If you have an older sibling, chances are pretty good you understand what I mean when I use the phrase "the third parent."
In our family, the third parent was my oldest brother, Brian. Brian traditionally has thought nothing of issuing directives to us, or of translating a parental request into a command.
I believe when we were kids he tried to be the heavy and make us do our chores (in all fairness they were ours to do, not his) when our parents were out. About six years ago, for example, we were both visiting our parents, and our mother asked him to get me up. Brian comes up the stairs, opens the door to my bedroom, and with the light of divine revelation setting his face aglow, commanded me: "Dave, up!"
I never did like that.
So tonight, Rachel was trying to play with something that Evangeline also was trying to play with. After a while, I guess it started to get on Evangeline's nerves and she said, "Rachel, you're in time out."
I thought I contained myself pretty well. I didn't spank Evangeline. I didn't growl at her or give her a lecture at the top of my lungs. I scooped her up, told her never to presume to punish Rachel again, and said it was time for bed.
Natasha pointed out to me that Evangeline isn't Brian and just because I had problems with him doing that doesn't mean I have to take them out on Evangeline.
*sigh*
Our story is a generational one, isn't it?
I'm sure there are times when an older sibling really does valid input or advice that younger siblings can benefit from. I've had some for my youngest brother, Herb, that he's taken, and I've received from Brian and from Herb, brother number two. (I'm number three if anyone's trying to keep count.)
There's a difference between giving advice and trying to run another person's life, and between passing on instructions from mom and dad and just being a bossy jerk. In the latter choice of each of those pairs, the older sibling generally would do everybody a favor by sitting down and shutting up.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
harry potter
I don't consider the Harry Potter books to be a doorway to occultism and witchcraft any more than I see James Bond as a portal to a career in international espionage.
That said, I do concur that the series has ceased to be "children's literature." The first two books -- maybe even the first three -- are suitable for young readers, but from everything I've read of Book 5 so far, I think the book more apprioately should be marketed towrd teens or young adults.
We're going to take it look-and-see with Evangeline, I expect. If she wants to read Harry Potter when she's at the right vocabulary and maturity level, we'll consider it. But I'm not going to encourage her to read them for a while.
Book Five han't been that bad for me yet, although we're only to the point that we've learned how Hagrid spent his summer vacation. The worst part for me has been some of what Harry has had to endure at during detention and various other punishments that have been inflicted. Not sure why it's affecting me in this particular way -- perhaps because it's not as obvious and extreme as Cedric's death in "Goblet of Fire," it becomes worse to read about. Plus, Umbridge reminds me of the principal at the first school I taught at, because of that favorite facial expression of hers.
I think "umbridge" should become a new epithet.
Natasha and I have to take the book slowly because the children and my job place other demands on our time. It's giving us time to figure out what Rowling is doing, and now that we've read about Harry's second essay for Snape, I want to re-read the first four books and see if there were other hidden messages that Harry missed.
That said, I do concur that the series has ceased to be "children's literature." The first two books -- maybe even the first three -- are suitable for young readers, but from everything I've read of Book 5 so far, I think the book more apprioately should be marketed towrd teens or young adults.
We're going to take it look-and-see with Evangeline, I expect. If she wants to read Harry Potter when she's at the right vocabulary and maturity level, we'll consider it. But I'm not going to encourage her to read them for a while.
Book Five han't been that bad for me yet, although we're only to the point that we've learned how Hagrid spent his summer vacation. The worst part for me has been some of what Harry has had to endure at during detention and various other punishments that have been inflicted. Not sure why it's affecting me in this particular way -- perhaps because it's not as obvious and extreme as Cedric's death in "Goblet of Fire," it becomes worse to read about. Plus, Umbridge reminds me of the principal at the first school I taught at, because of that favorite facial expression of hers.
I think "umbridge" should become a new epithet.
Natasha and I have to take the book slowly because the children and my job place other demands on our time. It's giving us time to figure out what Rowling is doing, and now that we've read about Harry's second essay for Snape, I want to re-read the first four books and see if there were other hidden messages that Harry missed.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
red riding hood
"Little Red Riding Hood" is a great example. In one of the older versions of the story, the wolf goes to the grandmother's house, kills her, pours her blood into a bottle and lays her cut-up flesh out on a platter. And it's just getting started.
Along comes Red Riding Hood. The wolf -- dressed as Grandma, and waiting in the bed -- tells her, "I've laid out some meat and some wine for you."
Red Riding Hood drinks the wine, and a voice cries, "Slut! to drink your own grandmother's blood!" She eats the meat, and a voice cries, ""Whore! to eat your own grandmother's flesh!"
From there, Red Riding Hood is instructed to undress and throw her clothes into the fire and then join her grandmother in the bed to warm her up. The story follows the traditional big nose, big eyes, big teeth routine -- and then wolf eats her.
Red Riding Hood drinks the wine, and a voice cries, "Slut! to drink your own grandmother's blood!" She eats the meat, and a voice cries, ""Whore! to eat your own grandmother's flesh!"
From there, Red Riding Hood is instructed to undress and throw her clothes into the fire and then join her grandmother in the bed to warm her up. The story follows the traditional big nose, big eyes, big teeth routine -- and then wolf eats her.
It's a positively gruesome story. No woodsman comes to save them with an ax. There is no miraculous rescue from the wolf. It's essentially a metaphor for the girl's rape and a warning about the dangers of traveling alone and not listening to your parents.
And if you think the Brothers Grimm had gruesome and disturbing fairy tales, consider that they actually cleaned them up from the stories they had heard as children.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
dostoevsky
I guess I'm the odd man out, but I absolutely *loved* "Crime and Punishment." After I finished it, I went out and got a copy of "The Brothers Karamazov."
The trick, I suppose -- if trick it is -- is not to read the books as crime novels. Raskolnikov's double homicide is the vehicle for larger themes Dostoevsky addresses in the book, not the purpose itself of the book. I believe the Russian Orthodox Church considers Dostoevsky one of its finest theologians or apologists. That's actually not a bad description of the man. His writing addresses a lot of issues the church and society have struggled with for millenia: human suffering, crushing poverty, the failure of religion, religious zealotry, sensuality, ethics and -- of course -- Nietzche's notion of the übermensch (Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" and Ivan and Gregory in "The Brothers Karamazov").
Flannery O'Conner is also another good author. I read "The Violent Bear it Away" back in college for a religion and literature course I took. Not sure how I would characterize that book. Certainly disturbing, such as the way Bishop's father portrays himself as the epitome of compassion, and then turns off his hearing aid so he can't hear Bishop being drowned.
The trick, I suppose -- if trick it is -- is not to read the books as crime novels. Raskolnikov's double homicide is the vehicle for larger themes Dostoevsky addresses in the book, not the purpose itself of the book. I believe the Russian Orthodox Church considers Dostoevsky one of its finest theologians or apologists. That's actually not a bad description of the man. His writing addresses a lot of issues the church and society have struggled with for millenia: human suffering, crushing poverty, the failure of religion, religious zealotry, sensuality, ethics and -- of course -- Nietzche's notion of the übermensch (Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment" and Ivan and Gregory in "The Brothers Karamazov").
Flannery O'Conner is also another good author. I read "The Violent Bear it Away" back in college for a religion and literature course I took. Not sure how I would characterize that book. Certainly disturbing, such as the way Bishop's father portrays himself as the epitome of compassion, and then turns off his hearing aid so he can't hear Bishop being drowned.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
so jane roe's a christian
Norma McCorvey (famously known from Roe v. Wade), recently filed suit over her original suit that ended in the Roe v. Wade decision. (McCorvey is now a Christian and pro-life.) A correspondent of mine complains that this is "the most ignored story since Alan Keyes ran for president!"
Yeah, yeah. It's that liberal bias again.
Gee, perhaps it was ignored because it isn't really much of a story. As the judge notes, petitions such as McCorvey's are meant to be filed in a more timely manner than the one she filed. It's a symbolic thing that's likely to get a lot of attention within activist circles, but has little to no news value outside those circles.
If I were editor of a national newspaper, I wouldn't assign a reporter to cover it. At best, it might make the news briefs in a metro daily I were editing. (Of course, if she lived in our coverage area, I might ask for a feature on what has prompted her turnaround -- although, again, the time for that feature really would have been 10 years ago when she adopted a pro-life philosophy.)
As to Keyes, I don't buy that reflects a media bias against him either. Major news media do cover the presidential primaries -- sometimes with a little too much attention, such as the way we're already starting to hear about the 2004 and even 2008 (!) races -- but after a while it gets to be pretty obvious who the major contenders are. It's not usually a wise allocation of resources to devote equal attention to dark horses as to front runners. I've seen papers do it -- I've done it myself when it's happened within my coverage area -- and contrary to what the "slighted" candidates and parties say, it really doesn't have a substantial effect on the end count.
Still, it's an unusual situation, since it involves the plaintiff in a Supreme Court decision appealing a ruling that went in her favor. Here's how I would develop the story from that angle:
1) Plaintiff in case is seeking reversal of decision that was in her favor.
2) Explanation of legal process, why and how such filings are made.
3) Talk about the arguments pro and con for the judge's decision to throw out this particular request.
4) Quote a few legal experts for their perspective on the whole thing, like "Did it ever stand a chance?"
5) Find any other unusual precedents.
Pretty dry stuff, of little interest to the average reader. If an editor assigned it to me, I would write it, but I wouldn't volunteer to do it, except as a sidebar to a larger story, which as I said, this particular filing didn't warrant in my judgment. As an editor, I wouldn't assign it, unless I'm the editor of a legal journal -- and even then, since the judge made the only decision you could expect, I doubt I would think it's worth much more than a footnote.
Which is what it appeared to have received.
Yeah, yeah. It's that liberal bias again.
Gee, perhaps it was ignored because it isn't really much of a story. As the judge notes, petitions such as McCorvey's are meant to be filed in a more timely manner than the one she filed. It's a symbolic thing that's likely to get a lot of attention within activist circles, but has little to no news value outside those circles.
If I were editor of a national newspaper, I wouldn't assign a reporter to cover it. At best, it might make the news briefs in a metro daily I were editing. (Of course, if she lived in our coverage area, I might ask for a feature on what has prompted her turnaround -- although, again, the time for that feature really would have been 10 years ago when she adopted a pro-life philosophy.)
As to Keyes, I don't buy that reflects a media bias against him either. Major news media do cover the presidential primaries -- sometimes with a little too much attention, such as the way we're already starting to hear about the 2004 and even 2008 (!) races -- but after a while it gets to be pretty obvious who the major contenders are. It's not usually a wise allocation of resources to devote equal attention to dark horses as to front runners. I've seen papers do it -- I've done it myself when it's happened within my coverage area -- and contrary to what the "slighted" candidates and parties say, it really doesn't have a substantial effect on the end count.
Still, it's an unusual situation, since it involves the plaintiff in a Supreme Court decision appealing a ruling that went in her favor. Here's how I would develop the story from that angle:
1) Plaintiff in case is seeking reversal of decision that was in her favor.
2) Explanation of legal process, why and how such filings are made.
3) Talk about the arguments pro and con for the judge's decision to throw out this particular request.
4) Quote a few legal experts for their perspective on the whole thing, like "Did it ever stand a chance?"
5) Find any other unusual precedents.
Pretty dry stuff, of little interest to the average reader. If an editor assigned it to me, I would write it, but I wouldn't volunteer to do it, except as a sidebar to a larger story, which as I said, this particular filing didn't warrant in my judgment. As an editor, I wouldn't assign it, unless I'm the editor of a legal journal -- and even then, since the judge made the only decision you could expect, I doubt I would think it's worth much more than a footnote.
Which is what it appeared to have received.
Friday, June 20, 2003
loving god
Desiring God is good. It's not always possible, though, which I think is one of the reasons the Bible calls the fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom and describes fear and obedience as the whole duty of man. If you can learn to love him, so much the better, but too often we toss that phrase around without ever really understanding what it means to love.
As a result of the struggles committed couples experience in marriage, they understand what a burden love really is, and they understand how it's a burden that can be joyful but still remains a burden. It's the same in our relationship with God. Often what Christians call loving God is just an infatuation because we don't let ourselves get close enough to deal with God in real intimacy and discover the wild and uncontrolled depths of his passion for us.
God's love is a dangerous thing; experiencing it is like swimming in a cataract with only a life vest.
So how do you do that?
Luke 10:25-37
On one occasion an expert of the law stood up to test Jesus.
"Teacher," he asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered," 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who showed compassion." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
Luke 18:18-22
A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
"You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.'"
And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
As a result of the struggles committed couples experience in marriage, they understand what a burden love really is, and they understand how it's a burden that can be joyful but still remains a burden. It's the same in our relationship with God. Often what Christians call loving God is just an infatuation because we don't let ourselves get close enough to deal with God in real intimacy and discover the wild and uncontrolled depths of his passion for us.
God's love is a dangerous thing; experiencing it is like swimming in a cataract with only a life vest.
So how do you do that?
Luke 10:25-37
On one occasion an expert of the law stood up to test Jesus.
"Teacher," he asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered," 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who showed compassion." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
Luke 18:18-22
A ruler questioned Him, saying, "Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
"You know the commandments, 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother.'"
And he said, "All these things I have kept from my youth."
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
Sunday, June 15, 2003
crop failure revisited
So far so good. My Yukon gold potatoes have a stack of three tires now. I just added some more compost to the mound this morning, so hopefully things are going well and new potatoes are growing even as we speak. (If I find myself with an overabundance, people are always welcome to come by this fall and share the joys of the harvest.)
The red potatoes haven't done as well. Even though I planted them the same time as the Yukon golds, it wasn't until some time last week that I saw the first sprouts poking through the dirt. Not sure why that would be. To the best of my knowledge, they hadn't been treated with anti-root growth hormone.
Ah well...
The red potatoes haven't done as well. Even though I planted them the same time as the Yukon golds, it wasn't until some time last week that I saw the first sprouts poking through the dirt. Not sure why that would be. To the best of my knowledge, they hadn't been treated with anti-root growth hormone.
Ah well...
Saturday, June 14, 2003
'the two towers' extended DVD
I'd be waiting for the extended DVD in any event, but the news that the extended footage includes scenes that will explain the change in Faramir's characterization, has really cinched it for me.
And on a completely random side note, I wonder how the LotR movies are affecting the names people are giving their children. A few years ago, "The Matrix" led to a burst in the use of "Trinity" as a girl's name, and "Morpheus" actually had five uses in a single year, enough to put it on the list of active names. (No joke; somebody for some reason actually keeps track of the names people give their kids, probably for demographic purposes, and cuts it off at five. "Morpheus" had been unknown as a name since mythological times, and now it's back.)
We named our daughter Eowyn, but that was just because we love Tolkien's books and we picked the name nearly three years before the first movie came out. But I'm wondering now if she's more likely to run into other girls named Eowyn, with or without the diacretic, and if she's going to bump into a boy named Faramir and have to enjoy the obvious jokes. As long as his name's not Grima, I suppose ...
And on a completely random side note, I wonder how the LotR movies are affecting the names people are giving their children. A few years ago, "The Matrix" led to a burst in the use of "Trinity" as a girl's name, and "Morpheus" actually had five uses in a single year, enough to put it on the list of active names. (No joke; somebody for some reason actually keeps track of the names people give their kids, probably for demographic purposes, and cuts it off at five. "Morpheus" had been unknown as a name since mythological times, and now it's back.)
We named our daughter Eowyn, but that was just because we love Tolkien's books and we picked the name nearly three years before the first movie came out. But I'm wondering now if she's more likely to run into other girls named Eowyn, with or without the diacretic, and if she's going to bump into a boy named Faramir and have to enjoy the obvious jokes. As long as his name's not Grima, I suppose ...
heroes and villains
The American Film Institute has issued its lists of the top 100 heroes and villains. Interestingly, Atticus Finch is their top hero -- most of the list consists of characters from action movies. What I find most interesting is the juxtaposition of hero and villain, and the stories those placements suggest, such as:
James Bond and Darth Vader
Rick Blaine and the Wicked Witch of the West
Clarice Starling and Mr. Potter
Rocky Balboa and Alex Forrest (who would have my complete sympathy)
Oskar Schindler and Hal 9000
Han Solo and the Alien
Robin Hood and the shark from Jaws
Spartacus and the Terminator
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and the Martians
Lassie and Cruella DeVille
Zorro and the Joker
I'm sure there would be other amusing combos if I had seen all the movies in question.
On villains, I have to flat-out disagree with them on No. 7: I do not consider Alex Forrest (Glenn Close's charcter) to be the villain of "Fatal Attraction."
Why do I say that? Because Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) used Alex for a one-night stand, a fling. She's also guilty of wrongdoing in that initial encounter -- she had an affair with a married man -- but as evidenced by the next step in the movie, where she tried to continue the relationship, she wasn't looking for one night of sex. Not that the Gallaghers deserved having their bunny roasted or having their daughter abducted, but a great villian needs a good victim, and Dan Gallagher.
Gallagher used her, and in doing so, he exposed his family to tremendous risk. She should be held accountable for her actions, but since she's mentally unstable, she's also not entirely accountable for her actions once she was set off. Note I didn't say Douglas' character is the villain. I just don't think it's entirely fair to say that Alex Forrest is the villainess.
The original ending had Douglas' character shooting Forrest and being charged with murder. It was either one of the actors or the director who objected, and they changed it so that Douglas' wife fires the fatal shot, and it's viewed as an act of self-defense, or at least protecting the home from an invader.
I would have put John Malkovich's character from "In the Line of Fire" up there before Alex Forrest.
James Bond and Darth Vader
Rick Blaine and the Wicked Witch of the West
Clarice Starling and Mr. Potter
Rocky Balboa and Alex Forrest (who would have my complete sympathy)
Oskar Schindler and Hal 9000
Han Solo and the Alien
Robin Hood and the shark from Jaws
Spartacus and the Terminator
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and the Martians
Lassie and Cruella DeVille
Zorro and the Joker
I'm sure there would be other amusing combos if I had seen all the movies in question.
On villains, I have to flat-out disagree with them on No. 7: I do not consider Alex Forrest (Glenn Close's charcter) to be the villain of "Fatal Attraction."
Why do I say that? Because Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) used Alex for a one-night stand, a fling. She's also guilty of wrongdoing in that initial encounter -- she had an affair with a married man -- but as evidenced by the next step in the movie, where she tried to continue the relationship, she wasn't looking for one night of sex. Not that the Gallaghers deserved having their bunny roasted or having their daughter abducted, but a great villian needs a good victim, and Dan Gallagher.
Gallagher used her, and in doing so, he exposed his family to tremendous risk. She should be held accountable for her actions, but since she's mentally unstable, she's also not entirely accountable for her actions once she was set off. Note I didn't say Douglas' character is the villain. I just don't think it's entirely fair to say that Alex Forrest is the villainess.
The original ending had Douglas' character shooting Forrest and being charged with murder. It was either one of the actors or the director who objected, and they changed it so that Douglas' wife fires the fatal shot, and it's viewed as an act of self-defense, or at least protecting the home from an invader.
I would have put John Malkovich's character from "In the Line of Fire" up there before Alex Forrest.
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
going union
I'm starting to think I really should be considered more liberal than I usually am. Tonight I found myself in the middle of a discussion with three other editors about why — not if, but why — we should form a union in the news room. I've been given the duty of contacting the state Department of Labor to see what our legal options are, as well as some of the ramifications of each approach.
Then we have to go about building consensus. We were trying to determine whom we could approach down the road to get the necessary votes to unionize, and whom would be dangerous to approach. Naturally if the owners or management finds out, there's a good chance we'll either be given our walking papers or strongly encouraged to leave...
*sigh*
Silly me and that whole James 5:1-6 thing...
Then we have to go about building consensus. We were trying to determine whom we could approach down the road to get the necessary votes to unionize, and whom would be dangerous to approach. Naturally if the owners or management finds out, there's a good chance we'll either be given our walking papers or strongly encouraged to leave...
*sigh*
Silly me and that whole James 5:1-6 thing...
Thursday, June 05, 2003
baby names
Back when we were expecting Evangeline, we shared our name choices with our families and received a litany of horrors that would be visited upon our daughter if we gave her such a name.
I actually hung up on my brother during one such discussion because he was being so stinking rude. As a result, we didn't tell anyone the names we picked out when we were pregnant the second time, even though some family members and all our friends had been much more appreciative of the name we gave Evangeline.
The irony of course is that we decided almost right away that if we had a second girl, we were going to name her Rachel Helena, after my paternal and maternal grandmothers -- about as inoffensive a name choice as you can get. What can you possibly find to object to in someone naming a child after his grandparents, especially when they had such traditional names?
I shared the story with two of my friends online, and they both have opted not to tell anyone their name choices either. I must tell my brother that he has ruined it for three families, not just our own.
My younger brother, Ward, actually had been fine with the name Evangeline when we first mentioned it. When I told him that we weren't giving out names for Baby No. 2, he immediately started pleading to be told anyway and found himself extremely frustrated when I refused to budge. Our discussion went like this:
"Is it a Bible name?"
"Well, I guess it depends on your perspective."
"Are you naming the baby after anyone?"
"I suppose that depends on how you look at it."
When Rachel was born last Halloween, I called Ward and told him we had named her "Spock." It took him a little while, but he finally decided I was (probably) pulling his leg, and asked what her name really was.
In retrospect, I wish I had thought to tell everyone a different name when we called to let them know.
(Oh, and of course, true to form, Natasha's grandmother found a way to complain about "Rachel Helena" and what an ugly name it is.)
I actually hung up on my brother during one such discussion because he was being so stinking rude. As a result, we didn't tell anyone the names we picked out when we were pregnant the second time, even though some family members and all our friends had been much more appreciative of the name we gave Evangeline.
The irony of course is that we decided almost right away that if we had a second girl, we were going to name her Rachel Helena, after my paternal and maternal grandmothers -- about as inoffensive a name choice as you can get. What can you possibly find to object to in someone naming a child after his grandparents, especially when they had such traditional names?
I shared the story with two of my friends online, and they both have opted not to tell anyone their name choices either. I must tell my brother that he has ruined it for three families, not just our own.
My younger brother, Ward, actually had been fine with the name Evangeline when we first mentioned it. When I told him that we weren't giving out names for Baby No. 2, he immediately started pleading to be told anyway and found himself extremely frustrated when I refused to budge. Our discussion went like this:
"Is it a Bible name?"
"Well, I guess it depends on your perspective."
"Are you naming the baby after anyone?"
"I suppose that depends on how you look at it."
When Rachel was born last Halloween, I called Ward and told him we had named her "Spock." It took him a little while, but he finally decided I was (probably) pulling his leg, and asked what her name really was.
In retrospect, I wish I had thought to tell everyone a different name when we called to let them know.
(Oh, and of course, true to form, Natasha's grandmother found a way to complain about "Rachel Helena" and what an ugly name it is.)
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
jayson blair
What it boils down to is this:
The editors at The New York Times should never have promoted Blair to the position he was in with the track record he had. Period. Blair falsified expense vouchers, regularly turned in inaccurate and poorly written copy and was still promoted to one higher beat after another.
Utterly disgraceful.
The editors at The New York Times should never have promoted Blair to the position he was in with the track record he had. Period. Blair falsified expense vouchers, regularly turned in inaccurate and poorly written copy and was still promoted to one higher beat after another.
Utterly disgraceful.
mythology
As long as I can remember, I've been reading ancient stories about humanity's distant origins and our relationship with the gods.
I started in ancient Europe, but I've traveled North to lands of frost and ice giants; and I've journeyed south, to where the Nile flows and floods. I've traversed the seas in long canoes guided by Maui, and listened to the tales of Mȃth as sung by Celtic bards. I've drawn swords with Arthur and fought the devil in Brazil. I've seen floods caused by gods distressed at humanity's wickedness or tired out by all their noise and once by a monkey who pulled a cork from a bottle.
I love mythology.
It started back when I was a kid. The elementary school had a large yellow book of D'Aulaires' "Book Greek Myths" that I probably checked out more than any other volume while I was a student there.
The most important stories to the ancient Greeks were Homer's poems about Troy and Odysseus, but the bulk of the myths the D'Aulaires told came from writers other than Homer, who told tales about the Argo, about Heracles and Theseus and Orpheus, with the result that "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" feel like afterthoughts to me. They're the Greek myths I'm least familiar with.
I got turned on to Norse mythology through Marvel Comics and its superhero Thor, particularly when Walt Simonson wrote and illustrated the comic in the mid-1980s. He was on the title for about five years, and wrapped his entire run around the mythic Ragnarok, the Twilight of the Gods where the Nine Worlds perish in flame.
Simonson had a deep passion for Norse myth that redefined the series. I think he's also a Christian, or at least is very familiar with Christian thought, based on the ways he reinterpreted some of the myths and Thor in particular.
One of these days I want to get a translation of the Elder Edda, since that's our only source of Norse mythology outside the comics.
I've read some Egyptian mythology, but since their cycle of mythology was thousands of years old, I can't even pretend to have more than a passing familiarity with it. It was also years ago. The only Celtic myths I've read are contained in "The Mabinogion," and my interest in that primarily is due to its contributions to the Arthurian cycle of literature.
Polynesian myths also are interesting. I have a collection of Maori myths compiled by Anthony Alpers that I picked up while I was living in New Zealand. It features Maui, a trickster similar to the Coyote of American Indian lore.
The little American Indian mythology I've been able to pick up has been snippets here and there, since it really wasn't in vogue to teach back in the 1970s, when I was in elementary school.
On the other hand, I did manage to find and devour a book on Latin American mythology when I was in high school, and got to read the myths of the Incans, Aztecs and Mayans. It was interesting, although I'm afraid I don't recall much of it.
What was striking was that the Mayans appeared to have had contact with Christian missionaries before the Europeans officially arrived, based on the Christian symbolism and motifs already found in their myths, such as the Devil and the use of the cross as a holy symbol.
I don't know much about Celtic myths, but I heartily recommend "The Mabinogion." It's a collection of Welsh tales with names many fruit-smoothie people have tried to appropriate, such as Rhiannon, Annwn and the horned god whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's still interesting reading.
The myths about Mȃth and Gwydion gradually give way to some of the oldest known Arthurian legends we have, old to the point you're not likely to recognize the names of most of his knights and companions unless you're already familiar with the cycle of literature. "Cei" is relatively easy to figure out (because it's also spelled Cai, which suggests Sir Kay the sensechal, and he acts as boorish), but there are others like Gwalchavad, Gwalchmei, Peredur and Bedwyr that aren't as easy.
These are some of the storis that have enthralled, shaped and defined me for a season or for longer. As God is my witness, they are stories that my daughters will know too.
I started in ancient Europe, but I've traveled North to lands of frost and ice giants; and I've journeyed south, to where the Nile flows and floods. I've traversed the seas in long canoes guided by Maui, and listened to the tales of Mȃth as sung by Celtic bards. I've drawn swords with Arthur and fought the devil in Brazil. I've seen floods caused by gods distressed at humanity's wickedness or tired out by all their noise and once by a monkey who pulled a cork from a bottle.
I love mythology.
The most important stories to the ancient Greeks were Homer's poems about Troy and Odysseus, but the bulk of the myths the D'Aulaires told came from writers other than Homer, who told tales about the Argo, about Heracles and Theseus and Orpheus, with the result that "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" feel like afterthoughts to me. They're the Greek myths I'm least familiar with.
I got turned on to Norse mythology through Marvel Comics and its superhero Thor, particularly when Walt Simonson wrote and illustrated the comic in the mid-1980s. He was on the title for about five years, and wrapped his entire run around the mythic Ragnarok, the Twilight of the Gods where the Nine Worlds perish in flame.
Simonson had a deep passion for Norse myth that redefined the series. I think he's also a Christian, or at least is very familiar with Christian thought, based on the ways he reinterpreted some of the myths and Thor in particular.
One of these days I want to get a translation of the Elder Edda, since that's our only source of Norse mythology outside the comics.
I've read some Egyptian mythology, but since their cycle of mythology was thousands of years old, I can't even pretend to have more than a passing familiarity with it. It was also years ago. The only Celtic myths I've read are contained in "The Mabinogion," and my interest in that primarily is due to its contributions to the Arthurian cycle of literature.
Polynesian myths also are interesting. I have a collection of Maori myths compiled by Anthony Alpers that I picked up while I was living in New Zealand. It features Maui, a trickster similar to the Coyote of American Indian lore.
The little American Indian mythology I've been able to pick up has been snippets here and there, since it really wasn't in vogue to teach back in the 1970s, when I was in elementary school.
On the other hand, I did manage to find and devour a book on Latin American mythology when I was in high school, and got to read the myths of the Incans, Aztecs and Mayans. It was interesting, although I'm afraid I don't recall much of it.
What was striking was that the Mayans appeared to have had contact with Christian missionaries before the Europeans officially arrived, based on the Christian symbolism and motifs already found in their myths, such as the Devil and the use of the cross as a holy symbol.
I don't know much about Celtic myths, but I heartily recommend "The Mabinogion." It's a collection of Welsh tales with names many fruit-smoothie people have tried to appropriate, such as Rhiannon, Annwn and the horned god whose name escapes me at the moment, but it's still interesting reading.
The myths about Mȃth and Gwydion gradually give way to some of the oldest known Arthurian legends we have, old to the point you're not likely to recognize the names of most of his knights and companions unless you're already familiar with the cycle of literature. "Cei" is relatively easy to figure out (because it's also spelled Cai, which suggests Sir Kay the sensechal, and he acts as boorish), but there are others like Gwalchavad, Gwalchmei, Peredur and Bedwyr that aren't as easy.
These are some of the storis that have enthralled, shaped and defined me for a season or for longer. As God is my witness, they are stories that my daughters will know too.
Thursday, May 29, 2003
liberal media bias
One of my favorite phrases to toss around for the past eight years has been "the godless liberal media." I love to tell people I work there, mostly because I regard the issue of liberal bias one that often gets overplayed by people who assume I have a certain view because I covered something they wanted left alone.
Well, apparently Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll thinks his paper has been biased, and he feels strongly enough he wrote a memo to every one of his section editors warning them that he expects all bias to be purged from their stories.
Carroll's memo is pretty honest. We'd be ignoramuses not to admit that even the best journalist has biases, and that those biases do shape their writing -- not to the extent that we're often accused, and certainly not as blatantly as some claim -- but those biases are inescapable nonetheless.liberal media bias
One of my favorite phrases to toss around for the past eight years has been "the godless liberal media." I love to tell people I work there, mostly because I regard the issue of liberal bias one that often gets overplayed by people who assume I have a certain view because I covered something they wanted left alone.
Well, apparently Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll thinks his paper has been biased, and he feels strongly enough he wrote a memo to every one of his section editors warning them that he expects all bias to be purged from their stories.
Carroll's memo is pretty honest. We'd be ignoramuses not to admit that even the best journalist has biases, and that those biases do shape their writing -- not to the extent that we're often accused, and certainly not as blatantly as some claim -- but those biases are inescapable nonetheless.random comments
I read once that scientists had discovered genetic evidence for a common "Eve" ancestress to all humanity. In addition to the DNA that is split up through cellular meiosis to create gametes for reproduction, there is a separate amount of DNA found in the mitochondriae. This mitochondrial DNA is passed unchanged from mother to daughter, generation after generation.
About 12 or 15 years ago, I read an article in Newsweek about a team of researchers who had discovered that mitochondrial DNA is virtually identical in women from a broad range of ethnic groups around the world. It didn't matter if you were a m'Butu pigmy living in Africa; an Innuit fisher living north of Haines, Alaska; a Maori attorney in Rotorua, New Zealand; or a computer programmer in Buenos Aires. They checked the mitochondrial DNA of hundreds, if not thousands, of women, and it was all the same.
This doesn't prove the biblical account of creation, of course; it does indicate that humanity has a common ancestress, though. The article noted a number of possibilities for why this may be so, mostly involving variations on natural selection and plain old human luck.
Separately, I also recall reading about the parting of the Red Sea that a computer simulation of the sea at the point where the Bible indicates they crossed the sea, given the wind conditions the Bible describes, really would part so there would be a wall of water on each side wide enough for them to pass through.
I've also heard that archaeologists discovered tons of bones and armor at the bottom of the sea, but I don't recall more details, so I'm inclined to view it in the vein of NASA proving that Joshua stopped the sun for 24 hours.
About 12 or 15 years ago, I read an article in Newsweek about a team of researchers who had discovered that mitochondrial DNA is virtually identical in women from a broad range of ethnic groups around the world. It didn't matter if you were a m'Butu pigmy living in Africa; an Innuit fisher living north of Haines, Alaska; a Maori attorney in Rotorua, New Zealand; or a computer programmer in Buenos Aires. They checked the mitochondrial DNA of hundreds, if not thousands, of women, and it was all the same.
This doesn't prove the biblical account of creation, of course; it does indicate that humanity has a common ancestress, though. The article noted a number of possibilities for why this may be so, mostly involving variations on natural selection and plain old human luck.
Separately, I also recall reading about the parting of the Red Sea that a computer simulation of the sea at the point where the Bible indicates they crossed the sea, given the wind conditions the Bible describes, really would part so there would be a wall of water on each side wide enough for them to pass through.
I've also heard that archaeologists discovered tons of bones and armor at the bottom of the sea, but I don't recall more details, so I'm inclined to view it in the vein of NASA proving that Joshua stopped the sun for 24 hours.
Saturday, May 24, 2003
language reform update
Note that my plan to implement a global English already is being implemented and starting to bear fruit. The New York Times has run a most fascinating article on the spread of Engrishes.
Singlish seems to me a legitimate form of English -- perhaps a pidjin or creole version, but a version nonetheless, with its own vocabulary, grammar and syntax, much of it obviously cribbed from English. As a language, Singlish apparently also is developing a body of literature, just as other Englishes have.
In any event, it demonstrates the success of my plan, as stated, to develop a worldwide English language with no ties to any one nation or culture.
Singlish may be a pidjin English, but a pidjin form of a language is still a form of that language. Singlish is more closely related to English than it is to the other languages it draws from, and as noted in the article, as things continue and the Singaporeans' exposure to standard English continues, Singlish is going to conform in more ways to standard English.
In any event, as more Englishes arise around the world, the flow of ideas from one culture to another also will increase, with the eventual emergence of a pan-national English. This pan-English is what will be central to my world empire's lexicon, much as koine Greek became the second language of the ancient world, not just under Alexander and his immediate successors but under the Romans as well.
Singlish, Japlish, Russlish and Spanglish -- and the other Englishes that are out there -- are just the beginning. Give them time.
Now, this article from The New York Times shows that we ultimately will need some sort of regulatory process in place to pull the various strands of English together. Who better to do this than journalists, who deal with questions of clarity and grammatical correctness every day?
Singlish seems to me a legitimate form of English -- perhaps a pidjin or creole version, but a version nonetheless, with its own vocabulary, grammar and syntax, much of it obviously cribbed from English. As a language, Singlish apparently also is developing a body of literature, just as other Englishes have.
In any event, it demonstrates the success of my plan, as stated, to develop a worldwide English language with no ties to any one nation or culture.
Singlish may be a pidjin English, but a pidjin form of a language is still a form of that language. Singlish is more closely related to English than it is to the other languages it draws from, and as noted in the article, as things continue and the Singaporeans' exposure to standard English continues, Singlish is going to conform in more ways to standard English.
In any event, as more Englishes arise around the world, the flow of ideas from one culture to another also will increase, with the eventual emergence of a pan-national English. This pan-English is what will be central to my world empire's lexicon, much as koine Greek became the second language of the ancient world, not just under Alexander and his immediate successors but under the Romans as well.
Singlish, Japlish, Russlish and Spanglish -- and the other Englishes that are out there -- are just the beginning. Give them time.
Now, this article from The New York Times shows that we ultimately will need some sort of regulatory process in place to pull the various strands of English together. Who better to do this than journalists, who deal with questions of clarity and grammatical correctness every day?
Friday, May 23, 2003
job update
Well, what's next appears to be a promotion to the manager of a different office, a little further up the Parkway from where I work, overseeing a staff of three editors and their reporters, a copy editor and a receptionist/typist type.
I had remarked to Tim about a month ago that I'm feeling burnt out where I am right now. The work is essentially what I've been doing for a few years, with the result that I've been spinning my wheels and beginning to stagnate. Even before that conversation, I had started working with some of my co-workers from a mentor position, going over papers, layouts, headlines and stories with them with an eye toward what could have been done to make the paper better.
It appears that Tim has decided I'd be a good choice to engage in some of that on a formal basis in one of our other offices. What that would mean in terms of pay I don't know. Obviously, and as I told him, I'd like to get more money. I'm making about $35K now; I had been making $40K at The Times, and that was the first time Natasha and I were able to live moderately comfortably on my salary. It's been tight on what I'm making at WCN, and to be honest, we wouldn't be making it at all without the money Natasha pulls in from some free-lance work she does for Rutgers University. Now that we have Rachel as well as Evangeline, we really could use a bit more. I didn't name the figure, but $45K would be nice. (I actually said $60K would be nice, which it would, but I really don't think that's even in the realm of possibility.)
From what Tim told me, I'm already one of the three highest-paid managing editors, which is about what I had figured, so he's not sure how much more they could give me as a regional or associate editor, whatever my title would be.
Mixed feelings. It's a step up and it's a chance to develop new skills, and although I'm not wild about staying with a company as notoriously cheap as this one, I'm also not wild about changing jobs AGAIN. I've been with this one only a year, and before that it was unemployment for eight months, The Times for eight months, The Packet for three years, Forbes Newspapers for 18 months, various piddly jobs like gas station attendant and pizza guy over a 12-month period, teacher in Bethlehem, Pa., for a year, teacher in Port-au-Prince for a year, missionary for a year, and college student.
In other words, my work history has been marked by a lot of jumping, and I wouldn't mind a little stability and a natural progression through the ranks for a while before I leave the workforce for stay-at-home dadhood or to a job I really enjoy.
Another nice thing is that the job theoretically could be 9-to-5, which is what I'd like right now anyway, with the kids the age they are. The niggling suspicion there is that while Tim might not be consciously lying to me, he also said this current, 50-hour-a-week job only takes 40 hours, back when he hired me. We editors call that the big lie.
On top of that, the office where I would be working has two bits of its reputation that I don't like: 1) It's where they send people when they want them to quit; and 2) It has its own Reporter from Hell, and I've already had one of those in this job. Her replacement has been great -- the epitome of professional behavior, and I've tremendously enjoyed working with him. I'm really not eager to trade him in for someone who's been doing the job for so long he knows everything already and won't be taught. I've also seen a couple of the editors in action whom I would be dealing with, and I'm not terribly impressed.
I didn't tell Tim yea or nay, and he didn't push me for an answer either, which suggests it's not his plan to send me there to get rid of me. I told him I am interested, but would like to know more about what I would be doing (responsibilities and authorities), and how much I'd be making.
The implication I picked up was that the job is mine if I want it, and that he wants to have me moved in there by the end of next month. So we'll see.
I had remarked to Tim about a month ago that I'm feeling burnt out where I am right now. The work is essentially what I've been doing for a few years, with the result that I've been spinning my wheels and beginning to stagnate. Even before that conversation, I had started working with some of my co-workers from a mentor position, going over papers, layouts, headlines and stories with them with an eye toward what could have been done to make the paper better.
It appears that Tim has decided I'd be a good choice to engage in some of that on a formal basis in one of our other offices. What that would mean in terms of pay I don't know. Obviously, and as I told him, I'd like to get more money. I'm making about $35K now; I had been making $40K at The Times, and that was the first time Natasha and I were able to live moderately comfortably on my salary. It's been tight on what I'm making at WCN, and to be honest, we wouldn't be making it at all without the money Natasha pulls in from some free-lance work she does for Rutgers University. Now that we have Rachel as well as Evangeline, we really could use a bit more. I didn't name the figure, but $45K would be nice. (I actually said $60K would be nice, which it would, but I really don't think that's even in the realm of possibility.)
From what Tim told me, I'm already one of the three highest-paid managing editors, which is about what I had figured, so he's not sure how much more they could give me as a regional or associate editor, whatever my title would be.
Mixed feelings. It's a step up and it's a chance to develop new skills, and although I'm not wild about staying with a company as notoriously cheap as this one, I'm also not wild about changing jobs AGAIN. I've been with this one only a year, and before that it was unemployment for eight months, The Times for eight months, The Packet for three years, Forbes Newspapers for 18 months, various piddly jobs like gas station attendant and pizza guy over a 12-month period, teacher in Bethlehem, Pa., for a year, teacher in Port-au-Prince for a year, missionary for a year, and college student.
In other words, my work history has been marked by a lot of jumping, and I wouldn't mind a little stability and a natural progression through the ranks for a while before I leave the workforce for stay-at-home dadhood or to a job I really enjoy.
Another nice thing is that the job theoretically could be 9-to-5, which is what I'd like right now anyway, with the kids the age they are. The niggling suspicion there is that while Tim might not be consciously lying to me, he also said this current, 50-hour-a-week job only takes 40 hours, back when he hired me. We editors call that the big lie.
On top of that, the office where I would be working has two bits of its reputation that I don't like: 1) It's where they send people when they want them to quit; and 2) It has its own Reporter from Hell, and I've already had one of those in this job. Her replacement has been great -- the epitome of professional behavior, and I've tremendously enjoyed working with him. I'm really not eager to trade him in for someone who's been doing the job for so long he knows everything already and won't be taught. I've also seen a couple of the editors in action whom I would be dealing with, and I'm not terribly impressed.
I didn't tell Tim yea or nay, and he didn't push me for an answer either, which suggests it's not his plan to send me there to get rid of me. I told him I am interested, but would like to know more about what I would be doing (responsibilities and authorities), and how much I'd be making.
The implication I picked up was that the job is mine if I want it, and that he wants to have me moved in there by the end of next month. So we'll see.
Sunday, May 18, 2003
mutant massacre recalled
I think it was 1986 that I read the first -- and only good -- merry Marvel mutant massacre. I remember the story arc because it crossed over nicely and reasonably. It didn't show up in every comic, just the ones where it made some degree of sense: the mutant titles, Thor (whose writer's wife was one of the brains behind the whole idea) and Power Pack, whose writer was also writing X-Factor.
I believe it began in one of the X-men titles, when a group called the Marauders showed up in one of the abandoned subway tunnels that are so prolific in New York City -- Lex Luthor even converted one into a palatial penthouse for "Superman: The Movie" -- and started blowing away a bunch of lesser characters. The carnage ran through "X-men," "Thor," and "Power Pack" and its aftermath spilled over into "Fantastic Four" and other titles as well.
It was a fantastic story. Not because of the action and cliched slaughter, but because of the character development. Everyone who went through that experience was changed somehow: Peter Rasputin actually killed Riptide, one of the Marauders; the kids from Power Pack were seriously wigged out by what they had seen, Angel was nearly killed and had to have his wings surgically removed, and Thor went absolutely nuts and torched the entire tunnel network with lightning.
For what was probably the last time in more than 10 years, the Marvel writers and editors implemented an incredible idea and then explored the fallout over the next year. Peter Rasputin and Kitty Pryde's powers were messed up so that his natural state became Colossus and she couldn't stop phasing; Angel ended up becoming a pawn of Apocalypse because of his post-operation depression, the surviving Morlocks were both scared to go back home and aghast to find all trace of their previous lives erased by Thor's lightning fire, and so on.
Of course, they've done mutant crossovers pretty much every year since then, and each one's been a paler and paler echo of the one before, but that first one was a doozy.
I believe it began in one of the X-men titles, when a group called the Marauders showed up in one of the abandoned subway tunnels that are so prolific in New York City -- Lex Luthor even converted one into a palatial penthouse for "Superman: The Movie" -- and started blowing away a bunch of lesser characters. The carnage ran through "X-men," "Thor," and "Power Pack" and its aftermath spilled over into "Fantastic Four" and other titles as well.
It was a fantastic story. Not because of the action and cliched slaughter, but because of the character development. Everyone who went through that experience was changed somehow: Peter Rasputin actually killed Riptide, one of the Marauders; the kids from Power Pack were seriously wigged out by what they had seen, Angel was nearly killed and had to have his wings surgically removed, and Thor went absolutely nuts and torched the entire tunnel network with lightning.
For what was probably the last time in more than 10 years, the Marvel writers and editors implemented an incredible idea and then explored the fallout over the next year. Peter Rasputin and Kitty Pryde's powers were messed up so that his natural state became Colossus and she couldn't stop phasing; Angel ended up becoming a pawn of Apocalypse because of his post-operation depression, the surviving Morlocks were both scared to go back home and aghast to find all trace of their previous lives erased by Thor's lightning fire, and so on.
Of course, they've done mutant crossovers pretty much every year since then, and each one's been a paler and paler echo of the one before, but that first one was a doozy.
Friday, May 16, 2003
U.S. policy in Iraq is adrift upon the open sea
It's becoming painfully obvious to everyone that there is no coherent plan for what to do now that Saddam Hussein is gone.
It's only now that the U.S. is trying to control looters. When Christian business owners and distillery operators have gone to U.S. troops for help, they've basically been told "Sorry, we can't help you. It's not our job." Religious minorities now have fewer rights and fewer protections than they did under Saddam
As bad as a dictator is, at least he's better than anarchy.
It's only now that the U.S. is trying to control looters. When Christian business owners and distillery operators have gone to U.S. troops for help, they've basically been told "Sorry, we can't help you. It's not our job." Religious minorities now have fewer rights and fewer protections than they did under Saddam
As bad as a dictator is, at least he's better than anarchy.
Thursday, May 15, 2003
easter baskets redux
I was talking today with a co-worker about the golem legend and how it appears in other forms throughout literature such as Frosty the Snowman and Pinocchio, and somehow discussion trailed as it is wont to do onto other subjects.
The issue of how we celebrate our religious holidays with the extra trappings came up, and I mentioned the dilemma we faced over the Easter eggs. I shared with him how we resolved it at our house, which he found fascinating: As Evangeline and I boiled the eggs and dyed them, I explained to her that just as we change the eggs' nature and appearance every Easter, putting our faith in Christ changes our nature and our appearance to the Father so that when he looks on us he sees his Son. In other words, I made the Easter message a central part of the Easter eggs so that they're not a distraction from the meaning of the day.
It was great -- not only did I get to use Easter eggs to teach my daughter something, I was able to use them to share my faith with a co-worker in a completely nonoffensive and nonintrusive way.
We didn't do an Easter basket this year because it didn't occur to me in time how to do it, but next year we're going to use the Easter basket as a metaphor for searching for Truth and then discovering him in the person of Christ. If I get really fancy, we could leave the Easter basket somewhere on Saturday night, and then on Sunday when Evangeline goes to look for it, she'll discover it's not there and have to go looking for it, just as Christ's friends found his body had disappeared unexpectedly.chick's a screwball
Found an interesting history of the Bible in translation by Jack Chick, accidental comic and writer extraordinaire of gospel tracts. (Chick tracts, as they are commonly known, are a guilty pleasure of many, because they are so full of hatred and because they so badly misrepresent Christianity, and just about everything else they cover.)
Chick's history has some kernels of truth to it, but he misses the mark in several areas. For starters, the Puritans were incensed that James actually was translating the Bible all over again. They wanted the Geneva Bible to receive official status, which made James and his supporters uncomfortable because the Geneva Bible had a lot of explanatory notes with an anti-royalist bent. By the time of James, the whole Catholic/Protestant issue had been pretty much settled because of Queen Elizabeth I; the struggle over the Bible was waged between Anglicans and Puritans, the latter of whom ultimately lost the fight.
He also falls into error by claiming that Elizabeth was a Protestant counterweight to Bloody Mary. True, Queen Mary did persecute the Protestants -- hence her nickname -- and Elizabeth I did not, but Elizabeth never "renounced Catholicism." She regarded her throne as too unstable to do anything but allow Catholics and Protestants alike to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Pity Jack Chick can't learn a lesson from her.
He also links Guy Fawkes and the November 5 gunpowder plot to destroy Parliament to the Catholic Church. I'm fuzzy on all the details, but I think Fawkes was a Puritan hoping to overthrow the ungodly institution of monarchy as headed by King James.
What can I say? Chick's a screwball.
Anyway, the other reason for this post: I'm not as familiar with the history of the different manuscripts. Does anyone know if Chick's information about the Textus Receptus is generally correct, aside from his usual sinister gloss on everyone he disagrees with? His contention is that the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which more closely resembles the Signatures than the Alexandrian texts he claims were the basis for subsequent, satanic Bibles like the RSV and so on.
Have to say, I find it amusing that he cites 1 John 5:7 as an example of meddling with the Bible. Unfortunately for Chuck, that verse doesn't exist in older, more reliable manuscripts. In the KJV, 1 John 5:7 states the doctrine of the Trinity pretty clearly, but it's generally regarded as an error a transcriber made by copying somebody's margin notes into the text proper as he copied. So much for cutting verses.
Maybe he should be more worried about adding them.
Chick's history has some kernels of truth to it, but he misses the mark in several areas. For starters, the Puritans were incensed that James actually was translating the Bible all over again. They wanted the Geneva Bible to receive official status, which made James and his supporters uncomfortable because the Geneva Bible had a lot of explanatory notes with an anti-royalist bent. By the time of James, the whole Catholic/Protestant issue had been pretty much settled because of Queen Elizabeth I; the struggle over the Bible was waged between Anglicans and Puritans, the latter of whom ultimately lost the fight.
He also falls into error by claiming that Elizabeth was a Protestant counterweight to Bloody Mary. True, Queen Mary did persecute the Protestants -- hence her nickname -- and Elizabeth I did not, but Elizabeth never "renounced Catholicism." She regarded her throne as too unstable to do anything but allow Catholics and Protestants alike to worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Pity Jack Chick can't learn a lesson from her.
He also links Guy Fawkes and the November 5 gunpowder plot to destroy Parliament to the Catholic Church. I'm fuzzy on all the details, but I think Fawkes was a Puritan hoping to overthrow the ungodly institution of monarchy as headed by King James.
What can I say? Chick's a screwball.
Anyway, the other reason for this post: I'm not as familiar with the history of the different manuscripts. Does anyone know if Chick's information about the Textus Receptus is generally correct, aside from his usual sinister gloss on everyone he disagrees with? His contention is that the KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which more closely resembles the Signatures than the Alexandrian texts he claims were the basis for subsequent, satanic Bibles like the RSV and so on.
Have to say, I find it amusing that he cites 1 John 5:7 as an example of meddling with the Bible. Unfortunately for Chuck, that verse doesn't exist in older, more reliable manuscripts. In the KJV, 1 John 5:7 states the doctrine of the Trinity pretty clearly, but it's generally regarded as an error a transcriber made by copying somebody's margin notes into the text proper as he copied. So much for cutting verses.
Maybe he should be more worried about adding them.
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
work situation
Somehow in the past few weeks I have become the editor in the newsroom that everybody talks to about their job problems. Other editors are coming to me with questions about layout; reporters other than mine are asking me for ideas; I've been helping other editors brainstorm ideas for editorials and positions they can take. Even my supervisor has asked me questions about the computer system and how to get it to do what we want. Today one of our photographers told me, practically in tears, that she's being cut back from three days a week to one and she doesn't know what she's going to do to make ends meet.
It does get a little difficult. Everyone seems to be confiding in me about their frustrations with the job, and everyone's asking me for layout and editorial advice. I've essentially taken over the coaching duties the regional editor is supposed to do, but without any official bestowment or any effort on my part. It just happened, which I can't say I think Mike is likely to appreciate. He seems to think he does a great job as a manager by sitting in the corner and avoiding everyone, and he isn't likely to take it well that everyone seems to prefer me.
I don't generally seek positions of leadership, but this is a situation where it looks like leadership has been placed on me without my advance knowledge.
One wonders what's in store.
It does get a little difficult. Everyone seems to be confiding in me about their frustrations with the job, and everyone's asking me for layout and editorial advice. I've essentially taken over the coaching duties the regional editor is supposed to do, but without any official bestowment or any effort on my part. It just happened, which I can't say I think Mike is likely to appreciate. He seems to think he does a great job as a manager by sitting in the corner and avoiding everyone, and he isn't likely to take it well that everyone seems to prefer me.
I don't generally seek positions of leadership, but this is a situation where it looks like leadership has been placed on me without my advance knowledge.
One wonders what's in store.
Monday, May 12, 2003
On the propriety of speaking in tongues
So I have an honest question for anyone who comes across this entry and feels like contributing their 2 cents. Where do you stand on speaking in tongues?
Let me explain.
I spent my first seven or eight years as a Christian as a member of Easton (Pa.) Assembly of God, where we were taught that in the first century it was a standard experience for a new believer to begin speaking in tongues, though not necessarily a universal one. Pastor Mike Poppa did observe that every time a new group of people received the gospel, the writer of Acts made sure to point out that they also began speaking in tongues.
I've met a few Christians who believe you shouldn't serve in ministry unless you've received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I'm aware of others who claim you can't be a Christian without it. Neither of those positions is biblical.
The only rules Paul sets out regarding glossalalia pertain to corporate worship, where he favors maintaining order and keeping everyone on the same page. He tells believers not to speak in tongues at all during gatherings, unless they also can interpret; and even then he says to keep the number of messages in tongues to a minimum. "I would rather speak one word that you can all understand than ten thousand words in a tongue none of you will," he says.
As far as private prayer goes, he's content to live and let live, and places no limits on speaking in tongues; in fact he says, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than any of you."
Still, speaking in tongues is a lightning rod of controversy to some groups. I'm curious to hear where others stand. Sound off in the comments.
Let me explain.
I spent my first seven or eight years as a Christian as a member of Easton (Pa.) Assembly of God, where we were taught that in the first century it was a standard experience for a new believer to begin speaking in tongues, though not necessarily a universal one. Pastor Mike Poppa did observe that every time a new group of people received the gospel, the writer of Acts made sure to point out that they also began speaking in tongues.
I've met a few Christians who believe you shouldn't serve in ministry unless you've received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I'm aware of others who claim you can't be a Christian without it. Neither of those positions is biblical.
The only rules Paul sets out regarding glossalalia pertain to corporate worship, where he favors maintaining order and keeping everyone on the same page. He tells believers not to speak in tongues at all during gatherings, unless they also can interpret; and even then he says to keep the number of messages in tongues to a minimum. "I would rather speak one word that you can all understand than ten thousand words in a tongue none of you will," he says.
As far as private prayer goes, he's content to live and let live, and places no limits on speaking in tongues; in fact he says, "I thank God I speak in tongues more than any of you."
Still, speaking in tongues is a lightning rod of controversy to some groups. I'm curious to hear where others stand. Sound off in the comments.
This is a work in process; nonetheless, I'm going to add my disclaimer that any reproduction of this piece by any means is strictly forbidden, as is its performance, without my express permission. The piece is obviously very autobiographical, which makes it rather difficult for me to view it with any measure of objectivity. I'm intending it to go either with a sermon on prayer or on sacrifice. Constructive feedback is welcome and desired.
"The Christian at Prayer"
By David Learn
All is dark on stage except for a single spot illuminated by a spotlight. Framed in that spotlight is Andrew. He is sitting on the ground, wrapped tightly in the fetal position, with his face not visible. He sits like this for a while, saying nothing and barely moving. When he does speak, it is with deep emotion barely suppressed.
ANDREW: Just tell me one thing. Why?
He pauses, but only briefly. The first crack has appeared, and the dam is slowly beginning to burst. Andrew lifts his head, and he begins to speak. He's talking to God, but it's not one of those formal let's-hold-our-hands-and-pray types of prayers. He's speaking as though God in the room with him.
ANDREW: I meant, it's not as though I don't have a right to ask that much. I'm not asking you why I'm suffering. If I suffer, it's because I either sinned or because I chose to follow you, and either way it's because of a choice I made, and I have no right to complain about that.
No, what I want to know is why Isaac has had to suffer. I accept that I have to suffer for me my sin, and I accept that following you is difficult. But why him? Ian isn't even 3 years old, Lord. What sin has he committed? What decision did he make that's left him like this? What was his great crime against you, except to be born to a father who doesn't understand responsibility and a mother who doesn't know how to love anyone but herself?
Andrew rises to his feet. He is beginning to brim with anger, but fighting hard to contain it.
ANDREW: This kid's been abused. (He points a finger accusingly, at God.) You know better than I do what he's had to go through, the way his mother has sacrificed him and his sister to her own happiness, stunting their development so they'll need her longer. (Now he starts to tally off on his hand the various problems Ian had.) This is a kid who barely even knew how to walk when the state put him in our care. He didn't know how to feed himself, and he couldn't say anything more advanced than gootchy-gootchy-goo. You saw what he was like when he came to stay with us -- he was practically dead inside. He was as close to being a poster child for reactive-attachment disorder as you can get.
You're such a big one for talking about what increases your glory. Tell me, how does the suffering of a child like Ian increase your glory? I see that what he's going through is wrong, and if I, sinful as I am, can see that, why the hell can't you? And if you can see it, why won't you stop it? Come on, tell me: What great ineffable purpose of yours did it serve for Ian to spend a single hour like that, let alone the two years he had for them to ignore him and stunt his growth?
Damn it, give me an answer! (He grabs something at his side and pushes it the floor, where it breaks. He stops and stares at it, and slowly regains his composure somewhat.) I've given you everything I have, Lord. You know that. But you still find a way to take more out of me and wring out more tears. What do you want from me? I've given everything -- everything -- for this child.
I've taught him how to walk, how to talk, how to eat with his fingers, and with a fork and spoon. I've taught him how to speak, and even though I know I shouldn't, I can't help but smile every time he calls me daddy.
And now you want to send him back to his parents. What for? So they can finish what they started? You disgust me.
Why are you so intent on destroying him? You're sending him back there, and he's going to lose everything he's gained here. He's going to lose the only real parents he knows, he's going to lose the sister he gained in our household, and he's going to lose the love, the support and the discipline we've given him. Do you have to take even that away from me?
What do you want from me? (Andrew pauses, and in the silence he hears something whispered. His response is filled with disdain) Follow you. I have followed you, and this is where you've led me. If this is how you treat your friends, Lord, it's no wonder you have so few of them.
He pauses and looks about him. Everything around him is in darkness, and there is no indication what lies ahead if he takes a step in any direction. He appears to get ready to take a step, but before he does, the light goes out and the curtain falls.)
FINIS
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn
"The Christian at Prayer"
By David Learn
All is dark on stage except for a single spot illuminated by a spotlight. Framed in that spotlight is Andrew. He is sitting on the ground, wrapped tightly in the fetal position, with his face not visible. He sits like this for a while, saying nothing and barely moving. When he does speak, it is with deep emotion barely suppressed.
ANDREW: Just tell me one thing. Why?
He pauses, but only briefly. The first crack has appeared, and the dam is slowly beginning to burst. Andrew lifts his head, and he begins to speak. He's talking to God, but it's not one of those formal let's-hold-our-hands-and-pray types of prayers. He's speaking as though God in the room with him.
ANDREW: I meant, it's not as though I don't have a right to ask that much. I'm not asking you why I'm suffering. If I suffer, it's because I either sinned or because I chose to follow you, and either way it's because of a choice I made, and I have no right to complain about that.
No, what I want to know is why Isaac has had to suffer. I accept that I have to suffer for me my sin, and I accept that following you is difficult. But why him? Ian isn't even 3 years old, Lord. What sin has he committed? What decision did he make that's left him like this? What was his great crime against you, except to be born to a father who doesn't understand responsibility and a mother who doesn't know how to love anyone but herself?
Andrew rises to his feet. He is beginning to brim with anger, but fighting hard to contain it.
ANDREW: This kid's been abused. (He points a finger accusingly, at God.) You know better than I do what he's had to go through, the way his mother has sacrificed him and his sister to her own happiness, stunting their development so they'll need her longer. (Now he starts to tally off on his hand the various problems Ian had.) This is a kid who barely even knew how to walk when the state put him in our care. He didn't know how to feed himself, and he couldn't say anything more advanced than gootchy-gootchy-goo. You saw what he was like when he came to stay with us -- he was practically dead inside. He was as close to being a poster child for reactive-attachment disorder as you can get.
You're such a big one for talking about what increases your glory. Tell me, how does the suffering of a child like Ian increase your glory? I see that what he's going through is wrong, and if I, sinful as I am, can see that, why the hell can't you? And if you can see it, why won't you stop it? Come on, tell me: What great ineffable purpose of yours did it serve for Ian to spend a single hour like that, let alone the two years he had for them to ignore him and stunt his growth?
Damn it, give me an answer! (He grabs something at his side and pushes it the floor, where it breaks. He stops and stares at it, and slowly regains his composure somewhat.) I've given you everything I have, Lord. You know that. But you still find a way to take more out of me and wring out more tears. What do you want from me? I've given everything -- everything -- for this child.
I've taught him how to walk, how to talk, how to eat with his fingers, and with a fork and spoon. I've taught him how to speak, and even though I know I shouldn't, I can't help but smile every time he calls me daddy.
And now you want to send him back to his parents. What for? So they can finish what they started? You disgust me.
Why are you so intent on destroying him? You're sending him back there, and he's going to lose everything he's gained here. He's going to lose the only real parents he knows, he's going to lose the sister he gained in our household, and he's going to lose the love, the support and the discipline we've given him. Do you have to take even that away from me?
What do you want from me? (Andrew pauses, and in the silence he hears something whispered. His response is filled with disdain) Follow you. I have followed you, and this is where you've led me. If this is how you treat your friends, Lord, it's no wonder you have so few of them.
He pauses and looks about him. Everything around him is in darkness, and there is no indication what lies ahead if he takes a step in any direction. He appears to get ready to take a step, but before he does, the light goes out and the curtain falls.)
FINIS
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn
crime and punishment
What purpose does a long imprisonment serve? A person who serves 30 or 40 years -- or even just 10 years -- of his life behind bars is a person who is going to have an incredibly difficult time returning to life outside jail. Part of that's because of the lesser structure outside the prison environment, but the difficulty also is due differences in the culture inside and outside jail. Longtime inmates often are hardened by their experiences and in the case of violent offenders usually emerge even more violent.
The penal code expressed in the Bible makes no allowance for incarceration. That might be because there was no way to incarcerate a person back then -- although I doubt it, since Ahab imprisoned the prophet Micah when he refused to prophesy victory for Israel -- or it might be because a long and drawn-out punishment for sin is not what God wants us to mete out.
Looking at the Torah, the punishment for a crime was quick, personal and set to match the crime: murder a person, you get killed. Build a house it falls down, your own house is knocked down. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blow for blow, burn for burn. The idea was that a crime was not committed against society as much as it was against a person. Locking someone up for 30 years might keep them from committing a crime during that time -- or maybe not, if you're familiar with the crimes committed from inside a jail -- but it fails to redress the pain of the victim, which has helped to give rise to lawsuits, and it's also led to some pretty ludicrous jail terms in our criminal justice system.
Lesser crimes were punished by slavery -- not slavery as we understand it in culture, but something more akin to indentured servitude. The offender would serve the person whom he the crime against, as restitution. As a result, most of the laws provided in the Tanakh about slaves are meant to protect those slaves. There were undoubtedly some benefits: Like modern prisoners in jails, slaves were guaranteed three meals a day and a place to sleep. Unlike jail, thee slave would work not only to pay for room and board, but also to pay for the crime committed.
Unlike jail, there is no long-term cost to society at large. Commit a serious crime, like murder, and the punishment was death. Commit a violent crime and suffer the same as your victim. Even incorrigible criminals wouldn't survive very many such convictions; think of it as an Iron-Age "three strikes out." Commit fraud, embezzlement or go bankrupt and you have the privilege of actually working off your debt in the midst of those whose lives were hurt by your sin.
I did think it was confusing the first time I read the provision in Exodus 2:16 that allowed a slave to choose to remain in his master's household when his term of servitude was up, but a friend of mine pointed something out that actually makes sense: In a worst-case scenario, the offender would have gainful employment until the debt is paid. In a best-case scenario, he could gain a family and a permanent job and home.
staff devotions
Devotions more typically are shallow readings of Scripture or similarly light stories intended more to make us feel good than they are intended to challenge us to think more deeply about God or a life of holiness. Poems like "Footprints" are popular material for devotions. They reassure us that God is in control of things, and no matter how it seems to get, everything will turn out all right in the end.
We had daily devotions at Central Christian Academy in Bethlehem, Pa., when I taught there, and man the other teachers hated when it was my turn. I've always felt that the purpose of reading the Bible is to discover something new about holiness and our pursuit of God; and that we should share what we've been learning, rather than repeating the same homilies everyone knows and shares all the time.
In other words, I couldn't just be normal and light and fluffy, no, I had to do something different and sometimes even downright bizarre.
So one time I shared Orson Scott Card's different versions of the woman caught in adultery. In one the teacher spares the woman's life because he is corrupt, and sees an advantage in sparing her life; and in the other telling he kills her to uphold justice. That got a horrified gasp from one teacher, but I enjoyed Card's point that Christ strikes the perfect balance between justice and mercy, and that's why we strive to follow him and his example.
Another time I shared a passage from Don Richardson's "Eternity in their Hearts" about the redemptive analogies found in pre-Christian cultures, that missionaries connected to the gospel story so that Christianity would grow organically in the culture rather than being imposed from outside with its Western baggage. I was a former missionary and found this sort of thing fascinating; the other teachers found it tedious and pointed out how long it was taking.
These were not normal fare for devotions, I guess, but then it was my turn to lead devotions, and I found them both more interesing and inspiring that hearing that damn "Footprints" poem again.
Then of course there was the other school, Cradle of Life Christian School in Haiti. We had staff devotions there only twice a week, as I recall, and when I shared "what God was teaching me," it was about the obligation we have to the poor. I offered no answers, only the questions I was asking, and what I was seeing in Scripture and in literature.
No one in the staff objected to my knowledge, but the administration really didn't like that. I was put on probation the next day, and at the end of a month I was fired.
I'm not a fan of devotions, but I'm pretty confident I did that one right.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
Saturday, May 10, 2003
retreat of the clones
I still haven't seen "Attack of the Clones," mostly because "The Phantom Menace" was so appallingly bad I didn't want to see another Star Wars flick that was likely to be just as bad or even worse.
A friend of mine who did see it and initially liked it, the further he has gone from seeing it, the more he has decided it was awful. That's telling, I think; often when I see a movie or read a book that is critically acclaimed and yet seems awful to me, I'll start to think more about it as time goes on and start to understand or appreciate things I missed before. John's reaction has been to develop a progressively more negative view of the dialogue and story as time has gone on, suggesting that the lasting impression of the movie is not a good one.
A friend of mine who did see it and initially liked it, the further he has gone from seeing it, the more he has decided it was awful. That's telling, I think; often when I see a movie or read a book that is critically acclaimed and yet seems awful to me, I'll start to think more about it as time goes on and start to understand or appreciate things I missed before. John's reaction has been to develop a progressively more negative view of the dialogue and story as time has gone on, suggesting that the lasting impression of the movie is not a good one.
showoff doctrinal terms
Tetragrammaton: The name of the Lord, literally. It refers to the four Hebrew letters used to denote God's name, often represented in English as YHWH or JHVH.
In terms of divine election, I would say it is the Arminian position that best represents my understanding, although at the same time I agree with the basic principles of Calvinism. How's that for something to wrap your brain in a knot?
Decalogue: The Ten Commandments.
J-source, P-source, Q-source. These are terms made popular by the Jesus Seminar and other scholarly movements to determine who wrote what portions of the Bible.
E, P, J and D are the four "authors" of the Tanakh. E stands for Elohim and J for the Tetragrammaton as noticed; the two of these quite often appear in pairs, which suggests to scholars that they represent two separate traditions about the Israelite faith, which some editor -- called the redactor -- joined together into the single course of Scripture we now have. The E story of creation takes place over seven days; the J story begins in Eden. Similarly, there are some psalms that are virtually identical, except one uses "Elohim" and the other uses YHWH.
P is the priestly source, which includes most of the Torah. It lays out the laws for everybody, sets up the priesthood and so on. P is supposed to be responsible principally for the book of Exodus after the parting of the Red Sea up through the book of Numbers.
D is the Deuteronomist, who retells the law in the book of Deuteronomy, with a few minor variations, and then is generally held to be responsible for compling everything up through 2 Kings. I believe some people have linked the Deuteronomist to Jeremiah, who was a prophet during the reign of King Jehoshaphat (I think -- sorry, I'm writing this from memory, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now), the last righteous king of Judah who returned Judah to whole-hearted devotion to YHWH and during whose reign the book of the Law was rediscovered (*koff* *koff*, say the scholars).
The Q source remains the collected sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke supposedly cribbed from.
Parousia: The word's Latin root has to do with giving birth to something; the one time I distinctly remember reading it, I had understood it to be a reference to the Second Coming. I believe it refers to the birth of the Kingdom of God, which many first-century Christians expected would happen within their lifetimes, particularly when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.
Pelagian heresy: In a nutshell, and if I understand it correctly, it's a heresy that claims it is possible for men to please God and live a righteous life apart from Christ simply by exercising free will.
Glossolalia: A fancy word for speaking in tongues under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Not to be confused with charisma, which is the supernatural endowment of a believer by the Holy Spirit to perform miraculous signs.
transubstantiation: A teaching held within the Catholic Church, but also within several mainline Protestant denominations, that Christ is physically present in the elements of the Eucharist, that when we take communion the wine miraculously becomes his blood and the bread miraculously becomes his body. There are actual names for the different views on how this takes place -- for example, it becomes it in the stomach so we don't become sick or commit cannibalism; or it becomes it at the moment of consecration but in such a way that it becomes indistinguishable from unconsecrated bread and wine -- but I never bothered to learn those names.
Christological: Christology is the doctrines of Christ, such as his being entirely God and entirely man, and what that means.
hermeneutics: a ten-dollar word that essentially means "Bible study"
synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Those three gospels have a lot in common in terms of structure, narrative, sayings of Jesus and so on that suggest a common source. The gospel of John has an entirely different structure, has an entirely different set of sayings it draws on, has a radically different focus than the other three, and is considered by some scholars to be from a different tradition entirely (perhaps even later since some of the phraseology appears to be written to correct Gnostic error). Since Mark and Luke were both journeymen with Paul, and Matthew appears to be highly derivative from Mark as well, I suppose that makes some degree of sense.In terms of divine election, I would say it is the Arminian position that best represents my understanding, although at the same time I agree with the basic principles of Calvinism. How's that for something to wrap your brain in a knot?
My understanding -- and I never went to seminary, so I'll readily concede that I very easily could be wrong -- is that the -lapsarian doctrines have to do with when God decreed that Christ would have to die for our sins. With that explanation, I'd have to say I'm prelapsarian since I can't see God playing catch-up with us.
The Arian heresy is essentially one of the doctrines propagated by the Jehovah's Witnesses today, viz. that Jesus was a created being and not of the same substance as the Father, that he was created and not begotten.What I don't understand and never have is what that has to do with white supremacists.
On a tangent, does anyone know what the name is for the heresy found in "Paradise Lost?" Milton has God create all things out of himself rather than ex nihilo, and declares Jesus to be his son and chief of them all. It's similar to the Arian heresy except that in this case Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, but so is everyone and everything else.
A glossary of terms
Tetragrammaton: The name of the Lord, literally. It refers to the four Hebrew letters used to denote God's name, often represented in English as YHWH or JHVH.
Decalogue: The Ten Commandments.
J-source, P-source, Q-source. These are terms made popular by the Jesus Seminar and other scholarly movements to determine who wrote what portions of the Bible. The J-source refers to portions of the Bible that use the Tetragrammaton; whereas the P-source refers to the "priestly" texts that use the word Elohim, which we translate as God.
The P-source is where we get the opening section of Genesis, in which Elohim creates the heavens and the earth, and stage by stage gives order and life to the earth, culminating in the creation of man. The account of Eden never uses Elohim, however, and refers consistently to YHWH. And so on, throughout the Tanakh.
The Q-source refers to a postulated compilation of the sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke used when embellishing Mark's gospel to create their own. Matthew and Luke attribute a lot of the same phrases and teachings to Jesus, in more or less the same order, but not necessarily connected with the same events.
Parousia: The word's Greek root has to do with arrival or appearing. It's used academically as a reference to the Second Coming, which many first-century Christians expected would happen within their lifetimes, particularly when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.
Pelagian heresy: In a nutshell, it's a heresy that claims it is possible for men to please God and live a righteous life apart from Christ, simply by exercising free will.
Glossolalia: A fancy word for speaking in tongues under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Not to be confused with charisma, which is the supernatural endowment of a believer by the Holy Spirit to perform miraculous signs.
Transubstantiation: A teaching held within the Catholic Church, but also within several mainline Protestant denominations, that Christ is physically present in the elements of the Eucharist, that when we take Communion the wine miraculously becomes his blood and the bread miraculously becomes his body. There are actual names for the different views on how this takes place -- for example, it becomes it in the stomach so we don't become sick or commit cannibalism; or it becomes it at the moment of consecration but in such a way that it becomes indistinguishable from unconsecrated bread and wine -- but I never bothered to learn those names.
Christological: Christology is the doctrines of Christ, such as his being entirely God and entirely man, and what that means.
Hermeneutics: a ten-dollar word that refers to how we approach the Bible when we study it. Do we take literally? Is it meant to be understood within its historical literary context?
synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Those three gospels have a lot in common in terms of structure, narrative, sayings of Jesus and so on that suggest a common source.
The gospel of John has an entirely different structure, has an entirely different set of sayings it draws on, has a radically different focus than the other three, and is considered by some scholars to be from a different tradition entirely (perhaps even later since some of the phraseology appears to be written to correct Gnostic error).
Since Mark and Luke were both journeymen with Paul, and Matthew appears to be highly derivative from Mark as well, I suppose that makes some degree of sense.
Decalogue: The Ten Commandments.
J-source, P-source, Q-source. These are terms made popular by the Jesus Seminar and other scholarly movements to determine who wrote what portions of the Bible. The J-source refers to portions of the Bible that use the Tetragrammaton; whereas the P-source refers to the "priestly" texts that use the word Elohim, which we translate as God.
The P-source is where we get the opening section of Genesis, in which Elohim creates the heavens and the earth, and stage by stage gives order and life to the earth, culminating in the creation of man. The account of Eden never uses Elohim, however, and refers consistently to YHWH. And so on, throughout the Tanakh.
The Q-source refers to a postulated compilation of the sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke used when embellishing Mark's gospel to create their own. Matthew and Luke attribute a lot of the same phrases and teachings to Jesus, in more or less the same order, but not necessarily connected with the same events.
Parousia: The word's Greek root has to do with arrival or appearing. It's used academically as a reference to the Second Coming, which many first-century Christians expected would happen within their lifetimes, particularly when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.
Pelagian heresy: In a nutshell, it's a heresy that claims it is possible for men to please God and live a righteous life apart from Christ, simply by exercising free will.
Glossolalia: A fancy word for speaking in tongues under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Not to be confused with charisma, which is the supernatural endowment of a believer by the Holy Spirit to perform miraculous signs.
Transubstantiation: A teaching held within the Catholic Church, but also within several mainline Protestant denominations, that Christ is physically present in the elements of the Eucharist, that when we take Communion the wine miraculously becomes his blood and the bread miraculously becomes his body. There are actual names for the different views on how this takes place -- for example, it becomes it in the stomach so we don't become sick or commit cannibalism; or it becomes it at the moment of consecration but in such a way that it becomes indistinguishable from unconsecrated bread and wine -- but I never bothered to learn those names.
Christological: Christology is the doctrines of Christ, such as his being entirely God and entirely man, and what that means.
Hermeneutics: a ten-dollar word that refers to how we approach the Bible when we study it. Do we take literally? Is it meant to be understood within its historical literary context?
synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Those three gospels have a lot in common in terms of structure, narrative, sayings of Jesus and so on that suggest a common source.
The gospel of John has an entirely different structure, has an entirely different set of sayings it draws on, has a radically different focus than the other three, and is considered by some scholars to be from a different tradition entirely (perhaps even later since some of the phraseology appears to be written to correct Gnostic error).
Since Mark and Luke were both journeymen with Paul, and Matthew appears to be highly derivative from Mark as well, I suppose that makes some degree of sense.
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
because you asked
I'm curious, Dave, what do you do about weeds in your garden? I haven't been going organic like you, partially since I'm not growing much of anything that I'm going to eat, so I got a bottle of weed killer and sprayed it rather heavily over a corner of my lawn that was grown over with clover and dandelion. It had pretty much zero effect.
We've got a bumper crop of dandelions ourselves. The only way to remove a dandelion is to pull out its entire taproot. If you just break off the top of the plant, it'll grow back.
There's a couple ways you can get of them with varying degrees of ease:
1) Pile on the mulch. The dandelions will grow through, but because the mulch is loose, they won't have a very good grip and will come out more easily when you pull them. If you don't want to pile mulch on, try compost.
2) Mix equal parts vinegar with water and pour the mixture on the offending spot. This kills weeds and other plants since the vinegar burns the plant from the inside. I've never used it because I'm not sure how the vinegar would affect other plants and grubs, though I'm sure it's a lot less nasty for the environment than conventional herbicides and lawn chemicals.
3) If you have a particular part of the lawn in mind, dig it up or rototill it. The rototiller especially will destroy any plant in its path, clearing the way for you to plant whatever you want.
4) Enjoy them. Personally, I love dandelions. They look nice, their seeds are fun to blow when they go all white and puffy, and if you collect their leaves early enough, they make a nice addition to your salad. (Let 'em go too long and they get very bitter.)
If you want to prevent dandelions, it's too late at this point, but next spring when your crocuses -- or the crocuses of somebody else who lives relatively close, at least in the same county -- start to bloom, hie unto your local Agway store or the equivelant and buy yourself some corn gluten.
Corn gluten is a byproduct of corn processing. It has no effect on established root systems like your grass, but when you spread it on your lawn, it acts to inhibit new seeds from germinating. Put that on your lawn at the start of the spring, and it will greatly reduce not only your dandelions but your crabgrass as well. Best of all, it biodegrades into nitrogen and fertilizes your grass as well.
Corn gluten is effective at inhibiting seed germination for up to six weeks, although you can transplant established annuals and other plants in the treated soil at any time. (You also can walk on it and let your children play on it, which you can't do with herbicides.) After the six weeks pass, overseed your yard with new grass seeds, and in the course of a couple years, your yard is going to be pretty much weed free.
When I pull a dandelion or other weed out of my garden or flower beds, I toss it into the middle of my compost pile. The heat kills the seeds, and the whole mass decomposes and becomes a part of my garden the next season.
We've got a bumper crop of dandelions ourselves. The only way to remove a dandelion is to pull out its entire taproot. If you just break off the top of the plant, it'll grow back.
There's a couple ways you can get of them with varying degrees of ease:
1) Pile on the mulch. The dandelions will grow through, but because the mulch is loose, they won't have a very good grip and will come out more easily when you pull them. If you don't want to pile mulch on, try compost.
2) Mix equal parts vinegar with water and pour the mixture on the offending spot. This kills weeds and other plants since the vinegar burns the plant from the inside. I've never used it because I'm not sure how the vinegar would affect other plants and grubs, though I'm sure it's a lot less nasty for the environment than conventional herbicides and lawn chemicals.
3) If you have a particular part of the lawn in mind, dig it up or rototill it. The rototiller especially will destroy any plant in its path, clearing the way for you to plant whatever you want.
4) Enjoy them. Personally, I love dandelions. They look nice, their seeds are fun to blow when they go all white and puffy, and if you collect their leaves early enough, they make a nice addition to your salad. (Let 'em go too long and they get very bitter.)
If you want to prevent dandelions, it's too late at this point, but next spring when your crocuses -- or the crocuses of somebody else who lives relatively close, at least in the same county -- start to bloom, hie unto your local Agway store or the equivelant and buy yourself some corn gluten.
Corn gluten is a byproduct of corn processing. It has no effect on established root systems like your grass, but when you spread it on your lawn, it acts to inhibit new seeds from germinating. Put that on your lawn at the start of the spring, and it will greatly reduce not only your dandelions but your crabgrass as well. Best of all, it biodegrades into nitrogen and fertilizes your grass as well.
Corn gluten is effective at inhibiting seed germination for up to six weeks, although you can transplant established annuals and other plants in the treated soil at any time. (You also can walk on it and let your children play on it, which you can't do with herbicides.) After the six weeks pass, overseed your yard with new grass seeds, and in the course of a couple years, your yard is going to be pretty much weed free.
When I pull a dandelion or other weed out of my garden or flower beds, I toss it into the middle of my compost pile. The heat kills the seeds, and the whole mass decomposes and becomes a part of my garden the next season.
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
First, she began to go numb
Over the next several days, the numbness spread. It swept up her entire left side, reached her head, and began an inexorable descent down her right side.
At the same time, Adamusik started to lose her peripheral vision. Darkness crept in from the sides, blotting out more and more of the world until she was blind in one eye and had suffered an 80 percent vision loss in the other.
This all, happened within three days.
A neurologist was able two weeks later to clear up the worst of Adamusik's symptoms with oral steroids, but her doctors were stumped by what had happened to her. In her late 30s and by nature an active, athletic and on-the-go person, the affliction had come without warning and left her devastated.
It was more than a year before she was diagnosed by a doctor as having multiple sclerosis.
Multiple sclerosis, or M.S., as it is commonly known, is an affliction that removes the protective fatty myelin sheath that surrounds the spinal column and brain. What causes the disease remains a mystery, but it leaves hardened tissue on the brain and along the spinal column and often can result in paralysis and a loss of muscle control.
Multiple sclerosis affects about 400,000 people nationally. It principally strikes people from 20 to 50, and is more than tree times as likely to attack women as it is men. Researchers also have noticed a higher rate of incidence in the Northern regions of the nation than in the South.
The disease follows one of two patterns, either putting its victims through alternating flare-ups and periods of remission, or gradually taking away more of their independence and mobility as it progresses. In neither case is the disease considered terminal.
* * *
Adamusik, 42, falls into the former category. Within the last year, doctors have been able to get her condition to stabilize. Today she is walking again, often without the benefit of a cane, although she has one she needs from time to time.
Make no mistake, though: She has not "recovered." Some numbness remains in her feet, her depth perception is unreliable and her endurance is not what it once was.
"I was a very lucky person. I got everything back, which most people don't," she said. "People in their mid- 30s are shut down. Some people get diagnosed with M.S, and they never get out of a wheelchair. They never get their eyesight back. That's just their first symptom, and — bam!"
The truth is, the disease has taken plenty from her. Adamusik no longer plays tennis, she is limited in how far she can drive, and she has to live with the knowledge that what mobility she has could vanish without warning.
"I'm always afraid when I turn the comer, that I'll return and go back to the way I was," she said. "My legs will not do it. My legs will not walk more than half a block.
"At times it restricts me around here. 1 had to hire a cleaning woman," she said. "I can't even push a vacuum. Last year I couldn't even cook dinner or cook meals."
In a casual conversation around the dinner table at her Armstrong Drive home or out in public, you might never notice that Adamusik has multiple sclerosis. She remains animated and vivacious, and when the subject does come up she is prone to laugh and make jokes about it.
"I have a superpositive attitude, but also every single day I take advantage of, because I don't know if it's going to be my last day," she said. "1 just have to be positive. I don't have time for this crap. I just don't. I'm way too busy."
* * *
Despite her upbeat approach to living with multiple sclerosis, getting to the point she's at now took time and the support of her family at friends.
At the onset of her illness, she said, Adamusik even told her husband, Gene, 38, that she would understand if he left her, and told her friends that she understood if they didn't, want continue their friendship.
Her offers fell on deaf ears.
"You find out that you have a lot of friends," she said. "I have friends who I really count on, who have really come to the forefront and taking my kids places."
Because she often is unable to take her children all the places she used to, Adamusik seizes upon the opportunities she does have since they come less frequently than they once did.
"M.S. is not just my disease. It's my family's," she said. "It has affected everyone in this house."
Just as celebrities like "Family Ties" actor Michael J. Fox have dedicated themselves to advocacy and research connected to diseases they suffer from — Fox has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease — Adamusik has channeled her energy and enthusiasm into the fight against multiple sclerosis.
The chief agency she works with is the greater North Jersey chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, which this week will sponsor a 6.2- mile hike through Nomahegan Park on Springfield Avenue in Cranford.
Wearing T-shirts provided by Arena Sports Connexion on Raritan Road, her 31 -member team, including two of her daughters, will walk the distance to raise money for the society. Her daughter Jenna has raised $410. Her oldest; daughter, Ashleigh Snow, 20, also .will walk, and her youngest daughter, Lauren, 7, is assisting her, mother at the finish line.
Such walks account for about 40 percent of the money raised annually for the North Jersey chapter.
In addition to the walk, Adamusik runs a 25-member support group for Union County victims of multiple sclerosis, called But You Look So Good, with Julia Adams of Roselle Park. The group is sponsored by the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
"It's a really very positive group. If someone has an issue, we'll listen and talk about it, and move on, but we're not going to dwell on it," said Adamusik.
* * *
The exact cause of multiple sclerosis still eludes medical science. No one is certain if it is caused by a virus or bacterium, or by possible environmental factors.
Adamusik's older sister, Carole Fishe of Georgia, also has multiple sclerosis, but statistically family members of the affliction's victims have only a minimally higher chance of developing the disease than those with no family history.
Even in cases where more than one family member suffers from it, the symptoms can vary widely, as they do between Fisher and Adamusik.
"She struggles with it daily, but she's out doing her own thing. She's not using a wheelchair or a cane," said Adamusik. "It affects every single person differently. That's the hardest thing about it."
But life goes on, and Adamusik refuses to let her affliction get her down. Her goal is to seize each moment as it comes and treasure every opportunity to do things with her family that she has.
"Every kids' softball that I can go to, every recital that I can attend, every honors society induction that I can go to, I'll go to," she said. "I am not defined by M.S. M.S. does not have me."
Teens face drug charges following raid on party
Three Clark teens are free after a police raid at a party
being held at the Knights of Columbus Saturday evening.
The men — identified as Daniel Tice, 18, of 86 Jupitor St.; Jonathan Azevedo, 18, of 4 Rolling Hill Way; and Dominick Malanga, 18, of 6 Whitley Terrace — are all students at Arthur L. Johnson High School.
Superintendent of Schools Paul Ortenzio would not say what disciplinary action the school district might take against the teens, and was evasive when pressed for details about the school district's policy in general.
"Basically there is a confidentiality to student records and discipline," explained Board of Education Attorney Michael Gross. "It's not a public matter, it's a private matter."
That confidentiality extends to the students even though they are 18, Gross said.
A student at Arthur L. Johnson High School who attended the party said the three teens were all at school Tuesday morning.
In addition to making the arrests, police seized 200 tablets of Ecstasy, fewer than 50 grams of marijuana, two kegs of beer and S464 in cash. The seized items are being held as evidence.
Tony Fiorillo, grand knight of the Clark Knights of Columbus, said the organization had nothing to do with the party. The Knights of Columbus has a policy of renting its Westfield Avenue hall out to other groups.
"It's a private party that had rented the hall for a college graduation," Fiorillo said Tuesday morning. "We had rented the hall for that. We didn't sell them no food, no liquor. I wouldn't even sell them no pizza."
Fiorillo said he also carded the party-goers and ejected three of them whom he believed to be too young for a party where alcohol would be served, despite their IDs.
The student, who spoke on the condition he not be identified, said the party was a birthday party for Anthony Pecorella, a senior at ALJ.
He also said that despite statements to the contrary, the Knights of Columbus made virtually no effort to prevent underage drinking at the party.
"The situation was that people who were obviously underage or with fake IDs were going in, and the owner of the club was sitting there, saying 'Do you have your ID?' They would say no, and he would say, 'Don't drink,'" the student said.
The student, who is younger than the legal drinking age, added that he drank alcohol while he was at the party and did not take any identification with him to the party. He left 15 minutes before the police arrived.
In a rare but candid insider's view of the high school culture, the student described an environment where drug and alcohol use, while not necessarily out of control, is i practiced more or less openly.
"With the upperclassmen in the high school it's existing, but it's much more controlled," he said. "It's with the underclassmen where the problem really lies. Because they've never been around it, they just jump in."
The student described himself as an occasional user of marijuana who began smoking it his freshman year.
"In Kumpf, you never heard of the stuff. I mean, obviously you've heard of it, but you've never seen it, except in a DARE officer's hands," he said. "But now you come into school and it's readily available to you. All you have to do is know somebody who knows somebody."
He added that he understands drug use to be on the rise among Clark middle-schoolers as well.
The arrests followed a monthlong narcotics investigation involving detective John Doherty, Lt. Kevin White, Sgt. Michael Pollock, Patrol Officer Steven Francisco and Patrol Officer Susan Ricci.
Tice was charged with underage possession of an alcoholic beverage and released on his own recognizance at police headquarters.
Azevedo was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia because of an alleged crack pipe police found him with. He also was released on his own recognizance.
Malanga was charged with possession of marijuana, possession of Ecstasy, manufacturing/distributing a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute it within 1,000 feet of a school zone.
The student said he is unaware of anyone using Ecstasy during the party while he was there.
"No one was really on it, but the one person who ended up getting arrested had to pick it up in order to sell it or drop it off to anyone who wants it," he said.
The student described obtaining marijuana or more potent drugs is easy for Clark teens to accomplish. He called school itself "definitely the last place" a student would sell drugs.
"Most of the dealing is done on the weekend," the student said. "It's at that time 'John Smith' would get into his car and drive around Clark."
More arrests may be coming, depending on further investigation into the identities of people attending the party, police said.
If that happens, parents might be in for a shock if they consider drug use to be a problem unique to underachievers and at-risk students.
"There's no longer a distinction where the kids that are failing are doing the drugs," said the student. "Many honor students are able to handle occasional use of drugs and alcohol and retain their academic status."
The men — identified as Daniel Tice, 18, of 86 Jupitor St.; Jonathan Azevedo, 18, of 4 Rolling Hill Way; and Dominick Malanga, 18, of 6 Whitley Terrace — are all students at Arthur L. Johnson High School.
Superintendent of Schools Paul Ortenzio would not say what disciplinary action the school district might take against the teens, and was evasive when pressed for details about the school district's policy in general.
"Basically there is a confidentiality to student records and discipline," explained Board of Education Attorney Michael Gross. "It's not a public matter, it's a private matter."
That confidentiality extends to the students even though they are 18, Gross said.
A student at Arthur L. Johnson High School who attended the party said the three teens were all at school Tuesday morning.
In addition to making the arrests, police seized 200 tablets of Ecstasy, fewer than 50 grams of marijuana, two kegs of beer and S464 in cash. The seized items are being held as evidence.
Tony Fiorillo, grand knight of the Clark Knights of Columbus, said the organization had nothing to do with the party. The Knights of Columbus has a policy of renting its Westfield Avenue hall out to other groups.
"It's a private party that had rented the hall for a college graduation," Fiorillo said Tuesday morning. "We had rented the hall for that. We didn't sell them no food, no liquor. I wouldn't even sell them no pizza."
Fiorillo said he also carded the party-goers and ejected three of them whom he believed to be too young for a party where alcohol would be served, despite their IDs.
The student, who spoke on the condition he not be identified, said the party was a birthday party for Anthony Pecorella, a senior at ALJ.
He also said that despite statements to the contrary, the Knights of Columbus made virtually no effort to prevent underage drinking at the party.
"The situation was that people who were obviously underage or with fake IDs were going in, and the owner of the club was sitting there, saying 'Do you have your ID?' They would say no, and he would say, 'Don't drink,'" the student said.
The student, who is younger than the legal drinking age, added that he drank alcohol while he was at the party and did not take any identification with him to the party. He left 15 minutes before the police arrived.
In a rare but candid insider's view of the high school culture, the student described an environment where drug and alcohol use, while not necessarily out of control, is i practiced more or less openly.
"With the upperclassmen in the high school it's existing, but it's much more controlled," he said. "It's with the underclassmen where the problem really lies. Because they've never been around it, they just jump in."
The student described himself as an occasional user of marijuana who began smoking it his freshman year.
"In Kumpf, you never heard of the stuff. I mean, obviously you've heard of it, but you've never seen it, except in a DARE officer's hands," he said. "But now you come into school and it's readily available to you. All you have to do is know somebody who knows somebody."
He added that he understands drug use to be on the rise among Clark middle-schoolers as well.
The arrests followed a monthlong narcotics investigation involving detective John Doherty, Lt. Kevin White, Sgt. Michael Pollock, Patrol Officer Steven Francisco and Patrol Officer Susan Ricci.
Tice was charged with underage possession of an alcoholic beverage and released on his own recognizance at police headquarters.
Azevedo was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia because of an alleged crack pipe police found him with. He also was released on his own recognizance.
Malanga was charged with possession of marijuana, possession of Ecstasy, manufacturing/distributing a controlled dangerous substance, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute it within 1,000 feet of a school zone.
The student said he is unaware of anyone using Ecstasy during the party while he was there.
"No one was really on it, but the one person who ended up getting arrested had to pick it up in order to sell it or drop it off to anyone who wants it," he said.
The student described obtaining marijuana or more potent drugs is easy for Clark teens to accomplish. He called school itself "definitely the last place" a student would sell drugs.
"Most of the dealing is done on the weekend," the student said. "It's at that time 'John Smith' would get into his car and drive around Clark."
More arrests may be coming, depending on further investigation into the identities of people attending the party, police said.
If that happens, parents might be in for a shock if they consider drug use to be a problem unique to underachievers and at-risk students.
"There's no longer a distinction where the kids that are failing are doing the drugs," said the student. "Many honor students are able to handle occasional use of drugs and alcohol and retain their academic status."
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
'the two towers' cliff-hanger
I suppose I can understand the reason for the reported move of Shelob from "The Two Towers" to "Return of the King," but I am a little disappointed. The last pages of "The Two Towers" the book is one of the all-time greatest literary cliff-hangers. The first time I read it, it was much like the same feeling I had when I heard this dialogue:
Riker: What do you mean he's with the Borg?
Worf: He is a Borg!
Picard: I am Locutus of Borg. Your lives as you have known them are over. From now on you will adapt to service us. Resistance is useless, Number One.
Riker: Mr. Worf ... fire.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
And they knew they were doing it too.
I wish Jackson would leave Shelob at the end of the second movie, but I understand why he's not. The wandering in Mordor isn't likely to be appealing enough to support a big chunk of "The Return of the King" in the cinema. But he would get a lot of Tolkien newbies rushing out to buy the books and to see his movie if he did it that way.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
new reasons to squeeze them
This morning I went out to walk the dog and found someone had walked into my front yard, stepped in a newly spaded flower bed and cut the beautiful yellow blooms off some of my spring ephemerals. What the expletive is the point of that? They'll be wilted in a vase by this time tomorrow, but they'd still be blooming a week or two from now in my flower bed where everyone could have enjoyed them if they had been left alone. What a great way to start off the day.
Fat stupid hobbitses ... not nice to Sméagol.
Fat stupid hobbitses ... not nice to Sméagol.
no blood for oil
Let's be fair: The "it's all about oil" argument is rather oversimplistic, don't you think? I know I do.
I'm sure the oil argument has occurred to members of the Bush administration, and even if it hadn't, the number of protesters and war opponents who have brought the issue forward certainly would have suggested it.
That said, I'm inclined to believe the president believes the reasons he gave for ousting Saddam Hussein: the noncompliance issue with U.N. inspections and the prospect of chemical or biological weapons, and the ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and international terrorism. I'm sure other factors played into it, including the opportunity to improve America's oil supply and the opportunity to avenge his father's failure 12 years ago, but I think it's disingenuous to ascribe only or even primarily economic reasons to Bush's actions.
I'm sure the oil argument has occurred to members of the Bush administration, and even if it hadn't, the number of protesters and war opponents who have brought the issue forward certainly would have suggested it.
That said, I'm inclined to believe the president believes the reasons he gave for ousting Saddam Hussein: the noncompliance issue with U.N. inspections and the prospect of chemical or biological weapons, and the ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and international terrorism. I'm sure other factors played into it, including the opportunity to improve America's oil supply and the opportunity to avenge his father's failure 12 years ago, but I think it's disingenuous to ascribe only or even primarily economic reasons to Bush's actions.
Monday, April 14, 2003
judas' true motivation revealed
You know why Judas betrayed Jesus? It's simple. He was mortified by Jesus' liberal social views, and was concerned if he did prove to be a political messiah he wouldn't approve massive tax cuts for the rich. Since Judas had squirreled away a nice bit of cash from the treasury -- and remember he only gave lip service to caring for the poor -- he decided it was necessary to nip this new social order in the bud.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
on my own for the moment
At the moment, Evangeline is upstairs, sound asleep, and Natasha and Rachel are out at a book club Natasha belongs to. That leaves me pretty much on my own, so after wasting time I should have been putting to better uses, I'm here writing this.
Probably the biggest news we have right now is that Natasha is turning 28 this Friday. The girls and I went out this afternoon after I got home from work, and bought her some books in Frank Herbert's "Dune" series. I've never actually read the books, but they're generally regarded as a classic work of science-fiction. They're set on the desert world Arrakis and apparently delve into religious and political philosophies. (Two of the sequels are Dune Messiah and God Emperor of Dune, which says something, I suppose.) Natasha's been reading my copy of the first book and enjoying it immensely, so I'm hoping she enjoys the sequels.
I haven't had much time to do recreational reading, unfortunately. The most I've been able to do this year is to re-read "The Hobbit" and to start re-reading "The Fellowship of the Ring." Whoever said all that you need in life is God and books must have had more time than me.
Work is going well, although I remain frustrated with my experiences there and continue to hope (and look) for opportunities elsewhere. I recently spoke with Dick Willever, the Big Cheese editor down at The Princeton Packet, and they have filled a position there that I had applied for. Just as well, probably, since the only reason I had applied for it was to get out of my current situation. I need not to settle, and instead concentrate on finding something that will challenge and interest me instead of just changing the environment I get bored and frustrated in.
Probably the biggest news we have right now is that Natasha is turning 28 this Friday. The girls and I went out this afternoon after I got home from work, and bought her some books in Frank Herbert's "Dune" series. I've never actually read the books, but they're generally regarded as a classic work of science-fiction. They're set on the desert world Arrakis and apparently delve into religious and political philosophies. (Two of the sequels are Dune Messiah and God Emperor of Dune, which says something, I suppose.) Natasha's been reading my copy of the first book and enjoying it immensely, so I'm hoping she enjoys the sequels.
I haven't had much time to do recreational reading, unfortunately. The most I've been able to do this year is to re-read "The Hobbit" and to start re-reading "The Fellowship of the Ring." Whoever said all that you need in life is God and books must have had more time than me.
Work is going well, although I remain frustrated with my experiences there and continue to hope (and look) for opportunities elsewhere. I recently spoke with Dick Willever, the Big Cheese editor down at The Princeton Packet, and they have filled a position there that I had applied for. Just as well, probably, since the only reason I had applied for it was to get out of my current situation. I need not to settle, and instead concentrate on finding something that will challenge and interest me instead of just changing the environment I get bored and frustrated in.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
saddam double killed
SADDAM BODY DOUBLE'S DECOY BELIEVED KILLED IN ALLIED BOMBING
By Jocko Grinn
BAGHDAD, Iraq. (Grinn News Service) — A decoy for one of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's body doubles was believed killed in an allied bombing late Tuesday night.
Allied forces, acting on intelligence that Saddam has been the unwitting puppet of one Mohammed Chang -- reportedly the body double of one of Saddam's more cunning body doubles -- dropped powerful ordnance on a residential structure in Bagdhad where Chang was said to be playing Gnip Gnop with body doubles of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusai.
The bombs — four HSOABs, or Half-Sisters Of All Bombs, twice removed on Aunt Edith's side — struck the upscale al-Mansour section of western Baghdad. The bombs used up all the hot water and tied up the phones all afternoon up to 300 yards away, wrinkled pages of the regime's diamond-studded Entertainment Today magazines, and started moving their things into people's rooms while they were away at school, leaving a heap of dirty, stinky laundry in the hall -- then short-circuited, exploding and destroying the entire block.
"We'd like to confirm an incident of success on a designated target," said Marine Maj. Brad Bartelt, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Qatar. "At the moment, though, all we can confirm is a really big smoking crater."
Iraqi dissidents familiar with Saddam say the Iraqi dictator began using the body doubles as a way to foil assassination attempts and to make it difficult for his wives to determine whether or not he was actually attending dinner parties with them. Hussein's body doubles then began using their own decoys, in order to take smoking and TV breaks on regime time without having their retirement funds docked.
At some point, Chang — who has the most common first and last names in the world — began using the Iraqi dictator's name to order late-night pizza and call world-renowned psychic Miss Cleo on her exclusive 900 number.
Unverified rumors speculate that Saddam Hussein himself was posing as Chang, who was posing as Saddam, and that the smoking crater marks the Iraqi dictator's unanticipated gravesite.
Also believed to have been killed in an airstrike on Basra is Saddam's top commander in southern Iraq, his first cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid. Al-Majid, also known as "Chemical Ali" for his trademark phrase "Move like a butterfly, sting like a cloud of nerve gas" made a name for himself in the 1970s and 1980s as a professional boxer in the Iraqi circuit.
"We believe that the reign of terror of Chemical Ali has come to an end," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said. "To Iraqis who were hoping for a rematch, we promise to soon send you Mike Tyson, the next time he's out on parole for a few weeks."
Meanwhile, as coalition troops reportedly uncovered caches of chemical and biological weapons that for ten years the Iraqi regime has denied having — prompting reassurances that "We've been right behind you all along," from France, Russia, China and other nations that have criticized the coalition action against Iraq — Iraqi Minister of Information Muhammad Sa'id al-Sahhaf assured Iraqi nationals that the war was going "well."
"There are no American troops inside Baghdad," al-Sahhaf said as a procession of U.S. Marines paused afternoon fighting behind him for coffee and bagels at a nearby Panera-al-Bubwa's. "Even now the infidels are committing suicide outside the gates of Baghdad, knowing that they will never see the hallowed halls of this blessed city."
By Jocko Grinn
BAGHDAD, Iraq. (Grinn News Service) — A decoy for one of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's body doubles was believed killed in an allied bombing late Tuesday night.
Allied forces, acting on intelligence that Saddam has been the unwitting puppet of one Mohammed Chang -- reportedly the body double of one of Saddam's more cunning body doubles -- dropped powerful ordnance on a residential structure in Bagdhad where Chang was said to be playing Gnip Gnop with body doubles of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusai.
The bombs — four HSOABs, or Half-Sisters Of All Bombs, twice removed on Aunt Edith's side — struck the upscale al-Mansour section of western Baghdad. The bombs used up all the hot water and tied up the phones all afternoon up to 300 yards away, wrinkled pages of the regime's diamond-studded Entertainment Today magazines, and started moving their things into people's rooms while they were away at school, leaving a heap of dirty, stinky laundry in the hall -- then short-circuited, exploding and destroying the entire block.
"We'd like to confirm an incident of success on a designated target," said Marine Maj. Brad Bartelt, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Qatar. "At the moment, though, all we can confirm is a really big smoking crater."
Iraqi dissidents familiar with Saddam say the Iraqi dictator began using the body doubles as a way to foil assassination attempts and to make it difficult for his wives to determine whether or not he was actually attending dinner parties with them. Hussein's body doubles then began using their own decoys, in order to take smoking and TV breaks on regime time without having their retirement funds docked.
At some point, Chang — who has the most common first and last names in the world — began using the Iraqi dictator's name to order late-night pizza and call world-renowned psychic Miss Cleo on her exclusive 900 number.
Unverified rumors speculate that Saddam Hussein himself was posing as Chang, who was posing as Saddam, and that the smoking crater marks the Iraqi dictator's unanticipated gravesite.
Also believed to have been killed in an airstrike on Basra is Saddam's top commander in southern Iraq, his first cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid. Al-Majid, also known as "Chemical Ali" for his trademark phrase "Move like a butterfly, sting like a cloud of nerve gas" made a name for himself in the 1970s and 1980s as a professional boxer in the Iraqi circuit.
"We believe that the reign of terror of Chemical Ali has come to an end," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said. "To Iraqis who were hoping for a rematch, we promise to soon send you Mike Tyson, the next time he's out on parole for a few weeks."
Meanwhile, as coalition troops reportedly uncovered caches of chemical and biological weapons that for ten years the Iraqi regime has denied having — prompting reassurances that "We've been right behind you all along," from France, Russia, China and other nations that have criticized the coalition action against Iraq — Iraqi Minister of Information Muhammad Sa'id al-Sahhaf assured Iraqi nationals that the war was going "well."
"There are no American troops inside Baghdad," al-Sahhaf said as a procession of U.S. Marines paused afternoon fighting behind him for coffee and bagels at a nearby Panera-al-Bubwa's. "Even now the infidels are committing suicide outside the gates of Baghdad, knowing that they will never see the hallowed halls of this blessed city."
judas' motivation redux
I was listening to my "Jesus Christ Superstar" soundtrack on the way home from work tonight (this morning?) and was hit by something I hadn't really fully noticed before. Judas' motivation in the musical is stated completely in the opening song: He was scared of what was going to happen, and wanted everyone to survive.
I've usually interpreted Superstar's Judas as acting from a sense of national preservation; i.e., he was trying to keep Israel from being destroyed by the Romans. But it was simpler than that, actually: He wanted to keep Jesus from being destroyed by the Romans too. When he approaches the Sanhedrin at the end of the first act, he's pleading for help; i.e., show me what I can do to save his life. When he betrays Jesus to the Sanhedrin, he's expecting the Sanhedrin is simply going to lock him up -- and he's utterly floored, flabbergasted and appalled when he sees what they do to him: "You beat him so bad I had to turn my head / You hit him so hard that he was bent and lame / and I know who everybody's going to blame."
He's shocked at the barbarity of what happened, but he's also horrified that everyone's going to think this is what he wanted to have happen.
Perhaps I should be embarrassed it took me so long to make such an obvious reading of the book, but it still struck me about how personal it makes it. It has Judas acting out of love and "for Jesus' own good."
Makes you wonder about the things we do for one another, doesn't it?
Friday, April 04, 2003
the apostle: a monologue
This is a monologue I wrote two years ago for the Good Friday service at my church. It may not be reprinted, reposted, forwarded or performed without my express permission.
"The Apostle"
Don’t look at me like that.
The first time I met the Lord, he couldn’t have been more than 10 years old. I really don’t remember too much about it. I remember my family and I were in Jerusalem for the Passover feast, and we happened to bump into this family from Nazareth with a boy about the same age as me.
He was a little different even then, you could tell. He had a certain
mischievous look in his eyes — the kind that doesn’t do anything that’s actually wrong and that you can’t punish him for but it still makes you nervous anyway. We hit it right off, if for no other reason than we were the same age and both awed by the sites of the Holy City.
We saw each other a few more times as the years went by, and even though we got older, we still looked for each other around the Passover when we were in the city. By the time we were adults, Jesus had adopted a kind of intense air. Not brooding so much, but when you looked into his eyes, it was like looking at the sea and knowing there were such deep mysteries hidden within.
His eyes ... Don’t look me like that.
We were thirty when it all came together. I met him after he had been out in the desert with John the Baptist. I didn’t realize at the time that they were cousins, but I found it out later. It wasn’t long after that that he asked me to be one of his disciples. You can imagine how I felt. It was like — well, it was like I’d just been named one of the Twelve Apostles.
And let me tell you, it was a ride I will never forget as long as I live. When he spoke, everyone listened. Crowds. Demons. The waves. Even the priests and teachers of the law.
Then there were miracles. Everywhere we went, people came to him with
diseases, with afflicted children, and he healed them. Did you know that one time when were in Bethany he actually raised an old friend of his from the dead? There was no doubting who he was. He was the messiah, the very son of God himself, and I was left speechless that he actually would associate with me.
Please don’t look at me that way. It’s bad enough already.
You see, I was there with him from the very beginning. The others all knew him and loved him, but I could tell they couldn’t see what I saw happening. Things were getting out of control. When we started out, there was no doubt that Jesus was in control of things. People came to him for a miracle, and he gave them that miracle, and then they told others, and more people came, and Jesus gave them their miracles too, and they kept coming and taking, and Jesus kept right on giving, no matter how exhausted he was.
It all started to come clear to me a little over a week ago. Jesus had been hinting that there was trouble ahead. He was still talking about the kingdom of God, but something had changed. He started talking about being executed, and Peter — God bless him — Peter got upset with him. Jesus rebuked him, and I think that’s when I realized where we were headed.
It was absolutely clear to me just after we entered Jerusalem, and I knew it was clear to Jesus too. He kept looking at me with those eyes of his — eyes that were warm, but somehow sad — and I knew what he was thinking. It had gone too far. In all their hosannas and shouts of "Son of David, save us!" the crowd had changed. He had stopped leading them, and they hard started to drive him.
We had come too far, too fast, and things were spiraling out of control. I remember the last time that nearly happened, when hundreds of people left him at a time because of something he had said. His eyes had been filled with pain and confusion, and I knew we were headed toward that again, only worse.
Do you know what it’s like to love someone and see them get eaten away, piece by piece? It’s horrible. You see them in pain, you hear them crying out for release, and in the end, there’s nothing left of their glory or majesty. They’re empty shells, and that’s all that people remember of them.
I had to do what I did. I love him too much to let people remember him as anything but what he was this past week. A king, triumphantly riding his way into town. A prophet, angrily facing down the hypocrite shepherds who fatten themselves on their flock. A priest — the only real priest I’ve ever known — who cares for people and brings them closer to God.
Stop looking at me that way. I don’t want your pity, and I don’t need your horror. I did it because I love him. He knew it at the seder last night, and when I came to him early this morning, I saw it in his eyes that he was ready … his eyes ...
(choked laugh)
Oh God ... I've betrayed divinity....
[music]
[hanging]
Copyright © 2001 David Learn
easter baskets
An odd question here: What sort of treatment do you give to extrabiblical holidays and extrabiblical customs? Natasha and I are trying to decide how we want to handle Easter this year and whether we want to go the route of an Easter basket for Evangeline.
I'm inclined to, on the grounds it's not an offensive addition to the holiday; Natasha is discinlined, on the grounds that it's an occasion for overindulgence on chocolate and other junk, and feeds into the American consumer mentality. We have similar concerns about Christmas, obviously.
My best thought of course is to reinterpret the custom in some way, not to give it a Christian gloss, but to give it a new spin that somehow is Christ-centered. What the missionaries did with Easter made sense at the time -- turning a pagan holiday about renewal into a Christian celebration of new life and forgiveness -- but I'm kind of stumped about what to do with an Easter basket and chocolate. The best I can see is something with the basket being hidden and then found somehow paralleling the risen Christ emerging from the tomb, but that's kind of a stretch.
What does everyone do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
