I am gray today (with an "a")

Churchill said, "It is however easier to infuriate Americans than it is to cow them." This is a good observation, and one that probably wouldn't have been made by an American. That's why it's refreshing (sometimes the refreshment comes after the initial shock) to get an honest opinion about oneself from a reliable outside observer.


A particularly unproductive (and sometimes annoying) trait of we Americans, which was pointed out to me a few years ago is our feeling that we must add our own opinion to whatever conversation is being had around us, regardless of pretty much anything; including our knowledge of the subject matter, the need for further commentary, our ability to add an original thought, or even just the necessity of continuing the conversation at hand. Of course the advent of the Internet has only further enabled this (and yes, I am aware of the irony of writing this observation on my blog). But for some time now I've considered the question of why this is so. Tonight I believe I received another clue. It is true Americans have the right to express their opinion. But, we then appear to move from a position of right, to a position of obligation or requirement, as if to suggest that to refrain from offering our opinion would be a disservice to ourselves and whatever community we happen to be in at the time. Perhaps we are that insecure...or perhaps we're just that bored and self-involved.


I was afforded this insight by the YouTube community. The new Dell commercials have this catchy little tune playing with them..."I am green today, I chirp with joy like a cricket's song..." etc. It's just a finger picked guitar with harmonizing female voices, but it emotes a feeling of relaxation, and the lyrics are fun for their imagery. "I am gray today, gloomy and damp like a morning fog." YouTube has the video here, but I wouldn't suggest actually watching the video. The song is from an album titled "Dance for the Sun", and is apparently meant for children's yoga. The video was obviously meant for the same thing as was the album, namely consumption by children alone. I'd actually love to hear the story of how this song ended up on a Dell commercial.


Notice though the comments that go along with this video, all 560 (at the time of this post) that have been added since the video went up in July of this year. How could there possibly be 560 separate, meaningful, productive comments about this music video? This isn't "One of Us", or a Beetles song from their later years. This is a song on a children's album about colors. I'd say there could be a max of three comment threads, none of which could ever total 560 comments. These threads would be "this is why the song is good", "this is why it's bad", and the over under on the cost of the video, which would probably end up somewhere around $7. Yet the comments for this video include lengthy discussions on what is a color and what is not, rude responses to those discussions, the apparently unavoidable opinion that "macs rule", and of course 200 comments each for "I like (or love) it and the singer" and "I don't like (or hate) it and the singer". In one of the spars, a poster asks another why that poster had chosen to write a comment that some had found very annoying. I think the annoying comment was that gray is not a color, which did indeed lead to a very lively and directionless exchange, including a discussion about how the word "gray" is spelled (apparently it's spelled with an "a" in the artistic community, though naturally not everyone could agree on that). The poster of the "gray" comment replies, "the first amendment".


Constitutional law has decided that speech can only be legally banned when it is likely to incite imminent lawless action. Obviously that interpretation doesn't cover the hundreds of unnecessary comments on the "Colors" video (although it could be argued the video itself may incite illegal drug use in an attempt to understand it), and it doesn't cover millions of comments we Americans feel compelled to make each day on any given topic, in any situation, via any medium. However, it is also obvious that a legal action is not by necessity a wise or beneficial one. For instance, it's perfectly legal to tell one's wife she is getting fat, but not at all wise. It's perfectly legal to make a Lorena Bobbit joke, but not at all beneficial. Our lives would be richer and our talk more meaningful and productive if, before offering up whatever happens to be on our mind in that moment, we instead take the responsibility to not only consider whether we are able to speak, but also whether we are wise to do so.

Drinkability

I have so many objections to Anheuser-Busch's new ad campaign that I can hardly even make this post. However, let me begin by saying that this will not be a beer snob post. While it has been suggested that this label would perhaps be an accurate one for me (I'm not so sure), I'm not here going to even attempt to make a critique of any of A-B's beers. I'm sure that's been done over and over, and I don't need to repeat that work. Long ago I came to realize that the American macro-brews serve a purpose, and while that purpose is not to brew delicious beers of various varieties, it is at least in part to offer refreshment to those who would not perhaps enjoy a more aggresive or full brew. I don't need to enjoy these macro-brews myself to see that others might.

I do however have a problem with the "drinkability" campaign. To begin, drinkability is a noun, albeit one that is not frequently used. It's a liquid that's suitable or safe for drinking. A-B claims the difference between Bud Light and other light beers is drinkability; that "just right taste". Of course a taste can't be described with a noun because taste is a noun in this context, so that would just be silly. For instance, I probably wouldn't describe the taste of a taco as a cow, as in "this taco tastes cow". That obviously doesn't make any sense, and for good reason. In English, you can't use a noun to descibe a noun. As someone who watches a bit of sport, and so not a few of these commercials, I would prefer a claim like "the supremely drinkable beer", just for my own ability to passively consume the message, ignore it, and move on.

But petty English grievances aside, I'll admit that we don't use "drinkability" as a noun much, and Urban Dictionary does in fact use it as an adjective "evaluating how smooth and easy-to-drink a beverage is." This is also an accepted term in the beer community to basically describe how fast one drinks a beer when one is not attempting to drink either quickly or slowly. So, in this context, the use of the term by A-B makes sense.

However, this means that A-B is spending roughly $50 million US dollars to inform people they can drink a bunch of Bud Light, quickly. Awesome. But wait, is this good? Isn't water the most drinkable liquid in the world? Doesn't that mean that if Bud Light is the most drinkable beer, it has the most water? Is this really how a brewing company would like to differentiate it's light beer, on how close it is to pure water? I'm thinking probably not, but it is in fact what this new ad campaign is suggesting.

Finally, since I do watch some sports, I also get to enjoy the Budweiser commercials that are currently being aired. The pitch here (with a little shout out to Idaho) is that Budweiser is the only beer that offers the perfect balance of taste and refreshment. Sound familiar? Yes, A-B is currently suggesting that its "premium" lager offers the same advantage its light beer does, namely that it tastes alright, but is also good for pounding and use in beer bongs. I suppose though that I should be respectful of the thread of honesty that's running through these campaigns. I wonder if all of this is InBev's idea...

Caleb's early life training

Nader4Prez

I was walking to a football game the other day and was pretty focused because I was late and there were thousands of people milling about (Go Broncos...and BYU this weekend). As I cruised by a group of young adults, one of them tried to hand me something and then said, "Nader for President". I actually laughed out loud. Not at them, but at the idea. I should have gone back and apologized to them, because I'm sure it sounded awful, but it was just so absurd to say something like that out loud that I couldn't help but laugh. I actually wish it could happen...not that Nader could be president (although that would certainly be "change"), but that it were possible for him to be president. I realize I should here provide some sort of well thought out solution to the problem, or at least something that sounds decent but wouldn't have a chance in real life, but I don't know how to address the problem of only have two people to choose from in any given election, and so I'm going to let this end with a wish. I suspect the root of the problem is money, but I can't prove that.

Caleb at about 14 months

Travel in Italy with a baby

My wife and I swore we'd continue travelling after our first child. His first plane ride was at three weeks old, and we've done a good amount of air and land travel since then. But this month was our first international test. We planned to travel from Boise to Venice, tour Italy for ten days, and return from Rome. We also planned to hit some of the major galleries, do Vatican City, and eat out most nights. I've done some travelling, but I'll admit I was a little nervous about this one. An eleven month old boy, confined spaces for long periods, art galleries, non-existent nap times, major time changes, and a different bed most nights did not for obvious reasons inspire a great deal of peace and confidence within me.

My main purpose for writing this entry is to provide a record of my experiences for others who might be interested, but I will briefly mention that our boy did wonderfully. He did well on the planes, was perfectly happy to sleep in the backpacks in most cases, was willing to sit and eat at the restaurants, and was in general a joy to have on the trip. I won't suggest that his mother (especially his mother) and I didn't have to work a little harder than we've had to in the past, and that we didn't willingly pass up some things along the way, but I will simply say that had I to do the trip over again I would still choose to take the boy along.

Following is a list of items we found to be absolutely invaluable on the trip.

Most restaurants in Italy don't have high chairs (thanks, Greg and Patti), so we brought along Phil and Ted's MeTo chair. This turned out to be an excellent solution. It is compact enough to reasonably pack, and sturdy enough to handle a hungry, bouncing baby boy. It allows for some space so mom and dad can enjoy a meal, and the baby still gets to participate. We didn't have it with us for a couple of lunches, and the meals were not nearly as enjoyable. We didn't run into any restaurant owners who minded our attaching the chair to one of their tables. As a side note, the chair also works really well at home, and his level of comfort with it when travelling may have had something to do with his sitting in it for most meals at home as well.

Sometimes the boy got tired while we were out and about. When we could tell he was starting to get ready for a nap, we'd put him on our back in the ERGObaby carrier and carry him around for awhile. When he fell asleep, we were able to snap the hood over him to protect him from harsh light and moving objects that might wake him suddenly. We also had a larger Kelty pack with us, but he seemed to prefer sleeping in the ERGO. It may have been the proximity to us that helped him fall asleep, but at any rate, we took both packs with us most times we went out. The Kelty was more comfortable and cooler (mainly in temperature, but I'm sure to some degree also in appearance), as well as allowing for a better vantage point for the boy, so it was more successful when he wasn't tired and when we were doing a lot of walking. If it's possible to take both kinds of packs, I'd recommend it. If you can take only one, take the ERGO.

It's pretty tough to avoid large crowds in Italy in May. A few nights we came back to the hotel from dinner and we were all fairly wired from the crowds, the sights, and the newness of it all. Sometimes it was pretty tough to relax. I had Italian wine to assist me, but my wife said that wouldn't work for the child. We had however brought along a bottle of Calms Forte 4 Kids, which is a completely natural aid to relieving restlessness. We didn't use it every night, but we did use it a few nights when he wouldn't relax, and we also used it on the planes to help him sleep at important times going both ways. It worked very well, and we noticed no obvious side effects.

Hunger and fatigue are two killers on anyone, and a baby is no exception. We took some snacks with us that we could carry around (graham cracker sticks he could hold and some Cheerios) that completely saved us a few times we got caught in a place without any food readily available and the boy's blood sugar reaching desperately low levels. I'm confident we would have had several complete melt downs had he not been able to munch on something until we were able to locate food.

A set of grandparents. If you can take one along, by all means do it. You'll get a little more sleep, do a little less walking around at restaurants when the food is taking a bit too long, and get an evening or two out.

I'd prefer not to travel again without the items above, but there were also a few things we found handy, but that we'd probably be fine without.

Sticky place mats kept more than one restaurant's tablecloth from meeting an early demise, and also were nice for offering a fairly clean surface on which to place food.

A couple of little toys were good for temporary distractions, but I wouldn't take more than two or three on the next trip.

A little music was nice every now and again, especially lullabies on some evenings. We found an iPod speaker that was small enough to pack, but produced decent enough sound. It also looks like a LEGO, which is of course a perk.

We bought a Nalgene with a loop so we could easily carry it with a caribiner. We had another cup we couldn't hook to anything and we found the Nalgene to be far simpler to keep track of. It's also BPA free, naturally.

As I said in the beginning, I'd do this trip again, but the timing seemed to be good with regard to his mobility as well. He could crawl, but wasn't extremely fond of it yet. Looking back, I would think twice before taking him on a trip like this when he really wants to crawl or walk with assistance almost all the time. Obviously his walking would have also posed some major problems.

If this post helps you out on your adventures with your kid(s), I'm glad. If you've got questions, feel free to leave a comment and I'll do my best to respond before your trip is over.

Listen for the full hour

I attended a diversity training the other day. For those of you who exist outside of corporate America, this would be a training in which one is taught how to recognize, consider, and be respectful of diversity in the workplace. It was well done. Of course I went in with few expectations, so I wasn't going to be hard to please, but the day was well used afterall. I think my favorite statement came when a fellow attendee was suggesting that she didn't appreciate a fictional character we were using in an exercise because this person had chosen to home school their children due to the immoral and amoral environment they perceived in the public school system. A fellow class member proceeded to say "We must be as tolerant of the intolerant as we are of any other person." The look on the woman's face was one of pure revelation. It was as if she had never considered the idea that a white, conservative, evangelical Christian is just as "diverse" as anyone else, and worthy of the same level of inclusion and respect as would be offered to a minority, for instance. It was quite a remarkable event.



But, probably one of the more interesting tidbits I picked up was with regard to first impressions. Apparently there are studies showing that first impressions are unavoidable. That is, humans register first impressions quite naturally. However, after a first impression, a person will then spend a massively disproportionate amount of time attempting to confirm the first impression. For instance, in a one hour interview, the interviewer will commonly have a first impression in five minutes, and will spend the next fifty-five minutes attempting to prove the first impression correct. Naturally the application for the lesson was to be aware of first impressions, and not to allow them undue influence on one's decision making processes.



As soon as I heard this though, I realized how many people I've known (myself included) who apply roughly this same process to a whole array of important decisions in their life. Allow me to offer a story. Growing up in central Idaho, and even later attending high school in western Washington, I didn't have much of an opportunity to hang out with African Americans. (My black friend would later tell me to call him "black". He would say, 'I don't want to go to Africa. I've seen pictures. It looks pretty, but it's got a lot of diseases.') So, when I got to college in Texas and started spending time with a young man from Houston who happened to be black, I realized the very small amount of time I'd given to my concept of racism in America was grossly underfunded. In my lifetime I'd allotted what amounted to five minutes in an hour deciding racism no longer existed, and then spent the remaining years ignoring or discounting any information which would offer an alternate theory. Not even the L.A. riots could change my mind (though to give myself a little leeway, I was a pre-teen at the time). That's why I was simply shocked when one day my friend kept insisting racism was as active as ever, especially in the culture in which he'd been raised. I could not believe it. Surely it was extremly isolated, like maybe to the banjo country of Mississippi, I suggested. No, he told me. It's everywhere. I still couldn't believe it. Then he said, "You're from the Northwest...like a Utopia. It's not like that everywhere." The Northwest isn't a Utopia, but I most certainly had not been forced to deal with racism in my upbringing. My parents had taught me that a person's skin color was just that, I hadn't at any point in my childhood been forced to acknowledge that not everyone felt that way, and I had gone on my merry way. It wasn't until someone who knew otherwise challenged my viewpoint that I corrected my understanding, and then only after that person forcefully ripped away the filter I had so permanentally and expertly installed on my consciousness.



As I think about this I wonder how many of us have done the same, but perhaps in the area of parenting, marriage, spirituality, politics, or maybe even our own past. Out of a lack of understaning, and an unwillingness to re-evaluate our current level of awareness, we leave ourselves incomplete. I know I for one will certainly be making every effort to spend the full hour listening and asking questions before I come to any more conclusions.

Voting for Hillary

There is way too much commentary on the Democratic primary. That being said, I'd going to add my drop in the bucket. Yes, I am annoyed enough by what some people are saying to not only comment on politics, but to actually comment on a portion of politics that needs not a single piece of additional commentary at this time.

I have in recent weeks heard several different women from different parts of the country (and I think even one from another country as well, for some reason) state they are supporting Hillary because they feel they identify with her as a woman, and she with them. That is, they want her to be president because they feel she understands them.

It's debatable as to whether Hillary could actually care less about these women as individuals. Some would say she could, others that she could not. I would suggest she cares primarily about her place in history. But this is of course a meaningless line of discussion, as neither side can really prove intentions. My real issue is with this idea that women would vote for Hillary because she's a woman. What if we turned that around and I said I wasn't voting for her because she's a woman? Suddenly I become a regressive sexist. So to vote for her because she's a woman is forward thinking and logical, but not to vote for her for the same reason is backward and illogical.

In actuality though, to do either simply because of her gender is illogical. A person doesn't make a good president because of their gender, and neither do they make a poor president for the same reason. I don't want to here rehash the great debate that is currently raging around Hillary's credentials as a presidential nominee, but I do want to emphatically say that if you're backing Hillary, please do so for reasons other than the fact that she happens to be a women.

Caleb around eight months.

Mars Hill and Predestination

If you're not a Christian, I'd really rather you didn't read this entry. I'd rather you not because the predestination conversation is sort of like an old family argument in Christianity and while an old family argument may be relatively harmless to family members who understand all of the background and nuances, and that at the end of the day everyone is still loved, those outside the family may not have that same level of understanding and may think the family is actually fighting (which it has in the past, but will not be here). This can at best lead to confusion from the outside party and at worst to outright dismissal of the family and its members as argumentative, bickering, haters. Obviously I don't want anyone getting that impression of Christians for any reason, and certainly not from something I've written. That being said, read on if you like, but please take the discussion as just that and kindly remember that in my opinion this is an academic issue surrounding the theology of God and should in no way distract from what Jesus said and did, which is of course the real point of it all.


I recently listened to a sermon by Mark Driscoll, head pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle. The sermon on predestination is actually part of a series they're currently doing called "Religion Saves and 9 Other Misconceptions". The series came out of an interesting idea. The idea came about from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians. In the letter it's clear that what Paul is doing is answering a bunch of questions sent to him by the church in Corinth. Mars Hill decided to let people ask questions of it, and then everyone could vote on which ones they most wanted to hear answered, and Driscoll would teach on the top nine votes. The first was birth control, the second was on humor, and the third of the series (number seven) was predestination. As a side note, they also revisit the topic in the evening service, but allow people to send in text messages with questions. These questions are screened and then answered on the fly by Driscoll at the end of the service. I will say though that they apparently don't screen the hard questions because after the birth control sermon someone asked if aborting a pregnancy that was brought on by a rape was a sin. Driscoll answered it too. I was surprised and somewhat impressed.


I do have to say I've never actually heard anyone teach on predestination from a church pulpit. That type of talk is usually reserved for the classroom at a university or possibly some types of high schools. The fact that I've never heard anyone address this concept in church of course gives us some idea of the sensitivity of the material. Generally the topic is treated as politicians will treat the subject of abortion. They avoid it if at all possible, but if asked will provide their prepared answer and then do all they can to move to the next question. So, I was both glad and a little wary to see that someone had actually preached a sermon on the topic of predestination.

This post is not really a response to what Driscoll himself said, but rather the ideas he expressed. That is, other than the notion I have that perhaps this particular conversation is better had among Christians alone, my thoughts on this are more generally thoughts on the Calvinistic view of predestination, as that is basically what Driscoll was teaching. He happens to be a Calvinist when it comes to predestination, and so that is what he submitted as the proper way to understand the concept. I happen to disagree on a couple of points. Of course I'm not the first, so I'm just going to talk about what presents itself as clear to me and will try to remain brief.

Most fundamentally I disagree with the Calvinist view because it invalidates free will in an individual human. God clearly saw free will as being important when he gave Adam and Eve the choice to obey his command or not, which of course ultimately led to original sin, the downfall of mankind's relationship with God, death, humans who do evil, and of course eventually the Super Bowl in 2006, which was the greatest evil in history. I believe free will was so vastly important to God because love drives the universe. Without love none of it makes any sense at all. As Jack Johnson wrote, "Love is the answer,At least for most of the questions in my heart. Like why are we here? And where do we go?And how come it's so hard?" But, without an individual's free will remaining intact, how can anything like true love exist? In other words, if one has no choice but to love God, is that love? I would suggest that it is not. I would suggest that that would be closer to a slave than a son.


There is also a concept in the Calvinist view of predestination suggesting that mankind cannot choose God because of his or her depravity level. Before God, through Jesus redeems a person, that person is spiritually dead in their sin (Ephesians 2:1). Surely, their thinking goes, a dead person cannot make a decision, and so it must be that God reaches down with his strong arm of grace and raises some from their spiritual death. But, the logic continues, each person chooses to be spiritually dead, that is each of us chooses to sin. Now that everyone chooses sin is not up for debate. The Bible is pretty clear on that one. We all choose to do things that are opposite the nature of God (we hate, we lie, we are unjust, we are unmerciful, etc) and so become alienated to Him, as He (being a being of perfect goodness) cannot associate with that which is not also purely good. On this point there is little discussion. But, how is it that we as beings are able to "choose" in one direction, but not the other? If we can only choose evil, is that a choice, and if it's not a choice, can we be held accountable for it? If it is a choice and we are therefore accountable for it, mustn't we by definition have another option, and in this case mustn't that option be good? I would suggest there are a few places in the Bible that indicate we as humans have the ability to choose good over evil (Ecclesiastes 3:11, Joshua 24:15, Matt 11:28 to name just a few). In fact, at the beginning of Romans (a big predestination book) Paul spends a bit of time talking about how the godless and the wicked are going to get what's coming to them, but it didn't have to be like that. In the end however it is just because what may be known about God is "plain" and men are without excuse for their evil choices.