One of the interesting trends in human history is the growth in power of mankind and as a result the growth in power of individuals. Look at music which originally was passed on by hearing directly, so one had to go to the original creator or someone whom he taught to enjoy a piece of music. Standardized written musical scores allowed for the storing and distributing of music, and circulation was greatly increased by the advent of the printing press. Any well trained musician can perform any piece of music that he can get the notes to. Music began to become scalable.
The inflection point came when Edison first copied "Mary had a little lamb" onto a wax cylinder over 100 years ago. Suddenly, the performer was absent from the performance and the quality is limited only by the quality of the microphones and the speakers. Technology has moved from wax to vinyl to radio to tape to cd to mp3 to the internet. The performer can record a song and have millions of people listen to it only a few days later. More than that, musicians don't need to have any real technical skill (though most do) as modern synthesizing programs and sampling have moved us from a paradigm of performance to a paradigm of musical taste and ideas.
Originally, the power of the musician to delight an audience with his creative idea was limited by how many people he could crowd in a room. Now this power is limited only by the quality of the idea and the number of people online which will soon be everyone who has the money to afford the rapidly decreasing price of connectivity. Thanks to technology, the power to affect a large number of people has become very cheap and is firmly in the hands of individuals with ideas.
This effect of the growth and ultimate individualization of power can be seen in many areas from military power to knowledge to sermons to books and behind it all the power of ideas to affect multitudes. Essentially we now can "move mountains with a joystick" as long as someone has a really good idea for how to make that joystick. So the key now to power is the idea and technology will take care of the rest.
The idea, then, is all that really matters, and only parts of the person are valued that can create ideas: intelligence and creativity. It is by those values that we hold highest that we also begin to value people in our society. So I think most people today find their value in whether or not they are intelligent and creative. I think this is the reason why some of the gravest insults in the modern world are to insinuate that one may be stupid or un-creative for it is akin to saying that they are without value to society.
First, I believe that these are ultimately two very, very morally ambiguous virtues, and as such should be low on the totem pole. Take the always classic example of moral depravity, Hitler, who was intelligent and quite creative in the way he made war on the rest of the world and was incredibly efficient at killing people. Intelligence and creativity can be used for completely evil purposes. I think we could all attest to this in our own lives as I am sure that as we all wrestle with our flesh we wish it were quite a bit stupider and not quite so creative in the ways that we are tempted.
Secondly, I think that intelligence and creativity even regularly deliver what they promise. How often has a creative idea simply come off poorly or something that seemed so intelligent be simply foolish? All the time consulting companies are hired and though abounding in intelligence, lack the experience to develop good solutions. And often when we are creative we create something new that just isn't as good as what we had before or in fact the act of being re-created caused more problems than it could ever improve.
Finally, if we do adopt these ideas as the last vestiges of human value, they will soon be obliterated and the technology that we have created will become of greater value to us than we are ourselves. That may sound far-fetched, but let me provide an example in line with my original discussion. Recently, a computer program has been developed that can produce highly convincing mimicry's of Bach chorales and other classical pieces. Here are two examples:
Bach
Chopin
So what will happen when computers and technology finally control those last strongholds of the need for humans? Well by that time I hope that we have a great practical theology of the men and of persons ready to respond.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
I don't want to do well anymore
When I was putting together my life story I realized something about myself. I always want to do everything well. In school, in sports, in family, in giving gifts, in making purchases, in choosing careers, in picking colors for a room, in making a bed -- in all things I do, in every facet of who I am, I want to do well. I didn't see anything immediately wrong about this ethic, and it struck me that such a phrase could so completely and accurately sum up how I have approached my life. Then in Church on Sunday, it struck me that doing well was not a great way to try to live my life which may seem obvious or confusing, so let me go back and define what I mean by doing well.
When I think of doing well, I typically think of doing better than most other people. If you are doing well in a class, you are probably doing above the mean. If you are doing well financially, you are better off than most people. If you are doing well personally, you are happy and probably have friends. Those ideas for a life direction are all pretty shallow, highly relative, and lacking a divine direction. In fact they are very much the ideas that social psychologists use to describe generally what people try to do to feel happy.
However, I find that this way of doing things generally does not lead me to happiness for three reasons. First by trying to do well in all of these different arenas, my life becomes very fragmented and conflicting. What I need to do in order to "do well" at work may not jive with what I need to do to "do well" by my body or "do well" with Jennifer. When these conflicts arise, I can become frustrated because I just can't do well everywhere. Second, it's impossible to "do well" all the time; I will make a mistake. Third, this place of doing well is not a forgiving land. If I don't do well then I am bad and you need to fix it in a hurry by any means. There is not grace to cover, just a demand for perfection
So I have pooped on the statue, but what can I erect in it's place? There is an adage "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." I've heard it many times in my life, and every time it strikes me. Essentially what it is saying is that there exist good things which we should just do no matter what. I want to cling to this idea: there are fundamentally good things which we can do.
But I want to go even further to say that there are not really fundamentally good actions, but fundamentally good reasons or motives for acting. Trying to "do well" is not one of them. Good reasons for acting are probably very few. The two that I can think of for certain are love, and the glory of God (and maybe justice and mercy).
These motives can inform my actions across all areas of my life, and if I live by them can provide the freedom to act poorly in certain areas of my life when I need to act poorly in one area or another. They can inform forgiveness when I am bad and give me grace to understand my weaknesses. Ultimately, they will help me to be less neurotic and do all of those things which are necessary to life. So I think I will seek to give up doing well and try to live by pure motives.
When I think of doing well, I typically think of doing better than most other people. If you are doing well in a class, you are probably doing above the mean. If you are doing well financially, you are better off than most people. If you are doing well personally, you are happy and probably have friends. Those ideas for a life direction are all pretty shallow, highly relative, and lacking a divine direction. In fact they are very much the ideas that social psychologists use to describe generally what people try to do to feel happy.
However, I find that this way of doing things generally does not lead me to happiness for three reasons. First by trying to do well in all of these different arenas, my life becomes very fragmented and conflicting. What I need to do in order to "do well" at work may not jive with what I need to do to "do well" by my body or "do well" with Jennifer. When these conflicts arise, I can become frustrated because I just can't do well everywhere. Second, it's impossible to "do well" all the time; I will make a mistake. Third, this place of doing well is not a forgiving land. If I don't do well then I am bad and you need to fix it in a hurry by any means. There is not grace to cover, just a demand for perfection
So I have pooped on the statue, but what can I erect in it's place? There is an adage "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing poorly." I've heard it many times in my life, and every time it strikes me. Essentially what it is saying is that there exist good things which we should just do no matter what. I want to cling to this idea: there are fundamentally good things which we can do.
But I want to go even further to say that there are not really fundamentally good actions, but fundamentally good reasons or motives for acting. Trying to "do well" is not one of them. Good reasons for acting are probably very few. The two that I can think of for certain are love, and the glory of God (and maybe justice and mercy).
These motives can inform my actions across all areas of my life, and if I live by them can provide the freedom to act poorly in certain areas of my life when I need to act poorly in one area or another. They can inform forgiveness when I am bad and give me grace to understand my weaknesses. Ultimately, they will help me to be less neurotic and do all of those things which are necessary to life. So I think I will seek to give up doing well and try to live by pure motives.
The week of crashing
So this week it all cam crashing down on me. I know it sounds weird, because nothing really came crashing down. But what it really felt like was the top of my skull crashed into the soles of my feet and everything in-between became squished.
First, I think I realized that I have no clue why I am really at the academy. My QRE ideas have all fallen flat, and I am not sure what type of job I want to even try to get when I need to be applying in a few months. I think maybe I came here so that my better half could consider her really cool question, so I needed to be here too.
Second, I realized a lot of what I have tried to do here at the academy has failed as well. The internet still sucks, trying to re-arrange the schedule nearly caused a riot, and the refrigerators continue to remain a mess. The matins I had so much fun planning for a few days flops the day I try to put the most work into it. My grand goals for accomplishment here are further from my reach than they have been so far.
Third, I came crashing down on myself. I've always wondered if I am bi-polar. Does anyone else think this? I mean some weeks you are incredibly productive and then all of sudden it just comes crashing down. Those productive things collapse, the things you did for fun loose their luster, and all you really want to do is crawl away and sleep by yourself. Then in midst of the that you become more of a jerk than ever because people just bother you. I'm guessing this is just me.
Fourth, in the midst of this, I am critiqued, maybe not so publicly or openly, but quietly and subtly nonetheless. The new shininess we had is gone, and we are beginning to see the other for the person they really are, and that rarely lives up to the imagination. "Impression management" is over and it turns out none of us is really cool.
Doom and gloom at every corner. However each of these has another view.
1) Not knowing what I want to do my QRE on is better than working on something I don't care about. (This may be just for me, but if I don't care, I don't do very good or original work.)
2) In the midst of my failure I learn perseverance. I think I also learn that I need to carefully consider what I put my effort into. I also am forced to put my value not in what I do but in my relationship to God.
3) In my weakness, I find God as my strength. I find myself praying more when I feel bad than at any other time, and my theology and practical theology becomes stronger because I need it to make it through each day.
4) Making friends with cool people is impossible. You have to make yourself look cool to be their peers, but then you don't act like yourself and then you aren't friends because they don't really know you. The good news is that you can really be friends with un-cool people. So now that we know how un-cool we all are, maybe we can forgive, love, rebuke, and help one another grow into better people. Who knows, we may learn to re-define cool.
So that is my week. Aimlessness, failure, borderline depression, and acute awareness of the brokenness of relationship. But I know God is good, so I need not fear.
First, I think I realized that I have no clue why I am really at the academy. My QRE ideas have all fallen flat, and I am not sure what type of job I want to even try to get when I need to be applying in a few months. I think maybe I came here so that my better half could consider her really cool question, so I needed to be here too.
Second, I realized a lot of what I have tried to do here at the academy has failed as well. The internet still sucks, trying to re-arrange the schedule nearly caused a riot, and the refrigerators continue to remain a mess. The matins I had so much fun planning for a few days flops the day I try to put the most work into it. My grand goals for accomplishment here are further from my reach than they have been so far.
Third, I came crashing down on myself. I've always wondered if I am bi-polar. Does anyone else think this? I mean some weeks you are incredibly productive and then all of sudden it just comes crashing down. Those productive things collapse, the things you did for fun loose their luster, and all you really want to do is crawl away and sleep by yourself. Then in midst of the that you become more of a jerk than ever because people just bother you. I'm guessing this is just me.
Fourth, in the midst of this, I am critiqued, maybe not so publicly or openly, but quietly and subtly nonetheless. The new shininess we had is gone, and we are beginning to see the other for the person they really are, and that rarely lives up to the imagination. "Impression management" is over and it turns out none of us is really cool.
Doom and gloom at every corner. However each of these has another view.
1) Not knowing what I want to do my QRE on is better than working on something I don't care about. (This may be just for me, but if I don't care, I don't do very good or original work.)
2) In the midst of my failure I learn perseverance. I think I also learn that I need to carefully consider what I put my effort into. I also am forced to put my value not in what I do but in my relationship to God.
3) In my weakness, I find God as my strength. I find myself praying more when I feel bad than at any other time, and my theology and practical theology becomes stronger because I need it to make it through each day.
4) Making friends with cool people is impossible. You have to make yourself look cool to be their peers, but then you don't act like yourself and then you aren't friends because they don't really know you. The good news is that you can really be friends with un-cool people. So now that we know how un-cool we all are, maybe we can forgive, love, rebuke, and help one another grow into better people. Who knows, we may learn to re-define cool.
So that is my week. Aimlessness, failure, borderline depression, and acute awareness of the brokenness of relationship. But I know God is good, so I need not fear.
Legislating Morality
Prior to this week I had somewhat naively held that we could not legislate morality to be a fact of life. I had one teacher who taught it, and as I have never really been interested in politics or political ideas, I simply accepted it. Though it was something I did not think too deeply about, I think it was a very important point in my web of "I don't bother with politics because they aren't important." If politics can't do anything moral then what good are they.
The first attack on my safe little turtle shell came when Peter Feaver said that the idea that you can't legislate morality was foolish because all legislation contains in it the seed of morality. There is should to every piece of legislation. It makes a moral claim: doing as the law says is more right than doing what it doesn't say. In a way all laws must be an expression of someone's judgment on an issue. I think that was the basic idea of what he said, but I imagine his final argument is much more nuanced and has a lot more to say. Even as it is, the argument has a point, we are lawmakers in America and in some way the laws carry moral force, so we must consider carefully how we govern ourselves.
But tonight the other shoe dropped. Prabhu Guptara brought up the idea in economics that by removing legislation - even ineffective legislation - we may be legitimizing practices that are sinful. It somehow let loose a flurry of ideas in my mind about the subject which I think may have been pent up because I believed legislation of morality to be impossible.
First the idea was that legislation of morality really is possible. God gave us laws and they derive their moral force from Him -- the ultimate arbiter of morality and the law. And he has explicitly given governments authority from heaven -- even the rule or Nero. So governmental law carries morally binding aspects.
Second is the idea that without God and a strong moral compass, that laws are all we are left with to influence how people behave. This idea is a little bit scary, but I believe many people today do not ask the question whether an act is right or wrong but only whether it is legal or illegal. Legality is essentially standing in as a substitute for morals in a time when most people do not have a strong moral sense. I actually think many people may not even have the faculties to think about what is "right or wrong" let alone come to a correct answer. Law is what we have left in an age of crumbling morals.
The third idea is … oh crap! What are we going to do in an age without morals! If Laws are in some way an expression of morality and our morals go in the toilette, then our laws will follow. Then are we back to state of nature? That is a scary place that I think none of us want to see.
So I've come to the conclusion now that legislature will dictate some level of morality, especially if we don't have a Church or something to provide some level of underlying moral structure. And that without that underlying moral structure, the laws will eventually collapse. So what do we do?
Well one reaction might be to try to get as many Christian laws passed as possible in some sort of power play in Washington. However, the backlash could be terrible. Making it illegal to be homosexual would result in a lot more criminals which could feed into a new sort of gay mafia or something to that effect as people break the laws which they are bound to do.
On the other hand we can't give up either, saying that well because the culture doesn't have our morality, we just have to try to play to the middle and legislate whatever the general idea at the time is. For laws which can be changed whenever we feel like it aren't really laws.
So we are left with Feaver's mushy middle where we must engage the culture boldly knowing that we are making moral decisions, yet be aware that we are working in fallen world. The laws should be attempting to truly bring people into the good without pushing so hard that we turn everyone into a hardened criminal or make the law irrelevant.
It's time for me to hang on tight, politics I'm sure will be an interesting ride.
The first attack on my safe little turtle shell came when Peter Feaver said that the idea that you can't legislate morality was foolish because all legislation contains in it the seed of morality. There is should to every piece of legislation. It makes a moral claim: doing as the law says is more right than doing what it doesn't say. In a way all laws must be an expression of someone's judgment on an issue. I think that was the basic idea of what he said, but I imagine his final argument is much more nuanced and has a lot more to say. Even as it is, the argument has a point, we are lawmakers in America and in some way the laws carry moral force, so we must consider carefully how we govern ourselves.
But tonight the other shoe dropped. Prabhu Guptara brought up the idea in economics that by removing legislation - even ineffective legislation - we may be legitimizing practices that are sinful. It somehow let loose a flurry of ideas in my mind about the subject which I think may have been pent up because I believed legislation of morality to be impossible.
First the idea was that legislation of morality really is possible. God gave us laws and they derive their moral force from Him -- the ultimate arbiter of morality and the law. And he has explicitly given governments authority from heaven -- even the rule or Nero. So governmental law carries morally binding aspects.
Second is the idea that without God and a strong moral compass, that laws are all we are left with to influence how people behave. This idea is a little bit scary, but I believe many people today do not ask the question whether an act is right or wrong but only whether it is legal or illegal. Legality is essentially standing in as a substitute for morals in a time when most people do not have a strong moral sense. I actually think many people may not even have the faculties to think about what is "right or wrong" let alone come to a correct answer. Law is what we have left in an age of crumbling morals.
The third idea is … oh crap! What are we going to do in an age without morals! If Laws are in some way an expression of morality and our morals go in the toilette, then our laws will follow. Then are we back to state of nature? That is a scary place that I think none of us want to see.
So I've come to the conclusion now that legislature will dictate some level of morality, especially if we don't have a Church or something to provide some level of underlying moral structure. And that without that underlying moral structure, the laws will eventually collapse. So what do we do?
Well one reaction might be to try to get as many Christian laws passed as possible in some sort of power play in Washington. However, the backlash could be terrible. Making it illegal to be homosexual would result in a lot more criminals which could feed into a new sort of gay mafia or something to that effect as people break the laws which they are bound to do.
On the other hand we can't give up either, saying that well because the culture doesn't have our morality, we just have to try to play to the middle and legislate whatever the general idea at the time is. For laws which can be changed whenever we feel like it aren't really laws.
So we are left with Feaver's mushy middle where we must engage the culture boldly knowing that we are making moral decisions, yet be aware that we are working in fallen world. The laws should be attempting to truly bring people into the good without pushing so hard that we turn everyone into a hardened criminal or make the law irrelevant.
It's time for me to hang on tight, politics I'm sure will be an interesting ride.
Confused about the hero
O Lord my God, tonight my heart and mind are in turmoil. There ideas, thoughts, and concepts which flutter just out of reach. I can see the forms of the answers and the understanding, but when I reach for them come back empty handed. Please Lord, clarify my mind, give me wisdom and understanding. Help me to know how it is that you call us to live.
My God, it seems as though so much of the world seeks greatness, so that can be at the center of their own stories; so that in a way, they me be like you, saviors, heroes of other men and of the world. And Lord, though many do not know you they do manage great things in this life which may even be acts which are called good. Their dedication to their work and their desire to accomplish greatness drive them forward to fully use their talents. They heal the sick, bring peace, and care for the widow and orphan. They champion for education, justice, and equality of men. They love their children; they even give of their wealth. They make great discoveries, develop inventions, found businesses and charities alike. And Lord it seems as though the best works of them come because they seek exactly to be the saviors of this world and the heroes of men. They seek to change the world, and it seems to work for the good as a noble and admirable pursuit.
God, you have given me talents which in some ways exceed that of many of my peers. You have given me privilege, health, wealth, and opportunities to strive fore great things with my life. You have given me gifts of the mind Lord, and yet I do not know what they are good for. God is this your will for me? That I would use my talents as do those who scoff at you? Which are the talents that you have given me which I am to multiply? Are they the things that are valued by the world? Intelligence, drive, charisma, ingenuity? Am I to multiply those things in myself? Am I to put them to the same tasks that you have given to world? Those things that are valued in the public square? Or am I to seek to love my family and friends, to live a simple life and work with my hands?
But this I know is true: all of the great things which happen are not the works of man but are your handiwork. You work through everything. For what does man have that he did not receive? Nothing Lord, it all is from you.
Addendum:
Praise God, now that my heart and mind are settled, and I will attempt to write something more coherent before I sleep.
Here is an attempt at my quandary. God has given me gifts and talents that I am to use to glorify him and serve others. My question is do I need to be serving others by using my gifts for the most world changing activity I can? Do I need to be striving after those same sorts of things that other people do? Is my contentedness with a simple life of loving my wife and my family, working daily, and serving the church a poor use of my talents?
At this point I am still asking the question. But I do like how the hero idea brings the conflict into focus. I want to say that we are called not to be heroes but to be servants. Jesus makes this pretty clear. As servants our goal is to serve, not to accomplish. If accomplishment comes our way, God is good. If it does not, God is good.
There are also many important things that God has given us to do in this life such as care for our families and serve in the church. I'm not sure yet how these balance out, but I think at those moments of balancing, my only hope will be resting in God.
My God, it seems as though so much of the world seeks greatness, so that can be at the center of their own stories; so that in a way, they me be like you, saviors, heroes of other men and of the world. And Lord, though many do not know you they do manage great things in this life which may even be acts which are called good. Their dedication to their work and their desire to accomplish greatness drive them forward to fully use their talents. They heal the sick, bring peace, and care for the widow and orphan. They champion for education, justice, and equality of men. They love their children; they even give of their wealth. They make great discoveries, develop inventions, found businesses and charities alike. And Lord it seems as though the best works of them come because they seek exactly to be the saviors of this world and the heroes of men. They seek to change the world, and it seems to work for the good as a noble and admirable pursuit.
God, you have given me talents which in some ways exceed that of many of my peers. You have given me privilege, health, wealth, and opportunities to strive fore great things with my life. You have given me gifts of the mind Lord, and yet I do not know what they are good for. God is this your will for me? That I would use my talents as do those who scoff at you? Which are the talents that you have given me which I am to multiply? Are they the things that are valued by the world? Intelligence, drive, charisma, ingenuity? Am I to multiply those things in myself? Am I to put them to the same tasks that you have given to world? Those things that are valued in the public square? Or am I to seek to love my family and friends, to live a simple life and work with my hands?
But this I know is true: all of the great things which happen are not the works of man but are your handiwork. You work through everything. For what does man have that he did not receive? Nothing Lord, it all is from you.
Addendum:
Praise God, now that my heart and mind are settled, and I will attempt to write something more coherent before I sleep.
Here is an attempt at my quandary. God has given me gifts and talents that I am to use to glorify him and serve others. My question is do I need to be serving others by using my gifts for the most world changing activity I can? Do I need to be striving after those same sorts of things that other people do? Is my contentedness with a simple life of loving my wife and my family, working daily, and serving the church a poor use of my talents?
At this point I am still asking the question. But I do like how the hero idea brings the conflict into focus. I want to say that we are called not to be heroes but to be servants. Jesus makes this pretty clear. As servants our goal is to serve, not to accomplish. If accomplishment comes our way, God is good. If it does not, God is good.
There are also many important things that God has given us to do in this life such as care for our families and serve in the church. I'm not sure yet how these balance out, but I think at those moments of balancing, my only hope will be resting in God.
Seperate and better than equal
Let me preface this post by saying that it is not complete. It has really made some people angry. The main point I am trying to get across is that sometimes we must distinguish between two different groups, and that differentiation and separate treatment is necessary and better than two groups being the same. I use the example of gender because it was what is used in class, but the idea has broader applications to life. So here it goes:
The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.
However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.
Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.
These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.
The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.
So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.
The term "Separate and equal" has quite a storied past in the United States. As the basis of segregation, it provided cover for a scenario that was separate, but most definitely not equal. In the court cases which eventually struck down segregation, they ruled that segregated schools had failed to provide education which was "separate and equal." As these laws fell, which rightly they should have, they took the idea of "separate and equal" along for the ride. We no longer believe separate yet equal can apply to anything. America generally believes separation inherently implies inequality.
However, is this really the case? There certainly are real life cases where separate is not unequal. For example, consider women's and men's sports. We demand that men and women are separated from sports because putting them together simply wouldn't be fair for at the level of elite athletes, men and women have genuinely different abilities. Instead, we make things equitable by separating the sports programs (and providing equal funding and number of sports) so that each can compete within their equals making skill and practice more important than male or female.
Taking this idea beyond gender, lets move into the classroom where we have a much more gradated scale. People have different levels of academic talent, and they are focused in different areas. Our school system generally reflects that. First, we have different levels of classes from a remedial classes to honors. Now these have often been misused, by denying children access to advanced classes without just cause or neglecting true teaching in a remedial class, but the heart of the idea is excellent. Instead of teaching to the top of the class -- and leaving much of the class to learn nothing -- or to the bottom of the class -- and failing to engage the brighter students -- we separate the classes to provide the best, and most equitable, education to all.
These are two specific cases, which I hope will be accepted as cases where integration could destroy the equality of a situation, and from here we can generalize to the rule for when separate will be more equal than together. From both examples we see the key point: we should separate only in cases where there are true differences that impact the arena in which the separation is occurring.
The two examples will help to shed light on this. In the first example with sports, we see that it is necessary to separate when combining would provide undue advantage to one group or the other. The rules of sports determine that men will generally be better at every level, so by separating we make new rules which make the groups more competitive. So in competitive environments we separate to defend whoever is weaker by the rules of that specific arena. From the second example, in a non-competitive area, we see that separation is to the benefit of all to provide specialized services to those who could gain a greater advantage. This concept shows up all over our society in specialization. Therefore, we conclude that separation is not only not a problem but in fact necessary for equality in arenas with high levels of differentiation.
So how does this apply to gender? We know there are differences between the genders, but it is very challenging to know exactly what they are. We know we must separate, but is hard to say exactly where and how. So let us seek earnestly to understand, but be careful where we go.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Giving it my all
I am scared of losing myself in something. When I find something I really like, often I latch on. It can be quite a number of things. A project at school, looking for a new car, programming a new spreadsheet, managing finances, and any number of things that spring to mind. This thing, or idea dominates my mind, filling it whenever I have a free moment so that I cannot think properly about anything else.
I have had this experience many times where I neglect anything peripheral and even some central things in the pursuit of my temporary passion. I will skip brushing my teeth so that I can check EBay one more time for that car before I have to leave for work. I will ignore my wife's desire for intimacy because I am trying to save money on a new gadget. I will ignore my spiritual life because I am trying to update my Facebook page.
Seeing these results I begin to abhor the things I am so passionate about. They have taken me away from living the rest of my life. So what do I do? I run from these things. I leave behind the things that I am passionate about so that they do not distract me from what I need to do on a daily basis. In this way my life returns to a normal state.
But have I just thrown the baby out with the bathwater? In trying to avoid all of those things which I am incredibly passionate about, have I consigned myself to a life of boredom? I think I have. There is no way I will find a calling for which I am passionate if I run from the things which I enjoy, but neither should I be giving myself to them. What I need to learn to do is not to spend all of my time seeking after something for it’s own sake, but to bring it under my other more primary callings of Christian and husband. I need my own diet of the mind, to find those things which I enjoy but be very careful of the role and position that they begin to play in my own heart.
God, please teach my how to tame the desires of my heart so that at no season of my life do lose sight of you as that which I love and serve above all else.
I have had this experience many times where I neglect anything peripheral and even some central things in the pursuit of my temporary passion. I will skip brushing my teeth so that I can check EBay one more time for that car before I have to leave for work. I will ignore my wife's desire for intimacy because I am trying to save money on a new gadget. I will ignore my spiritual life because I am trying to update my Facebook page.
Seeing these results I begin to abhor the things I am so passionate about. They have taken me away from living the rest of my life. So what do I do? I run from these things. I leave behind the things that I am passionate about so that they do not distract me from what I need to do on a daily basis. In this way my life returns to a normal state.
But have I just thrown the baby out with the bathwater? In trying to avoid all of those things which I am incredibly passionate about, have I consigned myself to a life of boredom? I think I have. There is no way I will find a calling for which I am passionate if I run from the things which I enjoy, but neither should I be giving myself to them. What I need to learn to do is not to spend all of my time seeking after something for it’s own sake, but to bring it under my other more primary callings of Christian and husband. I need my own diet of the mind, to find those things which I enjoy but be very careful of the role and position that they begin to play in my own heart.
God, please teach my how to tame the desires of my heart so that at no season of my life do lose sight of you as that which I love and serve above all else.
The issue of evil, my perspective
In class we were discussing the problem of evil when David said something that resonated so strongly within me that I could not help but get excited about it. As my classmates attacked the weak idea, I began to try to defend the, lashing out with cobbled together proofs which were promptly shot down. As the idea was under attack, I quietly let the subject lapse and cried in class. I don't think anyone noticed.
What idea is it that sits close to the core of my Christian conviction that I have to be silent when it is discussed lest I detract from the conversation with my emotional outbursts? What is this idea that I hold so close to the nexus of my being, and why is it so important to me? The idea is this: God, by allowing sin into creation and into man with the intention of saving a remnant of that fallen world and people for Himself, will be making a new creation so much more excellent than the garden, that eternity will not be enough time to praise God for how great it is. Why it's important to me: I only have guesses.
It's a weird idea to be so passionate about, and I guess many devoted Christians may never have considered it. I myself don't understand, but I will attempt to explain why I believe it is true in the rest of this post. Please bear with my lack of clarity as you are watching me figure out my beliefs on paper.
I think the Bible hints at this being true. I am thinking here specifically of Romans 5:8. "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." This is the first use of the word love in Romans outside of the initial greeting. Paul has covered laws, promises, sin, judgment, righteousness, forgiveness, and justification; but this is the first mention he makes of love. It seems to me that Paul has covered all of human history up to the death of Christ in the first 4 chapters of Romans and God's love has not yet been truly expressed. But now, in the death of Christ we see that love so clearly, that it cannot be questioned.
You may also find other verses which refer to this in other parts of the Bible. God shows his love in curing the sick, fathering the fatherless, lifting up the oppressed, but mostly in saving the world (John 3:16). We see God's love most clearly expressed in the saving of the world.
God shows his love for us in saving us, but wasn't the Garden better than it is now? Wasn't his love perfectly expressed to Adam and Eve? I would argue that it wasn't. It is true that everything in the Garden was good. God said that clearly, but no where does it show that he loved man. We see God's care and his loving nature everywhere in his provision for man in the garden, but ultimately man is pronounced as good, not as deeply loved. God created something beautiful, but in the end God's love is somewhat sterile, because the labor of attaining a relationship with man had no challenge. It was an almost effortless action. He spoke and it was so. There was no blood sweat or tears sowed into this creation.
Let me put it more bluntly. When Adam and Eve fell, God could easily have just killed them right there, extinguished the universe and then made another one. It took him a week after all, and in eternity there are many, many weeks. And he would have been totally justified in doing so. He would have done nothing wrong. However, God decides to show his love by literally pouring his blood, sweat, and tears into his creation (even more amazing when you consider that god is Spirit) to show his love.
I think we see this principle in the teachings of Christ as well. The good Samaritan, the old woman who tithes. The one who gives to the point of hurting is the one who really loves. The one who gives, but it does not hurt him does not really give in a meaningful way.
However, I have not really answered my own question. I have given proof for why one might believe this to be true, but not explained why I believe so deeply that it is true. Well I think it is true, because the most amazing thing I can see about God, and the reason why I trust, love, and adore Him above all else is because he did something for me that could not have been done in a perfect world: He forgave my sins.
This is not something esoteric to me. I am a huge sinner. I know that daily I slaughter those around me with anger, kill myself with lusts and desires, and deny the presence of the one whom I claim to love with my very life. And more than this, I know that I rebelled from him at such a deep level, that if I had been cast into the fiery pit, I could offer no defense for my soul.
Yet surer, than I know what I deserve, I know I will never receive it for Christ came, lived, suffered, died, and rose again in order that I could be with him now and forevermore. That is true love. There is no greater love than that one should lay down his life for another. God has now laid down his life for his creation. How much greater is that than making something beautiful?
The first Adam walked with God, but I weep for joy at what his love has wrought.
What idea is it that sits close to the core of my Christian conviction that I have to be silent when it is discussed lest I detract from the conversation with my emotional outbursts? What is this idea that I hold so close to the nexus of my being, and why is it so important to me? The idea is this: God, by allowing sin into creation and into man with the intention of saving a remnant of that fallen world and people for Himself, will be making a new creation so much more excellent than the garden, that eternity will not be enough time to praise God for how great it is. Why it's important to me: I only have guesses.
It's a weird idea to be so passionate about, and I guess many devoted Christians may never have considered it. I myself don't understand, but I will attempt to explain why I believe it is true in the rest of this post. Please bear with my lack of clarity as you are watching me figure out my beliefs on paper.
I think the Bible hints at this being true. I am thinking here specifically of Romans 5:8. "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us." This is the first use of the word love in Romans outside of the initial greeting. Paul has covered laws, promises, sin, judgment, righteousness, forgiveness, and justification; but this is the first mention he makes of love. It seems to me that Paul has covered all of human history up to the death of Christ in the first 4 chapters of Romans and God's love has not yet been truly expressed. But now, in the death of Christ we see that love so clearly, that it cannot be questioned.
You may also find other verses which refer to this in other parts of the Bible. God shows his love in curing the sick, fathering the fatherless, lifting up the oppressed, but mostly in saving the world (John 3:16). We see God's love most clearly expressed in the saving of the world.
God shows his love for us in saving us, but wasn't the Garden better than it is now? Wasn't his love perfectly expressed to Adam and Eve? I would argue that it wasn't. It is true that everything in the Garden was good. God said that clearly, but no where does it show that he loved man. We see God's care and his loving nature everywhere in his provision for man in the garden, but ultimately man is pronounced as good, not as deeply loved. God created something beautiful, but in the end God's love is somewhat sterile, because the labor of attaining a relationship with man had no challenge. It was an almost effortless action. He spoke and it was so. There was no blood sweat or tears sowed into this creation.
Let me put it more bluntly. When Adam and Eve fell, God could easily have just killed them right there, extinguished the universe and then made another one. It took him a week after all, and in eternity there are many, many weeks. And he would have been totally justified in doing so. He would have done nothing wrong. However, God decides to show his love by literally pouring his blood, sweat, and tears into his creation (even more amazing when you consider that god is Spirit) to show his love.
I think we see this principle in the teachings of Christ as well. The good Samaritan, the old woman who tithes. The one who gives to the point of hurting is the one who really loves. The one who gives, but it does not hurt him does not really give in a meaningful way.
However, I have not really answered my own question. I have given proof for why one might believe this to be true, but not explained why I believe so deeply that it is true. Well I think it is true, because the most amazing thing I can see about God, and the reason why I trust, love, and adore Him above all else is because he did something for me that could not have been done in a perfect world: He forgave my sins.
This is not something esoteric to me. I am a huge sinner. I know that daily I slaughter those around me with anger, kill myself with lusts and desires, and deny the presence of the one whom I claim to love with my very life. And more than this, I know that I rebelled from him at such a deep level, that if I had been cast into the fiery pit, I could offer no defense for my soul.
Yet surer, than I know what I deserve, I know I will never receive it for Christ came, lived, suffered, died, and rose again in order that I could be with him now and forevermore. That is true love. There is no greater love than that one should lay down his life for another. God has now laid down his life for his creation. How much greater is that than making something beautiful?
The first Adam walked with God, but I weep for joy at what his love has wrought.
Journalism
The other night I had the opportunity to attend an open panel discussion on the role of the media in an election. Assembled on the panel were some of the men and women who have been directing coverage of campaigns for major networks since the sixties. I found the discussion fascinating as it was on a topic I had never contemplated in any sort of depth, yet had observed all my life.
The main aspect of their discussion that stood out to me is how much these men saw the role of journalism was in the accurate portrayal of information that they could authoritatively prove to be true. In essence they believed journalism is a truth telling profession, and that the measure of a how good a journalist is just how accurate your statements are.
Their definition went even further than saying political journalism had to tell the truth, it had to say things which were relevant to the discussion and important for people to understand. The journalism the panel described was not one that delved into the details of misspoken words, rather it attempted to deal with the substantive issues that would more directly pertain to the nature and personality of the candidate or official.
Finally, they drew a line between news and opinion which I found to be surprising even though it fell perfectly in line with ideas they had already expressed. Coming from a post-modern viewpoint, one assumes that all statements of fact -- other than some purely mathematical ones -- are actually statements of opinion and power plays as you are enforcing an interpretation (this idea comes from Nietzsche). Therefore, it is impossible to be un-opinionated in any fact you give and is better to simply state your biases and then your opinions. However, the men in the panel were certain that it is not only possible but better to give truly objective news.
Bringing this all together, their pursuit of journalism actually excited me. It is an attempt to convey the truth in such a way that it will be correctly interpreted by their audience so as to appropriately inform the public for proper and good decision-making regardless of bias. Now that is something I can get behind.
I wonder though, would a truly unbiased show ever make it on the air today? Would they get swamped by all the other companies, or could they do it? Would their work be recognized as truly great or would it be decried as being opinionated as a means of attempting to dismiss the facts of a situation. Whatever happened it would be challenging, but I'd love to see someone really try.
The main aspect of their discussion that stood out to me is how much these men saw the role of journalism was in the accurate portrayal of information that they could authoritatively prove to be true. In essence they believed journalism is a truth telling profession, and that the measure of a how good a journalist is just how accurate your statements are.
Their definition went even further than saying political journalism had to tell the truth, it had to say things which were relevant to the discussion and important for people to understand. The journalism the panel described was not one that delved into the details of misspoken words, rather it attempted to deal with the substantive issues that would more directly pertain to the nature and personality of the candidate or official.
Finally, they drew a line between news and opinion which I found to be surprising even though it fell perfectly in line with ideas they had already expressed. Coming from a post-modern viewpoint, one assumes that all statements of fact -- other than some purely mathematical ones -- are actually statements of opinion and power plays as you are enforcing an interpretation (this idea comes from Nietzsche). Therefore, it is impossible to be un-opinionated in any fact you give and is better to simply state your biases and then your opinions. However, the men in the panel were certain that it is not only possible but better to give truly objective news.
Bringing this all together, their pursuit of journalism actually excited me. It is an attempt to convey the truth in such a way that it will be correctly interpreted by their audience so as to appropriately inform the public for proper and good decision-making regardless of bias. Now that is something I can get behind.
I wonder though, would a truly unbiased show ever make it on the air today? Would they get swamped by all the other companies, or could they do it? Would their work be recognized as truly great or would it be decried as being opinionated as a means of attempting to dismiss the facts of a situation. Whatever happened it would be challenging, but I'd love to see someone really try.
Soular Rocket Science
I don't feel like I have much to write about this week. We spend much of this week discussing the details of arguments for the existence of God, which in the end were largely discounted because they were either wrong or simply out of date, no longer appealing to the modern (or rather, post-foundationalist) mind. In a way it seemed like we were chasing our own tail, knowing that God exists, seeing the conclusion only inches away but ultimately being unable to prove his existence to a non-believer through rational argument.
So what was the point of the week spent in philosophical debate? Is David just wasting our time with philosophical arguments? We know David a little bit by now, so my guess is he isn’t just wasting our time.
But why do we study philosophy? Is there a point to studying in detail something with so little seeming application? I think there is. We are studying those assumptions which we take for granted about who God is and the reasons why we believe them. We are defending and defining our faith. Now in this exercise it is very, very important to get the exact definitons, wordings and ideas because we are doing rocket science of the soul.
Perhaps that is a little dramatic, but let me explain what I mean. For satellites to precisely orbit the earth, they must be launched to exactly the correct altitude and given exactly the correct amount of thrust. If the velocity or altitude of a satellite in orbit is unstable, the consequences are ultimately catastrophic. A faulty orbit may show only slight deviations from the predicted trajectory, but over the years these deviations grow and compound towards an ultimate fiery demise. For this reason, the most important thing about launching a satellite is not so much that all the electronics work as those problems can be fixed as go along our journey (case in point, the Hubble Telescope mirror which was fixed following initial launch), but there is a stable orbit.
In the same way we are trying now to set our trajectory for our year and Lord willing the rest of our lives. So during this time we may run multiple pre-flight checks, double and triple checking our basic assumptions, carefully calculating our goals and purposes, and making sure that we are ready for a long service life.
So lets try to be patient, and really put our energy into a little bit of spiritual rocket science so that we can work out the less essential points from a stable orbit.
So what was the point of the week spent in philosophical debate? Is David just wasting our time with philosophical arguments? We know David a little bit by now, so my guess is he isn’t just wasting our time.
But why do we study philosophy? Is there a point to studying in detail something with so little seeming application? I think there is. We are studying those assumptions which we take for granted about who God is and the reasons why we believe them. We are defending and defining our faith. Now in this exercise it is very, very important to get the exact definitons, wordings and ideas because we are doing rocket science of the soul.
Perhaps that is a little dramatic, but let me explain what I mean. For satellites to precisely orbit the earth, they must be launched to exactly the correct altitude and given exactly the correct amount of thrust. If the velocity or altitude of a satellite in orbit is unstable, the consequences are ultimately catastrophic. A faulty orbit may show only slight deviations from the predicted trajectory, but over the years these deviations grow and compound towards an ultimate fiery demise. For this reason, the most important thing about launching a satellite is not so much that all the electronics work as those problems can be fixed as go along our journey (case in point, the Hubble Telescope mirror which was fixed following initial launch), but there is a stable orbit.
In the same way we are trying now to set our trajectory for our year and Lord willing the rest of our lives. So during this time we may run multiple pre-flight checks, double and triple checking our basic assumptions, carefully calculating our goals and purposes, and making sure that we are ready for a long service life.
So lets try to be patient, and really put our energy into a little bit of spiritual rocket science so that we can work out the less essential points from a stable orbit.
Outsourcing
Modern technology is rapidly outsourcing our knowledge across all areas of our lives.
Personally, we have outsourced phone numbers to our cell phones, email addresses to our contact lists, knowing streets and directions to Mapquest and GPS, child-rearing to television and day-care, dating to matchmaking sites, musical ability to recorded performers, cooking and hospitality to restaurants, playlist selection to smart shuffle or Pandora, sleep to Starbucks, entertainment to movies and television, friendships to Facebook, Twitter and blogs, and of course all general knowledge to Google and Wikipedia.
Professionally, driving to work is replaced by calling in to meetings, talking to clients is replaced by email, scheduling to our digital calendars, getting up and walking 30 feet to instant messenger, calculations to excel, report making to macros, and any aspect that is not your core job to someone else.
The lists go on and on leaving almost no area of our lives untouched. The great offload. All of this makes work and social life vastly more efficient. We can do many times more than what we have ever been able to accomplish before, because it just takes less work to get things done in the world. However, there are several areas where the level of effort required cannot decrease or may even need to increase in the face of such a rapidly moving world.
Any knowledge which is not purely informational is partly experiential and cannot be outsourced. This includes but is not limited to intuition or any type of personal relationship. Perhaps more importantly, you cannot outsource any sort of personal development. Any experience that you want to impact you, any knowledge that you want to change your personality, or anything that you want to affect your way of thinking cannot be outsourced to another person. You must do and learn them personally.
So now as this applies to class: we can't outsource the disciplines and the study of Christ. It falls into all of these categories. We can't rely on a Pastor to be our Google search, pulling all of the important bits right to front so that we can download them on Sunday morning. We can't count on a peer review of theology or practice to point us to the things which we need to grow in. We are unique, distinct individuals, and we must learn to walk personally with our Lord.
(This thought came to me while we were in class and John and Emily knew the scriptures that David was trying to reference)
Personally, we have outsourced phone numbers to our cell phones, email addresses to our contact lists, knowing streets and directions to Mapquest and GPS, child-rearing to television and day-care, dating to matchmaking sites, musical ability to recorded performers, cooking and hospitality to restaurants, playlist selection to smart shuffle or Pandora, sleep to Starbucks, entertainment to movies and television, friendships to Facebook, Twitter and blogs, and of course all general knowledge to Google and Wikipedia.
Professionally, driving to work is replaced by calling in to meetings, talking to clients is replaced by email, scheduling to our digital calendars, getting up and walking 30 feet to instant messenger, calculations to excel, report making to macros, and any aspect that is not your core job to someone else.
The lists go on and on leaving almost no area of our lives untouched. The great offload. All of this makes work and social life vastly more efficient. We can do many times more than what we have ever been able to accomplish before, because it just takes less work to get things done in the world. However, there are several areas where the level of effort required cannot decrease or may even need to increase in the face of such a rapidly moving world.
Any knowledge which is not purely informational is partly experiential and cannot be outsourced. This includes but is not limited to intuition or any type of personal relationship. Perhaps more importantly, you cannot outsource any sort of personal development. Any experience that you want to impact you, any knowledge that you want to change your personality, or anything that you want to affect your way of thinking cannot be outsourced to another person. You must do and learn them personally.
So now as this applies to class: we can't outsource the disciplines and the study of Christ. It falls into all of these categories. We can't rely on a Pastor to be our Google search, pulling all of the important bits right to front so that we can download them on Sunday morning. We can't count on a peer review of theology or practice to point us to the things which we need to grow in. We are unique, distinct individuals, and we must learn to walk personally with our Lord.
(This thought came to me while we were in class and John and Emily knew the scriptures that David was trying to reference)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Periodic table of videos
"If you do use the beryllium windows, you have to be careful not to lick your fingers."
Just one quote from what I am sure will be a great collection of videos. There is one video for each of the chemicals on the periodic table of the elements and they are done in a British accent.
Via numerous links
http://www.periodicvideos.com/#
Just one quote from what I am sure will be a great collection of videos. There is one video for each of the chemicals on the periodic table of the elements and they are done in a British accent.
Via numerous links
http://www.periodicvideos.com/#
Olypic theme song inspired by imperial march?
Recently I have made the big mistake of thinking Fanfare for the common man by Copland was the Olympic theme song. However, I was way off. It turns out there isn't a consistent Olympic theme, but there is at least one new one for each olympics. There is an official hymn, but you may have only heard it once or twice.
Anyways, so what do you hear on broadcasts that makes you think Olypics? Bulger's Dream. But this was just a piece selected by the broadcasting studios in 1968 and was popular so they kept it. It's not official Olympics theme tune or anything.
But there is another one that is used often as well. It's called Olympic Fanfare and Theme. If you can find it online, listen to it all the way through (or you can also find the medley version that includes Bulger's Dream). While you are listening, think imperial death march. They sound quite a bit alike, but one is happy and the other is intimidating. Why do they sound the same? Same guy composed them and probably within a year or two of eachother. Possibly, he could have been working on the two together.
Anyways I know I find strange connections between things, but the touch of this particular composer I find to be very similar in the two pieces.
Olympic symbols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anyways, so what do you hear on broadcasts that makes you think Olypics? Bulger's Dream. But this was just a piece selected by the broadcasting studios in 1968 and was popular so they kept it. It's not official Olympics theme tune or anything.
But there is another one that is used often as well. It's called Olympic Fanfare and Theme. If you can find it online, listen to it all the way through (or you can also find the medley version that includes Bulger's Dream). While you are listening, think imperial death march. They sound quite a bit alike, but one is happy and the other is intimidating. Why do they sound the same? Same guy composed them and probably within a year or two of eachother. Possibly, he could have been working on the two together.
Anyways I know I find strange connections between things, but the touch of this particular composer I find to be very similar in the two pieces.
Olympic symbols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Amazing magnetic moving sculpture Not CGI
If more modern art looked like this, I would give modern art alot more love. This is a real sculpture, not cgi.
Now all they need to do is hang it from the ceiling. It would just be that much more mind-blowing then. The artists name is Sachiko Kodama so can google for more videos and examples of her work.
from IO9
Now all they need to do is hang it from the ceiling. It would just be that much more mind-blowing then. The artists name is Sachiko Kodama so can google for more videos and examples of her work.
from IO9
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
APOD: 2007 April 25 - Carina Nebula Panorama from Hubble
If you have never seen Astronomy Picture of the Day, you must. They are probably some of the most stunning photos you will ever, ever, ever see. And they proclaim the glory of God in a way that just shocks me.
APOD: 2007 April 25 - Carina Nebula Panorama from Hubble:
Carina Nebula Panorama from Hubble
Credit: NASA, ESA, N. Smith (U. California, Berkeley) et al., and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Most Beautiful Car
This is probably one of the most beautiful cars I have ever laid eyes on. And the photo is amazing to boot.
It's the Cramer Comet, a car with the same 1350 horsepower engine as a P51 mustang. It was hand built and is a one of a kind vehicle.
It's the Cramer Comet, a car with the same 1350 horsepower engine as a P51 mustang. It was hand built and is a one of a kind vehicle.
 clipped from blog.wired.com
|
Monday, August 11, 2008
BSOD ruins Olympic magic
Everything was magical at the opening ceremonies, but for some onlookers the spell was broken abruptly right at the peak moment by none other than the BSOD. There were a couple of pictures from different angles so this isn't a fake. Way to go Microsoft!
 clipped from www.google.com
|
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Posting Straigh from windows is pretty cool
All I have to do is type in the sidebar and wham! There it is for all the world to see.
The internet is magic.
The internet is magic.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Shameless self promotion
So I have decided that I will try to put together some more albums on picasa. These pictures will always try to be more artistic than descriptive of my life. Right now I have a couple of nature ones, and I will be adding a sunset album, trees album, and flowers album later this week. So go check it out! (And if you know anything about photography let me know what I could work on.)
http://picasaweb.google.com/adamgh
http://picasaweb.google.com/adamgh
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Amazing and ludicrous
So my friend posted a video about hambone and I couldn't resist looking at other youtube video's. This guy is amazing! And it's hilarious.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Richmond spice
Jennifer and I made a trip to Penzey's spices yesterday and it is fantastic. Of course we are currently stocked to the gills with spices (does anyone else have a half pound of cumin seeds sitting around?) but it has great spices at totally reasonable prices.
They have one in Dallas too, so we will be frequenting it in the future for all of our needs.
www.penzeys.com
They have one in Dallas too, so we will be frequenting it in the future for all of our needs.
www.penzeys.com
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Ode to the crock pot!
http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/04/172-crock-pot-love-letter.html
What to do at work when there is nothing to do?
Okay so I am at work, nothing to do. Anyone got good ideas? Right now, blogging, also surfing the web, and playing halo (though that does require other people to be in my same situation...)
Maybe I could go run errands? That seems a bit dishonest to me. But I am salaried for my work, not for my time. There is an expectation of work, but I can work from home too.
So should I stay or should I go?
Maybe I could go run errands? That seems a bit dishonest to me. But I am salaried for my work, not for my time. There is an expectation of work, but I can work from home too.
So should I stay or should I go?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Great take on the universe's bigness
I was just reading the Desiring God blog and found what I found to be a very Biblical and profound (though somewhat obvious) take on the extreme magnitude of the universe.
Basically it boils down to this: the heavens were created to give an impression of how huge our God is. And that is huge. We can see 14 billion light years in any direction which is 82,298,997,340,000,000,000,000 miles. And that's just what we can see. I promise you it's bigger. And probably bigger than you can imagine. To get some sense of this try this earth to sun ratio (though it does not compare to the hydrogen atom page).
Anyways all of that is to say the universe is huge which is humbling and awe inspiring. I really don't think we will ever get bored in heaven any more than we will on earth. Because in heaven, we will explore the one who created the heavens. Which will take forever, thankfully.
Basically it boils down to this: the heavens were created to give an impression of how huge our God is. And that is huge. We can see 14 billion light years in any direction which is 82,298,997,340,000,000,000,000 miles. And that's just what we can see. I promise you it's bigger. And probably bigger than you can imagine. To get some sense of this try this earth to sun ratio (though it does not compare to the hydrogen atom page).
Anyways all of that is to say the universe is huge which is humbling and awe inspiring. I really don't think we will ever get bored in heaven any more than we will on earth. Because in heaven, we will explore the one who created the heavens. Which will take forever, thankfully.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Big government
So I guess this is more of a rant than anything else, but it is probably my biggest concern in American politics right now.
I know America has issues. Big ones. Healthcare, a war on the other side of the world, a sagging economy, and a slow steady fall from the top of the world heap. And it seems like we need something to get us back on track. We are clamoring for a leader, someone who will take the reigns back from what may be the worst presidency in history.
But really what should that leader look like?
This current administration has actually been more like a regime. It has been flatly denying the system of checks and balances from writing signing statements, to claiming authority over international treaties, to tinkering with the attorneys and just flouting court decisions. They have broken laws over and over again, done things Americans despise and generally lost all of our international good will.
How in the world did they do this? Seriously, don't we live in a representative democracy with extensive checks and balances to prevent this from happening? I thought we could check the president when he gets a bit out of control. He has the lowest approval rating...ever and has for a while. And the power doesn't seem to be decreasing.
So what should we do in response? Well we should elect someone else into office who is just smarter than Bush and isn't as evil and who can undo all of the bad things he has done and do good things instead, right? If the president is so strong can't the next one fix everything? We know whoever will be next has too be better than Bush.
However, lets also remember the other side of Bush. He has had the highest approval rating of any president...even right when he did the things that so many hate him for now. So it doesn't seem to matter how much we like or trust our president, it can go wrong.
The problem is not just picking the right man for the job; it's picking the right job for the man. My concern right now is that Americans think that the way we should fix everything is by electing another equally powerful president to fix the problems, but the problem is itself the power of the executive. We need a weaker executive, and I don't think that is what democrats want right now. I think both Obama and Clinton want to fix the US by being as powerful as Bush but doing everything 'right.'
I really don't think this an issue of good or bad intentions on behalf of either of the two. They both want to help the US, and I do honestly believe that. Obama because he believes in something bigger than himself and Hillary because she wants to prove she is bigger than she is. But the best intentions don't matter unless they are really getting at the problem. And the problem is not just the direction, but also the power that is able to move us that way.
We need to get back to a government that is balanced, a little bit more 'free market' (i.e. really what is the best for the people not for sub-group 13B) and hopefully a little bit smaller.
I am genuinely afraid that if the next administration does not move towards a smaller leaner government, then maybe not them but at some point 10 or 20 years down the line, we will be in much more significant trouble.
After over 200 years of ground-breaking politics (democracy that doesn't involve the guillotine , human rights activism (end of slavery (got it on the second try) actually addressing racism (not perfectly), open-ness (we've impeached people), peace (okay one civil war, but that was about point 2) and prosperity (biggest power that was not one at any point 200 years ago or before and also brought the computer, capitalism, regular home ownership and the microwave) -- I fear for the US. We may be our own undoing (people on top always are).
I end with the common phrase 'Power corrupts...
I know America has issues. Big ones. Healthcare, a war on the other side of the world, a sagging economy, and a slow steady fall from the top of the world heap. And it seems like we need something to get us back on track. We are clamoring for a leader, someone who will take the reigns back from what may be the worst presidency in history.
But really what should that leader look like?
This current administration has actually been more like a regime. It has been flatly denying the system of checks and balances from writing signing statements, to claiming authority over international treaties, to tinkering with the attorneys and just flouting court decisions. They have broken laws over and over again, done things Americans despise and generally lost all of our international good will.
How in the world did they do this? Seriously, don't we live in a representative democracy with extensive checks and balances to prevent this from happening? I thought we could check the president when he gets a bit out of control. He has the lowest approval rating...ever and has for a while. And the power doesn't seem to be decreasing.
So what should we do in response? Well we should elect someone else into office who is just smarter than Bush and isn't as evil and who can undo all of the bad things he has done and do good things instead, right? If the president is so strong can't the next one fix everything? We know whoever will be next has too be better than Bush.
However, lets also remember the other side of Bush. He has had the highest approval rating of any president...even right when he did the things that so many hate him for now. So it doesn't seem to matter how much we like or trust our president, it can go wrong.
The problem is not just picking the right man for the job; it's picking the right job for the man. My concern right now is that Americans think that the way we should fix everything is by electing another equally powerful president to fix the problems, but the problem is itself the power of the executive. We need a weaker executive, and I don't think that is what democrats want right now. I think both Obama and Clinton want to fix the US by being as powerful as Bush but doing everything 'right.'
I really don't think this an issue of good or bad intentions on behalf of either of the two. They both want to help the US, and I do honestly believe that. Obama because he believes in something bigger than himself and Hillary because she wants to prove she is bigger than she is. But the best intentions don't matter unless they are really getting at the problem. And the problem is not just the direction, but also the power that is able to move us that way.
We need to get back to a government that is balanced, a little bit more 'free market' (i.e. really what is the best for the people not for sub-group 13B) and hopefully a little bit smaller.
I am genuinely afraid that if the next administration does not move towards a smaller leaner government, then maybe not them but at some point 10 or 20 years down the line, we will be in much more significant trouble.
After over 200 years of ground-breaking politics (democracy that doesn't involve the guillotine , human rights activism (end of slavery (got it on the second try) actually addressing racism (not perfectly), open-ness (we've impeached people), peace (okay one civil war, but that was about point 2) and prosperity (biggest power that was not one at any point 200 years ago or before and also brought the computer, capitalism, regular home ownership and the microwave) -- I fear for the US. We may be our own undoing (people on top always are).
I end with the common phrase 'Power corrupts...
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
So I found this website, exoteric.roach.org and the guy is an artist who works making fractals. His work is amazing, and he has awesome desktops (and you download them using bittorrent which is an awesome idea. So it inspired me to make my own. I used a program called apophysis to make and render the fractals (takes like an hour to make and over an hour to render in 1920X1200). I might try to learn some of the math behind this too, as they are just so cool.
This is my first one which is some sort of earthy implosion.
And then I made a second one, which somehow reminds me of independence day.
There is also another program out there called FLAM3 which supposedly does a better job of rendering things. Anyways if you like them you can try to make your own.
This is my first one which is some sort of earthy implosion.
And then I made a second one, which somehow reminds me of independence day.
There is also another program out there called FLAM3 which supposedly does a better job of rendering things. Anyways if you like them you can try to make your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)