchange of comments, mostly questions for my part, I tried to call attention to the inconsistency of calling a person (Trump) out for his behavior while emulating it and calling for others to be assaulted. 

After a few exchanges, one of the people on the thread calmed down and admitted that she had gotten carried away by her emotions and the group's shared upset.  She IM'd me directly and we talked a little about who we voted for in the past. She even sent me a friend request (which I turned down - I don't really know this person yet). In any event, we listened to each other without changing any minds.

But the rest of the thread continued on, culminating in the commentor who had advocated for the assault of the woman who didn't agree with the group, commenting that he hoped I had a daughter and that she was also assaulted.

This is the mindset that many, many people are in, and it does not appear to be abating.  This is indeed a frightening time to live in this country.

How now shall I live? Or... What's the point again?

I became acutely aware of the inevitability of death in my 20s, during a flight from San Jose to Austin.  The plane made a weird noise when the landing gear came up, and inexplicably,  it filled me with existential anxiety.  "This whole scenario is wrong!", I thought. "I'm in a multi-ton aluminum tube going hundreds of miles an hour, five plus miles high in the sky."

Obviously a panic attack, which I had experienced before, but it awoke something deeper in me.  It didn't just panic my mind, it opened up a vein of thought: My mortality was real.

Busyness was my ally in the battle to ignore my existential angst.  Wife, kids, work, and school ate up all my time for reflection.  But I finished school and landed a good job towards the end of my 20's that slowed the pace of life such that I could reflect more.  And my anxiety grew...

Long story short, in the end, this drew me to a closer relationship with God (and the realization of my own lack of righteousness, specifically, to Christ).

I'm mentioning this because I was prompted to think of these things hearing the following quote from Leo Tolstoy.  It's definitely a downer if one has a strictly materialist/scientific determinism world view, but I think it beautifully describes the  overwhelming anxiety that can grip the human heart when reflecting upon the inevitability of our own end.

There is an Eastern fable, told long ago, of a traveller overtaken on a plain by an enraged beast. Escaping from the beast he gets into a dry well, but sees at the bottom of the well a dragon that has opened its jaws to swallow him. And the unfortunate man, not daring to climb out lest he should be destroyed by the enraged beast, and not daring to leap to the bottom of the well lest he should be eaten by the dragon, seizes s twig growing in a crack in the well and clings to it. His hands are growing weaker and he feels he will soon have to resign himself to the destruction that awaits him above or below, but still he clings on. Then he sees that two mice, a black one and a white one, go regularly round and round the stem of the twig to which he is clinging and gnaw at it. And soon the twig itself will snap and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveller sees this and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while still hanging he looks around, sees some drops of honey on the leaves of the twig, reaches them with his tongue and licks them. So I too clung to the twig of life, knowing that the dragon of death was inevitably awaiting me, ready to tear me to pieces; and I could not understand why I had fallen into such torment. I tried to lick the honey which formerly consoled me, but the honey no longer gave me pleasure, and the white and black mice of day and night gnawed at the branch by which I hung. I saw the dragon clearly and the honey no longer tasted sweet. I only saw the unescapable dragon and the mice, and I could not tear my gaze from them. and this is not a fable but the real unanswerable truth intelligible to all.

The deception of the joys of life which formerly allayed my terror of the dragon now no longer deceived me. No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false.

The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing - art as I called it - were no longer sweet to me.

"Family"...said I to myself. But my family - wife and children - are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death"

Unhealthy Skepticism

"But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. "

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Free Speech

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Fake News

This is an example of the reactionary histrionics that are destroying intelligent political dialogue in America:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/20/donald_trump_puts_black_lives_matter_osu

The author contends the Administration is targeting Black Lives Matter (BLM), yet provides no references to BLM from the White House website.

Instead, the author claims the reference is implicit in the statement, "The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration."

Should the Administration be *against* law and order?

The author then calls out the following text from the White House website: "The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong."

Seems innocuous enough, but for the insight provided by the author.  You see, the White House website goes on to indicate who is responsible for this atmosphere:  “Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter.”

"OK?...So what?", says the unenlightened reader.

Don't you see? the author effectively asks, directly tying "the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter" to BLM: "it was chilling to see such unambiguous evidence of his contempt for those who've protested against police violence."

Again, nowhere is BLM mentioned on the website and nowhere is peaceful protest condemned.  Rather the author equates rioting, looting, and violent disruption to protests against police violence and, Q.E.D, BLM. 

Apparently the author has never ventured to the BLM website, where the following snippets of the movement's platform can be gleaned:

"We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another."

And:

"We are committed to collectively, lovingly and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people. As we forge our path, we intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting."

Rather, the author equates BLM to rioters, looters, and violent disruptors before harkening back to a false example of police brutality in Ferguson ( "Hands up, don't shoot" was proven to be false, but not until the community had been devastated by riots, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/?utm_term=.8764bdeae70f ).

It's not that I think Trump is a good man.  He's repeatedly demonstrated his boorish character.  It's that examples of that specific behavior should be the subject of criticism.  There's no need to read between the lines with this guy - 140 characters don't allow for many lines to begin with.

It's not that I oppose protesting police brutality.  I've witnessed it with my own eyes, and not through an out of context youtube clip.   Police brutality is an issue that needs to be addressed (there's probably not a career that involves more psychological and physical stress so it should not be a surprise that some police go off the rails).  

It's that failing to distinguish between Selma and Ferguson, and between a statement supporting law enforcement and a message targeting a specific political group can only be the result of crowd-induced mania, extreme ignorance, or blatant disingenuousness. None of these alternatives bodes well for the future of political debate in America.

Hey look over there!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-employers-rushing-offer-unlimited-vacation-kathleen-christensen

It sounds good on the surface, and the intentions of some organizations may be good, but my understanding is that this approach both eliminates the guarantee of vacation and the associated financial liability.  From an article in Time: "Wiping away the average vacation liability saves companies $1,898 per employee, according to research from Project:Time Off. That quickly adds up: U.S. companies carried forward $65.6 billion in accrued paid time off costs last year." See http://time.com/money/4070275/unlimited-vacation-policy/

Profoundly Sad - The Rev. Katherine Ragsdale's "Abortion is a Blessing" Speech

It seems that the Episcopal Church's leadership, among others, do not want Katherine Hancock Ragsdale's view on abortion to be widely known now that they have unanimously appointed her to the presidency of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. Most of the links to her sermon to a group in Alabama have been pulled, so I've included the following links, in case the main link of this post gets axed.

From Ms. Ragsdale's blog: http://katherineragsdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/about-time.html.

From a site promoting traditional Anglicanism in America: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/21537

I won't comment on the sermon itself; David J. Sanders does a nice job:
http://arkansasnews.com/2009/04/08/episcopal-official-abortionists-%e2%80%98saints%e2%80%99

Leviticus

Your exercise in futility for the day:

Align the following Bible Verses with an American political party's platform: Leviticus 18:22, 19:18, 19:34,  23:22.

How'd that work out for you?

Kickstarter Becomes a For Benefit Corporation

Kickstarter has become a For Benefit corporation, which means they can now "legally" pursue things other than profit.  Makes me think:

- Is US Corporate Law truly *that* tilted toward Shareholder enrichment?  I guess the only reason it seems odd is the amount of 'charitable' work corporations do today.  But if the only reason they do such charitable things is to increase short (tax breaks) and long (marketing) term profitability, then it would fit.  Fit the US Code, that is - not the definition of charity.

- The Kickstarter announcement (https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-now-a-benefit-corporation)  gives a brief explanation of what a For Benefit corporation is, and then proceeds to talk about the x% post- profit funds that will go into supporting A, B, C causes.  I think they have it wrong.   In 'sacrificing' the pursuit of sheer profit for the sake of benefiting others besides shareholders, a more organic approach should be taken.  One that is symbiotic, and which has the potential to actually - shudder! - increase profitability in the long run.  Why not implement policies that serve to enrich staff, inventors/clients, and customers instead of simply giving away money to causes that align with the board's outside agendas?  That is, why not implement policies that embody the philosophy expressed by a young Dave Packard at a roundtable of senior management types over 60 years ago:

"Somehow, we got into a discussion of the responsibility of management. Holden made the point that management's responsibility is to the shareholders – that's the end of it. And I objected. I said, 'I think you're absolutely wrong. Management has a responsibility to its employees, it has a responsibility to its customers, it has a responsibility to the community at large.' And they almost laughed me out of the room."
– David Packard, Stanford Magazine (http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=42103)

- The "give money away" idea reflects the failed thinking of Johnson's Great Society.  Unearned gain will be squandered. Almost every time.

Love and Freedom

Freedom means free exercise of one's will.  To love is therefore the greatest freedom one can have.

Creativity

The counterfeit innovator is wildly self-confident. The real one is scared to death.
- Steven Pressfield

Bad Poetry

What is an eye, so easily blinded?
What is a heart, so easily pierced?
I did it myself, why should I have minded?

External Structures

Large scale structure can't be imposed from the outside.  This is why you don't see gigantic crabs or spiders the size of horses.  What's true for organisms is also true for organizations.

Thoughts on July 4th

Experience reveals our heroes as flawed, our dreams to be tainted with vanity, and our ideals to be warped by self interest - tempting us to either paint over the darkness with a rainbow of positivism or to discard all things aspirational. 

Vaccines and Traditional Morality

I see a real parallel between the anti-vaccine movement and Western Civilization's departure from its historic/traditional morality over the past 100+ years.  Sometimes the formulation or application of traditional morality has produced harmful results (e.g. prideful and condescending - even hateful - attitudes to those whose actions fall outside the bounds of "approved" moral conduct) - like mercury-based vaccinations.  But rather than striving to find the appropriate expression of morality (i.e. non-mercury based vaccination formulas), a significant portion of society has decided to abandon traditional morality, with disastrous results.

Four Ps

Policy, process, and procedure are subordinate to purpose.

Prayer

Prayer increases our attentiveness to God, not his to us.

In a Big Country

This is where I'm at today:

"So take that look out of here, it doesn't fit you
Because it's happened doesn't mean you've been discarded
Pull up your head off the floor, come up screaming
Cry out for everything you ever might have wanted
I thought that pain and truth were things that really mattered
But you can't stay here with every single hope you had shattered"

Dave Packard's 11 simple Rules

Ran across these today.  As applicable and effective as ever...



Dave Packard's 11 Simple Rules

Bill Hewlett (left) and Dave Packard (center) serving food at the company picnic. Photo circa 1958.

"Elegant" and "timeless" describe 11 simple rules first presented by Dave Packard at HP's second annual management conference in 1958 in Sonoma, California.
Discovered in Dave's correspondence file, these rules show his philosophy of work and life.


11 Simple Rules 1. Think first of the other fellow. This is THE foundation — the first requisite — for getting along with others. And it is the one truly difficult accomplishment you must make. Gaining this, the rest will be "a breeze."
2. Build up the other person's sense of importance. When we make the other person seem less important, we frustrate one of his deepest urges. Allow him to feel equality or superiority, and we can easily get along with him.
3. Respect the other man's personality rights. Respect as something sacred the other fellow's right to be different from you. No two personalities are ever molded by precisely the same forces.
4. Give sincere appreciation. If we think someone has done a thing well, we should never hesitate to let him know it. WARNING: This does not mean promiscuous use of obvious flattery. Flattery with most intelligent people gets exactly the reaction it deserves — contempt for the egotistical "phony" who stoops to it.
5. Eliminate the negative. Criticism seldom does what its user intends, for it invariably causes resentment. The tiniest bit of disapproval can sometimes cause a resentment which will rankle — to your disadvantage — for years.
6. Avoid openly trying to reform people. Every man knows he is imperfect, but he doesn't want someone else trying to correct his faults. If you want to improve a person, help him to embrace a higher working goal — a standard, an ideal — and he will do his own "making over" far more effectively than you can do it for him.
7. Try to understand the other person. How would you react to similar circumstances? When you begin to see the "whys" of him you can't help but get along better with him.
8. Check first impressions. We are especially prone to dislike some people on first sight because of some vague resemblance (of which we are usually unaware) to someone else whom we have had reason to dislike. Follow Abraham Lincoln's famous self-instruction: "I do not like that man; therefore I shall get to know him better."
9. Take care with the little details. Watch your smile, your tone of voice, how you use your eyes, the way you greet people, the use of nicknames and remembering faces, names and dates. Little things add polish to your skill in dealing with people. Constantly, deliberately think of them until they become a natural part of your personality.
10. Develop genuine interest in people. You cannot successfully apply the foregoing suggestions unless you have a sincere desire to like, respect and be helpful to others. Conversely, you cannot build genuine interest in people until you have experienced the pleasure of working with them in an atmosphere characterized by mutual liking and respect.

11. Keep it up. That's all — just keep it up!

Tim Keller re: Supposed Inconsistencies between Old and New Testaments

http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/tgc/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency

Scary Thought

One of the scariest realizations I've come to is that I am responsible for thinking things through and for the resulting decisions and consequences.

50th Anniversary of The War on Poverty

While fighting "wars" against states of mind (terror) and existence (poverty, obesity, etc...) is patently absurd, the most unfortunate aspect of the thought process that leads to such wars is that it subtly necessitates a belief that the consequences of individual decisions must be borne primarily by society at large and prevented by communal, rather than individual action.  This means that rather than allowing the painful consequences of poor decisions to be shouldered primarily by those who make such decisions, society (i.e. it's 'agent', the government) must bear the costs of poor decisions and prevent future occurrences by curtailing the rights of all, with each failure of the former necessitating increased severity of the latter. The fact that our "caretakers" obtain power in ever increasing degrees as a part of the process and exercise their "duty" with increasing measures of glee is, of course, just a happy coincidence.

Still, the most tragic irony isn't the aforementioned "big brother" syndrome or the fact that a middle class person somewhere has a higher tax bill as a result; it is that a lack of consequences robs us (I'm really good at making bad decisions, mind you) of the opportunity to learn.  It might seem terrific at first to be unable to feel the pain of being burned, but such pain is ultimately healthy - it keeps us from injuring ourselves further or even irreparably. It may seem compassionate to shield a person from the consequences of his or her decision (and in some cases it is), but in many cases it retards one's growth as a human being and ultimately produces greater suffering in the end.

Criminalizing Christ: The Nationwide Targeting of Homeless - Rev. David R. Henson | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners

Criminalizing Christ: The Nationwide Targeting of Homeless - Rev. David R. Henson | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners:
Cross-post of my response to FB article post from Micah Sapienza:

Hmm...I think the author's heart is in the right place, but his thinking is very cloudy. 

First he seems to be trying to rally a liberal constituency with language like "not just a symptom of conservatism or of the Deep South".   The appeal is, essentially, "Hey now folks.  We know that people with conservative values, including many believers and especially those SOBs down South, are ignorant hateful cretins, but *even* in bastions of progressive reasonableness, such as San Francisco and Berkeley, the homeless are being targeted!"  (And really, is Atlanta, with a Democrat mayor, actually a ''conservative bulwark"?) 

Second, he's running the same play that the Focus on the Family crowd gets lambasted for: Conflating America and The Church and then asserting that it's 'our' (America/The City on A Hill) moral responsibility to use the force of government to solve the dilemma at hand. Government does have a role to play, but it's not because it's a wing of the Church. 

Lastly, the author paints a false view of the issue at hand in an attempt to stack the deck in favor of his argument.  Unfortunately it only reinforces his own ignorance and lack of compassion. Regarding the former, the author's overly-simplistic piece ignores the complicated causes of homelessness, and therefore, the possibility of discussing real solutions. (If you want to pretend your cancer is a contagious viral infection, be my guest.  But your prognosis is going to be very poor).  Many homeless are that way because they choose to be.  This is difficult for many of us to wrap our heads around, but it is the truth nonetheless, and needs to be factored into any solutions that are developed.  Regarding compassion, some of the ordinances in question may be unfair or even unjust.  But none of them seem to preclude one from taking in a homeless person.  The great irony is that this idea - of compassion being dispensed through any mechanism other than a social welfare program - is completely foreign to those such as the author. “Well sure, I’ll volunteer down at the soup kitchen 4 days a week, or lobby for more government intervention, or even get by on a smaller salary to work for a foundation that ‘serves’ the homeless, but you surely don’t expect me to let any of those smelly urchins into *my* house!”  No, in the minds of those like the author, compassion is something that must be dispensed by government agencies in our urban centers, just like Jesus did.  Makes one wonder what the real agenda is.

Cynicism

Cynicism is the candy shell that keeps one's heart from melting with gratitude.  Problem is, I really like candy...

Lev 19:10

And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.

Architecture and Masonry

We spend so much time working on our plans - worrying whether/working to make sure things will go as we desire - that we often forget to focus on, and enjoy, the labor of executing the plans and serendipity of those things that don't go as planned.  

Happy Birthday Grandma

I miss you very much. 

Post Season Fantasy

Ok, with the Niners at 8-1 I can engage in some post-season day dreaming. My dream Niner playoff scenario :

1st Round: Niners over Cowboys
2nd Round/ NFC Championship: Niners over GB
SB: Niners over Pittsburgh

Niners banish playoff ghosts of the past by defeating The 'Boys and GB, and emerge as the winningest team in SB by defeating Pitssburgh.

Beating the Raiders in the SB would be a close second. :)

Fathers

I think the weight of a father's presence and discipline develops a weightiness and density of soul. I missed that growing up.

Weeds and Dreams

I have a childhood memory, perhaps apocryphal, of an instance when I was helping my grandma garden. I was probably four, and had been helping my grandma weed a flowerbed when she asked me to pull out a certain weed.  Now this 'weed' seemed to me to be a perfectly good plant. I didn't want to pull it. In my opinion, it was as legitimate a plant as any of the others she had in her bed.  I let her know that I thought this plant should stay, and in the process of reasserting that it had to go she let me know that weeds were simply plants that were out of place and whose presence choked out the growth of the desired plants.  It's the gardeners prerogative to determine what stays and what goes, she maintained, and he makes these decisions based on his desire to see certain plants flourish.

This morning it occurred to me that this is an analogy for life.  Our life is a flower bed.  God is the gardener, and we are his helper.   Our activities and dreams are the plants in the flowerbed. There are some things in our lives which we hold dear that God wants to remove because they will choke out what he's trying to cultivate.  Our job as his helper is to know his desire, watch him in action, and follow his lead as we assist him in his work.

(This analogy also helps clarify who's life it is to begin with - God's, not ours).

Crotchety Comment of the Day

I realize how INCREDIBLY important and busy you are, dear sender of email, but unless we've been sending several emails back and forth in the span of a few minutes, please use an Opening containing my name and a Closing containing yours when corresponding via email. FB, Twitter, and text messaging are available for those messages that don't require complete sentences, but let's try to preserve some semblance of courtesy when we correspond with each other.

Two Questions:

1. Think this won't happen here?
2. If/when it does, would you refuse to receive government support that was funded by these means?

A Good Question

A friend from church posed the following question on his Facebook Wall:

If the love of God is unconditional, why is there a hell?

Here's my slightly abridged reply:

(...)

Regarding God's love, it's unconditional because it's not dependent on anything we do. We shouldn't confuse God's sovereignty in loving who he pleases with the quality of that love. What's more, there's no place in scripture where we're instructed to share a "negative gospel" - i.e. explicate to unbelievers that a set number of them will never be redeemed. The names on the roll of the redeemed is God's business, not ours. The following Spurgeon quote says it better than I can:
" I remember Rowland Hill’s reply, when somebody said that he ought to preach only to the elect. “Very well,” he said, “next Sunday morning, chalk them all on the back and when you have done that, I will preach to them.” But the chalking of them on the back is the difficulty—we cannot do that and, as we cannot do that, the best way is for us to leave our God to carry out the purposes of His distinguishing Grace in His own effectual way and not attempt to do what we certainly can never accomplish! There, scatter a handful of Seed “by the wayside.” Even if the birds of the air devour it, there is plenty more where that came from and it would be a pity for us to leave any portion unsown because we were miserly and stingy with our Master’s Seed!" - Charles Spurgeon Sermon# 2843, The Seed by the Wayside, Luke 8:5

One can only hope this is a hoax

Yeah, but where will the equipment receiving the tax credit be manufactured?

Something tells me China's economy will get a bigger boost from this than ours will.

But Hey, Our EPS are up 33% Y/Y!

Offshored Manufacturing - More than Just "out dated" Wrench Turning Jobs at Stake

Hat tip to Andy K. for this link. My 2 cents: 1) Clearly, Andy Grove's been reading my blog. LOL... 2) The risks of lost institutional manufacturing knowledge are well known, but Grove makes an excellent point re: the link between manufacturing and innovation.

Hat Tip to The Lone Conservative: And interesting lecture on motivation...

Well, duh...

Tough Customers...

...and unreasonable customers can be difficult to distinguish. The way to tell them apart is by their reaction to your best efforts. Tough customers will find a degree of satisfaction in your having done the best to solve their problem. Unreasonable customers will not.

Thankful

Just feeling thankful for two men who taught me to think openly and critically: Emmett Lierly and CS Lewis.

Aphorisms of the Day

Even a perfectly good pair of shoes will have at least two holes in them.

Knowledge tempers zeal as heat tempers steel.

Rando Thought of the Day

Any institution, be it political, religious, or economic, that does not take into account the true nature of humanity is doomed to fail, fail catastrophically, and cause much suffering in the process.

A Thought on Pragmatic Politics

The beautifully insidious thing about taking a pragmatic approach to politics is that you can justify your decisions based on postulation rather than principle.

True resolve is usually silent...

Robert Rules!

QOTD from Henry M. Robert:

Where there is no law, but every man
does what is right in his own eyes,
there is the least of real liberty.

File under "I" for "I Told You So"

More than one way to be wrong

I find it incredibly frustrating that many conservative Christians feel justified in stomping on the feelings of others in their zeal for moral justice while many liberal Christians feel justified in stomping on the feelings of others in their zeal for social justice. Isn't kindness a moral virtue? Can we ever expect human beings to treat each other justly if those who are supposedly leading the way can't even be decent to each other?

A person won't change because a self-righteous person condemned his or her behavior. They will change, however, if they are lovingly led to a knowledge of the truth - that morality matters, that justice matters, that people matter. Loving God and loving our neighbor aren't nice sentiments that we should try to hang on to as we "do the real work of building God's kingdom" (pompous tone intended). They are the only means by which we can serve God and through which we can foster a moral and just society.

Patently Obvious Thoughts for the Day

You can't guide others where you haven't been and you can't lead them where you aren't willing to go.

Two implications of this:

1. If I want to be the spiritual leader of my family, I can't just point the way. "Hey, you kids go on up out of Egypt to the promised land. Pop's gonna stay here and hang out". I have to go on ahead, away from the safety of being in the group, and face the risks of loneliness and isolation that come with breaking new ground and being misunderstood.

2. I can't be so arrogant as to think that a) I will be the "expert" in everything, since my wife will be ahead of me in some regards as will my kids as they reach an age where they begin to have experiences I never did, or b)God hasn't already been there. He is the true Leader, and my job is to follow and help my family do the same.

iPad 2010 = Newton 1993

'Nuff said.

Climate Change?

Why am I not surprised by this?

Bill Gates' Silhouette in Outlook 2010?

Dorky Observation of the Day: I think the default silhouette in the Outlook 2010 people pane is based on Bill Gates mug shot from the 70's. Where do I collect my prize for being the first one to notice this?

Stupid Career Tricks

So I had a job interview the other day. I felt like it went well, but I didn't hear anything within 5 business days, so I called to leave a message with the hiring manager. Problem is, I apparently didn't get his name right during the interview. Somehow, I managed to come away thinking he was "Bill Jones".

So I call and ask to leave a message with "Bill Jones" (who, apparently is an employee with said company) and was put through to his voice mail. I leave a nice VM thanking him for the interview and expressing interest in moving forward in the process. Then today, I get an email from the HR person who lets me know that she'll be meeting with "Bob" later this week to determine next steps. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot, huh?

Very Interesting Interview with the Author of The Political Gene

Turn so many phrases they call me the Lathe

Dehumanization

I just read the abstract for an upcoming talk at work. One line spoke of the "vision of establishing and running a virtual business, a business in which most or all of its business functions are outsourced to online services". Wow! The complete commoditization and abstraction of human labor is at hand. Isn't that grand!

Others at my place of employment are working on everything from building nanoscale sensors that can be deployed anywhere and everywhere on the planet to the data extraction and analytics algorithms that will be necessary to process and act on - in realtime the terabyte streams of data those trillions of sensors will produce. I'm sure they'll put those to use in good, non-surveillance-type applications!

Maybe my "John Henry and the Steam Hammer" allusions are too much, and maybe "1984" had more impact on my thinking than it should have, but I can't help feel that I'm witnessing - and in my own small way, contributing to - the undoing of civilization, if not humanity.

How did I get so damn vested in such a system? How do I break free without becoming some dirt-eating hippie?

Man, Was I Feeling Emo When I Wrote This, or What?

I wrote this a little over 5 years ago:

A big aching crater
A bunker of despair

To know that it's my own
for no one else to share

A bleeding ulceration
A gash through soul and flesh

To know that it's my own
And is forever fresh

Everyone is hurting
as they twist the knife

Everyone is grasping
for a slice of life

It's my own creation
indeed of my design

To know that it's my own
this cancer of the mind

Deep and dank and lonely
The demon lurks within

To know that its my own
the consequence of sin

Everyone is hurting
as they twist the knife

Everyone is grasping
for a slice of life

Next Wave

Global labor arbitrage - finding ever cheaper sources of labor - has made a tremendous impact on the bottom lines of Fortune 500 companies, US workers, and workers in emerging markets with benefits coming to the first and last largely at the expense of the middle. (I know, Americans got cheap stuff to buy at Walmart as a result, but hey, when you factor in that they were mortgaging their homes to buy that crap, it doesn't look like such a great deal, huh?).

Anyway, the cigar chompers are running out of cheap (or rather, cheaper) labor sources, so what's the next stop in the drive to eliminate labor? (And don't kid yourself by thinking a) senior executives don't want to do just that or b) I'm 'white collar', not ~shudder!~ labor. They do and you are - unless you've got a 'nut' that wouldn't be exhausted by you or your children, even if you never worked another day in your life). The next stop is Automation. Why pay Indians or Bulgarians or Costa Ricans to run your data center when you can have the systems run themselves? Why pay analysts in the EU and the US to munge business processes and design improved systems when you can automatically capture and analyse user interactions with business apps and programatically generate design improvements? And once you know enough to improve a process and its supporting systems *automatically*, you can certainly begin to reduce the number of people it takes to actually *run* those processes while simultaneously improving output.

I'm talking about a John Henry and the Steam Hammer scenario here, but on a global scale. Only this time it will be massive declines in the demand for 'skilled' labor (though I wouldn't have told John Henry to his face that he was "unskilled"). And not just in the US, but globally. Factor in that a large percentage of the people who are displaced by either labor arbitrage or automation will no longer be "good consumers", and the pressure to improve the bottom line as the top line falls only increases.

All of this is going to have a tremendous impact on social and political stability, around the globe. Unemployed people are restless people. Are fearful people. And are often all-to-malleable in their thoughts and consequent actions.

Just sayin'.

More Learnings...

As I reflect on my last position, here are some things I would do differently:

1. Don't let a desire for perfection kill your project schedules. Most of the time 80% is good enough, at least for a first release.
2. Make sure service standards exceed expectations, but not by much. Pouring effort into providing a level of service that is unappreciated keeps you from aggressively pursuing new opportunities.
3. Remember that fear is a poor long-term business driver. Said another way, being overly afraid of layoffs or budget cuts is a sure way to incur both.
4. You can only do what you can do.

Are you kidding me?

This is an absolute nightmare. Think about it. The Chinese gov't holds something like $1T in US treasuries. Once inflation sets in and they begin dumping US $, do we really want them to be able to exchange their $ for a fast track to US citizenship? $1T would buy 2 Million EB-5 visas! Moreover, I saw nothing in this that would prevent the EB-5 visa holder from employing H1B Visa holders to meet the employment criteria. Not hard to imagine several hundred thousand new citizens being created through this process.

Madden said winning is the best deodorant, but clearly it's money. This stinks to high heaven, but will undoubtedly be defended as "good for the economy". Since when did money become the sole arbiter of all we value? Frightening.

Casting Down Idols

Things that are hindering my walk with God:

Love of comfort
Love of pleasure
Love of others' esteem
Pride

Noli nothi permittere te terere

'Nuff said.

More lessons being learned...

3. Genuine praise is a priceless motivation tool.

My QOTD

Google'd this and couldn't find it, so I hereby lay claim to coining the following phrase:

"Successful organizations start with people, and end with management."

Pun *intended*. :)

Things I Think God is Teaching Me Right Now

1. He can be trusted to provide for me and my loved ones; I cannot.
2. He is the source of joy and peace; my circumstances are not.

Christian Pole Positions

1. Cloaking a judgemental spirit in the guise of concern for God's holiness.
2. Turning a blind eye to sin for the purpose of being loving.

In my experience, almost all Christians will naturally fall into one of the two above camps. But the two greatest commandments help us in our battle against these nature tendencies.

Loving our neighbor restrains our judgemental attitudes and creates a desire to extend grace, while love of God reminds us how he has loved and forgiven us.

Likewise, if we love our neighbor, we will certainly not, by our silence, implicitly call the evil they are doing "good" and thereby encourage them to incur more judgement from God (and yeah, God is gonna judge you - even those of us who he won't ultimately condemn). And of course, loving God creates a humble zeal for his holiness.

Authenticity

Authenticity is touted greatly these days, even (or especially) in Christian circles. I wonder if the folks doing the touting know of this word's history within existentialist thought? I also wonder if Christians are confused about the meaning of the term and just simply think of it as a synonym for sincerity, which *is* a Christian virtue?

Random House defines sincere as "free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness; earnest". But authenticity is defined as "not false or copied; genuine; real". While the absence of falseness is common to the meaning of both words, I think there's a subtle but important difference between the two. Sincerity implies moral conformity, e.g. "I am sincere in making this statement". Authenticity connotes "I am what I am portraying."

To which I say, "What if you're an authentic Jerk?"

Happiness and Joy

I could be wrong, but it occurs to me that happiness is the intersection of positive expectation and actual experience, while joy is the submission of all expectation to Ultimate reality.

Thoughts Shared with Market Research Firm

One of the market research firms that covers the information industry (OK, the only one that does) sent out a pricing survey today and, among other things, asked for what an ideal content license/contract might look like. Here were some of my thoughts:

1) Content clearly priced per unit (e.g. per full text document) for easy comparison to other vendors and providers.

2) Volume discounts increasing in logical increments until "enterprise" access - i.e. unlimited across an organization - is reached.

3) No "evergreen" contracts designed to "trick" customers into renewing.

4) Clear, yet unobtrusive watermarking of every fulltext download with the following information:

"'Vendor/Platform Name' Content Provided by 'Sponsoring Library's Name'. Licensed for use by 'User Name' of 'Org Name' on 'Date'. Distribution to non-licensed individuals prohibited by law. Your colleagues may access a licensed copy of this document at 'OpenURL Link to Document'.

This would a) Help eliminate copyright and licensing violations related to electronic subscriptions, b) Remind executive sponsors and consumers of content that it isn't 'free', c) Reduce the need for vendors to hedge their positions by baking-in 'X' amount of unauthorized usage into their pricing models, d) Eliminate the need for expensive DRM schemes which frustrate sponsors and content consumers.

Certainly not an exhaustive list, but I think these changes would make a big difference...

Coining a Phrase: WOflation

I think I'm the first to coin this phrase: WOflation. The hyper-inflation brought about by the economic policies of Bush - "W" - and Obama -"O". It hasn't hit, but it will.

Getting Old

I don't like it. Just kidding. It's fine. But sometimes I just feel old and rusty...

Really? Duh!

:Begin Rant

The only thing that's more upsetting than the fact that it took all of us as American citizens so long to figure this out, is that our leaders still haven't. (Or they have and they simply don't care.)
Our enemies (and they don't have nuclear weapons and armies because they think those things are neat) are into us for $13 Trillion. And that's not counting commercial paper and consumer debt.

End Rant:

Couldn't have said it better myself

The link is to an excellent flickr post. I don't think the author is anti-Obama, but he is pro free-thought.

I want to say that I am truly happy that America can elect the son of an immigrant to be President. And a black immigrant no less. Prejudice has been a blight on mankind and on this nation, and I am hopeful that Obama's election marks a true milestone in the healing of racial divides in this country.

And I am praying for our new President. Literally. But I'm also a bit fearful.

Fearful of the blindly fervent support Obama has received and the free pass he's been given by the press.

Fearful that just as in the days following September 11, when we allowed our leaders to rush through the Patriot Act, which had far reaching implications on our political rights - and was subject to little to no debate - we are allowing our leaders to rush through an 'economic stimulus' package that will have far reaching implications on our economic rights.

Fearful that the citizens of America literally see Obama as a savior and as such are unwilling to think critically about his policies.

Fearful that we as a people are so addicted to personal comfort and retaining a sense of "security" - physical, emotional, financial - at all costs that we're willing to believe whatever lies we're fed as long as they contain the promise of security and comfort.

Fearful that we are so divorced from virtue as a concept that pleasure is our only modis operandi; that we have become little more than animals seeking instant gratification of our base impulses.

I knew I didn't like this guy's econimic positions...

As you may know, I’ve never been a Warren Buffet fan (no, not Jimmy Buffet – pay attention, Steve). Than, last week, my honey gave me the low-down on why Mr. B is in favor of the death-tax: he’s built his fortune on it. I did some research and found this blog post http://reachupward.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-warren-buffett-loves-death-tax.html. Read it and the supporting articles for an eye opener.

I started disliking Buffet's economics when he pushed for corporations to expense their employee stock options (he also lost my affection when he encouraged Schwarzenneger to hike CA property taxes). His position was obviously motivated by the desire to keep “the little” guy from owning stock in corporations. I believe his motivations are twofold.

First, issuing stock to employees dilutes the value of each remaining share and thereby dilutes the control that any one investor – particularly a major stockholder - has over a corporation. Ever wonder why Berkshire Hathaway stock has never split? It’s so that Buffet’s hold on the company is never diluted. Checkout the current trading price to get an idea of what this means in the real world: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRKA&d=t. Probably not adding any BKRA to the old 401(k) in the near future, eh?

The second reason I believe Buffet opposes stock in the hands of the little guy is a corollary of the first: if the common man, on average, held stock in corporations, he could band together with other ‘common men’ to influence corporate policies. Here’s what I mean: Corporations can ride out a protest by consumers who oppose the company’s policy on a particular issue (pick your issue: promotion of homosexuality, funding of planned parenthood, hiring illegal immigrants, etc…). They just crank up the marketing machine, do some damage control PR, lower prices, etc… until the flap-up subsides. What they can’t ride out as easily, is a shareholder protest. Shareholders can literally cost executives their jobs. You might be familiar with what CalPERS is able to do in boardrooms across the country with their massive holdings and influence (the CEO of my old company, EDS, was ousted largely due to pressure from CalPERS). Well, imagine a large group of shareholders who held strong opinions about certain social and political issues; who collectively owned a good chunk of a company and who weren’t willing to compromise their convictions to save their portfolio. They might do something crazy like demand the company *really* verify the legal status of their immigrant workers, or even worse – make decisions based on the long term best interest of the whole company rather than what would drive the share price up as fast as possible this quarter.

Warren Buffet is probably a great guy. I understand he's a big fan of bridge, which seems like a pretty down-to-earth activity. I jsut don't agree with his economic positions and think there's more to them than a desire to keep his kids from becoming billionaire wastrels...

First Haircut

I was thinking about how hard it is to patiently endure life's circumstances, while waiting on God and resting in His promises. As a Christian I know it will all work out in the end. I know I'll end up in eternity with God, enjoying never-ending and ever-increasing bliss and blessing. So, relatively speaking, how important is my job? How important is my health? How important are the material blessings in my life? Not very.

If God can take care of the eternal bliss part, he can take care of the job-health-stuff part, right? I may not have the job-health-stuff ratio that I'm looking for at a given moment, but he'll do what's necessary between now and eternity to make sure I get there. Even if I don't like the process.

All this makes me think of the first haircut I got. Grandpa did it on the back porch. He had clippers, scissors, combs and even one of those plastic cloaks to keep the hair from getting all over your clothes. He sat me down on a stool, put the cloak on me, and started in. I did not like it one bit.

First off, I didn't trust Grandpa enough. I was positive those clippers would cut my ears off. If it could cut hair, surely it could cut my skin, right? And what if he accidentally poked me in the eye? I mean, those things were SHARP! Then there was the fact that the clippers tickled when he cut my neck hairs and above and around my ears. So, I squirmed and fidgeted and slumped and whined, repeatedly asking "Are you done yet?". I was miserable. And I bet Grandpa was too; we went to the barber shop for my haircuts after that.

The thing is, Grandpa was just trying to do something good for me: cut my hair so that I didn't look like Shirley Temple (As a toddler/preschooler I had curly blond hair). He had no intention of hurting me. Likewise, God is just trying to do something good for me (and for his glory): conform me to the image of his Son. But I fidget and whine and complain. I keep asking "When is this going to be over?". I spend my time worrying about the future, worrying that God is going to let me down or finally let me have it for all the bad things I've done. Many times, I just simply don't trust God to get me home safely.

Interestingly, I really enjoyed the results of my first haircut. I had "big boy" hair and could comb and part it, just like Grandpa. Fortunately I have the memory, and while the memory is far more enjoyable than the experience was, I wonder how much more enjoyable the memory would be if I'd spent that time in the chair talking to Grandpa instead of fighting against him? If I'd listened and obeyed his instructions to "sit still"? I wonder.

Verse of the Day...

Actually, I'm not a big fan of the phrase "of the day". It can make things seem more ephemeral than they are. (BTW - Ephemeral is the word of the day).

Anyway, my brother in Christ, Lou, sent me this verse to encourage me as I struggle against bad attitudes and such:

Hebrews 4:16
Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

How a Brazilian supermodel may crack U.S. 'greed conspiracy' - MarketWatch

How a Brazilian supermodel may crack U.S. 'greed conspiracy' - MarketWatch

Am I Nitpicking?

A friend forwarded this to me.

First off, I agree with the overall thrust of what Chandler is saying – that belief without works isn’t enough. But...

In the article he says things like
“It seems like every generation thinks of ways to make the faith real and authentic in their time.”,
which I find troubling. The faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), so it seems that the faith changes me, not vice versa.

He then says
“In fact, the very first Christians were not called Christians at all; they were called "The Way" (Acts 9:2).”
This seems to be a misreading of Acts 9:2, which reads: ‘...so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.’ I read “The Way” as referring to Christ, or the Christian faith, not Christians themselves. (We belong to Christ, not each other, right?). It’s not a major theological error, I suppose, but nonetheless it doesn’t seem to be an accurate reading.

In the end, I’m left with the feeling that he’s trying to de-emphasize doctrine more than he’s trying to re-emphasize the importance of godly living. It’s not an either/or choice: doctrine or right living. It’s a both/and command.

Well, those are my 2 cents.

Can't we all just get along?

Not always, but we could do alot better. A thoughtful post on the subject of Christian in-fighting over at the Jolly Blogger...

Tag - You're It

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=240878

A few thoughts on the subject of RFID implants:

a) I just can't help but think being permanently tagged by an authority (my employer, the government, etc...) is a bad idea.

b) Such tagging seems to be historically linked to slavery or worse (think Nazis).

c) Revelation was written 1900 years ago, at a time when it was technologically unfeasible to mark *all* people and require said mark as a precondition to participating in economic activity. People in the intervening centuries have indeed scoffed - ha! - at the notion. ("What sort of raving lunatic would come up with such a 'vision' of the future!"). But now the technology to both mark humans and effectively restrict their economic activities based on certain preconditions (i.e. not having the mark) exists.

Is it just me, or does that all add up to a whole lot of creepiness?

Tricky Dick and the Internet

I remember reading a book called The Book of Lists #2, edited by David Wallechinsky, in my Freshman year of HS. In it Mr. Wallenchinsky refers to a nefarious plan by Nixon to - shudder - connect every home in America via cable!!!!

Here's the quote from page 483:

"In his book The Shadow Presidents, author Michael Medved relates the extreme disappointment of H.R. Haldeman over his failure to implement his plan to link up all the homes in America by coaxial cable. In Haldeman's words, "There would be two-way communication. Through computer, you could use your television set to order up whatever you wanted. The morning paper, entertainment services, shopping services, coverage of sporting events and public events. Just as Eisenhower linked up the nation's cities by highways so that you could get there, the Nixon legacy would have linked them by cable communications so you wouldn't have to go there". One can almost see the dreamy eyes of Nixon and Haldeman as they sat around discussing a plan that would eliminate the need for newspapers, seemingly oblivious to its Big Brother aspects. Fortunately, the Watergate scandal intervened, and Nixon was forced to resign before "the Wired Nation" could be hooked up."

Hmm... and I thought Al Gore invented the internet!!!

Abstinence-only programs do not reduce HIV risk - Yahoo! News

First thought:

Last time I checked, if you don't have sex, use IV drugs, or get a blood transfusion your risk of getting HIV is pretty much nil (HIV babies notwithstanding). So regardless of all the studies in the world, the reality is that abstinence until marriage by both spouses lowers one's risk for HIV to just about one in a million. I'm not trying to moralize, it's just a fact.

Second thought:

Duh! Abstinence apart from a larger moral framework and worldview is untenable. Think about it. Just going around telling people not to have sex isn't going to work, because , as you may have noticed, the human urge for sex is pretty strong. Only food and water rate higher in most people's books.

Abstinence and other virtues are heart issues and programs don't change hearts. Programs might get us whipped up, the way we feel patriotic during the national anthem at the ball game, but unless there's genuine moral fiber - character and a heart attitude that is predisposed towards a given virtue - we'll give in to the draw of instant gratification. (I speak from copious experience/failure on this one...).

Abstinence-only programs do not reduce HIV risk - Yahoo! News

'Amateur' charge infuriates blogosphere - CNN.com

Makes me think:

1. We are definitely moving towards a mob society, where fast communication is more valued than deep thinking.
2. It's so much easier (and quicker) to get a group of people to "feel" the same thing than to "think" the same thing.

Trust us, this is *really* how it works...

So all this 'junk' in our genetic code turns out to not be junk! Makes me feel like ranting :) :


Questions:

1. So how much of our 'junk' matches the 'junk' of Chimps? Are we as closely 'related' as once thought?


2. Are geneticists 'really, really' sure they have a correct view of out genes now?


3. Is it possible - just possible - that scientists in other fields may have incorrect understandings of things such as, say, climate change? And if so, might it not make sense to take a cautious approach to addressing issues like humanity's impact on the environment?

I have no problem with science. It's just irritating when people try to build an accurate world view based solely on current scientific theory (and it's all theory). Case in point: a scientific theory that was embraced by most 'educated' and 'thinking' people in the first half of the 20th century:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

The Carnegie Foundation and The President of Stanford University - supporters of eugenics?

The 'science' of eugenics even seduced part of the Jewish people, millions of whom would ultimately suffer at the hands of eugenicists:

http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1910-jewish-chronicle-eugenics.pdf

Science? Again, I have no problem with it. Let's just not confuse it with morality, nor make it the basis for our morality. Morality is foundational and must inform our science and philosophy, not the other way round.

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Freedom, not climate, is at risk

Well said, Mr. President...

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Freedom, not climate, is at risk:

Survivorship Bias

Good explanation of a phenomenon that affects:

-Financial Reports
-News Stories (ever notice that there seem to be 'rashes' of certain events, that then go away?)
-Scientific Studies

Stifling Debate

What truly frightens me about the global warming debate? That there isn’t one.
“Everyone knows it is happening, and that humanity is to blame.” is the pat answer to any heretic who dares question the ‘conventional wisdom’ on this subject. Ellen Goodman says deniers of global warming are on a par with deniers of the Holocaust (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/).

Is humanity spoiling the Earth? No doubt. Do steps need to be taken to stop and reverse the damage we’ve done? Absolutely. Are there incredibly rich individuals whose fortunes (read: power) have been built through activities which damage the environment, and whose self-interest leads them to pooh-pooh any talk that suggests human activity harms the environment? Definitely.

The problem is, there are equally powerful people who wish to exploit the specter of global warming for their own purposes. Do you think life-long politicians are interested in what’s best for their constituents or in consolidating as much power in their hands as possible? Isn’t it nice to have some awful crisis looming for the purpose of rallying people to your cause (read: expanding your powerbase)? Global warming is the left’s “War on Terror”: an amorphous and indefinable enemy who must be fought no matter what the cost to life or liberty.

It’s also a great lever for shouting down anyone who opposes you. Again the parallels with the 'war on terror' are striking: Do you question whether the US’s policy in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of global terrorism? Then the terrorists have already won! Do you question whether other factors such as solar activity or ancient climatological cycles which humanity does not possess the data to assess may be a significant cause of global warming? Why, then you’re the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. One might stand a better chance arguing for religious liberty in 17th century Salem, MA.

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the powerful stand to gain very little from real solutions. Real solutions require individuals to change their attitudes and actions. Political solutions involve moving vast amounts of wealth from point A (the pockets of those unable to protect their interests – i.e. the average tax payer) to point B (the pockets of those whose livelihoods or fortunes are built on such redistributions), with very little consideration given to the ‘purpose’ of such activities. Is your government or nonprofit project/program failing miserably? Well, you’re surely underfunded then!

Another part of the problem lies in our unwillingness to think - to sort through competing and conflicting sets of ‘facts’ to find the truth. That takes too much time, so we just go with whatever Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh has to say. Is it possible to not buy into Global Warming hook, line, and sinker yet still believe emission and efficiency standards for cars in the U.S. should be doubled?

This brings a couple of Alexis de Tocqueville quotes to mind:

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."

"In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexis_de_tocqueville.html

More thoughts on this later…

Favorite Books of All Time

I'm always describing books as being in my "Top Ten", which in reality is probably closer to a top 30 at this point. So, here're my favorites, in no particular order:



Humility, by CJ Mahaney

Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis

Miracles, by CS Lewis

The Abolition of Man, by CS Lewis

Lord of the Rings (three volumes, six books, but I'll count it as one for purposes of this list), by JRR Tolkien

The Hobbit, by JRR Tolkien

Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by CS Lewis

The Last Battle, by CS Lewis

Out of the Silent Plant, by CS Lewis

The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Discipline of Grace, by Jerry Bridges

Holiness by Grace, by Brian Chapell

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, by JK Rowling

Hmmm...that's 13, so I'm not really abusing the term "top ten" all that much.

Battle of the Network Christians

Don't know why I chose that title for this post, perhaps I'm still a bit jet-lagged.

So, I met with my friend Brian yesterday (it was supposed to be our mentoring session, but we ended up taking the time to just catch up) and one of the things he mentioned was that some lady had apparently attended our church and then went out and flamed the pastoral staff in a post to CRN (http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1455). In the process of searching for the comment (OK, that may be my gossipy-ness coming through...) I found the following blog thread: http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/04/19/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-ingrid-again/. (Side comment: It's interesting that these sites both have the same hostname. I wonder who 'stole' the hostname to host on the other domain?).

After reading through these I was thoroughly irked and posted the following item (to the.info site):

I know I’m late to the discussion - I was literally out of the country the past few weeks – but as a member of Bridgeway, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this thread.

My first thought: Has anyone gone through this thread with the eye of an outsider? Is this the church of Christ? Is calling names - either from the “free-will” or “sovereign grace” camp acceptable? I mean, haven’t we all read 1 Corinthians? “I am of Appollos”, “I am of Cephas”, “I am of Christ”. It’s interesting that Paul didn’t say “Oh, you guys who are claiming to be ‘of Christ’ are the right faction”. No, his point was that we need to be united by our love for Christ, not divided into camps. I would add that our love for Christ, as well as a hefty dose of humility, should shine through in the way we defend the truth.

This leads to my second thought: If someone is concerned that my spikey-haired pastor (and sorry Russ you’re really not the spikey-haired one. That would be Lance. And I think Jeremy may also have you beat in the hair gel department, but I’m not sure) is leading Christ’s church astray, or has some other concern about something someone who names the name of Christ is doing, then why not use a Biblical model for addressing the perceived problem:
Step 1. Go to the one who is supposedly offending and bring the problem to their attention, with the loving intent of restoring them.
Step 2. If they don’t respond, bring in a couple of other brothers in the Lord as witnesses. Again, the motive has to be love: love of both God and your brother or sister in the Lord.
Step 3. If Steps 1 & 2 don’t work, THEN you bring the issue before the whole church. AGAIN, the motive is to restore, not “make an example”, of the offender. (Though one would hope examples for others to follow and/or avoid would come out of the process).

My third thought: You know, I don’t like *everything* about my home church, Bridgeway. But I don’t like everything about America, my wife, my kids, New Coke (I still haven’t let that one go yet), the second Becky on Roseanne, or even the 49ers (may they ever reign over the NFL). Seriously though, Bridgeway is a church full of - gasp! - people. Sinful people, no less. But, as I think Russ was saying (I could be misinterpreting him, we haven’t consulted on this), it’s better for us to be honest about who we are in Christ at this moment and then move forward towards more Christ-likeness in the power of the Spirit than to try to “keep the image clean” (apologies to Steve Camp).

Please note: I am *NOT* contending that we should sit around saying “I’m OK – You’re OK” while playing kumbayah, or advocating an approach of “Can’t we all just get along” at the expense of defending the truth. But we have to defend the *WHOLE* truth, including the truth that we’re called to love each other.

This brings me to my fourth thought: Why is it that we feel free to smack each other around in the name of “defending the truth”? It’s like we think: “Don’t worry Lord, I realize you are incapable of defending yourself and the truth, and given that you have given me an infallible understanding of every jot and title in your Word, I’ll just jump in and take a verbal battle axe to those who oppose us. (There’s room in the Trinity for one more, right?)”. It’s like we call “olly-olly-auction-free” and then just beat the tar out of each other and think that’s supposed to be OK. We can’t wait until people wander into error – or what we perceive to be error – so we can lop their little “heretical” heads off with apparent impunity.

If we love the truth, we’ll do what it calls us to do: speak the *truth* in *love*. We must realize that to compromise one is to compromise both.

Thank you for Charles Spurgeon

I've been going through a rough time lately. Very rough. I go through these bouts of depression and anxiety every now and again, and sometimes they're blacker than others. This recent trough as been particularly bleak.

Then I 'happened' to read today's 'Morning' entry on my PC (its in my startup folder and I've posted it below). And there's Charles Spurgeon, pointing me back to the One who can cover my sins and make me whole. His love of and confidence in Christ is contagious. I've been struggling with the sin of unbelief, and CHS's words have reminded me that the answer to this sin as well as my struggles in general is Christ. My default position is self-reliance. How foolish I am.

Thank you, Lord, for your patience, for your Word, and for saints like Charles Spurgeon who point the way to you - even 100 years after they're gone.


MORNING
“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”
- Romans 8:37
We go to Christ for forgiveness, and then too often look to the law for power to fight our sins. Paul thus rebukes us, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Take your sins to Christ’s cross, for the old man can only be crucified there: we are crucified with him. The only weapon to fight sin with is the spear which pierced the side of Jesus. To give an illustration-you want to overcome an angry temper, how do you go to work? It is very possible you have never tried the right way of going to Jesus with it. How did I get salvation? I came to Jesus just as I was, and I trusted him to save me. I must kill my angry temper in the same way? It is the only way in which I can ever kill it. I must go to the cross with it, and say to Jesus, “Lord, I trust thee to deliver me from it.” This is the only way to give it a death-blow. Are you covetous? Do you feel the world entangle you? You may struggle against this evil so long as you please, but if it be your besetting sin, you will never be delivered from it in any way but by the blood of Jesus. Take it to Christ. Tell him, “Lord, I have trusted thee, and thy name is Jesus, for thou dost save thy people from their sins; Lord, this is one of my sins; save me from it!” Ordinances are nothing without Christ as a means of mortification. Your prayers, and your repentances, and your tears-the whole of them put together-are worth nothing apart from him. “None but Jesus can do helpless sinners good;” or helpless saints either. You must be conquerors through him who hath loved you, if conquerors at all. Our laurels must grow among his olives in Gethsemane.

My Friend Jim

My friend Jim passed away this morning at 6am.

When we started going to WRBC, Jim latched onto us and made us feel welcome, like we could be the messed up people we are and still be accepted. Jim went out of his way to get me to go to Promise Keepers and then offered to disciple me. For a margin-dweller like me, Jim was just what the doctor ordered. I took him up on his offer, and it started a process that changed my life.

Me being me and Jim being Jim, we had many a heated debate. Through it I saw a man who was very much like me: a prideful guy who liked to hear himself talk. But I could also see the Lord at work in him, pushing and empowering him to fight his natural tendencies, and it gave me hope that Christ could do the same thing in me. Jim helped me identify some serious sin in my life and connected me with some other guys with similar struggles. He was also very frank about mistakes he had made as a husband and father. I truly believe God used Jim to heal my marriage and family.

Jim certainly wasn't perfect. He was stubborn, prideful, gossipy, and was an expert at button pushing. But he is one of the most generous, gregarious, and friendly people I’ve ever met. I already miss him.

My State of Mind..

is such that I find this quite amusing:

YouTube - library ninja episode 1

Something I Hate

First off, Aunt Martha always told me I shouldn't use the word "Hate". This was one of her favorite mini-lectures, right up there with the evils of sugar *and* artificial sweeteners (no sweets for the wicked?). That said, I've looked up the word hate, and it means "extreme dislike", and as I won't be applying the term to individuals, but rather to things, I think I'm on pretty solid moral ground with this post (uh, wait, was I just being arrogant?). Anyway....

I hate...Glossy Christianity: I think the production quality of Jesus' ministry was nil. Can you see Jesus scouting out a locale, saying to Himself "Yeah, I think with the dramatic backdrop of this historic place, a few lepers to heal, and a couple of numbskull scribes to throw me some lame questions which I will summarily knock out of the park, I should be able to really do a great work for the Father!"

Yet production quality seems to be the rallying cry of Evangelical Christianity in America. How much energy goes into 'producing' a worship service? Into 'producing' successful (i.e. lots of people in attendance) church programs?

Of course, being thoughtful and deliberate are important, and God wants us to use our minds. Still, there is a thin yet critical line between being thoughtful and considerate and being contriving and manipulative. In the former instance we leave the results to God and seek to honor Him with the means while in the latter we don't trust God with the results and as a result feel licensed to play with the means in order to achieve the "good" results we're after (aka the end justifies the means).

I'm not saying churches shouldn't use modern technology or modern music, I'm just saying I think we've all gone a bit overboard trying to be 'hip' (that means 'dope' for all you millenials) and impressive. I know the generation under 40 is very 'visual' and that they are impressed by high-quality multi-sensory presentations. But as impressive as our powerpoints and videos may be, they will never have the power or impact of God's truth and love, and if we spend too much time tweaking dials to produce a desired effect we might miss the chance to do great things for God.

Interesting Quotes

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” Albert Einstein - 20th Century


“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." Jesus Christ - 1st Century

Claims swirl around 'tomb of Jesus' | csmonitor.com

Now that my faith has been utterly destroyed by Linda Hamilton's ex, I suppose I will have to choose between a life of existentialist hedonism or Wicca (free Stevie Nicks solo album for the next 1000 new converts).

The frightening thing is how poor the science and reasoning behind this particular claim is. I find the position that states "I just don't believe this Jesus guy came back from the dead, if he existed at all" much more reasonable than this cockamamie conglomeration of half-evidence. But then again, we Christians are a fool-hardy group of ninnies, and maybe the scathing condescension of Richard Dawkins and intriguing voice-overs of the latest Discovery Channel special will be what it takes to finally stop the insanity of believing God exists and that He came to earth 2000 years ago to reconcile us to Himself.

Scottish, Irish, Steel Cut, or Quaker...

I love OATMEAL!!!

There, I fell better now.