Now, this particular blog (which has an alarmingly large reading audience, from what I could gather last weekend while I was on a Caribbean cruise) normally has a bit of a biting edge. However, I would like to use today's entry to show some appreciation to bloggers for freedom in totalitarian societies. Those of us who, like myself, grew up in free societies may often take for granted that we have the right in this country to spout off about just about anything we want to without fear of official persecution. People may not like what we have to say, but beyond harassment and verbal abuse, and the occasional lawsuit (none of those yet, *crosses fingers*) there is little they can do about it thanks to the First Amendment.
Most societies around the world, including those who have the most to hide (more on that later) are not so free. While there are many people who wish to take their leaders to task and hold them accountable for their actions (a noble, God-ordained task), some people must suffer more for their bravery and pluck than others. Some people risk death, torture, exile, and imprisonment and impovershment in order to speak the truth. These brave bloggers can be found in such corrupt societies as China, Iran, and Syria, among others. These people deserve our most profound thanks, as they live up to the high standards of morality for a free people without themselves being free. They shine a candle in the darkness in defiance against tyranny, and are worthy of our support for their attempts to bring the dark deeds of their wicked rulers into the harsh light of day. We who live in much more just socities often forget that the reason we have freedoms is for moral ends--even if those who are the most stringent in defending those freedoms are often themselves highly immoral and have rather ulterior motives for thier stands.
Technology is neither good nor evil. The same advances that allow these brave activists for democracy in benighted areas of the globe to reach a world audience (this would be termed a moral use of technology) also allow for greater immorality, such as the recent actions by google in allowing the Chinese government to block sites considered unfriendly to their wicked government, and in their allowing for US federal serveilence over certain web searches, a major breach of the privacy rights of American citizens. We must be ever vigilent on guard against the siren call of paternalistic and over-intrusive government seeking to make slaves of the people. After all, the people are supposed to be the masters of their leaders, not the other way around, according to the clear Word of God (see Matthew 20:26-28, Deuteronomy 17:6-14, Ezekiel 31, among other places).
Indeed, those societies (whether they be organizational or governmental or what) which seek to most stringently restrict the freedom of speech have the most to hide themselves. Those whose works are corrupt do not wish to have their works open to the scrutiny of other people. Those who have nothing to hide have no fear of their words and actions being open to the eyes of a candid world. Therefore, even without evidence, a heavy presumption of guilt of some kind must go to those who wish to avoid accountability. After all, if people are discharging their leadership duties effectively and in accordance with the laws of God and man, then they should welcome the investigation of others, because it would vindicate their good deeds. It is only those whose actions are corrupt and evil that would wish to prevent others from making a full discovery and disclosure of those deeds. We are all sinners, to be sure, so any investigation of our deeds will uncover some matters we would rather not admit. However, those who are righteous will admit their faults candidly. Those administrations which close off records of their deeds are the worst of hypocrites, being aware of their sin but refusing to admit it or repent of it.
So, for these reasons we must salute those who expose the wicked deeds of leaders who deny the truth and live a lie. We must have no corrupt communication in our behavior, realizing that the truth sets us free from the shakles of slavery to personalities and sin. It is selom popular to speak the truth, but in some countries it is extremely dangerous. So, for those who face official persecution for their truthtelling deeds, I offer my sincere praise and any support such that my words and deeds can provide to those who struggle valiently against the darkness.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Reflections on the Death of an Old Tyrant, 20 Years Later
In my play "None Dare Call It Treason," the action begins with the death of the "Old Man," a tyrant whose death ushers a great deal of chaos and misrule into the land of Cog. In real life, this particular man, by the name of Herbert W. Armstrong, died on January 16, 1986, when I was (to the day) four and a half years of age. As such, at the outset I must say that I did not know the man myself at all, but rather my view of him reflects a second hand understanding of those virtues of his that many vociferously claim as well as those faults of his that others just as loudly proclaim.
Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).
The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).
There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.
It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.
HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.
Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).
The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).
There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.
It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.
HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.
Our Nation's Favorite Plagiarist Day
This is the first of two rants of the day. Consider it a 2 for 1 special. Today is MLK, a day in honor of a man whose work was nearly completely fraudulent, whose personal life was an insult to Christian morals, whose political behavior was (to put it mildly) highly shady, and who nonetheless commands a ridiculous degree of near-total adulation. In my role as the unpleasant truth teller (not because I am unpleasant, but because I deal in unpleasant truths), it is my responsibility to, in a small way at least, look at some of the reasons why MLK should not be the celebrated person he is, even for those of us who (like myself) are against the evils of racism in whatever form they appear. After that we will discuss some personal views of mine about MLK and how he has appeared in my own personal literature.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).
But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.
Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.
No Reverend At All
MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.
What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.
Political Machinations
MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.
The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.
Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.
MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright
I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).
But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.
Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.
No Reverend At All
MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.
What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.
Political Machinations
MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.
The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.
Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.
MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright
I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A Case of Mistaken Identity
As I rest this Sabbath day, I am pondering two cases of mistaken identity. In order to protect the innocent (or guilty) I will only use first and last initials. These stories have been relatively amusing, but are quite intriguing and both relate to spiritual issues, and people in the United Church of God, ironically enough (both of them, as well as myself, have ABC connections, to make things even more coincidental). So, without any (further) ado, here are the cases of humorous and occasionally frustrating mistaken identity.
Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother
A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.
Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy
Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And with that, I bid adieu.
Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother
A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.
Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy
Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And with that, I bid adieu.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
We Are The Normal
I don't know how many people are enthusiastic about the New Horizons mission, which is supposed to arrive at Pluto in about nine years to begin exploring the Kuiper belt, where Pluto resides. Of the nine major planets (and scientists differ strongly whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not, though I firmly support its status), Pluto is the only one that has not been explored yet.
Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.
Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.
Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.
So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.
Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.
Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.
Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.
So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Some Guys Have All The Luck
As bad as my end of 2005 was (for reasons of family health problems), I cannot imagine someone who ended 2005 and began 2006 with as many self-inflicted problems as a certain Marcus Vick, former quarterback for the Virginia Tech Hokies, and younger brother of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. How bad has the last month gone? Let's see:
December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm
Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.
So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.
December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm
Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.
So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
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.
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.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
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.
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.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
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.
http://blowthetrumpet.blogspot.com/
Okay, plug over. Carry on.
Friday, December 09, 2005
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...
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...
Friday, December 02, 2005
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...
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...
Sunday, November 27, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, November 21, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Friday, November 18, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, November 14, 2005
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...
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...
Friday, November 11, 2005
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).
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).
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, November 07, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
