Words and Works

Man-venture 2010

2010-08-02T22:25:00.000-07:00

For those unaware, I embarked on an epic man adventure (or "man-venture") a few weeks ago. Five days in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, 51.6 miles. It's difficult to sum up a trip like that, but I'll say it was incredibly difficult, with bits of fun, stunning natural beauty, and hugely rewarding in a lot of different ways. I went with a great group of guys, and while I don't know that I'd do this exact one again, I'd be up for another adventure with that crew in the future.

The pictures here show the good stuff, which is what I'll remember in the end. Right now I still recall the crippling blisters (which are still healing), baking sun, sixteen miles in a day, and switchback at Rattlesnake creek.

Madness comes early for some

2010-04-04T12:40:00.000-07:00

This is a video of my son filling out his NCAA men's basketball tournament bracket on 3/17, just about three months before his third birthday.

Lenovo IdeaCentre K220 Not Recognizing Flash Cards (Vista x64)

2009-12-22T23:28:00.000-08:00

This post is way out of blog character for me, but I'm writing it in hopes it saves someone out there a few hours of frustration.

My family and I are preparing this evening for our Christmas vacation, which begins tomorrow morning with a plane ride. Naturally, there are not a few things to be done before we leave, and one of them is unloading the pictures currently existing on the camera memory cards to make way for the vast collection we'll be gathering in the next days. So, given that we had a fair amount to do this evening, naturally my computer decided to stop detecting the cards when they were inserted, essentially rendering the task of transferring the existing pictures impossible. Lovely. But have no fear, a reboot will surely fix it...or not. Poking around in the BIOS, device manager, drive manager...nothing. The machine simply had no awareness of those flash interfaces existing. So, this could only be one thing, a dreaded driver issue.

So now I'm slogging through the forums on Lenovo's site looking for poor, hapless people who have experienced this issue before. There seem to have been a few, but no easy remedy. It was also here that I discovered Lenovo's support is still far behind Dell. If only Dell hadn't given my mom of all people the runaround when her monitor failed less than a year after buying a Dell on my recommendation because "they'll answer any questions you have, no problem". This after selling her a really awful printer as part of the package...a printer so bad that I can only get it to work after inserting paper at a carefully measured, precise angle, then wiggling it a little, and then at just the right moment, leaning very close to the printer and whispering threats through clenched teeth. But Dell wouldn't help her get the printer working right, and then they had to send her three monitors (and I had to get involved to make that happen) before the third one finally worked for more than a few days. After all of this, an email to Michael Dell, and a phone call with someone I can only assume is in the "response management" division at Dell, I asked that they send a new printer to sooth some of the frustration we'd had with their company. They responded that they couldn't do that. I of course pointed out that they most certainly could, and that the more accurate word to use in this case would be "wouldn't" instead of "couldn't".

So now I own a Lenovo. It's a nice machine, and affordable. But after my experience tonight, grace be with you if you have a problem with it late at night and don't want to just fire an email into the ether, or get into an extended phone wait game, because what you'll be left with is the forum.

After reading a lot of posts (many commenting on the lack of easily accessible information on the site), I happened upon this one. It seemed a very outside shot, but I followed the link and downloaded the latest driver for Vista x64. After contemplating the question of "how bad could installing this be", and "when was the last time I checked my backups", I installed it. Peace on earth and goodwill to the folks at Ricoh, it worked. My wife just finished cleaning off the memory cards, and I made this post.

If anyone happens to find this helpful, well Merry Christmas!

Thank God for pie

2009-09-08T22:22:00.000-07:00

Saying prayers with my son before he went to sleep two days ago, we were thanking God for our house and our food and our drinks. I was about to move on in the prayer, when he says, "...and pie...and cake." I just nodded at him and said, "Amen."

Eden

2009-05-11T21:39:00.001-07:00

I've already acquired a shotgun.

"Daddy, why do people die?"

2009-05-11T21:38:00.001-07:00

The title isn't an awfully corny lead into a predictable lecture that ends with "But, Jesus can save you". That's true, but the question that is the title of this post was an actual question from my friend's six year old son. I find it very profound. My friend is an intelligent, thoughtful man, and so he struggled with how to answer this question honestly. He decided to answer his boy by telling him it was a big question, and that he didn't know for sure, but everyone had to find their own answer eventually. As my friend finished telling me about this conversation he said, "So, I'm glad I didn't take the opportunity to brainwash my son."

There are some very real, tangible dangers to post-modern philosophies, not the least of which is the eventual necessity to use might to determine "right", but my friend's comments point to another danger, and that is the loss of generational wisdom. That is, if all conclusions and all opinions are equally valid, it's unecessary to teach our children anything other than that simple principle. As they will eventually form their own opinions and come to their own conclusions, and those will by definition be as valid as that of their parents, teaching becomes not only unecessary, but since it is purposefully influencing thoughts and conclusions, it is actually looked on as brainwashing.

Now, if I asked my friend I'm sure he'd tell me that he teaches his son not to play in traffic, how to properly handle a knife, what he can eat and what he cannot eat, etc. He quite naturally does these things, and rightfully so in order that his son's physical health be maintained. This is necessary because there are rules that govern our physical well being, there is a design to our physical being that reacts well to some things and does not react well to others. Most post-modern thinkers do not disagree with this, but they draw a philosophical line between the physical and the metaphysical. They say there are rules and order to the physical (a post-modern would not suggest that scientific theory is invalid), but that there are no such rules or order in the metaphysical world. Francis Schaefer refers to this dividing line as the "line of despair". There is not, in my opinion any logical reason for this line, and it therefore follows easily that that about us that is not physical (I would call it spiritual) is also benefitted by some thoughts and actions, and damaged by others. We should therefore be at least as careful and intentional in teaching our children about spiritual health as we are about physical health, and to do this is no more to brainwash them than teaching them not to crawl into the oven.

Right now I'm not sure how I'd answer this question for my son, but I'm very grateful for the eternal wisdom of the Bible and the thoughts it offers on difficult questions such as this, and even more grateful for a God who has promised that love covers a multitude of sins...and those would be my sins it's covering.

As a side note, if you happen to be reading this and find yourself wondering firstly how you got here, it was probably not intentional, but let's go with it and answer your next question which might be around where to find some instruction on what is and is not good for the human soul. I would recommend Jesus, and more specifically the book of Matthew, chapters 6 and 7. These teachings are generally referred to as the Sermon on the Mount.

But don't go anywhere else

2009-05-05T23:04:00.000-07:00

Vaccines are a tremendously controversial subject right now, and since this is merely a blog by an admitted lay person in the area of medicine, I'm not really going to jump into it too much. I just have an interesting story to share that involves vaccines. I will however mention that I believe much of the heated debate on this topic has to do with the majority of the medical community simply refusing to engage in the conversation. The impression I get is that they feel they have spoken and they don't want to talk about it anymore. Never mind that an ever increasing number of people are refusing vaccines, that we're seeing huge spikes in childhood diseases coming under the umbrella of autism, auto-immune disorders, and allergies with no good explanation as to why, that the number of suggested vaccinations has gone from somewhere around four (polio and mmr) to somewhere around sixteen in the last 15 or so years, that there are some very questionable connections between those people who are recommending the vaccines and those people who are making the vaccines, and that above all parents are asking for some real answers. Still, what we get in response is a one size fits all immunization schedule, the strong suggestion that every single person get every single vaccination at the scheduled time, and no viable studies on long term effects of this practice.

As I said though, I'm not going to add my two cents to this debate because many who know far more than I are already speaking on both sides. I appreciate that, especially from those in the medical community (such as my doctor) who are willing to have the conversation and who are willing to allow parents to choose not to immunize or to follow a modified immunization schedule without writing them off as crazies who are unfit to parent. In fact, if a parent isn't questioning loading their child from birth with viruses and foreign substances (such as aluminum, formaldehyde, and various animal products) before doing so, that should cause some concern.

My sister and I were having this conversation the other day, as we both have children who would be getting vaccinations via the standard schedule, and so it's more than just an academic topic of discussion for us. She was telling me that she had gone into her doctor to have her youngest daughter receive a second round of vaccinations and she was asking the nurse some questions about a particular vaccine. The nurse was answering the question and then said, "If you have any more questions just go to cdc.gov...but don't go anywhere else." I was shocked, but not particularly surprised that she would say this. It really just belies the medical community's stance on the vaccination debate, in that in their minds there is no debate, but only wild, ignorant ravings from those who present information counter to theirs. However, regardless of the quality of the argument against, when someone who is supposed to be a trusted advisor is saying that an agency of the U.S. government is the sole bearer of truth on a subject, that should lead to some serious questioning of that person's role as an advisor, and if the medical community as a whole is suggesting such a thing with regard to vaccinations, we should all be very alarmed, and become very educated on the subject.

Currently, there are no laws

2009-04-13T20:42:00.001-07:00

I don't watch the local news. Yes, I do care about what's happening in my community, and yes I do have a feed on my home page for local newspaper articles, but I don't watch the evening news. Sometimes though I accidentally catch some of it, and after my initial feelings of bewilderment pass, I'm reminded of exactly why I very intentionally avoid it.

Recently there was an accident here in the area involving a texting motorist and a police car on the shoulder of an interstate. Clearly a potentially very serious situation that thankfully didn't involve much more than what I imagine was a good scare for everyone. Last night, as my TV flips to the most recent channel I was watching after I'd deleted my recording of a syndicated Scrubs episode, I happen to catch the end of this story on the evening news. "Okay, that's probably a legit news story", I tell myself, "Nothing there to warrant me being annoyed enough to write a blog post regarding my annoyance, that no one will ever read." Then, to what I guess should have been my anticipated bewilderment, they follow the story up with a series of video pieces in which they asked random residents how they "felt" about texting while driving.

There are just so many things wrong with this. The idea is wrong, the use of resources is wrong, the content is wrong, the delivery is wrong. This isn't a debatable subject. No sane person thinks texting while in control of a two thousand pound missile made of glass and steel is a good idea. But, if it were a debatable subject, don't stick a camera in the face of random people on the street and ask them a question for which they have no time to prepare an answer. Even with time and no camera the average person probably isn't going to have anything meaningful to say on the majority of topics, so there's almost zero chance of getting something worthwhile in this manner. If however the local news is going to choose to ask a question that has only one sane answer, and then to do that via ambush on the good people of the community, it would be ever so nice if they would save this activity for their interns and use their resources to air some meaningful content.

In the article linked above it mentions that there is currently no law against texting while driving. I won't get started on the implications of needing to create such a law, but should we decide to do that, I think we should also include one to protect citizens from "Pulse of the People"-type segments by local news teams.

Well, it looks like I did have something to say

2009-04-07T21:10:00.000-07:00

I find myself awake, with some free time, and a marginal amount of energy. I'm so shocked I'm barely able to type. We as a family are waiting for the arrival of our daughter any day now, and so among other preperation activities, my mother in law is staying with us for awhile. I'm of course very glad to have her as a guest, but she has also been so kind as to cook (not that I really do any of this anyway) and do the dishes (this I do try for most of the time) several nights in a row now. So, I find myself with some free time, some energy, and someone else to watch The Biggest Loser with my lovely wife. Naturally I don't really have much to say tonight, but in the true spirit of blogging, I'm going to say something anyway.

I recently read a book called "For the Children's Sake" by Susan Schaeffer Macaulay (daughter of Francis Schaeffer). I realize that having books recommended is almost meaningless most of the time, and I think that stems from the real lack of book reading we do as a culture, so when one does finish a book one feels compelled to recommend it because there is little or nothing to compare it to in order to determine real value. I also realize that in my current season of life I am not reading with nearly the volume I would like and so I quite understand ones reluctance to take a book recommendation of mine as well. Having said all that, this book is well worth the read. I'd even go so far as to suggest that every parent (at least in our predominantly western culture) should read this book when considering how to educate their children.

Jumping subjects almost entirely, I heard someone on the radio the other day talking about how the lack of trust by the consumer in the government and financial sector to do right by the investor is one of the major causes of the severe economic downturn we've seen in the U.S. I don't think this is any kind of news flash, and was almost completely passed over during the radio show, I suppose for the reason that it wasn't seen as a particularly insightful comment. I suppose we Americans as a culture take trust for granted at almost an instinctual level, and as Stephen MR Covey would point out, greater trust means faster results means more money. As we are forced to more heavily regulate, audit, monitor, record, and report what's happening in the market place, the market place slows done, increases overhead, and generates less wealth. Mix this up with some good old fashion greed and fiscal irresponsiblity by a lot of parties, and you get a nice red color with which to paint a sign that reads "Welcome to the Great Recession".

But trust is such a part of our culture that we hardly even notice it, except when it wanes in the face of gross misconduct by those in whom trust has been placed. This is something my mother is quick to point out. The fabric of the American society is woven with values like honesty, trust, responsibility, kindness, respect, equality, and the like, and that these values are from the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the modernist or post-modernist world, this fabric is not possible. How can you trust someone to do the right thing if there is no such thing as "right" or if "right" is simply determined by the majority? The answer of course is that you cannot, and so in the market for example we are no longer permitted a framework based on universal truths from which we can make decisions, we must instead have rules to govern every facet of our behavior. The real trouble of course with this approach is that it is impossible to predict all of the damaging schemes people are capable of creating (because we're such an infinitely creative lot, for better or worse), and so it's only possible to regulate after the fact. Thus we have the mortgage crisis, the banking crisis, and steriods in baseball. So, what is the ultimate answer? We need only look to a few countries that have not founded their market (and indeed their society) on Judeo-Christian principles to see the answer. The removal of freedoms, or of all freedom is the final solution. If a people cannot govern themselves, they will be governed.

President Obama is very often referencing the fact that America has always risen to big challenges, and this is for the most part true, but we have always done so by building on the foundation that was laid at our country's inception. In recent decades we have been making a concerted effort as a society to remove that foundation and replace it with something much less capable of holding a thing as weighty as a rise to a mighty challenge. I hate to sound all "right-wing" here, but this is just logic. If America decides at this time (the next three to five years) that we will refuse the principles upon which this country was founded (the most fundamental of which was that there are universal truths and that they are revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition), then we will no longer have our country's history as a precedent for our country's future. We will be laying a new foundation for our society and attempting to build on that. This may succeed and it may fail, but whatever it ends up being, it will not be the America of the past two hundred years. It simply cannot be.

I am gray today (with an "a")

2008-11-28T22:53:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-24T22:20:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-22T21:32:00.000-08:00

Nader4Prez

2008-11-18T23:35:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-08-25T21:22:00.000-07:00

Caleb at about 14 months

Travel in Italy with a baby

2008-05-21T21:13:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-06T21:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-09T16:30:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-03-05T22:26:00.000-08:00

Caleb around eight months.

Mars Hill and Predestination

2008-02-01T19:32:00.000-08:00

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.

If you really want to, you can

2007-10-24T20:21:00.001-07:00

Sometimes Caleb (my son) still struggles with the concept of sleeping, and more specifically with sleeping at the same time his parents are sleeping. Therefore, I somewhat often find myself bouncing on an exercise ball with him dozing in my arms and watching whatever happens to be on TV, for lack of anything else to occupy my mind at the time. I was doing this the other night and caught the Tonight Show. Jay was doing his monologue. He did a bit about the lead paint from China (I don't remember what the punch line was, but I'm sure it was full of wit) and as the audience was finishing up their laughter, the guitar guy (Kevin?) remarks that we should just make this stuff here in America. This elicited a big round of applause from the crowd. Strangely though, it was definitely the kind of applause that signals agreement, but resignation to the fact that that which is being agreed upon as good will never be...like when people applaud a speech about how money shouldn't decide an election, or how nice it would be for everyone in the world to have enough to eat every day.

This struck me as odd. In no other place do we, as individual consumers in a capitalist economy have more influence than in the marketplace. If you, as a consumer would like more goods to be made in the U.S., stop buying goods made elsewhere. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that if everyone who saw that show and agreed with Kevin's statement were to stop buying things manufactured in China and sold in Wal-Mart, and were to buy only American good from the same store, you could get a fair amount of manufacturing moved back to the U.S. in a few years. Here's the catch though (and there's always a catch), you're going to have to pay a lot more for your stuff, and you might even have to go to a few different stores to get everything you need. You might also have to sacrifice some things like movies and eating out.

I suppose this is the point though, that it's a lot easier to agree with a notion in principal, and even to applaud it as worthy of support, but then to quickly point out to yourself that it's completely impractical for you personally to actually execute such a principal in your own life. It does make one feel good to agree with something that is right, but it's somewhat frustrating to find people who are doing only that when they could with a small amount of effort actually contribute to the change of direction they claim to desire.

Caleb at four months

2007-10-24T20:21:00.000-07:00

I think it's probably time for an update to the son's pic on here. Caleb at about four months.

That's a big gorilla

2007-07-06T22:06:00.000-07:00

It takes Microsoft two weeks to exceed Apple's quarterly earnings? Check it out.

http://software.seekingalpha.com/article/33932

Raising controversy

2007-07-06T21:42:00.000-07:00

I recently had unfettered access to satellite television for several days in a row, and consequently spent a little too much time watching tv. I know that if I watch too much tv, especially some local news broadcasts, I'm going to eventually see something upon which I will have to comment. This time it came later in the trip, but I was not disappointed. I was presented with a story about a town in Oregon which has recently added some concrete posts designed to serve as barriers between pedestrians and motorists. As the article indicates, the town has raised some controversy as to whether or not the posts look like the male reproductive organ.

I think we as a society are going to at some point need to start telling people that some of the things they are worried and offended over are not in fact legitimate, and that they won't be getting their way . Is no one else in this town concerned that their citizens immediately think of a penis when they see a post with a rounded top, and then that they project their offense onto the rest of the town? Perhaps it might be time for those people to re-evaluate their thought life, their priorities, their sense of self importance, their sense of humor, and then move on to something more worthy of their time and energy.

Constitutional authority

2007-06-20T22:14:00.000-07:00

I like to think I'm not a blind patriot; that I'm not oblivious to America's faults and weaknesses when I say it is truly a great and marvelous country. I will however maintain that America is a wonder. The most recent example I've been presented with is the court ruling regarding a U.S. resident held at Guantanamo (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947948). I am continually amazed by America's passion to fight vigorously for the rights of her would be enemies. That America would have the structure and the process and the right to police herself to the point of ordering her president to release a suspected terrorist is, when looked at objectively, quite incredible. Further, I find it striking that the terrorists would like to abolish the very system which is continually working to defend their rights as humans, and that that system is forced to defend them none the less, as it would be useless to all if it failed to apply to some. This is good and correct, but remarkable from what we know of the human tendencies toward tyranny and selfishness.

2007-06-20T22:02:00.000-07:00

Caleb Benjamin Scott

I think he looks like his mom, thank goodness.

But...it's nonsense

2007-02-28T20:53:00.000-08:00

As I'm sure everyone has heard by now, the Discovery Channel will be airing a documentary on the fourth of March called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". The makers of the documentary claim a tomb uncovered in 1980 is the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, complete with the bones of Jesus and his son. I am not here going to enumerate the details of this claim, or the reasons given for or against, as that is already being taken care of in great earnest by many other parties. I will however include a small quote from Professor Amos Kloner, who was responsible for the excavation of the tomb in 1980.

"It makes a great story for TV, but ... it's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no Jerusalem ties. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE [Christian Era]."

However, this talk of the tomb of Jesus got me thinking. Hypothetically speaking, if researchers were to all agree that this tomb is in fact the tomb of Jesus' family, and somehow they also all agreed the bones were in fact the bones of Jesus of Nazareth (I don't know how they would do this, but we're pretending, so the how is unimportant right now), would this fundamentally change my beliefs about the world?

I like to think I'm a fairly rational person. I like to think I have somewhat well thought out reasons for the things I believe, and even rationale for things which must by necessity fall into the category of "faith" (a category which every person must have, for we do not at this time have indisputable answers to all questions), which brings me to this hypothetical proposition regarding the supposed bones of Jesus.

I believe though that in answer to the question, it would not change my beliefs to a great degree. Some would say this is an intellectual cop out, that to deny such obvious evidence would be proof that religious belief is blind to the facts. I would of course disagree, and my disagreement stems from my understanding that our current wisdom is not necessarily any greater for being current. In other words, I don't think we as a collective human race are by default wiser than the people who came before us simply because we happen to be the most recent. For example, our current level of understanding regarding the workings of the human body is more advanced than at any known time in human history, but it's debatable whether we are any better at healing disease than the ancient Chinese were. What we currently consider advanced thinking in a great many areas will undoubtedly be labeled as foolish in the future, and this is simply the human condition.

In this particular case, were I to take the eye witness accounts in the New Testament, couple those with the fact that the same eye witnesses later died for their testimonies, and weigh that against expert testimony two thousand years later, I believe I would find the New Testament account more compelling.

Now I can sleep, knowing I've answered a question which was never asked.

My contribution

2007-02-20T19:54:00.000-08:00

I really enjoy Weekend Update, and will sometimes watch SNL just for that portion of it. This week though I was somewhat saddened by one of its segments. It wasn't really their fault, they were just doing their job, molding satire like master craftsmen and craftswomen. The subject of the segment was Ted Haggard's "rehabilitation", and the sadness came when I realized SNL had every right to comment on it. I'm aware that every Christian in America, and possibly the world (including me) is tired of hearing and talking about Ted Haggard, but after seeing the material his rehab is providing for writers, how can they stop talking about it? Here's a little excerpt with reference to Mr. Haggard, and mind you this is after three weeks of counseling:

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph [Rev. Tim] said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

He's heterosexual except for the times over the last three years when he had sex with a man? This man has lied, deceived, adulterated, and engaged in immoral conduct for years, all while leading a church and an evangelical organization and after three weeks in counseling the statement is that at least he isn't homosexual?

I could go on here, but it would turn into a rant, and that's only mildly useful, and then mostly to myself. The point of sadness came for me when I realized why SNL (and several other programs) were having such a field day with the announcement that Haggard is "completely heterosexual" after three weeks of counseling. They find it so humorous because they recognize the complexity of people and life, and are amused that Christians apparently do not. I can almost see these people sitting around chuckling at another example of Christian naivety. "Oh, you've got a serious behavioral problem in your life? Here's a pamphlet with some bullet points; that should fix you up."

Clearly, this one statement from this one situation does not define all of Christendom, but I do believe it illustrates a tendency Christians have toward the clean and simple for fear of the involved and messy.

I realize of course that in many cases pamphlets with bullet points do immeasurable good, but we've got a big, rich, complex book called the Bible because in the final analysis life and death are not described with bullet points. Christians are supposed to know that people are all broken and messed up, and that even a belief in the saving power of Jesus does not necessarily free them from their past, from their bad habits, from their heritage. It is time we Christians stopped thinking and acting like a child and started treating people both in and out of the church not as projects but as invaluable individuals who need love, patience, kindness, forgiveness, and most certainly the grace of God.

Enemies

2007-02-14T19:08:00.000-08:00

As we toured through the detention facility where Pol Pot's regime had imprisoned, tortured, and eventually killed thousands of people who were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong profession, or the wrong family, or the wrong place, I got to thinking about evil. To be honest it was difficult to think of much else in that place. It was as if its entirety had been saturated with evil and though most of it had gone, a pure residue remained on the ground, on the walls of the cells, and in the air. To stand in that old high school and breathe was to feel the other end of the human spectrum, the one opposite of child feeding programs, AIDS workers, good soldiers, blood drives, and free clinics; it was to feel the true breadth of human capabilities.

When I left the museum I believe I was literally in shock. It took me several weeks to recover to the point of considering what I had seen. As I began to consider it though, a somewhat odd reference came to me. In Paul's letter to the Ephesians he states that the Christian struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world. That is, those who are for good in this world are not fighting against bad people, but against purely bad spiritual authorities. I take this to mean that Pol Pot himself was not evil, but rather influenced so heavily by the entities which are evil that he was capable of the horrors we see in Cambodian history. This makes a certain amount of sense. If one takes a look back at some of the worst atrocities in human history, the people generally held responsible for those things are recorded as honestly believing they were taking good actions. Now, obviously these peoples' definition of good was mutated beyond sanity and recognition, but in their own minds they still considered their behavior and that of those under them to be somehow correct. This means they deserve our love and pity, not our hate; easy to say, nearly impossible to live. I suspect though that Jesus was in tune with the idea that there are no evil people, only people influenced to varying degrees by evil. Here's what he had to say about it:

"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty...Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you."

In addition to holding some lambs, having good hair, being nice, and claiming he was God, Jesus was a decent philosopher too.

Leaving God at the farm

2007-02-07T20:24:00.000-08:00

The Old Testament portion of the Bible has some accounts (or stories, depending on your particular outlook on such things) which can only be described as shockingly incredible. I have a few of these which always make my list of most likely to have caused personal revelation.

There's the prophetic version of "When Animals Attack" in which Elisha is strolling along on his way to somewhere, when for no recorded reason an apparently large crowd of "youths" begins to mock him with the name "bald-head". While not especially witty, the name apparently agitates Elisha, so he calls down a curse on these youths...and two bears come out of the woods and maul forty-two members of the crowd! This may be one reason we don't see wide use of the insult "bald-head" today. A few years earlier when the Israelites were on their way into Canaan, there was a fellow by the name of Balaam living there already. The details of the account are a bit long, but at one point this man is riding his donkey along a road. For various reasons God is not happy with what Balaam is doing, so he sends an angel to block the road. His donkey can see the angel, and so leaves the road to avoid running into it. Balaam beats the donkey to get her back on the road. This happens a couple of more times with the angel, the donkey avoiding it, and the beating. So then the angel allows the donkey to speak, and the donkeys says to Balaam "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" Then, Balaam was either accustomed to talking animals or more of a man than I because he didn't miss a beat and responded, "You have made a fool of me!" They actually go on to have a little conversation about the happenings of that afternoon, and this was way before the invention of any synthetic narcotics.

There is one of these accounts though which I come back to with some frequency. It comes during the time of David. The Israelites were forever fighting with a particular group of people known as the Philistines. They were sort of like high school rivals in a way, only with wars and burning cities instead of football games and pranks. At one point the Philistines have the ark of the covenant, which was essentially an elaborate wooden chest which housed the holy things of Israel, including the tablets on which God had carved the ten commandments. The ark was extremely important to Israel. I'm sure you've seen the Indiana Jones movie. The Israelites went to get it back, and it wasn't hard because the Philistines had already decided to send it away. On the way back to Jerusalem, the oxen pulling the cart carrying the ark stumbled, so a man by the name of Uzzah reached out and steadied it. He was immediately struck dead. It was the law that no one except men of a certain tribe could touch the ark or any of the holy things, but David still got angry with God for killing Uzzah. He no longer wanted to take the ark to Jerusalem, so he left it at someone's house and went home. Three months later David went back to get the ark, and took it to Jerusalem with him.

Sometimes I relate to the way David felt when he left God on someone's farm. I have no way of physically leaving God anywhere, but I think maybe I would do it at times if I could. I probably wouldn't even go all the way out to a farm, I'd just leave him in the church parking lot, or maybe down at the neighborhood park. I'm sure any place I left him would be better for his being there, but at the time I might be too angry or confused to want to talk to him. I'm also quite sure I would go back and get him later and we'd be alright, but that time of separation would be necessary.

Even though I can't physically leave God anywhere, I am sometimes frustrated, confused, and angered by his actions (or lack of actions), just as David was. Mind you this is not an ongoing occurrence (as my pride might have it), but there are those moments when God's decisions become very personal. At these times I believe honesty to be more important than attempting to manufacture an attitude perceived as appropriate and correct, but which is in reality false, and I may emotionally remove myself from God for a season. But I believe this to be appropriate on occasion.

Without honesty I do not believe we can experience spiritual or emotional growth. In fact, I would suggest that believing there is a "correct" way to relate to God, which does not include a little raw emotion has only succeeded in the past to stagnate and embitter people. I tend to think of God as being rather understanding of the whole thing. After all, he did set the system up in the first place, and while it's clearly not exactly what he had in mind, I really expect that he still relates quite well to what's happening. He must know we can't possibly comprehend all of his ways (that's why he's called "God Almighty"), and that there will be times when our humanity gets the best of us, and we'll question him. He would know we're questioning him, and to express something other than this would be lying, which he has gone on record as disliking. No, I think God will understand if we sometimes leave him at Joe's Cafe for awhile...just as long as we come back sooner rather than later.

Gravy

2007-01-10T20:46:00.000-08:00

I have a friend who is very kind and intelligent, and luckily also very resourceful because the automobile he owns can just barely be classified as such. The tires are bald, the paint is oxidized, the driver side wing window is shattered and patched by duct tape, and the rear window is completely missing (I understand it just popped out on the highway one day and was completely atomized). Actually, several months after the window mishap I noticed he had replaced it with a shower curtain, cut to size and taped in place. The curtain lasted for perhaps six months, and was as I recall actually slashed by some unidentified rascals in the end. No further effort was made to repair the window. He describes the car by saying, "It's not just an eye sore, it's also a health hazard." I told him five years ago he needed to get a new ride because there was no way that one was making it through the winter. When I see he has managed to actually drive it somewhere yet again, I remind him that each successful start is just gravy.

I received an email today from another friend of mine. Her dad had just gotten out of a seven hour surgery to remove his colon and the cancer which had overtaken it. She is staying with him for a few days because he can now do nothing for himself and is in extreme pain most of the time.

I'm not sure why my friend's email reminded me of my other friend's car, but it did. Perhaps it's because I know, though I am not always conscious of it, that each day this world and I exist together is really just gravy. Maybe I'd actually like someone to remind me each time I get out of bed (though probably not in person because that'd be more creepy than anything else) how no one is promised tomorrow, but in this particular case it was graciously given to me in all its weight and beauty.

"But life," one might say "day in and day out is not weighty and beautiful, it's ugly and meaningless." I don't agree with that conclusion and I think it's based on some misunderstandings, but that discussion is too large for this space, and is better had in person anyway. Suffice it to say Jesus loves changing things (as evidenced by the names of Peter and Paul), and given a chance I'm sure he would love to change this perspective on life as well.

I realize of course the vast number of times and ways in which this idea has been expressed. I'm even aware of how cliche most of those expressions have become. However, I do not believe the concept to be less worthy for its frequent repetition, and even though I know it is unrealistic and perhaps even unproductive to think one can constantly carry such an idea in the forefront of their consciousness, I still can't help but believe that even an occasional recollection of something as grand as the preciousness of another sunrise refreshes the natural nobility and honor of a person's soul. It is such a soul that can truly carpe diem.

The Reel world

2007-01-03T20:07:00.000-08:00

We went to see "Stranger Than Fiction" the other night. It's playing at the Reel (also known as the Dx3 (dollar times three) Theatre, or sometimes just Ghetto), though it was only released a couple of months ago. This means people were no longer paying full price to see it, so it was re-heated and served again at a discount. As a frequenter of the Reel I've become somewhat familiar with the pattern. If a movie stays in the regular theatres for a long time, it's probably worth the few bucks to go see it on the big screen, and it will be what is expected. However, if a movie moves quickly from the full price theatre to the one where sound and picture together on the first try is a happy surprise, that movie is a bit of a gamble. On the one hand the simple fact that the majority of Americans did not find it appealing arouses some curiosity, but on the other hand a movie that not even Americans were bored enough to watch raises some suspicions. In this case though the movie does indeed feature Mr. Will Farrell, so I figured we had the odds on our side.

I'm not going to review the film because next to another Christian self-help book, another movie review is the last thing anyone needs. But, I will say it's better than average and probably worth seeing.

I think the theme of the movie is something like "our lives are wonderful and beautiful because of the simple things around us, like a smile from someone you love, or a tree, or a cookie, or a watch." This is a worthy enough thought, made better only by answering the question of why this is so, but there is also a sub-theme along the lines of "doing what you've always wanted to do, and not doing what you don't want to do leads to a more fulfilling and complete life." This I think goes along with a more general theme running through much of American entertainment which makes the claim that doing what you want to do is more noble and admirable than doing what you don't want to do, which I think just dovetails nicely into the human propensity for selfishness.

I am all for an excellent life, lived fully and well. But I don't agree with the notion that a life well lived must necessarily include all manner of activities thought to be desirable at the time, or that it must preclude anything felt to be dreary or unappealing. Certainly life consists of a mix of these things (sometimes in a greater degree one way or the other), and the mindset that "carpe diem" means avoiding or abandoning undesirable activity in favor of something deemed to be more glorious can lead only to discontentment or irresponsibility, or both. Attempting to gain complete satisfaction and fulfillment from any object, including an event or an occupation or a lifestyle is, in the words of a wise man, just "chasing after the wind".

In the end we find that almost no work is more inherently noble or glorious than another, once we remove mankind's perceptions from the equation and see only the heart with which the work is undertaken. Put another way, it is not the work which makes a person noble, honorable, or glorious, but rather a person who has always the ability to make nearly any work noble, honorable, and glorious. There are obviously occupations which are exceptions to this, but I believe they are few and rare. I would also submit that persons have a much greater chance of shaping things in this manner should they have a personal acquaintance with the essence of glory, honor, and nobility; which just makes Jesus's invitation to friendship all the more appealing.

Life in my own hands

2006-12-20T20:21:00.000-08:00

I took my life into my own hands last Saturday, and went to Target. I was there fairly early, which I think was the sole reason for my survival, but it was still touch and go. During my escape I found myself in line behind a woman writing a check, and not just writing a check but writing a check to supplement a gift card. The gift card did not cover the cost of her goods, and in a vain attempt to accelerate the process she performed some mental math and wrote the check before the difference had been calculated. The computer disagreed with her about how much the check should be worth, so the cashier called a manager to find out if they could give the woman three dollars back. The manager was not immediately available, and after waiting long enough for the manager to begin making her way toward us, the woman wrote another check for the proper amount.

I will be the first to admit that watching this spectacle was like watching someone tell a very long, humorless joke, complete with nervous laughter, but with the added pain of knowing that I could not leave that place of quiet chaos until the joke was finished. However, I was still a little surprised when I suddenly heard very audible expletives being muttered behind me. The man just a person back from me apparently found the joke to be not only humorless, but cause for enough anger to growl some words generally reserved for times much more desperate than these. As I say, I was a little taken aback by this and so shared my experience with my wife later that day. She said that she had heard a man in a coffee shop tell another man that he gets angry this time of year because his wife always "outdoes" him in their gift exchange.

Now, I'm not one who would claim to be capable of explaining the "reason for the season", at least not the reason for America's season, with all of her very confusing Santa, Things, Jesus, Economy, Love, Objectors messaging. But, I think it would be safe to say that audibly cursing in Target and being angry with your wife for "outdoing" you do not fall into anything loosely defined as the "reason".

It would be pretty easy to finish up here with a little admonition to remember the spirit of Christmas over the next few days (and from what I understand the spirit of Christmas to be, that's probably a fine idea), but I think I'm going to be so bold as to suggest that we define that a little. Let's take the opportunity over the next few days to discover (or re-discover) those things which last forever; our relationships with people. After all, what was the original Christmas greeting if not a joyful proclamation of the value of every human life? So, should you somehow find yourself in a large retail store, or (may you have strength) at the mall on the evening of the twenty-fourth and you feel tensions are becoming too high, I would encourage you to jump up onto the nearest checkout counter or bench and shout, "Joy in heaven, and on earth, peace and goodwill toward everyone!" It's a wonderful thing to hear, and who knows, maybe it will lead to a scene from a musical...which I for one would really like to see.

A little closer

2006-12-13T20:15:00.000-08:00

We just returned from a very big trip. At least, it felt really big; and I guess in terms of miles traveled and the difference between the world we live in and the one we entered, it was in fact quite big. A group of us traveled to Southeast Asia with the goal of bringing a little Christmas cheer to people who might not find it so easy to be cheerful, mainly kids who live on the street or in an orphanage of some variety. Very kind people donated money to our trip, both for our travel costs as well as for gifts and activities we could provide for the children. The generosity of these people was sincerely overwhelming and we are very grateful for their wonderful hearts. In case you're curious, the trip was amazing.

But I'm not quite ready to write about most of my experiences there; about the kids who live at the garbage dump, the detention facility where the Pol Pot regime imprisoned, tortured and murdered hundreds of their countrymen (and millions across the country), the beggars who have lost limbs to landmines, spirit houses that very poor people buy because they believe it will keep evil spirits out of their home, and the kids on the street who have only other kids to watch over and protect them. No, I'm not ready because those are very hard things and the jet-lag is severe.

However, I will say I am honored and privileged to have been a part of this adventure. I am honored to have been able to, with the incredible assistance of others help make kids laugh and smile, and perhaps bring them a little hope in some cases. I am privileged because having seen this other world affords me the invaluable opportunity of adjusting mine just a little closer to real.

A whole lot bigger

2006-11-28T20:30:00.000-08:00

Sitting in a waiting room the other day, I picked up a Time magazine. I don't really mind waiting rooms because they're relaxing, quite, and give me a chance to catch up on my pop-publication reading. The really annoying part of the doctor visit is when they move me from the cozy waiting room with good entertainment, to the little exam room without a window or anything decent to read, and then proceed to make me wait there. I would really much prefer if they just let me do all the waiting in the room built and named for doing so, instead of using a completely inappropriate place for the activity.

But, as I was saying, I picked up Time. They had a really fascinating article in which they documented a debate between a top atheist scientist (Richard Dawkins) and a top Christian scientist (Francis Collins). It was fairly short for the topic at hand, but a very good read none the less. Both of the men in the article are clearly brilliant and at the top of their profession, but one happens to attribute some of the inexplicable to the God of Judeo/Christian tradition, and the other does not. Reading the article would not, I don't believe bring anyone to move from one camp to the other. That is, a Christian reading the article would probably agree with the statements made by the Christian scientist as being perfectly logical and feasible, which they would be for a Christian, while an atheist would likely find the atheist's position more probable and legitimate.

However, a statement at the end of the article was very striking. Dawkins is explaining that he doesn't necessarily rule out any sort of intelligent design, he just doesn't buy into the god put forth in traditional Christianity as being that designer. He postulates that it could be the god of some other planet, or aliens, or something entirely different, and then he says, "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." Yes.

To believe that one can understand God is to remove the real, powerful, vibrant romance and adventure of this life. Is one capable of knowing God? Absolutely; God himself promised us that. But, to suggest that we might actually understand him will drive people to either confused despair or crushing boredom, depending on whether they realize they will never reach the supposed goal, or falsely believe they reached it long ago. No, Dawkins is right; God is a whole lot bigger than that. Catching little glimpses of that incomprehensible size and majesty is what makes this life an honor and a pleasure to live.

Evangelical Agnostic

2006-11-28T17:58:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I listen to this streaming radio station by the name of RadioIO, and specifically the acoustic section. It's cool because they play a bunch of music I don't hear anywhere else, and it's all acoustic, which is pretty rare. It's not so cool because they play these bizarre ads that say things like, "The odds of your child being in a Broadway show: 1 in 3400. The odds of your child developing autism: 1 in 167", and then go on to talk about autism awareness, or something. I always get so freaked out by the first part of the ad that I never hear what I'm supposed to do about the situation. They have other fun ones about the dangers of mercury poisoning, and how last year Americans spent more than they saved for the first time since the Great Depression; you know, topics that don't quite make it into the NBC advertising slots. The radio station offers commercial free programming for a fee, so I have my suspicions that the ads are designed to both convey information, and drive you toward paying to get rid of them. I'm seriously considering just paying the money.

The other day I heard a song on this station that I think was titled "Happy New Year", by Todd Snider. It was kind of a clever little, tongue-in-cheek commentary on the singer's avid agnosticism, which he labeled as evangelical agnosticism, which in itself is a humorous idea. But, one part of the song struck me as particularly telling, and I think it was the evangelical part. The lyrics are, "i believe this is where i wanna stick to what i know, which is nothing you know, nothing for sure". This is an important statement because it (as music and poetry often do) expresses the feelings of the current culture and age, and there's a good reason for these feelings. Saying something like this makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy, like they just got an answer correct in front of the class. It makes them feel like that because it implies that there is no right answer, so whatever they say is fine. So now we've got all kinds of "tolerance" floating around us like a soothing song. Above all, I believe humans are driven by a desire to feel they're okay, and the sentiment that we can't really know anything for sure, so whatever anyone believes as their truth is just that, goes a long way in providing the security for which people are looking.

But, are we sure we can't know anything for sure? If so, then we are sure of at least one thing, which means that it is possible to know something for sure. Of course if we aren't sure we can't know anything for sure, then it is again possible that we might know something for sure. My point here is that while statements like the one above are comforting in their apparent humility and inclusion, they are actually empty and a little silly at their foundation. Our culture wants to keep having conversations about how there really is no absolute right, or truth, when that statement itself is an absolute. So, I propose we abandon the idea that we can't discover the truth and just have an honest conversation about what we believe and why. Maybe then everyone will be a little more evangelic and we can actually have some decent discussions.

Take heart

2006-11-08T19:33:00.000-08:00

I have the impression at times that a fair amount of people feel the world should be just. No one has actually come right out and said this to me in plain English, but I certainly perceive that to be the case based on their reaction to events appearing to be unjust. Actually, I also believe the world should be just. The rub is I know it's not. This is interesting to me because at no time in history have humans experienced a natural environment where justice is the predominant outcome, and it makes me wonder where we got the idea that it should be. It's really as if the concept came from another reality altogether.

One particular brand of injustice seems to bother people very much, and this is when bad things happen to good people, and to a slightly lesser extent, when good things happen to bad people. I can still remember an analogy one of my high school teachers used to help us remember that two negative numbers multiplied together produce a positive number; when a bad thing happens to a bad person, that's a good thing. I still remember this for a reason.

I believe we are particularly bothered by this occurrence of injustice for the simple reason that we'd like to believe we have the power to remove bad things from our life. Not that we necessarily want to make all the sacrifices associated with being a good person (I mean who really wants to be nice all the time, and quit swearing, and go to church every Sunday morning), but that if we were to do those things we would be rewarded with some sort of force field around our lives. After all, if we're going to go to all that trouble to be good, we're entitled to something for it.

But let's face it, we can't really be good. We might never show any anger or aggression, but we can't stop ourselves from feeling bitterness or resentment, or maybe even worse from feeling numb. We might be able to train ourselves not to swear, but we'd have a hard time not cursing someone silently at some point. And we can certainly make a habit of going to church on Sundays, but there's nothing fundamentally different about a church building and a movie theatre or place of business. To try to manufacture this type of "good" is not only tiring and frustrating, it's impossible.

This is where Christian spirituality departs from all other major religions. It recognizes without argument that we can't really be good just by trying. So Jesus shows up on earth and says, "I've come so you can have real and eternal life, more and better than you ever dreamed of." In other words, a good and lasting life. He then goes on to show how this is possible. You really have to read the book, it's quite interesting.

But, one might be thinking, bad things certainly happen to Christians. Certainly; I can personally attest to that. In fact, Jesus guaranteed they would. He said, "In this world you will have trouble." That's pretty clear. Christians have neither had their humanity removed, nor have they been removed from this present state of being, so it makes perfect sense that even in the midst of Jesus teaching them to live a better life, disaster can and will strike to a greater or lesser degree.

The really fascinating part comes after Jesus' guarantee. He says, "But take heart, for I have overcome the world." Marx would have tagged this as an opiate, and I can see why. Jesus freely acknowledges that the world is no good and that even his own followers are going to have problems, but then goes on to encourage them in the knowledge that he has already taken care of everything regardless of what happens in this life, and even suggests there will be a time and place without such a thing as trouble. But, unlike an opiate which wears off in time, Jesus said his words will never pass away. So, he is sort of like an opiate that never wears off...only without the drawbacks of being a heavy narcotic and with the added bonus of being the truth. I can take heart in that.

Unheard is sweeter

2006-11-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

For the last few weeks I've ridden around in my truck without electronic sound of any kind; no cd, no radio, nothing. I wish I'd done this as the result of some sort of stoic choice, or commentary on the value of listening to pop music, but I didn't. My stereo deck quit working, and there's a small possibility that I may have broken it, but there's absolutely no way to know for sure. In the end though I ended up without the ability to produce artificial noise in the car. Riding around in a completely silent vehicle is awkward enough by yourself, but when you have someone riding with you, it's really just purely uncomfortable. Sometimes I'd role the windows down pretending to get some fresh air, but really just looking for some background noise.

At first all I could notice during this experience is how twitchy it made me to have no sound in the car. But, after several weeks of procrastination, I think I started to adjust a little to the situation and began instead to notice how much I needed that artificial sound. Then I started considering my daily activities. When it gets too quiet or too loud at work, I put my headphones on. I like to watch TV for a little while when I get home. Then I turn some music on if I'm reading or on the computer. In fact, as I write this I'm listening to a song containing the line "Let's tune out by turning on the radio."

I wonder a little at this reluctance to exist in silence. What of Keats who said "Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard Are sweeter: therefore, ye soft pipes, play on"? Is it possible I'm missing some of life's sweeter melodies by constantly attacking my conscious mind with things being heard? I believe I may be. In the future I think I'll willingly turn the stereo off in my truck every now and again, and maybe even with someone else in there with me. Then I'll turn to them and say, "Sweeter melodies", and we'll drive on in cozy silence.

Riders of scooters

2006-10-23T22:07:00.000-07:00

To those of you riding scooters, please do not try to compensate for the innate uncoolness of your scooter by looking smug while you pass my truck that is obviously attempting to melt the ice caps while simultaneously burning the rain forest and drilling for oil in the Alaska wildlife refuge. If you feel you must compensate for you mode of transportation, try using another technique. I suggest goofy humor. Wear a sombrero, for instance. Or, if that's too dangerous, how about a one of those ties that look like a fish, and finish it off with comically oversize sunglasses? That way you can feel good about saving the planet, and I can feel good about the chuckle I get from seeing you. It's a win-win.

Multiple choice billboards

2006-10-23T22:03:00.000-07:00

I saw a billboard today advertising for a local gym. It read, "Change your body. Change your life." Obviously these two statements were meant to be associated and even causal. But what if they weren't? What if the sign were meant to be multiple choice? I think that would be better.

An extremely original association

2006-10-23T21:05:00.000-07:00

It's October, so I've been watching some baseball. I have to admit I'm not what would be classified as a baseball "fan". I happen to quite like the game itself, but my palette for the major leagues has been tainted by the lack of a salary cap, rampant free agency, and steroid scandals. So, when October rolls around each year, I have no idea who the teams are that are playing for the championship. But, FOX starts broadcasting the games in the evenings and since I have all of six channels to choose from (one of which is PBS), and they play in place of Seinfeld re-runs, I start watching the various series. It turns out they can be quite exciting, though it was a little tragic to see the Mets fan and his ten year old daughter literally weeping after their loss in the game that decided who would go to the World Series from the National League.

But one of the most striking things I've noticed this year is how incredibly valuable a single can be. Something as seemingly insignificant as reaching the first of four bases can quite often be the pivotal point in a game. I started doing some looking and found that some of the greatest comebacks in the history of baseball have been initiated by a single. Why? Well, because it gives the person coming after a chance to perform. Sometimes this person will hit the game winning home run, made possible by the seemingly small contribution in front of them. This makes the single as or more valuable than the home run.

I will now perform a feat that few before me have attempted (okay, it's been completely and possibly overdone, but let's pretend it hasn't). I will associate the game of baseball to life.

The single encourages me to do the seemingly small things that give others a chance to succeed. It reminds me that the apparently unnoticed task done well can inspire and encourage, often doing so in anonymity, but always with the possibility of far reaching benefits. When people are given the chance to do well, they often times do just that...and that's how, to use a fairly dramatic statement, the world is changed for good. I'd say do everything you can to give the person behind you a chance. Who knows, maybe they're a home run hitter and just need a few swings.

Reality snob

2006-09-27T20:35:00.000-07:00

My wife and I were talking last night about the difficulties life seems to foist upon us almost constantly. To be more accurate, we were whining about it and lamenting the fact that it isn't easier and happier. In the midst of this I was reminded of a statement from Don Miller's book "Searching for God Knows What". At some point he (Don) is speaking with a very successful business man and for whatever reason the conversation turns to gambling. The business man very kindly states that all of the successful people he knows never gamble, but instead work hard, accept the facts of reality, and enjoy life. "But," Don says, "the facts of reality stink." His friend responds, "Reality is like a fine wine; it will not appeal to children." Don then goes on to say he's become quite snobby about the subtleties and nuances of reality.

I don't know that I'm quite a reality snob, and sometimes it feels like my reality comes out of a box someone got at the local gas station, but I will admit that considering life in this way helps me a good deal. Instead of operating on the premise that life is supposed to be heavily sweetened lemonade, or maybe at worst an Arnold Palmer so it has just a touch of tartness, considering it a wine allows me to notice its boldness, its complexity, its potency, and of course my wife would mention its strong chocolate undertones...which sometimes turn into overtones.

As a child, one taste of a good wine would have sent me running for the Coca-Cola. But, we all know that stuff is just killing us slowly.

A true fan

2006-09-20T20:22:00.000-07:00

They say truth is better than fiction. I must agree. I couldn't make this stuff up on my best day.

A friend of mine was sharing about a guy he knows who plays fantasy football through the system in Las Vegas. This basically means that he likely spends a lot of money on his fantasy football league (henceforth referred to as FFL), and so probably a fair or commensurate amount of time on it as well.

For those of you who are not "in the know" about FFL, it is essentially an invention of the very desperate and very wishful sporting fan mind. At some pivotal point in human history, a group of fans decided that they needed another connection with their sport. The result of this longing is a game in which contestants "own" their own team (in the case of FFL it's a football team), and then draft real players to belong to their team before the real season starts. Then, each fantasy (or as some have termed it "pretend") team is awarded points based on the real life performance of its players. The fantasy teams play one another each week, and then a champion is declared at the end of the year. The prize for the champion can range anywhere from sweet, sweet bragging rights, to a large sum of money and in some cases a championship ring and trophy. Yes, it's a big, fancy, game of make-believe with a yearly revenue mark in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion; which is just a little less than the GDP of Mongolia.

So, my friend is telling me about this guy who plays in an FFL league through Vegas. Fall comes along one year and it turns out he and his wife are expecting a baby at any time. As luck (or a very powerful being with a sense of humor) would have it, his wife goes into labor on the day that his league is drafting players for their team. Clearly, this is a very important day for him. It is in fact so important that while his wife is preparing to bring forth a living being, he is on his cell phone, calling in his draft picks to Vegas!

This got me thinking though (after I had of course worked through the natural stages of denial, pity, mirth, and tearful laughter). Obviously most people would agree that this person's priorities were out of line. However, this conclusion (which I believe is quite right) is drawn from the premise that a marriage and a child's life are more important than a game, which is not a particularly difficult conclusion to draw based on our understanding of marriage and the value of human life, both of which are derived from our perspective on the world. But, the man on the phone, given his perspective, considered his choice to be the correct one. What if our perspective were also different? Would our choices also be different than they are now? One might here mention eternity, but that's awfully heady, and I don't think we need even go that far. What if our perspective involved a few hundred years, or our children's children? Would our values be different and therefore our priorities re-aligned? I have to believe they would be; and that we might in fact find ourselves partly horrified and partly amused at the number of hospital parking lots we've stood in, making phone calls to Vegas, building an imaginary dynasty.

Inspired by major sporting events occurring every four years

2006-06-11T20:22:00.000-07:00

In reading through my last couple of posts I realized that I was at that time commenting on the winter Olympic Games. In considering what I might talk about this evening, I noticed that I will probably be talking a little about the World Cup. So, given the current trend, once the Cup finishes up in the next few weeks, I will be on schedule to make another post sometime in the summer of 2008. Feel the anticipation.

I really do appreciate the World Cup because it gives me, the typical American sports fan the opportunity to watch some really quality soccer (and I will continue to call it soccer for the reason stated above), which is a very rare thing. Of course, being an American and a sports fan I will not argue the point that soccer can be a bit dull at times. I watched the Mexico/Iran match this morning and at times found myself very seriously considering the notion that perhaps the rules had changed and the teams might actually be trying not to score...that whoever was able to best fake a career ending knee injury and then moments later run at world class speeds...or perhaps which coach smoked the most cigarettes, would determine the winning team. But of course I was proved wrong in a flurry of activity from Mexico, and then was able once again to witness the miracle of soccer; satisfaction with nearly an hour and a half of boredom and disappointment for a minute and a half of elation. The contrast between this and basketball is almost too shocking internalize. I very much agree with Adam Gopnik on the point that Americans like basketball and virtually the rest of the world likes soccer, and that this is an indication of the differences between the American culture and just about every other culture in the world. Actually, I think Gopnik was referring specifically to the differences between the U.S. and France, but I'll just go ahead and finish the thought out. By the way, if you haven't read "Paris to the Moon", I highly recommend it.

There is however one thing I'd like to see changed about the American coverage of the World Cup. Could we maybe get some people who aren't Americans to announce the game? I freely admit that I know nothing about the sport, but I sure would like to listen to someone talk who does, and I can sure tell that the people who are announcing it right now can't do too much more than point out which team is kicking it where. I think maybe someone from the British Isles would be excellent.

Difficult

2006-02-20T20:22:00.000-08:00

We took a drive today. We covered a good deal of ground in the southern portion of Ada County and northern portion of Owyhee County. We saw some very beautiful country and got a little local culture. There really is nothing like watching people shoot rifles out of their pick-up truck.

This was all very nice, but probably not worthy of a posting here. However, we also visited a nature trail. Well, that's at least about as close as I can come to describing it with a phrase from the common vernacular. I believe it described itself as a "faith adventure", but that doesn't really do it justice either. In fact, I don't know that I'll really be able to do the experience justice with words alone. It's quite possible that the only way to really understand what I'm talking about (and that's not to say that you'll understand the "nature trail" itself, because I've been there and I don't think I really understand it) is to actually visit the place. I will however briefly attempt to describe it, and then I'll provide directions for getting there.

As I mentioned before, the place is akin to a nature trail. It begins very near the Snake River, winds along its banks for a few hundred yards, and then takes a jog toward the sagebrush covered hills to the north of the river. It then loops back along the bottom of the hill to where it began. In total it is perhaps a mile long. This is where its similarities to anything I've ever seen before end. As I also mentioned before, the area describes itself as a faith adventure, and it definitely has a theme based in fundamental Christianity, but there is so much to it that has nothing at all to do with...well with anything I could understand.

Placed along the trail are what I can only describe as exhibits, like something you might encounter in a museum. But these were unlike any exhibit in any museum. There is one with statues of zoo animals, one with bronze sculptures of children playing baseball with other bronze statues standing around, though it's clear that the other statues were not designed to be included with the baseball players. Another has a group of plaster birds standing around a sign that says "Bird Sanctuary". Further down the path is a bench you can share with Mark Twain, which shares space with small, beige, statues of boys and girls carrying very large, colored, shiny spheres and has you looking out over the river. The trail then moves through an "enchanted forest", complete with little metal deer, gargoyles, dwarves, a bridge that doesn't cross anything and that you don't have to walk over, but which of course houses a troll. The enchanted forest then ends at the foothills, and the trail begins to work its way back toward the beginning of the trail. This portion of the trail is where the Christian theme comes out...though it is certainly not the only theme, as evidenced by the bronze buck with a sign behind it that says, "I have come out of the forest so that you may see how beautiful I am", and of course the somewhat commonplace at this point beige children with their awkward looking spheres. There are three crosses visible on the hill above the trail, as well as a very large, synthetic rainbow a little higher up, symbolizing God's promise not to destroy the earth by water again. There are also displays for the resurrection, a chapel open for prayer, and a display with the theme of Jesus as the shepherd. The trail then ends where it began. However, now you see that there are animal pens here containing pigs and chickens...and peacocks running loose around the various buildings. All along the path are dozens of little bird houses on posts with different themes and little placards attached to the posts with phrases meant to encourage and inspire. These placards display such things as "Isn't it a great day?" or "Awake, alert, alive!" or "God answers prayer" and dozens of others...some which make slightly less sense, like "Exercise to the forefront".

This is of course a completely private enterprise, built simply for people to come and experience. It is completely outfitted with lights along the entire trail so people may visit at night if they like. It is also without a doubt the strangest walk I have ever taken.

To visit, take highway 45 south from Nampa, ID. Just before the road crosses the Snake River you'll notice a gas station on your left. Turn as if going into this gas station, but just before you reach the pumps you'll notice a little road to the right going down toward the water. This will lead you to a museum about the ferry crossing that used to exist at that place, and to your left you will find the area about which I have spoken.

As a side note, I would like to say that I have found the Olympic event of Ice Dancing the most humorous of the games. Not that the actual event itself is all that funny (it actually looks very tough and combines two activities for which I have zero ability), but between the outfits and the commentary, I've gotten several good chuckles. The outfits of the Italian team have been especially brilliant, with the pink v-neck taking the award for "Most Unlike an Athletic Uniform In the History of Sport". The commentary has included such phrases as "romance in their bodies", "pleasing to the eye without arresting it", and "extremely pleasurable to watch"...all of which I would love to seen incorporated into Monday Night Football at some point in the coming year.

Bad news

2006-02-18T23:34:00.000-08:00

I realize I've been out of the game for some time now and that my public is probably wondering where I've been and when, oh when I'll make another post. I would really very much hate to disappoint either of the people who occasionally glance at this in times of desperate boredom.

Firstly I'd like to make just an ever so brief comment on the Ohio Board of Education. I heard the story on NPR the other morning concerning their repeal of standards that encouraged teachers to present the theory of evolution critically. In this report, board member Martha Wise is quoted saying that it is unfair to mislead children about the nature of science and that the standards for critically presenting the theory of evolution are "bad news". Is this really the kind of logic going into these decisions? Is there a reason anywhere in these arguments, or do we just get vague statements like "the nature of science" and declarations like "it's bad news"? If anything is unfair to the children it's being taught a theory as if it were proven fact and having decisions made for them without reason or rationale. I have no idea what the nature of science is, but I'm fairly sure it would include investigating all theories and presenting the strengths and weaknesses of each. These types of decisions are promoted by judicial bullying and cemented by fear. There is no logical reason not to teach the theory of creationism in public schools. It is not unconstitutional and it is not unscientific to do so, and I have not heard one good argument to convince me otherwise. Teaching that a "higher energy" designed and created the universe is very, very far away from teaching that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and is still further away from any of the theistic religions in the world. Simply because a theory involves an event outside our understanding does not necessarily mean the theory is "unscientific". The fact of the matter is that no one knows how life originated on this planet and every theory we currently have available must always remain a theory because there must have been an event or a set of events that we cannot fully explain. Hence we have the big bang theory, the theory of creation, the autocatalytic set theory, and even Francis Crick's incomplete theory of directed panspermia, in which he states that an alien race might have planted life here on earth. Why can we not see that to accept any one of these theories as truth requires some level of faith and that to single one of them out because it requires faith in a higher being is illogical? Why don't we just explain to the kids that some people believe things happened this way for these reasons, and that others believe they happened this way for these reasons? At least then we could stop lying to them (and maybe ourselves) and covering it up with phrases like "the nature of science".

I would also like to offer my congrats to those men who participate in the sport of the two man luge without any apparent coercion. A more compromising position for a man to find himself in on network television, I do not believe one could find and I appreciate you making that sacrifice for the sake of your sport.

Authorities are also counting...

2005-11-07T19:53:00.000-08:00

I'm out on CNN.com reading an article about the tornado in Indiana and the death tolls for Warrick county in Indiana. The article says that the toll now stands at four and that "Authorities also are counting as a fifth death the 8-month-old fetus of one of the victims."

When did we start counting a fetus as a human life? Doesn't the entire argument for abortion stand basically on the premise that the fetus is not a human life? If we are going to start counting fetus in such a manner, wouldn't the argument for abortion need to then turn to women having the right to kill their own children?

2005-10-26T21:15:00.000-07:00

Good birthday.

2005-10-26T21:13:00.002-07:00

Cute!

2005-10-26T21:13:00.000-07:00

Exploration

2005-10-26T21:11:00.000-07:00

He's smiling because he knows their destiny...and how good that will taste.

2005-10-26T21:10:00.001-07:00

The children seem to believe the camera will take their souls.

2005-10-26T20:46:00.000-07:00

And the kids got to take home neck braces as souvenirs.

Just a theory

2005-10-26T18:37:00.000-07:00

Here's a theory I've been working on for the last few weeks:

The number of words (synonyms) available to identify something in a given society reflect the relative predominance of that thing in the society.

Here are some examples from the American English language (since I have some familiarity with that one). These are just off the top of my head, and of course done without the aid of a thesaurus.

Weather of all kinds have ridiculous numbers of descriptive words, but rain in particular seems to get a lot of attention. We have rain, showers, drizzle, spitting rain, cloud bursts, thunder storms, heavy rain, light rain, driving rain, etc.

Need we even get into the number of words for the male genitals or sex?

We have a few words for money: buck, dough, cash, and I think they used to also call it "bread", but I don't think we really use that any more.

I'm no linguist, but I understand that the Greek language has three words for "love" and that Hebrew has three words for "God". Again though, just a thought.

2005-10-03T21:55:00.000-07:00

The Christian revolution in the society of fruit has begun with the raspberries. Many thought it would be the chinaberries leading the way, what with all the mission work in the last 50 years, but that turns out not to be the case.

Festa Mutante

2005-10-01T14:05:00.000-07:00

We somewhat recently went to a street fair here in Boise. They call it a street fair, but I believe a more accurate name would be hippie carnival. It's really a carnival without rides, a lot of booths selling incense, and of course the strong smell of marijuana. They also have some things only a hippie carnival would have, such as a petition for legalizing marijuana, and a booth for the local atheists group, which came complete with bumper stickers like "Born OK the first time".

There was also a "comedy" troupe there that went by the name Circo Mutante. This is apparently a group of young adults (listing toward very hippie) who travel around the country in a bus that runs on vegetable oil and perform skits at these street fairs. The fact that they were far from comedic doesn't really need commentary. However, it was very interesting that when this group announced at the beginning of their show that their bus ran on vegetable oil, they got a big round of applause.

At first I was confused as to why this would be. These people have done nothing extraordinary or courageous. If we're going to clap for someone, let's clap for single moms who work two jobs so their daughters can go to gymnastic practice, or the good public servants, or the volunteers, or the father who does excellent work in the face of a mundane job, or the good soldiers of the world, or the people on the ground in the fight against hunger, aids, human rights, or illiteracy. Young adults without direction driving around in a bus to produce bad comedy are low on the list of those deserving positive recognition.

But I then realized the people were not clapping for the young adults, but for the sacrifice they had made to the god of the environment. That particular god is so powerful in our culture that anything done seemingly in its name is deemed good, right and admirable almost without regard to the actual content of the act. I think it's what would be termed "fundamentalist" behavior if those people happened to be attached to a publicly recognized diest religion.

Ron Paul's commentary on the war

2005-09-29T20:31:00.000-07:00

This is really a fantastic read...well beyond the need for any additional thoughts from me.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr090805.htm

2005-09-12T23:33:00.000-07:00

A note to parents, do not allow your child to stand on a geyser. If they do, follow the man's example and just walk away.

2005-09-12T23:32:00.000-07:00

Good times!

2005-09-12T23:30:00.000-07:00

The girls just before passing beyond the Skittle threshold, at which point photos become an impossiblity.

2005-09-12T23:28:00.000-07:00

The science teacher at work. Also, notice the person on the right taking a picture of us taking a picture.

2005-09-12T23:24:00.000-07:00

Tracking the rare and illusive Yellowstone bison.

2005-09-12T23:21:00.000-07:00

Pool after the storm.

2005-09-12T23:20:00.000-07:00

Beehive Geyser, and Alan

2005-09-12T23:18:00.000-07:00

Old Faithful...looks like someone is still throwing the switch on time.

2005-09-12T23:14:00.000-07:00

Good old Wyoming in early fall...(it was clear and in the 50s later that day).

Radio talk show host

2005-09-07T20:49:00.000-07:00

I just realized why I like this blog idea so much; no interruptions! It's like I'm a radio talk show host and whenever I feel like it I can simply hold forth without someone butting into the conversation to give me their point. It's not that I don't want to hear other's points, but I would really prefer to hear them after they have effectively and actively listened to mine, and then instead of offering up an opinion completely separate from anything I was saying (because they weren't paying attention), it would be refreshing to get a response tempered with context. End rant.

In the vein of being a radio talk show host, I'm going to cover a few topics in this post. The first topic will be Qwest. I would like to announce that we have effectively rid ourselves completely of the local phone carrier. That is correct, no land line whatsoever. I am so pleased that I will never again have to call them for a DSL support question (to which the answer was always "Uhh...have you reset your modem?") that I will now dance a jig. In their place we will be using the cable company as an ISP and Vonage for our home phone needs. The cost will be exactly the same as DSL and BASIC phone service through Qwest, but we are getting something like 12 times the bandwidth, voice mail, conferencing, call forwarding, faxes, etc...and the reliability and call clarity cannot be any worse than Qwest. I only wish I'd switched much, much sooner. Interestingly, the ISP asked why I was canceling service, but Qwest didn't. It's as if Qwest doesn't believe they have any competition...and their service and quality show it. Qwest, the freight train of VoIp and cable Internet are blowing the whistle, and you're walking on the tracks with your Walkman, blasting Def Leopard. It's not going to turn out well for you, at least pick a decent band to go out to.

The second subject this evening will be the scapegoat. I'm in the middle of a book from the late 90s called "Paris to the Moon" by Adam Gopnik. The book itself is wonderfully written and as a completely recreational activity (nothing too challenging, convicting, heady, etc.), it's an absolute joy. Last night I was reading a portion of the book in which he compared Bill Clinton to Barney. In order to understand how in the world he got there, and from Paris no less, you'll have to read the book, but he ended up comparing a child's attraction to Barney and an adults' attraction to Clinton. It was really a very insightful chapter.

But, in the middle of his discussion on presidential similarities to the big purple dinosaur Gopnik mentioned how at the time many people in New York were railing against Clinton for one reason or another. This got me thinking, has the president of the U.S. always been a scapegoat for a large portion of the population? I can certainly say that the current Bush fits that bill, as did Clinton apparently, and Sr. Bush. I don't really remember Reagan, but I remember my parents griping about him. I have no idea what went on before that, but I wonder if it wasn't much the same. So here's what I'll say about it: don't be lazy. A situation, any situation, much less a global or national situation is rarely if ever simple enough to lay the blame at the feet of one person and doing so shows an inability or an unwillingness to critically examing the contributing factors.

Let's take Katrina...just for example, and not because I of course need to add my comments to the millions that have already been made. But, let's take a good look at what really happened there and then ask ourselves if we can really start blaming even three people. Firstly, a category five hurricane hit New Orleans. Anyone who knows anything about hurricanes, fluids and gravity knows that this is a very bad thing for a city, built in a bowl, surrounded by water. But, the day after didn't seem that bad. There was some flooding, but no one (the New Orleans population included) seemed to be that worried. Day two was a little worse when the levies broke. Day three got to be very bad with the looting and the rioting and the random snipers and such. Day four the National Guard and the Army begin to show up and things start to at least get sorted out a bit.

So, where does the blame lie? Many, including a good portion of the media have chosen to blame Bush for not responding fast enough. That's fair enough, the federal government was a day late in sending troops, and Bush is the commander in chief. But what about the people who began the rioting and the looting? They certainly deserve some of the blame. The City of New Orleans? Their evacuation plan was clearly a little less than excellent, and where were the police and firefighters? The state of Louisiana? I certainly never heard a clear articulation of their needs until day three.

The point (uninterrupted, might I add) is that to constantly point at the federal government in any situation we find to be displeasing and say, "it's your fault...fix it" is lazy, irresponsible, and dangerous. The federal government certainly has some responsibilities and they should of course be held accountable for those. But, the state, city, AND individual also have their own set of responsibilities and should certainly be held accountable to those, because without those our government and our society fails.

I would also like to point out that when I spell check this, the spellchecker for the blog entry will identify the word "blog" as being an unknown.

Leave it to capitalism

2005-08-02T22:53:00.000-07:00

Steven Milloy wrote a very interesting article a few days back on what he calls the "smoke and mirrors" of stem cell research. The most interesting point in the article is that conducting research using the morally questionable destruction of embryonic stem cells is not illegal, so long as the funds being used for that research are private. The reason so many medical researchers are so adamantly opposed to this policy is because the private funding for stem cell research is drying up. The reason for the lack of private funds? As one might expect, investors do not see the promise of a strong return. As my good friend John Fulton put it, "Leave it to capitalism to really show the potential for legitimate success in a venture."

Lessons learned from a bike "gang"

2005-08-01T23:28:00.000-07:00

I had the singular honor of attending a "motorcycle run" this past weekend, hosted by the Unknowns. For those of you not familiar with the term, a "run" is a gathering of motorcycle riders in a single location, generally for the purpose of hanging out. This particular gathering happened to be at the home of a member of the club known as the Unknowns. There were members there from Brother Speed, The Highwaymen, The Outsiders, some other clubs I'm sure I missed, and of course people who were not members of any club, such as myself.

Of course I would not normally be entirely welcome at such a gathering (I'm not really biker material, what with my '97 4Runner with the Thule ski racks, cargo pants, polo shirts, Smith sunglasses, etc.), but my dad happens to be one of the charter members and first president of a club started here in Boise by the name of Brother Speed. We ended up at this shindig because one of the guys he used to ride with thirty years ago came up from Portland to see him and invited him over. Amazingly, there were a lot of people there he knew from his days in the club (he quit some twenty-five years ago), and of course since I was his son, I and my brothers were in.

What I found from hanging out with these people is that they are a community and a family, in the truest sense of each word. They are a community because they provide for one another's needs, and they are a family because they choose to see past the imperfections of individual people and love in practice...by being interested and active in the well being of the other person. I'm quite sure they have their internal issues, but the fact that they continue to stay in contact with my dad after all these years, and can pick-up their friendship after a decade as if they'd seen one another a month ago is a testament to the genuine bond they share. To hear these guys talk about their friends is refreshing and warming because one knows they are talking of their comrades and siblings. Hence the name, "Brother Speed", I suppose.

One member explained how being a part of the community provided for them. She said that whenever they go to a town, as long as that town has a club, "all their needs are met". Even if they do not know those people directly, they are given a place to sleep, meals, a shower, directions, whatever. They are given all of this simply because they are a part of the family, and that's what family does. This is incredible to me because there are so few real examples of community anymore. Many places claim to have community, but I've never really seen in actually lived.

The whole thing sort of reminds me of stories about the early church. It occurs to me that the church maybe has some lessons to learn from these motorcycle clubs. Maybe I should write a book. "Love like a biker. Growing your church by completely forgetting about growth." The motorcycle clubs have once again shown us what people really want; genuine, unconditional, humble love of the person they are right now.

Good news

2005-07-19T22:14:00.000-07:00

I'm pleased to annouce that from now until the end of August you'll be able to take advantage of the Scott You Pay What Our Family Pays Plus Plan. If you choose to take advantage of this super special, and unique offer, you'll be able to pay what the Scott family pays for gas, bread, and milk, plus you'll have the chance to wash our dishes and mow our lawn, at no extra cost. Act now, and don't miss your chance!

When I look back

2005-07-12T19:48:00.000-07:00

On June 16th of this year, upon receiving his honorary title of Doctor in Laws, Dr. Henry Morgentaler gave an address to the University of Western Ontario. In this address, Dr. Morgentaler outlines his life philosophy, and how this humanist philosophy has led him to pursue his life work of fighting for the legalization of abortion in Canada and creating and maintaining abortion facilities which seek to insure that all women in Canada have safe and easy access to an abortion clinic, should this be their choice. He has been largely successful in his pursuit, having received a Supreme Court ruling in favor of legalized abortion, and having opened clinics in a number of major Canadian cities. Dr. Morgantaler says that as he looks back on his life, he has a sense of pride in his achievements.

I really don't want to get into a discussion as to whether or not Dr. Morgantaler should indeed feel pride for the things he's accomplished. What he's done is certainly impressive, and I would imagine many would envy him his single-mindedness, his determination, and his obvious abilities. I'll leave it for he and Jesus to look back and decide whether or not the doctor should be proud of what he's done.

I do however want to talk about his answer to the apparently frequent question of "Why did you decide to expose yourself to so much stress and danger in a controversial cause, and why do you persist in doing so?" His response is as follows.

I am a survivor of the Nazi Holocaust, that orgy of cruelty and inhumanity of man to man. I have personally experienced suffering, oppression and injustice inflicted by men beholden to a racist, dogmatic and irrational ideology. To have had the opportunity to diminish suffering and injustice has been very important to me. Reproductive freedom and good access to medical abortion means that women will be able to give life to wanted babies at a time when they can provide love, care and nurturing. Well-loved children grow into adults who do not build concentration camps; do not rape and do not murder. They are more likely to enjoy life, to love and care for each other and the larger society.

I find it absolutely ridiculous to suppose that abortion can be given even a minute amount of credit for removing any evil from this world. It is truly nonsense to soberly state that because a child is unwanted by its mother, it will become the next Hitler, or Pol Pot, much less an "everyday" murderer, rapist, or domestic abuser. This is without a doubt a classic example of reducing an argument to the absurd, not to mention coming dangerously close to assuming the title of the "God" humanists live without acknowledging. No, we simply cannot accept an argument such as this from the pro-choice camp, if not for moral reasons, for simple reasons of logic.

There are other arguments for the practice of abortion (some of which Dr. Morgantaler touches upon), so let us hear and discuss those. But let's not pretend as if abortion is doing humanity a service by somehow removing people who are destined for evil and destruction. As Dr. Morgantaler himself points out, every person has the potential for a fulfilled, happy, and joyful life; to which I would add that everyone created has the capacity for endless beauty and love.

But must they also insult us?

2005-06-17T20:52:00.000-07:00

A little west of Boise lies a small (for the time being) town by the name of Star. I think the population on the sign is something like 1700, though I suspect it might be a bit more now than it was at the time of the census. As one comes into town from the east, there is a large ranch running along the left side of the road, its fields stretching several hundred yards down to the tall cottonwoods of the river. Of course it's quite beautiful. I haven't been out there for several months now, but I drove by the other day on my way to somewhere...or maybe it was on my way to Nampa. Either way, near the road now, just inside the fence that marks the boundary of the ranch is a series of signs. "Get ready...", "for better...", "living." "Naturally.", in yellow letters against a blue background.

I know they are going to completely destroy that lovely ranch and replace it with yet another ghastly subdivision. I know the subdivision won't have any creativity, or style, or substance, or personality, that it will simply attempt to allow for the building of as many homes as possible. I don't necessarily want this to happen, but I don't have a whole lot of room to complain about it. The owner of the ranch sold his or her land to the person or persons who wants to build the repulsive subdivision, they'll call it Rolling Rapids Cotton Heron Grove, and there are hundreds of people in the world (I blame you for this, California) who are willing to trade style and personality of the neighborhood for money. So capitalism marches on, which is fine. It's the best we've got.

But please, please don't insult us by imposing additional inane and misleading messages upon us. We all know that living in your over sized cubicle farm isn't going to make our lives better. In fact, we fairly strongly believe that you'll make them worse. We know there isn't much we can or should do about this, but it would be awfully kind of you if you would just quietly ruin beauty, or maybe put some messages up that indicated your acknowledgement of what you're doing. "Enjoy this now...", "because it's almost...", "gone." "Money."

2005-06-05T23:30:00.000-07:00

There was a lot of this on the two day ride from Petersburg to Bellingham.

2005-06-05T23:29:00.000-07:00

Petersburg, AM.

2005-06-05T23:28:00.001-07:00

We had a lot of time to kill before the ferry left at 3 AM from Petersburg, so we shot some stick in the Harbor Bar.

2005-06-05T23:28:00.000-07:00

Checking out the Petersburg fishing derby. The leader at time of departure weighed in at 44 lbs. (King Salmon)

2005-06-05T23:26:00.001-07:00

Some artistry along the way...

2005-06-05T23:26:00.000-07:00

Hitchhiking back to town to catch the ferry.

2005-06-05T23:25:00.000-07:00

We spent an entire day at the Blind River Rapids just watching wildlife. Very beautiful and interesting slough.

2005-06-05T23:24:00.001-07:00

The faces sum it up.

2005-06-05T23:24:00.000-07:00

This is the "trailhead" for the Upper Twin Creek ski trail. Again, note the absence of any trail, and the sign in the upper right hand corner indicating the hope for a trail in the distance. It's a lie.

2005-06-05T23:22:00.000-07:00

This is the view from the top of the Upper Twin Creek ski trail. Notice the distinct lack of a trail. That's the Coastal Range in the background. For you "Into the Wild" fans, The Devil's Thumb is just to the left of the visible peaks.

2005-06-05T23:20:00.000-07:00

The cabin at the top of Raven's Roost was very welcoming (and the only dry spot in all of the muskeg).

2005-06-05T23:19:00.000-07:00

The Raven's Roost trail in Petersburg. Very pretty, but the same deal with steps going right up a "hill" - this time with the packs on.

2005-06-05T23:18:00.000-07:00

...there IS a horse in the background.

2005-06-05T23:17:00.000-07:00

Only available tent sites in Petersburg. Not to worry...

2005-06-05T23:16:00.000-07:00

Arrival in Petersburg at about 2:15 AM (thank you Alaska ferry system).

2005-06-05T23:15:00.001-07:00

These are the important rules aboard an Alaskan ferry.

2005-06-05T23:15:00.000-07:00

Leaving Sitka. I guess I can see why they call what we climbed a hill.

2005-06-05T23:14:00.000-07:00

We slept under the solarium for most of the trip (this is aboard the Columbia). Notice the heaters hanging from the ceiling.

2005-06-05T23:13:00.000-07:00

That 1700 ft. was covered mainly by stairs. I stopped counting at around 700 of these wooden steps. It is a well made trail, and a fine workout.

2005-06-05T23:10:00.000-07:00

A "little" day hike outside of Sitka. They called it a hill, but it was about 1700 vertical feet in less than two miles.

2005-06-05T23:09:00.000-07:00

Camping in Sitka, about .25 miles from the ferry terminal - very nice and reasonably priced.

2005-06-05T23:07:00.001-07:00

The harbor in Sitka.

2005-06-05T23:07:00.000-07:00

Beautiful...and the city of Sitka is nice too.

2005-06-05T23:06:00.000-07:00

Totem pole in Sitka.

2005-06-05T23:05:00.000-07:00

How about just, "Don't throw trash in the ocean"?

2005-06-05T23:03:00.002-07:00

Views from the ferry between Juneau and Sitka.

2005-06-05T23:03:00.001-07:00

Views from the ferry between Juneau and Sitka.

2005-06-05T23:03:00.000-07:00

Views from the ferry between Juneau and Sitka.

2005-06-05T23:02:00.000-07:00

Traveling in style aboard the Fairweather.