An avowed atheist referring to "religious intolerance", and then declaring that "Religion is for chumps."
Believe whom?
Friday, May 06, 2005
Forcing My Hand
I was trying to avoid commenting on the whole brouhaha regarding First Lady Laura Bush and her jokes the other night, only because it seems like everyone is getting WAY too worked up over what should be a non-issue. Unfortunately, it's the level 0f worked-uppedness that has forced my hand. That and the fact that it ties in to several other issues that have worked their way under my skin under the guise of "Church-State Issues".
For the record, I think that the level of offense some have taken with the First Lady's comments is a bit Sullivanesque. Lighten up -- the event has ALWAYS been irreverent, and the Horse joke specifically has been misinterpreted.
On the other hand, I also think that those defending Mrs. Bush have also taken this one not just over the top, but through the wire and well into No Man's Land. I'm getting a bit tired of the chracterization of anyone with a modicum of morals as being a repressed Victorian prude. There's nothing wrong with a little proper decorum and respect for one anothers sensibilities.
Now, to be sure, there are some morally conservative people, most of whom are Christian,s who are overreacting. But to paint all Christians, or even all social conseervatives, with the same brush is a bit much. Today Ace posted an excellent bit on the current friction between religious and non-religious conservatives. I think he's dead on. In addition, there's a good and lively discussion going on in the comments. I especially appreciated this comment by Ace's reader Jason:
Also today I noted that the esteemed Smallholder addresses persecution. Twice. While I agree whole-heartedly that the characterization of ANY opposition to Christianity as persecution trivializes real persecution, I'd beg to make two points:
1. I have heard the argument before that Christians here keep whining about persecution. A good friend of mine made the same observation on his Blog. However, with the exception of a few loudmouths who get more attention than they deserve and whom one can almost dismiss out of hand any time they speak, I quite honestly don't hear the "P" word being used as much as Smallholder seems to indicate.
2. Having said that, let me address Smallholder's comment, It's not Christians who are persecuted. We are doing the persecution (though not all of us agree with it).
Again, any reasoned agreement or disagreement with this statement on my part would require that I extract from Smallholder a definition of Persecution. Included in that definition there would necessarily be either an acceptance or rejection of degrees of persecution. In one Blog Entry, he states that real persecution would be execution for ones faith. In another, limiting tax benefits is persecution. This leads me to believe that he must at least recognize varying degrees of persecution as still being persecution.
Furthermore, I must take exception with his comment, So when my coreligionists whine about the persecution of not having Principal-led prayer in the public schools, I become a bit indignant. I become indignant when Pat Roberston complains that extending civil rights to gays "persecutes" believers.
I do hope he really doesn't think that that is the extent of the objections many Christians have with our treatment in modern society. But I will reserve further reaction until he has clarified.
A few days ago, my good friend and reader Mary left a comment asking me if I feel any moral obligation to provide for public education. I shall address her here, because itis, as you will see, germain to the crux of my post. I do geel a moral obligation to help others -- to give to the poor, to help provide those in need with that which will help them. But as I've stated before, when it comes to translating my personal morals into political policy, there's a fine line to be walked. As Ace argues in his article, it is unfair to expect people of religious convictions to not apply those convictions to the way they vote. Because, as his reader hobgoblin points out, ALL law is morality. Anything we require or prohibit by law is because the majority have determined that that which is required is morally necessary and because that which is prohibited is morally wrong. The question is, whose morals? Which morals? Which morals supercede other morals -- freedom vs. Justice, for instance? In the long run, it seems to me that the best laws are those which enforce the moral concept of not doing wrong to others. Once we get into the realm of forcing people to do good to one another, the law becomes a bit too intrusive, and open to debate. And that is why I can see the point of those who think that taxes for public education is not as morally or legally necessary as, say, fire or police or defense or tort laws.
For the record, I think that the level of offense some have taken with the First Lady's comments is a bit Sullivanesque. Lighten up -- the event has ALWAYS been irreverent, and the Horse joke specifically has been misinterpreted.
On the other hand, I also think that those defending Mrs. Bush have also taken this one not just over the top, but through the wire and well into No Man's Land. I'm getting a bit tired of the chracterization of anyone with a modicum of morals as being a repressed Victorian prude. There's nothing wrong with a little proper decorum and respect for one anothers sensibilities.
Now, to be sure, there are some morally conservative people, most of whom are Christian,s who are overreacting. But to paint all Christians, or even all social conseervatives, with the same brush is a bit much. Today Ace posted an excellent bit on the current friction between religious and non-religious conservatives. I think he's dead on. In addition, there's a good and lively discussion going on in the comments. I especially appreciated this comment by Ace's reader Jason:
Well, this just depends on who you consider the "Religious Right" to be. If you're referring to any conservative who has the audacity to be religious, then it's simply not true. If you're referring to specific religious conservatives, it's true, but trivial. You can point to members of any political group that demand 100% compliance.
Also today I noted that the esteemed Smallholder addresses persecution. Twice. While I agree whole-heartedly that the characterization of ANY opposition to Christianity as persecution trivializes real persecution, I'd beg to make two points:
1. I have heard the argument before that Christians here keep whining about persecution. A good friend of mine made the same observation on his Blog. However, with the exception of a few loudmouths who get more attention than they deserve and whom one can almost dismiss out of hand any time they speak, I quite honestly don't hear the "P" word being used as much as Smallholder seems to indicate.
2. Having said that, let me address Smallholder's comment, It's not Christians who are persecuted. We are doing the persecution (though not all of us agree with it).
Again, any reasoned agreement or disagreement with this statement on my part would require that I extract from Smallholder a definition of Persecution. Included in that definition there would necessarily be either an acceptance or rejection of degrees of persecution. In one Blog Entry, he states that real persecution would be execution for ones faith. In another, limiting tax benefits is persecution. This leads me to believe that he must at least recognize varying degrees of persecution as still being persecution.
Furthermore, I must take exception with his comment, So when my coreligionists whine about the persecution of not having Principal-led prayer in the public schools, I become a bit indignant. I become indignant when Pat Roberston complains that extending civil rights to gays "persecutes" believers.
I do hope he really doesn't think that that is the extent of the objections many Christians have with our treatment in modern society. But I will reserve further reaction until he has clarified.
A few days ago, my good friend and reader Mary left a comment asking me if I feel any moral obligation to provide for public education. I shall address her here, because itis, as you will see, germain to the crux of my post. I do geel a moral obligation to help others -- to give to the poor, to help provide those in need with that which will help them. But as I've stated before, when it comes to translating my personal morals into political policy, there's a fine line to be walked. As Ace argues in his article, it is unfair to expect people of religious convictions to not apply those convictions to the way they vote. Because, as his reader hobgoblin points out, ALL law is morality. Anything we require or prohibit by law is because the majority have determined that that which is required is morally necessary and because that which is prohibited is morally wrong. The question is, whose morals? Which morals? Which morals supercede other morals -- freedom vs. Justice, for instance? In the long run, it seems to me that the best laws are those which enforce the moral concept of not doing wrong to others. Once we get into the realm of forcing people to do good to one another, the law becomes a bit too intrusive, and open to debate. And that is why I can see the point of those who think that taxes for public education is not as morally or legally necessary as, say, fire or police or defense or tort laws.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
It Just Dawned on Me
Back in my high school days, when my father was pastoring a church in Southern Oregon, my mother used to sing trios in church along with a musically inclined couple who also led our youth group. One of the songs they sang quite often was called Bless the Lord. The theme running through the song was that the beauty surrounding the songwriter moved them to praise God. The opening line of the song was "Morning Sun, light of creation..."
Ever since TFR went back to work, I've been working an earlier shift, 6 AM - 3 PM. Today, as I was standing next to my desk, looking out the window, I was reminded of that song. There's something special about the quality of lighting at sunrise, especially somewhere as beautiful as here in Oregon. The sun is still low enough that it doesn't flood the entire landscape, so taller things like trees are lit more brightly, giving them greater contrast -- they almost glow. This time of year, the deciduous trees have new leaves which are a light, bright green, magnifying the contrast when compared to the darker green of the conifers. I remember a visitor who mentioned to me once that what struck them most about Oregon was not just how much green there was, but how many different hues and shades of green there were.
I could get used to being a morning person.
Ever since TFR went back to work, I've been working an earlier shift, 6 AM - 3 PM. Today, as I was standing next to my desk, looking out the window, I was reminded of that song. There's something special about the quality of lighting at sunrise, especially somewhere as beautiful as here in Oregon. The sun is still low enough that it doesn't flood the entire landscape, so taller things like trees are lit more brightly, giving them greater contrast -- they almost glow. This time of year, the deciduous trees have new leaves which are a light, bright green, magnifying the contrast when compared to the darker green of the conifers. I remember a visitor who mentioned to me once that what struck them most about Oregon was not just how much green there was, but how many different hues and shades of green there were.
I could get used to being a morning person.
Monday, May 02, 2005
May's Days
Quite a busy week as far as the minor holiday calendar goes.
Growing up I used to love to celebrate May Day - not Soviet style, with parades and MiG flyovers, but by leaving flowers on the doorsteps of neighbors. As a child in Idaho, I had a neighbor in her 80's, Mrs. Brown, on whose doorstep I'd leave paper baskets full of dandelions. I'd ring her doorbell and then run, so that the flowers would be "anonymous".
Thursday is, of course, Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates a Mexican victory over French troops at the Battle of Puebla. And as a run-up to it, Saturday was Camerone Day, the day the French Foreign Legion commemorates a tactical defeat that established their reputstion as brave, fierce fighters.
And next Sunday is Mother's Day. NOt so minor for me this year. The Lad (*ahem*) has already purchased his Mommy a present -- a set of earrings and a pendant in his birthstone.
Not much esle to say right now, maybe more on these topics after I wake up.
Growing up I used to love to celebrate May Day - not Soviet style, with parades and MiG flyovers, but by leaving flowers on the doorsteps of neighbors. As a child in Idaho, I had a neighbor in her 80's, Mrs. Brown, on whose doorstep I'd leave paper baskets full of dandelions. I'd ring her doorbell and then run, so that the flowers would be "anonymous".
Thursday is, of course, Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates a Mexican victory over French troops at the Battle of Puebla. And as a run-up to it, Saturday was Camerone Day, the day the French Foreign Legion commemorates a tactical defeat that established their reputstion as brave, fierce fighters.
And next Sunday is Mother's Day. NOt so minor for me this year. The Lad (*ahem*) has already purchased his Mommy a present -- a set of earrings and a pendant in his birthstone.
Not much esle to say right now, maybe more on these topics after I wake up.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Sense and Censorship
I just received an email from a good friend, and the email included a link to the following article, along with the suggestion that I Blog on it:
Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors
At first blush, I was rather disturbed by the idea. Especially when the article starts out like this:
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
As soon as I read that, I got fired up, all ready to launch into a "What part of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; didn't you understand?" rant.
Please understand. As a thelogically conservative Christian, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. But I aslo believe strongly that when we start playing favorites with regards to the Consititution, we're treading on a mighty thin lava crust over a mighty deep pool of magma. The same Constitution that protects your right to tell me that Homosexuality is OK is the same Constitution that protects my right to tell you you're wrong. If I kick that right out from under you, I find mself at risk as well.
But as I read the article further, I started to question my initial impression. It seems possible that the CBS News reporter who filed this report may have sensationalized things a bit (As shocking as it may be to some to think that CBS might be... ahem... creative in their presentation...). The article goes on to say:
As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under [Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen's] bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
While that's still an iffy proposition, that's a bit different than "banned in Alabama". So before I address the issue of the bill itself, I'd like to finish the article, and point out one other bit of overreacting, this time on the part of an interviewee:
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."
Try to take a deep breath, Mark. I understand your opposition to the law, but Godwinesque hyperbole isn't helping. It may (or may not) be a bad law, but it's by NO stretch a "Nazi Book burning". If it were, there'd be, ya know, Nazis and bonfires and such.
Now, as for the law itself:
I have a real dilemma on my hands with regards to this law. The problem is that it specifically targets public school libraries. In the article, Strassman reports
Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.
Again, Schremser's overstating the point, so I'll return the favor. I have NO problem whatsoever with the judicious screening of material made available to underage children. Ms. Schremser seems to disagree, and thinks all viewpoints should be represented. Should I conclude then that she advocate the placement of Playboy or Hustler or The Anarchist's Cookbook in an elementary school library? I think not. so if we eliminate the extremes, both "This is thought police" and "This is pornography", we find that there's a middle ground -- the agreement that Children DO need a certain level of protection from images or words that could damage them. The question becomes, which images? Which ideas? The Devil is in the details.
Now, I would argue that banning an author JUST because he or she was/is gay is a stretch. And I furthermore have no objection to the sympathetic portrayal of a gay character. I'd draw the line at the graphic portrayal of sex, gay OR straight. But in the middle we have the issue of literature that advocates the gay lifestyle.
Which leads me to a conclusion I reached only as I wrote this entry. I believe firmly that it is the right and duty of parents to teach their children morality and ethics. First and forempst my job is to love my son, provide for him, and teach him right from wrong. That's not a school's job. And so I would argue that it would be fair to regulate books that directly address moral issues -- either allow all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries stock books that both advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint), or remain silent on all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries avoid stock books that either advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint).
In addition, I also believe that if parents were more actively involved with their childrens' educations, this would be an issue. That's why I'll be keeping a close eye on the TV programs, movies, music, and books The Lad has access to growing up. It's also one more reason I'm seriously looking long and hard at home schooling.
Alabama Bill Targets Gay Authors
At first blush, I was rather disturbed by the idea. Especially when the article starts out like this:
(CBS) A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.
As soon as I read that, I got fired up, all ready to launch into a "What part of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; didn't you understand?" rant.
Please understand. As a thelogically conservative Christian, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. But I aslo believe strongly that when we start playing favorites with regards to the Consititution, we're treading on a mighty thin lava crust over a mighty deep pool of magma. The same Constitution that protects your right to tell me that Homosexuality is OK is the same Constitution that protects my right to tell you you're wrong. If I kick that right out from under you, I find mself at risk as well.
But as I read the article further, I started to question my initial impression. It seems possible that the CBS News reporter who filed this report may have sensationalized things a bit (As shocking as it may be to some to think that CBS might be... ahem... creative in their presentation...). The article goes on to say:
As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under [Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen's] bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
While that's still an iffy proposition, that's a bit different than "banned in Alabama". So before I address the issue of the bill itself, I'd like to finish the article, and point out one other bit of overreacting, this time on the part of an interviewee:
"I think it's an absolutely absurd bill," says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
First Amendment advocates say the ban clearly does amount to censorship.
"It's a Nazi book burning," says Potok. "You know, it's a remarkable piece of work."
Try to take a deep breath, Mark. I understand your opposition to the law, but Godwinesque hyperbole isn't helping. It may (or may not) be a bad law, but it's by NO stretch a "Nazi Book burning". If it were, there'd be, ya know, Nazis and bonfires and such.
Now, as for the law itself:
I have a real dilemma on my hands with regards to this law. The problem is that it specifically targets public school libraries. In the article, Strassman reports
Librarian Donna Schremser fears the "thought police," would be patrolling her shelves.
"And so the idea that we would have a pristine collection that represents one political view, one religioius view, that's not a library,'' says Schremser.
Again, Schremser's overstating the point, so I'll return the favor. I have NO problem whatsoever with the judicious screening of material made available to underage children. Ms. Schremser seems to disagree, and thinks all viewpoints should be represented. Should I conclude then that she advocate the placement of Playboy or Hustler or The Anarchist's Cookbook in an elementary school library? I think not. so if we eliminate the extremes, both "This is thought police" and "This is pornography", we find that there's a middle ground -- the agreement that Children DO need a certain level of protection from images or words that could damage them. The question becomes, which images? Which ideas? The Devil is in the details.
Now, I would argue that banning an author JUST because he or she was/is gay is a stretch. And I furthermore have no objection to the sympathetic portrayal of a gay character. I'd draw the line at the graphic portrayal of sex, gay OR straight. But in the middle we have the issue of literature that advocates the gay lifestyle.
Which leads me to a conclusion I reached only as I wrote this entry. I believe firmly that it is the right and duty of parents to teach their children morality and ethics. First and forempst my job is to love my son, provide for him, and teach him right from wrong. That's not a school's job. And so I would argue that it would be fair to regulate books that directly address moral issues -- either allow all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries stock books that both advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint), or remain silent on all viewpoints (which means requiring that P.S. Libraries avoid stock books that either advocate and oppose a given moral viewpoint).
In addition, I also believe that if parents were more actively involved with their childrens' educations, this would be an issue. That's why I'll be keeping a close eye on the TV programs, movies, music, and books The Lad has access to growing up. It's also one more reason I'm seriously looking long and hard at home schooling.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes....
Amazing how fatherhood changes your perspective. This week has been the first week of a new schedule, in which I care for The Lad in the afternoons while TFR works. Yesterday was an absolutely GORGEOUS spring day, somewhere in the high 60's, scattered clouds, the kind of day that Nor'Westers keep reminding themselves will come as they wait all winter. So I loaded The Lad into his stroller, leashed up Little Big Dog, and headed out for a walk through the park. On the way there, we were passed by a man walking a very large dog. The dog was straining at its leash, but we managed to pass each other without incident. But it got me thinking: What if it had attacked us? How would I defend both The Lad and LBD? And I knew in an instant that if I couldn't, I'd lose my dog, because my child's life was the most important of the three in question. And I also knew in an instant that if I had to, I'd kill that dog, or anyone or anything trying to harm my son.
I constantly find myself doing this now, and I suppose it's a parent thing. Everywhere I go, every setting in which I find myself, my first instinct is to size up my surroundings and evaluate any possible threats to my little family, and assess what I will do to respond if any of those potential threats become actual threats.
I suppose I'm no different than any other parent, but it's disconcerting when you realize it's happened to you.
I constantly find myself doing this now, and I suppose it's a parent thing. Everywhere I go, every setting in which I find myself, my first instinct is to size up my surroundings and evaluate any possible threats to my little family, and assess what I will do to respond if any of those potential threats become actual threats.
I suppose I'm no different than any other parent, but it's disconcerting when you realize it's happened to you.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Right Again!
Thanks for the Memory to Patty-Jo.
For all its liberal politics, Portland has some features I love. I love its hilliness (Eugene and Springfield are too danged FLAT!), I love all the stuff to do there and the great restaurant and Pub scenes, and the diversity of types of neighborhoods. TFR and I very much want to move there.
American Cities That Best Fit You: |
65% Portland |
60% Denver |
60% Philadelphia |
55% San Francisco |
50% Chicago |
For all its liberal politics, Portland has some features I love. I love its hilliness (Eugene and Springfield are too danged FLAT!), I love all the stuff to do there and the great restaurant and Pub scenes, and the diversity of types of neighborhoods. TFR and I very much want to move there.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Erin Go Bragh!
Thanks for the Memory to The Llama Butchers.
Hey, sometimes these things are accurate:
Hey, sometimes these things are accurate:
Your Inner European is Irish! |
 Sprited and boisterous! You drink everyone under the table. |
Home Front
Thanks to everyone who prayed for TFR over the weekend. Here's the scoop:
The spa was nice, and they liked TFR, but it's a Lease position. This is pretty common in TFR's business. Instead of paying her a salary or commission, she would pay them a monthly rent, and be responsible for the purchase of her products, but she wuld keep all profits from every service she performs. While this may seem like nothing more than Chic Sharecropping, it can actually prove a very profitable format -- provided you have the capital outlay to get started. We do not.
In other news, we've decided to stop trying to breastfeed The LAd. Because he's a preemie, his airway is underdeveloped, and he has difficulty breathing while feeding -- he engages in a respiratory behavior called "crowing". TFR has been really down on herself, because she thinks his difficulties prove she's a bad mother, despite all my efforts to encourage her to the contrary. Finally, the hospital's lactation consultant told her the same thing I've been telling her, and she feels better. We'll still be feeding him breast milk via bottle.
I'm on a new schedule. As of today, I work 6 AM to 3 PM so that TFR can work 4-8 without us having to pay for daycare. So if my Blogging becomes even MORE sporadic, you'll know why.
The spa was nice, and they liked TFR, but it's a Lease position. This is pretty common in TFR's business. Instead of paying her a salary or commission, she would pay them a monthly rent, and be responsible for the purchase of her products, but she wuld keep all profits from every service she performs. While this may seem like nothing more than Chic Sharecropping, it can actually prove a very profitable format -- provided you have the capital outlay to get started. We do not.
In other news, we've decided to stop trying to breastfeed The LAd. Because he's a preemie, his airway is underdeveloped, and he has difficulty breathing while feeding -- he engages in a respiratory behavior called "crowing". TFR has been really down on herself, because she thinks his difficulties prove she's a bad mother, despite all my efforts to encourage her to the contrary. Finally, the hospital's lactation consultant told her the same thing I've been telling her, and she feels better. We'll still be feeding him breast milk via bottle.
I'm on a new schedule. As of today, I work 6 AM to 3 PM so that TFR can work 4-8 without us having to pay for daycare. So if my Blogging becomes even MORE sporadic, you'll know why.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
One More Reason...
... To Enjoy Reading Naked Villainy
Maximum Leader is a Baseball Fan, and what's more, a National League fan, for the right reasons.
That's right, I'm one of THOSE Baseball fans. Capital B. The ones who believe that Baseball should be played on grass, with wooden bats, as God intended, who believe that the Designated Hitter is an affront to all that is pure and right and good, who believe that The Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is the closest America comes to a Pantheon on Olympus, that Baseball fields are our national temples and arenas and hippodromes and circuses, that a man wielding a Louisville slugger on a summers afternoon should be filmed from below, as if he were taller than mortal men, that all men of good will hold their breaths for just a split second as the pill fires from the pitcher's hand, who loves terms like "High heat", who believes the greatest epic poem ever was "Casey at the Bat", whose liturgy includes "Tinker to Evers to Chance" and "Take Me out to the Ball Game" and "Hey batter batter". Baseball, in short, is my second religion.
One bit of advice for ML: Do not let a team's lack of on field success prevent you from supporting them. I am a lifelong fan of the San Diego Padres, aka the Cubs of the West. A true baseball fan bleeds his team's colors. Just ask yourBrother-in-Law the Bosox fan where that can eventually get you. That one moment of glory is worth the price of a lifetime of heartache.
Maximum Leader is a Baseball Fan, and what's more, a National League fan, for the right reasons.
That's right, I'm one of THOSE Baseball fans. Capital B. The ones who believe that Baseball should be played on grass, with wooden bats, as God intended, who believe that the Designated Hitter is an affront to all that is pure and right and good, who believe that The Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is the closest America comes to a Pantheon on Olympus, that Baseball fields are our national temples and arenas and hippodromes and circuses, that a man wielding a Louisville slugger on a summers afternoon should be filmed from below, as if he were taller than mortal men, that all men of good will hold their breaths for just a split second as the pill fires from the pitcher's hand, who loves terms like "High heat", who believes the greatest epic poem ever was "Casey at the Bat", whose liturgy includes "Tinker to Evers to Chance" and "Take Me out to the Ball Game" and "Hey batter batter". Baseball, in short, is my second religion.
One bit of advice for ML: Do not let a team's lack of on field success prevent you from supporting them. I am a lifelong fan of the San Diego Padres, aka the Cubs of the West. A true baseball fan bleeds his team's colors. Just ask yourBrother-in-Law the Bosox fan where that can eventually get you. That one moment of glory is worth the price of a lifetime of heartache.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Prayer Request III
Things have been pretty hand-to-mouth ever since The Feared Redhead had The Lad back in January. My paycheck has paid the bills, but we've had to rely on credit cards to buy food. But the line of credit is running low, so TFR is returning to work a week earlier than planned, this coming Monday. Unfortunately, her old work doesn't have as many hours available as before (she was always part time). But anything helps.
Since The In-Laws were in town, she decided to have them babysit while she distributed her resume, hoping for a better job. She already has an interview this Saturday.
Please pray for us -- we need the income badly.
Since The In-Laws were in town, she decided to have them babysit while she distributed her resume, hoping for a better job. She already has an interview this Saturday.
Please pray for us -- we need the income badly.
Northwest Humor
How many of you out there remember Almost Live? It was a Seattle area sketch comedy show that enjoyed national success for a while back in the 80's, and spawned the career of Bill Nye. The humor was quintessentially Northwest, a bit odd, a bit quirky, and very self-deprecating -- with characters like Speed Walker, Seattle's own superhero, and Uncle Fran, the bitter, disgruntled divorcee with a public access kids show. Very similar to the goofy, sincere humor of the Science Guy show, but with an adult edge.
Well, I still get to enjoy the humor of at least one cast member, f not in a sketch format. Pat Cashman is doing voiceovers for Jerry's, Home Improvement Center, a local two-store chain that outperforms AND outclasses national chains like Lowe's and Home Depot. And the humor, while it's only in thirty-second snippets, has Almost Live's fingerprints all over it. The commercials take some of the most bizzarre home video and old home movie footage, and gives it these odd voiceovers. In one commercial, a baby being bathed in the kitchen sink questions whether the sink was actually cleared of dishes first, informs his mother that the sink needs a new washer, and warns her, "Here come some more bubbles!" In my favorite, a couple is discussing how to paint a room. When she suggests, "How about a fresco?" his response is, "Nah, I'm not that thirsty."
Like I said, Quirky, goofy stuff. My favorite.
Well, I still get to enjoy the humor of at least one cast member, f not in a sketch format. Pat Cashman is doing voiceovers for Jerry's, Home Improvement Center, a local two-store chain that outperforms AND outclasses national chains like Lowe's and Home Depot. And the humor, while it's only in thirty-second snippets, has Almost Live's fingerprints all over it. The commercials take some of the most bizzarre home video and old home movie footage, and gives it these odd voiceovers. In one commercial, a baby being bathed in the kitchen sink questions whether the sink was actually cleared of dishes first, informs his mother that the sink needs a new washer, and warns her, "Here come some more bubbles!" In my favorite, a couple is discussing how to paint a room. When she suggests, "How about a fresco?" his response is, "Nah, I'm not that thirsty."
Like I said, Quirky, goofy stuff. My favorite.
Semper Fidelis / Semper Memoralis
A quick note to whomever was visiting my blog from the United States Marine Corps' net:
Thank you for reading. And thank you for serving. This is one civilian who is "Semper Memoralis" -- eternally grateful.
Thank you for reading. And thank you for serving. This is one civilian who is "Semper Memoralis" -- eternally grateful.
Monday, April 18, 2005
More Fine Whine
A couple more thoughts about wine from this weekend. My in-laws are in town from Minnesota to attend the Lad's Baby Dedication (We attend a church that does not practie infant baptism), so we took them to King Estate Winery. Remember, the one whose Chardonnay and Cab I criticized so harshly? Well, they've stopped selling their 2000 vintage and we had a taste of the 2001. Apparently, it goes well with crow. It was smooth, complex, and buttery. Nice stuff, and only $10 a bottle.
That night, the In-Laws volunteered to babysit The Lad, so TFR and I had a chance to get out for the evening. We went and saw the movie Sideways. I found it at turns depressing and hilarious, and in the end it had me once again reflecting on my own willingness to quit all too easily. All in all, it was a good movie.
Sunday, after the dedication, we had a big family dinner (Me, TFR, the Inlaw's, TFR's sister and her husband, The Lad, and our two nephews). We had a big shank ham, and I came up with a pretty good glaze for it:
1 Bone-in Shank ham
1 can (12 oz.) Orange Juice Concentrate, thawed
1 can pineapple rings (OK, so I used a fresher pineapple from the produce department, one of the ones that's already been cored, but the cut core is still in the middle)
1 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup tequila
1/4 cup Triple Sec
1/2 tsp ginger powder
2 bay leaves
1/4 tsp hot mustard
Whole cloves
2 larege sprigs rosemary
set aside about 1/2 of the pineapple rings. Combine the rest of the pineapple, including the juice, with the OJ concentrate in a blender or food processor. Puree. Pour the liquid into a saucepan. Combine with the brown sugar, tequila, triple sec, ginger, bay leaves, and mustard. Bring to a boil over medium heat. reduce heat, simmering until liquid is reduced by 1/3. Remove from heat, cool, and refrigerate overnight.
Score the ham on one side in a crisscross pattern, inserting a clove at each scoring intersection. Place the ham face down in about 1/8 inch water in a baking pan, cover with foil, bake at 325 for 20 minutes per pound. About 30 minutes before the end of the baking time, uncover the hame and lay it on its side, scored side up. place the pineapple rings, rosemary sprigs, and bay leaves (recovered from the glaze) on top, apply glaze. Re-apply glaze every 5-10 minutes until the end of the baking cycle. Remove from oven and let stand for 10-15 minutes.
That night, the In-Laws volunteered to babysit The Lad, so TFR and I had a chance to get out for the evening. We went and saw the movie Sideways. I found it at turns depressing and hilarious, and in the end it had me once again reflecting on my own willingness to quit all too easily. All in all, it was a good movie.
Sunday, after the dedication, we had a big family dinner (Me, TFR, the Inlaw's, TFR's sister and her husband, The Lad, and our two nephews). We had a big shank ham, and I came up with a pretty good glaze for it:
1 Bone-in Shank ham
1 can (12 oz.) Orange Juice Concentrate, thawed
1 can pineapple rings (OK, so I used a fresher pineapple from the produce department, one of the ones that's already been cored, but the cut core is still in the middle)
1 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup tequila
1/4 cup Triple Sec
1/2 tsp ginger powder
2 bay leaves
1/4 tsp hot mustard
Whole cloves
2 larege sprigs rosemary
set aside about 1/2 of the pineapple rings. Combine the rest of the pineapple, including the juice, with the OJ concentrate in a blender or food processor. Puree. Pour the liquid into a saucepan. Combine with the brown sugar, tequila, triple sec, ginger, bay leaves, and mustard. Bring to a boil over medium heat. reduce heat, simmering until liquid is reduced by 1/3. Remove from heat, cool, and refrigerate overnight.
Score the ham on one side in a crisscross pattern, inserting a clove at each scoring intersection. Place the ham face down in about 1/8 inch water in a baking pan, cover with foil, bake at 325 for 20 minutes per pound. About 30 minutes before the end of the baking time, uncover the hame and lay it on its side, scored side up. place the pineapple rings, rosemary sprigs, and bay leaves (recovered from the glaze) on top, apply glaze. Re-apply glaze every 5-10 minutes until the end of the baking cycle. Remove from oven and let stand for 10-15 minutes.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Creationism vs creationism
I'd like to thank Smallholder for responding to my request for a definition of terms.
And I hate to disappoint him if he's itching for a fight, but truth be told, I agree 100% with him when it comes to creationism. While I am a staunch Theist, and an Evangelical Christian, I am NOT a literal Seven-Day Creationist. In fact, the following paragraph, quoted from SH, might as well have been my own:
You might say that while I’m both a creationist and an evolutionist (small c and e), I’m neither a Creationist nor an Evolutionist
However, here’s where I can see the Creationists’ point of view. While I agree with Smallholder that it is what he calls “Magical Thinking” to hold to the view that belief in a divine Creator precludes belief in evolution, I also note that there are far too many people, particularly atheists, who hold to a view that belief in evolution precludes belief in a divine Creator, and I firmly assert that this is equally “Magical Thinking.” [Insert quote] Science is equally incapable of proving OR disproving the existence or non-existence of God. In short, Science is about what we CAN see, while faith is about what we CAN’T, and it requires an equal amount of faith to assert that what we cannot see either is or isn’t there. And it seems all too common that this second form of “Magical Thinking” with regards to the origins of life. The problem that I, like the Creationists, have is that while it’s considered bad science to say God created the Earth in 7 days (and rightly so), it’s NOT considered bad science to say that because the Earth is eons old, there must therefore be no God.
So, no, I don’t believe that Creationism should be taught as science. Furthermore, I don’t even believe that MY view, and that of Smallholder, that evolution was guided by God, should be taught. But by the same token, I don’t believe that it should be taught as science that evolution is the result of random accidents with no outside origin. Science can attempt to describe HOW things happen – it can never explain WHY they happen. In explaining the difference between observation and explanation, C.S. Lewis put it this way: “All of Science can be summed up in the phrase, ‘Humpty-Dumpty is falling”. Unfortunately, I’m too much of a cynic to believe that we can ever prevent science teachers from separating their scientific belief that life evolved from their magical belief that it evolved by accident.
And I hate to disappoint him if he's itching for a fight, but truth be told, I agree 100% with him when it comes to creationism. While I am a staunch Theist, and an Evangelical Christian, I am NOT a literal Seven-Day Creationist. In fact, the following paragraph, quoted from SH, might as well have been my own:
By one defintion, I'm a creationist. I believe God created the universe and world and set it to operating according to natural law. One of the outgrowths of natural law is evolution - so one might say that God guided evolution. Now, the intervention of deity is not amenable to empircal proof. So: eEvolution is scientific fact. I BELIEVE it was guided by God.
You might say that while I’m both a creationist and an evolutionist (small c and e), I’m neither a Creationist nor an Evolutionist
However, here’s where I can see the Creationists’ point of view. While I agree with Smallholder that it is what he calls “Magical Thinking” to hold to the view that belief in a divine Creator precludes belief in evolution, I also note that there are far too many people, particularly atheists, who hold to a view that belief in evolution precludes belief in a divine Creator, and I firmly assert that this is equally “Magical Thinking.” [Insert quote] Science is equally incapable of proving OR disproving the existence or non-existence of God. In short, Science is about what we CAN see, while faith is about what we CAN’T, and it requires an equal amount of faith to assert that what we cannot see either is or isn’t there. And it seems all too common that this second form of “Magical Thinking” with regards to the origins of life. The problem that I, like the Creationists, have is that while it’s considered bad science to say God created the Earth in 7 days (and rightly so), it’s NOT considered bad science to say that because the Earth is eons old, there must therefore be no God.
So, no, I don’t believe that Creationism should be taught as science. Furthermore, I don’t even believe that MY view, and that of Smallholder, that evolution was guided by God, should be taught. But by the same token, I don’t believe that it should be taught as science that evolution is the result of random accidents with no outside origin. Science can attempt to describe HOW things happen – it can never explain WHY they happen. In explaining the difference between observation and explanation, C.S. Lewis put it this way: “All of Science can be summed up in the phrase, ‘Humpty-Dumpty is falling”. Unfortunately, I’m too much of a cynic to believe that we can ever prevent science teachers from separating their scientific belief that life evolved from their magical belief that it evolved by accident.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Easily Amused
Digging through my pocket change this afternoon, I found...
Drom Roll...
A Wheat Penny.
Cool.
Drom Roll...
A Wheat Penny.
Cool.
Thoughtful Magic
Smallholder has published a post on Magical Thinking in which he argues that creationism is bad for democracy. He proposes to follow with reasons whit it is also bad for Christianity.
I have for some time avoided this topic on my blog, but have decided it's time to let my position be known. Before I do, I'd love for Smallholder to define creationism as he means it in his post.
I have for some time avoided this topic on my blog, but have decided it's time to let my position be known. Before I do, I'd love for Smallholder to define creationism as he means it in his post.
Like a Bull Market in a China Shop
Thanks for the Memory to Publius Pundit via the Llama Butchers.
Apparently, there is growing unrest in China these days, up to and including riots. the Chinese are growing increasingly frustrated with the Communist government. And the riots are not just isolated in poorer parts of the country any more.
This could get interesting -- or ugly. Stay tuned.
Apparently, there is growing unrest in China these days, up to and including riots. the Chinese are growing increasingly frustrated with the Communist government. And the riots are not just isolated in poorer parts of the country any more.
This could get interesting -- or ugly. Stay tuned.
Death Match
A while back I posted what I thought was a reasoned, respectful response to several posts by Naked Villainy's Smallholder. Happily, he agreed, despite Max Leader's attempt to sensationalize the debate. I'm grateful for both the gracious response AND the sensationalization. Combined with the attention it garnered from Who Moved My Truth, I am enjoying one of my busiest traffic months since before the elections.
Well, SH has now posted a response TO my response. I have read it, and it is well-written, thorough, and altogether worthy of a read. I will probably have a response in the future, but I wish time to weigh his words before I do. In any case, I encourage my readers to go give it some consideration. If more people disagreed with me as respectfully and reasonably as Smallholder, the world would be a better place.
Well, SH has now posted a response TO my response. I have read it, and it is well-written, thorough, and altogether worthy of a read. I will probably have a response in the future, but I wish time to weigh his words before I do. In any case, I encourage my readers to go give it some consideration. If more people disagreed with me as respectfully and reasonably as Smallholder, the world would be a better place.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Wine, Not Whine
There was a time not too long ago when The Feared Redhead and I shared these things called Leisure Time and Disposable Income (look them up, they really do exist) -- the former more often than the latter, and seldom much of the latter. One of the things that we liked to do to spend a little free time together, without spending much money, was to go for drives in the country. Ok, to be honest, we still manage to go for drives, but now that this activity is shared with the Lad, instead of being a carefree, spur-of-the-moment lark, a drive in the country requires all the planning and preparation of Operation Overlord. "OK, I'll feed him while you pump. Then you get him ready while I pack the car. That gives us 3 hours until we have to be back here to lather, rinse, and repeat. Diaper bag -- check. Extra bottle -- check. Baggies for when Little Big Dog does her "duty" -- check. Stroller in case we stop -- check."
When we go for drives, especially on occasions where we leave LBD behind to patrol the firebase (Like she could do anything to an intruder except for causing him to get a muscle cramp from the laughter), is stop at wineries. While it's not the biggest producer of wine in the country, Oregon is getting a reputation for the quality of its wines, and with merit.
Now, I did not drink as a teenager or Very Young Man. My father was a pastor and the son of an alcoholic, so the hard stuff was verboted in the B household. I did not begin partaking of the fruit of the vine nor of the nectar of the grain until I was in my mid twenties. Two big advantages to this late start have been that I have been able to practise moderation more easily, and that I have been able to cultivate specific tastes in the beverages I do drink.
Now, a long time ago, I used to think that being a snob was one of the worst fates that could befall a person. And in some regards, I still do -- judging a person because of their education, or their income, or their cultural background, those are wrong. Judging them by their conduct, and their willingness or unwillingness to better themselves, that's a different story.
The same is true when it comes to epicurean pursuits. I remember a visit to my fafvorite winery shorty after I began drinking wine. Of all the alcoholic subgenres, wine was the last I developed a taste for. And at first, my taste in wine was limited and rather sweet -- specifically, I liked Lambrusco. Soon after discovering it, I visited the winery of Phillipe Girardet, a French speaking Swiss man whose winery is in my home town, and who attented my father's church. I was trying to expand my wine repertoire, and so was explaining what I knew I liked in hopes that he could suggest new wines I would also like. In confessing my taste for Lambrusco, I apologetically made the comment that "I know it's not the best wine, but I like it." Phillipe got a twinkle in his eye, grinned slyly, and said, "You know, Brian, the best wine is the one you like."
And so I learned to judge wine (and art and food) not on whether or not it was trendy, or because I was TOLD it was haute cuisine or high art or had good legs, but because I liked it. So I managed to avoid one form of snobbery, but develooped another -- the snobbery of my own preferences. And this is a snobbery we all share. IF we like it, we like it. If we don't, we don't.
Now, since then, my tastes in wine have expanded, and to certain extent, refined. I don't have down the patois of the sommelier or the fancier, but I do have enough experience with trying certain wines to not only know which varietals I like, but distinguish between different levels of quality in a specific varietal. Furthermore, while I may not know the official terms used to describe all aspects of wine, I've learned enough, and have enough of a grasp of English vocabulary, to get my point across. So, with that in mind, a couple of observations about Oregon wine:
We recently visited the King Estates Winery in Lorane, just south of Eugene (My father spent his teen years in Lorane). The Winery is in a gorgeous location, on a hill in the middle of the valley, and offers some spectacular views. They make some wonderful wines, especially their Gewurtztraminer and Pinot Noir.
I don't know, however, why they (or any Oregon winery) bother with Chardonnay or Cabernet Sauvignon. For starters, the ones I tried their were either unmemorable or downright bad. California pretty much has a lock on those varietals. Furthermore, there are OTHER varietals that do much better in this region (Pinot Noir being the most notable), and it seems like a waste of good vine space to bother with Chard or Cab, especially when the varietals we do better are becoming popular.
Having extolled the virtues of Oregon PN, I must sadly mention one exception. PArducci Vineyards makes a Pinot that is sold in Albertson's. Don't bother with it, It was insipid, watery, and lacked any complexity. You can get a much better wine for a better price.
MY personal favorite as an every day drinking Pinot is Girardet's Petit Cuvee. 10 bucks at Fred MEyer, and it's a lovely wine -- soft but complex, with lots of fruit and just enough tanin to make it interesting.
When we go for drives, especially on occasions where we leave LBD behind to patrol the firebase (Like she could do anything to an intruder except for causing him to get a muscle cramp from the laughter), is stop at wineries. While it's not the biggest producer of wine in the country, Oregon is getting a reputation for the quality of its wines, and with merit.
Now, I did not drink as a teenager or Very Young Man. My father was a pastor and the son of an alcoholic, so the hard stuff was verboted in the B household. I did not begin partaking of the fruit of the vine nor of the nectar of the grain until I was in my mid twenties. Two big advantages to this late start have been that I have been able to practise moderation more easily, and that I have been able to cultivate specific tastes in the beverages I do drink.
Now, a long time ago, I used to think that being a snob was one of the worst fates that could befall a person. And in some regards, I still do -- judging a person because of their education, or their income, or their cultural background, those are wrong. Judging them by their conduct, and their willingness or unwillingness to better themselves, that's a different story.
The same is true when it comes to epicurean pursuits. I remember a visit to my fafvorite winery shorty after I began drinking wine. Of all the alcoholic subgenres, wine was the last I developed a taste for. And at first, my taste in wine was limited and rather sweet -- specifically, I liked Lambrusco. Soon after discovering it, I visited the winery of Phillipe Girardet, a French speaking Swiss man whose winery is in my home town, and who attented my father's church. I was trying to expand my wine repertoire, and so was explaining what I knew I liked in hopes that he could suggest new wines I would also like. In confessing my taste for Lambrusco, I apologetically made the comment that "I know it's not the best wine, but I like it." Phillipe got a twinkle in his eye, grinned slyly, and said, "You know, Brian, the best wine is the one you like."
And so I learned to judge wine (and art and food) not on whether or not it was trendy, or because I was TOLD it was haute cuisine or high art or had good legs, but because I liked it. So I managed to avoid one form of snobbery, but develooped another -- the snobbery of my own preferences. And this is a snobbery we all share. IF we like it, we like it. If we don't, we don't.
Now, since then, my tastes in wine have expanded, and to certain extent, refined. I don't have down the patois of the sommelier or the fancier, but I do have enough experience with trying certain wines to not only know which varietals I like, but distinguish between different levels of quality in a specific varietal. Furthermore, while I may not know the official terms used to describe all aspects of wine, I've learned enough, and have enough of a grasp of English vocabulary, to get my point across. So, with that in mind, a couple of observations about Oregon wine:
We recently visited the King Estates Winery in Lorane, just south of Eugene (My father spent his teen years in Lorane). The Winery is in a gorgeous location, on a hill in the middle of the valley, and offers some spectacular views. They make some wonderful wines, especially their Gewurtztraminer and Pinot Noir.
I don't know, however, why they (or any Oregon winery) bother with Chardonnay or Cabernet Sauvignon. For starters, the ones I tried their were either unmemorable or downright bad. California pretty much has a lock on those varietals. Furthermore, there are OTHER varietals that do much better in this region (Pinot Noir being the most notable), and it seems like a waste of good vine space to bother with Chard or Cab, especially when the varietals we do better are becoming popular.
Having extolled the virtues of Oregon PN, I must sadly mention one exception. PArducci Vineyards makes a Pinot that is sold in Albertson's. Don't bother with it, It was insipid, watery, and lacked any complexity. You can get a much better wine for a better price.
MY personal favorite as an every day drinking Pinot is Girardet's Petit Cuvee. 10 bucks at Fred MEyer, and it's a lovely wine -- soft but complex, with lots of fruit and just enough tanin to make it interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)