I'm tired of writing about Backtrack Oblahblah, but nothing else really comes to mind, so I've dug up some of my poetry.
My Fish is Swimming Upside Down
My fish is swimming upside down
And bumping into stuff.
He is my fav'rite goldfish
But this has gone on long enough!
I think maybe he's just tired
From swimming ev'ry day.
I let him sleep with me last night,
And hoped he'd be okay.
I think my fish went right to sleep
Though it's pretty hard to know.
Fishies never close their eyes
So when they sleep it doesn't show.
When I got up this morning
I put him in his tank.
When mommy changed my covers,
She said my pillow stank.
Now my fish is mostly floating
As he bobs from side to side.
Still he's quite a friendly goldfish
And he gives a snail a ride.
Daddy's looking at my goldfish.
He's got a funny frown.
Now he pats me on the shoulder
And he says, "Come here, sit down."
He sets me up upon his knee,
And he says it's okay to cry.
He says, "For everything their comes,
A time to say goodbye."
He tells me lots of other things
That I don't understand.
But it doesn't really matter,
Cause my my daddy held my hand.
Still at first I didn't like it
But dad knew what to do.
So when it's time to go to Heaven,
I hope someone will flush me too.
-- Capertree
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Is It Truly That Hard to Stop Smoking?
I’d been puffing away for the past 13 or so years — probably up to a pack and half per day. About 12 days ago, I decided to quit. No great revelation led to my decision nor was I persuaded to give up cigarettes by friends, family, or some random public service message. I was nearly out of cigarettes and had a dentist appointment the next day. Since I was getting my teeth cleaned, I figured I could help keep them that way if I stopped smoking.
I’ve had one lapse. The evening that I officially stopped, I had three cigarettes left. About four days later — about two-thirds of the way through ten hours of boring newsletter editing — I gave in and smoked one of those three remaining cigarettes. Then I destroyed the other two.
The addiction part has been less difficult for me to get over than the habit. There was some irritability during the first few days and some unusual restlessness, but with the exception of that one instance, I haven’t been exactly climbing the walls in desperation. What has been most stressful is missing the ritual of lighting up. I find myself looking for my ash tray when I sit my favorite chair. Or when I’m writing, I keep wanting a cigarette because that was how I worked. (Even though frequently a cigarette could end up becoming just one long ash if I was really into what ever I was doing.) I also miss having a cigarette after a meal or when I conclude some project or activity. That desire is becoming less pronounced with each passing day, and now I can’t imagine buying any more cigarettes.
To be honest — given the great pain and suffering I was led to believe would descend upon me — I’m most surprised at how easily I’ve stopped.
(My dad smoked heavily for about 50 years then he decided to quit cold turkey. His method was keeping a pack in his shirt pocket, but whenever he felt the urge, he would “put off” smoking for a little while. Thus, he kept putting it off until he didn’t want a cigarette anymore.)
I think a big problem is that there’s not very many people with a vested interest in saying it’s not that hard to quit. Makers of smoking cessation products (i.e. nicotine patches, gum, etc.) need you to believe it will be difficult to stop so you’ll buy whatever they’re selling. Tobacco companies can strategically appear to support smoking cessation programs, but by hyping how hard it is to quit, they may actually be discouraging their customers from trying. Government agencies and other do-gooder types aren’t ever going to be happy unless they can convince all of us we’re hopeless incompetents who really shouldn’t be trusted to tie our own shoe laces. Their constant message is “life is hard and scary, and you need professional (or government) help to make it through."
As for the people who stop smoking? What’s the incentive in saying it’s easy? People congratulate you for quitting. Friends and family are supportive. If you’re rude to someone, you can blame it on nicotine withdrawal. You can eat more … because everyone knows quitting cigarettes leads to weight gain.
Most importantly, if you fail at quitting … well, you know, “it’s very, very hard to quit.”
I’m thinking though, it we really wanted people to quit smoking we’d stop saying how hard it is. Rather than fawning all over the person who decides to stop, we should note that only a weak and pathetic loser would give in to such an illogical temptation.
I know it sounds a bit cruel. But really, if you lead people to expect failure, you end up getting it a lot more often than you should.
Still, if anyone wants to congratulate me, go ahead. I really won’t mind.
I’ve had one lapse. The evening that I officially stopped, I had three cigarettes left. About four days later — about two-thirds of the way through ten hours of boring newsletter editing — I gave in and smoked one of those three remaining cigarettes. Then I destroyed the other two.
The addiction part has been less difficult for me to get over than the habit. There was some irritability during the first few days and some unusual restlessness, but with the exception of that one instance, I haven’t been exactly climbing the walls in desperation. What has been most stressful is missing the ritual of lighting up. I find myself looking for my ash tray when I sit my favorite chair. Or when I’m writing, I keep wanting a cigarette because that was how I worked. (Even though frequently a cigarette could end up becoming just one long ash if I was really into what ever I was doing.) I also miss having a cigarette after a meal or when I conclude some project or activity. That desire is becoming less pronounced with each passing day, and now I can’t imagine buying any more cigarettes.
To be honest — given the great pain and suffering I was led to believe would descend upon me — I’m most surprised at how easily I’ve stopped.
(My dad smoked heavily for about 50 years then he decided to quit cold turkey. His method was keeping a pack in his shirt pocket, but whenever he felt the urge, he would “put off” smoking for a little while. Thus, he kept putting it off until he didn’t want a cigarette anymore.)
I think a big problem is that there’s not very many people with a vested interest in saying it’s not that hard to quit. Makers of smoking cessation products (i.e. nicotine patches, gum, etc.) need you to believe it will be difficult to stop so you’ll buy whatever they’re selling. Tobacco companies can strategically appear to support smoking cessation programs, but by hyping how hard it is to quit, they may actually be discouraging their customers from trying. Government agencies and other do-gooder types aren’t ever going to be happy unless they can convince all of us we’re hopeless incompetents who really shouldn’t be trusted to tie our own shoe laces. Their constant message is “life is hard and scary, and you need professional (or government) help to make it through."
As for the people who stop smoking? What’s the incentive in saying it’s easy? People congratulate you for quitting. Friends and family are supportive. If you’re rude to someone, you can blame it on nicotine withdrawal. You can eat more … because everyone knows quitting cigarettes leads to weight gain.
Most importantly, if you fail at quitting … well, you know, “it’s very, very hard to quit.”
I’m thinking though, it we really wanted people to quit smoking we’d stop saying how hard it is. Rather than fawning all over the person who decides to stop, we should note that only a weak and pathetic loser would give in to such an illogical temptation.
I know it sounds a bit cruel. But really, if you lead people to expect failure, you end up getting it a lot more often than you should.
Still, if anyone wants to congratulate me, go ahead. I really won’t mind.
Monday, June 16, 2008
The Plus One Factor
I am tired of writing about (against) Barack Obama. So today, I’ve decided to post my “mathematical formula” proving the existence of God.
This is probably ridiculous since I only passed Algebra I in high school (on my second attempt) because I made the teacher laugh. But if you can follow along my thought process, you may find this interesting. And if you can point out where my theory is obviously BS, please let me know.
Otherwise, enjoy your impending headache.
We could express this opposite "ends" of the number line like this:
-∞ and ∞
All other numbers (x) fall in between these opposing expressions which could be expressed like this:
-∞ < x< ∞
More importantly, (and I don’t know how to express this) the relative value of x compared with -∞ is infinitely "greater than." And in this the equation, the relative value of x compared to ∞ is infinitely "less than."
Therefore the relative value of x is both -∞ AND ∞. The two simultaneous values cancel each other out, leaving a relative value of zero. (The same could be said for both ends of the spectrum in relation to each other.)
Though we're considering the number line in this equation, the equation holds for any thing in the universe which could in any way be measured (by weight, volume, mass, length … etc.). Regardless of how large something is, you could imagine it being larger. At the same time, no matter how small something is, you could imagine it being smaller. (Simply think half the size, or twice as big.) This puts anything that one can measure in the same predicament as x on the number line — that is relatively "infinitely larger than" or "relatively infinitely smaller than" and thus having an overall relative value of zero.
So everything in the universe has a relative value of zero next to a value that is, itself also zero. It follows logically then that nothing in the universe exists!
However, it's clear to me (at least) that in what we take for the physical world, something does exist.
Thus, there must be some value outside the universe that gives all things reality, that --- by its presence in our net zero universe --- brings all things into existence. I call this the +1 Factor.
God.
This is probably ridiculous since I only passed Algebra I in high school (on my second attempt) because I made the teacher laugh. But if you can follow along my thought process, you may find this interesting. And if you can point out where my theory is obviously BS, please let me know.
Otherwise, enjoy your impending headache.
The Theory
The number line is infinite — both as positive and negative integers.We could express this opposite "ends" of the number line like this:
-∞ and ∞
All other numbers (x) fall in between these opposing expressions which could be expressed like this:
-∞ < x< ∞
More importantly, (and I don’t know how to express this) the relative value of x compared with -∞ is infinitely "greater than." And in this the equation, the relative value of x compared to ∞ is infinitely "less than."
Therefore the relative value of x is both -∞ AND ∞. The two simultaneous values cancel each other out, leaving a relative value of zero. (The same could be said for both ends of the spectrum in relation to each other.)
Though we're considering the number line in this equation, the equation holds for any thing in the universe which could in any way be measured (by weight, volume, mass, length … etc.). Regardless of how large something is, you could imagine it being larger. At the same time, no matter how small something is, you could imagine it being smaller. (Simply think half the size, or twice as big.) This puts anything that one can measure in the same predicament as x on the number line — that is relatively "infinitely larger than" or "relatively infinitely smaller than" and thus having an overall relative value of zero.
So everything in the universe has a relative value of zero next to a value that is, itself also zero. It follows logically then that nothing in the universe exists!
However, it's clear to me (at least) that in what we take for the physical world, something does exist.
Thus, there must be some value outside the universe that gives all things reality, that --- by its presence in our net zero universe --- brings all things into existence. I call this the +1 Factor.
God.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Stop Climate Change: Let’s Stay with Spring!
The effects of global warming are undeniable. Just three months ago, I could walk a mile or so to the nearby CVS Pharmacy for a carton of cigarettes and barely break into a sweat. Normally I drink diet cola exclusively, but after the trek today I came home soaked with perspiration, gasping for air and actually craving water. Bleeggh!
I guess it’s my own fault. I was one of those Floridians who mastered the difficult task of casting a ballot to help give George W. Bush his 517-vote margin of victory here in 2000. Gosh, if only the Democrats on the Florida State Supreme Court had been successful in achieving a count they liked, it wouldn’t be getting warm in June.
Yeah, I know 1998 was more of a scorcher, but that doesn’t count because Bill Clinton was president. And most of that heat was generated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal anyway (which, as everybody knows, was a Republican-orchestrated circus). And yes, 1998 was tied by 1934 but hello? … FDR.
Still it remains a fact that the temperature has skyrocketed an astronomical one degree Fahrenheit globally during the past 120 years or so. A few dips and rises along the way, sure, but overall it’s still about a whole degree hotter (or almost back up to where it was 74 years ago). And when you eliminate the sun as a potential source of heat for the Earth, maybe 0.05 of that one degree is attributable to non water vapor greenhouse gases — some of which are produced by people. It’s outrageous that after two terms in office, George Bush has done nothing to get us back to the really cool Nixon-Carter years. Deny that, dammit!
Of course, global warming is only part of the problem … especially since we’re currently in Year 10 of a suspected global cooling cycle. (We may want to hold off on publicizing this until a Democrat becomes president.) Rest assured it will be much, much hotter again, probably in about 20 years (or about the time the GOP finds its way back from the wilderness). Today the preferred term for impending doom is “climate change.”
And climate change is going to continue unabated unless we Americans renounce our sinful ways. No more air conditioners, no more cars, no more light bulbs that produce light. Unless we change, you can count on fall, winter, spring and summer giving us rain, snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts (thaws and freezes and big gusty breezes!). It’s all going to take place somewhere — like it’s never happened before.
So act now to stop the seasons, vote Obama08!
Note: I didn’t bother sourcing my facts because I’m lazy, not because they aren’t true. Just take my word that I’ve done some research and reached a consensus. Plus, I used a computer to write this. End of debate.
I guess it’s my own fault. I was one of those Floridians who mastered the difficult task of casting a ballot to help give George W. Bush his 517-vote margin of victory here in 2000. Gosh, if only the Democrats on the Florida State Supreme Court had been successful in achieving a count they liked, it wouldn’t be getting warm in June.
Yeah, I know 1998 was more of a scorcher, but that doesn’t count because Bill Clinton was president. And most of that heat was generated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal anyway (which, as everybody knows, was a Republican-orchestrated circus). And yes, 1998 was tied by 1934 but hello? … FDR.
Still it remains a fact that the temperature has skyrocketed an astronomical one degree Fahrenheit globally during the past 120 years or so. A few dips and rises along the way, sure, but overall it’s still about a whole degree hotter (or almost back up to where it was 74 years ago). And when you eliminate the sun as a potential source of heat for the Earth, maybe 0.05 of that one degree is attributable to non water vapor greenhouse gases — some of which are produced by people. It’s outrageous that after two terms in office, George Bush has done nothing to get us back to the really cool Nixon-Carter years. Deny that, dammit!
Of course, global warming is only part of the problem … especially since we’re currently in Year 10 of a suspected global cooling cycle. (We may want to hold off on publicizing this until a Democrat becomes president.) Rest assured it will be much, much hotter again, probably in about 20 years (or about the time the GOP finds its way back from the wilderness). Today the preferred term for impending doom is “climate change.”
And climate change is going to continue unabated unless we Americans renounce our sinful ways. No more air conditioners, no more cars, no more light bulbs that produce light. Unless we change, you can count on fall, winter, spring and summer giving us rain, snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts (thaws and freezes and big gusty breezes!). It’s all going to take place somewhere — like it’s never happened before.
So act now to stop the seasons, vote Obama08!
Note: I didn’t bother sourcing my facts because I’m lazy, not because they aren’t true. Just take my word that I’ve done some research and reached a consensus. Plus, I used a computer to write this. End of debate.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
I Won't be Going for this 'Strain'
I first became impressed with Michael Crichton as a novelist after reading Andromeda Strain sometime in the early 1980s. I remember that I bought the paperback at a used book store in Auburn while I was in college. I didn't have cable so I read a lot more back then.
In short, the sci-fi novel is about an alien microbe that comes to Earth as a highly deadly and rapidly spreading virus. What I liked about Andromeda Strain, as well as subsequent Crichton books that I've read (The Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, State of Fear), is the level of scientific knowledge woven into this author's stories. In addition to a getting a good tale, I learn things.
A few years later when I finally got cable, I saw the movie adaptation of Andromeda Strain. (Sometimes I'll watch a movie version even after reading the book, but never the other way around.) I guess it was filmed sometime around the mid 1970s ... I could look it up, but don't feel like it. I thought the movie was pretty good, though not great. The nitty-gritty of the "science stuff" just doesn't translate very well to film. But there was something about the movie that I found very refreshing: there were no hot babes or hunky guys.
If I remember correctly, there was a core group of about five scientists and only one of whom was a woman. She was overweight, wore horn-rimmed black glasses and was probably in her early 60s. The guys were all average looking, down to David Wayne (the only actor whose name I know). Wayne was probably in his 60s as well, and I doubt he was ever considered a classic leading man. They were what "real people" look like.
I been catching promos lately for a re-make of the movie to be aired on A&E sometime soon --- maybe this weekend. Sure enough, it seems the new version will be going for the GQ meets Cover Girl look when it comes to casting a majority of their roles.
Last night I watched a horror film where the main character was an alcoholic sheriff. Think of a boozehound sheriff and you might think of Robert Mitchum or Dean Martin in a couple of westerns with John Wayne. (There were two John Wayne movies that were essentially the same film, just different actors and a different title --- neither of which I remember.) Maybe Mitchum and Martin cleaned up pretty well, but they were far from glamorous in those films. They looked liked you'd expect alcoholic sheriffs to look.
Not true of the "hot young chick" in the film I saw last night and I found the casting to be ridiculous --- way more unbelievable than a 900 year-old Aliens-ripoff monster killing everyone in a conveniently isolated tiny Southwestern town.
I won't be watching the latest version of the Andromeda Strain, though I'm sure the special effects will be much better. I feel I owe some loyalty to the fat old lady scientist in the first film ... as well as the legions of not-so-attractive folks who do most of the work in the real world, leaving entertainment fluff to the beautiful people.
In short, the sci-fi novel is about an alien microbe that comes to Earth as a highly deadly and rapidly spreading virus. What I liked about Andromeda Strain, as well as subsequent Crichton books that I've read (The Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, State of Fear), is the level of scientific knowledge woven into this author's stories. In addition to a getting a good tale, I learn things.
A few years later when I finally got cable, I saw the movie adaptation of Andromeda Strain. (Sometimes I'll watch a movie version even after reading the book, but never the other way around.) I guess it was filmed sometime around the mid 1970s ... I could look it up, but don't feel like it. I thought the movie was pretty good, though not great. The nitty-gritty of the "science stuff" just doesn't translate very well to film. But there was something about the movie that I found very refreshing: there were no hot babes or hunky guys.
If I remember correctly, there was a core group of about five scientists and only one of whom was a woman. She was overweight, wore horn-rimmed black glasses and was probably in her early 60s. The guys were all average looking, down to David Wayne (the only actor whose name I know). Wayne was probably in his 60s as well, and I doubt he was ever considered a classic leading man. They were what "real people" look like.
I been catching promos lately for a re-make of the movie to be aired on A&E sometime soon --- maybe this weekend. Sure enough, it seems the new version will be going for the GQ meets Cover Girl look when it comes to casting a majority of their roles.
Last night I watched a horror film where the main character was an alcoholic sheriff. Think of a boozehound sheriff and you might think of Robert Mitchum or Dean Martin in a couple of westerns with John Wayne. (There were two John Wayne movies that were essentially the same film, just different actors and a different title --- neither of which I remember.) Maybe Mitchum and Martin cleaned up pretty well, but they were far from glamorous in those films. They looked liked you'd expect alcoholic sheriffs to look.
Not true of the "hot young chick" in the film I saw last night and I found the casting to be ridiculous --- way more unbelievable than a 900 year-old Aliens-ripoff monster killing everyone in a conveniently isolated tiny Southwestern town.
I won't be watching the latest version of the Andromeda Strain, though I'm sure the special effects will be much better. I feel I owe some loyalty to the fat old lady scientist in the first film ... as well as the legions of not-so-attractive folks who do most of the work in the real world, leaving entertainment fluff to the beautiful people.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
What's that song about?
One of my favorite musical artists is Enya. She is an astonishing talent: a lovely vocalist and amazing muscian (she composes and plays all the instruments on her albums).
She sings in English, Gaelic and sometimes Latin.
When I hear one of her songs in a language I don't understand, I usually imagine I have a sense of what she is singing about ... with mixed success. There was one, entitled Smaoinim that I pretty well pegged as being about someone dying. Another one, called Ebudae, I thought was a song about going into battle, but instead it was about washing clothes. Eh, win some, you lose some.
Muzak is like hearing a song in a foreign language, except the words have been replaced by notes played on a musical instrument.
Now, have you ever noticed how many truly good people aren't affiliated with any religious faith? Some of them are atheists.
It is my belief that such people "hear" the music but not the words. They're listening to heavenly Muzak. And I think the tune they're hearing is beautiful enough to affect their whole outlook on life.
But they're missing the words. To a certain extent we all do ... so we make up some to fill in the gaps. So while it's nice to have so many music lovers, I do think we often have too many people just humming or possibly thinking about fighting when they should be more concerned with the wash. (If you've read some of my other posts, you'll see I'm consistently guilty of this.)
To get the words right, you really need to get in touch with the Composer. Of course, before you do that, you have to acknowledge that there is one.
She sings in English, Gaelic and sometimes Latin.
When I hear one of her songs in a language I don't understand, I usually imagine I have a sense of what she is singing about ... with mixed success. There was one, entitled Smaoinim that I pretty well pegged as being about someone dying. Another one, called Ebudae, I thought was a song about going into battle, but instead it was about washing clothes. Eh, win some, you lose some.
Muzak is like hearing a song in a foreign language, except the words have been replaced by notes played on a musical instrument.
Now, have you ever noticed how many truly good people aren't affiliated with any religious faith? Some of them are atheists.
It is my belief that such people "hear" the music but not the words. They're listening to heavenly Muzak. And I think the tune they're hearing is beautiful enough to affect their whole outlook on life.
But they're missing the words. To a certain extent we all do ... so we make up some to fill in the gaps. So while it's nice to have so many music lovers, I do think we often have too many people just humming or possibly thinking about fighting when they should be more concerned with the wash. (If you've read some of my other posts, you'll see I'm consistently guilty of this.)
To get the words right, you really need to get in touch with the Composer. Of course, before you do that, you have to acknowledge that there is one.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Evil's Purpose
Humans are the only creatures on earth capable of imagining a Perfect Existence — our primary desire.
From an individual’s perspective, a perfect existence would be one where he has authority to establish Order by controlling all things (with obedience to nothing) and in turn having every wish (of his own choosing) gratified.
There are two components in the quest for absolute gratification: Liberty and Order. The vast majority of people grudgingly go along that Perfect Existence is not possible in the physical world. Because we are not alone, most of us understand we must compromise some aspects of the Liberty and Order components. Liberty becomes the province of Self, whereas Order is that which is imposed. Because we are simultaneously ourselves and the imposed upon, we seek a comfortable balance between freedom and security. This is the Great Compromise, and also, I believe, the practical essence of the "Golden Rule."
Rational people, accepting that Perfect Existence is beyond human capabilities, therefore seek the Perfect Balance between Liberty and Order. Establishing the parameters of such a balance is itself, establishing Order, yet this Order ideally preserves a significant amount of Liberty.
Depending on their circumstances, experiences, and instruction, individuals have different assessments of where the balance between Order and Liberty should be struck. To the extent that we feel secure or are confident in our abilities to resist chaos, the more we lean toward the Liberty side. The weaker or more threatened that we feel, the more attractive imposed Order becomes.
The lure of Perfect Existence, however, remains at the core of our being. It is a temptation to go to political extremes in search of Liberty or Order, so that one can achieve the other extreme as well. We can see examples of the latter in the form of robber barons who oppose regulation or laws in order to become “king of the jungle” and ultimately “buy happiness.” The other is the despot who runs the strictest police state, but he indulges in every whim. For both parties, the greater their success, the more they come to resemble one another.
Perfect Existence is attainable, but only through complete subjugation of self to God. In surrendering to God, union of our spirits takes place. Being one with God, we have ultimate liberty, and have achieved eternal, immutable perfect order. This is the Holy incarnation of the Primary Desire. Unfortunately it is the false version that most often motivates us.
There are two evils. The First is the desire to establish order for self aggrandizement. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14 (King James Version). It is the pursuit of the Primary Desire ... but without God.
The Second Evil is subjugation of self to Order that is not God. Not knowing God, and out of hopelessness and despair, we might place our faith in anything other than ourselves; viewing ourselves as essentially worthless. We have seen the effects of extreme subjugation demonstrated by people who commit atrocities only because they were instructed to do so. Or it may be seen in given one’s self over to the rule of drugs.
In this world, there is a sublime dynamic at work in that the First Evil is at war with the Second. Tyrants fall because inevitably abject subjugation becomes too much for the individual to bear — self interest drives rebellion.
Conversely, even the most seemingly utopian society will crumble, as some individuals come to desire more for themselves than others. And this should not be regarded as a loss. Perfect Existence, apart from God is The Great Lie. The failure to build our own Garden of Eden, as well as the fall of the most brutal dictators, brings us back to reality.
For temporal world, the twin evils of Selfishness and Subjugation to unholy authority drive us back to the Great Compromise.
And for the eternal world, the competition of evils is the mechanism drives us to seek God’s Kingdom.
From an individual’s perspective, a perfect existence would be one where he has authority to establish Order by controlling all things (with obedience to nothing) and in turn having every wish (of his own choosing) gratified.
There are two components in the quest for absolute gratification: Liberty and Order. The vast majority of people grudgingly go along that Perfect Existence is not possible in the physical world. Because we are not alone, most of us understand we must compromise some aspects of the Liberty and Order components. Liberty becomes the province of Self, whereas Order is that which is imposed. Because we are simultaneously ourselves and the imposed upon, we seek a comfortable balance between freedom and security. This is the Great Compromise, and also, I believe, the practical essence of the "Golden Rule."
Rational people, accepting that Perfect Existence is beyond human capabilities, therefore seek the Perfect Balance between Liberty and Order. Establishing the parameters of such a balance is itself, establishing Order, yet this Order ideally preserves a significant amount of Liberty.
Depending on their circumstances, experiences, and instruction, individuals have different assessments of where the balance between Order and Liberty should be struck. To the extent that we feel secure or are confident in our abilities to resist chaos, the more we lean toward the Liberty side. The weaker or more threatened that we feel, the more attractive imposed Order becomes.
The lure of Perfect Existence, however, remains at the core of our being. It is a temptation to go to political extremes in search of Liberty or Order, so that one can achieve the other extreme as well. We can see examples of the latter in the form of robber barons who oppose regulation or laws in order to become “king of the jungle” and ultimately “buy happiness.” The other is the despot who runs the strictest police state, but he indulges in every whim. For both parties, the greater their success, the more they come to resemble one another.
Perfect Existence is attainable, but only through complete subjugation of self to God. In surrendering to God, union of our spirits takes place. Being one with God, we have ultimate liberty, and have achieved eternal, immutable perfect order. This is the Holy incarnation of the Primary Desire. Unfortunately it is the false version that most often motivates us.
There are two evils. The First is the desire to establish order for self aggrandizement. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14 (King James Version). It is the pursuit of the Primary Desire ... but without God.
The Second Evil is subjugation of self to Order that is not God. Not knowing God, and out of hopelessness and despair, we might place our faith in anything other than ourselves; viewing ourselves as essentially worthless. We have seen the effects of extreme subjugation demonstrated by people who commit atrocities only because they were instructed to do so. Or it may be seen in given one’s self over to the rule of drugs.
In this world, there is a sublime dynamic at work in that the First Evil is at war with the Second. Tyrants fall because inevitably abject subjugation becomes too much for the individual to bear — self interest drives rebellion.
Conversely, even the most seemingly utopian society will crumble, as some individuals come to desire more for themselves than others. And this should not be regarded as a loss. Perfect Existence, apart from God is The Great Lie. The failure to build our own Garden of Eden, as well as the fall of the most brutal dictators, brings us back to reality.
For temporal world, the twin evils of Selfishness and Subjugation to unholy authority drive us back to the Great Compromise.
And for the eternal world, the competition of evils is the mechanism drives us to seek God’s Kingdom.
Monday, April 14, 2008
It would be in your best interest …
Have you ever received an unsolicited suggestion as to what choice you should make? Doesn’t it sort of tick you off — even if you know they’re probably right?
Let’s say you’re a bit on the heavy side and you’re in a cafeteria line eyeing the Boston crème pie versus the peach cobbler.
Now imagine a total stranger (just for the heck of let’s say it’s a tall, lean, handsome, impeccably dressed African-American man) who says, “If you must eat dessert, you should have the sugar-free Jell-O.”
Any two-word responses come to mind?
We expect guidance from friends and family, whether it’s requested or not. They are emotionally invested in our welfare, so they get to exercise a “shareholder’s” two-cent option. Plus, they often know a good bit about us and our situation. The people who are dear to us — and we to them — also know something about our values and interests. They might know, as in our hypothetical situation that you’ve been on strict diet for six months and today, and today only, you planned to celebrate the milestone loss of 30 pounds by having dessert.
But regardless of your reason for wanting to eat something you “probably shouldn’t,” one thing you can be most positive about is that the busybody in line with you is probably more interested in trying to run your life than in keeping you “heart healthy.”
Oh sure, he may truly believe the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and do as he says. But remember, it will still be his vision of utopia, not yours. Maybe you think fat and died-happy at 70 beats 93 years old and drinking wheat grass juice, but any time you go against his grain, you upset the applecart of his ambition which is to make the rules.
Now as annoying as that stranger would be, imagine if he was in charge of the whole federal government and all the police powers that go with the job.
Now I’m not suggesting that you’ll be arrested for eating Boston crème pie if Barack Obama becomes president. (He may tax it, but that’s really not the point.) But what I am saying is that he doesn’t know a huge portion of this nation’s population and doesn’t understand the values of these people. Instead he “reasons" that they clutch their Bibles in one hand and their guns in another because they’re ignorant rubes who lack his omniscient erudition.
In Obama’s mind, we do not share his worldview because we are wretched, oppressed and misled. It is so clear to Him that we need His guiding light to lead us to the Promised Land.
He becomes disappointed when we don’t “get it.” You see, He is all wise and all benevolent. The “O” (be sure to say it with the appropriate touch of awe) knows what’s best for everyone. Once we submit in unity to His wisdom, Paradise will come to our land. We will finally, and at last without bitterness, beat our guns into plowshares, cast off the bonds of religiosity and welcome our “undocumented worker” friends without rancor or remorse.
Oh, who knows? The “O” may actually be wisest leader since Solomon, so go along if you want. As for me, I’m eating my pie.
Let’s say you’re a bit on the heavy side and you’re in a cafeteria line eyeing the Boston crème pie versus the peach cobbler.
Now imagine a total stranger (just for the heck of let’s say it’s a tall, lean, handsome, impeccably dressed African-American man) who says, “If you must eat dessert, you should have the sugar-free Jell-O.”
Any two-word responses come to mind?
We expect guidance from friends and family, whether it’s requested or not. They are emotionally invested in our welfare, so they get to exercise a “shareholder’s” two-cent option. Plus, they often know a good bit about us and our situation. The people who are dear to us — and we to them — also know something about our values and interests. They might know, as in our hypothetical situation that you’ve been on strict diet for six months and today, and today only, you planned to celebrate the milestone loss of 30 pounds by having dessert.
But regardless of your reason for wanting to eat something you “probably shouldn’t,” one thing you can be most positive about is that the busybody in line with you is probably more interested in trying to run your life than in keeping you “heart healthy.”
Oh sure, he may truly believe the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and do as he says. But remember, it will still be his vision of utopia, not yours. Maybe you think fat and died-happy at 70 beats 93 years old and drinking wheat grass juice, but any time you go against his grain, you upset the applecart of his ambition which is to make the rules.
Now as annoying as that stranger would be, imagine if he was in charge of the whole federal government and all the police powers that go with the job.
Now I’m not suggesting that you’ll be arrested for eating Boston crème pie if Barack Obama becomes president. (He may tax it, but that’s really not the point.) But what I am saying is that he doesn’t know a huge portion of this nation’s population and doesn’t understand the values of these people. Instead he “reasons" that they clutch their Bibles in one hand and their guns in another because they’re ignorant rubes who lack his omniscient erudition.
In Obama’s mind, we do not share his worldview because we are wretched, oppressed and misled. It is so clear to Him that we need His guiding light to lead us to the Promised Land.
He becomes disappointed when we don’t “get it.” You see, He is all wise and all benevolent. The “O” (be sure to say it with the appropriate touch of awe) knows what’s best for everyone. Once we submit in unity to His wisdom, Paradise will come to our land. We will finally, and at last without bitterness, beat our guns into plowshares, cast off the bonds of religiosity and welcome our “undocumented worker” friends without rancor or remorse.
Oh, who knows? The “O” may actually be wisest leader since Solomon, so go along if you want. As for me, I’m eating my pie.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Bringing in the Sheaves
Last night, Night of the Hunter appeared again on TCM. I watched it through the first hour before switching channels. I’ve seen it many times and own the DVD, so it wasn’t like I was missing out on a golden opportunity to see the film to its conclusion.
Robert Mitchum plays a murderous sociopath on the trail of stolen money. Masquerading as a preacher, he marries the widow of the robber, assuming correctly, that the woman’s children (a boy and a girl) know where the money was hidden.
After killing his new wife (leading to perhaps the most haunting image ever set in celluloid), “Preacher” comes after the children. But they escape by taking a boat down a river. Eventually they are given refuge by a loving but stern old woman, Mrs. Cooper (played by Lillian Gish), who makes it her business to offer sanctuary and guidance to lost orphans. And that’s “lost” in the spiritual sense as well.
The 1955 movie is often categorized as film noir and was produced in black and white, but there is no gray area to the characters: Good is good. Evil is evil. Innocence is innocence. Foolish is foolish … and foolish people are in abundance.
I can understand why it was essentially a box office bomb at the time of its release. This is an allegorical tale and the message is never diluted by nuance. It must have been difficult for Mitchum to play “evil” and absolutely nothing else. Students of film probably recognize certain stylistic elements, but I just call it “weird.”
I love the movie though, and I find the climatic showdown between Preacher and the Mrs. Cooper to be perfectly satisfying. Despite his treachery and viciousness, it’s made clear that he can’t stand up to her in a one-on-one match-up. That’s why Evil always goes after the weak.
There is one scene that struck me as odd the first time I saw it, however. Preacher is laying siege to the old woman’s home as she waits, on guard, inside. He begins singing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Mrs. Cooper sings along.
At first glance, this might suggest the duality of Good and Evil, or perhaps they’re kindred souls who took different paths. But I don’t think so. Coming from Preacher, the spiritual is blasphemy. And rather than recoiling in disgust, Mrs. Cooper meets the challenge and reclaims the song by singing it as well.
Through the centuries, atrocities have been committed while in the trappings of religion. This has led many decent people to turn away, and never sing “the song” again. Mrs. Cooper wouldn’t do that. She never gave an inch and rather than losing her faith to an ultimately wretched creature, she stood firm and crushed him.
And more …
Robert Mitchum plays a murderous sociopath on the trail of stolen money. Masquerading as a preacher, he marries the widow of the robber, assuming correctly, that the woman’s children (a boy and a girl) know where the money was hidden.
After killing his new wife (leading to perhaps the most haunting image ever set in celluloid), “Preacher” comes after the children. But they escape by taking a boat down a river. Eventually they are given refuge by a loving but stern old woman, Mrs. Cooper (played by Lillian Gish), who makes it her business to offer sanctuary and guidance to lost orphans. And that’s “lost” in the spiritual sense as well.
The 1955 movie is often categorized as film noir and was produced in black and white, but there is no gray area to the characters: Good is good. Evil is evil. Innocence is innocence. Foolish is foolish … and foolish people are in abundance.
I can understand why it was essentially a box office bomb at the time of its release. This is an allegorical tale and the message is never diluted by nuance. It must have been difficult for Mitchum to play “evil” and absolutely nothing else. Students of film probably recognize certain stylistic elements, but I just call it “weird.”
I love the movie though, and I find the climatic showdown between Preacher and the Mrs. Cooper to be perfectly satisfying. Despite his treachery and viciousness, it’s made clear that he can’t stand up to her in a one-on-one match-up. That’s why Evil always goes after the weak.
There is one scene that struck me as odd the first time I saw it, however. Preacher is laying siege to the old woman’s home as she waits, on guard, inside. He begins singing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Mrs. Cooper sings along.
At first glance, this might suggest the duality of Good and Evil, or perhaps they’re kindred souls who took different paths. But I don’t think so. Coming from Preacher, the spiritual is blasphemy. And rather than recoiling in disgust, Mrs. Cooper meets the challenge and reclaims the song by singing it as well.
Through the centuries, atrocities have been committed while in the trappings of religion. This has led many decent people to turn away, and never sing “the song” again. Mrs. Cooper wouldn’t do that. She never gave an inch and rather than losing her faith to an ultimately wretched creature, she stood firm and crushed him.
And more …
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Pay Me Instead
Let me make one thing clear: I think anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is pure hogwash.
On the other hand, any effort that cuts our dependence on foreign oil would be a very, very good thing indeed. Imagine a world where the sand that covers Saudi Arabia is worth more than the thick black liquid beneath. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
This leads me to the issue of carbon credits and so-called "cap and trade" — a bad idea whose time may have come. You may be somewhat familiar with this if you’ve heard how our climate-alarmist-in-chief Al Gore or AGW sycophant Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pay for carbon credits to off-set the fact that they can’t bring themselves to live with the kind of energy restrictions they demand of everyone else. From what I understand, it’s currently a self-imposed duty that funds the planting of trees somewhere.
Some well-meaning but misguided people (the most dangerous folks in the world) as well as some plain old socialists (who changed colors from red to green), would like governments to make these cap-and-trade schemes mandatory. Governments or people would see a limit on how much they should use. If you use more than your allotted share, you pay a tax. With the plans I’ve heard about, this would mostly result in rich nations sending money to Third World nations where it would undoubtedly line the pockets of thuggish dictators and their kleptocracies.
But instead of planting trees in Brazil (under the voluntary plan) or filling the Swiss bank account of who ever is in charge of plunder and murder in some African country (that would be a UN plan backed by international law), we (in the U.S.) could transfer the payments to individuals in our own country.
Schwarzenegger, who takes a private jet from Los Angeles to Sacramento to fulfill his duties as the Governator, could send his payments to me. My “carbon footprint” certainly can’t be very big. I live in a tiny apartment (the whole thing is probably smaller than one of Al Gore’s walk-in closets) and work from home. When I do drive (on average less than 600 miles a month) my car gets a very fuel-efficient 33 mpg.
Afraid I’d just use my additional income to move into a bigger home and take fabulous trips? What if we put the money into tax-free retirement accounts? After all, the Ponzi scheme that is our Social Security System is bound to break down — probably sooner rather than later. It’s not like the ivory-tower liberals who love the idea of a carbon tax are going to be eating dog food in their old age, but they could help those of us who most likely do have Alpo in our future.
On the other hand, any effort that cuts our dependence on foreign oil would be a very, very good thing indeed. Imagine a world where the sand that covers Saudi Arabia is worth more than the thick black liquid beneath. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
This leads me to the issue of carbon credits and so-called "cap and trade" — a bad idea whose time may have come. You may be somewhat familiar with this if you’ve heard how our climate-alarmist-in-chief Al Gore or AGW sycophant Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pay for carbon credits to off-set the fact that they can’t bring themselves to live with the kind of energy restrictions they demand of everyone else. From what I understand, it’s currently a self-imposed duty that funds the planting of trees somewhere.
Some well-meaning but misguided people (the most dangerous folks in the world) as well as some plain old socialists (who changed colors from red to green), would like governments to make these cap-and-trade schemes mandatory. Governments or people would see a limit on how much they should use. If you use more than your allotted share, you pay a tax. With the plans I’ve heard about, this would mostly result in rich nations sending money to Third World nations where it would undoubtedly line the pockets of thuggish dictators and their kleptocracies.
But instead of planting trees in Brazil (under the voluntary plan) or filling the Swiss bank account of who ever is in charge of plunder and murder in some African country (that would be a UN plan backed by international law), we (in the U.S.) could transfer the payments to individuals in our own country.
Schwarzenegger, who takes a private jet from Los Angeles to Sacramento to fulfill his duties as the Governator, could send his payments to me. My “carbon footprint” certainly can’t be very big. I live in a tiny apartment (the whole thing is probably smaller than one of Al Gore’s walk-in closets) and work from home. When I do drive (on average less than 600 miles a month) my car gets a very fuel-efficient 33 mpg.
Afraid I’d just use my additional income to move into a bigger home and take fabulous trips? What if we put the money into tax-free retirement accounts? After all, the Ponzi scheme that is our Social Security System is bound to break down — probably sooner rather than later. It’s not like the ivory-tower liberals who love the idea of a carbon tax are going to be eating dog food in their old age, but they could help those of us who most likely do have Alpo in our future.
Monday, March 10, 2008
I Hate Daylight Savings Time
The clocks moved forward an hour this weekend. As someone who doesn’t even get sleepy until 2:00 a.m. (that’s 3:00 a.m. now) the idea of getting up an hour earlier just so I have a better chance of hearing the birds chirp is about as appealing as a dental root planing.
Oh yeah, we also get an extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon. Big whoop. It won’t be long until it is 95 degrees outside and humid. Sure as heck wouldn’t want to miss out on any of that!
What I don’t understand is why we call something “Standard Time” if we only get to enjoy it about four months out of the year? I mean, if we have to do something a certain way about two-thirds of the time (as god-awful as it is) isn’t that pretty much “standard.”
I realize there are way too many annoying people (read: morning people) wedded to DST to have any hope of getting rid of it, but maybe we could at least change the names so they make sense. I propose changing Savings Time to "Standard" (I’d prefer something profane, but I know that wouldn’t fly.) Then we could change Standard to "Blessed."
After all, we do get to have Blessed Time over the major holidays … giving us another reason why the Christmas season is the most wonderful time of the year.
Oh yeah, we also get an extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon. Big whoop. It won’t be long until it is 95 degrees outside and humid. Sure as heck wouldn’t want to miss out on any of that!
What I don’t understand is why we call something “Standard Time” if we only get to enjoy it about four months out of the year? I mean, if we have to do something a certain way about two-thirds of the time (as god-awful as it is) isn’t that pretty much “standard.”
I realize there are way too many annoying people (read: morning people) wedded to DST to have any hope of getting rid of it, but maybe we could at least change the names so they make sense. I propose changing Savings Time to "Standard" (I’d prefer something profane, but I know that wouldn’t fly.) Then we could change Standard to "Blessed."
After all, we do get to have Blessed Time over the major holidays … giving us another reason why the Christmas season is the most wonderful time of the year.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Pride vs. Appreciation
It’s been a few days now since Michelle Obama told an adoring audience that her husband’s likely Democratic presidential nomination has finally given her a reason to be proud of her country.
There were many howls of surprised outrage from America’s conservatives — not that many of them genuine (shocked ... simply shocked and dismayed!). Face it, it’s not a big secret that the Left detests pretty much everything that has made the United States what it is: free markets, individualism, faith in God (or at least faith in something better than government bureaucracy) … etc. For people of this ilk, calling America the “Great Satan” would be libelous to Lucifer … if they actually believed in the Devil.
No, the protestations were aimed at getting the attention of the politically non-aligned Oba-maniacs who mistakenly believe the rigidly ultra-liberal, half-term Illinois senator is some kind of post-partisan messiah — ready to lead us all to the land of milk and honey. Obama is such a gifted snake-oil salesman that rather than attacking him directly, his ideological opponents are attempting to tar him with guilt by association instead. They eagerly point out that his wife isn’t proud of America, or that his church named Louis Farrakhan “Man of the Year.” (As I just did.)
But what about this “pride in one’s country” comment itself?
And if I ask myself if I’m proud of my country, I find the answer is complicated.
On one level, the easy answer is “yes.” I’m proud that America is first to respond to natural disasters wherever they occur around the globe. I’m proud that the only flag implanted on the moon is the Stars & Stripes. I’m proud that our nation rescued the world from the Axis powers. I’m proud that our comparatively limited government — for all of its frustrating short-comings — is a still the best on Earth. Honestly, this list is endless. I guess I’m most proud of the fact that we sincerely try to live up to our ideals.
But this pride is rather like how I feel when Auburn wins a big football game. And the similarity makes this concept of pride seem a bit shallow. So I wonder what “pride” actually means.
I think a better word is “appreciation.” And there’s a lot that must be taken into consideration when you fully appreciate something. What makes a proud moment possible?
A lot of it is individual effort — to the point of self sacrifice (like storming the beaches at Normandy or when the space shuttle Challenger exploded). Less spectacularly, Thomas Edison’s "90% perspiration, 10% inspiration" formula for success seems to sum things up pretty well.
There were many howls of surprised outrage from America’s conservatives — not that many of them genuine (shocked ... simply shocked and dismayed!). Face it, it’s not a big secret that the Left detests pretty much everything that has made the United States what it is: free markets, individualism, faith in God (or at least faith in something better than government bureaucracy) … etc. For people of this ilk, calling America the “Great Satan” would be libelous to Lucifer … if they actually believed in the Devil.
No, the protestations were aimed at getting the attention of the politically non-aligned Oba-maniacs who mistakenly believe the rigidly ultra-liberal, half-term Illinois senator is some kind of post-partisan messiah — ready to lead us all to the land of milk and honey. Obama is such a gifted snake-oil salesman that rather than attacking him directly, his ideological opponents are attempting to tar him with guilt by association instead. They eagerly point out that his wife isn’t proud of America, or that his church named Louis Farrakhan “Man of the Year.” (As I just did.)
But what about this “pride in one’s country” comment itself?
And if I ask myself if I’m proud of my country, I find the answer is complicated.
On one level, the easy answer is “yes.” I’m proud that America is first to respond to natural disasters wherever they occur around the globe. I’m proud that the only flag implanted on the moon is the Stars & Stripes. I’m proud that our nation rescued the world from the Axis powers. I’m proud that our comparatively limited government — for all of its frustrating short-comings — is a still the best on Earth. Honestly, this list is endless. I guess I’m most proud of the fact that we sincerely try to live up to our ideals.
But this pride is rather like how I feel when Auburn wins a big football game. And the similarity makes this concept of pride seem a bit shallow. So I wonder what “pride” actually means.
I think a better word is “appreciation.” And there’s a lot that must be taken into consideration when you fully appreciate something. What makes a proud moment possible?
A lot of it is individual effort — to the point of self sacrifice (like storming the beaches at Normandy or when the space shuttle Challenger exploded). Less spectacularly, Thomas Edison’s "90% perspiration, 10% inspiration" formula for success seems to sum things up pretty well.
Well, just so long as she's proud ...
I also appreciate that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will usually do okay in this country. I appreciate the freedom to think “unapproved” thoughts that leads to innovation. I especially appreciate that I don’t have to agree with other people just for the sake of agreeing.
In a nutshell, what I most appreciate about America is that it provides me with the opportunity to earn pride in myself.
And what troubles me most about an Obama presidency is that what he most wants to "change" is the very thing I appreciate most about this nation.
And I’m not ready to give that up just to make his wife proud.
Monday, February 18, 2008
"Oh My God! Look Out!"
The other day, I had a conversation with a client/business associate/friend (I have complicated professional arrangements) in which he expressed concern over the effects of a potentially worsening economy on our businesses.
My attitude was, and remains, fatalistic. But in an effort to be a bit more reassuring than “que sera, sera,” I pointed out that this is a campaign season and political candidates are naturally going to hype any bad economic news to their potential advantage. I also noted that the official requirement of recession is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking economy. We haven't even had one yet.
Mistaking my apathy for optimism, he hoped I was right but remained worried.
Though I didn’t bother going there in our discussion, I could have pointed out that the news media is never satisfied unless they have impending doom of one sort or another in the headlines. There would be a lot unemployed reporters in Heaven.
Actually, we are all fatalistic, and we have a word for people who aren’t. We call them “crazy” or perhaps use a fancy phrase like “obsessive-compulsive.” You know, like people who wash their hands constantly because of germs, or folks who won’t throw anything away because they may one day need it. Even those poor souls know they can’t deal with everything in the world that could turn out badly, so they focus on one specific potential problem to exert control upon. That way in an uncertain world, they head off at least one possible difficulty.
Have you ever stopped to think about everything that could go wrong in a typical day? Let’s assume you don’t die in your sleep due to a house fire, brain aneurism or meteor strike. What if your alarm clock fails to go off and you’re late to work? Maybe not the worst thing in the world, but such an occurrence could lead (directly or indirectly) to unemployment and financial ruin. It’s the old “for want of a nail … the war was lost,” scenario.
If the alarm does go off, you could slip getting out of the tub after your morning shower, hit your head on the lavatory and drown in the commode. You might be in a car accident in which your gas tank explodes and if you survive you might be horribly disfigured for the rest of your life.
Not related to any specific timeline, your spouse might fall in love with another person, leaving you emotionally devastated. Deadly cancer could strike friends, loved ones, or yourself. The tiniest scratch might open your body to invasion by flesh-eating bacteria.
The fact is, you don’t have to think hard to come up with something terrible that might possibly happen to you or someone you care about at every single moment of every single of day for the rest of your life.
Most of us don’t even think about it, not that it would do us any good if we did. We play the odds that the alarm will go off, that we can take a shower without incident or that we’ll make it to the neighborhood grocery store unharmed.
And that's just the direct threats. A worsening economy may or may not actually affect any particular individual. The worst recession during my lifetime was in the early 80s. The unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent. That means nearly nine out of 10 people still had jobs. As far as an actual “death toll,” there probably was one, but it was likely considerably less than the number of people killed in highway accidents over a Memorial Day weekend.
There is a lot of anxiety in this world. It’s because, as we travel down the highway of life, we all seem to have someone sitting next to us constantly screaming, “Oh my god! Look out!” Even if these shriekers don’t cause you to wreck, it’s all very nerve-wracking.
I believe in defensive driving. I keep my eye on the moron at the intersection who’s yakking on his cell phone, or the old lady with her turn signals blinking for miles on end (apparently preparing to make a left turn in the middle of the Howard Frankland Bridge). I see the person coming up behind me at 70 mph in a 40 mile an hour zone (and dutifully speed up to keep him from passing). But those are all threats that I can see.
What I’m not going to do is worry about the drunk driver who may or may not be coming over the hill, or the 10 year-old who may or may not have decided to take the family car out for a joyride. That’s what safety belts and airbags are for.
Do I have the necessary “safety equipment” to deal with loss of income that might result from a bad economy? Nope. But lacking the means, wit or ambition to acquire such protection, I choose not to worry about it.
Like 99.9 percent of the time (or more), chances are I’ll be okay.
My attitude was, and remains, fatalistic. But in an effort to be a bit more reassuring than “que sera, sera,” I pointed out that this is a campaign season and political candidates are naturally going to hype any bad economic news to their potential advantage. I also noted that the official requirement of recession is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking economy. We haven't even had one yet.
Mistaking my apathy for optimism, he hoped I was right but remained worried.
Though I didn’t bother going there in our discussion, I could have pointed out that the news media is never satisfied unless they have impending doom of one sort or another in the headlines. There would be a lot unemployed reporters in Heaven.
Actually, we are all fatalistic, and we have a word for people who aren’t. We call them “crazy” or perhaps use a fancy phrase like “obsessive-compulsive.” You know, like people who wash their hands constantly because of germs, or folks who won’t throw anything away because they may one day need it. Even those poor souls know they can’t deal with everything in the world that could turn out badly, so they focus on one specific potential problem to exert control upon. That way in an uncertain world, they head off at least one possible difficulty.
Have you ever stopped to think about everything that could go wrong in a typical day? Let’s assume you don’t die in your sleep due to a house fire, brain aneurism or meteor strike. What if your alarm clock fails to go off and you’re late to work? Maybe not the worst thing in the world, but such an occurrence could lead (directly or indirectly) to unemployment and financial ruin. It’s the old “for want of a nail … the war was lost,” scenario.
If the alarm does go off, you could slip getting out of the tub after your morning shower, hit your head on the lavatory and drown in the commode. You might be in a car accident in which your gas tank explodes and if you survive you might be horribly disfigured for the rest of your life.
Not related to any specific timeline, your spouse might fall in love with another person, leaving you emotionally devastated. Deadly cancer could strike friends, loved ones, or yourself. The tiniest scratch might open your body to invasion by flesh-eating bacteria.
The fact is, you don’t have to think hard to come up with something terrible that might possibly happen to you or someone you care about at every single moment of every single of day for the rest of your life.
Most of us don’t even think about it, not that it would do us any good if we did. We play the odds that the alarm will go off, that we can take a shower without incident or that we’ll make it to the neighborhood grocery store unharmed.
And that's just the direct threats. A worsening economy may or may not actually affect any particular individual. The worst recession during my lifetime was in the early 80s. The unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent. That means nearly nine out of 10 people still had jobs. As far as an actual “death toll,” there probably was one, but it was likely considerably less than the number of people killed in highway accidents over a Memorial Day weekend.
There is a lot of anxiety in this world. It’s because, as we travel down the highway of life, we all seem to have someone sitting next to us constantly screaming, “Oh my god! Look out!” Even if these shriekers don’t cause you to wreck, it’s all very nerve-wracking.
I believe in defensive driving. I keep my eye on the moron at the intersection who’s yakking on his cell phone, or the old lady with her turn signals blinking for miles on end (apparently preparing to make a left turn in the middle of the Howard Frankland Bridge). I see the person coming up behind me at 70 mph in a 40 mile an hour zone (and dutifully speed up to keep him from passing). But those are all threats that I can see.
What I’m not going to do is worry about the drunk driver who may or may not be coming over the hill, or the 10 year-old who may or may not have decided to take the family car out for a joyride. That’s what safety belts and airbags are for.
Do I have the necessary “safety equipment” to deal with loss of income that might result from a bad economy? Nope. But lacking the means, wit or ambition to acquire such protection, I choose not to worry about it.
Like 99.9 percent of the time (or more), chances are I’ll be okay.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Which is worse? An ox in the ditch or the Tribulation?
Over the holidays, I watched several “apocalyptic” movies on the Trinity Broadcast Network. There was the second one from the Left Behind series, two films from another storyline dealing with rule of the Ant-Christ, and what appeared be the first movie in yet another series.
It’s always hit and miss with TBN as to when they air anything, and I don’t click my remote control up that way very often, so there’s no telling when or if I’ll ever see the parts I’m missing.
I spent much of the movies wondering if some of the actors were just earning a payday, or if they were actually committed Christians making a statement. I know Left Behind’s Kirk Cameron (formerly of Growing Pains) is an outspoken Christian, but other stars included Brad Johnson (Always), Margo Kidder (Superman), Mr. T (The A-Team), Corbin Bernsen (L.A. Law), Howie Mandel (Deal or No Deal)and Gary Bussey (The Buddy Holly Story). Actually, I thought the best of the three series was one which had no “big name” stars at all.
“End of days” movies seem to be very popular — at least with a big chunk of the church-going public. I can see why. (I watched them myself, after all.) I like knowing who the good guys are, and I enjoy hearing my point of view expressed in a film even if it does come from a fictional script.
But I also think maybe there’s some strange pleasure in imagining ourselves in the place of Christians during the Tribulation. All the gray areas we deal with in our lives would suddenly be black and white. I mean, it’s relatively easy to refuse the mark of the Beast if you’ve witnessed the miracle of the Rapture and all the prophecies of The Revelation are unfolding before your eyes. There wouldn’t be any question or confusion anymore about what’s important. You know you’ve only got seven years to hang in there for God (or fewer if the Anti-Christ gets hold of you) and you’re done. Sainthood will be assured.
It’s not that easy when you’re dealing with house payments, work, friends and family and all the other things that distract us from living the way God wants us to. In a way, we all have ADD, and it’s remarkably easy to forget God is even there. Even when we remember, we may have a hard time figuring out what God’s plan is. We can’t all be missionaries … some of us will have to grow food if nothing else.
I think Jesus acknowledged that the temporal world does intrude on strictly focusing on God’s playbook.
That was after Jesus was getting some flack or healing people on the Sabbath, so I take it to mean, sometimes we have to take care of business. Of course, this doesn’t help with the problem of figuring out when it's okay to be concerned with the problems in this world..
Maybe we can take some comfort in some verses a little further down.
Perhaps we can’t really expect to know where we are in the “honored” department. The important thing is to be invited to the party, humbly take a seat and wait and see how we did.
It’s always hit and miss with TBN as to when they air anything, and I don’t click my remote control up that way very often, so there’s no telling when or if I’ll ever see the parts I’m missing.
I spent much of the movies wondering if some of the actors were just earning a payday, or if they were actually committed Christians making a statement. I know Left Behind’s Kirk Cameron (formerly of Growing Pains) is an outspoken Christian, but other stars included Brad Johnson (Always), Margo Kidder (Superman), Mr. T (The A-Team), Corbin Bernsen (L.A. Law), Howie Mandel (Deal or No Deal)and Gary Bussey (The Buddy Holly Story). Actually, I thought the best of the three series was one which had no “big name” stars at all.
“End of days” movies seem to be very popular — at least with a big chunk of the church-going public. I can see why. (I watched them myself, after all.) I like knowing who the good guys are, and I enjoy hearing my point of view expressed in a film even if it does come from a fictional script.
But I also think maybe there’s some strange pleasure in imagining ourselves in the place of Christians during the Tribulation. All the gray areas we deal with in our lives would suddenly be black and white. I mean, it’s relatively easy to refuse the mark of the Beast if you’ve witnessed the miracle of the Rapture and all the prophecies of The Revelation are unfolding before your eyes. There wouldn’t be any question or confusion anymore about what’s important. You know you’ve only got seven years to hang in there for God (or fewer if the Anti-Christ gets hold of you) and you’re done. Sainthood will be assured.
It’s not that easy when you’re dealing with house payments, work, friends and family and all the other things that distract us from living the way God wants us to. In a way, we all have ADD, and it’s remarkably easy to forget God is even there. Even when we remember, we may have a hard time figuring out what God’s plan is. We can’t all be missionaries … some of us will have to grow food if nothing else.
I think Jesus acknowledged that the temporal world does intrude on strictly focusing on God’s playbook.
And He answered them saying, “Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?”
Luke 14:5
That was after Jesus was getting some flack or healing people on the Sabbath, so I take it to mean, sometimes we have to take care of business. Of course, this doesn’t help with the problem of figuring out when it's okay to be concerned with the problems in this world..
Maybe we can take some comfort in some verses a little further down.
“When you are invited to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited … go and sit down in the lowest place , so that when he who invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you.”
Luke 14: 8 -- 10
Perhaps we can’t really expect to know where we are in the “honored” department. The important thing is to be invited to the party, humbly take a seat and wait and see how we did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
