Space Headlines

In the last 24 hours, my random online reading habit produced a number of links hitting on space themes, a topic I haven't spent as much time researching lately as I would like. Schedules being what they are this week, I don't have a great deal to say about these headlines, but here's a short synopsis:

On This Day in History (that little widget down the left hand side of this page), today's featured event was the signing of the Outer Space Treaty (1967). Essentially, this agreement serves as the basis for "international space law," which basically means that space is for the use of all humanity, and therefore no single nation can claim sovereignty over any portion of the heavens, including the moon. Furthermore, it prohibits the weaponization of the region, for testing purposes or otherwise. But like any treaty, it can only be voluntarily self-enforced.

NASA ends effort to free rover from Martian sand
It appears that the folks at JPL-NASA are not going to be able to free the Mars Rover known as Spirit from the sand trap it has been in for months. They are in the process now of positioning it to maximize the solar angle for its panels with the approach of the Martian winter. According to their Twitter feed, Spirit will remain "alive," but their hopes of ever getting out of the sand trap are fading. Their efforts can be followed here.

Obama aims to ax moon mission
According to the Orlando Sentinel, it appears that the President is going to ask Congress to discard any planned return to the moon. It is unclear whether this will get through Congress, and there is definitely a local concern here in North Alabama, as key parts of the Constellation program are located at Marshall Space Flight Center. While I certainly agree that NASA needs a clear-cut vision that maximizes private sector commercialization, I find myself rather disillusioned at the idea that the President wants NASA to focus on researching climate change. Yeah, I'm sure that's every kid's childhood dream to grow up and study climate change, rather than setting foot on the moon or on Mars.

White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work
As I said above, at first glance, I do support the opening up of NASA ventures to private entrepreneurs and companies. This Wall Street Journal article discusses this at length.

Finally, while perusing Transterrestial Musings, a blog by Rand Simberg, I came across a link to an interesting article. In the article, called "Have We Forgotten What Exploration Means?", Paul Spudis provides a deep and thought-provoking look at the idea of Exploration, and the role science should and shouldn't have in influencing the choices and direction of the space program and of space exploration in general. The premise is that the model for space ventures today is dominated by scientific interests alone (or too heavily), without consideration to other interests that are certainly just as valid. A simple case in point is the mid-19th Century western expansion into the American frontier. A key passage (emphasis mine):

Science has been part of the space program from the beginning and has served as both an activity and a rationale. The more scientists got, the more they wanted. They realized that their access to space depended upon the appropriation of enormous amounts of public money and hence, supported the non-scientific aspects of the space program (although not without some resentment). Because science occurs on the cutting edge of human knowledge, its conflation with exploration is understandable. But originally, exploration was a much broader and richer term. Which brings us back to the analogy with the westward movement in American history and the changed meaning of the word “exploration.” A true frontier has explorers and scientists, but it also has miners, transportation builders, settlers and entrepreneurs.

Read the whole thing, as it goes on to provide a thoughtful perspective of how we might best realize this final frontier and actually recover the fruits of decades worth of labor.

Got rights?

When writing this post from a few days ago about the Supreme Court's recent decision relative to the First Amendment, I was reminded of an article I read several months ago, provocatively titled "You Don't Have a Constitutional Right to Free Speech." Few of us are strangers to what I would call the free speech wars, which have often centered around highly controversial and often artistic expressions of opinion that are frequently designed to offend as many as possible as an affront to whatever remains of the norms of polite society. Free speech seemingly should allow any individual to express themselves however they wish, from highest literary and artistic expressions down to the often ugly and idiotic ranting of anonymous commenters on blogs and forums. All of it is "protected," although there are certainly "free-speech advocates" who would just as soon curtail your freedom of expression if it offends them.

As pointed out in the article, the Constitution does not grant us the "right" to free speech, or any of the rights identified in the First Amendment. The author, Derek Hunter, writes (emphasis mine):

You’ve undoubtedly heard someone, maybe even yourself, say that you have a Constitutional right to free speech, right? While that seems to make sense, it’s not true, or at least wasn’t before the government got so big that it started intruding into areas of our lives in which it has no business; and it is part of a modern mentality that has the potential to harm our individual liberty.

To understand what I’m talking about, the first thing you have to understand it that the Constitution does NOT grant you rights, it protects the rights you inherently have from government intrusion. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights is this:

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

Just look at the part that addresses speech, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” Nowhere does it say that you are granted the right of freedom of speech, it says you have it, were born with it, and the government cannot do anything about it. But that’s not how it’s viewed or even talked about by politicians these days.

We can be forgiven if we view this argument as a matter of semantics, because in some ways the net effect is the same. However, there is danger if we view the Constitution as a government document that grants such natural rights to citizens. It is a danger because if the document grants certain rights, then those rights (through the amendment or litigious process) can be taken away. So said Thomas Paine (1731-1809) in Rights of Man (emphasis mine):

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

The issue here is the always controversial idea of "natural rights." Thomas Paine was a proponent of this type of philosophical thinking, as was John Locke (1632-1704). He postulated that humanity's natural rights - those rights which are inherent in every human being simply because he/she exists - include such familiar ideas as "life, liberty and property." These are separate from what are often called “civil rights,” which are rights specifically bestowed on the citizenry by legal statute (such as the right to vote). The Founders were greatly influenced by this philosophy, as is evident in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment, were specifically crafted to define the government's responsibility to protect those rights that we already have, to ensure individual liberty in an ordered society.

It is common parlance today for people to declare their "rights" to whatever it is they want, such as the right to drive a car, the right to have healthcare, the right to own a house, the right to vote, and the right to demand that government give them what they want even if it takes rights away from someone else. Fundamentally, it comes down to how much control we wish to bequeath to the government. If individuals give the government the power to control the rights of each individual, then those rights can easily be taken away. It all comes down to the delicate relationship between the government and the governed in a free, albeit representative, society. I think that is what is happening in the current healthcare debate. We all want better healthcare in terms of access and affordability - and to a degree we're open to having the government help to improve the system. But what people don't appear to want is for the government to be the decision-maker on the healthcare they receive. They want improvements, but they don't want the government to "control" it in any way. Thus, the backlash against the current plan.

We have a free but imperfect society. But we have become an entitlement society. To reset a proper relationship, we the people need to have a firm handle on what our natural rights are, as distinguished from civil rights. We must not allow ourselves to be co-opted into giving up our natural rights to a government that - by definition - was set up to prevent just such an occurrence. We have the right to speak our mind in whatever expression that takes - a right given to us not by the government, but by a Creator. The Constitution demands that the government cannot and should not infringe upon that right. Do all expressions of speech have value in a civil society? Probably not, but the human beings that speak or otherwise express themselves - they do have value, a point worth remembering in today's supercharged political/social environment.

"Storm Chasers"

Earlier today, I posted about yesterday's little weather adventure featuring an unusual January tornado, which the National Weather Service has confirmed as an EF-2. I mentioned that it was the second time in less than a year that we've had such a close encounter.

Below is an entertaining narrative I put together and emailed to my family following another close call with an EF-2, back in May of 2009. Enjoy!

The Storm Chasers

Yesterday began much as they always do, with my efforts to wake my family from their nightly slumber in order to prepare for a glorious day of work and school. On most days, this involves the relentless whip-cracking of my children and allowing a mutant cat to attack my wife's foot. And although this morning was slightly unusual due to the fact that it was thunder, rather than my alarm, that first brought me to consciousness, routine quickly reasserted itself. Showers are taken, lunches are made, and the tenets of dental hygiene are dutifully followed. Soon, the boys and I are on the way to school, while my wife prepares herself for the nice, quiet, peaceful morning commute I never get to enjoy. It is critically important to deposit the boys on time, so that I can get to my next cup of coffee at the office as soon as possible.

As I sat down at my desk with mug in tow, I glanced over the news headlines while my email began its laborious effort to bury me alive in miscellanea. Within moments, however, the phone rang. My wife informs me that she has been stranded on the interstate, our faithful Chrysler van the unfortunate victim of a seized transmission. Mounting my noble Japanese import, I rode off with chivalrous daring-do to rescue my beloved maiden and to keep her company while waiting on a tow to carry the Chrysler to the dealer and to whatever taxpayer-supported warranty remains. Traffic was heavy, and the roar of vehicles kept me engaged as I looked through my side mirror for rescue - more than once feeling convinced that any moment some imbecile was going to ram into the back of my car at a high rate of speed. Clouds overhead started to get darker, and the rain began to fall.

During a lull in the traffic, a new sound tickled my ears. Sure enough, the tornado sirens were signing their tune. In a flash, my beloved maiden transformed before me into the technological superhero she is, quickly pulling out her smart phone, connecting to the Sling box attached to a Dishnet satellite receiver at her brother's house, and in no time was watching the local weather station on her phone, complete with radar, commentary, and storm paths. We quickly deduced that a rotation was approaching from due west, and that we lay directly in the projected path of the storm. Visually, there was nothing to see, but soon the car radio broke in with news of a sighted funnel cloud, and we knew that perhaps things were going to get a little dicey. For you see, the van was stranded just short of the on ramp to Research Park Blvd, to the north. To the west was the interstate. There were no other options. I continued to look in my rearview in vain for any sign of the tow. Still nothing. Damage reports of fallen power lines, snapped trees, and broken rooftops began to fill the airwaves. The car began to shake side to side as the wind gusts began to increase in strength and frequency. The storm path, according to my wife (Inspector Gadget has nothing on her - she'd kick his butt), had the rotation going just to our north. So I had to choose: stay put and hope for the best, barrel straight west down the interstate into the tail of the storm, or turn north right into the path of the tornado.

I selected option 2. I pulled out onto the interstate from a dead stop, and together we hurtled into the southern tail of the storm cell. Winds were very gusty, but fortunately the rain was only moderate. Janet looked to the north, but couldn't see anything except dark clouds and rain. I kept my eyes on the road. We flew down to the next exit not far from the airport and then turned back, figuring by the time we got back to the van the storm would be past. I confess to a certain thrill in knowing that for a moment we were driving right toward the storm, but common sense and safety did reassert itself at some point. We returned to the van, the tow soon arrived, and after dropping my wife off at her office, I returned to my desk with a new cup of coffee and a mountain of email which I proceeded to ignore.

Storm facts: The National Weather Service has declared the Madison tornado as an EF-2, with 115 mph winds. The path was about 10 miles long, 75 yards wide. The funnel cloud disappeared into the sky near Research Park Blvd, about 2.5 - 3.0 miles from our previous spot by the side of the road. Nobody was hurt, damage still being assessed as of Thursday. Nothing came too close to our home, and we are all perfectly okay.

Weather Adventure

For the second time in less than a year, my wife and I found ourselves in the middle of a tornado adventure. Yesterday afternoon, around 5:30, a tornado touched down here in Huntsville, Alabama. My wife and I were driving separately. She took the photo below with her Treo after she had pulled to the side of the road.

Here's a close up:


I, on the other hand, was roughly 1/4 to a 1/2 mile in front of the tornado's path. Amazing thing was, I never saw the funnel, although she insisted that it was right behind me. I was caught in rush hour traffic, with really nowhere to go anyway. Never rained or hailed on me. Obviously we were fortunate, as the storm caused some damage in various spots of the city. Below is a map that shows some of the damage spots, with an indicator of where we *think* I was at the time:


In any event, we are all safe. Janet's photo even got air time on a local news station during both the 6:00 and 10:00 newscasts. Pretty cool stuff. Here's the station's photo gallery.

Here are a couple of videos (a bit too long, some language NSF kids, but interesting):




Quite a day.

Headlines for Liberty

A quick scan of today's news headlines brings some good news for those who think "freedom is a pretty darn good thing."

Pelosi: House lacks votes to OK Senate health bill
In part a consequence of losing the all-important 60th vote in the Senate Tuesday night, it looks like the Democrats have decided at least to slow down on the massive government takeover of the world's best healthcare system. Are there problems with today's healthcare? Of course. But a takeover by the government bureaucracy is not the answer. Health care reform should be targeted where it can obviously and sensibly do the most good - put the full control of health care management (dollars and decisions) in the hands of the individual. I should be able to manage my healthcare as a budget item the same way I manage my mortgage, my savings, and my investments. Give me the liberty and responsibility to decide what's best for me and my family in the realm of healthcare. Wishful thinking, perhaps.

Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain-Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment
Money is a problem in politics. Always has been. But that does not mean the government should be able to restrict my freedom in how I choose to spend the money I earn. While I have never donated money to a political candidate (and I can't really see ever doing so), the government should not have the power to tell me how I spend my money. Financial support is an expression of free speech, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. McCain-Feingold is a restriction of the First Amendment. Should corporations and unions be allowed to spend money in the form of lobbying and support for political candidates? As private institutions, that should be up to the Board of Directions and the rank-and-file memberships of those organizations. But all donations received by politicians should be reported in the public domain - full transparency. In all other cases, the government should not have the power to handicap such freedom of expression.

UN abandons climate change deadline
Climate change is unsettled science, in the sense that the planetary climate is always changing, and scientists still don't really know why. The good news here is that in the wake of recent scandals involving allegations of fraud with respect to data climate models, the UN is having to back down on its efforts to impose upon the world arbitrary restrictions of man-made emissions. The UN is an unelected body, and has no legal jurisdiction to mandate that its member governments do anything. Submission to the UN is entirely voluntary, and to do so is often to subjugate and surrender rights. When it comes to the environment, I absolutely believe that as caretakers, we have a responsibility to care for and protect our environment in all its mysteries and wonders. But it should not infringe upon our liberty and rights as associated with property and progress. Climate change, energy policy, and environmental policy are topics that deserve a lot more reasoned evaluation and discussion. But for the UN to back down even a little from mandates based on the fallacy claiming that this is all "settled science" is a victory for rational, scientific logic. Let's identify solutions to real problems, with a goal of preserving our environment, without going geo-statist to control what and how developing countries improve their economies and way of life. And above all, allow the decisions that affect those living in the land of America stay within our own borders, as established by our representative government under the Constitution.

Because I believe, for us, for America and for the world: "Freedom is a pretty darn good thing."

To quote:

Who wants to spit on the Constitution of the United States of America? Anybody?
All right. Now, who's for the Bill of Rights?
Who thinks freedom is a pretty darn good thing?
Come on! Let's see those hands! ...

Mass. Makeover

Last night, for the first time since 1972, the people of the State of Massachusetts went to the polls to elect a Republican senator. The pundits are obviously out in force with varied slants, analysis and commentary. The political parties likewise are spinning mightily on both sides of the aisle, simply trying to definitively and persuasively answer that eternal, philosophical question that plagues all mankind: "What does it mean?"

Frankly, I'm not sure the pundits or the political class are capable of answering the question. They'll talk, they'll spin, and we'll watch, listen or read what they say. But fundamentally, the choice made yesterday by the people of Massachusetts can only be understood by listening to the people themselves. Each individual has their reasons for casting the votes the way they do. The mistake the political and pundit classes too often make is to read a single election or vote as some sort of proxy for the mood of the entire electorate. One election, regardless of result, does not a movement make. Republicans are obviously delighted today, but they shouldn't be. Democrats are obviously deflated today, and yet they shouldn't be.

Voters are duly influenced by what the government does and the methods by which it does it. It is both a matter of policy and process. Perhaps the American electorate actually cares just as much about the WAY things are done in Washington as they do about the policies themselves. (Of course, now I'm falling into the trap of "what it all means.")

One thing does seem certain: the mood of the electorate is darkening, and the people are paying attention. The political class remains too busy "ruling" over the American public to truly stop and listen. Is the Massachusetts Makeover the proverbial "wake-up call"? It's way too soon to tell. Neither party is in good standing right now, and neither should pretend otherwise. As I read the "tea leaves," dissatisfaction with the elitism of the political class (and pundit class for that matter) is on the rise. The next few years should be fascinating.

On the matter of Senator-elect Brown. Below is an excerpt of his victory speech (h/t: The Corner). These are just words, of course. It remains to be seen whether he has the character to live up to them. They are populist in tone (which is not always a negative, by the way), but they do seem to resonate (emphasis mine):

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn’t lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

...

Fellow citizens, what happened in this election can happen all over America. We are witnesses, you and I, to the truth that ideals, hard work, and strength of heart can overcome any political machine. We ran a campaign never to be forgotten, and led a cause that deserved and received all that we could give it.

And now, because of your independence, and your trust, I will hold for a time the seat once filled by patriots from John Quincy Adams to John F. Kennedy and his brother Ted. As I proudly take up the duty you have given me, I promise to do my best for Massachusetts and America every time the roll is called.

I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people. I’ve got a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am and I know who I serve.

I’m Scott Brown,

I'm from Wrentham,

I drive a truck, and I am nobody’s senator but yours.

Representative government requires an informed citizenry and elected representatives that actually adhere to this idea that they serve not their party, but the people who put them in office. The role of government is an endless debate, but it must be a debate and not imposed by diktat. That is yet another fascinating and unique aspect of America: the relationship between the people and its government. It is a relationship that must be preserved for America to remain what the Founders envisioned it to be.

Revisiting the Archives

Earlier today, in a post about ministry, I said the following about feeling stagnant in faith:

And it is not a good place to be. The sad thing is, I know better, yet here I am. The only way out is to once again focus on the Lord in prayer, and contemplate the place, plan and purpose on which my faith depends. It all comes back to that "vision" thing.

Below, pulled from my archives, are excerpts of a devotion I wrote more than 10 years ago. Interesting how even now, it seems to have been written by someone else. Nevertheless, it still speaks, and I am listening.

A Call to Deep

To be a disciple, the follower of Christ cannot stay along the shore line wading in the shallow beginnings of faith. Rather, the Lord calls us to a deeper life, a life that requires us to explore the depths of God. The deeper life is a life of trust, obedience, and maturity. It is a life that promises amazing growth and adventure for those who are willing to put their entire trust and dependence upon the Father. Can you hear the Spirit calling you to the deeper life, a deeper faith?

Take a moment, and really yourself, "Am I satisfied with where I am in my faith?" ... Our relationship with Jesus must continually grow if it is to survive. The only way to grow is to go deeper. So where can we start?

My understanding of this Christian faith is based on the person of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. When I stop to consider my relationship with the Father, I also draw on what we'll call the three "P's" of the faith. The three P's of faith are PLACE, PLAN, and PURPOSE.

1. As children of God, we have a PLACE in God's Kingdom. We are each an important part of His Kingdom, and we belong to this Kingdom.

2. God has a PLAN for His kingdom (and each of us, individually). I believe that God has a plan for His Kingdom. He also had something specific in mind when He created each of us.

3. In this PLAN, we have a PURPOSE. God has a role for each of us to play in accomplishing His plans for His Kingdom.

If you believe in Jesus, you have a PLACE where you belong in God's Kingdom. God has a PLAN, and you have a unique PURPOSE in that PLAN. Your role is to bring God glory, that you might become the salt and light to a culture bent on destruction. If you understand this truth, then you can better understand what Jesus wants you to do. ...

Where are you in your faith journey? Do you know your destination? Are you looking for the prize, a deeper level of commitment, a deeper faith? What are you doing to get there? Are you asking, seeking and knocking? Are you praying like you should? Are you digging into God's Word? What are your expectations?

"As the deer pants for streams of water
So my soul pants for you, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When can I go and meet with God?" (Psalm 42:1-2, NIV)

"Deep calls to deep at the sound of Thy waterfalls ..." (Psalm 42:7, NASB).

The M-Word: Part 3

In previous posts, I have spent a little time talking about a period of self-evaluation, with respect to ministry. The prologue introduced the four key questions: 1) What is your ministry?; 2) Where are you right now?; 3) Is it where you expected to be?; 4) Is it better/worse/different than before? Questions 1 and 2 were addressed here and here. Today, I will attempt to answer the third.

This question poses a particular challenge for me, as it implies a pre-existing goal or vision for my life and my ministry. I find myself concerned about this, because with a few exceptions, I'm not sure I can articulate any such thing. For most of my life, I have dealt with a tendency toward perfectionism in anything I do, never satisfied with a performance because at some level I remain certain that even the best result can be improved upon. I suppose that even now I still have a driven personality, but that "drive" has at times been quite unfocused, and lacking that motivating "dream" or goal. This, I believe, may be problematic.

When I graduated high school 20 years ago, I didn't really have any specific aspirations. I chose my college major primarily because it made sense: my aptitude was strong in math and science, engineers made money, therefore I studied engineering. I knew I wanted to be married and have a family, and am extremely fortunate and blessed to have that reality. Setting goals, or answering the stock "where do you want to be in 5 years" question, frankly is difficult for me, because for some reason I'm not sure it matters. Let me explain. The way I think, I tend to be accepting (or resigned to) whatever circumstances life brings. I fear that pursuit of some arbitrary goal, such as becoming a vice-president in the company or getting a second degree and changing careers, may be inherently selfish. Whatever ambition I have is usually tied back to my latent perfectionism - whatever I do, I want it to be done well and recognized as such. I have convinced myself that it doesn't really matter where I am 5 years from now, as long as I'm doing my best to live rightly and take care of my family's needs. Because I can serve God with my gifts anywhere, right?

Many of my closest friends from college chose the path of full-time Christian ministry. I lost count how many times I was told that I should go to seminary. I recall taking it rather personally after a while, because it came packaged with the idea that only somebody with a seminary degree has the proper credentials for interpreting and teaching Scripture. I was repulsed by that attitude, because it spoke of an elitism that I reject. All Scripture is God-breathed, and it is open to whomever the Spirit wishes to bequeath knowledge - not just to those who receive "proper training." I've seen too many who have gone into seminary on-fire for the faith, only to come out figuratively chained to the "box" that defines the institutional church.

So where did that leave me? For years, I taught Sunday School, managed an online devotional ministry, and served my local church in leadership. As I've mentioned, I've been on a bit of an extended sabbatical. Is it where I expected to be?

In the past, I have had a few "dreams" for ministry: the development and realization of a complete Bible-study curriculum, taught by myself and a few other teachers; authoring a book of some sort; and serving as a part-time teaching pastor. I'm no longer pursuing these, at least right now, because the timing and the environment are no longer conducive to the effort. They do remain possibilities, of course, but as for now they are no longer my focus. But I can say that there was a time when I thought I would be doing all of those things. But those dreams, if you will, are currently on hiatus.

So am I where I expected to be? Not really, but again, I'm not sure I had any major expectations. Hopes? Hard to say, really. When it comes to ministry, I want to be where God wants me to be, doing what He wants me to be doing. And frankly, right now I'm not certain where and what that is. I want to be content wherever I am, and pursue that prize that He defines for me, not necessarily one of my own choosing. I want to pursue that prize with the single-minded determination that a runner does for each race he races.

But what is that prize? Again, I'm left with a question mark. Because if you have no real expectation, you lose the potential joy of the anticipation that comes with hope and achievement. But if you set the wrong goals, or set goals with the wrong motivation, the result will not be satisfying. Which leaves me right where I am: stagnant. I did not expect to be stagnant in my ministry. But that is exactly where I am today.

And it is not a good place to be. The sad thing is, I know better, yet here I am. The only way out is to once again focus on the Lord in prayer, and contemplate the place, plan and purpose on which my faith depends. It all comes back to that "vision" thing.

To be continued, one step at a time.

Icicle of Doom

North Alabama is experiencing quite the cold snap to start off the new year. In fact, it's the coldest start in 70 years. Temperatures have not been above freezing in almost a week, although that trend may finally come to an end on Monday.

This afternoon, I stepped out back to snap a photo of this 2.5-foot icicle. Timely, too, because an hour later it had plummetted to the ground. The temperature is still only 23 degrees, but I guess the weight plus being in the sun sent the icicle free from the gutter.

Sometimes, winter can be really cool.

Donald Duck!

I got up early this morning to follow my brother-in-law's run in the 2010 Walt Disney World Half Marathon. His public "tweets" were few and far between, I imagine due to the number of runners (not to mention the cold). According to the website, 17,099 runners finished the 13.1 mile trek through Disney properties. I should mention that his wife, my sister-in-law, also ran today.

Chip time was 3:26, culminating a months-long effort to position himself for this tremendous achievement. Check out his blog to get the whole story.

So while I'm now thinking about a nap here in my nice warm house (temp outside is 18 degrees at 11:00am!), suffice to say that this is a great day for my brother-in-law, for his wife and for the family (including my wife) down there in person to support him.

Congratulations, Byron! And you too, Melanie!

So I Lift My Eyes ...

With 2010 underway and the holidays now in the rear view mirror, I have been puzzling over how and what to post to kick off the new year. The "return to routine" has been anything but, it seems. Schedules are completely out of whack, and the demands of work are filled with unexpected uncertainty. To some degree, I'm almost childishly rebelling against this return to routine, and as such am having difficulty finding some equilibrium.

It so happens that while fighting this mood yesterday, I saw a brand new "photo" captured by WISE - the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. Launched into orbit December 14th, the WISE is designed to:

[S]can the entire sky in infrared light with a sensitivity hundreds of times greater than ever before, picking up the glow of hundreds of millions of objects and producing millions of images.

The mission will uncover objects never seen before, including the coolest stars, the universe's most luminous galaxies and some of the darkest near-Earth asteroids and comets.

Some additional information, plus a video of the launch can be found here.

However, it was the image below that captured my attention, the first released by NASA since activating WISE. Located in the constellation Carina, it shows the brilliance of Creation that lies just beyond the visible light spectrum. It reminds me that there is so much out there that we simply don't have eyes yet to see - but nevertheless a reality so real that if we are able to just glimpse its truth, we can find once again the hope and wonder of a new beginning in an ageless and everlasting eternity. Am I stretching the hyperbole here? Perhaps. But that does nothing to diminish the conviction I have that one day, I will see this with my own "eyes" - and things far more breathtaking.

So despite my lack of inner equilibrium, I will lift my eyes to the heavens ... and fix my mind on things I can't quite see, but know to be true.