Tastes Like Lappy

A foolish bet from a national sportswriter named Charles Robinson has spurred on a whole new phrase to describe something almost entirely inconceiveable. For those who are not aware, he made a preseason bet that if the Chicago Bears won the NFC North, he would eat his laptop. I find great amusement in such bets as these. "Pride comes before a fall" comes to mind as a suitable scripture for these situations. Needless to say, the Bears won the NFC North, and indigesetion awaits. When one makes a bet such as this, one had better be willing to pay up, or in this case, eat up.

Other people have, unsurprisingly, picked up on this expression. Doing a google search on the topic (as I am wont to do) uncovered the expression used in such varying ways as a taunt ("if your cartoon is anything more than stick figures I will eat my laptop") to pride about a musical being developed ("if this musical doesn't make it on Broadway in the next few years I will eat my laptop"). Besides these uses for it, one can imagine a suitable taunt for enthusiasts of end-time prophecy ("If the tribulation doesn't begin in five years I will eat my laptop" springs to mind, for example). Such a useful boast could even be useful for solving parent-child problems ("If I don't improve my grades next semester I will eat my laptop").

Of course, if one makes such foolish and rash predications that would involve invoking the laptop bet, one had better be willing to suffer some heartburn. Laptop's don't taste good. They're mostly made up of plastic, with some silicon chips thrown in for seasoning. The power cords are a bit of a problem too. My laptop, for example, has a tendancy towards the "fried laptop," with its long-standing power-cord problems, which have caused flames to spurt from the back of the machine before (and nearly electrocuted me in the process). Not all laptops, however, are as spicy as mine. Nonetheless, to put it rather mildly, eating a laptop is far from a welcome task.

Life would be so much easier if people meant what they said and didn't have to come up with such extravagent language (as eating laptops is, you must admit) in order to demonstrate that they are really serious about something. I mean, people should be able to take what one says at least somewhat seriously (although, sometimes people take what one says a bit too seriously--without an understanding of dry and deadpan humor, or sarcasm, or even the occasionally witty barb). If our yes was yes and our no was no, it would not be necessary to swear on one's digestive health (laptops are murder on the intestines) in order to make a point. It would also be less, um, unpleasant if what one said did not come to pass. It is one thing to look like a fool (because when one is in the prediction making business, one is going to be wrong a lot) when false predictions fail to come to pass (whether it is in the realm of sports, politics, or the occasional prediction of the return of Jesus Christ), but it is entirely another thing to break one's word. In short, if you are going to be foolish enough to make a ridiculous bet, you'd better be willing to pay the price. I wonder how humble pie tastes like. It probably tastes like lappy.

On Leadership

In a recent World News and Prophecy article entitled "Leadership Under Seige Around The World," John Ross Schroeder comments on the lack of faith people have in their leaders and in their lack of trust in institutions of any kind. Surely, this is obvious to all. A large majority of people have no trust in any insitutions whatsoever, be they churches, political parties, companies, not-for-profits, international organizations, nations, local governments. In addition, the author correctly notes that people long for trustworthy leaders, and just may grant such leaders improper and unaccountable power. I happen to agree with the analysis of this person in this case (though he fails to apply it to, say, religious organizations, or see the validity of the mistrust, as well as the fact that no human is fit to hold power unaccountable to those they serve). Lest I bite off more than I can chew, however, I would like to comment on the phenomenon of the mistrust, its cyclical nature, its origins, and its cure.

All over the world, leaders are facing rather dissatisfied people. Schroeder refers to the lack of trust and institutional corruption in such organizations as the UN, horrific public approval letters of political parties, presidents, prime ministers, and so forth. Indeed, there are large amount of people in any given nation or organization who act with extreme distrust towards their leaders, with good reason (as I will get to later on). It would be a lie to say I did not share this particular tendency myself, though I am far from extreme in it. Then again, one always knows people further along a certain path for either favorable or unfavorable comparison.

The reasons for the pervasive mistrust in leaders is both natural and entirely proper. According to generational theorists Howe and Strauss, we are in what is called the Fourth Turning, an age of anarchy, where there is little desire for unity, or little unity. In any way, shape, and form, these represent our times. They are times when people spend their effort on personal persuits rather than working towards the common benefit (this is certainly true). Leaders themselves of all stripes have utilized their power for personal benefit. I could give many examples of this, but it would be impolite to do so, as certain groups of people would feel somewhat put upon. There are no types of leaders exempt from this particular, and just, criticism, though. With leaders focused on making service pay for them, it is no wonder that they are not trusted. They simply are not trustworthy. Even if individual leaders may not be corrupt (as difficult as it is to tell that with any degree of certainty), the entire system of leadership all over the place is corrupt. By rewarding seniority rather than talent, by rewarding appearance over reality, and by rewarding pleasant and polite fiction rather than bitter and ugly truth, organizations and nations have gotten the leadership they deserve. This is not a good thing.

Such epochs of mistrust are cyclical, which is itself a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Whether the cycle ends up being good or bad depends on how societies and organizations react to the defining "crisis" that ends the mistrust and forces people to once again work together to solve some pressing, urgent, and calamitous problem. History is full of good and bad leaders in such dark times (good: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill; not so good: FDR, Jefferson Davis, Louis XVI; really bad: Hitler, Tojo). The result of the crisis depends on the moral fiber of the people more than that of their leader. The South, for example, failed badly in dealing with the crisis of slavery, and thus merited its fall in the Civil War to the more advanced (and more righteous) North. Germany's people before WWII failed also in choosing a demagogue who offered simplistic solutions to difficult problems (such people are a must to avoid in positions of any resopnsible authority), and merited their fall in WWII. While FDR himself was nothing special as a leader (and his policies were downright idiotic), the American people themselves had not been completely corrupted at that time, and so America was more robust. England, more decadent, fared less well, and France, even more decadent than England, fared worse still.

Thus, the cure for the current climate of malaise when it comes to leadership is a sense of iminent and serious crisis that forces people to work together because they cannot make it on their own. The types of leaders that people in such situations choose are one of two kinds. Both leaders are leaders of profound vision. Good leaders are those who share in the sacrifices of their people, and are able to bring good meaning to suffering, avoid (permanent) increases of central government power (for temporary increases, as those of the Civil War, seem inevitable), and explain conflicts in their genuine moral terms. Leaders who are less able fail in one of these aspects, either using crises to seek permanent increases in power, seek to avoid sharing the dangers of the crisis (and are thus cowardly), provide false meaning and vicious (rather than virtuous) moral meaning to problems (usually this involves making a group of people a scapegoat for the crisis). In short, people who wish for an end of the carping attitude towards leadership and long for inspiring leaders and a sense of purpose had better be careful what they wish for. In the end, we get the leaders we deserve. Whether that speaks will or ill depends on ourselves.

Blow the Trumpet

Finally, a blog with entries longer than mine, from some people I know in the Church of God who are very concerned with biblical prophecy and end time events (obviously).

http://blowthetrumpet.blogspot.com/

Okay, plug over. Carry on.

Frequency

Today, while on an errand at work to get a semi-retired engineer to seal some plans, I had the opportunity to watch a rippling pond and I wondered about sinosidal waves (that's because I'm an engineer, probably). It made me ponder that certain frequencies that are very calming to me. Considering the brief time I have available this night to comment on them, I will look at them and ponder the oddities of their patterns.

Music:

As I am a (somewhat) irritable person, I need things to calm me down and relax me, as I can be somewhat high-strung. It is fortunate that I like to listen to melodic music, as well as sing and play the viola. Music has a calming effect on me, soothing the wild beast, if you will. It is noteworthy that I am attracted to certain types of music, though, that demonstrate certain patterns. Pop music, with its very narrow constraints involving chords, or baroque and classical music, with their patterns of harmonies and rhythms, meet the bill. Rap music, sadly, does not.

Water:

Bodies of water are very relaxing to me, even from childhood. I can sit for hours (this is a hard task, you ever tried to get me to sit still?) watching the ocean, or a lake, or a stream. There is something in the pattern of the waves and ripples that is relaxing and soothing. The same is true even of watching a rainstorm, which is quite soothing as well. It was a favorite pasttime of mine when I was a child (well, rather, playing in the rain at least). Watching waves is one of the most enjoyable things to do at the beach of course, at least if I want to relax. Relaxation is a rare thing for me, so at least it's good to know some places to go.

Rolling Country/Rollercoasters:

My father's family lives in the gently rolling hill country of Eastern Pennsylvania. I find great contentment in riding in cars along such country (less enjoyment, as can be imagined, hiking the country, unless it is with good friends as I did in northern England once). Incidentally enough, I like rollercoasters for the same reason. I'm not a big fan of the loops, but I love the ups and downs of a rollercoaster, especially the wooden ones, which have an organic feel to them, instead of the jerky and abrupt steel roller coasters (though I still like those).

Conclusions:

Is there a reason for this odd sort of attraction to sine and cosine waves? I don't know, but it sure is interesting to think about (at least for me). I wonder if anyone else has the same sort of odd contentment in such cyclical patterns as I do...

Lay Off The Booze...

I don't know if it's just me, or some sort of macabre interest I have in attempting to notice patterns, but it seems to me there has been an awful lot of interest in the press in the drinking habits of celebrities these days.

It was not even a month ago that Kurt Busch, who won NASCAR last year, was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion of drunk driving. He was suspended from the last two races of the NASCAR season and forbodden from turning over the championship banner at the last race of the season, the accustomed action of outgoing champions in that racing circuit. While a preliminary field sobriety test had him passing, his rather argumentative manner had him being arrested and held for a couple of hours in jail. That's not a pleasant place to be, from what I hear anyway (note: I have never been arrested myself, something I'd rather like to continue).

Around the same time, there was a rather infamous accident involving the car of Paris Hilton, being driven by her Greek boy-toy (who was probably had a little too much Uozo to drink--yuck). Despite three of the four passengers of the car being rather visibly drunk (at least according to video), the four were given rather kid-glove treatment by the LAPD. Look, the LAPD are apparently nice to celebrities, as scary as they may appear to the common folk of Los Angeles (they were quite in force in the area of Los Angeles I lived in, but then again, I lived in South Central). Nonetheless, despite visible drunkness, they managed to avoid any legal sanction. Lucky them.

Then, yesterday, Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn (does the word rebound mean anything to any of you?) were stopped on suspicion of drinking and driving while together, and they got a friend to pick them up for the night. I find that sort of thing rather entertaining. At least the machine worked for them (unlike for Busch). Is it just me, or are the deputies in Arizona quite dilligent when it comes to making DUI arrests on the stars? At any rate, they ended up alright, and no worse for the wear, if a bit embarassed perhaps (no worse than, say Nick Nolte when he provided one of the worst mug shots of all time when he was arrested for DUI in Florida some years ago).

Finally, two minor actresses on the series lost were almost simultaneously stopped for DUI, and both failed ye olde breathalizer test (honestly, these famous people had better lay off the booze). Hawaii has an interesting law when it comes to DUI--the driver's license is automatically, upon a court hearing, revoked. A temporary license is given for work, but with numerous restrictions. Now, those actors and actresses of Lost are a little too busy working to be drinking, right? I mean, at least they should have the sense not to drink and drive. The nerve of them.

Such are my random thoughts as my brother enjoys a college visit with friends in North Carolina (Duke and UNC are on his list of colleges to visit). I hope he's doing alright, and I'm pretty sure he's not driving...

Shadow And Light

Chiaroscuro is the art of painting using shadow and light, different shades of the same color for dramatic contrast. As a very prolific writer, I'd like to amuse myself with the thought that I do the same thing with words, painting in different shades of black and gray to paint a dramatic picture of my life as I experience it and as the lives of others are told to me by others. Indeed, it could be said that my entire writing (and possibly, my entire life) is a rather delicate dance of shadow and light. That's far too much to digest for one modest blog entry, but it is nonetheless a fitting comment.

A lot of people (and you know who you are) either complain personally to me, or to others, about the rather dark subjects I write about. Such dark subjects are not merely those I struggle with myself, but are also those topics that I am forced to deal with because of holding awkward confidences about other people that I have a difficult time dealing with. Without betraying any of those confidences, it can be safely said that those particularly unpleasant aspects of many of my writings are not based on what I have done, but are mostly based on what I know others to have done. Sometimes, though, to be fair, they are not always about what the people who are being written about themselves have done, if that makes any sense.

My fictional writing (and most of my nonfictional writing, to be blunt), with rare exceptions, is informed by the world I live in. For the most part, that is not a particularly pleasant world. The few plays I have that are not burdened by the real world share two notable characteristics in common--for one, they are often explicitly biblical in their writing (this would include just about all the plays of mine that can be said to be uniformly pleasureable, from "Ruth the Moabitess" to "The Biblical Reenactment Society" and "Keys of the Kingdom," the only play of mine to be set in some future time, namely the Kingdom of God). There is something to this. After all, it seems that I, as a writer, am only able to move above the rather grim nature of life in this current society (or past corrupt societies) when I am looking toward the world to come. There is a good lesson, or two, in this.

It is noteworthy to ponder how my nonfiction is quite similar. After all, much of my nonfiction also focuses on this world, and those works are often full of unfriendly commentary about class systems ("Servant Leadership and the Class System of the Church," "Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes"), generations ("Virtue and Value Are Not The Same," "Generations Study"), and so forth. In fact, it could be truly said that my writing springs from a desire to be true to life, to capture verisimilitude, at least how it appears to me (it should be noted that this may not be how others see the very same things, which can be the source of a lot of difficulty). There are also plenty of unintentional resemblances between my writing and the true character of the people who are being written about (though these are far too painful to mention in any greater detail).

So, how should my writings be viewed then? A large portion of how people view my writings depends on who they are. After all, some of my commentary about people in retrospect may seem rather ironic, when it was meant at first to be straightforward. Sometimes what appears to be an end is merely a new beginning, and sometimes what looks like a fresh chance is merely a dead end. The fact that my writing is part of a giant epic framework only complicates the matter further. There are, after all, family curses that extend over many generations, afflicting each in turn, events that occur that lead to other events over a century later (witness the unfortunate relation between "My First Mistress" and "Come Away With Me"). In other words, what I write is obscenely complicated (both words, of course, being worthy of far greater discussion than can occur here). In the various comings and goings of my characters doings, there is a sense of design, a purpose for all of the rather strange and sometimes unsettling occurrences. However, being true to life (or true to perception of life, which amounts to, in fiction, the same thing) often leads us to very unpleasant places. Those few characters of mine that are able to (largely) escape from the curse of Adam do so because of the grace of God, not because of any native goodness or cleverness on their own. And this is true for all of us in the real world--we are saved by the grace of God, not through our own efforts (and it is salutory to remember that).

It is my hope that someday a reasonably sympathetic (though honest) and erudite person will attempt to sort out (hopefully, after I am gone and my works are at an end) the rather convoluted nature of what I write. In doing so, there will have to be a lot of parsing out of various deeds. After all, not all of what goes in my writings is about me (I am not nearly that self-centered of a person). Indeed, the larger part of what I write is not about me, per se, at all, but rather about the world in which I live, a world which may bear only passing resemblance to the world in which other people live. And yet what I write so voluminously (few people have the patience to read more than a little of it), nay, even with a sense of logorrhea at times, is at the very basic level an attempt to communicate what is certainly a very odd world to other people that are perhaps less odd. It is also true that in much words there cannot be but at least a little folly. Perhaps the biggest folly of all is that I feel the need to say what is on my mind and what burdens me (which is far more than that which I have myself done), for rather we would all be better off if I did not have that compulsive need to chronicle life and those whose lives are proximate to my own. But, such is the subject of a rant for another day, perhaps.

The Trouble With Antinomians

According to antinomians, those who believe in the literal and inerrant truth of the Bible suffer from an inability to appreciate the literary excellence and fine figures of speech of the Bible and instead are cultural philistines whose very seriously held beliefs about the importance of obedience to God are nothing more than the prejudices of narrow-minded and unintelligent bigots. Obviously, being someone who takes the Bible quite seriously and quite literally, as well as being someone who has a great appreciation of literature (both as the writer of copious amounts of literature and the reader of a fair amount as well), I would appear to be at least somewhat suited to combat the false claims of the antinomians. So here goes.

It is beyond dispute that the Bible is a finely crafted work of literature. The Bible contains, for instance, a rich poetic language, some of it similar to Egyptian, Canaanite, Persian, and Babylonian literature (though far superior with regards to moral law). Certain customs in the Bible appear in the Nuzi tablets, or in the practice of Akkadian leaders, for example. The Bible's books include a hymnbook (which we call Psalms), numerous prophetic books (which could be said to be similar to oracular literature in other traditions, if one chooses to go that route), genealogies (of great interest to me, as I have been a student of family histories for many years), creation literature, historical chronicles, decrees, letters, apocalyptic literature, biographies, sermons, and so forth. All of this is a large amount of rather disparate literature in one book. The fact that it all shares a commonality of purpose and the divine dispensation of preservation is another matter entirely. It is important to realize, though, that a fine appreciation for the literary excellence of the Bible is not sufficient. Unlike other mere works of literature, the Bible was not written merely to entertain, but to instruct, and to serve as the blueprint for a moral life. This means we cannot view it merely with the eyes of literature appreciation, but must take its words and laws with the utmost of seriousness. Those of us who fail to do so, no matter how cultured they may think themselves, are behaving with a failure of respect and honor towards the divine ordinances of our Creator God.

It is strange that those who criticize law-abiding believers for being so foolishly literal minded are so foolishly literal minded about certain phrases that, when taken out of context, would seem to indicate that the law is done away with. For example, there is the pernicious expression translated in English as "under law." Whenever an antinomian sees the expression "under law," they behave as Pavlov's dog's do to the sound of a bell, and salivate at the mouth, spawning off vile insults at those who would point to a requirement for obedience among Christians today, especially when it comes to such issues as the Sabbath and Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, gender roles, laws of sexual morality, and so forth. However, in the context of Galatians, Romans, and so on, "under law" seems not to refer to the laws themselves, but but the administration of punishment without mercy for sin. It is only through the divine dispensation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we can hope to be redeemed of our sinful nature. But, as Paul clearly said on numerous occasions (as there were antinomians in his time), and as John and Peter said as well in their own various ways in their epistles, our respentance at baptism frees us from sin, not to sin, and we cannot know sin apart from the law. If we, in other words, are baptised, we will live in ways in accordance with God's law, not merely to be rewarded, or because we are under the "Old Covenant," but rather because we love God and wish to gain His righteous character, which is done through obeying and internalizing His laws in our lives, and applying them in spiritual ways, which do not contradict (nay, they expand) the previous physical applications.

One might then speculate (and I am unkind enough to do so), that it is not those who take the Bible seriously and seek to obey it that have the problem. It is rather that those who refuse to take the Bible seriously (a rather large population in this wicked world, I must admit) who have the inability to appreciate the seriousness of God writing the Decalogue with his hand in a cave high on Jabul Al-Musa, Mt. Horeb, Mt. Sinai, or the equally serious prohibitions on the habitually immoral in Romans, Corinthians, and Revelation, and elsewhere, from entering the Kingdom of God. For too long believers in the Bible have been made to feel as barbarians, uncivilized and hopelessly outdated, when in fact those who would disregard the Bible are as the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Gibeon in Judges, hastening towards their own fall.

It should be remembered, and is often forgotten, that the truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and error is error even if everyone believes it. What is right and wrong is not up for a popular vote, but simply is. Once the absolute nature of truth becomes under attack from moral philistines (look up Judges and 1 Samuel for that reference), then civilization as such becomes impossible. Civilization, after all, depends on a certain moral superiority to barbarism, which properly defined is any system whose legitimacy has no moral bearing and is dependent on force or fraud, rather than any reasonable and just bearing. The trouble with antinomians is that they mistake rebarbarism (the dog returning to his own vomit, as Hebrews says) for the peak of civilization, and confuse those who would arrest civilization's fall with uneducated barbarians. Though it is a popular mistake, it is a mistake the same, and one that needs to be brought home with a bit more fire and frequency. After all, we are engaged in a war for the survival of decency--we cannot throw down our arms merely because the fight is unpopular.

The Lasting Legacy of Jane Austen

I must admit, I am a fan of Jane Austen, that early 19th century British spinster who wrote some of the best novels in the English language. Though she only wrote six novels (and two, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, were not quite complete at her premature death), her novels to this day remain beloved and well-read, and frequently adapted into films and miniseries. Why is this the case? What makes the work of Jane Austen so superior to that of many other novelists who have come and gone since then, many of whom were popular for a time and then became obscure. Since people have fought about this issue for nearly 200 years, and since voluminous writings have been written about the issue, this entry will only look very briefly at some of the reasons for Miss Austen's longevity as a popular novelist.

First off, one must say at the start that Austen's six novels are all quite well written. Unlike the verbal diarrhea of many other novelists (often spanning near 1000 pages, and sometimes beyond), Austen's novels are quite modest in length and scope. They are filled with witty and insightful commentary about women and men, parents and children, gentry and nobles, and so forth. Furthermore, her novels are about the subject of marriage, something which must have been near and dear to her heart (it is tempting to speculate that she wrote about what she was, for whatever reason, unable to enjoy). Since each of these gives some hint as to her lasting popularity, it is worthwhile to examine each briefly in turn.

First, Austen's novels are quite modest in scope and length. Her novels are eminently translatable into films (unlike those of say, Rowling, or Eliot, or other novelists who are unable to curb their pens). Not only are they short in length, though (which makes them vastly easier to read), but they are modest in scope. Austen's novels are basically about young women of the gentry or low nobility (the baronetage, to be precise) who are seeking to marry. Most of them live in smallish towns and communities, often the manor houses of rural England. While there is often movement between various locales, the same community of people is present in both, which dramatically reduces the important characters one must remember (unlike, say, the 500 characters in "War and Peace," to name one of the more egregious offenders among other novels). Therefore, Jane Austen's novels allow for considerable dexterity in analyzing character and plot without presenting difficult reading or a multiplicity of pointless characters. This increases the popularity of a writer's body of work.

However, the simplicity of Jane Austen's work is not sufficient to explain her lasting popularity. If that were the case, then Harlequin romances would be world class literature. My mother's reading collection notwithstanding, that is not the case. Part of what separates Jane Austen from the run-of-the-mill romance author (though, make no mistake, she is a romance novelist) is that her writing is so penetrating about human character. Jane Austen's characters do not seem like stock figures, but are richly developed with complicated and ambiguous characters, placed in situations that show them to be humanlike in their behavior (rather than plaster saints or cardboard villians). Some people, for example, profoundly dislike Emma (I know I do), and feel quite sympathetic for the Crawfords, and wonder why they had to be punished so falsely for their (supposedly) minor pecadillos (in this case, I side with Austen). The fact, though, that one can even treat the characters of romance novels as legitimate facsimilies of human beings is quite impressive. Furthermore, even when not engaged in direct characterization, Jane Austen's grasp of dialogue (the dialogue between Darcy and Elizabeth, or Elizabeth and Lady Catherine, is part of of what makes Pride & Prejudice a classic) is excellent. Going still further, Jane Austen's subtle and yet profound observations about humanity (including the worth placed on marriageable women as to the the sort of gentleman they would be likely to attract marriage proposals from) are stunningly inerrant, for the most part.

Finally, the subject material of Jane Austen's writing is of great interest. Part of this is because Jane Austen herself wrote in such a matter that there appears to be room to fashion theories about the exoteric and esoteric meaning of her writing. In other words, her writing leaves enough ambiguities that it is possible to dispute whether her writing was being honest or somewhat coy. Was her interest in writing about marriage ironic or straightforward. Was she truly a country Tory or did she secretly harbor a desire to critique the unfairness of male-dominated society? People have earned doctorates in literature arguing about the vagaries of proto-feminism in Elizabeth Bennett, for example, or commenting on Persuasion being a call for life and love as Jane lay dying, or commenting on the wisdom of the erstwhile heroine of Northanger Abbey, whose judgment (though sound) is constantly being threatened by those who are supporters of the status quo, or the anti-slavery commentary in Mansfield Park. Obviously, I spend way too much of my time reading books (just as I spend way too much of my time writing), but the point is that Jane Austen's choice of subject material has been of great interest to a large group of people, including myself.

So, what of it then? Obviously, not everyone has developed an appreciation for the fine works of Jane Austen that I have, but certainly everyone (even myself, far too serious most of the time) can enjoy fine works of literature and art. That the novels of Jane Austen have survived for nearly two centuries, and are much more widely read today than they were in her own time (when they were published anonymously, and Jane Austen hardly profited at all from her writings--a fate that seems to befall those of us who write literature with any cliams towards excellence rather than popular mediocrity). That said, perhaps the spinster daughter and sister of Anglican ministers would have approved of the great interest in her literature. It certainly does her belated justice, and gives proof that her life, though short and somewhat lonely, had a purpose even she could not forsee.

On The Pleasures Of Ego Surfing

For those of you who are unaware, ego-surfing is using the search feature on yahoo or google (also known as googling) to look up references to your own name. This can also refer to looking up the names of close friends and family members, and is a task I occasionally (okay, fairly often) enjoy. It is sometimes quite enlightening to realize what sort of information about you is online. Taking the yahoo search results, let us look at the ways in which yours truly is immortalized online. Some of these were quite entertaining for me, as I do not remember all of them. Why they should rank so highly on a search engine is quite puzzling to me as well, but regardless, they are informative and worthwhile to look at.

For one, not all of the references online to "Nathan Albright" are about me (I am not, after all, a divorce attorney from Las Vegas, although that one is rather ironic in the light of my previous rant on divorce. Another Nathan Albright (maybe the same one) apparently is or was a field lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board. Too many lawyers for my tastes, one of them having a pen pal from Belgrade (I had a couple of Slovenian pen pals myself). I am also not from New Zealand, a land I have never visited (but one I would like to), though apparently there is a bike enthusiast from there who shares my name. In addition there is a relatively famous tennis player named "Nathan Albright" who even appeared on ESPN's site. Alas, I am not he. There is also an 0-1 wrestler with that name, who apparently retired winless after his lone defeat (as no other results are available to see). Perhaps my doppleganger the tennis player was slumming for the wrestling team that day. Who knows? Finally, for the athletic "Nathan Albright" links, there is apparently a basketball player named Nathan Albright who scored 14 points in a game. Obviously, that was not me, as in my entire competitive basketball career (mostly in YOU in the ol' WCG) I scored a grand total of 2 points. You can rest assured that any reference to a Nathan Albright with athletic talent does not refer to yours truly. There are also a lot of references to long dead Nathan Albright's appearing in genealogies (though, not to my knowledge, my own). Apparently, one Nathan Albright was even a descendent of Alfred The Great. Sweet. Lucky guy.

What is somewhat humorous is that a high percentage (at least a third) of the online references to "Nathan Albright" do refer to me. And they aren't only the references one would expect. Of course, this blog here (my info page as well as my blog entry "Remember The Days") receives mucho love from the search engines. That is to be expected. Even my nonupdated Xanga site gets some search engine props, though not my livejournal blog for some odd reason. My fan club site (www.nba.homestead.com), alas now disabled (that's what happens when the person running your fan club site is your ex), also receives a lot of searches apparently. Some of the genealogy references are my own, based on posts to online forums about genealogy. Then again, posts of my own appear on the Ambassador Watch site, on some anti-Leonardo DiCaprio site (I didn't even remember making those rather saucy comments, even calling the bisexual former hearthrob an "@$$hole," but then again, it was seven years ago, and I can hardly remember what I said or wrote yesterday). Intriguingly enough, a private e-mail I sent giving directions to my old college dorm appears online. No one who lives there now knows who I am, so that's pretty useless. Than again, I guess even my personal and private e-mails find their way online (though I'm far from the only person who has that issue). But hey, a letter of mine appeared on Fred Bronson's "Chart Beat Chat," which is really sweet. I also wrote a short comment to the NTEvangelism forum about a survey which showed UCG to be a bit too heavily populated by elderly Silent Generation types and self-righteous Boomer types who are a bit concerned about the lack of respect for their "accomplishments." Yup. On a lighter note, my career states for Spirit Wars (I haven't played in a while--but it's a really fun game I must say) appear online as well.

A lot of references to my writing appear online, which is, of course, unsurprising. For example, there are plenty of popular links to my play "Even After All These Years" (e-published on www.aviarpress.com for only $5.95. Go there, buy it now, and hopefully the fine people at Aviar Press will finally send me a royalty check!). Some of my fiction press works are popular, but not the ones one would think. My most popular is the "Biblical Reenactment Society" skit I wrote at the Ambassador Bible Center (ABC for those in the know) with my classmate Tyler Smith. If you use our skit, just remember to give us the credit for writing it. Thou shalt not steal, remember. My sermonette knows for "Let The Righteous Strike Me" are somewhat popular as well. Who knew the smiting of the righteous was such a popular subject? My poetry on Secfenia, as well as my very dark (you've been warned) Secfenia Dark stories are somewhat popular as well. Very oddly enough (though thanks, whoever is the webmaster for www.ucgstp.org), my article "The Hesed Factor" appears online, from an old issue of Vertical Thought (edited, perhaps unsurprisingly, by my local pastor) based on an ABC "Reflection Paper" that Dr. Levy suggested I turn in to be published. It was a good idea. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, another article of mine that appears online, "Judging Righteous Judgment," was based on some writing at ABC as well). There are other articles of mine that appear online, such as "The Truth About The Cross" (a short piece in which I helped out my friend Randy Vild) and "Lest You Also Be Tempted" (a short article that originally appeared in Anchor, where I applied Galatians 6:1-5 to the rather contentious issue of homosexuality). Both of those articles appear on Blow The Trumpet (www.blowthetrumpet.org), a site run by a couple of friends of mine in the Church of God. Unfortunately, my college thesis on "Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio For Concrete Columns" appears to be a dead link. Pity. However, an article I wrote quite a few years ago called "What Makes An Empire" is still online. That's impressive, I must say.

A lot of links online about me deal with such issues as reviews, travels, and political thoughts. For example, some of my amazon.com reviews appear online (mostly about books such as engineering text books, cds like "Tragic Kingdom," and books on political philosophy (including at least one book on Shakespeare's politics)). A couple of links deal with my trip to Ghana in 2000 to teach computers to elders and members in the Kumasi area. I think a few pictures, and even an intereview, can still be found dealing with that particular trip. Ah, good times. Of course, my being a "Communitarian" also appears online in a couple of places.

So there you have it, a brief tour through the sites one encounters when I egosurf. I would recommend you do the same, but sometimes the results can be rather unpleasant (the egosurfing of other people has gotten me in more than a little trouble, alluded to in previous blog entries). At any rate, looking up how you appear online at least gives you an idea of what other people can readly discover about you without all that much effort. Sometimes, that's just a little too much information for my liking, but then again, it hardly seems right to quibble too much about it if you put it online yourself.

Endless Genealogies

Being a genealogy buff, I have over several years (over half of my life actually) collected a large amount of information about my family. Since I'm somewhat young, though, most of the older people in my family have not been so quick to share their stashes of pedigree charts with me. Yesterday, though, I got my hands on the charts for some of my mother's family's lines, so I'd like to share these with my loyal readers, because they are interesting.

Koontz:

Random note: My grandfather Koontz was recently DNA tested and was found to be a member of the cohenim, the priestly line of Levi. Sweet.

Nathan Albright (b. 1981)
son of Catharine Elizabeth Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Jacob Franklin Snyder Koontz (b.1931)
son of Jacob Koontz (b.1892 d.1959)
son of Jacob Koontz (b.1864 d.unknown)
son of Jacob B. Koontz (b.1835 d.1925)
son of Michael Koons/Koontz (b.1973 d.1855)
son of Peter Koontz/Koons (b.unknown, before 1771 d.1847)
son of Henry Koons/Countz/Koontz (b.circa 1739 in Holland or Germany, d.1795)
son of Adam Koons (b. circa 1720 in Holland d.unknown)

Other families found in pedgigree chart:
Painter
Snider
Crooks
Grimes
Kegg
Helmeric
Moler
Border (twice)
Smouse
McDaniel
Bishop
Weimer
Evans
Manuel
Howard
Hughes
Morris
Younkin
Miller
Grey
Mathias

Mathias:

Nathan Albright (b.1981)
son of Catharine Elizabeth Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Ruth Mathias (b.1931)
daughter of Chauncy Limbach Mathias (b.1900 d.1992)
son of Clarence Wilson Mathias (b.1873 d.1945)
son of Emmanuel Mathias (b.1843 d.1901)
son of Adam Mathias (b.1809 d.1889)
son of John Matthias (b. circa 1786 d. circa 1828)
son of Peter Matthias (b.1768 d.1846)
son of Henry Matthias (b. circa 1748 d.1806)

Other family names found in pedigree chart:
Brenneman
Gottwaldt/Cotwalt
Bush (twice)
Zellar
Nisley
Fackler
Baer (twice)
Repman
Machlin
Croul
Shuman
Seitz
Fisher (twice)
Attick
Metzger
Null/Noll
Sloane
Morninger
Clum
Ruppert
Helmick
Johnson
Shull (twice)
Meyers
Minnick
Limbach
Ankeny
Mutti
Schwartz (twice)
Hilson
Puffer
Kellermeyer

Puffer:

Nathan Albright (b.1981)
son of Catharine Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Ruth Mathias (b.1931)
daughter of Elizabeth Jane Puffer (b.1900 d.1963)
daughter of William Puffer (b.1959 d.1928)
son of John Puffer (b.circa 1828 d.1856)
son of Cornelius Puffer (b.1793 d.before 1860)
son of Simeon Puffer (b.1759 d.1825)
son of Lazarus Puffer (b.1729 d.1778)
son of Eleazer Puffer (b.1683 d.1746)
son of Matthias Puffer (b.1635 d.1717)
son of George Puffer (b.circa 1600 d.1639)
son of William Puffer (b.circa 1575 d.circa 1599)

Other names in Pedigree:
Sedley
Everett
Farnsworth
Ludden
Crehore
Bacon
Talbot
Crane
Holbrook
Newton
Sumner
Clark
Tucker
Alger
Reynolds
Turner
Windover
Perry
Struel
Dingman
Seward
Masters
Quackenbush
Moran
Whitney
Cuthbertson (twice)
Colby
Forbes

Cuthbertson

Nathan Albright (b.1981)
son of Catharine Koontz (b.1957)
daughter of Ruth Matthias (b.1931)
daughter of Elizabeth Jane Puffer (b.1900 d.1963)
daughter of Agnes Cuthbertson (b.1856 d.1948)
son of Thomas Cuthbertson (unknown)
son of Thomas Curthbertson (b.circa 1835 d.1904)

Other names in pedigree:
Richmond
Connel
Eaton
Morrow
Elliot
Sedwick
Vandeburg
Puffer (twice)

Very interesting indeed. If you share these names and might want some more info about where my family links up with yours, feel free to send me a message. I've got some updating to do with my gedcom files...

The Space Between The Is And The Ought

In life, we often must deal with a yawning chasm between the is and the ought. The "is" refers to reality, unprettified, unvarnished. This may be referred to as "the real world." The ought refers to the world as it should be. The world is never as it should be, but it is the "ought" that keeps us from moral depravity on the one hand, or despair on the other. We need an understanding of what is to make sure we are living in the real world, and so that we can see things as they are. We need to know what ought to be so we can at least have something to aim and strive for, something above the morass and darkness that is the real world.

It is often difficult to find that balance between knowing what is and knowing what ought to be, and clearly facing what is without losing sight of what ought to be. It is all too easy to go to one extreme or the other. Most people choose to either immerse themselves in the real world, become overly cynical and behave in immoral and amoral ways (in order to get ahead) or they ignore reality, live in a fantasy world of hopes and dreams and illusions, and are crushed in those rare moments of lucidity when the reality breaks through the illusion. What is someone to do if they want to face reality bravely and squarely without being completely corrupted by it.

This problem between what is and what should be is a constant preoccupation of my writing, as well as that of many others. Political science, or the study of how to exercise power, is all about shortening the distance between the is and the ought. This can be done in one of two ways--by seeking to reform society, or by reducing the ideal to make it more realistic. Obviously, the first solution is the superior one, but it must be remembered that reformers are human to, and often need to have their own sins reformed.

So what is the end of all of this? I don't know, but humanity, and any organization made of humans (especially those wicked hierarchial ones) is going to have issues. The choice that human beings have when they are faced with their shortcomings is to either own up to them or to deny them (and seek to discredit those that bring them up). The character of someone is determined by which choice they make. There is distance in all of us (and plenty of distance in me) between what is and what should be. But how we deal with that distance speaks volumes about ourselves, for even if the world does not appreciate it, thankfully we have someone in heaven watching over us (even if that is far from pleasant at those many times we are doing what we ought not to do).

From Tiny Acorns Great Oaks Grow

Okay, this entry will be short, because I have little time. Nonetheless, yesterday, the voters of the town of Hilldale, Michigan, voted (in a write-in campaign) a high school senior to be their mayor. If I was the incumbent, I'd retire from politics immediately. Losing to a high-school senior whose campaign was funded by summer job proceeds probably ranks high on the list of most-embarassing events ever.

It is good to see my fellow young people taking a great interest, even in the civic politics of a Michigan town struggling with a declining job base due to outsourcing to lands where "Wassup" becomes "Ap kese ho?" (For those who do not know this obscure reference, it is a Hindi term that means "how are you doing," which I picked up in my time as a campus taxi driver (!) at the University of Southern California). After all, the current generation of leaders in the United States comes from the Baby Boomers, a generation I have little good to say about (sorry, you guys, but you're really easy to pick on--self-absorbed, self-important, lacking qualities of reflection and humility). For those interested in a fuller analysis of my thoughts on Baby Boomers, I recommend "Virtue and Values Are Not The Same" and my scathing but rather analytical "Generations Study." Both can be found readily online if you're looking for them (and people seem to enjoy looking for my writings, so there's a plug).

Will this young mayor start a trend of young politicians putting the adults to shame? It can't hurt. Those of us who are young cannot screw up the world any worse than our elders are doing right now. I suppose we can all take solace in that.

What God Has Joined Together, Let No Man Tear Asunder

The issue of the sanctity of marriage is a controversial issue in this society. It is not only for that reason, though, that it is of interest to me. God hates divorce, something he states in Malachi, and a point that can be gathered from other places in the Bible, and yet over half of all marriages end in divorce, a fact that ought to cause our society a lot of grief and shame. Divorce is no less common among those of us in God's church, those of us who should know better. As the child of divorced parents, the issue of divorce is one of great importance to me.

Until 1974, about seven years before I was born, divorce was not allowed in the Worldwide Church of God for any reason. The policy was changed because Herbert W. Armstrong (then the head of WCG) was interested in marrying a much younger divorcee named Ramona. Miraculously, he saw the truth that there were some circumstances in which divorce and unbinding were allowed, namely for fraud or pornea (defined as adultery, fornication unknown at time of marriage, or other sexual deviancy). (It should be noted here that under the biblical standards of divorce a relatively high degree of fault must be proven, and those who are deemed "at fault" in a marriage are bound from marrying again until their spouses die. Therefore if both spouses are at fault in a marriage, neither is free to remarry if they separate. This is important in the case of my own parents.)

The end result of this policy change was that divorce and remarriage were very common and very easy for those people who were well connected in the power structure of WCG. As a pastor in UCG once said to my family, people were "divorcing and remarrying like flies." For those whose divorces were contested (This was the case in my family--my father did not wish for the divorce and considers the marriage to have been a valid one, despite what he considered to be fraudulent promises, my mother on the other hand claimed abuse and claimed that she herself was not converted, and hence the marriage was invalid ab initio. It is difficult for me to sort out exactly what this meant in practice as it regarded my brother and I), it could take much longer. For example, my parents separated when I was three, divorced when I was eight and a half, and were "unbound" by the church for the last time only when I was thirteen.

Divorce causes a lot of suffering to families, something I plan on discussing in greater detail later on, time permitting. In my own family, the consequences of divorce were quite immense. Traveling in vacations betwen my folks certainly reimforced whatever nomadic tendancies I was born with, and certainly made it hard to figure out where exactly I belonged and where was home (issues, unsurprisingly, I still struggle with). My brother to this day considers marriage useless, since he is unable to separate the actions of two very flawed individuals from what is a very glorious and wonderful and divinely ordained institution.

Parents have all sorts of pleasant fictions (or, less politely, lies) they use to justify divorce to themselves. They reason that a happy divorce is better than an unhappy marriage, though there is no such thing as a happy divorce, and studies have indicated that children of divorces are vastly worse off than those children from unhappy marriages when it comes to dealing with social issues and becoming a happy and well-functioning often. In fact, studies indicate that over half of children of divorced families suffer from such problems, while only two percent of children from happy marriages suffer likewise, and only about a third of children from unhappy marriages. Divorce may be more pleasant for parents, but not for the children.

My own parents have their own stories, and no doubt both did the best they could (though that is a rather frightening thought, if less frightening than the alternative). What I learned from the breakup of my parents is that discovering what is true is often a very unpleasant task (shades of an earlier post, I know). Both my father and mother have stories about their marriage and breakup, and both stories are incompatible. Each makes claims about the behavior of the other that the other strenuously denies--about attempts to sabatoge the marriage by brining in the ministry, about spousal and child abuse (based on an oblique comment my father made about his defense of a Living Church of God member in North Carolina who was falsely accused about child abuse when he commented that my mother did the same to him, and based on my mother's frequent references to "black rages" and a broken jaw), about adultery, and so on. Quite frankly, I do not know if the truth will ever be known in this lifetime, or even if I want to know the truth about either of my parents. The words, even in passing, of divorced parents about the other are like poison that seeps into the very being, destroying the moral authority that parents are supposed to have in their household. Indeed, divorced parents, by virtue of their selfish actions, surrender what moral claims to authority they may possess, and bring all authority figures into shame and disrepute by pointing to the fundamental inability of human beings to govern others (or even themselves) effectively. If one cannot trust those who gave you life, it's not going to be easy to trust anyone else either, who has less reason to behave well and look out for your best interests. You have to look out for yourself--no one will do it for you.

As was widely pointed out in a recent study on divorce (published widely, including in the New York Times), being the child of divorced parents means dealing with secrets. Knowledge is a weapon, and the conduct of parents undergoing a divorce often leaves much to desire. For example, my mother was involved, at least somewhat seriously, with my future stepfather (they married in 1995) when I was a small child, and were at least talking about marriage, as we stayed at his house and were quite frequent visitors at his parents' place, and because I have papers from the first grade where I referred to my last name as Albright-Martin. I do not presume to know what all was involved, but at any rate, married people, even if they are separated, are not supposed to pursue romantic attachments, even if nothing physical was involved. As I said before, I do not wish to know the truth about my parents.

The study also pointed out that while children whose parents are married are the center of attention, children whose parents divorce often spend long moments alone (this was the case for me, I know). This is the case because while a loving marriage has a husband and a wife focusing their attention building a future together as well as a future for the next generation, divorce allows people to focus on their own lives and their own interests and leaves children (who are torn between the two worlds) to make the difficult task of piecing together a place in incompatible, distant, and sometimes hostile worlds. Often the result is that such children act like the parent they are around at the time, something that does wonders for trying to sort out the mix of our parents that we are in a harmonious way (after all, our parents were unable to do so, but we are forced to to remain sane).

Studies of the effects of divorce are rare, largely because those who support our society's current lax policies on divorce are afraid that knowing the results of divorce on children would cause a change in the law. They are right, but who should our laws be protecting--immature adults or the children who are forced to grow up way too soon in circumstances that are less than pleasant. We owe our obligations to the health of children rather than to the convenience of their childish parents. In a sermon video that I saw a couple of weeks ago at church, Mr. Franks commented how children of divorces are among the "orphans" that James enjoins Christians to take concern for. Amen and amen. Such thoughts are quite saddening, but the truth is often sad and bitter.

This particular entry is quite personal, and probably a lot of people would not be happy to read what I have to say--either about myself, my family, or my church. We must all live with the penalties of sin, even if we did not commit the sin ourselves. I have written this entry three times because the computer has kept on giving me problems (which has given me the chance to organize and phrase my thoughts differently). I am still not satisfied with how it turned out, but I have done the best I can to remain impartial and not be too harsh on anyone, task complicated especially by the fact that only God knows the truth of what happened between my parents, even if the account of it in Pasadena with WCG counsel Mr. Helge supposedly took hundreds of pages. Now, that's an unpleasant thought.

I heard the news today, oh boy...

Okay, I don't normally do this, but I'd like to look briefly at some of the news that may interest only me that merits some kind of snarky and sarcastic response. My usual thematic entry will follow, time and energy permitting. But first I felt the news from today needed commentary.

Rent a Room

Two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders, Renee Thomas and Angela Keathley, were arrested in Tampa (that would be where I live) after committing battery. Some patrons at a Channelside club complained that they could hear moaning from outside the restroom and that the two women were taking way too long while having sex in the bathroom stall. One of the cheerleaders used a fake id to police when she was taken in, and now both are being charged with criminal offenses. I don't think they planned on coming out of the closet that way. At any rate, both cheerleaders have since been kicked off of the cheerleading squad (part of the Carolina Panthers cheerleading site is, alas, still down, and the only pictures of the two I have managed to rustle up are their mugshots). Where did they think they were, Sodom? Corinth? No, they were in Tampa *sigh*. This kind of thing gives cheerleaders (and Tampa) a bad name, and I know plenty of nice cheerleaders, as well as people from Tampa, who don't deserve that sort of press.

Here's To You, Mrs. Robinson

A Hollywood star (who will be known here by the name of Toothy Tile, courtesy of Ted Casablanca) who has starred in such films as "Jughead" (which some friends of mine saw and were disappointed with) and the upcoming "Brokeback Mountain" (a film which probably does not require much acting from the currently in-the-closet actor), currently has a willing (and former "Friend") "Mrs. Robinson," presumably to teach him in the ways of women that he is so ignorant of. I guess he doesn't mind getting sloppy seconds from Vince Vaughn or *shivers* Brad Pitt. He's got a cool sister, though. She was one of the few reasons to enjoy "Adaptation."

We Fly The Bankrupt Skies

Flyi Inc., parent corporation of Independence Air, has declared bankrupcy. Sadly, for the airline industry (as well as countries in Africa and Latin America), declaring bankrupcy is a part of normal business strategy. For whatever reason (and there are several, including high gas prices and very high benefits to corporate leadership, and an obsolete hub-and-spoke business model). This particular airlines suffered mostly from bad timing and a very unfriendly economic climate. Flyi, formerly called ACA (an airline I have used before, notably to fly to the Lexington weekend in 2002), was formerly a subsidiary of Delta before going independent. Now it, like its parent company, has gone el-foldo. Too bad.

Life's A Riot

The Muslim population of Paris is still rioting, after nearly two weeks of car bombing, arson, and general misbehavior. This one goes under the "See, I Told You So" category of disaster. The French thought that by coddling dictators (see Saddam Hussein) and by bending over backwards to be a "nice" Western country to the Muslims, that the Muslims would assimilate and become good little Frenchmen. It doesn't appear to be happening, and the rioting, once confined to the suburbs of Paris, has now spread across the entire country. This looks grim, and the weak response of the French government has led to a lot of international criticism. It's not nice at all to gloat when a nation suffers, but one wonders if a lot of people (Americans in particular) aren't crowing a good bit about the fact that the Muslims of France have not responded to the gentle manner in which the French treated them. Perhaps they will be less foolish in the future. One can only hope so.

A Balanced, Rational Paper

Finally, with news a little closer to home, I would like to give my two cents worth on United's recent paper on interracial marriages. For the most part, it is a very sound and reasonable paper. I would take issue with the claim that someone who is against interracial marriages is not doing so out of reasons of racism, and I would not think the issue to be one that most ministers would be able to counsel members about (since few of them have personal experience with the issue), but the paper is a sound one. The cases of interracial marriage blessed and honored in the Bible is a rather lenghty one--including no less than three members of the family tree of our Lord and Savior Himself. At least two books of the Bible are intimately concerned with the practice (Ruth and Esther, and one can make a case for its ubiquity in Genesis as well). The Bible, wisely and correctly, considers race of no importance ("strangers" who followed God's law were to be counted as Israelites with full privileges), while placing the importance on faith rather than race. We should do the same. It's way past due for those of us in the Church of God community to cast aside the dark days of racist thoughts and to face the fact that ethnic origin is of no importance in the Family of God. For all who obey are sons of Abraham, not in blood, but in spirit.

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word

As I use this blog to rant, a lot, about some of the more philosophical issues about my life, I figure it only fair that I use this to rant about myself. While it is greatly baffling to me how eager people are to read my words, I have been far too loose with them with regards to other people. To that end, I would like to make an apology to Christy Lobdell, as well as to her family (who, I must say, does an impressive job of keeping informed of her reputation. I wish my family communicated as easily about matters and allowed for the resolution of issues.).

I wish I could say this was the first time, or even the second time, that my words have spread far and wide and ended up bringing me into judgment. The Bible wisely says (and I do not forget it for a moment) that we will be judged for every idle word that comes out of our mouth. I have more idle words than most, and thus I am judged more than most (though I am somewhat thin-skinned and do not like it, I suppose it is a part of life). Nonetheless, I hope that no one has any ideas that I have anything but the highest respect for Christy. Originally, I caused offense by writing a play using names that were way too close to her and her family, and in situations that she would never be involved in. Then, I caused offense again by my comments about her in a blog entry (though, to be fair, it was not only about her that I spoke). That said, my words have spread far and wide, much further and much wider than I intended or really desired.

But rather than merely have bad words spread, it is good to think on positive things. Christy was a close friend of mine for many years, and one thing I greatly valued in our friendship (and the reason why she was a best friend of mine for so long) was that she was always honest and candid to me about my own flaws, and always pointed a mirror of the highest conduct to me, without being too self-rightous about it. I am not nearly reflective enough about how my words and actions affect other people, but I do appreciate those who (in love) gently but firmly point out where I am going wrong so that I may see the beam in my own eyes, and not merely the specks in the eyes of others. If only all people dealt with things as quickly and as honestly as she, perhaps I would get myself in a lot less trouble. (This is a hint to all of you who read my journal looking for juicy tidbits about subjects I rant about. We would all be better served if you took your complaints to me. Believe me, I'm not very happy when people send me corrective messages, but in the end I appreciate them and try to learn from them.). You see, I ranted yesterday about the importance of being a truth teller, and how unpleasant that task can be. I owe it to all of you, though, to be a better person when it comes to listening to the truthtellers in my life. Those who are willing to dish out unpleasant truth need to take the strong medicine themselves. I appreciate, Christy, and those among you who also do it (and you know who you are, and there are not many of you), that you deal with my rather prickly temper because you believe something ought to be said about how I am failing to behave as well as I should.

May I behave better in the future.

So-Called Knowledge

Knowledge is a dangerous thing. Paul the Apostle (a man far wiser than I, and at least as passionate about the truth) said famously (and correctly) that love builds up, but knowledge puffs up. When I hear this used most of the time, it is used as a pat, anti-intellectual comment by those whose minds are not very sharp, and who also suffer from the very same problem. I am an intellectual, but that does not mean I do not see the dangers in the great gift of a mind that God has given me (for what reason I do not know--all gifts carry with them heavy responsibilities and a certain amount of difficulty). It is quite entertaining (as a spectator, at least, if not a participant) to watch the conflicts between "fundamentalists" and "intellectuals". Both of them make war with so-called knowledge, but in reality are quite ignorant of what they say. However, they speak with arrogance and confidence because what is in reality complicated they have simplified in their own minds in their own fashion (and both sides do this quite differently, as I hope to at least point out a little later) and used their views against others. In reality, though, both anti-intellectual fundamentalist philistines and their more erudite but equally foolish rivals are more alike than they are different.

For the purposes of this discussion, a fundamentalist is someone who believes they understand the Bible (or any other belief system) perfectly, and thus are qualified to serve as enforcers of God's laws against unbelievers. (Unlike most people, I do not define fundamentalism as merely believing in the inerrancy and infallability of the Bible, which would include many people like myself). The fundamentalist opposes the gain of intellectual knowledge, for several reasons. For one, knowledge threatens the supposed specialness of the fundamentalist (who usually is or aspires to be an unaccountable leader of a hierarchial organization). After all, said leaders are usually not very well educated themselves, and consider the educated to be threatening. Usually these people will quote scriptures condemning vain human philosophy and use those to condemn any sort of study except in ways approved by said sect leader. Rather than desiring to set people free from the ways of sin that pervade the entire world, these people are interested in making themselves leaders over men, in ways that Christ condemns when he says we should be servants and not lords. Indeed, they are like Diotrophes and others who desire preeminence over others. Such examples should not be imitated. Nonetheless, these people are proud in their own knowledge (or rather, in their own ignorance). By believing they have mastered the Bible, or some really arcane matter of Bible study (be it the identity of the ten tribes of Israel, prophetic understandings of the end time, the correct day we should keep the Holy Days, etc. ad nauseum), they feel a certain superiority towards those who do not possess this knowledge. Their so-called knowledge puffs them up. Of course, anyone who questions that knowledge must be riduculed as a pawny-headed intellectual, or a faithless, stiff-necked doubter, or so forth. Indeed, those who believe they possess great knowledge are correspondingly unable to admit fault. After all, if they are so great, they cannot be subject to the same flaws that mere mortals like ourselves (and I would include myself as a mere mortal--for all the gifts that I possess, I too am chief among sinners) suffer from on a daily basis. No, they must be special.

Intellectuals similarly suffer from a certain sense of pride in their knowledge. It is only human (one of the negative parts of human nature, which is itself a mixture of good and evil, not merely pure evil) to feel pride about knowledge, but such pride is very dangerous. The pride of the intellectual is in many ways the mirror image of the pride of the fundamentalist. The intellectual takes great pride in the ability to make the simple complex, just as the fundamentalist takes great pride in oversimplifying the complicated. Neither is right, but both are human (I myself, I must admit, err to the side of the intellectual, for which I must be honest). An intellectual, for example, will often take the simple and direct commands of God and negate them by looking at supposed contradictions or looking at boundary cases where the rules do not exactly apply. Instead of seeing these exceptions for what they are (exceptions), there is then the tendancy to invalidate the direct commands of God rather than place the exceptions in their proper place as divine mercy from God in extraordinary circumstances. In similar fashion, an intellectual will not take the Bible seriously as the Word of God, but rather will see the beliefs in the Bible as proceeding in an evolutionary pattern, often as a result of amalgamation of foreign traditions (to give some examples, they will claim that Moses did not write the Penteteuch, that there were three Isaiahs, that Daniel was not written until the Maccabean period, or that the Jews did not have any sort of ideas about the last judgment or good and evil until they met up with the Persian followers of Zoroaster). Similarly, these people will reject those who take the Bible seriously as simpletons and uneducated morons, and will behave in a rather condescending manner towards those who deny their false so-called knowledge.

We should turn away from both of these views. It distresses me that the truth is so obvious and yet so difficult to find, but such is the life I suppose. As difficult as both views are to avoid, we must work to avoid either the belief that either nothing can be known or that everything is known. There is much the Bible tells us, but also much that the Bible leaves unsaid, leaves for us all to struggle with as best as we are able. Neither blind faith nor rationalistic materialism is sufficient to being a true believer of God. We can neither believe without faith nor believe without our faith being informed by knowledge and reason. I think, in the final analysis, that it is God's doing that we have to find our way between the extremes that fundamentalism and intellectualism represent. After all, we need to be reminded about both how important we are to God (all of us, not only a select and small group of us given special gifts or knowledge, which is one thing both intellectuals and fundamentalists agree on and both err in believing) as well as the fact that our knowledge and power are rather pitifully limited. We must neither rejoice in our own greatness (and commit the sin of pride that fundamentalists and intellectuals possess in spades) nor wallow in our own weakness and believe we have no worth (and thus allow ourselves to fall prey to the slick advertising of someone who thinks they know it all, especially if they are from an advertising background *shivers*). The way of truth is always difficult, and frought with tension between two extremes of which neither are right (indeed, it can safely be said that any extreme is an error, though there is often great difficulty in properly defining what is extreme). But we will never come into greater understanding if we become complacent in our so-called knowledge, because much of what we know is wrong, no matter what it is we think we know. May God have mercy on us all, and reveal to us His truth at the right time, so that it may build up His family, rather than tearing it apart.

Lessons From A Dark Continent

I am currently reading a rather dismal book about the experience of Africa after it's independence from the various colonial powers of Europe. Africa is much worse than it was before independence in nearly every country (even Congo-Kinshasha, if that is possible). Besides this, I have taken some interest in the fact that China has blocked access to a blog from a teacher critical of the corruption of the Communist regime in China. What do these have to do with each other and with any lessons that we can use in our lives? Plenty.

First, the Chinese example. There is always a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line when it comes to freedoms. Even if one disagrees as to the extent of freedom of speech, press, and expression that should be allowed (and there is plenty of room where honest and decent people can disagree with these things), it is absolutely essential for the existence of a free society that people have the right to criticize their leaders enshrined with every protection possible. Why must one be so insistent about this right? Human leaders are fallible, and it is vital that their humanity be known, and that they be made accountable to the people they serve. Leaders can only be kept in check (and it is essential they be kept in check, for their own good, and much more for the good of the people) if they are exposed to the ugly, bitter truth every day of their lives. This is not pleasant, but truth telling is not a pleasant occupation. The Bible gives us the assurance that the truth will set us free--and it does set us free from any illusions as to our own righteous state (the truth does cut both ways, after all, exposing the truth about the critic as well as the criticized) as well as any illusions as to our superiority to anyone else. When a regime seeks to limit freedom of expression about its actions, it is absolutely certain that those tyrants are wicked beyond measure, and do not desire for their dark deeds to see the light of day.

What does this have to do with Africa, or with our lives today? When Africa became independent, these nations poor in education (except for a few standout groups such as the Ashante of Ghana and the Ibo of Nigeria) but rich in natural resources engaged on an experiment in socialism and one party rule where opposition was crushed, where corruption reigned supreme, and where rights were no more than the whims of petty dictators who enriched themselves while the people starved in fear. There were great theoretical comments about how democracy was "alien" and "inappropriate" for the situation of Africa, which demanded strong, hierarchial one-man rule that led to endless cronyism and corruption (if this government system sounds familiar to you, and you have lived in it, you know why it is so wicked--the truth satanic government is hierarchial government with one leader in charge of everything and a crowd of sycophantic courtiers around him). These leaders bought private jets for themselves, built mansions for themselves, lived the high life of jetsetting, cultural experiences, and hobnobbing with foreign leaders, while the common people got nothing. The end result in Africa has been, within two generations, the establishment of a continent without hope, unable to feed itself, dying of AIDS, riddled with crime and civil conflict, a continent that has been written off to the annals of everlasting despair and misery. It did not have to be this way, but the wickedness of Africa's leaders and the lack of education and righteous rebellion of the people of Africa have led to a situation that seems only salvageable by God Himself.

Does this have any impact on our lives? You bet. Contrary to the pronouncements of leaders who seek power and wealth and position for themselves, people are best served when they are free, and those who seek the best interests of the people they lead will not seek power for themselves. People are best served when they learn to be resopnsible for their own actions, and when they hone their own minds to properly divide right from wrong. This can only occur when people have no ability to abdicate that responsibility to leaders (something people are all too eager to do, because being a mature adult and making one's own decisions is a pretty scary thing). You see, the people of Africa are not too unlike us. The difference is that they had leaders who were all too willing to take power for themselves, and so the nations never lived responsibly, because their leaders behaved corruptly and behaved condescendingly to a people who desired to remain children. We must not allow that to happen to us. Whatever freedoms we possess can only be defended if we are brave, if we are willing to face danger, and if we are willing to stand up (alone if necessary) for our God-given rights. Churches, companies, and governments are all too eager to do our thinking for us, and to get us to abdicate our adult responsibilities by towing their line. We cannot let that happen, not if we wish to be free, or be pleasing to God our father, who desires godly offspring, capable of thinking wisely and independently.

Quite possibly, the best feast ever...

While I commented yesterday at length about the Feast of Tabernacles in my live journal blog (and do not wish to type for hours again about it here), I would like to comment that never have I needed a feast more like this one ever. Why is that you might ask?

This feast gave me the chance to do quite a few things that are unusual in my life. For one, I kept busy enough that I did not have the time to complain very much (except about the poor quality of food in Wildwood). That is not to say I could not have complained about things (especially the wind and the water when the Nor'easter hit, something elegantly mentioned in the AW entry about the Feast).

The reason for my bright spirits (no pun intended) during the Feast of Tabernacles this year was twofold, perhaps even threefold. This is true even though I was in rather poor spirits before the feast. The immediate problem of acute loneliness and boredom was dealt with quite excellently during the feast. This was the case because I was able to fellowship with old friends and new friends, something I often lack in my regular life. I don't know why I lack it in my regular life, but for whatever reason it is reather rare for me to actually spend free time around other people, even though I would really love to do so (it seems only a few of my friends in the area have an interest in socializing with me, however). That was not a problem in Wildwood, as I had a standing invitation to the Huttos (thanks you guys, I really appreciated) as well as frequent visits with some other friends of mine like the Jacques (fellow ABC alumni). I was also kept busy by serving, a very handy way to be too busy to complain (I hope this doesn't give any people some ideas)--as I was in the choir, the teen choir, and was an usher as well. One thing I lacked was sleep, and the ability to stay warm and dry outside. Oh well, I have a cold now to show for it.

That said, it was nice to be at a place where people came up to me (instead of having to always hunt them down to plan something, if I wanted any activity to occur at all). Suffice it to say that even though I am tired and very busy, I greatly appreciated the feast. The feast this year was even quite excellent as for spiritual food. Though many of the sermons were unconventional, to say the least, there was some excellent meat to be gleaned from many of them (I must single out Mr. Thompson for two particularly fine sermons and a great Bible study, as well as one really good message from Mr. Epps). As it stands, I have a sermonette to be writing right now, so I will bid adieu for today, and not leave this journal on the rather grim note of my last entry.

Whatever It Is, I Don't Want To Hear It

I had plenty of other things I wanted to comment on in this space, but like Jude, more pressing matters have prevented me from talking about my original subject in mind (which, in this case, was about knowing our enemy, the theme from services on Atonement here in Tampa). I am heading off to the Feast of Tabernacles in Wildwood, NJ, so I will be unable to update this website, or to reply to comments, in the next ten days. I hope all of my loyal (if silent) readers understand.

The more pressing subject that came up is an e-mail I received yesterday from an old crush of mine back in the days before 1995 named Christy. The last time I saw her was in that fateful year before going to United. She does not like her last name appearing, but is okay with her first name being used. So there. We had a pen-pal correspondence lasting beyond the last time we saw each other, but that stopped around 1997. Okay, so this girl who hasn't seen me in a decade and who I haven't heard from in eight years digs up my e-mail address to complain to me. And why does she complain to me? It's because I used her name in the forward to a play of mine that deals with childhood dreams called "The Virgin Prince." Nothing more about the title needs to be said here (I already commented about it in my other blog). Now, people complaining about what I write is not a new thing. I have been subjected to complaints about my writing for many years, though for good reason I have little other option than to remain writing (I'll try to explain that later, if I have time/energy/interest in avoiding packing for a long time). What makes it annoying, though, is that while people will move heaven and earth to try to find my contact info (which, admittedly, is not too difficult to find; I am a person easy to get in touch with) when they want to complain or threaten to kill/sue me, people seem to have little interest in going out of their way to compliment me, or keep in touch with me, or wish to spend time with me (as cranky and curmudgeonry as I must seem sometimes, I really do like being around people, at least when they are not making fun of me).

This sort of problem really gets on my nerves. I'd like to think I'm a rather approachable person, but I like to be approached about good things, not merely being taken to task for some real or imagined fault. Quite frankly, I get annoyed by being harassed and insulted all of the time (and I'm probably not alone in that either). I especially dislike being harassed about my writing. This matter, however, deserves some more explanation, and being a writer even more than a speaker, I will try to do this correctly, because the matter has been an issue for some time, and is not going away any time soon.

While I talk a lot, I have a difficult time talking about my feelings, or my deepest and most innermost concerns (and, as can be expected, there are many such things). Generally, by the time I actually talk about something (unless it is a matter of intellectual curiousity, in which case I will talk about it readily and without hesitation), it is a major issue. For whatever reason my feelings are beyond the limited capacity for my mouth to form words for. The same is true for requests. I have a really difficult time asking people to do anything. Now, writing a request is not that hard for me, and it is something I do quite frequently. But making a request in person vocally is extremely difficult, always has been, and probably always will be too.

The end result of my problems in speaking about those things that bother/worry/annoy/inspire me the most (whether in personal conversation or in public speaking, as much as people would wish to see me speak in a more emotional fashion) is that I have to write such things down. Throughout my heretofore short life, I have found many ways of writing down my feelings and keeping them from being too much of a burden on my slender frame. I keep a pen and paper diary (and have since October 7, 1995, there's that year again), as well as three internet blogs of varying degrees of updating (here on blogger, as well as on xanga and livejournal). Besides this, I have written plays, essays, letters, and poems (and the occasionally really awful short story) quite prolifically. However, writing down one's feelings because one is unable to say them is quite hazardous. This is because what is written down is a record against you. You can (usually) deny what you have said, or claim the words were heard wrong, but it is much harder to justify idle words one has written. Being the prolific writer I am, the amount of idle words I have written is quite simply staggering to the imagination. Lest you assume I am exaggerating on this count, I have written over 1000 poems, have written 22 volumes (mostly late at night or early in the morning) in a personal journal, have written hundreds of online poems, dozens of essays of various length, numerous personal letters I cannot even remember the contents of (most of them during my teenage years, when I was at my most incautious and flirtatious), as well as 58 plays of varying length, one over 200 pages long. This is besides any of the legion number of somewhat feisty e-mails I have tossed off, or posts on bulletin boards, or instant messenger conversations which could be used against me. This is a lot of idle speaking here (and I am fully aware of the biblical injunction against that, and rather chagrined by it as well).

However, rather than be driven mad by feelings I am unable to express, or deny the existence of what is deeply buried within this heart of mine, I will deal with it as best as I am able. However, I would like those who come across, either wittingly or unwittingly, that which I write to at least cut me some slack. I don't really try to annoy and aggrevate, or shock and appall, everyone else, it's just that I have a duty to God and myself to be honest about myself and about the world I live in (which is not always a happy or joyful place). And if I happen to speak a little more honestly about others than they are willing to listen to, just remember (if it helps) that I am vastly more unsparing towards myself than I am towards others. After all, whatever incriminating information I may write about someone else (and it comes up from time to time), I have written many times more incriminating information about myself. Okay, I think I've said enough for now.

On the death of PG-13 rated comedies...

Once upon a time, you could go to the movies, and find a decent (if somewhat cutesey) PG-13 related "family" comedy. For the most part (except for bad remakes and sequels) they have gone by the wayside, caught between the upper millstone of simon-pure family entertainment and the nether millstone of raunchy R-rated (or unrated) comedic movies that pull no punches and do not accept children under 17. As I thought about the movies I have seen recently, I realized that I have not seen a PG-13 rated movie since Star Wars, and that was hardly a comedy. Both Corpse Bride and March of the Penguins were both very family-friendly movies, and both The Forty Year Old Virgin and the Aristocrats were most definitely not.

Why has the PG-13 rated family comedy died? The same reason why the grays are disappearing all over the our world. PG-13 related comedies are often not that family friendly. Sure, they don't use too many swear words, or have graphic scenes of sex and violence, but their language is far from pure, there are often a lot of scenes showing disrespect to parents, sometimes even scatalogical (read: potty) humor. There are also large amounts of scantily clad women in such movies, doing enough to tease, but not enough to satisfy. Indeed, they are neither pure enough for the family crowed or raunchy enough for the "mature" crowed. And so PG-13 rated comedies are gradually being left by the wayside for either their cleaner or their dirtier cousins, both of whom are performing much better at the box office.

It is not only in the realm of movies, of course, that the middle ground is gradually disappearing in the face of assaults from both sides. The same is true with politics as well. But rather than talk about that, I'd like to talk about the randomness of the critiques of dating. I had been familiar with the critique of dating from the puritan crowd (Joshua Harris and company) for sometime, but I was just recently acquainted with the organized criticism of dating from the other side. I found it, at a site called www.catch27.com. This site contains large amounts of people of mostly loose morals (though not all fall into that category) and where people trade cards and look for random hookups. I need better friends--friends who don't invite me to such sites. *Sigh*. I'm really not into random hookups. I'm just not that kind of person. Of course, I'm not really satisfied with the solution of Joshua Harris, which sort of denies the ugly realities of trying to find someone to love. And I am never one deny reality, no matter how ugly.

There seems to be ever-dimishing room for such people as I, though. It is a most unsettling place to be, between Scylla and Charybdis, between those who shut their eyes to reality in order to avoid anything unpleasant, and those who relish in sin and debauchery. May there always be some room for sanity and candor and true (rather than self) righteousness in this world, even if that room is shrinking.

Everyone is justified in their own eyes...

I find it amusing, and sometimes irksome, to read the blogs of other people. I know, people probably feel the same way about reading mine. Blogs are a great way to blow off steam, like personal diaries, but unlike personal diaries, they are inherently public as a result of their being, well, online. Therefore, it's probably not a good idea to post something that one does not want read by a wide (and sometimes hostile) audience. That advice, like most good advice, is much easier given than followed. Thankfully, this will not be another rant on blogger ettiquite, because I'm really the wrong person to go on a high horse about politeness. I will leave that to others more qualified.

However, that was a lead in to what this entry is about, and that is the self-justication that people engage in on a daily, if not more frequent, basis. For better or worse, the internet has provided everyone the chance to be their own expert about whatever they want to talk about (an opprotunity I grasp personally with both hands). It also, though, allows people to be seen as they want to be seen, and sometimes, that isn't a pretty thing. It is this self-justification that I wish to speak about today, knowing full well that I am not immune to the charge either.

Recently, I read a blog entry in a livejournal blog written by the youngest son of a minister in United who is openly gay. Having written in the past (and probably in the future) for United's Anchor magazine, the real sin I am commenting about is not his aberrant attraction (which, like any sinful pull, must be resisted by the Christian). What is to be criticised though, no less because it is so common, is the self-justification by which everyone excuses their own sins while blasting others for theirs. Every man is right in his own eyes, as it were. The blogger in question accuses his father of spousal abuse (a serious, if not uncommon, accusation, and one that often plagues divorced couples, even my own parents). He (the young man) uses this case of being a bad husband to justify his own sin, that is, seeking a good husband for himself.

Then all the other classic forms of self-justification come in. After the comparison of one's own virtuous (?!) behavior with the self-righteous and hypocritical judgments of others, there follows other rather standard ploys. There is the adamant refusal to admit that one's own personal sin is, in fact, wrong. There is the comparison of a hypothetical value of one's own supposed sin with the large value of someone else's known sin. There is the claim that the support one receives from others is bona fide acceptance of all areas of conduct, and as proof that a certain action is not wrong. There is usually some sort of biological or environmental justification for the behavior that reduces one's own personal responsibility for the actions that result. Anything that would attempt to create any pangs of conscience over the action must be explained away, either by selective definition of terms, or by a rigid adherence to cultural context at the expense of transcendent and eternal standards of righteousness. To put it more simply, "that's just what people thought at the time."

With the rise of the blog, this sort of self-justification has reached a whole new standard of ubiquity. The blog is an easy way to quickly (unless one decides to type long rants, as I am often guilty of doing) toss off one's thoughts, often without concern for grammatical correctness or flow. The main goal is to toss off one's own personal thoughts as truth, making us all our own authorities, and publishing our own thoughts to a candid, and hopefully favorable world. If all else fails, and our blogs receive too much bad press (and not enough support), there is always the expedient of making the blog a private one, and thus limiting the right to read and review to those who we know to be in favor of what we say. Anything is acceptable in order to support our own fervent belief in the righteousness of our behavior and conduct. All of those who attack us must be discredited by pointing to their own sins, and all of our mistakes must be explained away so that we are not responsible.

There is one advantage to the fact that this sort of behavior (which always existed, formerly in more private media, is now in public. This means that one's behavior is more transparent than ever before. With the multiplication of our own words, it has become all the more simple to compare one's words with one's actions, to record idle words slipping out (that happens all too often for me at least) and to point where people need to improve. It also allows people the opportunity to form their thoughts with some knowledge of where they are likely to find support, and where they are likely to find criticism. For those who are not scared into the shell of "private" posts by the feedback, it is an opportunity to make one's reasoning stronger, to make one's speech (and really, blogging is more like speech than like writing) more careful and better thought out, and to make one's skin at least a little tougher and thicker. These need not be bad, but they depend on refusing to merely use this beautiful medium of the blog as an instrument of self-justification, but rather as an opprotunity for reflection, and an opportunity for others to reflect on your thoughts as well.

Rafael Palmeiro, the Rat Fink

I first heard of Rafael Palmeiro (hereafter referred to as RP) several years ago, when the graying slugger starred in ads for Viagra. I was a bit puzzled, to say the least, because most men, even in their 30's, should not suffer from ED (if you don't know what that is, you don't watch enough television, and may not even know who RP is). However, ED is a noted side effect of steroids. It's one thing for Bob Dole to market Viagra--he's an old man, and obviously not a 'roid head. Palmeiro, though, is a slugger, a homerun hitter, and anyone who can hit home runs (whether they admit it, are caught inflgrante, or deny it on their mothers' graves) has been under suspicion for steroids.

Rafael Palmeiro, however, spent his career largely under the radar. Despite reasonably decent career totals (3020 hits, 1663 runs, 1835 rbis, 569 home runs, and a lifetime obp of .371 and a lifetime hitting average of .288), he has been noted more for a consistent, if unspectacular career rather than as a superstar. In other words, he's no Barry Bonds. But RP, to his lifelong shame, became a superstar thanks to some choice words he made in a very public forum. You see, RP, who at the time was trying to join the 3000 hit club, and solidify his credentials for the Baseball Hall of Fame, was called to Congress to testify about steriods. While the other players hemmed and hawed (including McGuire, a confessed user of (legal, at the time) supplements during his home run hitting days), and while Conseco faced the fallout from his tell-almost-all book about his own flagrant steriod use, RP boldly called out to the naysayers, "I have never used steriods." He would later (not too much later, either) live to regret those words.

You see, as was discovered later, around the time he spoke to Congress, RP already had a failed test result for stanozolol, one of the stronger steriods out there, and one that is not found in any of the usually blamed over-the-counter supplements. He gamely fought through injury, and mounting scepticism, all the while appealing the ten day suspension he knew was coming. Does anything get more hypocritical than that? It does. After RP's test comes out, all those words come back to haunt him, as he slightly changes his tune and tries to go back into the privacy he played in for so many years. Too late.

The fallout was bad enough. He suffered irreparable harm to his reputation, probably lost his chance at induction into the Hall of Fame (unless it is kinder to 'roidheads than other cheaters). His testimony is also being called into question on account of purjury, something previous holders of the White House are a little familiar with as well. Well, it gets better. Apparently, in his attempts to appeal his suspension, RP turned in a teammate as the supplier of the 'riods. In baseball, it doesn't get any lower than that. There is a sort of honor code among thieves. If you get caught, make up some lame excuse and take the rap for yourself. Enough people probably do steriods and supply other players that an honor code is necessary to keep the lid on scandal, as much as possible. Now Baltimore is talking about shutting down RP for the rest of the season. At least someone has now learned that crime doesn't pay, and that no one likes a fink.