Was it worth it to take care of someone else's child for nine months? Well let's see:
1) It took a heavy, bitter toll on our marriage. A friend had asked me to do a story for a web site he's the editor of, and even promised me payment for it. Things were so bad I couldn't find anything to say that was remotely insightful or witty.
2) Evangeline was unable to sleep for weeks, out of grief.
3) She also was convinced she was next to go, especially when we had to leave her with friends when her sister was born.
4) It's plagued me with bad nights like this one where I can't sleep because I keep thinking about him and feeling sorry for myself.
5) Other things I don't want to share.
6) Isaac learned how to talk, how to love, how to be loved, and started to develop properly.
7) This entire time has been a period of learning to lean ever more heavily on Christ and to reach a deeper understanding of his grace and what it means when he says, "Pick up your cross and follow me."
In light of 6 and 7, I would have to say it was worth it, and we've had our reward already. I also wouldn't mind doing it again, as long as Natasha is willing. In light of 1 to 5, I'd have to say someone would have to be nuts even to consider it.
Saturday, November 29, 2003
the lord's prayer
I've been teaching Evangeline the Lord's prayer with some interesting results. Last Wednesday, after I picked her up at preschool, she and some of the other children were having fun playing with sticks in the yard before we left. Her stick was particularly large, and she grew rather upset when I wouldn't let her take it home. That night, the Lord's prayer went like this:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done,
On earth as in heaven.
Daddy took the stick away from me,
And I said, "Daddy, that was a bad choice.
You're in time out."
In Jesus' name,
Amen.
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done,
On earth as in heaven.
Daddy took the stick away from me,
And I said, "Daddy, that was a bad choice.
You're in time out."
In Jesus' name,
Amen.
twenty-five cents' worth of trickle-down
Speaking personally, I think the only trickle-down benefit I've received in the 17 years I've been in the work force was the quarter I found in the parking lot back in '96.
The aggregation of wealth to an increasingly small minority is not a good thing, and it is not something we should cheer. True, the gospel isn't about money and it's foolish to argue that Christ's sole or even primary concern is that the poor become wealthier. That's Marxism, not Christianity.
Money is a spiritual force, not merely an economic one, and it is one that has twisted American society into unbelievable knots. There's nothing wrong with having money, but judging by our preoccupation with accumulating and retaining wealth, I'd say we don't have money. It has us.
Laissez faire is as destructive to a society as democracy. The one leads to a cutthroat mentality as robber barons rise to the top and crush whomever they want; the other leads to popular but ultimately ineffective officials who win on the merits of personality rather than actual ability. And try as we might, no regulation or amendments or legislative efforts will ever correct those problems. They'll just give us new opportunities to make things worse.
I don't know which is worse: Democrats who use the "class warfare" notion to advance their cause politically, or Republicans who just don't care, as long as their power base and interests are served.
The aggregation of wealth to an increasingly small minority is not a good thing, and it is not something we should cheer. True, the gospel isn't about money and it's foolish to argue that Christ's sole or even primary concern is that the poor become wealthier. That's Marxism, not Christianity.
Money is a spiritual force, not merely an economic one, and it is one that has twisted American society into unbelievable knots. There's nothing wrong with having money, but judging by our preoccupation with accumulating and retaining wealth, I'd say we don't have money. It has us.
Laissez faire is as destructive to a society as democracy. The one leads to a cutthroat mentality as robber barons rise to the top and crush whomever they want; the other leads to popular but ultimately ineffective officials who win on the merits of personality rather than actual ability. And try as we might, no regulation or amendments or legislative efforts will ever correct those problems. They'll just give us new opportunities to make things worse.
I don't know which is worse: Democrats who use the "class warfare" notion to advance their cause politically, or Republicans who just don't care, as long as their power base and interests are served.
'finding nemo'
So we got "Finding Nemo" on DVD when it first came out, I guess last week. Natasha's watching it with the girls in the living room, I come in and sit down next to them. It's a little odd, but pretty funny. I kept thinking of a fellow from Australia who I know, for some reason.
Then comes the clincher: The movie is about a clownfish named Marlin who is searching for his son, Nemo, who was taken by a tropical fish enthusiast to put into his tank. Marlin is swimming up and down the Great Barrier Reef, facing sharks and braving a water vortex -- risking everything, really -- just to get Nemo back.
Suddenly I start crying and can't stop. I have to leave the room.
And you know something? I don't think I'll ever be able to watch that movie with my girls, as much as I'd like to.
Thank God my wife understands.
Life is not beautiful at all; it's grotesque. I side with Flannery O'Connor: People who have never suffered have missed one of God's greatest blessings.
Then comes the clincher: The movie is about a clownfish named Marlin who is searching for his son, Nemo, who was taken by a tropical fish enthusiast to put into his tank. Marlin is swimming up and down the Great Barrier Reef, facing sharks and braving a water vortex -- risking everything, really -- just to get Nemo back.
Suddenly I start crying and can't stop. I have to leave the room.
And you know something? I don't think I'll ever be able to watch that movie with my girls, as much as I'd like to.
Thank God my wife understands.
Life is not beautiful at all; it's grotesque. I side with Flannery O'Connor: People who have never suffered have missed one of God's greatest blessings.
Friday, November 28, 2003
the electric company
Well, I've gone and done it. I have an interview at 2 p.m. Tuesday with an executive vice president at the Sesame Workshop about "The Electric Company."
"The Electric Company" was a tremendous show produced by the Children's Television Workshop for six seasons, from 1971-1977. It had features like "The Adventures of Letterman"; starred performers like Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman and Rita Moreno; and was aimed at boosting reading skills among children who had aged out of "Sesame Street." My brothers and I watched it religiously when we were little.
My kids are younger than the intended audience of "The Electric Company," and haven't even started reading yet; but I know the older one will love it in a year or two. Every adult I've mentioned the show to remembers it excitedly, and asks the same question I had a month ago, "Is that out on DVD? Where can I get it?"
When I first called the Sesame Workshop several weeks ago, I was told there were no plans at the moment to release the series on DVD. I started asking some questions for the column and was told someone higher up would have to get back to me.
Now I'm told the executive vice president is very keen on the idea of having it re-released. I have hopes that we've started something.
If not, well, my column about Toys for Tots went out to about 100,000 homes in Union and Essex counties. I'm hoping my anticipated column on "The Electric Company" will as well.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
My kids are younger than the intended audience of "The Electric Company," and haven't even started reading yet; but I know the older one will love it in a year or two. Every adult I've mentioned the show to remembers it excitedly, and asks the same question I had a month ago, "Is that out on DVD? Where can I get it?"
When I first called the Sesame Workshop several weeks ago, I was told there were no plans at the moment to release the series on DVD. I started asking some questions for the column and was told someone higher up would have to get back to me.
Now I'm told the executive vice president is very keen on the idea of having it re-released. I have hopes that we've started something.
If not, well, my column about Toys for Tots went out to about 100,000 homes in Union and Essex counties. I'm hoping my anticipated column on "The Electric Company" will as well.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
why i do what i do
Every now and then, people ask me how much longer I'm going to be at the newspaper where I work.
I don't think they're asking from a wait-til-the-carcass-drops frame of mind, though perhaps I'm kidding myself in that regard. Usually the question comes with a follow-up about where my next destination will be, with an unstated assumption that I'd like to work for a bigger publication like The Star-Ledger.
No, thanks. Been there, done that, hated every last minute of it. Before I started at WCN Newspapers, I worked for eight painful months at The Times. What was missing? The chance to make a difference.
It's that sort of wide-eyed idealism is exactly what propelled me into community journalism back in 1996, and it's what has kept me in the business through years of being called a Democratic toady and a Republican stooge, through being demonized as a muck-raker and a trouble-maker, and through reams of vitriol poured out by people who have disagreed with editorial stands my newspapers have taken. (One of my most treasured journalistic possessions is a 1,500-word tirade to the editor from the Republican former mayor of Hillsborough after we endorsed his opponent and he lost re-election by a landslide.)
Recently in Quakertown, I was given a reminder of the way community journalists can affect the communities we cover if we stay faithful to our mission of reporting the news in a thorough, unbiased and professional manner.
I'm referring to a new computers-on-a-cart program that's coming to Frank K. Hehnly School, thanks to my coverage of the school district.
On Oct. 28, the Quakertown Board of Education was asked to decide whether to lease 24 laptop computers for Hehnly School at a cost of $6,912 a year for five years.
Only five of the 10 board members voted in favor of the program. Four voted against it, and one -- Garwood representative James Mattheson -- abstained, since Garwood sends students only to Arthur L. Johnson High School, and not to the district's elementary schools.
It was past midnight and I was back at the newspaper offices writing my story about the decision when it hit me. A majority of the Quakertown representatives had voted for the proposal. Even though his abstention was meant to keep him from influencing board decisions, Mattheson's mere presence on the board had raised the ante, effectively altering the outcome of the vote.
By this time it was much too late to call anyone, and I knew the explanation I would get -- five out of 10 is not a majority -- so I did what any responsible journalist would do: I filed my story, made a note to do a follow-up and went home to get some sleep.
On Thursday I reached out to Mike Yaple of the Iowa School Boards Association.
"There's nothing in the statute or code, but there have been commissioner's decisions that typically say the representative would be a nonvote," Yaple told me. "It's not an abstention; it's essentially a shifting quorum."
Yaple referred me to an Aug. 5, 1997, decision by then-Commissioner of Education Leo Klagholz about school districts with a relationship like the one shared by Garwood and Quakertown.
The decision is small -- barely five pages -- but it was an earthquake where the board's vote was concerned. Klagholz essentially wrote that if the issue doesn't affect the sending district, then their representatives don't vote.
Exclude Mattheson, and the vote is 5-4. Motion passes.
I called Paul Ortenzio, the Quakertown superintendent of schools, to tell him about my discovery. Since he had been given different legal advice from a qualified attorney, he was skeptical.
"The way I understand it, it has to be a majority of the whole board -- and the whole board is 10," he said.
Karen Amalfe, a school board member who had been lobbying for the laptops since the start of the summer, also was surprised by what I had to say, but she welcomed the news.
"That seems to be contradicting what the attorney told me," she said. Then she added: "If I could get that overturned, that would be wonderful."
That's pretty much what happened. Michael Gross, the board attorney, had been unaware of Klagholz's decision, but he agreed with my interpretation and said he had let the administration know that he was amending his legal advice about counting votes. The official record is going to reflect that the board voted to buy the computers.
The irony to all this is that I'm not personally convinced about the need for a laptop computer program myself. A former teacher, I regard parental involvement and teacher commitment to engaging the students as far more essential than the bells and whistles that make us so enamored with technology.
That's not important, though; what does matter is that the Quakertown Board of Education voted a certain way, and the way that vote was interpreted didn't square with how it was supposed to be counted. I had a question, I knew where to look for an answer, I found it, and I reported what I found.
In another month or so, a few hundred elementary school students are going to have access to computers they wouldn't have had otherwise, due in some small part to me.
That's what it's about. That's why I've stayed in community newspapers while co-workers of mine have landed jobs covering professional sports teams for the Associated Press, reporting for The Los Angeles Times, and chronicling the daily shenanigans at the New Jersey State House for one news bureau or another.
A colleague at The Princeton Packet once told me she hopes to ride on Air Force One some day as a member of the White House Press Corps. Jennifer's good at what she does; I won't be at all surprised if she someday works for The New York Times or the Washington Post doing just that.
As for me, although I grumble sometimes about the hours I work and about the difficulty of feeding my family on what I earn, I couldn't be happier with my choice of careers. I make a real and identifiable difference for the people whose towns I cover. What more can you ask for?
I'm a community journalist. That's what I do.
I don't think they're asking from a wait-til-the-carcass-drops frame of mind, though perhaps I'm kidding myself in that regard. Usually the question comes with a follow-up about where my next destination will be, with an unstated assumption that I'd like to work for a bigger publication like The Star-Ledger.
No, thanks. Been there, done that, hated every last minute of it. Before I started at WCN Newspapers, I worked for eight painful months at The Times. What was missing? The chance to make a difference.
It's that sort of wide-eyed idealism is exactly what propelled me into community journalism back in 1996, and it's what has kept me in the business through years of being called a Democratic toady and a Republican stooge, through being demonized as a muck-raker and a trouble-maker, and through reams of vitriol poured out by people who have disagreed with editorial stands my newspapers have taken. (One of my most treasured journalistic possessions is a 1,500-word tirade to the editor from the Republican former mayor of Hillsborough after we endorsed his opponent and he lost re-election by a landslide.)
Recently in Quakertown, I was given a reminder of the way community journalists can affect the communities we cover if we stay faithful to our mission of reporting the news in a thorough, unbiased and professional manner.
I'm referring to a new computers-on-a-cart program that's coming to Frank K. Hehnly School, thanks to my coverage of the school district.
On Oct. 28, the Quakertown Board of Education was asked to decide whether to lease 24 laptop computers for Hehnly School at a cost of $6,912 a year for five years.
Only five of the 10 board members voted in favor of the program. Four voted against it, and one -- Garwood representative James Mattheson -- abstained, since Garwood sends students only to Arthur L. Johnson High School, and not to the district's elementary schools.
It was past midnight and I was back at the newspaper offices writing my story about the decision when it hit me. A majority of the Quakertown representatives had voted for the proposal. Even though his abstention was meant to keep him from influencing board decisions, Mattheson's mere presence on the board had raised the ante, effectively altering the outcome of the vote.
By this time it was much too late to call anyone, and I knew the explanation I would get -- five out of 10 is not a majority -- so I did what any responsible journalist would do: I filed my story, made a note to do a follow-up and went home to get some sleep.
On Thursday I reached out to Mike Yaple of the Iowa School Boards Association.
"There's nothing in the statute or code, but there have been commissioner's decisions that typically say the representative would be a nonvote," Yaple told me. "It's not an abstention; it's essentially a shifting quorum."
Yaple referred me to an Aug. 5, 1997, decision by then-Commissioner of Education Leo Klagholz about school districts with a relationship like the one shared by Garwood and Quakertown.
The decision is small -- barely five pages -- but it was an earthquake where the board's vote was concerned. Klagholz essentially wrote that if the issue doesn't affect the sending district, then their representatives don't vote.
Exclude Mattheson, and the vote is 5-4. Motion passes.
I called Paul Ortenzio, the Quakertown superintendent of schools, to tell him about my discovery. Since he had been given different legal advice from a qualified attorney, he was skeptical.
"The way I understand it, it has to be a majority of the whole board -- and the whole board is 10," he said.
Karen Amalfe, a school board member who had been lobbying for the laptops since the start of the summer, also was surprised by what I had to say, but she welcomed the news.
"That seems to be contradicting what the attorney told me," she said. Then she added: "If I could get that overturned, that would be wonderful."
That's pretty much what happened. Michael Gross, the board attorney, had been unaware of Klagholz's decision, but he agreed with my interpretation and said he had let the administration know that he was amending his legal advice about counting votes. The official record is going to reflect that the board voted to buy the computers.
The irony to all this is that I'm not personally convinced about the need for a laptop computer program myself. A former teacher, I regard parental involvement and teacher commitment to engaging the students as far more essential than the bells and whistles that make us so enamored with technology.
That's not important, though; what does matter is that the Quakertown Board of Education voted a certain way, and the way that vote was interpreted didn't square with how it was supposed to be counted. I had a question, I knew where to look for an answer, I found it, and I reported what I found.
In another month or so, a few hundred elementary school students are going to have access to computers they wouldn't have had otherwise, due in some small part to me.
That's what it's about. That's why I've stayed in community newspapers while co-workers of mine have landed jobs covering professional sports teams for the Associated Press, reporting for The Los Angeles Times, and chronicling the daily shenanigans at the New Jersey State House for one news bureau or another.
A colleague at The Princeton Packet once told me she hopes to ride on Air Force One some day as a member of the White House Press Corps. Jennifer's good at what she does; I won't be at all surprised if she someday works for The New York Times or the Washington Post doing just that.
As for me, although I grumble sometimes about the hours I work and about the difficulty of feeding my family on what I earn, I couldn't be happier with my choice of careers. I make a real and identifiable difference for the people whose towns I cover. What more can you ask for?
I'm a community journalist. That's what I do.
Slogging on in Iraq
"Everywhere I've traveled recently in Germany I've run into Americans, ranging from generals down to privates, who ask perplexedly, 'What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?' "
— Demaree Bess, "How We Botched The German Occupation," in the Jan. 26, 1946, Saturday Evening Post
A friend of mine shared that with me in reference to the ongoing war in Iraq. The message? Sure, the occupation looks bad right now, but they always look bad. Look ahead forty years, and you'll see a much rosier picture.
The comparison, while it sounds good to those favoring the war in Iraq and hoping to downplay the situation in Iraq, is flawed. The difference is that in Germany and Japan, it was over. We had bombed them so hard their spirit was broken and they were ready to do whatever we said -- a fairly normal course of events after a war. There probably was some resistance after the war ended -- I don't know enough about WWII in Europe to say for certain -- but I rather doubt it was as organized and structured as the stuff in Iraq is becoming.
In more recent times, we've tried to sensitize war, with the result that the occupation is going to be more difficult. Additionally, I suspect we're not finding nationalist resistance in Iraq as much as we are ideological resistance, drawn from a broad range of states and held together by a religious hatred of America and what we've done there.
Gen. Eisenhower's intent with Germany was to return it to an agrarian state. The point of dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and then on Nagasake was to break Japan so badly that its people would never want to go to war again.
Given the last 50-odd years of history in Europe and East Asia, I'd say both Eisenhower and President Truman succeeded in their respective goals. They beat the other nations down so hard that no one wanted to go through it again.
Was that moral? I don't think so. Some of our POW camps in Europe were as bad as or worse than Andersonville, and not much better than what the Nazis themselves dished out. The thousands upon thousands who perished in atomic fire were civilians, and they died in some large part because Truman didn't want the conditional surrender Hirohito was about to offer. War is hell, and I doubt very much that God likes it, even if he regards it as a necessity sometimes.
The morality of war has shifted. Nations that target civilians are viewed as international criminals, and when we have killed civilians during bombing in the last few wars, we've almost invariably apologized. As a result, we're not engaged in the total war that marked WWII, and resistance is likely to continue, and new insurgence is likely to rise.
About a year ago I said that I was against the war in Iraq. I felt -- and still feel -- that we lacked the moral authority to invade Iraq based on incidents 10 years ago and on a U.N. Security Council resolution that the U.N. did not want to enforce.
The news reports about what Saddam did to children and dissenters has me convinced more than ever that he needed to go -- but they haven't changed my view that this was the wrong way to do it.
Now, of course, there are those, such as our president, with a "Bring it on" attitude, that if the insurgents and their allies are spoiling for a fight, we'll take it. As I think others have said, I find that line of thinking disturbing.
First, that they are spending their energy killing American troops with increasing frequency and in steadily increasing numbers does not greatly comfort me. Parents are still losing their sons and daughters; husbands and wives are still being separated, often by the grave; and children are still becoming orphans.
The longer this goes on, the more emboldened America's enemies will be and the greater the odds are of the popular Iraqi sentiment shifting toward them. At the moment, the guerilla and terror tactics have been centered around Baghdad, but it's not hard to imagine that will spread as the militants see other opportunities to work their poison.
Secondly, that it has come to this -- people killing people -- is a cause for mourning and prayer, not moral posturing or an arrogant "Bring them on, we can take them" attitude. Somalia and Vietnam are two places where our superior military might failed to contain the situation and we essentially were defeated by a weaker foe (though I daresay the spin forces of the military will categorize it as something other than that).
I also could point to other places throughout history -- the Spanish Aramada against England, Napoleon against England, Edward I against William Wallace, Sennecharib against Judah -- where the strong have fallen to the weak. Some have claimed that God is on our side; from what I understand of the Almighty, that's just wrong. The best we can hope is that we are on his side, and in this case, that's more than I know.
Our best goal at this point is to win and win decisively, or it's just going to get worse. We have seen some successes in this war -- fighting is confied mostly to Baghdad and probably is mostly from extranationals not Iraqis themselves, and our victory there is almost certainly what led to the elections taking place in Saudi Arabia, the first time elections ever have been held in the Kingdom of Saud's history.
On the other hand, I'm not optimistic on our chances of winning a victory against religious extremists. The more victories we have, the more we're going to fuel hatred of us, which will lead to further attacks. It's a vicious cycle that no amount of politics or military might will break.
— Demaree Bess, "How We Botched The German Occupation," in the Jan. 26, 1946, Saturday Evening Post
A friend of mine shared that with me in reference to the ongoing war in Iraq. The message? Sure, the occupation looks bad right now, but they always look bad. Look ahead forty years, and you'll see a much rosier picture.
The comparison, while it sounds good to those favoring the war in Iraq and hoping to downplay the situation in Iraq, is flawed. The difference is that in Germany and Japan, it was over. We had bombed them so hard their spirit was broken and they were ready to do whatever we said -- a fairly normal course of events after a war. There probably was some resistance after the war ended -- I don't know enough about WWII in Europe to say for certain -- but I rather doubt it was as organized and structured as the stuff in Iraq is becoming.
In more recent times, we've tried to sensitize war, with the result that the occupation is going to be more difficult. Additionally, I suspect we're not finding nationalist resistance in Iraq as much as we are ideological resistance, drawn from a broad range of states and held together by a religious hatred of America and what we've done there.
Gen. Eisenhower's intent with Germany was to return it to an agrarian state. The point of dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and then on Nagasake was to break Japan so badly that its people would never want to go to war again.
Given the last 50-odd years of history in Europe and East Asia, I'd say both Eisenhower and President Truman succeeded in their respective goals. They beat the other nations down so hard that no one wanted to go through it again.
Was that moral? I don't think so. Some of our POW camps in Europe were as bad as or worse than Andersonville, and not much better than what the Nazis themselves dished out. The thousands upon thousands who perished in atomic fire were civilians, and they died in some large part because Truman didn't want the conditional surrender Hirohito was about to offer. War is hell, and I doubt very much that God likes it, even if he regards it as a necessity sometimes.
The morality of war has shifted. Nations that target civilians are viewed as international criminals, and when we have killed civilians during bombing in the last few wars, we've almost invariably apologized. As a result, we're not engaged in the total war that marked WWII, and resistance is likely to continue, and new insurgence is likely to rise.
About a year ago I said that I was against the war in Iraq. I felt -- and still feel -- that we lacked the moral authority to invade Iraq based on incidents 10 years ago and on a U.N. Security Council resolution that the U.N. did not want to enforce.
The news reports about what Saddam did to children and dissenters has me convinced more than ever that he needed to go -- but they haven't changed my view that this was the wrong way to do it.
Now, of course, there are those, such as our president, with a "Bring it on" attitude, that if the insurgents and their allies are spoiling for a fight, we'll take it. As I think others have said, I find that line of thinking disturbing.
First, that they are spending their energy killing American troops with increasing frequency and in steadily increasing numbers does not greatly comfort me. Parents are still losing their sons and daughters; husbands and wives are still being separated, often by the grave; and children are still becoming orphans.
The longer this goes on, the more emboldened America's enemies will be and the greater the odds are of the popular Iraqi sentiment shifting toward them. At the moment, the guerilla and terror tactics have been centered around Baghdad, but it's not hard to imagine that will spread as the militants see other opportunities to work their poison.
Secondly, that it has come to this -- people killing people -- is a cause for mourning and prayer, not moral posturing or an arrogant "Bring them on, we can take them" attitude. Somalia and Vietnam are two places where our superior military might failed to contain the situation and we essentially were defeated by a weaker foe (though I daresay the spin forces of the military will categorize it as something other than that).
I also could point to other places throughout history -- the Spanish Aramada against England, Napoleon against England, Edward I against William Wallace, Sennecharib against Judah -- where the strong have fallen to the weak. Some have claimed that God is on our side; from what I understand of the Almighty, that's just wrong. The best we can hope is that we are on his side, and in this case, that's more than I know.
Our best goal at this point is to win and win decisively, or it's just going to get worse. We have seen some successes in this war -- fighting is confied mostly to Baghdad and probably is mostly from extranationals not Iraqis themselves, and our victory there is almost certainly what led to the elections taking place in Saudi Arabia, the first time elections ever have been held in the Kingdom of Saud's history.
On the other hand, I'm not optimistic on our chances of winning a victory against religious extremists. The more victories we have, the more we're going to fuel hatred of us, which will lead to further attacks. It's a vicious cycle that no amount of politics or military might will break.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
A ghost and his dog once haunted Clark railroad tracks
It's been years since anyone has seen Henry
Shieve walking his dog along the railroad
tracks.
Shieve, a land owner with property on Westfield Avenue, and his dog were a regular sight on tracks between Terminal and Central avenues from the 1930s up through the 1950s. That's unusual if for no other reason than Shieve died in 1905.
Clark was a radically different place at the turn of the 20th century. Incorporated in 1864 at the height of the Civil War, local law enforcement in Clark was handled by a horse-mounted constable. The township itself was filled with wide, open spaces and a population that could be measured in the hundreds instead of the thousands.
In the Clark of 1905, there were no indications that in 40 short years the Garden State Parkway would be dumping cars into the streets. The township was a rural farming community visited daily by a train that brought its load of passengers, goods and news from beyond Clark's borders. For Shieve, a retiree in his late 70s, visiting the train when it stopped near Picton Street, was the perfect way to idle away the afternoon.
And so, on Oct. 5, 1905, Shieve bid his wife adieu and took his dog for a walk to the train station. He was never seen alive again.
"He and the dog disappeared," said Municipal Historian Brian Toal.
No one at the railroad station saw him that day, and for two weeks, Shieve's wife and others searched the area for some sign of what had happened.
"They eventually found his body in the woods, down near the railroad tracks," said Toal. Although there was some speculation that Shieve might have been hit by the train, authorities finally decided he had died of natural causes, probably heart failure.
The story includes a touching note about the depth of loyalty a dog has for its master. Unable to rouse Shieve, the dog stayed by his side, barking and baying for help that never came. When the train arrived, it hit the dog and killed it, throwing its body into the woods some distance away.
If that were all, the story would be a sad incident of too little note to warrant even a footnote in Clark's history. One of his daughters, Sue Shieve, had married Benjamin King, the son of former Mayor Benjamin King, but that was as close as Shieve comes to prominence in local history. His death does not even serve as a warning about walking along the railroad tracks, since he died of natural causes.
About 30 years after Shieve's death, people started seeing him again.
"The legend is that there was
always a man and a dog walking by
the tracks down near the Central
Avenue bridge," said Toal, who also
serves as 4th Ward councilman. "The
people on the trolley, when they were
going over the trestle, would always
say, 'There's a man and a dog down
there.'"
The first eyewitness accounts of Shieve that we know about today are from the 1930s. Those reports continued for the next two decades, and finally dried up sometime in the 1940s, during World War II.
Paige Deacy, a paranormal investigator who lives in Clark, considers the ghost story to be credible, given that Shieve died without, warning in the middle of something he loved to do.
"It could be it was such a sudden death that he didn't realize he had died," said Deacy. "He's walking his dog, doing his routine, and has a heart attack and dies. Maybe he enjoyed walking his dog so much that he 'stayed behind.'"
Sightings of Shieve's ghost stopped around the same time the Garden State Parkway connected Clark with its neighbors to the north and south.
Perhaps the increase in traffic along Central Avenue and Raritan Road has made Shieve feel out of place in a Clark he no longer knows, or perhaps with the demolition of the Picton Street train station, his destination is lost and he has gone to a final resting place.
Or maybe, some October evening, Shieve and his dog will walk the tracks, someone will spot them, and the legend will begin again
Shieve, a land owner with property on Westfield Avenue, and his dog were a regular sight on tracks between Terminal and Central avenues from the 1930s up through the 1950s. That's unusual if for no other reason than Shieve died in 1905.
Clark was a radically different place at the turn of the 20th century. Incorporated in 1864 at the height of the Civil War, local law enforcement in Clark was handled by a horse-mounted constable. The township itself was filled with wide, open spaces and a population that could be measured in the hundreds instead of the thousands.
In the Clark of 1905, there were no indications that in 40 short years the Garden State Parkway would be dumping cars into the streets. The township was a rural farming community visited daily by a train that brought its load of passengers, goods and news from beyond Clark's borders. For Shieve, a retiree in his late 70s, visiting the train when it stopped near Picton Street, was the perfect way to idle away the afternoon.
And so, on Oct. 5, 1905, Shieve bid his wife adieu and took his dog for a walk to the train station. He was never seen alive again.
"He and the dog disappeared," said Municipal Historian Brian Toal.
No one at the railroad station saw him that day, and for two weeks, Shieve's wife and others searched the area for some sign of what had happened.
"They eventually found his body in the woods, down near the railroad tracks," said Toal. Although there was some speculation that Shieve might have been hit by the train, authorities finally decided he had died of natural causes, probably heart failure.
The story includes a touching note about the depth of loyalty a dog has for its master. Unable to rouse Shieve, the dog stayed by his side, barking and baying for help that never came. When the train arrived, it hit the dog and killed it, throwing its body into the woods some distance away.
If that were all, the story would be a sad incident of too little note to warrant even a footnote in Clark's history. One of his daughters, Sue Shieve, had married Benjamin King, the son of former Mayor Benjamin King, but that was as close as Shieve comes to prominence in local history. His death does not even serve as a warning about walking along the railroad tracks, since he died of natural causes.
About 30 years after Shieve's death, people started seeing him again.
The first eyewitness accounts of Shieve that we know about today are from the 1930s. Those reports continued for the next two decades, and finally dried up sometime in the 1940s, during World War II.
Paige Deacy, a paranormal investigator who lives in Clark, considers the ghost story to be credible, given that Shieve died without, warning in the middle of something he loved to do.
"It could be it was such a sudden death that he didn't realize he had died," said Deacy. "He's walking his dog, doing his routine, and has a heart attack and dies. Maybe he enjoyed walking his dog so much that he 'stayed behind.'"
Sightings of Shieve's ghost stopped around the same time the Garden State Parkway connected Clark with its neighbors to the north and south.
Perhaps the increase in traffic along Central Avenue and Raritan Road has made Shieve feel out of place in a Clark he no longer knows, or perhaps with the demolition of the Picton Street train station, his destination is lost and he has gone to a final resting place.
Or maybe, some October evening, Shieve and his dog will walk the tracks, someone will spot them, and the legend will begin again
Sunday, October 26, 2003
choosing masters
Check out this transcript of Bill Moyers' conversation last night with theologian Joe Hugh.
I think he's (mostly) dead-on, and his message in this case is a (mostly) prophetic one. The Bible is full of invective against those who make themselves wealthy at the expense of others, and I think here in America we've got a culture of runaway greed and materialism.
My own work place is a good example. I'll go with it because I'm more familiar with it than I am with others. I have to work between 40 and 50 hours a week to make $35,000 a year, before taxes. That's with a college education and eight years of experience in this field, plus two years' experience as a teacher, and a second language. I'm a managing editor, but to save money, I'm also required to do the work of a reporter and produce enough news copy to fill at least the front page. I take this money and use it to pay my mortgage, buy our groceries, and perform the other necessities of life. We live fairly simply, we don't carry credit card debt over from one month to the next, and so on. It's still tight, and we really don't have any money to put away for retirement or even for much of savings. I have two children, and they're growing.
The sad thing is, I'm actually one of the better-paid employees. Most managing editors -- that's my title -- at Worrall Newspapers make about $26,000 before taxes. Reporters make $20,000. This is more or less what those positions paid 10 years ago. A co-worker of mine who has more job responsibilities, a higher rank and more experience with the company makes only $28,000. He's 40 years old, has two kids who are older than mine, and has been losing weight because he can't afford to feed both himself and his kids.
The production department is in the process of being phased out because we've finally switched to computerized layout instead of paste-up, and pagination duties are being given to the editors, who will not receive any extra pay for this. Additionally, two of the branch offices were consolidated recently, as another cost-savings measure.
There are no raises in this company, not even cost-of-living adjustments, and even though the company is doing better this year than last, they recently eliminated two positions to reduce expenses. I recently was denied a promotion I had been told I likely would be getting because I had the gall to say that I would like more money for more responsibilities. The guy they gave it to will make only $28,000 (as compared to the $35,000 I make), and he will be replaced with someone else they can pay $26,000.
In the meantime, the owners are amazingly well off. They drive expensive cars, take off for trips to posh vacation spots and, while they might not be multimillionaires, don't seem to be hurting nearly as much as their employees.
Do I think they'll have to answer for this to God? Yeah, I do. I also pray that they'll get a little less penny-pinching and start showing more compassion to the people who are making them their money, and if the opportunity arises, I'm probably going to say something about why morale is so low and everyone is itching to leave.
The scene in the corporate world is even worse. Corporate executives get paid millions, receive millions more in stock options, and as recent history has shown, seem to feel little guilt over plundering the business, even if it destroys the company. Shareholders often are concerned more with stock dividends and earnings reports than they are with the quality or affordability of the product, which is one of the reasons health care has become so expensive.
Increasingly, it's virtually impossible to graduate from college without crippling college loans, and even as those loans are increasing, the amount of high-paying jobs in the U.S. is declining as more and more technical jobs move overseas to cut costs. That's good for those other countries, but it's a bad combination here.
Jesus said that we can't serve both God and Mammon. If you look around at America today, it's pretty obvious which of the two we as a culture have chosen to serve.
We don't hear this much in church, which is alarming, because it doesn't seem like James is mincing his words in a letter to Christians: "Now listen, you rich people. weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you."
Where I disagree with Joe Hough (surprise, surprise) is that I don't think the answer to our solution is a political one. (I do have to admit that it drives me crazy to hear Christians defending tax cuts that favor the wealthy and powerful, though.) In the final analysis, what we need in America is a change of heart, not of administrations. That change needs to begin in the church, and it needs to begin in me.
Practically speaking, it means:
* Never mind making sandwiches for the homeless. Church groups need to go out to the soup kitchens, meet the homeless and become personally involved with them. Let their needs become our needs, and meet them.
* Christians in business need to run those businesses not on a profit-driven basis, but on a basis that serves Christ and that leads them to a deeper relationship and understanding of his character. A developer can still make a good amount of money but sell properties at a much lower profit, making housing more affordable. Other business owners can find ways to reduce not costs but profits, and still live comfortably. As Marley told Scrooge, mankind, not moneymaking, is meant to be our business. When we do that, we're keeping what Christ called the two greatest commandments.
* Give more. I don't believe Christ calls us to a 10 percent tithe. What he calls us to is to give generously. That enables us to help those who are in need, and it drives us to greater dependence on God to meet our own needs.
* Get engaged with people around you. I mentioned a co-worker who outranks me but makes less than I do. Yesterday, on the way home from work, I stopped by his house and gave him several bags of groceries with the admonition that he needs to feed himself as well as kids, or he'll do them a disservice. I don't say this to boast; I say this because it's the only way I've been able to help him with this problem, and it's the only way we'll really start to change the direction of our country, our church or ourselves. The Kingdom of God is about people, and it grows like a mustard seed until it becoems a tree that provides shelter for birds, animals and people alike.
* Churches need to start doing more. Many churches are retreats for the righteous. There are Sunday morning and Sunday evening services, Wednesday night Bible studies, and maybe even Christian schools. Great stuff for the Christian community. Lousy service for the world around. We're not meant to be a retreat for the saved; we're supposed to be a haven for the lost. The Trinity Foundation in Dallas, Texas, some time ago instituted the Dallas Project. Their goal is to get churches and synagogues to take the homeless problem seriously, by having members of the church "adopt" the homeless and help them to get back on their feet. That won't help those with mental illness, but many homeless people are homeless for reasons that have nothing to do with mental illness, especially these days. I'd argue the same approach to crisis pregnancies will do more to end abortion than all the lobbying and screeching we can muster, ever will accomplish.
Not that I'm opinionated or something. It's just that the more I read the gospels, the more I realize that the disenfranchised of society are the people on God's heart the most.
"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
You know what pisses me off? I can't find any churches that actually believe this anymore.
I think he's (mostly) dead-on, and his message in this case is a (mostly) prophetic one. The Bible is full of invective against those who make themselves wealthy at the expense of others, and I think here in America we've got a culture of runaway greed and materialism.
My own work place is a good example. I'll go with it because I'm more familiar with it than I am with others. I have to work between 40 and 50 hours a week to make $35,000 a year, before taxes. That's with a college education and eight years of experience in this field, plus two years' experience as a teacher, and a second language. I'm a managing editor, but to save money, I'm also required to do the work of a reporter and produce enough news copy to fill at least the front page. I take this money and use it to pay my mortgage, buy our groceries, and perform the other necessities of life. We live fairly simply, we don't carry credit card debt over from one month to the next, and so on. It's still tight, and we really don't have any money to put away for retirement or even for much of savings. I have two children, and they're growing.
The sad thing is, I'm actually one of the better-paid employees. Most managing editors -- that's my title -- at Worrall Newspapers make about $26,000 before taxes. Reporters make $20,000. This is more or less what those positions paid 10 years ago. A co-worker of mine who has more job responsibilities, a higher rank and more experience with the company makes only $28,000. He's 40 years old, has two kids who are older than mine, and has been losing weight because he can't afford to feed both himself and his kids.
The production department is in the process of being phased out because we've finally switched to computerized layout instead of paste-up, and pagination duties are being given to the editors, who will not receive any extra pay for this. Additionally, two of the branch offices were consolidated recently, as another cost-savings measure.
There are no raises in this company, not even cost-of-living adjustments, and even though the company is doing better this year than last, they recently eliminated two positions to reduce expenses. I recently was denied a promotion I had been told I likely would be getting because I had the gall to say that I would like more money for more responsibilities. The guy they gave it to will make only $28,000 (as compared to the $35,000 I make), and he will be replaced with someone else they can pay $26,000.
In the meantime, the owners are amazingly well off. They drive expensive cars, take off for trips to posh vacation spots and, while they might not be multimillionaires, don't seem to be hurting nearly as much as their employees.
Do I think they'll have to answer for this to God? Yeah, I do. I also pray that they'll get a little less penny-pinching and start showing more compassion to the people who are making them their money, and if the opportunity arises, I'm probably going to say something about why morale is so low and everyone is itching to leave.
The scene in the corporate world is even worse. Corporate executives get paid millions, receive millions more in stock options, and as recent history has shown, seem to feel little guilt over plundering the business, even if it destroys the company. Shareholders often are concerned more with stock dividends and earnings reports than they are with the quality or affordability of the product, which is one of the reasons health care has become so expensive.
Increasingly, it's virtually impossible to graduate from college without crippling college loans, and even as those loans are increasing, the amount of high-paying jobs in the U.S. is declining as more and more technical jobs move overseas to cut costs. That's good for those other countries, but it's a bad combination here.
Jesus said that we can't serve both God and Mammon. If you look around at America today, it's pretty obvious which of the two we as a culture have chosen to serve.
We don't hear this much in church, which is alarming, because it doesn't seem like James is mincing his words in a letter to Christians: "Now listen, you rich people. weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you."
Where I disagree with Joe Hough (surprise, surprise) is that I don't think the answer to our solution is a political one. (I do have to admit that it drives me crazy to hear Christians defending tax cuts that favor the wealthy and powerful, though.) In the final analysis, what we need in America is a change of heart, not of administrations. That change needs to begin in the church, and it needs to begin in me.
Practically speaking, it means:
* Never mind making sandwiches for the homeless. Church groups need to go out to the soup kitchens, meet the homeless and become personally involved with them. Let their needs become our needs, and meet them.
* Christians in business need to run those businesses not on a profit-driven basis, but on a basis that serves Christ and that leads them to a deeper relationship and understanding of his character. A developer can still make a good amount of money but sell properties at a much lower profit, making housing more affordable. Other business owners can find ways to reduce not costs but profits, and still live comfortably. As Marley told Scrooge, mankind, not moneymaking, is meant to be our business. When we do that, we're keeping what Christ called the two greatest commandments.
* Give more. I don't believe Christ calls us to a 10 percent tithe. What he calls us to is to give generously. That enables us to help those who are in need, and it drives us to greater dependence on God to meet our own needs.
* Get engaged with people around you. I mentioned a co-worker who outranks me but makes less than I do. Yesterday, on the way home from work, I stopped by his house and gave him several bags of groceries with the admonition that he needs to feed himself as well as kids, or he'll do them a disservice. I don't say this to boast; I say this because it's the only way I've been able to help him with this problem, and it's the only way we'll really start to change the direction of our country, our church or ourselves. The Kingdom of God is about people, and it grows like a mustard seed until it becoems a tree that provides shelter for birds, animals and people alike.
* Churches need to start doing more. Many churches are retreats for the righteous. There are Sunday morning and Sunday evening services, Wednesday night Bible studies, and maybe even Christian schools. Great stuff for the Christian community. Lousy service for the world around. We're not meant to be a retreat for the saved; we're supposed to be a haven for the lost. The Trinity Foundation in Dallas, Texas, some time ago instituted the Dallas Project. Their goal is to get churches and synagogues to take the homeless problem seriously, by having members of the church "adopt" the homeless and help them to get back on their feet. That won't help those with mental illness, but many homeless people are homeless for reasons that have nothing to do with mental illness, especially these days. I'd argue the same approach to crisis pregnancies will do more to end abortion than all the lobbying and screeching we can muster, ever will accomplish.
Not that I'm opinionated or something. It's just that the more I read the gospels, the more I realize that the disenfranchised of society are the people on God's heart the most.
"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
You know what pisses me off? I can't find any churches that actually believe this anymore.
Friday, October 24, 2003
politics and faith
What concerns me about the American church's efforts in politics is that we've essentially got it all ass-backward. We're trying to get people to be righteous by telling them where their sin is, where they fail to measure up to God's standards and so on. We're trying through political might to make America a Christian nation.
It's something I've given a lot of thought to lately, as I've struggled to understand what the Cross means to me personally, and what it should mean to the church as a whole.
Might is the opposite of the approach Christ took. He could have been born to Caesar, or he could have reclaimed the throne of David, but instead he took the route of a morally questionable birth in the podunk town of Nazreth, and made his ministry out of giving selflessly to other people. When Satan offered him the crown of Caesar, Jesus refused. He didn't seek power, or glory, or anything of the sort. What he sought was our hearts, and by seeking those, he made a revolution more profound than anything else I can think of.
That's no exaggeration either. The gospel literally has found its way to cultures so utterly removed from first-century Israel that there would appear to be no points of commonality, and yet it has found those points, established itself as a native religion, and transformed those cultures toward the likeness of Christ.
I've said before and I'll say again that there is nothing wrong with Christians being politically active. But the gospel is not political, and when political or legal changes become the thrust of our ministries and start taking priority in our attention and energies, we've stopped serving God and started serving ourselves. The power to transform society, to renew the mind and to reconcile men to God is just not found in a political program. Those things are found ONLY in Christ.
I suppose that's one of the reasons I find it annoying when the Religious Right acts as though God is on the side of the Republican Party, or tries to take ownership of Christ as a conservative based on the values we believe he had. The truth is that God is not on our side, he is on his own side, and we need to be with him. As for Christ, I'm convinced more and more that he isn't conservative or liberal. He's a social radical who worked outside the system more often than not.
It's something I've given a lot of thought to lately, as I've struggled to understand what the Cross means to me personally, and what it should mean to the church as a whole.
Might is the opposite of the approach Christ took. He could have been born to Caesar, or he could have reclaimed the throne of David, but instead he took the route of a morally questionable birth in the podunk town of Nazreth, and made his ministry out of giving selflessly to other people. When Satan offered him the crown of Caesar, Jesus refused. He didn't seek power, or glory, or anything of the sort. What he sought was our hearts, and by seeking those, he made a revolution more profound than anything else I can think of.
That's no exaggeration either. The gospel literally has found its way to cultures so utterly removed from first-century Israel that there would appear to be no points of commonality, and yet it has found those points, established itself as a native religion, and transformed those cultures toward the likeness of Christ.
I've said before and I'll say again that there is nothing wrong with Christians being politically active. But the gospel is not political, and when political or legal changes become the thrust of our ministries and start taking priority in our attention and energies, we've stopped serving God and started serving ourselves. The power to transform society, to renew the mind and to reconcile men to God is just not found in a political program. Those things are found ONLY in Christ.
I suppose that's one of the reasons I find it annoying when the Religious Right acts as though God is on the side of the Republican Party, or tries to take ownership of Christ as a conservative based on the values we believe he had. The truth is that God is not on our side, he is on his own side, and we need to be with him. As for Christ, I'm convinced more and more that he isn't conservative or liberal. He's a social radical who worked outside the system more often than not.
spirituality and public morality
"America is not a Christian nation -- but I would argue that it's our job as Christians to encourage it to accept Biblical principles and values as true, because it'll be happier that way. Live closer to the way the Author prescribed, live happy; the more we diverge from that, the more miserable we're going to be."
- RBP
Isn't that missing the point of what we're called to do? We're not called to teach people the Rules for Right Living, and we're certainly not called upon to present some works-based initiative where if we behave in accordance to the designs of God, our lives will be better.
That reasoning essentially is works-driven, and it's what Paul rejects in Romans and Galatians as incapable of bringing us life. His thesis is that if any Law or prescribed behavior could bring us life and righteousness, then the Torah was the Law that could do it. But that's a false offer, because it's impossible for us to follow the Law even in part, because any violation of a part of the Law is a violation of its entirety.
Follow the Law, and encourage others to follow the Law, and you might see the results you're describing. But everyone will be further from God as a result. What God desires is that we live by the spirit, not seeking ways to experience his blessings (including a more righteous-seeming nation) but seeking new ways to experience *him.* That's done by interacting with other people and discovering God's image as it is stamped upon them, meeting their needs and loving them as Christ desires us to.
I don't see homosexuality as an issue worth even a fraction of the attention it's received from the church. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true, consider that the places Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians are actually rather lengthy and all-encompassing lists of human behavior, including greed, fits of rage, gossip, slander and boasting.
His point is that sin is universal and none of us has hope on our own merits, not that any particular group is guilty of an especially horrible sin. The language in the Torah is harsh -- toe'bah is only used to describe two sexual practices in the Torah, although the death penalty also is prescribed for adultery -- but even there, the injunctions against homosexual behavior are contained in a list of many other sins. The point, again, is that apart from Christ, none of us possesses righteousness.
Going a step further, when Paul addresses the issue of incest in the church -- a practice he calls so hideous that even unbelievers are disgusted by it -- he says, point-blank, "You know, if this were going on outside the church, I would say it's none of our business."
So if a man sleeping with his father's wife is none of our business when they're not Christians, why would we have the right to dictate the sexual morality of the world at large?
Jesus wasn't a moralist. He didn't campaign against prostitution, against homosexuality, or fornication, or other such behaviors. What he did was react with compassion to everyone. He ate with Pharisees when he was asked, and with low-lifes when they asked. He treated everyone with respect, and in the gospels at least, the sins he really went off on dealt with the legalists who made pleasing God a works-related business, religious hypocrisy, and denying justice. The lifestyle he had was one of inclusion and warm welcome to everyone who needed him.
So I agree with your statement that Christ calls us to encourage others to follow him and act as he would -- but I believe that's done by the example of selfless living, dying to ourselves daily, and an in a thoroughly personal way, not a political one.
- RBP
Isn't that missing the point of what we're called to do? We're not called to teach people the Rules for Right Living, and we're certainly not called upon to present some works-based initiative where if we behave in accordance to the designs of God, our lives will be better.
That reasoning essentially is works-driven, and it's what Paul rejects in Romans and Galatians as incapable of bringing us life. His thesis is that if any Law or prescribed behavior could bring us life and righteousness, then the Torah was the Law that could do it. But that's a false offer, because it's impossible for us to follow the Law even in part, because any violation of a part of the Law is a violation of its entirety.
Follow the Law, and encourage others to follow the Law, and you might see the results you're describing. But everyone will be further from God as a result. What God desires is that we live by the spirit, not seeking ways to experience his blessings (including a more righteous-seeming nation) but seeking new ways to experience *him.* That's done by interacting with other people and discovering God's image as it is stamped upon them, meeting their needs and loving them as Christ desires us to.
I don't see homosexuality as an issue worth even a fraction of the attention it's received from the church. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is true, consider that the places Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians are actually rather lengthy and all-encompassing lists of human behavior, including greed, fits of rage, gossip, slander and boasting.
His point is that sin is universal and none of us has hope on our own merits, not that any particular group is guilty of an especially horrible sin. The language in the Torah is harsh -- toe'bah is only used to describe two sexual practices in the Torah, although the death penalty also is prescribed for adultery -- but even there, the injunctions against homosexual behavior are contained in a list of many other sins. The point, again, is that apart from Christ, none of us possesses righteousness.
Going a step further, when Paul addresses the issue of incest in the church -- a practice he calls so hideous that even unbelievers are disgusted by it -- he says, point-blank, "You know, if this were going on outside the church, I would say it's none of our business."
So if a man sleeping with his father's wife is none of our business when they're not Christians, why would we have the right to dictate the sexual morality of the world at large?
Jesus wasn't a moralist. He didn't campaign against prostitution, against homosexuality, or fornication, or other such behaviors. What he did was react with compassion to everyone. He ate with Pharisees when he was asked, and with low-lifes when they asked. He treated everyone with respect, and in the gospels at least, the sins he really went off on dealt with the legalists who made pleasing God a works-related business, religious hypocrisy, and denying justice. The lifestyle he had was one of inclusion and warm welcome to everyone who needed him.
So I agree with your statement that Christ calls us to encourage others to follow him and act as he would -- but I believe that's done by the example of selfless living, dying to ourselves daily, and an in a thoroughly personal way, not a political one.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
In the shadow of death: Questions linger for bereft family of slain man
Kiray's son, James, 38, was killed Sept. 3 in a motor-vehicle accident at the Garden State Parkway Exit 135 traffic circle. Since his son's death, Kiray, who has lived on Blake Drive for 45 years, has been at a loss to understand why the other driver was charged only with careless driving.
And every time he drives through the traffic circle, he's forced to watch his son's death play out in his mind, again and again.
"Every time I go around that circle, my heart stops," said Kiray, 73. "Every time 1 go to that place where my son was killed, I see everything."
State Police accident reports indicate that the Corvette James Kiray was driving that night had stopped at the stop sign on the left side of the exit ramp. Joseph Ruggirello, driving a Cadillac, started down the right side of the exit ramp, toward Brant Avenue, but struck the concrete island between the two exit lanes and became airborne.
Ruggirello's Cadillac struck the right rear panel of James Kiray's Corvette. From there it continued its forward momentum, shearing the roof off the Corvette and killing James Kiray before striking the one-way sign on the far side of the road, about 3 feet from the ground. Propelled by the force of the impact, James Kiray's Corvette rolled forward about 40 feet, into the circle.
Ruggirello's Cadillac meanwhile landed on the grassy infield of the circle. Its left rear wheel, torn away by the impact, the car continued to slide along the grass. A little further than halfway across, the car began to overturn and again became airborne, losing its left front wheel in the process.
The Cadillac finally came to a complete stop on the far side of the traffic circle from where the initial collision took place, near the Valley Road exit.
A Westfield motorist listed as a witness to the accident said the Cadillac landed perpendicular to the road.
In a letter to State Police dated Oct. 17, Union County Prosecutor Theodore J. Romankow declined to file charges against Ruggirelio, citing a lack of evidence of speeding, substance abuse or recklessness.
Robert O'Leary, executive assistant prosecutor and public information officer for the County Prosecutor's Office, said such decisions are based on the reports of witnesses, police reports and forensic evidence gathered at the scene of the accident.
"Every time there's a fatal accident, they review the facts that are verifiable and determine what's appropriate," O'Leary said.
Accident reports by neither Clark nor State Police indicate how fast Ruggirelio had been going. The posted speed limit for the ramp is 25 mph.
Kiray said he was told the police believed Ruggirelio had been driving around 70 to 80 mph. That seems more likely to him than the possibility Ruggirelio was going the posted limit.
"The man flipped three times. If you're going 20 to 25 mph, you're not going to flip," he said.
Ruggirelio pleaded guilty to careless driving. A careless driving charge nets a fine of less than $100.
"That then was my son's worth," said Kiray. "I just want the truth. Why? Why is somebody who killed somebody else getting off with nothing?"
James Kiray's death devastated his family. His widow, Laura Kiray, unable to live in the home she had shared with her husband, sold it and took their children with her to Livingston, where her parents live.
And at the funeral the elder Kiray had to comfort his. grandsons, who were trying to understand what had happened to their father.
One grandson decided his father had just gone on a business trip. Another, only 5 years old, had an even harder time understanding.
"This was the saddest in my opinion. Because of the nature of the accident, the casket was not open," said Kiray. "1 knelt down with him and said a prayer, and he reached and touched the casket, and said, 'Grandad, can we open it to see if Daddy's stiil in there?'
"I almost fell apart," Kiray said, his voice choking up as he spoke. "Thank God the 5-year-olds don't understand it."
On Monday, Kiray and his second wife, Anna Kiray, sold the Blake Drive house where James Kiray and his brothers grew up. It was only last year that the elder Kiray — who spends about half of each year in Europe — had told his son that he was planning to sell the house because its upkeep was getting'to be too difficult.
"He said, 'Dad, don't sell the house. I want to keep the heritage. I want to buy it from you,' " Kiray recalled.
Instead of buying the house, James Kiray was laid to rest in a burial spot beside his mother's grave. It was where the elder Kiray had expected to be buried himself, but it has become one final gift from father to son.
"God is close to him and his mother is close to him," said Kiray.
With the house closing behind them, Kiray and his wife headed to Florida, where one of his other sons lives.
He hopes to move on, but he has his doubts whether healing will ever come.
"To me it's not closed," he said, "because in my heart I know it's not ever going to be closed."
Saturday, October 11, 2003
telemarketing
I recently made a shocking discovery: It is now possible for me to eat an entire meal without the phone ringing even once.
It doesn't matter if I eat dinner at 5, 6 or 7 p.m. The phone stays blissfully silent, and when it does ring, I know I can pick it up without running into the living room and checking our caller ID to see who's calling. And to think I owe it all to the Federal Trade Commission and its do-not-call list.
Mixed with my immense relief is a twinge of sadness. Now that I have the FTC's muscle backing up my wish to be left alone, I've lost the opportunity to practice one of my favorite sports. It's called "Bait the Telemarketer."
This is a game where you do your best to throw the telemarketer off stride. AT&
T asks you to switch long-distance carriers, you tell them you don't have a phone. A contractor tries to convince you to renovate your home, explain that you have a deep-seated phobia of straight lines and flat surfaces, and ask if they can redo the house so it doesn't have them any more.
For a while I told telemarketers that I bill my time at $200 an hour, and if they wanted to continue the discussion under those terms, I would be happy to talk for as long as they wanted. Oddly, not one ever took me up on it.
My piece-de-resistance came a few months ago, when I received a call from a woman I'll call Sharon. I was at the point where I normally would just hang up, but for some reason I was feeling whimsical and decided to have fun.
"Doesn't this job get to you?" I asked after she had introduced herself and only just started her pitch. "I'm guessing that a lot of people hang up on you or just get really rude, don't they?"
"Well, yeah," Sharon admitted. Her voice had been lively and animated when she had started her pitch, but now it was more plaintive, what you would find from co-workers commiserating about an awful workplace.
"And I'm willing to bet you don't even like what you do," I added. "Most people can't stand to get telemarketing calls, and I'm willing to bet you don't either."
"Well," she admitted. "Not really."
"Do they pay you enough?"
The silence told me everything, even before she said, "No, they don't."
"So what you're telling me," I said, "is that you have a job where you're unhappy, you're doing something you don't like, and you get grief all the time from the people you call, and they don't pay you well enough to put up with it." I paused, and went for the throat. "Sharon, I think you and your co-workers should form a union and fight for better working conditions."
Sharon thanked me for listening to her problems, said she would have to consider it, and hung up.
I never did find out what she was selling.
Despite great moments like that one, I don't miss telemarketing calls enough to ask that my name be returned to the roster. Given its misuse of the First Amendment to annoy me at home four, five and six times a day, I doubt I'll shed a tear if I never hear from a telemarketer again, even if the product they're promoting really is as revolutionary as they say.
What troubles me is that a number of companies apparently are using telemarketing agencies from outside the United States. Labor is cheaper, and the FTC regulations apparently don't affect calls from abroad, even on behalf of a domestic company.
If that happens again, I already have the perfect solution. My 4-year-old daughter is at an age where she loves to talk on the phone.
I can only imagine the conversations she'll have.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
It doesn't matter if I eat dinner at 5, 6 or 7 p.m. The phone stays blissfully silent, and when it does ring, I know I can pick it up without running into the living room and checking our caller ID to see who's calling. And to think I owe it all to the Federal Trade Commission and its do-not-call list.Mixed with my immense relief is a twinge of sadness. Now that I have the FTC's muscle backing up my wish to be left alone, I've lost the opportunity to practice one of my favorite sports. It's called "Bait the Telemarketer."
This is a game where you do your best to throw the telemarketer off stride. AT&
T asks you to switch long-distance carriers, you tell them you don't have a phone. A contractor tries to convince you to renovate your home, explain that you have a deep-seated phobia of straight lines and flat surfaces, and ask if they can redo the house so it doesn't have them any more.
For a while I told telemarketers that I bill my time at $200 an hour, and if they wanted to continue the discussion under those terms, I would be happy to talk for as long as they wanted. Oddly, not one ever took me up on it.
My piece-de-resistance came a few months ago, when I received a call from a woman I'll call Sharon. I was at the point where I normally would just hang up, but for some reason I was feeling whimsical and decided to have fun.
"Doesn't this job get to you?" I asked after she had introduced herself and only just started her pitch. "I'm guessing that a lot of people hang up on you or just get really rude, don't they?"
"Well, yeah," Sharon admitted. Her voice had been lively and animated when she had started her pitch, but now it was more plaintive, what you would find from co-workers commiserating about an awful workplace.
"And I'm willing to bet you don't even like what you do," I added. "Most people can't stand to get telemarketing calls, and I'm willing to bet you don't either."
"Well," she admitted. "Not really."
"Do they pay you enough?"
The silence told me everything, even before she said, "No, they don't."
"So what you're telling me," I said, "is that you have a job where you're unhappy, you're doing something you don't like, and you get grief all the time from the people you call, and they don't pay you well enough to put up with it." I paused, and went for the throat. "Sharon, I think you and your co-workers should form a union and fight for better working conditions."
Sharon thanked me for listening to her problems, said she would have to consider it, and hung up.
I never did find out what she was selling.
Despite great moments like that one, I don't miss telemarketing calls enough to ask that my name be returned to the roster. Given its misuse of the First Amendment to annoy me at home four, five and six times a day, I doubt I'll shed a tear if I never hear from a telemarketer again, even if the product they're promoting really is as revolutionary as they say.
What troubles me is that a number of companies apparently are using telemarketing agencies from outside the United States. Labor is cheaper, and the FTC regulations apparently don't affect calls from abroad, even on behalf of a domestic company.
If that happens again, I already have the perfect solution. My 4-year-old daughter is at an age where she loves to talk on the phone.
I can only imagine the conversations she'll have.
Copyright © 2003 by David Learn. Used with permission.
Tweet
megan's law registry
If you live in Iowa and have small children like I do, you probably spent at least a little time recently on the computer checking the state's new online registry of sex offenders, at www.iosp.org.
For a parent, it's a dream come true. I have two daughters, one almost 4 years old, and the other almost 1. With a few clicks of the mouse, I was able to find the names, addresses and other pertinent information about all six sex offenders who live in the same town as I. One lives only two blocks from me.
Let me focus on him. He was convicted Aug. 15, 1997, of sexual assault involving a preteen girl, criminal sexual assault against a woman and aggravated criminal sexual assault against a preteen girl. The site doesn't provide any more information than that about the crimes.
I guarantee you that not only will I keep my children away from this man, but whenever I see him, I'm going to be filled with revulsion for what he's done. If I were to meet him on the street while I'm walking my dog, it would be next to impossible for me to interact with him without words like pedophile, pervert and rapist running through my mind.
I find that troubling.
Whether it's intended to or not, this registry automatically has become an added punishment to men and women -- usually men -- who already have paid their debt to society through a jail term.
As a result of this scarlet-letter treatment, this man has now been given the 21st-century version of the stocks. I know where he lives. I know how tall he is, what color his eyes and hair are, and with a little digging, I could find out all sorts of other personal information about him. If there's one thing a reporter's good at, it's digging up public information that other people like to think is private.
What's worse is that if anyone molests a child in the neighborhood, I know exactly who I'm going to suspect right from the get-go.
I'd like to think that if someone hurt one of my daughters, my wife and I would have the self-restraint not to take matters into our own hands, but I don't know. It's too easy to imagine making a beeline for the man's door in such a situation. Our passions run deep where our children are concerned.
Despite the gravity of the arguments I'm making now -- arguments that have been made ever since Megan Kanka was killed nine years ago and the law that bears her name was first proposed -- a U.S. Court of Appeals last month overturned a U.S. District court judge's decision that the registry violates privacy rights.
Essentially, the appellate court ruled that the protection of citizens outweighs an offender's privacy rights.
I can't fault parents who check the Web site -- I've done it myself -- but I do think the appellate court was dead wrong in its decision. Information about sex offenders and their records should be public information, but it shouldn't be so easily accessible.
The state has taken a tremendous risk in presenting the sex offender information in this format and especially on the Internet. This just doesn't make sense for someone who's not considered a high risk for repeat offenses, and if people are considered high risks, they don't belong on the Internet -- they belong in an institution, getting treatment.
To its credit, the Web site reminds users on almost every page that they can't misuse the information in the manner I've described. Anyone who uses the registry's information to commit a criminal offense faces three to five years in jail and a fine of up to $15,000.
That's well and good, but it assumes that people are going to be rational about a volatile subject. That is not always a safe assumption, particularly after an assault has occurred.
Stiffer penalties, some offered by other states, are not the answer. That Web site has to come down, and the state needs to find a better way to disseminate the information, if it is to be disseminated like this at all.
For a parent, it's a dream come true. I have two daughters, one almost 4 years old, and the other almost 1. With a few clicks of the mouse, I was able to find the names, addresses and other pertinent information about all six sex offenders who live in the same town as I. One lives only two blocks from me.
Let me focus on him. He was convicted Aug. 15, 1997, of sexual assault involving a preteen girl, criminal sexual assault against a woman and aggravated criminal sexual assault against a preteen girl. The site doesn't provide any more information than that about the crimes.
I guarantee you that not only will I keep my children away from this man, but whenever I see him, I'm going to be filled with revulsion for what he's done. If I were to meet him on the street while I'm walking my dog, it would be next to impossible for me to interact with him without words like pedophile, pervert and rapist running through my mind.
I find that troubling.
Whether it's intended to or not, this registry automatically has become an added punishment to men and women -- usually men -- who already have paid their debt to society through a jail term.
As a result of this scarlet-letter treatment, this man has now been given the 21st-century version of the stocks. I know where he lives. I know how tall he is, what color his eyes and hair are, and with a little digging, I could find out all sorts of other personal information about him. If there's one thing a reporter's good at, it's digging up public information that other people like to think is private.
What's worse is that if anyone molests a child in the neighborhood, I know exactly who I'm going to suspect right from the get-go.
I'd like to think that if someone hurt one of my daughters, my wife and I would have the self-restraint not to take matters into our own hands, but I don't know. It's too easy to imagine making a beeline for the man's door in such a situation. Our passions run deep where our children are concerned.
Despite the gravity of the arguments I'm making now -- arguments that have been made ever since Megan Kanka was killed nine years ago and the law that bears her name was first proposed -- a U.S. Court of Appeals last month overturned a U.S. District court judge's decision that the registry violates privacy rights.
Essentially, the appellate court ruled that the protection of citizens outweighs an offender's privacy rights.
I can't fault parents who check the Web site -- I've done it myself -- but I do think the appellate court was dead wrong in its decision. Information about sex offenders and their records should be public information, but it shouldn't be so easily accessible.
The state has taken a tremendous risk in presenting the sex offender information in this format and especially on the Internet. This just doesn't make sense for someone who's not considered a high risk for repeat offenses, and if people are considered high risks, they don't belong on the Internet -- they belong in an institution, getting treatment.
To its credit, the Web site reminds users on almost every page that they can't misuse the information in the manner I've described. Anyone who uses the registry's information to commit a criminal offense faces three to five years in jail and a fine of up to $15,000.
That's well and good, but it assumes that people are going to be rational about a volatile subject. That is not always a safe assumption, particularly after an assault has occurred.
Stiffer penalties, some offered by other states, are not the answer. That Web site has to come down, and the state needs to find a better way to disseminate the information, if it is to be disseminated like this at all.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
'If I speak with the tongues of men and angels...'
I'm a former Pentecostal, and I have a confession to make. Even though I still believe in the gift of tongues, I still have no idea what the supposed scriptural basis is for a "prayer language."
This is a practice among Pentecostals and charismatics of praying in unknown tongues during private prayer time. The believers I've known who practice the karisma swear by it. They describe these prayers as effortless, tireless, and a direct line between their soul and God, unobstructed by the clumsiness of human speech.
The difficulty I'm having is that if Scripture is our guide to spiritual matters, it doesn't provide much guidance when it comes to having a personal prayer language. When the glossolalia first was manifest in Acts 2, it was with the express effect that Jews from all over the world heard the gospel proclaimed in their own native languages -- even though the speakers were virtually all from Judea and Galilee.
The believers weren't praying in unknown languages. They were praying in languages that they personally couldn't speak, but the onlookers could. It would be like going to Lisbon and speaking in Portuguese without ever studying a lick of it beforehand.
In other words, this was a reversal of the Babel curse; the purpose of tongues was to unconfuse human language and to make communication easier.
This is also what Paul suggests is the use of tongues when he writes to the church in Corinth. If people come into church and hear you worshiping in a language they don't know, it means nothing to them. But if they hear you worshiping in their own language -- which you don't know -- they stand convicted that God is in the church (1 Corinthians 14:22).
That certainly was the impact of the crowd who heard Peter's sermon early in Acts.
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul does say, "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a tinkling cymbal or resounding brass." But one verse in isolation is a poor prooftext for doctrine, and since every language has idiomatic expressions, I'm inclined to consider "the tongues of men and angels" to be one of those and nothing more until I hear a convincing argument otherwise.
In the meantime, I'm going to keep praying in the human languages that I know. They may not be a direct line from my soul to God, but they're all I've got, and they've worked all right for me so far.
Copyright © 2013 by David Learn, Used with permission.
The difficulty I'm having is that if Scripture is our guide to spiritual matters, it doesn't provide much guidance when it comes to having a personal prayer language. When the glossolalia first was manifest in Acts 2, it was with the express effect that Jews from all over the world heard the gospel proclaimed in their own native languages -- even though the speakers were virtually all from Judea and Galilee.
The believers weren't praying in unknown languages. They were praying in languages that they personally couldn't speak, but the onlookers could. It would be like going to Lisbon and speaking in Portuguese without ever studying a lick of it beforehand.
In other words, this was a reversal of the Babel curse; the purpose of tongues was to unconfuse human language and to make communication easier.
This is also what Paul suggests is the use of tongues when he writes to the church in Corinth. If people come into church and hear you worshiping in a language they don't know, it means nothing to them. But if they hear you worshiping in their own language -- which you don't know -- they stand convicted that God is in the church (1 Corinthians 14:22).
That certainly was the impact of the crowd who heard Peter's sermon early in Acts.
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul does say, "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a tinkling cymbal or resounding brass." But one verse in isolation is a poor prooftext for doctrine, and since every language has idiomatic expressions, I'm inclined to consider "the tongues of men and angels" to be one of those and nothing more until I hear a convincing argument otherwise.
In the meantime, I'm going to keep praying in the human languages that I know. They may not be a direct line from my soul to God, but they're all I've got, and they've worked all right for me so far.
Copyright © 2013 by David Learn, Used with permission.
Friday, October 03, 2003
the pressure's off
A book a friend of mine recently rurned me onto is Larry Crabb's "The Pressure's Off." It's a rather interesting and rather compelling book about the legalism that often ensnares us because we fall into the trap of means to an end, like "seven rules for a successful marriage" or "thirteen ways to raise godly children."
Crabb's point -- and I think it's an excellent one -- is that when we do this, we're going back to the Law, the very thing Christ freed us from and doing exactly what Paul warns us not to do. We don't improve anything by following the Law; we instead place ourselves under a burden we can't possibly carry.
Crabb's point -- and I think it's an excellent one -- is that when we do this, we're going back to the Law, the very thing Christ freed us from and doing exactly what Paul warns us not to do. We don't improve anything by following the Law; we instead place ourselves under a burden we can't possibly carry.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
job update redux
I found out tonight from a co-worker that he's not supposed to tell anyone, but he's going to be going up to our Bloomfield office for that position I mentioned four months ago. It's going to be his job to get the office into shape, oversee the other managing editors, and so on.
I'm happy for him, but I'm a little disappointed that they've shafted me like this after leading me to think I was the top contender for that post. Tim, our editor in chief, even went as far as telling in front of one of the owners that he considers me flat-out his best managing editor.
Actually, I'm not just a little disappointed by this arrangement. I'm furious. Nathan -- the guy they are moving -- is among other things, fairly lazy about his job, incredibly arrogant and know-it-all-ish, and the way he speaks about women, he's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
My best bet is that the decision was largely pecuniary. I already make $35K, and said I would need to make at least $40K if they were going to give me added responsibilities. Nathan on the other hand makes about $26K. He'll be making under $30K in Bloomfield office, and the reporter they've moving into his spot will probably make about $26K, while they'll replace her with someone they'll pay their dirt-cheap rate of $20K. If they figure I'll also get pissed off and quit, they can probably save another $15K when they replace me with a college graduate.
I don't want to be motivated just by money, and I don't think I am. But it's hard to feed a family of four on what I make here, the hours are brutal, and the work load keeps increasing. They're about to eliminate the production shop and have the managing editors handle all the pagination duties as well, as a cost-cutting measure. It's not like we don't already have to write four to six stories and four editorials a week, plus edit and lay out two whole papers.
I'm really sick of this. I sent out two resumes before I came to work today, on top of the two I sent out last week. I need another job, and I need it to be one where I can settle in for an extended period. Or I need my wife to find gainful employment so I can stay at home with the girls.
Something has to give. I just can't take this anymore.
I'm happy for him, but I'm a little disappointed that they've shafted me like this after leading me to think I was the top contender for that post. Tim, our editor in chief, even went as far as telling in front of one of the owners that he considers me flat-out his best managing editor.
Actually, I'm not just a little disappointed by this arrangement. I'm furious. Nathan -- the guy they are moving -- is among other things, fairly lazy about his job, incredibly arrogant and know-it-all-ish, and the way he speaks about women, he's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
My best bet is that the decision was largely pecuniary. I already make $35K, and said I would need to make at least $40K if they were going to give me added responsibilities. Nathan on the other hand makes about $26K. He'll be making under $30K in Bloomfield office, and the reporter they've moving into his spot will probably make about $26K, while they'll replace her with someone they'll pay their dirt-cheap rate of $20K. If they figure I'll also get pissed off and quit, they can probably save another $15K when they replace me with a college graduate.
I don't want to be motivated just by money, and I don't think I am. But it's hard to feed a family of four on what I make here, the hours are brutal, and the work load keeps increasing. They're about to eliminate the production shop and have the managing editors handle all the pagination duties as well, as a cost-cutting measure. It's not like we don't already have to write four to six stories and four editorials a week, plus edit and lay out two whole papers.
I'm really sick of this. I sent out two resumes before I came to work today, on top of the two I sent out last week. I need another job, and I need it to be one where I can settle in for an extended period. Or I need my wife to find gainful employment so I can stay at home with the girls.
Something has to give. I just can't take this anymore.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
job references
A co-worker of mine asked me if I would act as a reference for him in the event he needs one. (Like me, he's fighting desparately to leave the newspaper we work at.) Below are some of the references I told him I would be happy to give:
- "As long as he remembers to take his medication and keeps away from sharp objects, Brian is a pleasant enough fellow to work with."
- "I urge you to waste no time in considering Brian for a position with your company."
- "I am moved to tears whenever I read something Brian writes."
- "Brian one day will be remembered in the same breath as other great men like Napoleon, Genghis Khan and Idi Amin."
- "Brian is a great guy to work with. True, he is dim-witted and rude, his table manners leave a lot to be desired, and he has a small, misshapen mind with a body to match, but he ... I'm sorry, I can't remember where I was going."
- "Brian is a simple, down-to-earth sort of fellow, much like you'd expect from someone whose parents met at a family reunion."
- "You might have doubts that Brian will be able to handle the responsibilities of the task he is applying for. I assure you that there's nothing to worry about; from everything I've seen here, he'll soon find someone else whom he get manipulate into doing the job for him."
- "Brian is the only former death-row inmate I know who can handle this job."
- "Well, I don't want to say too much in case he's got my line bugged, but Brian seems to know an awful lot about munitions and ordnance, and he's been interviewed by the FBI an awful lot lately..."
- "My God! Pedersen is applying there? Hire him, you fools! The last three people to turn him down all were found three days later, floating face-down in the Hudson."
Thursday, September 11, 2003
impact made
I had one of those odd, aw-shucks moments yesterday. A co-worker (also named Dave, which is why I call him Vandervecken) who works in the newspaper's production department told me he had read my column and it had changed his life.
I initially couldn't tell if he was serious or not, because we routinely razz each other, but he was dead serious. He's around the same age as me, and he said that reading my column on getting older was like a face full of cold water: refreshing and bringing startling clarity. He commented on how the American dream often drives us to succeed and "make our mark" no matter what the cost, and said my column showed him there's another, better way.
He really seemed to appreciate it, and seemed intent on changing his focus from being career-driven to focusing more on the people in his life.
Kind of humbling, you know?
I initially couldn't tell if he was serious or not, because we routinely razz each other, but he was dead serious. He's around the same age as me, and he said that reading my column on getting older was like a face full of cold water: refreshing and bringing startling clarity. He commented on how the American dream often drives us to succeed and "make our mark" no matter what the cost, and said my column showed him there's another, better way.
He really seemed to appreciate it, and seemed intent on changing his focus from being career-driven to focusing more on the people in his life.
Kind of humbling, you know?
Sunday, September 07, 2003
no more mr. nice guy
The book "No More Mr. Nice Guy" was highly recommended by a friend of mine. Although it does not affect me as much as it did him, I must concede that books that deal with abstract issues such as this one does, with its psychoanalytical subject, often can leave the reader feeling confused and left in the dust. I feel this is particularly true when the books address a need the reader does not personally feel very strongly, as is the case with me and this book.
That is not to see the book is without merit or features that appealed to me. For starters, the publishers of "No More Mr. Nice Guy" wisely chose an aesthetically pleasing bookbinding where the pages are neatly collated and evenly trimmed. The glue also holds the pages together very admirably.
I especially was pleased with their use of a Serifs font. (I believe it was Garamond, a font that revolutionized print media with the facility with which the eye absorbs words printed in it.) The point size also was appropriately chosen; I did not need a magnifying glass to make out the words, nor did I feel like I was reading a "moo-moo" edition of a big with overlarge type.
Although I cannot comment on the book's long-term durability, I will say that the print edition was pleasantly free of the glare that accompanies the electronic edition.
In short, if you are looking for a book to help you understand how to express your emotional, mental and social needs as a male -- and most of all, if you want a book that is pleasing to the eye -- I must recommend "No More Mr. Nice Guy."
That is not to see the book is without merit or features that appealed to me. For starters, the publishers of "No More Mr. Nice Guy" wisely chose an aesthetically pleasing bookbinding where the pages are neatly collated and evenly trimmed. The glue also holds the pages together very admirably.
I especially was pleased with their use of a Serifs font. (I believe it was Garamond, a font that revolutionized print media with the facility with which the eye absorbs words printed in it.) The point size also was appropriately chosen; I did not need a magnifying glass to make out the words, nor did I feel like I was reading a "moo-moo" edition of a big with overlarge type.
Although I cannot comment on the book's long-term durability, I will say that the print edition was pleasantly free of the glare that accompanies the electronic edition.
In short, if you are looking for a book to help you understand how to express your emotional, mental and social needs as a male -- and most of all, if you want a book that is pleasing to the eye -- I must recommend "No More Mr. Nice Guy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
