Anxious Thoughts on Israel

When I was in high school, I had to do a current events project for my American Government class. I was not the news junkie then that I am today, and my understanding of the world and its politics was woefully uninformed. I went to the library and grabbed a newspaper article on whatever constituted the "Middle East peace process" of the late 80's. Based on this single reference, I produced a poster that rather poorly depicted the United States as pouring gasoline on the Israeli-PLO conflict, while holding back the "water" that would bring peace. As I recall, my mother later told me that she had to remove the poster from the table where I had been working on it, as it highly upset my father.

I'm reminded of that episode, not because it has anything to do with any differences between my politics and that of my father. No, I'm reminded of my own ignorance, as I watch the latest crisis surrounding Israel taking shape. The news has been filled in recent days of the attempt by a Turkish flotilla loaded with supplies and "activists" to run a naval blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza. There are options for getting humanitarian supplies to Gaza, which go through various checkpoints for inspection. The blockade exists to ensure that ONLY humanitarian supplies get to the people who live under control of Hamas, an organization designated as terrorist by the U.S. Bottom line, these Turkish "activists" attempted to run a military blockade. At least 10 paid the price.

Israel has long been a strong U.S. ally. But the signs are everywhere that this alliance is weakening, as the political holy grail of Mideast peace beckons. The U.S. signed onto a U.N. resolution that singles out Israel negatively, in the interest of a nuclear free region (while nothing substantive is said about Iran's progress toward becoming a nuclear nation). Further, the administration appears not to be defending the legitimacy of the blockade, and is being condemned by the State Department. Not to mention the audacity of the U.S. government trying to tell a sovereign nation where it can and cannot build apartment complexes.

I find it rather illuminating that the so-called peace "activists" were armed, and several appear to have direct ties to jihadist organizations. Nevertheless, it appears that none will be prosecuted, but rather will be deported and otherwise released.

Israel is in a constant state of conflict and isolation. Yet this time, I feel a sense of foreboding. There's the flotilla incident; Lebanon tried to shoot down an Israeli plane; Iran keeps rattling the saber as it flaunts the world in its pursuit of nuclear weapon technology; and a less friendly posture between Israel and the U.S. Beyond the strategic value of the relationship in a volatile region, there is a very real connection between Israel and America that goes beyond geopolitics. No doubt, America has its Jew-haters. But we do share a common spiritual heritage, albeit with one major distinction and chasm. In all of this, I cannot help but to think that there is great danger in turning our backs against Israel. With so much of the world turning up its condemnation of Israel, I can foresee a worst-case scenario that places us on the sidelines watching a Euro-Arab-Persian perpetration of a second Holocaust.

I can only pray that these straits are not so dire. Yet then I read an account of an American rabbi in Israel, who sometimes blogs at Sense of Events. He writes of life as a parent in what is presumed to become a new theater of war. I find myself deeply moved by this inside sense of things, apart from the news media. My take is this: unless the winds shift soon, a major Mideast war is at hand. And what awaits us if that happens?

My late grandfather had quite the interest in end-times prophecies. The last time I saw him, many years ago, he pulled me aside and looked me directly in the eye, earnestly saying: "Jesus is coming back soon. He's coming. It will happen in your lifetime." I simply and warmly responded, "I know, Grandpa."

From a theology standpoint, I tend to be very much in the realm that we can know neither the day nor the hour of the Lord's return. Signs of the end times have been prevalent since His Ascension. I would prefer to focus my energies not on what may or may not be signs pointing to the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather on the ministry of today, and the impact that today can have on eternity.

Yet a part of me does wonder, and what I see unfolding reminds me of how temporary this all is. The last 20 years have been distinctly tumultuous. I'm afraid we haven't seen anything yet.

Perhaps Grandpa was onto something.

For a Dream

During the late 90's, my wife and I used to produce videos and other media for our church. This was back in the early days of PC-based video capture software, and frankly was quite a time-consuming challenge. We gave it up after a while; while we were technically competent and did the best we could with the technology we could afford, the artistic intuition required was not really our strong suit.

At any rate, one of the videos we produced is a perfect fit for a Memorial Day post. May God bless those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom: that of today and that of tomorrow.


Credits:
Music: "For a Dream" Phillips, Craig and Dean. Star Song Music. 1992.
WWII Images: National Archives
Other images from The Visual Bible: Matthew. GNN International Corp. and Visual Bible, LLC. 1993.

Update: Despite my attempts to properly credit all content, both in the text of the post and embedded in the original video, EMI has blocked access to the video. Sorry about that. It was a good video, though.

Turkey Lane

School's out. Skies of full of thunder and hail. Sounds like the perfect time to go ...

Bowling!

Guys only. And yes, I trounced my children. Two games, I pulled in a 205 and a 158. Fun was had by all.

During my preteen years, I bowled in a youth league. But my real bowling heyday was during my college years. I bowled fairly frequently back then, especially the last 4 quarters I was in school. I played on Auburn Wesley's intramural team the year we tied for the league championship. My running average that season was in the 170's. The all too rare outings since graduation have rarely given me games even close to that.

But today felt good. It was much better than sitting around playing Wii or watching TV. I even was able to start teaching my oldest how to employ more proper techniques to the game.

It's a good start to a 3.5 day weekend, and a chance to post something light for a change.

Appreciating Mystery

TV's Lost is coming to an end this Sunday. Until Lost came around, I had largely avoided much of what the big networks had to offer. Our TV watching prior to this show was largely limited to TVLand, Nick@Nite, and USA. But after getting badgered into watching the first two seasons of Lost on DVD, I acquiesced into making that show a part of my weekly schedule. I have been fascinated at the way this show weaves heady themes of dark and light, faith and science, destiny and coincidence - all very familiar, existential themes cloaked in a new version of old mythologies. While not overtly spiritual in any particular sense, there are spiritual themes throughout that give rise to the subtle undertones of truth, or at least, of the mystery that so often surrounds the truth of our being.

Mind you, I'm using truth here with a lowercase "t," because I am not suggesting that the storytellers of Lost are attempting to convey biblical truth as the foundational philosophy of the show. But neither do they overtly reject it. Remarkably though, they have captured the basic ethos of the spiritual struggles of our era in the context of an entertaining and suspenseful plot. But I'm not here today to pull back the curtain and examine how God might speak through the creative gifts of ordinary people. Nor am I going to theorize as to what it all means, or spend time exploring all the deliberate placements of literature, namesake characters, and mythologies the way the estimable Doc Jensen does on ew.com. Rather, I simply want to call attention to something I read while reading the various essay and blog posts of fans giving tribute to the conclusion of a wonderfully mysterious show.

In his post on the upcoming finale, "Frank" at popinitiative.com captured the following quote from J.J. Abrams (emphasis mine):

“Mystery, now more than ever, has special meaning. Because it’s the anomaly, the glaring affirmation that the Age of Immediacy has a meaningful downside. Mystery demands that you stop and consider — or, at the very least, slow down and discover. It’s a challenge to get there yourself, on its terms, not yours…The experience of the doing really is everything. The ending should be the end of that experience, not the experience itself.”
- J.J. Abrams

J.J. Abrams is big on the idea of maintaining and treasuring "the mystery." (For more on his thoughts about this, check out his presentation on TED.com) or on YouTube).

With regard to the show, I too originally wanted answers to the mystery. We're wired that way. We want answers to questions, be it our math homework or the meaning of life. Yet the best stories I have ever read always leave enough mystery to get me thinking, to keep me wondering, and to free me to imagine. This Age of Immediacy, if nothing else creates an inner tension that leads to a strange dichotomy: the faster I feel the need to go to get to my destination, the more I ache to slow down and simply be. That's why pictures like this take my breath away.

In both my spiritual walk and in my everyday life, the mystery of the moment is something to be discovered, pondered and treasured. The mystery of creation, with all we know and don't know, gives rise to even more of the same. Strange as it may seem, if we allow ourselves to appreciate it, there is energy, there is discovery, there is enlightenment, and yes - even contentment - in not knowing the answers to everything. I am not suggesting a path of willful ignorance - far from it. But I am suggesting that contentment, and even pleasure, can be found in the experience of the mystery. And in that mystery lays the opportunity for revelation - of Truth - that connects and engages more than just the mind, but the soul as well.

This Age of Immediacy definitely has a downside. Not every question can be answered with a search on Google. Figuratively, we need a taste of that island adventure, to sit outside the lighthouse and stare at the ocean for hours on end, if only to recover our perspective. Accepting that mystery is a vital part of this temporary existence frees us to embrace and appreciate it all the more.

How amazing would it be for our story to end with a new beginning, a new mystery completely free from the destructive and repetitive cycles of the past. At the risk of seriously cluttering up the conclusion of this concept, I'm reminded of the closing words in the series finale of Quantum Leap, in which it was said of the main character: "Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home." The continuation of purpose interwoven in the mystery and wonder of eternity ...

Now wouldn't that be something?

Update (8:30pm): Similar thoughts at the Wall Street Journal.

Potential vs. Calling

A few months ago, someone sent me a link to a video excerpt from a message given by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. I have watched it numerous times since, not merely to absorb its meaning (it is fairly straightforward), but rather, trying to absorb its meaning for me. I can see applications in several areas: as mid-level manager in a small business, as a parent, and as someone who was once (and will be again) involved in ministry.

First, watch this video ( ~ 8 minutes):


This idea of pursuing your calling and not your potential rings true to me. Around 2:20, Driscoll talks about the mistakes businesses make, when they pursue their potential as opposed to their calling. I believe I've seen that happen with every employer I've had. Each seems to lack that sense of corporate identity that says "This is who we were are, this is our mission, this is our purpose, and what we produce reflects that set of core values and capabilities." Instead, too often, it's: "We got some smart people, and we can do anything we put our minds to."

The substitution of potential and calling occurs in our churches too. Churches often spread their resources into a wide variety of ministries, and each has potential to bear fruit, representing a wonderful reflection of the heart of God for His people. Yet too often some ministries exist for the sake of themselves, and become the end rather than the means to an end. Churches all have a common mission, but each has a unique calling to the community they serve, and their ministries should reflect that calling. We should not let a number of "good things" distract us from the "first things." When our ministries are aligned to our calling, to a vision we can see and articulate, we find that what we are about is "unto something." That sense of purpose, of being unto something, is essential to maintaining passion in our service and our discipleship.

For an institution or organization of any kind to find long-lasting success, it must have that vision, that burning sense of purpose that burns more brightly than anything else that might serve to distract from its fundamental calling. It is the assurance and embrace of that calling that allows the organization to focus its efforts and resources on those activities that "best" aligns with its vision, avoiding those initiatives which may be "good," but not as well aligned.

To go even deeper, I discovered long ago that my individual efforts flounder when not aligned to a greater purpose. I have to be "unto something." Not just "doing something," but being "unto something." I'll explore this in a later post, as I have another video which I'd like to leverage. But fundamentally, it comes down to this: I'm called to bear fruit (John 15:16). Not for my sake, but for the sake of that which is greater and unto something.

I once thought I had all of this figured out, but I'm finding that much of it I'm having to relearn. But living life without the focus of purpose, well, it makes me feel empty. I'd rather be full, and aligned to a greater vision. Hm.

Catching the Wave

Alas, it is not a precursor to a tachyon detection grid. But NASA and the European Space Agency have cooked up an idea that is reminiscent of such imagined technology. The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is being developed in the hopes of detecting gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are a phenomena that was predicted by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, but so far have never been directly detected. The LISA program aims to do just that, however:

LISA consists of three identical spacecraft flying in a triangular constellation, with equal arms of 5 million kilometers each. As gravitational waves from distant sources reach LISA, they warp space-time, stretching and compressing the triangle. Thus, by precisely monitoring the separation between the spacecraft, we can measure the waves; and by studying the shape and timing of the waves we can learn about the nature and evolution of the systems that emitted them.

These "arms" referred to in the preceding paragraph are actually lasers:

LISA's implementation of interferometric measurements resembles the technique known as spacecraft Doppler tracking, but it is realized with infrared laser light instead of radio waves. The laser light going out from one spacecraft to the other corners is not reflected back directly, because diffraction losses over such long distances would be too great. Instead, the phase of the incoming laser is measured, and used to set the phase of the outgoing laser, which is transmitted back at full intensity: this process is known as transponding. When the transponded laser light arrives back at the original spacecraft, it is superposed with a portion of the original laser beam, and their phases compared.

The physics behind this is quite beyond me, not to mention the challenge of aiming two separate lasers per craft at targets 5 million kilometers away. According to the NASA site, a technology demonstration is scheduled for 2012, so there is still a long way to go before we'll see the fruit of this effort. Nevertheless, if nearly 100 years after Einstein postulated his theory, evidence of gravitation wave energy can be measured, it will say something astounding about the brilliance of a man who did more to shape our modern understanding of physics than anyone else. Dude!

(h/t: Gizmodo)

The Bailout Bane

Generally speaking, I try to avoid news stories and headlines about the economy. This reticence dates back to the days when the newspaper came to my door, when I usually discarded the business section. To me, forcing my brain to wrap itself around business and economic topics is an effort I find as appealing as a bowl of cottage cheese. To put it more succinctly in the slang: blech.

Reading about the economy makes my head hurt. Reading about the politics of the economy, however, makes it hurt worse. Taxpayers have bailed out banks, auto companies, insurance companies and the mortgage industry, and will receive nothing in return from those recipients of government underwriting. Now, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, those government-owned mortgage "companies," are looking for additional billions in bailouts. The European Union, with some encouragement from Washington, has just agreed to pony up another trillion dollars to stabilize their economy after the bailout of Greece. Mind you, all of this money - all of this revenue - does not exist. It represents revenue that has yet to be produced or collected. It is akin to that money you put on your credit card, in the hope that over time, you'll make the money you need to pay off the debt in the future. But if you rely too heavily on the model of deficit spending (spending future money, beyond current revenues), you quickly fall behind, and your debt liability increases dramatically.

The graphic found on the blog at Heritage.org is telling. (Note: While the graphic is informative, I do take some issue with the tone of the post. Deficit spending by our government is not a new phenomenon, and the blame should be shared by decades of Congressional and Presidential budget busters from both parties. I will allow, however, that there may be times when deficit spending is appropriate, but ideally this should be the exception rather than the norm). That said, the finger-pointing about the origins of the recent economic turmoil have no logical bearing on the continued decisions to accelerate deficit spending. The numbers show that the current projected annual deficit reflected in the budget proposals of the current administration far outpace that executed by the previous administration. To blame yesterday's administration for the spending of today's administration is simply tu quoque. It diverts from the real issue of defending your choices by accusing someone else of making similar choices, thereby allowing you to avoid having to defend your choices. Not exactly an honorable or intellectually honest approach.

Moving on. Economically speaking, we live in the Age of Debt and Deficit, (alternatively, the Age of Entitlement). Some argue that this is the natural consequence of materialistic and capitalistic social structures, feeding the compulsion for instant gratification. And to be sure, it is hard to deny the causality. But other sociopolitical models such as communism and socialism have their own problems. For no matter the structure, you have producers and consumers. Ideally, I am both a producer and a consumer, and not one or the other. Certain types of regulation, however, interfere with that balance. Placing artificial controls over what producers produce, and what consumers consume, inhibits both and is thus detrimental to the overall economy. It places control and power in the hands of the decision makers, and often results in the classification of people into labor groups. For example, much is made out of the "middle" class, that arbitrary space between those in poverty and those considered wealthy. The gap between the rich and the poor, and all that. This is an artificial construct, and arguably unnecessary for a healthy society. Yet even the socialist ideals of equality and entitlement by design create arbitrary classes: the political elite that make the decisions, various protected classes based on preferential selection, and the laborers. Furthermore, the drive for equality and entitlement necessarily lowers both the median and the mean in terms of prosperity.

I'm a simple transaction kind of guy. I consider it wise and prudent to make more than I spend. When my net income is reduced, I spend less. I strive to reduce my debt liability at every opportunity, but am willing to spend when I believe the investment is advantageous or the expenditure is affordable (fun is an important part of life, evidenced by several trips to Disney - but it is always paid for, taking advantage of good deals wherever they may be found).

I don't live my life thinking that I am entitled to anything this world has to offer. I am blessed, to be sure, and I labor for my wages. Hard times may come, and if they do, I'll adjust and continue to labor to provide for my family.

I certainly don't know what the future holds for the economy. It seems reasonable to me, however, that the Age of Debt and Deficit is a house of cards waiting to fall. And the consequences of such an event will be … severe. It may also be transformative in way that is entirely unpredictable. What happens then is beyond me - and makes my head hurt.

For now, I will simply continue to live within my means, and focus on those things I can control instead of worrying about what I cannot. It sure would be nice, though, if our political class would slow the headlong rush toward insolvency.

An Unnecessary Warning Label

In the 90's, advocacy groups for concerned parents successfully pushed for warning labels to be placed on music albums with explicit lyrics. The effort made sense prior to the age of the internet, where now parents can do their own research on such things prior to purchase. Other types, such as warning labels on medicines required by the FDA are commonplace as well. Again, it makes sense. We live in the age of disclaimers and warning labels, primarily because we are such a litigious society. But this label, on a paperback copy of The Constitution of the United States of America, The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, is in my view quite unnecessary:

© Wilder Publications 2008

This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.

According to Walter Olson of Cato, it appears that this disclaimer is boilerplate material used on several of their re-published works.

I take issue with the idea that our Founding documents are products "of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today." I take issue, but I fear that it might actually be true.

Far from needing a warning label, I think I'd prefer the material to be required reading. Or perhaps an alternative warning:

This book is a product of its time, but was written for present and future generations. It may not reflect the same values as is common today. Reading this book may be hazardous to such contemporary notions, as it has shown in certain cases to raise awareness of, and reawaken in others, the concepts of liberty, freedom, and the principle of "consent of the governed." Parents might wish to brush up on such topics, and be prepared to discuss these classic and relevant works with their children.

No Time to Discuss This in Committee

Yes, I suppose I am two days late in the proper recognition of that quintessential American holiday known as "Star Wars Day." According to WookieePedia, this is the day legions of fans come out to text their friends and family, "May the 4th be with you!"

So, in order to correct my (General) grievous oversight of this important and illustrious commemoration, I do hereby proudly present a link to "The Fastest and Funniest LEGO Star Wars Story Ever Told":


LEGO Star Wars rules! And I am NOT a committee!

Zettabytes?

This is almost mind-blowing. The powers that be in the world of digital technology have invented a new unit of measure: the zettabyte.

Humanity’s total digital output currently stands at 8,000,000 petabytes - which each represent a million gigabytes - but is expected to pass 1.2 zettabytes this year.

One zettabyte is equal to one million petabytes, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 individual bytes.

The current size of the world’s digital content is equivalent to all the information that could be stored on 75bn Apple iPads, or the amount that would be generated by everyone in the world posting messages on the microblogging site Twitter constantly for a century.

The rapid growth of the “digital universe” has been caused by the explosion of social networking, online video, digital photography and mobile phones.

I find it shocking how fully immersed and dependent we have become on digital age technology - in just the last 15 to 20 years. I speak as one who likewise finds himself more immersed and dependent than is probably wise. A zettabyte, like the national debt, is a difficult number for me to comprehend. How many people out there would be utterly shocked to discover that there is a real world out there that does not involve broadband, Apple, and satellite television DVRs?

So while gidgets and gadgets have an undeniable "coolness" factor to them, we would do well to be aware of the great fragility of it all, and take care not to let our lives devolve completely into a series of 0's and 1's. The digital world and all its zettabytes can disappear in the blink of an eye. And if it did, would it be "the end," or would it be the beginning of a new age of rediscovery? I wonder.

Quoting Disraeli

Here is a quote that has occupied my thoughts of late:

"Circumstances are beyond human control, but our conduct is in our own power." - Benjamin Disraeli

The principle is one I've heard taught and preached before, in the context of how we should respond to various trials and troubles. Scripture says that in the end, everyone will be held accountable. Over the course of our days, we will be accountable to our parents, our teachers, our supervisors, our pastors, and even our friends. But ultimately, we are accountable to God for what we do, and the heart motive with which we do it. We can resist, but to do so risks putting ourselves on the throne of our lives, rather than the Savior. This is not a safe place to be.

I frequently fall short, but aspire to improve my witness even in troubled times. I have some work to do.

Science, Faith and a Big Question

A few years ago, I stumbled upon an online exchange between leading scientists and scholars, hosted by the John Templeton Foundation, attempting to answer a self-described "Big Question: Does the Universe Have a Purpose?" This conversation is captured in a collection of thought-provoking essays that I found both intellectually challenging and stimulating. Reading through these again inspired me to capture my own thoughts on the subject, specifically the question of whether the universe, and life itself, has a purpose.

Picture two men standing one on each side of the issue. The first categorically agrees that the universe, and his life, exist for a reason, and thus have purpose. The second categorically denies that any evidence exists to empirically assert or suggest the possibility of purpose. One on each side of the grand debate, and I submit, both exactly the same. Each takes a stand on the question based on a belief arising out of the context of their human condition, bound by a perspective that cannot transcend that essential barrier that limits their ability to objectively interpret the reality around them. (A complex system cannot be properly observed when the observer himself is part of the system). Can either of them possibly know the truth? One looks at the empirical data without, and draws a conclusion that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, beyond the abstract that scientific reasoning allows. The other also looks at the empirical data without, yet also puzzles over the experiential data within, and too draws a conclusion that cannot be definitively proven or disproven, beyond the abstract that faith allows. One puzzles over the nature of man, the other puzzles over the matter of man in nature. One views religion as an invention created by man to fill some misguided need. The other wonders why he has "need," and wonders why others so easily dismiss that need.

What of logic? Logic is insufficient to explain the workings of the natural world and the laws of physics. Logic is also insufficient to explain the workings of human sentience and emotion. Yet logic is paramount to the constructs of both science and faith. It provides structure to our exploration, and gives voice to our understanding and perception of each.

Faith apart from the reality of nature and nature's laws is but a philosophy - a perspective or way of thinking that is limited to an idea or approach to life that is almost fully contained in the inner being, and thus entirely relativistic and indeterminable. Scientific methods reveal amazing details about the working of nature, its physical laws, and the forces that act upon both animate and inanimate entities in the evolutionary physical environment. Yet the breakdown of the universe into smaller and smaller components, the study of organized systems notwithstanding, fails to fully capture or explain the mechanics of human sentience. It seems that a full representation of the universe supported by a logical framework that includes both faith and science is necessary to properly address the question of purpose.

The drive and passion that inspires our endless thirst for knowledge and understanding of nature and nature's God comes not from physical forces outside us, but from that essential spark of life and need that we find within. Indeed, the pursuit of scientific knowledge is driven by our desire - our inner need - to know. Science alone cannot explain the nature of our own curiosity, our hunger for truth and meaning. The passionate crusade against faith is belied by the fervor with which the argument is pursued. The existential question here is not whether the universe has a purpose that can be revealed by the empirical observations of creation, but rather the nature of an individual's experiences as a sentient being within that universe. One man can look up into a night sky full of brilliant stars, or see images from distant galaxies and become awestruck at the magnitude of this universe. Another man can look at the same stars and same images and see only the chemical compositions, relativistic theory and mathematical algorithms used to create spectrographic visuals. Same stars, same images, but a different experience.

One man's study of science reveals that humanity is but one species on one insignificant planet in a solar system in a remote and unexceptional part of the galaxy in a vast universe of galaxies. One man's study of faith teaches him that the Creator of the universe came to that one insignificant planet and took the form of a man, born in a remote place in an unexceptional part of a lowly country, itself an unexceptional province of the vast Roman Empire. History records the remarkable, transformative events that have literally shaped 2000 years of human civilization. Should the experiences of countless numbers be discounted? Should the lack of experience in countless others be preeminent?

Our understanding of the world, the universe, and our fellow man are directly shaped by our experiences. If experience so strongly impacts and shapes our perspectives, is it right to discount its relevance to our pursuit of understanding and purpose? The empirical data without, and the experiential data within, together may illuminate the majesty and mystery of this creation in which we live. And if on the path of discovery we find and experience revelatory moments with a Creator, does not that answer the question of purpose and meaning?

Duck!

After countless days buried under drafts of design documentation and assorted mundanity, sometimes you simply have to break out and go with something completely random. Don't ask me how or why this popped into my mind this morning, because I really have no idea.

Fun with a touch of class? Epic fail.

Reading on the Off-The-Wall-Randometer? Off the charts!


We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

Critical Thinking

In the market of ideas, the most coveted lever of control is that which influences public opinion. The art of persuasion creates the conditions that shape, guide and otherwise direct the flow of knowledge and thought. Salesmen from the dawn of time have understood that if you can properly package selective information in a positive light that touches upon some unmet need (real or imaginary), you will likely make the sale. We are increasingly bombarded with messages in every facet of our lives, messages designed to influence our wants, our opinions, our choices and our beliefs. Not unlike intensive radiation, the cumulative side effect wears us down and reduces our resistance. The average person has the ability, however, to resist all but those we choose to trust. Thus the key to influencing public opinion is positioning - positioning yourself or your organization as a reliable, trustworthy source, or at the very least, creating the perception thereof. Once attained, the power to influence individuals in the opinions they hold, or the choices they make, becomes an indispensable asset. If you possess that "trust," then few will question or challenge your judgments. People will believe you, and will even discount their own conscience because if you say it, it must be true. Furthermore, if you are persuasive enough, then those who you've persuaded become your army of persuaders, sent out to convince others within their circles of the rightness of your message. Hence, you have begun to shape and control public opinion. Such power can clearly be of both positive and corruptible impact.

Generally speaking, we have been brought up to trust various entities: we trust scientists because we perceive that they are smarter than we are, and because we have been taught that science is a noble field in search of facts (not truth - truth is a philosophical concept); we trust government because we were brought up to believe in representative democracy, and we get to elect our leaders and hold them accountable; we trust our pastors because we have been taught that they are representatives of God, and we sense it would be unwise to challenge God's "messenger." Yet it goes further than that. We have been told that we can trust Walter Cronkite, CNN, our local news station, our favorite entertainer, and many, many others simply because they have created for themselves a perceived reputation for trust. Again, such power of influence can be both positive and corruptible.

The individual on the receiving end of all this messaging is certainly free to trust whatever sources of information and knowledge they choose. Groups of individuals who place their trust in particular sources can become a movement or a source of inertia, each a tool to be wielded by others. I submit the one who applies critical thinking to both the incoming message and the messenger, however, will have greater success at discerning both facts and truth. Critical thinking, in which we evaluate a subject on the basis of logic, reasoning and personal experience, can open our eyes to see clearly and judge for ourselves the truth of the message and the trustworthiness of the messenger.

Allow me to illustrate this with a personal example. John Rosemond is a well known child psychologist, who has written numerous columns and other works on parenting and children. Recently, he addressed a reader's question regarding the Feingold Diet. This reader had been told categorically by a therapist that nutrition and ADHD are unrelated. I won't belabor the details of what the Feingold methodology is, other than to direct you to the website. You can read the full question and response to Mr. Rosemond here. In his response, he captured very concisely this notion of selective information packaging, and the corruptible potential of those seeking to shape public opinion (emphasis mine):

Some kids improve when put on a restricted diet like Feingold’s, but some kids don’t. (I’m choosing not to go into detail about the so-called Feingold diet, developed by research pediatrician Benjamin Feingold, but the interested reader can find ample description on the Internet.) After eight years spent researching his approach, which involved eliminating artificial food colorings and flavorings as well as chemical preservatives, Feingold presented his impressive findings to the 1973 Annual Conference of the American Medical Association. Shortly thereafter, a group calling itself the Nutrition Foundation published statements claiming that Feingold’s approach lacked valid scientific support. The general public was unaware, however, that the Foundation’s membership included Dow Chemical, Coca Cola, and other companies who made, used, and distributed the additives Feingold was targeting. In their zeal to discredit Feingold and his work, NF subsequently funded several research studies designed to “prove” what it wanted the public to believe—that Feingold’s approach was worthless.

I don't necessarily presume malicious intent on the part of those who dispute the validity of Feingold's methodology. But it serves to demonstrate that even our most trusted sources of information may have an agenda or a conflict of interest. Since people or organizations of any sort are prone to act according to self-interest, we should therefore anticipate such motives from the messengers we hear. This is not to say that we should never trust. Rather, we should subject the message and the messenger to a certain level of scrutiny, evaluating the information against our own knowledge and experience. Whenever someone categorically asserts or denies something (e.g., "the science is settled") - it is a telltale signal that the messenger is speaking out of either vested interest or their own belief, as opposed to fact. To this example, there is simply not enough scientific evidence at this point to definitively and causally connect diet and conditions like ADHD. Likewise, there is also no scientific evidence to conclusively say the converse. In the absence of a definitive answer, we must then rely on our own logic, understanding and experience. Artificial ingredients do not appear to affect me. But my own personal experience - demonstrable experience - has shown me that my children are significantly impacted by such ingredients. In this instance, I choose to trust my own eyes and experiences to arrive at the facts of the matter: Artificial elements in our food most certainly affects SOME children, and the removal of those elements from a diet can result in a reduction of ADHD symptoms in THOSE children. As Mr. Rosemond concludes (emphasis mine):

Perhaps the most convincing evidence in favor of Feingold’s approach are the testimonies from tens of thousands of parents who claim that what is now called the Feingold Program brought about dramatic improvements in their ADHD children’s behavior; in many cases, improvements that were far better and longer-lasting than those resulting from medication. Although these parent reports are dismissed as non-scientific by what I term the ADHD Establishment, the issue boils down to one fundamental question: Why would these parents say their kids’ behavior improved if it didn’t?

Again, it is certainly permissible to trust. But we should also be wise, and not discount our own ability to reason - because even people or organizations we trust are fallible. Having that awareness will help insulate us from the negative aspects of persuasive power. Think it through, and let your opinions, understanding and beliefs be shaped by your own reason and experience, and not merely by the selective packaging of information and messaging, whatever the topic may be.

Too Beat to Blog

It has been a week since my last post. While I'd prefer to write every few days, last week was a bust, and this week may very well be sparse too. However, now that I'm actively writing a post about not having much time to post, a little eye candy from NASA's Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO). The mission of STEREO is to study the sun. There's more on the mission at the preceding link. The image below was captured April 12-13th. There is video and a description of what they call an eruptive prominence here. Neat stuff. Click the picture below to enlarge.


TTFN

Bridging Over

Last night was a big night for my oldest son, in that he "bridged over" from Cub Scouts to Boy Scouts in a brief ceremony during the Pack's year-end banquet. Having joined Scouts in the 2nd grade, my son completed four years of Wolf, Bear and Webelos work to set the stage for his achievement.

We got him started in Scouts for a couple of reasons. First, because a friend from church was the cubmaster for a local pack. Second, we felt that it would be a good opportunity for him to develop new friendships with other boys, and to provide a good environment to pick up some important values. Finally, it gave me a chance to create some common ground and shared experiences with my son. We will have memories of camping, derby cars, projects, and character teaching moments to treasure.


This year, the Boy Scouts are celebrating 100 years as an organization. In today's society, there are some who tend to think that the program is passé, but frankly, I find that it resonates with me. And thus, anything that helps me reinforce such values in my children is a good thing. From the Values:

Scouting is a values-based program with its own code of conduct. The Scout Oath and Law help instill the values of good conduct, respect for others, and honesty. Scouts learn skills that will last a lifetime, including basic outdoor skills, first aid, citizenship skills, leadership skills, and how to get along with others. For almost a century, Scouting has instilled in young men the values and knowledge that they will need to become leaders in their communities and country.

The Scout Law calls on boys and young men to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent. The Oath calls upon these Scouts to do their best, serve God and Country, to obey the Scout Law, help others, and to stay physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. These are the values that I myself should aspire to, and the kinds of values I hope my sons will aspire to as they pursue their own paths in this life. Most certainly, I cannot by any means force such values upon my children, but by exposing them to these ideals, it becomes my hope and prayer that they will adopt them for themselves.

My son's transition to Boy Scouts marks the beginning of his coming of age. Whereas with Cub Scouts, the adult partner or parent plays an active role in helping the Cub Scout reach achievement, the Boy Scout takes responsibility for himself. The recognition and advancement he pursues now must come on his own initiative and effort. I can be nearby, but eventually he needs to take ownership of his progress. It is up to him how far he wishes to go in this program. Indeed, the decision to continue in scouting has always been his. As a proud father, I will support him.

As marked by the ceremony, the bridging over has consequences for me as well. As I watched my son cross the bridge and exchange his Webelos insignia for that of the Boy Scout, as the parent I was made to stay on the other side. In a way, it may be that this marks the beginning of my own coming of age - in that slowly but surely, I need to start letting go. A few weeks ago, my son and I joined other Webelos in a 7.5 mile hike in near the southern reaches of the Cumberland. On the trail, I purposefully lagged behind, to allow my son the freedom to go his own pace. There were several times during that 6 hour trek that he was out of eyesight. The trail at times was only 1.5-2 feet wide at best, with a sharp drop-off to a rocky, rushing creek. I confess to having some anxious moments crossing over those treacherous spots on the path, sometimes even scanning the rocks below, knowing that somewhere up ahead my son had already passed by.


Nevertheless, my son outpaced me the entire hike, and he did just fine. Indeed, he seemed exhilarated. Occasionally, he would stop and wait for me so that we could walk together. But more often than not, he yearned to go ahead, and I let him. I will have to get used to this, to be sure. I need to figure out how to remain an active part of his life while at the same time backing far enough away to allow him the freedom to explore and chart his own path. He is still young, of course, so there is more parenting for me to do along the way. But without a doubt, he is ready to be allowed some room to grow.


I can only do what I can, but I also need to learn when not to do some things. I can only hope and pray that he will grow into the person God wants him to be, and that he will find joy in the journey.

Meanwhile, my younger son is just getting started, having completed his first year in Cub Scouts. With him, I still have some more time. Time for creating common ground and shared experiences, and character-teaching moments. Moments not just for him, but for me as well.


What a Boy Needs:

Ten Needs of a Boy

1. To climb a mountain and look afar.
2. To sit around a campfire with good friends.
3. To test his strength and his skills on his very own.
4. To be alone with his own thoughts and with his God.
5. To be ready to reach out and find the hand of an understanding man ready and willing to help.
6. To have a code to live by – easily understood and fair.
7. A chance to play hard just for the fun of it – And to work hard for the thrill of it.
8. To have a chance to fail – and know why.
9. To have and to be a good friend and a chance to prove both.
10. To have a hero – and a vision to measure him by.

After the tenth need is said, the following could be said:
In Cub Scouting these needs are not always filled for each boy. What Cub Scouting does is to put each boy on a path where he can travel the world in his backyard and fulfill his needs with confidence in himself and others.

The Constitution and Football

Yesterday, I came across an interesting analogy about the role of government in our lives. Interesting, because the analogy spoke of government and the Constitution in the context of a game of football. I invite you to go and read the whole thing at Doctor Zero. A few excerpts below:

There are other choices besides anarchy, or a regulatory State that directly controls over half of our economy. Far from opposing all regulation, I maintain that clearly written, honestly enforced, minimally intrusive laws are both just and essential for wealth creation. A nation’s wealth lies in transactions between its citizens, and the pace of those transactions would be greatly reduced if consumers had no confidence in providers. Shopping malls would be considerably less active, if the shoppers had to assume every food product was potentially poisonous, every piece of consumer electronics could explode, and all of the merchants were thieves.

Now, mind you, the above is stated in the context of notions about capitalism. I'm not necessarily big on "wealth creation" as a motive. But I do desire the freedom to earn wages, and then to spend, save or invest those wages as I choose. I do want the government to ensure that I can continue to enjoy that freedom, and that predatory business practices are appropriately constrained. The author goes on to illustrate his analogy, in which the government plays the role of referee in the game. But as the parable progresses, the referee starts to take a more controversial, active role in the game: picking sides, changing the rules, and profiting from the results. His point is that for the many facets of the economy to function correctly, we need government to play the role of honest referee: ensure that rules are followed, but otherwise stay out of the game itself. He continues (emphasis mine):

By its very nature, government has access to power and resources which no private enterprise can equal. It can’t work any other way. We can’t treat the military as a business enterprise, to be shut down if it doesn’t rake in sufficient profits. We must have government resources to address disasters, and most citizens would insist the government be provided with funds to care for the desperately poor and sick. Those who enforce the law must have a measure of power beyond the law: sky marshals carry guns onto airplanes, soldiers have access to heavy weapons and high explosives, government auditors can demand access to information a business would never share with its competition.

To be trusted with such power and resources, the State must practice strict adherence to a basic set of laws which constrain its behavior, and which it cannot easily disregard or change. The rulebook for the American game is her Constitution. Fidelity to those rules would produce a small State with less influence to satisfy the appetite of hyper-competitive players who wish to cheat at the game… or its own appetite for purchasing votes and imposing its ideas of “fairness.” Disdain for the Constitution has led us to the present spectacle of referees who outnumber the players, unemployed players sitting dejectedly on the sidelines, and a dwindling number of investors willing to bet on a rigged game that will be decided by the whims of the officials.

Again, go read the whole thing. It's an interesting analogy that has a ring of truth to it. Although I wonder where the notion of "instant replay" comes in.

(h/t: HotAir)

The M-Word: Part 4

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. Last time, I answered the third. Today, I will draw this personal, meandering thread to a close by attempting to respond to question four.

This question arguably requires a subjective comparison that is very much based in the moment. A year from now, I might have a completely different response than I do today. So, realizing that to compare yesterday to today is very much anchored in the circumstances of the moment, allow me to turn the calendar back some 17 years or so.

When I was in college, I was active in campus ministry. I taught Bible studies, served on mission teams, and provided leadership at times both in the spotlight and behind the scenes (my behind the scenes experiences were much more fulfilling). True, I was in school for my degree, but my life was wrapped up in the fellowship of the Wesley Foundation. For that period of my life, I was very much where God wanted me to be. And in that environment, I was being trained and equipped for what was to come.

Years later, I found myself active in a new church plant, and as part of that body, I labored in teaching, ministry and leadership as the church grew out of its rental storefront onto 28 acres and a new building. And although significantly different than a college campus ministry environment, with different challenges and joys, it was nevertheless the place where God wanted me to be. In that environment, I was further refined, trained and equipped for what was to come. Was this period of my life better, worse or different than the college environment? In a word, yes. In many ways, it was better, because it was new and it had purpose. It was worse, though, in that life after college requires a different set of priorities. By this I mean my schedule was largely determined by my job and the needs of my family. In college, my daily schedule was much more flexible to accommodate what I wanted to do. After college, that goes away. Understand, I'm not saying that employment and family made things worse - rather, I'm simply acknowledging a new set of priorities that often reduces our ability to be fully immersed in fellowship ministry to the same degree we were when we were younger. Because the reality is, life after college is different. The campus ministry is a unique environment for a unique time of life. The local church moves much more slowly (if it moves at all), and as the burdens of life accumulate, understandably some of the excitement wears off. But the joy comes in knowing that despite the transition into "grown-up" life (job, marriage, kids, mortgage, etc), I was where God wanted me to be.

Fast forward to the present. My church is nearly 3 years past a difficult transition, and today has a different chemistry than it did before. Having provided leadership during that critical time, I've since burned out and stepped away from active ministry. Yet I still attend, and I still care about the future of the local church. Is today better, worse or different than before? Again, the answer is yes. Perhaps this seems contradictory, and it may very well be so. But consider this: Life doesn't stand still. How we choose to respond to each set of changing circumstances and environments affects our ability to adapt to what next comes our way. I can look back on good times and bad, and see how God has used each to prepare me for what would come later. Sometimes things seem better, sometimes they seem worse; but they are almost always different - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. What matters then, is how we respond to the moment. Do we seek God? Do we exemplify His grace and wisdom in those moments, so that we can fulfill our purpose in the place He calls us to be?

What is my ministry? To serve Christ, to grow in knowledge, and to speak the Truth. This occurs whether I am teaching, leading, or simply and quietly serving. Where am I right now? Recovering from burnout, and unsure of what lies ahead. Is this where I expected to be in my ministry? No, yet even this down time seems to have a specific purpose that will reveal benefits later. Where I am today is both better, worse and different than yesterday. Why? Because life is designed for growth, for new experiences and challenges, to an end: wisdom. No, not wisdom in my own eyes, but the kind of wisdom that God grants to those who have eyes to see.

Today, I "feel" stagnant in some ways, but I also sense a clarity I didn't have before. The battles I have fought for the cause of unity have worn me down, but the return to writing and reading has replenished me somewhat. Tomorrow's ministry may be different than yesterday's. And while there are some who wish me to return to the roles I've provided in the past, I suspect that God is going to take me in a new direction. To that end, I must rededicate myself to seeking first His Kingdom, and Him.

For that is where joy will be found.

Happy Easter

"Was, I, Paul crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? ... For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News--and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power." (1 Corinthians 1:13-17, NLT)

For days I had prayed and searched through my Bible, trying to find out what the Lord would have me write for Easter. The celebration of the Resurrection will soon be over, and life will quickly drift back into routine. Yes, days I had prayed, but still no answer. The words to an old song by Don Francisco that had been going through my head since Sunday filled my mind again. Pushing it aside, again I prayed, "Father, please, show me what to do. Tell me what you want me to share." Then, in a moment of intense stillness, I heard, "I already have." I sat up with a start, and picked up the Bible I had laid aside. It was open to the chapter I had been reading in 1 Corinthians. Key words jumped out at me: "Preach the good news ... not with clever and high-sounding ideas ... the cross of Christ ... power." My prayer had been answered, and has been answered as you read:

"He's alive!
He's alive!
He's alive, and I'm forgiven
Heaven's gates are open wide!
He's alive!"

--Don Francisco

Praise be to God, He's alive! Do you want to discover and maintain the joy of the risen Savior? Say it out loud, over and over again, "He's alive!"



"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!" (Luke 24:5-6, NIV)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance
which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you!" (1 Peter 1:3-4, RSV)

"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9, NIV)

The joy of Easter never ends! He's Alive!!

Originally published April 2nd, 1997
The Encounters Ministry, Copyright © James A Chase

Death Star?

Wait a minute. I thought Luke Skywalker destroyed this thing long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. What is it doing in orbit around Saturn?


So, no, it is not that famed battle station. It is in fact Mimas, one of Saturn's 62 known moons. The photo above was taken by NASA's Cassini orbiter, currently tasked to study Saturn and its satellites. Cosmic Log has more.

Other interesting space-related articles:

Zombie Star absorbing other star families. Okay, in reality, this is about a collapsed star that went nova eons ago, but whose dusty remains are floating through other systems. The article shows a composite view created by combining images from the Chandra X-Ray Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope. (h/t: John)

Mars. Needs. Women. No, this isn't about the late 60's sci-fi movie, nor is it that great Meat Beat Manifesto techno-beat hit from 1988. But six men are preparing to spend 1.5 years inside a new Mars Mission Simulator to research effects of long term confinement associated with a 520-day mission to Mars. Pretty cool stuff. But 1.5 years in tight confined space? Not this claustrophobic!

Hear! Hear!

My schedule is full this week, which has allowed me (blissfully?) to pull back a bit from the news the past couple of days. I hope to get on with blogging some other subjects soon (although civics will always be a main topic here). But I read something today that is worth highlighting.

Apparently, the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) is concerned about the safety of his fellow members of Congress as they go back to their districts. While I certainly condemn any threats of violence, I find it difficult to believe that certain members of Congress are so shocked at the anger of their constituents over the healthcare law. Every elected official can and should be held accountable by the voters of their districts. Already, there are Democrats trying to play the "victim" card.

Roger L. Simon has posted an open letter to Mr. Hoyer. I'm not going to post it in full, so I urge you to go read the whole thing (it's not long). An excerpt (emphasis mine):

And yet, in the grand tradition of totalitarian regimes everywhere, you employed “any means necessary” to make sure your ends were achieved, bribing and threatening your fellow Congressmen and women, etc. It is small wonder that our people are angry. It would be amazing if it were otherwise.

...

Violence is to be condemned, but so is the desecration of a great democracy.

A civil society must be - and act - civil. Call, write, march, visit, even assemble to protest - but be respectful in communicating your viewpoints. But above all, if you want to make a difference with these elected officials - think, learn, and vote.

Freedom Lost

Well, they've done it. The House approved the Senate bill on healthcare, and once the President signs it, America will have a new $1 trillion entitlement to join soon to be insolvent Social Security and Medicare. Despite what you might hear about "deficit reduction," don't believe it, if for no other reason that government programs never "save" taxpayers money. Spending does not reduce debt.

I will give the House Democrats kudos for one decision - and only one decision - they dumped the idea of "deem-and-pass" which I mentioned the other day. Even they couldn't stomach such an obvious breach of Constitutional process.

I titled this post "Freedom Lost." For despite the spin, which says 32 million Americans will now have health insurance, these benefits will not roll in for another 4-5 years. However, the tax increases required to pay for it start either immediately, or next fiscal year (reports aren't quite clear on this). So there will be more money out of our pockets now, which means less for us. But the real reason I find myself somewhat frightened by the leftward lurch deeper into social entitlements is this: the Government will now MANDATE that every person have health insurance. If you fail to get health insurance, the IRS is now empowered to levy a penalty upon your tax return (to the tune of $600-$700 for an individual).

Never before has the Government issued a mandate for a citizen to purchase a particular product. We pay taxes, because previous Congresses and state legislators approved the 16th Amendment. Imagine if the Government had decided that everyone must go out and buy a GM car. Historically, the federal government has never had such power to direct how a citizen spends his money.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is both wise and responsible to have health insurance. But I think it is quite unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that I have it. Once the Government begins telling its citizens how and when to spend their money, with penalties for noncompliance, freedoms are lost.

This opinion piece in the Washington Post highlights some of the possible Constitutional challenges the soon-to-be law may face. This piece from PajamasMedia.com does the same. Both are worth the time to read.

The issue is not going to go away, either. From the sound of things, we are all going to get really sick of this healthcare debate. The question in my mind, will the American people resign themselves to the erosion of their freedoms, or does this "tea party movement" really have legs?

I don't know. Maybe there is a storm acomin' ...

'There's a storm comin', Harry'

Okay, not really. I've been clearing out some old bookmarks from my browser tonight. I've had this site bookmarked for a while now. It has several fascinating photos, with links to their owners. If you like interesting photos of clouds and weather phenomena, you might like what the proprietor of Dark Roasted Blend has collected.

The photo below (image credit: Greg) is slight altered by software using a curve adjustment feature, which essentially enhances the contrast so that you can see the brightness differential a bit better. Not a photoshopped effort, so it's a real picture, just image enhanced. He has a link to the original.

Interstellar Wonder

This is why I hit Instapundit every now and then. It's because he links things like this:


This image was taken by the European Space Agency's Planck Satellite, illuminating interstellar dust. Go to this link from Popular Science to get the details on how to interpret the colors.

Way cool.

Disgusted

A few days ago, I highlighted the news from Capitol Hill that the House of Representatives was considering a procedure, termed the "Slaughter Rule," that would allow the House to "deem-and-pass" the Senate version of the healthcare bill without actually voting on the Senate bill, but rather on a substitute bill. This "deem-and-pass" approach (which some are sardonically calling Demon Pass) seems on the surface unconstitutional.

Well, this just in. The House voted today on a resolution offered by Republicans to block the Slaughter Rule. Passage would essentially force the House to take the proper up-or-down vote required by the Constitution for the bill. The House defeated that resolution, 222-203.

That means, 222 members of Congress voted to approve a procedure that may very well violate the Constitution!

The final "vote" on healthcare is Sunday. If Congress wants to impose universal healthcare, then it should do so honestly. Process does matter.

A profile in courage, this is not.

Fading History

The erosion of historical and collective memory within a modern society is probably inevitable. Each successive generation in the modern era seems to pull further and further away from its heritage in favor of rewritten narratives, progressivism, and generational detachment. In a mobile society, the transfer of experiences across generational boundaries becomes more and more rare. Family histories, to include the connection and continuation of seminal events and experiences, simply are no longer commonplace. I myself feel at times I have only an inkling of knowledge that extends no further than my grandparents generation, a knowledge which is far too limited to claim any assurance of accuracy and/or possession.

This article in the Chicago Tribune illustrates this phenomenon, invoking the historical significance of the photograph below.

Joe Rosenthal/Associated Press (1945)

This iconic photograph has a personal and emotional significance to previous generations. As a Gen-Xer, I can easily identify the image and its origin, but confess that I don't have the emotional attachment to events before my time - at least, not in the way I do for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the World Trade Center. My children, as they come of age, will have even less attachment to these markers of our history.

It is remarkable, really. In the information age, we have access to millions of pages of facts, events and narratives of history - more than we can possibly absorb in a lifetime. Yet we are less and less aware of our own place in that history, more and more detached from our family heritages, and devoid of the experiential context that is necessary to connect ourselves to both our past and our present.

This erosion is unlikely to be reversed, and indeed, may even be a cyclical characteristic of human civilization. The most any of us can do is to be intentional about retaining this knowledge and passing down the generational stories and histories through whatever means are available: oral retelling, the written word, physical artifact, and even modern audio, visual and digital technologies. Perhaps even social networking communities can play a role. But I submit that there may be no greater way to ensure the retention of our historical memory than through the generational sharing of experiences and faith within the family unit. Such a connection is intimate and personal, and binds us to those who remember first hand WWII, Korea, JFK, Elvis, the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, the Beatles, the golden age of television, Apollo 11, the Iranian hostage crisis, Challenger, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Desert Storm, the internet boom, 9/11, the fall of Baghdad, Katrina, and the historical election of the first African American president. But these are merely the big events - how much richer would we be to know what it was like to come of age in eras that are at once familiar and alien to our modern sensibilities - to know who our parents and grandparents truly were and are, their joys and fears, their faith and experiences. And for those of us who are parents and grandparents, would our lives not be richer to know who our children are, and who they are coming to be in future history?

Would that it were so easy.

Here we go ...

The House of Representatives is gearing up this week to push through yet another vote on healthcare reform. Despite numerous national polls showing general opposition to this particular bill, nevertheless, it is quite possible that by week's end, some sort of bill will get passed.

I've tried to be as objective and civil as I possibly can in my dealings on the subject. My position is simply this: Can and should improvements be made to our current system? Yes. Should the government be the decider and provider of healthcare for all Americans? No. That's where I stand.

According to various news reports, the shortest path toward a health care law is for the House to pass the exact bill the Senate approved last fall. However, many House members do not like that version, and prefer the one they passed last summer (which is surprising, since so many have admitted that they haven't even read the 2000+ page bills being considered). So they want to use a process known as reconciliation - intended only for strict budgetary matters, to force through changes without going through the traditional process.

The traditional approach is quite well articulated by that oldie-but-goodie "How a Bill Becomes a Law" from Schoolhouse Rock. So before we continue, let us reminisce:


In short, the House votes on a bill. If it passes, it goes to the Senate, which has the option of voting on the House bill, or crafting one of their own. In the event that the Senate passes a bill that does not match exactly with that of the House, a conference committee is established to iron out the differences. The final agreement then goes back to both the House and the Senate for another vote. If both assemblies pass the compromise bill, it then goes to the President for signature or veto.

But for whatever reason, the House and Senate leaders decided to "skip" the conference committee. I'm still not clear why they feel it is necessary to circumvent normal parliamentary procedures for getting bills passed. I'm even more unnerved, however, to read news accounts like this one from the Washington Examiner, in which it appears that the majority party will say they "passed the Senate bill" without actually voting on it. Here's the money quote from the Examiner (emphasis mine):

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

The gist of all this fairly straightforward. Instead of having an actual up or down vote on the Senate bill itself, the House intends simply to say "It passed!" and vote instead on an additional "package" of changes that in turn the Senate would force through reconciliation (which only requires 51 votes, instead of the 60 required to end debate and move to a vote, otherwise known as cloture). Reconciliation wasn't necessary when the Democrat majority had 60 votes, but due to the recent Massachusetts special election, in which voters elected a Republican to the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, reconciliation is the only path that potential avoids a filibuster (to prevent cloture and subsequent vote).

Here's the issue that bothers me: What is so urgent about this major reordering of 1/6 of the entire U.S. economy that it has to be rushed through Congress using tactics that go against two centuries of legislative tradition? The Constitution very clearly requires in Article I, Section 7 that every bill must have a vote, and the names of those who vote on record as to how they voted (emphasis mine):

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

It seems arguable to me that the method of stating by presumption that the original Senate bill is "passed" without a separate, distinct vote for the public record is unconstitutional. But I confess, the complexities of the U.S. code and these parliamentary tricks that have become the norm within our big government system may water down that argument, especially if there is precedence.

The bottom line is this: if our elected officials are willing to circumvent traditional legislative process and decorum by using possibly unconstitutional methods to achieve particular aims, despite opposition from the public, then what is to prevent future Congresses and Presidents (of either party) from disregarding the Constitution and their constituents whenever it suits them? If our government breaks from the anchor of our founding documents, then it begins to lose its legitimacy. You could even go so far as to infer that our representative government now runs the risk of operating "without consent of the governed." Which itself is the subject for a forthcoming post.

Interesting times ahead, to be sure.

Update 3/16/10: Here's a new Washington Post story about the process.

Take Out Your #2 Pencils, Class

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) is a conservative leaning, non-profit, educational organization that, according to their website, seeks to further a "better understanding of the values and institutions that sustain a free and humane society." They go on to say:

Founded in 1953, ISI works "to educate for liberty" — to identify the best and the brightest college students and to nurture in these future leaders the American ideal of ordered liberty. To accomplish this goal, ISI seeks to enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy, and moral norms.

ISI recently completed their 2010 American Civic Literacy Report, in which they analyze the results of a fairly challenging quiz taken by Americans of all ages and professions - including politicians. According to the report, 71% of Americans failed this test, with an average score of just 49%. Even singling out college graduates, the average result was only 57%.

Here is the online quiz that was made available with the report, which are actually questions from the 2008 survey. Multiple choice test, and no Google-ing. And no pressure, of course. Learning is always preferable to the alternative. I will toot my own horn a bit, in the interest of full disclosure: I aced this test - but then again, I am a bit of a geek when it comes to this kind of stuff. This is one of the harder online history/civics quizzes I've taken, though. The multiple choice format helps!

Have fun! - Take the Quiz!

(h/t: PoliSilo)

An Incorrect Solution

Spring is in the air - and despite the fact that it was snowing only 5 days ago, this weekend has been absolutely beautiful. So of course, it makes perfect sense that I spent much of my time with my arm halfway down the bathtub drain, pulling out enough hair to make myself a new cat. Or a dead rat named Sammy.

Okay, so I'm embellishing a little bit. I did spend 3 hours clearing out the landscaping, trimming back old and dead growth, and dragging it all down to the back line of the property.

But back to the drain. The bathtub had been draining slowing for months, to the point that my children would often end up with a tub full of water by the time they finished their showers. I finally got myself motivated to deal with it once and for all, so I went to ehow.com to learn the cure. And their answer? Baking soda and vinegar. Honestly, aside from WD-40, is there a more universal solution to household problems than baking soda?

I followed the instructions to the letter - half a cup of baking soda, half a cup of vinegar. There was lots of bubbling as the base reacted with the acid, but I somehow ended up with a drain full of baking soda. So I poured in more and more vinegar (one and a half cups total), until the baking soda at last was all gone. And it didn't do one bit of good for the drain - the water still went out too slowly.

At last, I did what I should have done in the first place - I got a screwdriver, loosened the set screw on the drain cap, and with a flashlight took a look at what I was actually dealing with - cat hair - gobs of it. So with a pair of needle-nose pliers, I pulled out a ton of gunk, junk and hair. And voila! The tub drains perfectly now.

So why on earth am I blogging about this? Perhaps because there may very well be an object lesson here. I could have saved myself a considerable amount of time if I had bothered to correctly diagnose the problem before rushing to a solution (ha!) that didn't fit the situation. I simply assumed that this remedy would fix the problem, and that I wouldn't have to deal with the gross stuff. Sometimes, our lives get gunked up with gross stuff (sin) that we try to deal with at a distance, thinking we can mask it or otherwise make it go away with a one-size-fits-all solution. But until we get down on our knees to deal with the truth and clear the gunk, the flow of joy and peace in our lives will be limited.

Alas, this is the way my mind works. I can't clean a drain without turning it into a teachable moment. Well, a teachable moment for me anyway.

Blue Marble

So, earlier today I'm perusing the headlines on Drudge, when I see a link he's headlined as "NASA reveals most-detailed images of Earth..." Sucker that I am for NASA imagery, I follow the link to the Daily Mail, a paper out of the UK. Within that article are a couple of stunning pictures of our planet. The key ones are actually composites formed out of several images taken over a period of months, as opposed to a single snapshot. Either way, they are stunning visuals, which I've downsized below.

Neat as the images are, however, I prefer generally to go to the source. This is in part because NASA maintains several versions of the same image at varying resolutions. So I'm searching through the NASA image galleries, and find myself having some trouble finding it - which seems odd, given that the Daily Mail article was just published yesterday. So I searched NASA using a keyword or two from the Daily Mail article - in this case, "blue marble", and discovered somewhat to my surprise that these images actually date back to 2002.


If you follow this link to the Visible Earth gallery at the NASA website, you'll find the exact same images as they were taken and composited by NASA's MODIS satelite (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer).


So, despite feeling a bit let down by the fact that the Daily Mail is touting these images as "new" when in fact they are 8 years old, I still find myself taken in by the visuals. Simply stunning, aren't they? To really appreciate it, go here and here to see larger resolution images.