Misconceptions

I've blogged about logic errors in the past, and some of what I'm going to post about today I may have posted in the past, but not in as much detail.
I had someone tell me once "You can't play 'Taps' on a bugle. I know because I play the cornet, and a cornet is just like a bugle, except that it has valves. I can play 'Taps' on the cornet, but I have to use the valves, so you can't really play 'Taps' on the bugle." I asked him if he was aware that 'Taps' was written for the bugle, and he said he was, but that it was fake. It seems to me that either he was very confused, or a whole bunch of bugle players are...
I had a school project once that involved a team of students planning a theoretical medical clinic for a low-income neighborhood. I think we came up with some reasonable guesstimates for how big a facility we would need, how big the staff should be, etc. The rub came when we were trying to establish a salary for the doctor. I felt that we might be able to coax a civic-minded doctor into working at this clinic for $60,000. One of my teammates told me I was being extravagant, "My mother is a nurse, and she only makes $18,000." "That's because she's a nurse. We're talking about a doctor." "It's the same thing. Nurses have to go through just as much training as doctors do." "Then why aren't they doctors?" Eventually I was overruled, and we ended up getting a good grade, even though the teacher couldn't understand how we thought we could get a doctor on board for only $18,000 (she liked the rest of it, though).
I also had a classmate tell me that secretaries are the most important part of any big business. She knew this because her mom was a secretary. They do all the real work. I can understand that, to some extent, she's right. A good secretary takes care of a lot of details, so that the executive doesn't have to be bothered with them. A good secretary types, and files, and can find things later when they need them. The executive makes decisions. To be honest, there are probably a lot of secretaries out there that have been in the business long enough that they could make better decisions, just based on experience. But that isn't what they were hired to do. Maybe somebody smart should check out his secretarial staff for smart people next time he needs a new executive. I'm not holding my breath, though, and I don't think you should either.

Just Some Stuff

Normally I don't post to my blog on Saturdays, but I didn't post yesterday, so I will post today.

There is a big box store near my parents' house that has an underground parking garage, at least some of which is under the store. I find this particularly interesting, because most of the stores in the chain don't have that feature, including the one close to my house, which is less than a ear older. This is a nice feature, because the sun doesn't heat up the car's interior while one is shopping, rain doesn't come in through a partially open window, and it decreases the amount of land that the store needs,as well. There are also emergency lights in the parking garage. My dad discovered today that he can light the emergency lights with the remote for his car alarm. Apparently the design of the emergency lights included a remote test feature, so that the owner can test the batteries without climbing a ladder and pushing a button, and the signal from the car alarm remote is similar enough to serve the same function. Perhaps I shouldn't advertise that fact, because now all kinds of people are going to want to check to see if their car alarm remote can activate emergency lights. Some of these people may find that they can, and run down the batteries of the emergency lights. Hopefully not so much that the lights don't work when they need to.

Airport Security

Today was my first experience with Airport Security in awhile. Today was the first time that I was asked to remove my shoes. Apparently that's standard procedure for everyone, now. I thought I had flown since Richard Ried, but perhaps not.

I think they've adjusted the sensitivity on the metal detectors since the last time I flew, too. I took everything out of my pockets that I thought might cause a problem, and still ended up setting off the alarm. Fortunately, I had gotten to the airport well in advance, like they tell you to. I don't usually. The first time I flew after 9-11 I get there way in advance and ended up sitting at the gate for what seemed like an eternity. For a long time after that I pretty much gaffed off the be there two hours before flight time rule. This time I didn't, and I still wound up sitting at the gate for a long time, but at least I wasn't anxious that I was going to miss my flight having to go through all that rigmarole at security.

The airplane had XM satellite radio. I'm not sure if that's a promotional deal (hey, we'll let you have XM radio on airplanes for a reduced rate, because a lot of people will try it and decide to buy it for themselves); if it isn't, it should be. I visited a website once that was supposed to let you try out XM radio--get a sense of what XM had to offer--I was completely and totally underwhelmed. Being able to actually listen to it on the plane was much better. To be honest, I'm still not really inclined to spring for it, but I'm closer to it than I was.

In a way, it's ironic. One of the reasons that I was considering XM radio is because I do occasionally drive cross-country, and I hate having to find a new radio station every so often. With satellite radio, you can tune in to a station at your front door, and still be listening to that station 800 miles down the road. Of course, I got to try out XM radio because this time I flew instead of making the long drive.

Stumblings

I was reading yesterday about the "echo chamber" phenomenon--wherein something in the news strikes people's imagination, and, suddenly, there's mention of it in everybody's blog. The blog that I read that in advised that one wait a couple of weeks before including any current news in one's blog, and also not reading the news until after the blog is posted.

I'm not entirely sure that I like that advice, but I certainly don't want this blog to get lost in a crowd of blogs all echoing the current news. On the other hand, it's not really like I have a whole lot of original thoughts...

I've been accused of being creative many times in my life, and I'm not sure why. I don't think that I'm particularly creative. If somebody gives me an idea, I can run with it, and sometimes make something of it, but I really don't have too many ideas on my own.

So, today's ramblings may be more like stumblings. My big news is that i am flying out tomorrow to visit family. I originally grew up about 800 miles from where I live now. I have driven the route many times, and I have flown it a few times. My parents get onto me about my driving: when I'm driving that kind of a distance, my focus is on getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible. I don't want to spend the night somewhere along the way if I don't have to (and I don't). They like to take it easy, stop about halfway, find some interesting things to see along the way... I can appreciate that, but for me, this isn't a sightseeing trip. Maybe one of these days I will go sightseeing. Probably not anytime soon. In any case, gas prices being what they are, and airfare deals here and there, why spend the money on gas if you can fly for about the same or less--especially if you aren't planning on doing any sightseeing anyway?

New Clothes

I was reading about this new idea: the butt cam. The idea is that this camera is mounted inside the dressing room at a high-end fashion store, with a viewing screen, so that you can try on expensive jeans, and see how you look from behind. In some ways that seems like a good idea (although the paranoid part of my brain wants to know who else can see what I see when I'm checking out my butt), and it certainly seems like it should eliminate that pesky question, "Does this dress make me look fat?"
It won't, of course. That question is unavoidable. The thing is, men like things to be simple. If you ask me, "Is the ceiling white?" I can answer yes, if it is, or no, if it's not. Even men understand, however, that the fat question is not what it seems. If it were, the answer would be easy: "No, the dress does not make you look fat." What the wearer is really asking is, "Do I look fat in this dress?" except, of course, that she's framing the question in such a way that I'm supposed to believe that if she does look fat, it's the dress's fault. So I am now expected to evaluate the way that you look in that dress , and find a tactful way of suggesting that maybe that dress isn't something you should buy if it doesn't hide the extra pounds that you have put on. I am also expected to do this in less than twelve microseconds, since any hesitation longer than that is enough to hurt your feelings, since, in your mind, I should have been able to answer 'no' instantly. Of course, if the extra pounds are just in your imagination, then my job would seem to be easy, but I'm still going to try to figure out why you're even asking me this.

I read something the other night that gave me some insight into the problem. In the September Reader's Digest, somebody wrote that women think they are fat if they can't fit into the jeans they wore in high school; men think they are fat if they can't fit into a foreign car. The bottom line is, women tend to be very insecure about their own appearance (years ago, it occurred to me that I should have gotten into women's hair-care products. Between black women buying relaxers to straighten their naturally curly hair, and white women buying home perm kits to curl their naturally straight hair, there is a fortune to be made!). This can be hard for men to understand. Don't misunderstand me, I know that some women are not at all insecure, and some men are very insecure, but generally, women need that reassurance that they are attractive, and men don't.

So, now we're getting deeper into this question: women ask this question wanting to be reassured that we still find them attractive. For some reason, the fact that we have not kicked them to the curb and gone out in search of a prettier companion isn't enough. When you stop to consider, eating disorders are almost exclusively female problems. Every once in a while, you hear about a teenage boy with anorexia nervosa, but that's very unusual. If a guy gets an eating disorder, it's that he eats fast food at every meal and has his first heart attack before he graduates high school...

The real irony is that women have long joked about the fragile male ego. To some extent, they're right; men do tend to have fragile egos. Just not nearly as fragile as women do.

Inflation

Looks like the federal government has increased the minimum wage. Know what that means? More money in my pocket. At least for now. Inflation will, of course, pick up the slack, and, in a month or so, it will mean less money in my pocket. Actually, I haven't worked for minimum wage in an awfully long time. This won't affect my paycheck until after my employers look at the inflation caused by raising the minimum wage and decide to increase my pay accordingly.

I find it somewhat humorous that the Washington Post quotes a Raleigh, NC waitress as applauding the increase, and criticising the Republican Party for blocking the increase for so long. Why is that humorous? Two reasons: First, as a food service worker who gets tips presumably based on her performance (I say presumably because some people feel obligated to leave a tip whether they were satisfied with their service or not, while other people don't leave a tip at all, no matter how good the service was), her minimum wage is considerably less than the rest of us. The federally mandated minimum wage for tipped employees is $2.13 per hour. Second, because the state of North Carolina already has a higher minimum wage legislated at the state level than the federal government's new minimum anyway (a tipped employee in the state of North Carolina is entitled to at least $2.43 per hour).

The bottom line is, people who are at or near minimum wage always look at it as a good thing when the minimum wage goes up, and, in all fairness, for them it is, at least in the short term. What they don't see is that, in the long term, since people making low wages just got a government mandated pay raise across the board, the costs of doing business also go up. Do you really think that large corporations are going to take a big chunk of their profits and give it to the people who stack boxes or clean the toilets? No, of course not; they're going to raise prices to make up for the extra money that they now must give to their lower tier workers. Do you really think that anything you buy doesn't have some minimum wage employees in the chain of delivery somewhere? So as wages go up, prices go up, which means that inflation has wiped out whatever extra money you just earned.

I do understand: Having the minimum wage increased feels like a raise, especially if you're actually working for minimum wage. Having extra money in your pocket makes you feel better, until you get to the store and find out that you can't buy any more than you could before. Then you want another raise...

To some extent, that's common to us all: I often wish that I was making enough money to support myself in the manner in which I would like to become accustomed, but whenever I get a raise, my lifestyle desires suddenly become more expensive. Trying to make up the difference by earning more money just makes you want more things. We, as a people need to learn to live with less than what we want, or maybe just train ourselves to want less. Something like that.

In other news, the quote of the week: "Everyone should be angry." I know I'm angry. It amazes me that some people think that they are, or the church is, exempt from the laws of this country. There are times when the law of God supersedes the laws of man, but this is not one of those times. "Oh, she shouldn't have to be separated from her son." Nobody's telling her that she should be separated from her son (that would be child abandonment, wouldn't it?). She should take her son with her, and then use her son's citizenship to try to get a visa to come to the United States legally. I understand that Jesus commanded us to be good neighbors, and we should be. Surely one of the many kind people that she has interacted with during her illegal stay would have enough compassion to be willing to sponsor her for a visa. That would be a neighborly thing to do--helping her break the law is not.

British-American Relations (sort of)

I haven't gotten any comments lately--I wonder if anyone is actually reading this... Oh, well, I will blog away, anyway.

I was just reading about a proposed Harry Potter theme park in Florida. Apparently Disney was in talks with J. K. Rowling, but she has very specific ideas about how this theme park should be, and they decided that her ideas would force them to charge about $600 admission per person. So now Universal Studios is working on it. It's not clear whether UP was able to talk dollars and sense to JKR or whether they just have other ways of bringing the cost down, but, in any case, they apparently have a deal going.
Mentioned in the article is a comment that back in the 80's, Disney tried to get another British author, P. L. Travers (what is it with British authors using their first two initials?), to let them do a sequel to Mary Poppins. One of the reasons that they never did was that Travers didn't like Dick Van Dyke as Bert. News flash: Most Brits didn't like Dick Van Dyke as Bert. The British slang expression for a really bad, fake cockney accent is, in fact, 'a Van Dyke.' Don't misunderstand me, Dick Van Dyke is a very capable dancer/comedian/actor, and his accent in the movie was good enough for American audiences, just not the British.
It seems odd to me, it's almost as though there were a rule in Hollywood that British actors are not allowed to play British leading men in American movies. Think about it: Who is the best known British character in an American film franchise? That would be either James Bond or Robin Hood. Of all the actors who have played Bond, which ones were the most popular? Sean Connery (who is Scottish) and Pierce Brosnan (who is Irish). Of all the actors who have played Robin Hood (at least as the title role in Hollywood made movies) only Barrie Ingham ('A Challenge for Robin Hood'), Cary Elwes (Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'), and Brain Bedford (Disney's animated Robin Hood) are British (although Richard Greene played Robin in a TV series, and Michael Praed played Robin in a made-for-TV movie, and a TV series) (When I started listing British Robin Hoods, I didn't think there were his many--but, there are a whole lot more that aren't: Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Kevin Costner...) (Actually, the British casting of Robin Hood tips considerably the other way when Robin Hood is a supporting character in the various versions of 'Ivanhoe'). Incidentally, Sean Connery also played Robin Hood in 'Robin and Marion.' Val Kilmer played British do-gooder Simon Templar in 'the Saint.' Of course, there are some exceptions: Roger Moore (who, incidentally played the Saint in England [and also had a speaking role in Val Kilmer's movie]) was the actor that succeeded Sean Connery in the Bond films. Michael York has played a few British characters in his time, and, of course, Basil Rathbone is the best-known Sherlock Holmes. Also, Daniel Radcliffe, of Harry Potter fame, is British.
So, we come full circle. I started out talking about Harry Potter, and I end up talking about Harry Potter.

Well, Hamas has now joined the ranks of Michael Vick, Paris Hilton, Brittney Spears, Maria Bartiromo, Jenna Bush, Mitt Romney, Colonel Sanders and a host of others on Peta's hate list. It doesn't seem to bother Peta that the Hamas children's program that they find objectionable is normally geared toward terrorism. Personally, I think I would rather have kids taught (badly) not to abuse animals than to have them taught how to be a suicide bomber...

No word yet on how Peta feels about Pepper the sheep. It really could go either way: Normally, Peta doesn't like the idea of 'pets,' preferring the term 'animal companion.' At the same time, there are no reports (at least not yet) that Pepper is being treated inhumanely, Peta might not really care.

Here's one for the stupid criminal books: here. How dumb is that? Maybe not dumb at all--they are having him psychologically evaluated. Maybe he's crazy. That would certainly explain it.

How often are you thankful for an ATM that doesn't work? Notice I did not say ATM Machine, those are all property of the department of redundancy department.

If you are not familiar with WikiPedia, that is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In some ways this is a good thing, in that it is generally more up-to-date, but also it's a bad thing, since it is more subject to pranks and hoaxes than other encyclopedias. Someone has come up with a tool that allows anyone to see who has been editing WikiPedia. It will nail down the IP address of the computer from which the edit was made, and, if possible, list the owner of the computer. This can be somewhat amusing, as in, seeing what edits were made to Rush Limbaugh's profile from computer(s) owned by the Democratic Party, George W. Bush's profile from a BBC computer, post-Saddam Iraq article by a computer owned by the Republican party, or the Church of Scientology article by a computer owned by the Church of Scientology...

By the way, if you ever feel that WikiPedia has incorrect information about you or your organization, the right way to correct that (without looking suspicious) is here.

Imus Be Hearing Things

I will have to do some research on this, but I heard on the radio this morning that CBS has settled out of court with Don Imus over his wrongful termination lawsuit. Does this mean that he will be back on the air soon? Also, one of the Rutgers women has filed a lawsuit against Imus. My gut reaction is, 'Good for her!' On the other hand, from what they said on the radio, part of her lawsuit is based on damage to her reputation. I'm sorry, but if your reputation gets damaged because someone who's never even met you calls you a name on the radio--granted, nationally syndicated radio, but still--that's going to be a tough thing to prove in court. ABC's online article is available here. Apparently what I heard on the radio was correct.

This brings to mind several troubling issues: Without condoning what Imus said (because he shouldn't have said it), legally, an entertainer can make jokes about public figures. Does playing college basketball make one a public figure? I'm not so sure. Maybe. The other issue is, if someone that has never met you makes a joke about your personal life, how damaging is that, really? I can certainly understand that the Rutgers women got their feelings hurt, but surely no intelligent person is going to seriously think that what Imus said was true--or that he even had any way of knowing if it was true. Surely, no one has been treating these women as if it is true. Also, on the lesser side of what Imus said, where did the term 'nappy' come from, anyway? I've heard it said that it just refers to how a person's hair looks like when they've just woken up (i.e., excuse my hair, I just had a nap), but I don't buy that. If you've used a relaxer on your hair, I don't think sleeping is going to make your hair kinky again; tousled, yes, but not nappy. I think it comes from 'nap' as in fabric, which is a fuzzy surface, and is usually undesirable (at least, I think it is. That's not my area of expertise). Now, given that, what did Imus mean when he called those women nappy-headed? Is he familiar enough with the term to understand what it actually means? If so, has he seen any pictures of the women in question? I've seen pictures of them, and I've seen pictures of him, and it seems to me that he has more naps in each of his eyebrows than the entire team has on their heads...

I've heard some commentary that Imus isn't going to let something like this lawsuit interfere with getting his career back on track--it's in his best interests to settle this out of court as quickly as possible. Maybe, but this suit was only filed on behalf of one of the Rutgers women. I'm not sure how many there are on the Rutgers women's basketball team, but Imus may be able to swing tuition and fees (past, present, and future up until graduation), but if they start asking for millions of dollars a piece, he's in trouble. And if he gives money to this one, the rest of them will line up for the same serving of pie. But, again, if the Rutgers women stir the pot enough, they may be able to derail Imus' new career plans. There is money in controversial radio show hosts, but if there is more money going out than coming in, then it just becomes bad business. Keep in mind that Imus isn't the only one named in the lawsuit.

The lawyer is claiming (rightly so, IMHO) that CBS created a culture in which the kind of comments that Imus made were not only acceptable, but encouraged. Controversy draws listeners, listeners draw advertisers, advertisers bring money. Imus (and Howard Stern, and Erich Muller, etc.) wouldn't make comments like that if people didn't tune in to hear comments like that, and buy products sold by advertisers that promote comments like that. Unfortunately, in the words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Liquor Is Quicker, But Innovation Is Better

Too bad there wasn't an alcohol shortage in Western Siberia (at least he wasn't driving blind). Nissan has come up with a possible solution (it looks very feasible to me).

Meanwhile, a new theory that fulacht fiadh, in Ireland, may actually be ancient breweries (traditionally, they have been thought of as cooking sites). I'm not sure anyone can actually prove that, one way or the other.

It seems funny to me that Japanese auto manufacturers tend to be more progressive than their American counterparts--building cars with better gas mileage, and frequently better safety features--and the Big Three complain that they just can't compete. How hard is it to plan ahead? We had our first gas shortage in the 70's, and Detroit still hasn't built a car that gets 'good' gas mileage. I understand that part of the problem is that Japanese auto workers work for less money than UAW union members, but by the time they pay to have cars shipped over here and pay import taxes (if they even do that--look around, there are an awful lot of 'Japanese' cars being made right here in the United States. That avoids shipping costs and import taxes, but then they probably have to deal with union wages, the same as Big Three cars made in the US), there can't be much of an advantage (if any--why do you think so many Japanese car companies have set up plants here in the US?). It seems to me that the real problem is that the Big Three have grown complacent: For a lot of years, they only had to compete with each other (I say that, I mean, the Big Three has only been around for about fifty years. Chrysler invented hydraulic brakes in 1957 and changed the face of American car companies forever). Are the American car companies afraid of another Edsel?

And now Chrysler has hired new CEO Bob Nardelli, the man who received a 210 million dollar payout from Home Depot amidst fears that, if allowed to complete his contract as CEO, he would run the company into the ground. Does Chrysler know something that Home Depot didn't? One would hope so. Who knows? Maybe Home Depot's board just didn't understand Nardelli's work ethic; maybe this is the guy that's going to infuse some real innovation into American car manufacturing. I think what Detroit is missing is just the simple philosophy: Look at what people want and need, and work out ways to build it better, and less expensively than your competition, even if your competition stops working out ways to build its product better and cheaper. Isn't that the basic model of competition? When companies work to earn business from competitors, then they win, and, more importantly, consumers win.

Faith Without Works

'Christianity Today' magazine has an interesting article in it about a 'new perspective' on the writings of Apostle Paul. A lot of this revolves around references in Galatians chapter 2 (and elsewhere) to 'the works of the law.' The 'new perspective' is that, perhaps Paul was only referring to the core aspects of Judaism: Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws; and that he didn't mean that we, as Christians, were absolved of responsibility in doing good works. This has long been a tight-rope act of Christian thinkers. If salvation is a free gift, then can we simply do nothing except mouth the words, 'Jesus is Lord!' and be saved? On the other hand, if works are required, then why does Paul say that 'by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified?' I think you have to look at some of the other things that Paul wrote (and even some other things in the Bible).

For starters, let's look down to verse 21 (still in Galatians chapter 2): "I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." The point here is that Mosaic law tends to be a list of do's and don't's: Do this, don't do that, if you do, then sacrifice two turtledoves... In the next chapter (Galatians 3), in verses 24 and 25, Paul also tells us that the law was a 'schoolmaster' to bring us to Christ--to prepare us for the Messiah--but we are no longer under that schoolmaster. Jesus said that He was here to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). Further on in Galatians (chapter 5), Paul chides the Galatians for trying to live under Mosaic law, and yet live a Christian life. It isn't a matter of measuring oneself against an ancient checklist, it's a matter of walking in the spirit.

But isn't it faith that saves us? Absolutely. But, at the same time, James challenges us to demonstrate faith without works, and even goes on to say that faith without works is dead. Still later in the chapter, he compares faith without works to a body without a spirit. Do you think James meant what he said? Does this disagree with what Paul wrote? Take a look at Hebrews chapter 11. Notice that all through the chapter, faith is linked to works. I want to particularly point out that in verse 17 it makes reference to what many consider to be the ultimate test of faith--Abraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac. As Christians, we can see that this foreshadowed Christ's crucifixion, but my point is that, for Abraham, it was a test of faith. Did God doubt Abraham's faith? Of course not, God formed Abraham--God knew Abraham's heart better than Abraham himself did. The test was for Abraham; God wanted Abraham to know how much faith he had.

Likewise God tests our faith on a regular basis; not so that He can see how much faith we have, but so that we can see how much faith we, as individuals, have. Many of us fail these tests, and then excuse ourselves by saying, 'Not of works, lest any man should boast,' missing the next verse, which tells us that we are created unto good works. We have become completely oblivious to the fact that while we trust that our faith will save us, we continually fail test after test of our faith. In Matthew 17:20, Jesus told His disciples--the men who would later become known as the Apostles--that they had too much unbelief, and that if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, they could move mountains. Now, a mustard seed is pretty small, and a mountain is pretty big, and, obviously, if you're trying to move a mountain that God doesn't want moved, you're not going to accomplish much. But my question (and this question is as much to myself as it is to anyone else) is this: What have you done lately, that proves that you believe--even if it only proves it to yourself?

Odds and Ends

Oh, I wish I were an Oscar-Meyer wiener, then I could get a $50.00 parking ticket...

I think this is one of the dumbest ideas ever, but, there's still a good chance that it will become very popular. Still, I have a hard time understanding why anybody would want furniture that reminds them if they are putting on weight...

Speaking of 'Not too bright?'

Here are two guys that really went overboard gambling; I can't believe how much they lost... (Seems to me somebody in the United States got caught trying something very similar last year, but the punishment wasn't nearly so severe)

There are generally two sides to every story, but it doesn't seem like this story can have a good 'other side.' Assuming that this article is accurate, this woman got fired for recommending the best medical treatment available instead of eating beetroot, and for trying to clean up a hospital with a high infant mortality rate. If that gets you fired, then maybe it's time to emigrate...

Congratulations to Iraq's fütball team for winning the Asia cup (I don't want to say soccer, because they don't call it soccer, but I also don't want to call it football, because that is a completely different sport here in the US). If nothing else, this creates the impression that Iraq is, once again, a real country, and that it is progressing. Unfortunately, a lot of Sunni Iraqis are complaining already that most of the team is Shiite (as is most of Iraq), and they don't feel the victory nearly as personally--many of them just don't care. This should stir up some national pride.

Want some more good news from Iraq?

Names, Bridges, and Other Oddities

I realize that some parents try to come up with unique names for their children--nobody wants to call, "Hey, John!" at the playground and have forty seven kids come running--but this one has to make me wonder, are you 4real?

By now, everyone has heard about the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, but I wanted to include some links to the news. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, the Chicago Tribune , and the BBC. One of these things is not like the others... Also, Forbes reports that the state of Minnesote is putting the rebuilding project on the fast track-they hope to have it completed by the end of next year.

Al Sharpton has made a very reasonable demand...

A man was fished out of the sea at the Dutch resort of Zandvoort on Tuesday. I haven't figured out what "No Real Than You Are" means (of course, I'm still working on, "All your base are belong to us").

The Washington Times reports that Imam Didmar Faja (one of the Imams involved in a lawsuit against airline passengers who reported 'suspicious activity' by the Imams) has been attacked by someone throwing an 'acid bomb.' Apparently, someone driving by threw a pop-bottle filled with pool cleaner and aluminum foil at the Imam, who was standing outside of the Albanian American Islamic Center of Arizona at the time. They also note that they had no explanation as to why Imam Didmar Faja was standing on the sidewalk at 1:00 AM--three and a half hours before morning prayer. Of course, no one is suggesting anything nefarious about his being there (I can think of a number of reasons why he might have been there: He may have stayed late to finish up some paperwork and was just leaving, he may have had a late prayer, he may have had a meeting with other staff members that just ran really late--to be honest, I don't think that the journalist thought to ask that at the time), but, if the 'acid bomb' was directed specifically at him, how did his attackers know that he would be there? Is this part of his normal routine, or did they just happen to see him there, and happened to have in the car an empty pop-bottle, some pool-cleaning fluid, and aluminum foil, and said, "Hey, there's that trouble-making Imam who filed that lawsuit, let's pour some of this into there and see if we can throw it and splash some on him." I don't know; it sounds like kind of a stretch to me. I suppose it's possible, but I have to think that it was more like a couple of teenagers who had seen too many Mentos in Diet Coke videos on YouTube, and decided to try something similar. They probably set the thing up, but then had a limited amount of time to toss the thing, came around the corner, not expecting anybody to be standing there; probably didn't even notice him until after they threw it... Of course, being involved in the sort of legal action that he is, I can certainly understand his belief that this attack must be linked to the lawsuit. He probably has received threats because of it; there are a lot of crazies around. All in all, it seems like a lot of much ado about nothing, but the police are investigating it as a hate crime. The good news is, no one was hurt in the incident.

Bad Things

Here's a thought--does a terminally ill patient have the right to use promising, but still experimental drugs in attempt to prolong life, or possibly prevent death? The latest court ruling is, 'no.' To be honest, there does seem to be at least some evidence that the lawsuit was filed in an attempt to get the court to legislate from the bench, which I would have to disagree with. We have a legislative branch of our government; the judicial branch should be ruling on existing laws, not creating new ones. Still, perhaps we should turn our attention to Congress to have drug-approval laws relaxed under special circumstances (as in, these drugs may cause unwanted side-effects and may even kill, but the patient will definitely die without them).

Can a woman report a rape, and then refuse to testify against the men who raped her? Not in the military. It seems very unfair, on the face of it, but, let's consider. If she won't testify, then how do we know that she was truly raped? On the other hand, why would she lie about it? I don't have a good answer for either question. It would seem that if she was raped, then she would want to see her rapists punished. By refusing to testify, she essentially gives them permission to rape again--either herself, or someone else. Does she have some reason to forgive these men, and now she doesn't want to see them punished? Unfortunately, even after we get her, and the three men that she has accused, into a courtroom, we still may not know what really happened.

In other news, an elementary school playground is a complete loss after an arson attack in Canandaigua, New York. There has been a rash of similar fires in El Paso, Texas as well. Is this a new arson fad that I wasn't aware of? Who gets their jollies depriving school kids of a place to play? I really don't get it. From what I understand, the Canandaigua Elementary School normally left their playground open to the public, as there aren't many, if any, other playgrounds in the area. I would imagine that, if and when the playground is rebuilt, that practice will change. It shouldn't have to. We should be able to take care of our children.

One bad thing that didn't turn out quite so bad, a night clerk at a convenience store in Albany, NY took advantage of the less-than-stellar intellect of a robber. Good for Hafiz Alam. Unfortunately, he didn't actually prevent the robbery, but he managed to delay the robber long enough for someone to get a license plate number, and the robber was arrested later. Not sure how much, if any, of the money was recovered, but at least there's one less bad guy on the streets.

Which One Are You?

I have been thinking about Peter walking on the water and Elijah in the cave, hiding from Jezebel, and it occurs to me that they are both basically the same story. Let me explain:

In Matthew chapter 14, the ship was being tossed by the waves, and Jesus came unto the disciples, walking on the sea. Peter asked Jesus to summon him, Jesus did, and Peter stepped out of the boat, but when he took his eyes off of Jesus, he began to sink. In 1 Kings chapter 19, Elijah had been threatened by Jezebel, who was the Queen. He went and hid himself in a cave. God showed up, but as God was trying to talk to Elijah, there was a strong wind, and an earthquake, and a fire; but Elijah heard God, and they took care of their business. In both stories, each man had something that he needed to do; each man was trying to get closer to God. In Elijah's case, everything in the world tried to distract Elijah, so that he wouldn't be able to hear God's voice, but Elijah refused to be deterred, and listened carefully to God. Peter, on the other hand, only had to deal with a storm, but he let the storm distract him, and he took his eyes off of Jesus, and would have drowned, if Jesus hadn't saved him. The real difference between the two stories is that one man was attentive to God, and didn't let the world drown out God; the other man tried to be attentive, but let the world drag him down.

In our lives, we deal with all kinds of distractions all the time. We have televisions in our living rooms that deliver a constant stream of anything and everything (don't misunderstand me--I have a TV in my living room, too), people around us don't live like they should (do you really think that they will live better than you do? And if you think that they're living worse than you are, you might need to examine yourself a little closer), there's violence in the streets, corruption in our government, draughts, and floods... You don't have to look for distractions, they are all around. Some of them pose very real concerns, but, are you letting them stand between you and the prize? Sometimes the world will just grind you down, but God is not in the wind, or the earthquake, or the fire, or the neighbor who plays his stereo too loud, or even the religious leader whose despicably behavior you have become aware of.

God didn't create us to be perfect. The easy explanation is that if we were perfect, we wouldn't need God--I think that there is more to it than that, but, for now, that's reason enough. God did give us free will. We can choose to do right, or we can choose not to. He allows us to choose. Doing the right thing means so much more if you do it for the right reason, as opposed to not having any choice in the matter. Yes, that's means that sometimes innocent people get hurt. If you're one of those people, then I am very sorry. I honestly don't know what that feels like--I'm much too old to remember ever being innocent. God does know how that feels, though. God robed Himself in flesh and dwelt among us, and, being condemned by the religious leaders of the day, was turned over to the government. He was tortured and killed by the people that should have recognized Him as a complete innocent. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. We, being His creation, turned on Him. I wonder what that feels like. I hope I never find out.

What's in Your Translation?

There are many, many translations of the Bible out there; some of them have gotten a lot of criticism. I think the important thing is that it be accurate, and that you can understand it.

The King James Version is quite possibly the most controversial. Almost everyone seems to think that it is accurate, but, it was translated 400 years ago. The English language has changed since then, it's hard to understand now. There's a lot of truth to that, but, at the same time, William Shakespeare was writing plays at the time the KJV was translated, and you very rarely see the language in his plays updated (with the notable exception of West Side Story). It does take some work to understand the KJV, but most things worth doing require some effort.

The version has also taken a number of attacks based on the personal qualities of King James, himself. A little research will show that King James did not translate the KJV himself. He merely understood that the British people wanted an accurate translation that they could read. Protestantism was still fairly new in England, and the Catholic church had discouraged people from reading the Bible for themselves, telling them that they wouldn't be able to understand it (if you have a question, ask your parish priest). King James promised protection to the translators, made resources available, and ordered them to make sure that their translation was accurate. I think we can be assured that whatever bad habits the King had, they didn't creep into the translation that bears his name.

I had someone argue the accuracy of the translation once, on the grounds of Joseph's coat of many colors. They told me that they had done some research and determined that the word translated as 'colors' really meant 'long sleeved.' They went on to tell me that it made more sense that way anyway, because many colors simply meant using dye. Long sleeves would have made the coat more valuable, that was why Joseph's brothers were so jealous. I put forth the question, "But isn't a coat long-sleeved, anyway?" "Oh, well, not necessarily. You could have a short-sleeved coat." I don't remember ever seeing one... But I did a little research. First I went into a store and compared prices on shirts. In general, a solid colored, short-sleeved shirt from a given manufacturer costs less than either a solid-colored long-sleeved shirt or a patterned, short-sleeve shirt from the same manufacturer. The solid-colored, long-sleeved shirt and the patterned, short-sleeved shirt cost about the same (in fact, the first store I looked at, they cost exactly the same). Now, Joseph's father Jacob was a shepherd. Getting wool for long sleeves shouldn't have been such a big deal. Buying dye would have been more difficult. Also, we tend to take dye for granted, these days. All kinds of companies make all kinds of dyes available at your local market at very reasonable prices, but it wasn't always that way. In Jacob's day, a person who could gather the right berries or flowers or whatever to extract a permanent dye was considered to be an artisan--a highly skilled worker. Dyes were expensive. But, in looking at a parallel Bible, and comparing the English words to the Greek words, I saw that the word translated as 'colour' really does mean 'long sleeved tunic.' What the... So what does the word translated as coat mean? Well, it does mean coat (or robe)--and I have to believe that, in the days before Larry the Cable Guy, that meant having long sleeves. So what is this business about a coat of many long-sleeved tunics? What does that mean exactly, why were the brothers so jealous, and why did the translators translate tunics and colours? After a great deal of thought and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that it comes down to this:

Jacob had thirteen children, twelve boys and a girl. Joseph was, in fact, the twelfth child, but the first son of Rachel. When Jacob was a young man, he fell in love with Rachel. He fell very hard. He agreed to work for Laban (Rachel's father) for seven years if Laban would give him Rachel to be his bride. Apparently, Laban thought that during those seven years, that he would be able to marry off Leah, Rachel's older sister. When the seven years were complete, Laban made sure that Jacob imbibed to excess at the wedding. When Jacob awoke the next morning, he not only had a terrible hangover, but he found that he had spent the night with the wrong sister. Laban was apologetic, but explained that it was not the custom to marry off the younger sister first. A lesser man might have made a case for justifiable homicide, but Jacob agreed to work another seven years for Rachel's hand. The next few years get very involved, suffice it to say that only the last two children were birthed by the woman that Jacob loved. Those two, Joseph and Benjamin, became his clear favorites. So, one day the time came that Joseph needed a new coat. Times were hard, and Jacob had a big family to take care of. There's no money in the till to buy a new coat; there's not even spare wool to make a coat, they need to sell all the wool they've got, just to eat. So what does Jacob do? What can he do? Well, there are several hand-me-down coats that he could give to Joseph, but each of them has something wrong with it. Levi stumbled into the brambles wearing this coat, the left sleeve and the back are badly torn. Reuben fell on some rocks wearing this one, the front is all torn up, and there are bloodstains over much of the rest of it. Asher fell out of tree wearing this one, and it's a mess. And so on. But Jacob realizes that if he takes a part of each coat, and then sews the parts together, that he will have a fine coat for Joseph. The colors will be mis-matched, of course, so he's going to have to put some extra effort into making this coat look nice for Rachel's son; he's not about to let Joseph roam the countryside wearing a raggedy old coat--this coat needs to be the absolute best. But he can't take time away from the sheep to work on this coat, either, that means that he's burning oil in his lantern working late into the night making sure that this coat is everything it could be. And all of his children know what he's doing. And most of them know he wouldn't have done it for them. Jealous? You bet. Wouldn't you be? That's all supposition, you say. Okay, it is; but I have to think that it's pretty close to what actually happened. It wasn't the colors or the sleeves that Joseph's brothers were jealous of, it was their father's love.

Another argument has been made about some of the expression used in the KJV. for example, there are a few times in the Bible where it talks about 'fetching a compass,' and it sounds like a reference to a navigational instrument, but that instrument wasn't invented until around 1000. The compass that they are referring to would be used to draw circles (or half-circles) on a map or chart, the expression refers to circling around. I will not deny that this passage is clearer in every other version I have looked at.

Another passage that has inspired more than a little controversy is 1 John 5:7-8. In the King James, this reads, "For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Most modern versions have a much shorter passage, for example, the New International Version reads: "For there are three that testify: (8) The Spirit, the Water and the blood; and these three are in agreement." I read somewhere that the most common type of error when copying long texts by hand is the error of omission, particularly when the same (or a similar) phrase is repeated soon after the first time it is used. The book that I read this in went on to give a long explanation as to why that couldn't be the reason that 1 John 5:7-8 read the way it does it most modern versions. To be honest, I was so surprised by the lack of logic in that, I don't even remember what his reasoning was. If you look at these in the original Greek then it makes even more sense. Five of the first six words of each verse are the same in Greek (1 John 5:7 "Οτι τρεις εισιυ οι μαρτυρουντες εν ...", 1 John 5:8 "Και τρεις εισιυ οι μαρτυρουντες εν ..."). It would be a very simple mistake to start copying 1 John 5:7, read a few words from the original, write a few words in the copy, glance back at the original and find those words just copied, read a few more words, and copy a few more words. That one word for bear witness or bear record, μαρτυρουντες, looks like a key word to me. If I were copying this, I would look for that word when I went back to the original. One piece of reasoning often used to explain ignoring the text is that it isn't found in the older manuscripts. Of course, frequently a manuscript was copied because the old one was wearing out, so the old manuscript was destroyed once the copy had been checked for accuracy. Of course, if a manuscript wasn't used, then, not only would the omission not be noticed, but it wouldn't wear out, so the defective manuscript might be older...

I've made my case. If it doesn't make sense to you, then okay, fine, that's your decision. If it does, good. Either way, I think that it's important that you have an accurate translation that you can understand. If you have to work at understanding it, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If it's easy to understand, but it's wrong, then it doesn't help you at all.

Various Curiosities

The Korean scientists who was villified in 2004 for claiming to have cloned embryonic stem cells has been acquitted--sort of. The BBC reports on it here, and Time magazine here. I think that a lot of people are confused about the issue of stem cell research. Stem cells are cells that have not yet been specialized. Quite frankly, to some extent they are mysteries of medical science. We know that when an embryo is formed, it starts as a single cell, and it divides into multiple cells, and eventually most of those cells form internal organs, hands, feet, etc. No one has yet found any markers in embryonic cells that tell them whether to become a liver or an eye, they just do. I believe that somewhere along the line, scientists have tried reorganizing embryonic cells in a developing embryo (to see if an arm would form in a chimpanzee's back) only to find that this caused no abnormality in the developing fetus. The excitement of the research is that if we can take these undifferentiated cells and inject them into damaged tissue (say, into the brain of someone with Parkinson's, or the skin of a burn victim) then the stem cells should form into the type of tissue that they are around, and eliminate the problem. The media has focused mainly on embryonic stem cell research, even though there are also adult stem cells. There are three problems with embryonic stem cell research: The most well-known of which is that a lot of people feel that destroying one 'life' in order to help other people is immoral--somewhat Orwellian. The other two are actual medical problems: Stem cells still have DNA, and the new tissue formed by stem cells may be rejected by the host body (the patient's own immune system). This can be overcome with immune-response suppressing drugs, but this then poses a new risk to the patient's life, since his immune system is inhibited. The other, which may be closely related, is that they haven't yet succeeded in getting the stem cells to do what they are supposed to do. Lab animals injected with stem cells to test a treatment for Parkinson's simply end up with brain tumors, not functioning, healthy brain tissue. All three problems can be averted by using adult stem cells from the patient's own body. The moral dilemma is overcome, since one life is not being destroyed to cultivate the stem cells, the immune response is not a problem, since the stem cells share the patient's own DNA, and they don't form tumors. Unfortunately, they also (as of yet) don't form the type of cells that we expect. Stem cell researchers continue to tell us that both avenues of research are very promising, we'll just have to wait and see.

On a completely different topic, the NAACP is urging people to remember that Michael Vick is innocent until proven guilty. It has been pointed out that they didn't take that attitude with the Duke Lacrosse team case, and, to their credit, have admitted that it was a mistake. They have also pointed out that Michael Vick has already been treated much more severely than, say, Kobe Bryant, who was accused of rape in 2004. To be honest, that's a good point. Do we really feel that dogfighting is a more heinous crime than rape? Check this.

In the meantime, some Californians are complaining about street vendors selling Mexican food. I've mentioned before that I am a Navy veteran, and, as such, have had opportunity to see how things work in other countries. In the Republic of the Philippines, they used to have push-carts near the base called 'point-points' because a lot of times the vendors didn't speak English, and a lot of sailors couldn't pronounce the words, 'lumpia' (egg rolls) or 'pansit' (noodles made from rice, sometimes served with some form of meat--don't ask what kind--or sweetened and served as a dessert), so you just point to what you want on the point-point. In Israel street vendors used to have 'shishliks' (barbecue spits) set up, where you could get barbecued lamb served on pita bread with various fixings, very much like the Greek sandwich known as a gyro. New York City has had street vendors for years (mostly selling hot dogs). The complaint in California seems to be that the street vendors are hurting the business of sit-down restaurants. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to sympathize with a restaurant selling actual food that can't compete with a push-cart full of tacos. If you can't serve up lasagna in such a way that people would rather sit down and eat than walk down the sidewalk eating a taco, then maybe you should be looking for another line of work.

A 'Rocky Mountain Oyster' festival in Clinton, Montana is being threatened by fires. My local supermarket sells those, but they don't call them that--they call them 'bovine surprise.' Fortunately, we have a thriving Latino community, so the grocery store uses bi-lingual labelling. The Spanish name makes a lot more sense to me, 'Testiculos de Toro.' Either way, they don't seem to sell very many of them.

The Perfect Life

Yesterday I posted a link to an opinion posted in the New York Times about the Iraq War. Today CNN has jumped on the bandwagon.

This is the sort of thing that keeps gun control at bay; but it could have been different if Williams had found Hill's gun while Hill was unconscious... Still, good for Hill.

Also, Newsweek had this to say about the Korean hostages. It says a lot about the mentality of the Taliban, Here these people are in Afghanistan, trying to help people (people in general--not asking questions about affiliations with terrorist organizations); this Taliban leader thinks if he grabs some hostages, then he can negotiate a swap (hostages for Taliban prisoners). Afghan president Hamid Karzai is in a tough spot. He doesn't want these foreigners killed, that makes relations with South Korea more difficult, but, at the same time, if he goes ahead with the trade, it only encourages terrorists to kidnap more hostages. Maybe that's better than suicide bombers...

That's something I'm curious about. I know that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, suicide is considered to be a major sin, as in the fast-track to Hell kind of sin. Does Islam not believe that? Or are suicide bombers considered to be soldiers for the cause, and their deaths thought to be the responsibility of the enemy? I don't know. I do know that the Bible says that every way of a man is right in his own eyes; basically we human beings are clever enough that we can find a way to justify virtually anything. A lot of times we can find ways to do despicable things, and then turn around and blame someone else for 'forcing' us to do it.

I commented the other day about the us-vs.-them mentality. One of the effects of that mentality is a tendency to blame someone else for what has gone wrong in one's own life (whether that person was a contributing factor, or just a convenient scape-goat). "I didn't get a Wii for Christmas. Santa must believe the lies that my brother told about me." [This is, of course, a particularly efficient blame game. It isn't entirely Santa's fault; little brother lied, so it's mostly his fault. Except, of course, that not everything that little brother said was a lie.] "I didn't get promoted at work. That jerk Larry must have told the boss that I was slacking off." [Why? Was Larry the only one who knew that you were slacking off?] "I didn't get a good grade on my English term paper. My teacher just doesn't like me." [Maybe if you had put a little more effort into it, instead of trying to write your paper during the commercials...] Let's face it, when it comes to the blame game, most of us are very quick to look anywhere but in the mirror. Granted, there are a lot of times that other people contribute to our problems, but, generally, we can work our way through our problems, if we just work. Granted, once one problem is solved (or at least out-lived), there's another one on the doorstep ready to take its place, but let's face it, we human beings would never be happy unless we had something to keep us occupied (and I don't mean television, although that can work for awhile). We can't stand boredom, and we could never be happy living 'the perfect life.' It just goes against our nature.

Things Not Really Related

I just read about a guy named Harry Potter who gets a lot of attention whenever a new J. K. Rowling book comes out, or a movie based on one of her books. For some reason, I've never had that problem with Jumanji fans (maybe if Robin Williams had played me).

I also read about a 4-foot python that tried to wrap itself around a toddler in Charlotte, NC. The snake was taken to a pet store. The store owner made a comment that I find interesting: "It's a totally harmless thing. Why attack a harmless thing?" In context, it appears that he is talking about the snake being attacked, rather than the toddler. Curious.

I heard a comment about 'church-speak' the other day. 'Church-speak' refers to words or terms used by the 'churched' that are not understood by the 'unchurched.' I find that an interesting concept, particularly since some churches use terms that other churches don't, or that other churches use differently. For example, some years ago, I went to visit a church for the first time, and the man that invited me warned me that I would probably be asked to give a 'testimony.' I thought that was a little odd; I grew up going to church, but I had never heard of giving a testimony in church--I thought that was something you did in court. I considered asking him what he meant, but I figured that, when the time came, other people would be asked to share their testimonies first, and I would get a feel for what was expected of me. As a result, the first testimony I ever heard in church, was me saying, "I don't know what to say."

Sometimes these terms are acronyms. I just recently learned that 'frog' in church-speak means, 'Fully Rely On God.' I never would have guessed that one. Some say that 'Bible' really stands for 'Basic instructions Before Leaving Earth.' I've even heard 'WWW' for 'Why not Worship Wednesdays?' to counter the tendency of a lot of churches to either not meet on Wednesday nights at all, or to just have a Bible study.

'Trinity' is an interesting term. I have heard a lot of descriptions of Trinity. One person said that Trinity is like an egg: It has a shell, a yolk, and albumin (or white). But isn't it all just one egg? Can you have an egg made up entirely of eggshell? One person told me that Trinity is like a cherry pie. You can cut the pie into thirds, but the gooey pie filling will just ooze back together, so that it's all still one. Of course, St. Patrick's famous analogy was that Trinity was like a shamrock--each shamrock has three leaves. Like the egg analogy though, what would you call one leaf of a shamrock? It's not still a shamrock, if it's separated from the other two leaves, is it? Christianity is defined as a monotheistic religion, but a lot of Christians seem to think that they serve three separate gods. If God is one, and His Name one, then isn't Trinity just a description of three manifestations of God? I heard someone say once that that idea is like thinking that God is a player on a stage, who puts on different masks at different times and in different situations. Put that way, it sounds silly, but Apostle Paul said that he is become all things to all men. Wouldn't God approach some people differently than others, because of differences in personality, culture, or situation? Surely God wouldn't create such a divers population for this planet and then try to use a one-size-fits-all approach on us?

Some years back, a young man from another religious organization told one of the associate pastors at our church that God definitely was three persons. The associate pastor asked him if he was created in God's image. After the young man answered in the affirmative, then the AP asked him if he was three persons. "Wouldn't that make you schizophrenic? Do you think God is schizophrenic?" This was, of course, intended to provoke thought. Apparently the young man wasn't capable of too much intelligent thought, though, because soon a rumor was going around that we believed that God was schizophrenic. Several weeks later, I had a guy ask me why we thought God was schizophrenic; I told him, "God's not schizophrenic. He knows He's one God." That was the last we heard from them about schizophrenia.