What is the central point of competition? Tom Chivers says it is to win. While I can at least accept the premise, that begs the question of whether winning must be defined as the game at hand or if it can be more global in its perspective.
For example, did anyone think it was a bad idea for the Cleveland Cavaliers to lose games to make it more likely that they got LeBron James? Or for the Spurs to do the same for Tim Duncan? Or for the Colts to get Andrew Luck? Or for the Mariners to get Ken Griffey, Jr? Or for the Penguins to get Sidney Crosby? Or for any team to lose games to yield a star that will help them win games?
Further, do we complain when a team is "rebuilding" and knowingly plays players who are not as good right now in the hopes that they'll be good in the future? Is playing a rookie quarterback acceptable when a veteran could win you a few more games? Would starting a twenty year old shortstop, whose best days are ahead OK, if your backup is a thirty seven year old whose best days are behind him, if the older guy is better?
Is it OK to intentionally miss a free throw if you are down two and there is only one second left? Is it OK to take an intentional safety if your team is up three with four seconds to go at the beginning of the play? Is it acceptable to intentionally walk Barry Bonds with the bases loaded if you are down two runs? There are times when the overall picture of winning encourages or even mandates the participation in something that is ordinarily negative. We even have a phrase dedicated to the philosophy of "Winning the battle, but losing the war."
This isn't exclusive to sports. In war, people often pick their battles. In politics, candidates choose which districts to completely saturate and which districts to barely campaign. Even at conventions, states withhold their support of a Presidential candidate, so that a given state can push him over the top. I recall being a student, and being judicious of which subject to study more. A famous piece of advice in cards is to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.
The reality is that there are competitions all the time where the team or person sacrifices something in order to achieve something greater, and we accept it with absolutely no questions. For the badminton people to get upset because someone logically looked at the bracket and wanted to avoid their countrymen, whether it was for perceived accomplishment assistance or just personal preference, there is a certain amount that must be accepted.
So, at what level do we insist upon people trying to win each small component of the overall competition. With the Olympic issue of badminton, the most damning part to me is that the ref warned them and they still obviously gave no effort. Beyond the ignoring of the warning, I'm not sure I see any problem with it. Yes, I want people to want to win everything they are supposedly trying to win, but sometimes there is a strategy to losing.
Some will say that the system is to blame. If it were a strait elimination they say, people would be forced to try. While it is true that people would be forced to try every match, it would also not guarantee as many matches, would be less likely to assure the best teams get second and third and give the fans fewer matches to watch. It is also true that a playoff is not a perfect solution. This particular situation would have been just as (if not more) benefited by doing a pure round robin where every team played every other team. Also, they could schedule all intra-country match-ups in the first round, so that they can only benefit their countrymen later by winning.
The funny part, however, is that the main offense is that they didn't even appear to try. I guess if they were better at faking it, there would have been no penalty. I guess it is the next level of competition where people find reasons to lose, so those who run competitions just need to make rules against those things that they find objectionable, but we really need to look at what competition is.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Monopolies stink
The monopoly of utility companies has me fired up. This seems to happen to me about once a year. I get upset with one of my utility providers, usually because of something to which I am contributorily, in a very small way, at fault. But we have created a culture where I like to think I deserve better.
If I don't like the service at a restaurant, I merely pick up and go to another restaurant. The same is true of banks which under-perform, which unfortunately, I have had to exercise that right recently. I also will move to a new spot if a landlord is not treating me fairly. I will find a new doctor if I don't like the one I have. I'll rent a car from another provider, if need be.
The free market system definitely has its advantages, one of which is the ability to not have to work with someone once we decide we do not want to do so. This is a pretty cool thing. I have nightmares of being forced to deal with someone after the natural course of our dealings has run, and I really can't stand the thought.
The one exception (well, there may be more, but they are all I can think of) to this concept in this country is utility companies. When I end up having a run-in with the water company or the power company, I can complain all I want, but at the end of the day, there isn't anything I can do.
Almost four years ago, I had an issue with the local gas company. It seems that I paid 13 cents short on a bill (actually their accounting department just doesn't understand fractions). So that the when the next bill came out, we were in "late" status, meaning we had to pay them about ten days earlier to avoid being shut off. Knowing I had paid the bill, I did not treat it special.
They ended up shutting off my gas, meaning no hot water for showers (or drinking, if that is your cup of tea). The payment had already been mailed to their offices in Tampa, and they received it later that same day they had shut me off. Yet, they made us wait almost four days before my showers became warm again.
Earlier this week, we had an investment property that we sold, and when I called to shut off the power, they decided to shut off the power in my house instead. Now, it may make sense to some people to turn off the power to a house that has a wife and three kids living there, but to me that seems nonsensical. Nevertheless, when I called them, they made me pay them forty dollars to turn it back on. According to them, I did not clearly communicate that it was the investment where I wanted the power turned off.
Now, you may notice that in both of these cases, (some would say) part of the issue was on me. But in both cases, a reasonable person would say that the part I played was exceedingly minor. This is the issue with utilities. I cannot change. So, no matter how irritated they make me, I just cannot amend my service. With most companies, even though I play a small part in that misunderstanding, I capitalize on the fact that their bigger issue was at play.
In fairness, on the other side of the equation, I have often lost money in a business deal when someone didn't communicate what they wanted well, and I made a decision based on that. That is how it works, unless of course you have no competition and I have to pay $40 because your person answering the phone is a moron.
If I don't like the service at a restaurant, I merely pick up and go to another restaurant. The same is true of banks which under-perform, which unfortunately, I have had to exercise that right recently. I also will move to a new spot if a landlord is not treating me fairly. I will find a new doctor if I don't like the one I have. I'll rent a car from another provider, if need be.
The free market system definitely has its advantages, one of which is the ability to not have to work with someone once we decide we do not want to do so. This is a pretty cool thing. I have nightmares of being forced to deal with someone after the natural course of our dealings has run, and I really can't stand the thought.
The one exception (well, there may be more, but they are all I can think of) to this concept in this country is utility companies. When I end up having a run-in with the water company or the power company, I can complain all I want, but at the end of the day, there isn't anything I can do.
Almost four years ago, I had an issue with the local gas company. It seems that I paid 13 cents short on a bill (actually their accounting department just doesn't understand fractions). So that the when the next bill came out, we were in "late" status, meaning we had to pay them about ten days earlier to avoid being shut off. Knowing I had paid the bill, I did not treat it special.
They ended up shutting off my gas, meaning no hot water for showers (or drinking, if that is your cup of tea). The payment had already been mailed to their offices in Tampa, and they received it later that same day they had shut me off. Yet, they made us wait almost four days before my showers became warm again.
Earlier this week, we had an investment property that we sold, and when I called to shut off the power, they decided to shut off the power in my house instead. Now, it may make sense to some people to turn off the power to a house that has a wife and three kids living there, but to me that seems nonsensical. Nevertheless, when I called them, they made me pay them forty dollars to turn it back on. According to them, I did not clearly communicate that it was the investment where I wanted the power turned off.
Now, you may notice that in both of these cases, (some would say) part of the issue was on me. But in both cases, a reasonable person would say that the part I played was exceedingly minor. This is the issue with utilities. I cannot change. So, no matter how irritated they make me, I just cannot amend my service. With most companies, even though I play a small part in that misunderstanding, I capitalize on the fact that their bigger issue was at play.
In fairness, on the other side of the equation, I have often lost money in a business deal when someone didn't communicate what they wanted well, and I made a decision based on that. That is how it works, unless of course you have no competition and I have to pay $40 because your person answering the phone is a moron.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Chick-Fil-A
Now I think I will be accused of watching the news, as I once again want to address something in the news. It seems that the head cow of Chick-Fil-A has stated that he does not believe homosexuality to be an acceptable choice for Christians to make. This has many within the GLTB community (along with their supporters) stating that Christians are missing the point by being condemning rather than forgiving and judging when Christ says not to do so.
The first question that comes to mind for me is, "Is there any truth to the liberal claims?" First, the issue of whether we should be condemning or forgiving is an illegitimate point. As my friend Michael Phillips says, "Without Condemnation, there is no need for grace." The assertion that we need to forgive necessarily supposes that there is a sin in place. This is why the argument itself is terribly silly. If people need to forgiven, then they must be in the wrong.
I guess that is why the juxtaposition of not judging must likewise be asserted. The people would like us to, if we actually get past the point to realize it is an actual sin, not assert sin because it seems to be judging. Maybe this is just the fact that I went to law school, but I believe pointing out that someone else pronounces you guilty is more akin to reporting than judging.
Furthermore, I don't believe Matthew 7:1 means that we aren't supposed to judge anyway. The chapter divisions are certainly there for a reason, but they should not be to eliminate the context. The end of Matthew 6 is about how we are not God. It speaks of how we cannot add even a small amount to our height or our beauty. It speaks of how the Gentiles seek after food, drink, or clothing on their own, while we should know that our Father in heaven can take care of these things better.
We are to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Do not worry about tomorrow, for "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Judge not, that ye be not judged." The context is that we leave these things to God, and we will be judged by the scale with which we are judging. We should not worry about someone else's small problems when we ourselves have bigger issues. Take care of what we can first, then we can see clearly to help these others. Ask and it shall be given.
Now, to me that sounds like more of a command to be more introspective and then, be careful to not create our own judging standards, knowing that hypocrisy is a potential worry. In this regard, I find it funny that most who attempt to assert this verse are blatantly saying that they want to create their own system for judging. They want people to bend to their definition of what is correct or incorrect, what should or should not be accepted. Nevertheless, if they say we are supposed to look to Jesus as our guide, I think we should look at that.
Jesus was quick to criticize those who turned His father's house into a house of merchandise. He called the scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! He also compared them to whited sepulchers, beautiful outward, but full of dead men's bones and uncleanness. And these were people who thought they were doing right, as they followed the law to such a degree that they would tithe liquid and ground gifts they received.
I think the larger point that is made is that we do not (and cannot) know someone's eternal destiny. What we can do is look at the facts before us, and when we see someone who has no consideration for the things of God, we can show them where they fall short, but it should be a means to point them to God and His provision for our sinful ways. If that is not the point of the action, then it is nothing but idle banter.
This is potentially where the reaction-ists may have a point. Whether you agree with what Dan Cathy said or not, the question could easily be, is he acting in love and an attempt to point people to Christ or is he attempting to hand out judgment beyond what the Scriptures suggest. Several verses later (Matthew 7:16), Jesus says that we will know them by their fruit.
And, if we look at the "fruit" of Chick-Fil-A which has hiring and serving practices that have never discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. They have taken a stand to be closed on Sunday, but never mandated that anyone go to church. Chick-Fil-A, until this recent comment, had been largely above reproach. Chick-Fil-A and Mr. Cathy have never made a homosexual uncomfortable before this, and this is merely a statement of belief. I think clearly, this is an area where he is not attempting to goad people, but rather, point them to truth.
In fact, I would assert that Chick-Fil-A is much like the artists of yore. Centuries ago, the great artists went about doing their art and the response to the art, led people to discover that they were doing it as a service to God. Today, in many arenas people will complain about Christian art not being on par with that of the secular world. But I rarely, if ever, hear that people dislike the quality of Chick-Fil-A. It wasn't until years after I had my first sandwich that I realized it was a restaurant of Christian character. And, I think we would do well if others emulated that concept.
The first question that comes to mind for me is, "Is there any truth to the liberal claims?" First, the issue of whether we should be condemning or forgiving is an illegitimate point. As my friend Michael Phillips says, "Without Condemnation, there is no need for grace." The assertion that we need to forgive necessarily supposes that there is a sin in place. This is why the argument itself is terribly silly. If people need to forgiven, then they must be in the wrong.
I guess that is why the juxtaposition of not judging must likewise be asserted. The people would like us to, if we actually get past the point to realize it is an actual sin, not assert sin because it seems to be judging. Maybe this is just the fact that I went to law school, but I believe pointing out that someone else pronounces you guilty is more akin to reporting than judging.
Furthermore, I don't believe Matthew 7:1 means that we aren't supposed to judge anyway. The chapter divisions are certainly there for a reason, but they should not be to eliminate the context. The end of Matthew 6 is about how we are not God. It speaks of how we cannot add even a small amount to our height or our beauty. It speaks of how the Gentiles seek after food, drink, or clothing on their own, while we should know that our Father in heaven can take care of these things better.
We are to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Do not worry about tomorrow, for "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Judge not, that ye be not judged." The context is that we leave these things to God, and we will be judged by the scale with which we are judging. We should not worry about someone else's small problems when we ourselves have bigger issues. Take care of what we can first, then we can see clearly to help these others. Ask and it shall be given.
Now, to me that sounds like more of a command to be more introspective and then, be careful to not create our own judging standards, knowing that hypocrisy is a potential worry. In this regard, I find it funny that most who attempt to assert this verse are blatantly saying that they want to create their own system for judging. They want people to bend to their definition of what is correct or incorrect, what should or should not be accepted. Nevertheless, if they say we are supposed to look to Jesus as our guide, I think we should look at that.
Jesus was quick to criticize those who turned His father's house into a house of merchandise. He called the scribes and pharisees, hypocrites! He also compared them to whited sepulchers, beautiful outward, but full of dead men's bones and uncleanness. And these were people who thought they were doing right, as they followed the law to such a degree that they would tithe liquid and ground gifts they received.
I think the larger point that is made is that we do not (and cannot) know someone's eternal destiny. What we can do is look at the facts before us, and when we see someone who has no consideration for the things of God, we can show them where they fall short, but it should be a means to point them to God and His provision for our sinful ways. If that is not the point of the action, then it is nothing but idle banter.
This is potentially where the reaction-ists may have a point. Whether you agree with what Dan Cathy said or not, the question could easily be, is he acting in love and an attempt to point people to Christ or is he attempting to hand out judgment beyond what the Scriptures suggest. Several verses later (Matthew 7:16), Jesus says that we will know them by their fruit.
And, if we look at the "fruit" of Chick-Fil-A which has hiring and serving practices that have never discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. They have taken a stand to be closed on Sunday, but never mandated that anyone go to church. Chick-Fil-A, until this recent comment, had been largely above reproach. Chick-Fil-A and Mr. Cathy have never made a homosexual uncomfortable before this, and this is merely a statement of belief. I think clearly, this is an area where he is not attempting to goad people, but rather, point them to truth.
In fact, I would assert that Chick-Fil-A is much like the artists of yore. Centuries ago, the great artists went about doing their art and the response to the art, led people to discover that they were doing it as a service to God. Today, in many arenas people will complain about Christian art not being on par with that of the secular world. But I rarely, if ever, hear that people dislike the quality of Chick-Fil-A. It wasn't until years after I had my first sandwich that I realized it was a restaurant of Christian character. And, I think we would do well if others emulated that concept.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The First Time
In Economics we study the Law of Diminishing Returns. A textbook once told me that it is defined as "in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant, will at some point yield lower per-unit returns." Basically, this means that the first time you have or get something, you like it the most and as time goes by, you like it less.
This law works for things like food (how many of us enjoy steak #6 as much as steak #1), buying a home (there aren't a lot of programs for third time home buyers), weddings (no one seems to attend someone's fourth wedding), impressions (how much do we really rely on 15th impressions), paychecks (I've never seen anyone save their 254th paycheck), or mistakes (I still remember the stupid things I did in my youth, but now they happen so frequently...).
A quick search means there are at least ten popular songs that have "The First Time" in the title and they romanticize at least seven different things. I think it is safe to say that when we speak of the first time we do anything, we romanticize that event. For example, my kids are still excited about their first hotel room. My son talks about his first year in school and my daughter is excited about it. I have a friend who recently got his first job. Someone the other day was asking me about my first kiss.
There is a natural excitement that comes along with doing anything for the first time. The question always is, "Am I going to let the fear of what might happen override my potential excitement of doing something for the first time?" And, as I have lamented before, we often let the fear of change keep us from new experiences for the first time. Fortunately, I have a wife and kids who pushed me to try all kinds of things for the first time on a recent trip. I can tout all the wonderful things I've done once.
What I hope, however, is that I do not allow the fact that trying new things won't be as exciting in the future as it was the first time from actually trying. Regardless, however, there is a magic to doing something you've never done before. So, I encourage you all to pack up your loved ones and do new and grand things for The First Time and appreciate the wonder, awe, and amazement that comes with doing something for The First Time!
This law works for things like food (how many of us enjoy steak #6 as much as steak #1), buying a home (there aren't a lot of programs for third time home buyers), weddings (no one seems to attend someone's fourth wedding), impressions (how much do we really rely on 15th impressions), paychecks (I've never seen anyone save their 254th paycheck), or mistakes (I still remember the stupid things I did in my youth, but now they happen so frequently...).
A quick search means there are at least ten popular songs that have "The First Time" in the title and they romanticize at least seven different things. I think it is safe to say that when we speak of the first time we do anything, we romanticize that event. For example, my kids are still excited about their first hotel room. My son talks about his first year in school and my daughter is excited about it. I have a friend who recently got his first job. Someone the other day was asking me about my first kiss.
There is a natural excitement that comes along with doing anything for the first time. The question always is, "Am I going to let the fear of what might happen override my potential excitement of doing something for the first time?" And, as I have lamented before, we often let the fear of change keep us from new experiences for the first time. Fortunately, I have a wife and kids who pushed me to try all kinds of things for the first time on a recent trip. I can tout all the wonderful things I've done once.
What I hope, however, is that I do not allow the fact that trying new things won't be as exciting in the future as it was the first time from actually trying. Regardless, however, there is a magic to doing something you've never done before. So, I encourage you all to pack up your loved ones and do new and grand things for The First Time and appreciate the wonder, awe, and amazement that comes with doing something for The First Time!
Monday, July 23, 2012
Hotel vs. Motel
The first half of our trip was a success and torture. As the end of the wedding marked our touching the wall in a "there-and-back" race, we left in a hurry. Actually, we have a weird challenge to stay in every state and New York had been crossed off our list. So, as we decided to head back a slightly different way than we came, we took off.
We would be to Pennsylvania in just a couple of hours, so we were geared up to stay in that state. Unfortunately, we learned that if there is ever a July 21 on a Saturday, the state of Pennsylvania comes together to make sure every hotel owner is well compensated for the event. We literally called 13 hotels in the state that were all sold out. They were all Hampton Inns, because I am a hotel snob (which may become ironic later). At any rate, we ended up driving past 2 AM, when we found a handicap room in Frederick, Maryland (We made Jacob limp on the way in).
The one good thing is we made it through a myriad of roads that normally are congested enough and are not interstates, so that driving the maximum speed is usually impossible. We made pretty good time. However, the late arrival made waking up early something we just didn't do. This turned out to be terrible, because although we made it through DC without an issue, we ended up delayed by three different wrecks through Virginia, and the good time was thrown out the window.
What was supposed to be a short drive and early arrival at the hotel ended up a few hours later than we had hoped. Nevertheless, when we arrived, we were surprised to find that the Hampton Inn was a motel. (A motel being an accommodation where the rooms open up to the parking lot, whereas the hotel has rooms that open up to the hallway in the middle). Perhaps it should not matter to me, but when I make a reservation at a Hampton, I expect for it to be a hotel, especially when the prices are comparable.
Certainly the room was nice, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with motels, but I just don't like them as much. I know some people who prefer them. Even when I slum it (by staying in any hotel other than Hampton Inn), I prefer the hotel concept. Not sure it is nicer, just a preference. Nevertheless, it colors my judgment. We had pizza, free muffins, extra late swim time, a great breakfast, and all I can think about is that the window is next to the door instead of on the opposite side. Not sure it should bother me, but I can't really talk about anything else.
Is this a sickness, a disease, or just good old-fashioned wisdom? I prefer me my hotels and when I don't get it, I want to complain. Obviously it isn't the fault of the employees, and frankly, they were the kindest hotel employees we met. They kept the pool open late for us and allowed us to get drinks from behind the counter. Basically, my whole frame of mind is driven by the hotel-motel issue and I can't really explain why.
We would be to Pennsylvania in just a couple of hours, so we were geared up to stay in that state. Unfortunately, we learned that if there is ever a July 21 on a Saturday, the state of Pennsylvania comes together to make sure every hotel owner is well compensated for the event. We literally called 13 hotels in the state that were all sold out. They were all Hampton Inns, because I am a hotel snob (which may become ironic later). At any rate, we ended up driving past 2 AM, when we found a handicap room in Frederick, Maryland (We made Jacob limp on the way in).
The one good thing is we made it through a myriad of roads that normally are congested enough and are not interstates, so that driving the maximum speed is usually impossible. We made pretty good time. However, the late arrival made waking up early something we just didn't do. This turned out to be terrible, because although we made it through DC without an issue, we ended up delayed by three different wrecks through Virginia, and the good time was thrown out the window.
What was supposed to be a short drive and early arrival at the hotel ended up a few hours later than we had hoped. Nevertheless, when we arrived, we were surprised to find that the Hampton Inn was a motel. (A motel being an accommodation where the rooms open up to the parking lot, whereas the hotel has rooms that open up to the hallway in the middle). Perhaps it should not matter to me, but when I make a reservation at a Hampton, I expect for it to be a hotel, especially when the prices are comparable.
Certainly the room was nice, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with motels, but I just don't like them as much. I know some people who prefer them. Even when I slum it (by staying in any hotel other than Hampton Inn), I prefer the hotel concept. Not sure it is nicer, just a preference. Nevertheless, it colors my judgment. We had pizza, free muffins, extra late swim time, a great breakfast, and all I can think about is that the window is next to the door instead of on the opposite side. Not sure it should bother me, but I can't really talk about anything else.
Is this a sickness, a disease, or just good old-fashioned wisdom? I prefer me my hotels and when I don't get it, I want to complain. Obviously it isn't the fault of the employees, and frankly, they were the kindest hotel employees we met. They kept the pool open late for us and allowed us to get drinks from behind the counter. Basically, my whole frame of mind is driven by the hotel-motel issue and I can't really explain why.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
The Family Vacation
The Family Vacation is a unique event. It's quite different than the vacation with friends where there is solidarity of purpose and a general feeling that the same things needs to happen in order for the trip itself to be successful. Similarly, it isn't completely like a war, where you have at least two dissenting factions, whose purposes are antithetical. Could be close to that, though.
As an adult, I've now viewed the family vacation from Both Sides Now (Joni Mitchell song stuck in my head now). I realize that the perspectives are more similar than different and yet, they are worlds apart.
As a child, the family vacation was about being bossed around and doing what you are told. You were doing things that your parents told you that you would like, but the events all seem like things you would never choose to do. When there finally is something that you like, you are rushed through it and you want to just sit and relax on that thing. You feel like your parents are calling the shots and you just can't wait to get home where you can relax and recover from the vacation.
As a parent, the family vacation is about being told by your children that the things you've chosen are no fun. Despite the fact that they may not like or appreciate the things you are choosing to do now, you know that they will remember them fondly later. You feel like your children are dragging their feet through certain events, fighting over things that just don't matter, and just making your life miserable. You just can't wait to get home to relax and recover from the vacation.
The similarities are easy to see, and many might be led to make the decision that you should never take a family vacation. I feel that would be short sighted and wrong. From both sides, you can see the love that a family has. From both sides, you can appreciate the little things and the memories that are made. From both sides, the sacrifice of the other is eventually seen.
This particular trip, my family took, because of the wedding of my good friend, David Poston (oh yeah, Emily Ludlow Poston was involved also). It was a stupid-long drive (about 20 hours one way) and there aren't a lot of things that we want to do "on the way." Kelly, however, did an excellent job of mapping out 2-3 fun things to do each day, and we have been pleased with the results.
We went swimming in a hotel pool, saw Niagara Falls, stuck our hands in Canada, visited with friends, went out to eat, watched movies in the car, took adventurous little trips, marveled at Tudor's Biscuit World, and saved hotel room keys from each state. Now, if only the second half of our trip (the return leg) can be as much concurrent fun and torture, we should be in for a wonderful time and memory.
As an adult, I've now viewed the family vacation from Both Sides Now (Joni Mitchell song stuck in my head now). I realize that the perspectives are more similar than different and yet, they are worlds apart.
As a child, the family vacation was about being bossed around and doing what you are told. You were doing things that your parents told you that you would like, but the events all seem like things you would never choose to do. When there finally is something that you like, you are rushed through it and you want to just sit and relax on that thing. You feel like your parents are calling the shots and you just can't wait to get home where you can relax and recover from the vacation.
As a parent, the family vacation is about being told by your children that the things you've chosen are no fun. Despite the fact that they may not like or appreciate the things you are choosing to do now, you know that they will remember them fondly later. You feel like your children are dragging their feet through certain events, fighting over things that just don't matter, and just making your life miserable. You just can't wait to get home to relax and recover from the vacation.
The similarities are easy to see, and many might be led to make the decision that you should never take a family vacation. I feel that would be short sighted and wrong. From both sides, you can see the love that a family has. From both sides, you can appreciate the little things and the memories that are made. From both sides, the sacrifice of the other is eventually seen.
This particular trip, my family took, because of the wedding of my good friend, David Poston (oh yeah, Emily Ludlow Poston was involved also). It was a stupid-long drive (about 20 hours one way) and there aren't a lot of things that we want to do "on the way." Kelly, however, did an excellent job of mapping out 2-3 fun things to do each day, and we have been pleased with the results.
We went swimming in a hotel pool, saw Niagara Falls, stuck our hands in Canada, visited with friends, went out to eat, watched movies in the car, took adventurous little trips, marveled at Tudor's Biscuit World, and saved hotel room keys from each state. Now, if only the second half of our trip (the return leg) can be as much concurrent fun and torture, we should be in for a wonderful time and memory.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Who Built This?
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands. I first heard this statement when I was in law school from my real property professor. For those who know the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, there may be a wide array of things that make this statement problematic. For me, however, it sounds like a statement of celebrating the times of yore, while just being completely impossible.
Clearly whoever said this was either absent of logic, attempting to make a point through the use of an obvious auxesis, or just made a simple conjunction of sentences by eliminating too many words and neglected to proofread after awaking. At any rate, a simple Google search tells me that this is perhaps the most quoted student research paper error of the last fifteen years.
It is impossible to synthesize the thoughts of the 3.2 million pages that came up on my Google search, but I believe it is fair to say that at least some of those are looking to make a point. The clear point I observe is that no one accomplishes anything on his own. There is no individual who can accomplish anything without some contribution by others.
Simply put, no person survives beyond the age of a month or two without a protector (usually a parent). Virtually no one is able to accomplish something deemed good without the input of an educator, teacher, or mentor. Largely because I subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism definition of good, I believe that real good can only be attained by and through a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Terminology aside, useful things, even if pushed by one man are not the results of that one man alone, but rather the result of many people pouring into that man's life. This is why, as parents, we often swell with pride when our children accomplish something others notice—we see the work that we put in with them to help precipitate that behavior. We know our role was not merely one of watching, though as our children get older and come about wisdom from their own study, our connection to their accomplishment seems less to us, and we move from a pride to a grizzled respect.
Nevertheless, the point remains the same. Even if we accomplish great things when most of our influential mentors accomplish either negative things or very little, it was learning from them, both in the literal process and the rote disciplines that assisted us. This point is perhaps morphed into a phrase that became quite common when Hillary Clinton was First Lady and she wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us.
While I dare not summarize 352 pages of work in a single sentence, I would assert that most people's reaction to the title has less to do with the content of the pages therewith than with the political persuasion they happen to possess. Some of the most isolationist parents who happen to be politically liberal have raved about the book in my presence, while the most covenant community minded conservatives will rip apart the book. Not having the read the book, I am comfortable saying that children (and adults) who have the most different voices to learn from are often benefitted, while those who have the fewest number of inputs are often stunted.
These aren't new ideas. Chris Young sings a country song which touts this philosophy, and seldom is country music on the cutting edge of philosophical breakthroughs. "What brings me to the point where I am discussing something so mundane and acceptable," you might ask. Well, earlier this week, President Obama made a speech where in the context of making this argument he swam deeper to say, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Now, we live in a sound bite era, and whoever wrote Obama's speech certainly should have realized that this statement I am putting in the middle is a potential rallying cry by small business owners. I'm certainly not here to defend Obama's point, as I think it is relatively obvious that Lincoln can't be born into a log cabin he built with his own hands and we cannot achieve something without someone teaching us the basic skills. Therefore, I think to take away credit from the person who built the business on his own after taking these inputs, especially when you are asking those same people to give up something (greater taxation), is just plain bad strategy. Further, I think it is kind of shady to say that all of those inputs are the results of government.
Nevertheless, I wonder what it is within us that just flatly gets upset when someone wants to take away credit. Are we really that conceited that we get offended when someone wants to take away the credit? I am a small business owner. I enjoy many aspects of that position, and if those privileges start to go away, I'm sure that I will be immensely frustrated by that change.
Notwithstanding that feeling, I feel like myself (and several others like me) are too quick to want to toot our own horn. We are too quick to take pride in the things we have done, when I know that in my life, there are so many people who assisted me to get where I am that if I were put elsewhere, I would surely not be where I am. "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!"
Clearly whoever said this was either absent of logic, attempting to make a point through the use of an obvious auxesis, or just made a simple conjunction of sentences by eliminating too many words and neglected to proofread after awaking. At any rate, a simple Google search tells me that this is perhaps the most quoted student research paper error of the last fifteen years.
It is impossible to synthesize the thoughts of the 3.2 million pages that came up on my Google search, but I believe it is fair to say that at least some of those are looking to make a point. The clear point I observe is that no one accomplishes anything on his own. There is no individual who can accomplish anything without some contribution by others.
Simply put, no person survives beyond the age of a month or two without a protector (usually a parent). Virtually no one is able to accomplish something deemed good without the input of an educator, teacher, or mentor. Largely because I subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism definition of good, I believe that real good can only be attained by and through a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Terminology aside, useful things, even if pushed by one man are not the results of that one man alone, but rather the result of many people pouring into that man's life. This is why, as parents, we often swell with pride when our children accomplish something others notice—we see the work that we put in with them to help precipitate that behavior. We know our role was not merely one of watching, though as our children get older and come about wisdom from their own study, our connection to their accomplishment seems less to us, and we move from a pride to a grizzled respect.
Nevertheless, the point remains the same. Even if we accomplish great things when most of our influential mentors accomplish either negative things or very little, it was learning from them, both in the literal process and the rote disciplines that assisted us. This point is perhaps morphed into a phrase that became quite common when Hillary Clinton was First Lady and she wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us.
While I dare not summarize 352 pages of work in a single sentence, I would assert that most people's reaction to the title has less to do with the content of the pages therewith than with the political persuasion they happen to possess. Some of the most isolationist parents who happen to be politically liberal have raved about the book in my presence, while the most covenant community minded conservatives will rip apart the book. Not having the read the book, I am comfortable saying that children (and adults) who have the most different voices to learn from are often benefitted, while those who have the fewest number of inputs are often stunted.
These aren't new ideas. Chris Young sings a country song which touts this philosophy, and seldom is country music on the cutting edge of philosophical breakthroughs. "What brings me to the point where I am discussing something so mundane and acceptable," you might ask. Well, earlier this week, President Obama made a speech where in the context of making this argument he swam deeper to say, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Now, we live in a sound bite era, and whoever wrote Obama's speech certainly should have realized that this statement I am putting in the middle is a potential rallying cry by small business owners. I'm certainly not here to defend Obama's point, as I think it is relatively obvious that Lincoln can't be born into a log cabin he built with his own hands and we cannot achieve something without someone teaching us the basic skills. Therefore, I think to take away credit from the person who built the business on his own after taking these inputs, especially when you are asking those same people to give up something (greater taxation), is just plain bad strategy. Further, I think it is kind of shady to say that all of those inputs are the results of government.
Nevertheless, I wonder what it is within us that just flatly gets upset when someone wants to take away credit. Are we really that conceited that we get offended when someone wants to take away the credit? I am a small business owner. I enjoy many aspects of that position, and if those privileges start to go away, I'm sure that I will be immensely frustrated by that change.
Notwithstanding that feeling, I feel like myself (and several others like me) are too quick to want to toot our own horn. We are too quick to take pride in the things we have done, when I know that in my life, there are so many people who assisted me to get where I am that if I were put elsewhere, I would surely not be where I am. "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!"
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
We have a Playoff, Part 2
This article is a continuation of Part One.
If culture values "clutch" over consistency, then we should at least realize what the benefits of such a system are and what the detriments of such a system are. The primary value, in my opinion, is that we can have something called a Championship Game and can point to an exact moment when the champion will be crowned. The negative, however, is that we are not necessarily certain that the best team will win,
For example, when the New England Patriots lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants in 2008, I don't believe anyone really thinks that the better team was victorious. Of course, whether the best team wins the finals of any particular sport is not that with which the American culture is most concerned. If it were, we wouldn't love the NCAA Tournament in basketball. But we do!
The ironic thing is that you will hear people say that they want a playoff so that it can be decided "on the field." However, often the team that proves the best in the games that are played is required to re-prove it. The obvious example that many will point to is the 2012 BCS championship Alabama-LSU football rematch, but that certainly isn't the only example. The 2001 Seattle Mariners were a team that proved it over time (record 116 wins), but lost in the playoffs.
So, how can you prove it "on the field"? The reality is that sometimes the playoffs we have devalue the "regular season." But this phenomenon isn't exclusive to sports. We’ve all had those classes in school where the grade was based exclusively (or almost exclusively) on a final exam. Is that one test the best way to evaluate one’s competence in a given area? Would competency over an entire semester be more accurate? I used to find myself not worrying about some classes until halfway through the semester, instead building a credit in other classes, so that I could concentrate on others at the end of the semester.
Another comment that may come up is that you “de-value” the regular season. The longer the regular season, the more valuable it should be, but sometimes you end up with a situation like the 2004 Olympics Men’s Basketball. The United States underachieved and wound up 4th in its group of six teams. That meant that they met up with the first place team from the other group, Spain, who was undefeated and had won their games by a considerable margin. The US beat Spain in the quarterfinals, and after winning the positioning game, Spain ended up 7th place after going 6-1, while the USA was called 3rd place after getting three losses.
That wouldn’t be a question of best team, but rather is it fair to Spain that they had to face another team that they were playing because the US had underachieved. A playoff system that seeks to arrange a series of matchups based on the standings also can yield situations where a better team may just struggle to matchup. Nothing wrong with this, but does any playoff system solve all problems?
If culture values "clutch" over consistency, then we should at least realize what the benefits of such a system are and what the detriments of such a system are. The primary value, in my opinion, is that we can have something called a Championship Game and can point to an exact moment when the champion will be crowned. The negative, however, is that we are not necessarily certain that the best team will win,
For example, when the New England Patriots lost the Super Bowl to the New York Giants in 2008, I don't believe anyone really thinks that the better team was victorious. Of course, whether the best team wins the finals of any particular sport is not that with which the American culture is most concerned. If it were, we wouldn't love the NCAA Tournament in basketball. But we do!
The ironic thing is that you will hear people say that they want a playoff so that it can be decided "on the field." However, often the team that proves the best in the games that are played is required to re-prove it. The obvious example that many will point to is the 2012 BCS championship Alabama-LSU football rematch, but that certainly isn't the only example. The 2001 Seattle Mariners were a team that proved it over time (record 116 wins), but lost in the playoffs.
So, how can you prove it "on the field"? The reality is that sometimes the playoffs we have devalue the "regular season." But this phenomenon isn't exclusive to sports. We’ve all had those classes in school where the grade was based exclusively (or almost exclusively) on a final exam. Is that one test the best way to evaluate one’s competence in a given area? Would competency over an entire semester be more accurate? I used to find myself not worrying about some classes until halfway through the semester, instead building a credit in other classes, so that I could concentrate on others at the end of the semester.
Another comment that may come up is that you “de-value” the regular season. The longer the regular season, the more valuable it should be, but sometimes you end up with a situation like the 2004 Olympics Men’s Basketball. The United States underachieved and wound up 4th in its group of six teams. That meant that they met up with the first place team from the other group, Spain, who was undefeated and had won their games by a considerable margin. The US beat Spain in the quarterfinals, and after winning the positioning game, Spain ended up 7th place after going 6-1, while the USA was called 3rd place after getting three losses.
That wouldn’t be a question of best team, but rather is it fair to Spain that they had to face another team that they were playing because the US had underachieved. A playoff system that seeks to arrange a series of matchups based on the standings also can yield situations where a better team may just struggle to matchup. Nothing wrong with this, but does any playoff system solve all problems?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Take a Trip!
I was driving down I-95 and hit that area of South Carolina where there is no cell phone signal. It was really kind of irritating that noone could reach me. Especially when the one thing keeping me awake was the stimulating conversation I was having with my friends on the phone and that idea became more difficult without the cell phone signal.
I drove a little further south and arrived in Georgia. There were billboards all over telling us that texting and driving leads to wrecks and to do so is against the law in Georgia. As tempted as I was to text that information to my friends, I thought better of it and only called them. But the guy swerving next to me was taking a picture, so that he could send it to his friends, no doubt.
Because I was in a rental car, I had the gratification of satellite radio. I was able to keep myself up-to-date on the latest news on the Dwight Howard situation and anything else that suited my fancy. I learned about a fight in NASCAR right away, and I got to hear the relative popularity of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
I was able to check email, keep in touch with work colleagues, and create and edit Excel spreadsheets through this thing called a laptop. A laptop has become so commonplace that more were sold last year than were desktops. In fact more than four out of five houses have at least one laptop in this great country.
When I got hungry, I was able to pull into a restaurant and have them make a sandwich and sides just the way I like them. I didn't have to cook or bring food in a cooler. And, the food was quite tasty.
I have a good friend named Donna, who was telling me about when she was taking a cross country trip in high school. They had to stop and cook food along the way, couldn't catch the major news stories until they saw a newspaper, and had no mechanism to talk to people. Traveling has changed. But is it better?
I drove a little further south and arrived in Georgia. There were billboards all over telling us that texting and driving leads to wrecks and to do so is against the law in Georgia. As tempted as I was to text that information to my friends, I thought better of it and only called them. But the guy swerving next to me was taking a picture, so that he could send it to his friends, no doubt.
Because I was in a rental car, I had the gratification of satellite radio. I was able to keep myself up-to-date on the latest news on the Dwight Howard situation and anything else that suited my fancy. I learned about a fight in NASCAR right away, and I got to hear the relative popularity of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
I was able to check email, keep in touch with work colleagues, and create and edit Excel spreadsheets through this thing called a laptop. A laptop has become so commonplace that more were sold last year than were desktops. In fact more than four out of five houses have at least one laptop in this great country.
When I got hungry, I was able to pull into a restaurant and have them make a sandwich and sides just the way I like them. I didn't have to cook or bring food in a cooler. And, the food was quite tasty.
I have a good friend named Donna, who was telling me about when she was taking a cross country trip in high school. They had to stop and cook food along the way, couldn't catch the major news stories until they saw a newspaper, and had no mechanism to talk to people. Traveling has changed. But is it better?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Wedding Vows
Perhaps it is because today is the first wedding ceremony at my church. Perhaps it is because my wife and I celebrated our fourteenth anniversary last month. Perhaps it is because I am getting to spend the evening with my good friend David Poston for most likely the last time before he gets married next week. (In the last ten years, other than my wife, there isn't anyone I've spent more late night talking sessions with than Mr. Poston, so this is the end of an era of sorts.) Perhaps it is because my devotions have been taking me to the Christ-Husband analogy.
Whatever the reason, I've been thinking a lot about marriage vows recently. The vows are serious and important. A search for the typical vows yields me the following:
I don't want to discount the fact that God calls some to be single. While I think our culture, specifically mothers with daughters in their twenties, completely devalues that gift (and maybe that is worthy of a post later), I know that the gift of marriage is incredible. As Pastor Greg wrote about holy longings earlier, I again realized that we were created for relationships. While there are many relationships God gives us for our benefit, I know that there is none more significant or instrumental in our life than that of our marriage partner.
It is so significant that we have a special vow that we take. How many of us take vows in any other situation? I know politicians take a vow, though many have minimal excitement about that. I worry that some treat the marriage vows with the same lethargy. Yet when you look at what we’re vowing to do, we agree to take any terrible situation and commit to loving our spouse through that. This is an incredible commitment, and I really hope that we take that vow seriously.
I think many of us realize that great philosopher Ike Graham can be correct when he says, "I guarantee there'll be tough times. I guarantee that at some point, one or both of us is gonna want to get out of this thing." I know, however, that we need to complete his thought with our vows. I guarantee that despite those feelings, I will be your spouse. I will stick with you through it. And I guarantee that I will seek God and any of His gifted church leaders to help us through that.
Unfortunately, as I look to life around me, I see that many treat these vows with less reverence than they should. I pray that I am not among them that I appreciate Kelly for the great gift she is and that I continue to honor my vows. I read about a guy once who proposed to his wife every day. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I do see the benefit of realizing afresh every day that we need to take our vows seriously. I hope you all take similar stock. When you take a vow it is important, and no vow, in our culture, is as prevalent as the Wedding Vows.
Whatever the reason, I've been thinking a lot about marriage vows recently. The vows are serious and important. A search for the typical vows yields me the following:
I take thee to be my spouse, to have and to hold from this day forward; for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer: in sickness and in health; to love, to honor, and to cherish, for all the days of our lives ‘til death do us part.
I don't want to discount the fact that God calls some to be single. While I think our culture, specifically mothers with daughters in their twenties, completely devalues that gift (and maybe that is worthy of a post later), I know that the gift of marriage is incredible. As Pastor Greg wrote about holy longings earlier, I again realized that we were created for relationships. While there are many relationships God gives us for our benefit, I know that there is none more significant or instrumental in our life than that of our marriage partner.
It is so significant that we have a special vow that we take. How many of us take vows in any other situation? I know politicians take a vow, though many have minimal excitement about that. I worry that some treat the marriage vows with the same lethargy. Yet when you look at what we’re vowing to do, we agree to take any terrible situation and commit to loving our spouse through that. This is an incredible commitment, and I really hope that we take that vow seriously.
I think many of us realize that great philosopher Ike Graham can be correct when he says, "I guarantee there'll be tough times. I guarantee that at some point, one or both of us is gonna want to get out of this thing." I know, however, that we need to complete his thought with our vows. I guarantee that despite those feelings, I will be your spouse. I will stick with you through it. And I guarantee that I will seek God and any of His gifted church leaders to help us through that.
Unfortunately, as I look to life around me, I see that many treat these vows with less reverence than they should. I pray that I am not among them that I appreciate Kelly for the great gift she is and that I continue to honor my vows. I read about a guy once who proposed to his wife every day. I’m not sure that’s necessary, but I do see the benefit of realizing afresh every day that we need to take our vows seriously. I hope you all take similar stock. When you take a vow it is important, and no vow, in our culture, is as prevalent as the Wedding Vows.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Wal~Mart
Spent a few days with my sister last week. My sister is wonderful, and my family always looks forward to spending time with their aunt and uncle. However, just as I have realized how different each of my children are, it is evident to me how different we are. But one of the areas I would not have expected us to be different is shopping.
We began to talk about Wal~Mart. I am really a pretty big fan about the store. Not necessarily because I feel some unsung loyalty, but because you can buy anything there, and you can do it all in one stop. My sister would rather make a trip to several stores to buy from a variety of stores.
When she first stated that she disliked Wal~Mart, I was ready to hear the Target propaganda. But, as I soon found out, she doesn't like Wal~Mart, largely because she feels like they do not reward good products. As someone who makes a high-quality soap and has hundreds of recipes that she tweaks to have the best product possible, she sees that they generally have lower quality stuff. Of course, the argument can be almost duplicated for Target, so she's not really a fan of them either.
To me, I just want the cheapest product that I can use for anything. Of course, that is the mindset that she is largely against. So, we have a difference in philosophy, I assume. As we continued to speak, however, I learned that our philosophies are more similar than I realized, it is our values that are different.
While she is concerned about soap and clothes, I learned that I have a similar philosophy for food. She's writing a blog about creating all her food herself and then she's further complicating that by being on a juice diet, where she only drinks freshly ground veggies. Needless to say that is nowhere on my radar. The funny thing to me, though, is that she will buy most of her meats at Wal~Mart.
I, on the other hand, buy my meats very strategically. I have certain places where I buy certain items, and I have been known to cook a meal with ingredients from three stores. Something my sister is not as prone to do. Which made me think, do I really like Wal~Mart or am I just drawn to the stuff they have there, where I don't care about the quality?
We began to talk about Wal~Mart. I am really a pretty big fan about the store. Not necessarily because I feel some unsung loyalty, but because you can buy anything there, and you can do it all in one stop. My sister would rather make a trip to several stores to buy from a variety of stores.
When she first stated that she disliked Wal~Mart, I was ready to hear the Target propaganda. But, as I soon found out, she doesn't like Wal~Mart, largely because she feels like they do not reward good products. As someone who makes a high-quality soap and has hundreds of recipes that she tweaks to have the best product possible, she sees that they generally have lower quality stuff. Of course, the argument can be almost duplicated for Target, so she's not really a fan of them either.
To me, I just want the cheapest product that I can use for anything. Of course, that is the mindset that she is largely against. So, we have a difference in philosophy, I assume. As we continued to speak, however, I learned that our philosophies are more similar than I realized, it is our values that are different.
While she is concerned about soap and clothes, I learned that I have a similar philosophy for food. She's writing a blog about creating all her food herself and then she's further complicating that by being on a juice diet, where she only drinks freshly ground veggies. Needless to say that is nowhere on my radar. The funny thing to me, though, is that she will buy most of her meats at Wal~Mart.
I, on the other hand, buy my meats very strategically. I have certain places where I buy certain items, and I have been known to cook a meal with ingredients from three stores. Something my sister is not as prone to do. Which made me think, do I really like Wal~Mart or am I just drawn to the stuff they have there, where I don't care about the quality?
Monday, July 9, 2012
Courage
Visited my sister's house last week and we had an interesting discussion on The Help. I liked the movie and wrote a review of it, but after hearing her take, I am convinced that I was wrong. Not that my observations were inaccurate, just that I missed what should be the over-riding theme. The movie was primarily about courage (or lack thereof). And I think if you watch the movie from that prism, not only will you enjoy it, as I did, but I think you'll get the point of the movie. And I haven't spoiled anything for you yet.:)
The reality is that people will frequently follow a strong leader, even if they don't fully support it cognitively. I have seen in my personal experience that a dynamic leader was able to get two intelligent, dynamic people to completely follow him, despite the fact that personal conversations with the two followers allowed me to know that they did not agree with the direction at all. Just as many from the Help did not "agree" with the sway of the culture, they went along with it.
This really began to sink home with me, when I watched a mini-documentary on Evan Kaufmann, who is a Jewish hockey player living in modern day Germany. I realized that most of the Germans who participated in the holocaust were doing terrible things that immediately after the change in regime were willing to completely change.
Then, as if I might not fully get the message, my continued memorization of Acts 9 (by the way, if you aren't on a Scripture memorization program, you need to be) allowed me to see the story of Saul of Tarsus as he became the Apostle Paul. One thing I found interesting is that the people that were with him on his torturing Christian expedition immediately changed tact.
A charismatic leader can lead many and get those people to do things they do not "agree with" on some level. As I write this, my children are listening to Following the Leader from Peter Pan. The problem is that we have many who merely follow along and do what the leaders tell them. This isn't an American issue exclusively, this is a part of the human condition throughout centuries. So, for today, my desire is courage to do the things that I know I should do, even if they are counter-cultural!
The reality is that people will frequently follow a strong leader, even if they don't fully support it cognitively. I have seen in my personal experience that a dynamic leader was able to get two intelligent, dynamic people to completely follow him, despite the fact that personal conversations with the two followers allowed me to know that they did not agree with the direction at all. Just as many from the Help did not "agree" with the sway of the culture, they went along with it.
This really began to sink home with me, when I watched a mini-documentary on Evan Kaufmann, who is a Jewish hockey player living in modern day Germany. I realized that most of the Germans who participated in the holocaust were doing terrible things that immediately after the change in regime were willing to completely change.
Then, as if I might not fully get the message, my continued memorization of Acts 9 (by the way, if you aren't on a Scripture memorization program, you need to be) allowed me to see the story of Saul of Tarsus as he became the Apostle Paul. One thing I found interesting is that the people that were with him on his torturing Christian expedition immediately changed tact.
A charismatic leader can lead many and get those people to do things they do not "agree with" on some level. As I write this, my children are listening to Following the Leader from Peter Pan. The problem is that we have many who merely follow along and do what the leaders tell them. This isn't an American issue exclusively, this is a part of the human condition throughout centuries. So, for today, my desire is courage to do the things that I know I should do, even if they are counter-cultural!
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Weddings are the Best (and the Worst)
Ambivalent. adjective 1. having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two strong (usually opposing) courses of action.
Many may use the term as merely an antonym for care, but the reality is the term means so much more. This is the situation where you really care strongly about something but those strong feelings seem to pull you both ways at the same time. For a step into the Phat Man's world, today I went to a wedding. Weddings put me in such a position.
On the one hand, a wedding is the blandest of services. You typically have a similar charge with a little variation. I mean, the average person could give me a list of 20 Bible verses and in a standard service quoting 5-10 verses, they will miss at most one of the verses quoted. Further, the vows are incredibly generic. The ring is a symbol... I could go on, but assuming that you've been to a wedding, you know what I mean. If you go to a "Justice of the Peace"-styled wedding, I imagine there is even more blandness to it.
You get seated by people in a tuxedo, who either know you and want to see who won the College Football game they are missing or have no idea who you are, so they automatically seat you on the other side of the auditorium. By the way, who thinks that bringing together two married people is best accomplished by putting their friends on opposite sides of a building, like a giant game of Red Rover?
On the other hand, things with a great deal of formality show the seriousness of the act itself. How nervous, for example, do people seem to get when a simple notary steps into the picture? (Incidentally, one can become a notary in Florida simply by taking a four hour "class" online). The friends of both parties being there to witness the event really shows how big of a commitment the covenant of marriage is.
Back to the first hand, the average person invites 141 people. The average person cannot carry on a meaningful conversation with more than two people at a time. So, in order to have a five minute conversation with everyone, you would need to have at least 70 different conversations (or about 6 hours of talking). Therefore, the average bride-groom give, at most, a pass by hello. Further, they probably don't notice if the average guest is there or not.
Back to the second hand, there is something incredible about talking to a couple immediately after their nuptials have taken place, and if you get to say a few words, you will probably remember it forever. It is also an incredible way to catch up with the mutual friends that you haven't kept up with like you should, but you may commit to be better at doing so, which basically means one email may get sent until the next wedding.
I have things pulling on me to say that I think weddings are merely an obligation, while others are telling me that weddings are a great spectacle that are a fitting beginning to a wonderful marriage. This is ambivalence! I love it; I hate it. I don't know what to think, but I do know that every time a wedding invite comes (for people that I care about), something in me wants to completely bail, while another part of me wants to go and be front and center in all my congratulatory things. And dependent upon what my other opportunities are for that day, I may attend or not attend weddings with a pattern that just seems plain silly when looked at in a vacuum.
Many may use the term as merely an antonym for care, but the reality is the term means so much more. This is the situation where you really care strongly about something but those strong feelings seem to pull you both ways at the same time. For a step into the Phat Man's world, today I went to a wedding. Weddings put me in such a position.
On the one hand, a wedding is the blandest of services. You typically have a similar charge with a little variation. I mean, the average person could give me a list of 20 Bible verses and in a standard service quoting 5-10 verses, they will miss at most one of the verses quoted. Further, the vows are incredibly generic. The ring is a symbol... I could go on, but assuming that you've been to a wedding, you know what I mean. If you go to a "Justice of the Peace"-styled wedding, I imagine there is even more blandness to it.
You get seated by people in a tuxedo, who either know you and want to see who won the College Football game they are missing or have no idea who you are, so they automatically seat you on the other side of the auditorium. By the way, who thinks that bringing together two married people is best accomplished by putting their friends on opposite sides of a building, like a giant game of Red Rover?
On the other hand, things with a great deal of formality show the seriousness of the act itself. How nervous, for example, do people seem to get when a simple notary steps into the picture? (Incidentally, one can become a notary in Florida simply by taking a four hour "class" online). The friends of both parties being there to witness the event really shows how big of a commitment the covenant of marriage is.
Back to the first hand, the average person invites 141 people. The average person cannot carry on a meaningful conversation with more than two people at a time. So, in order to have a five minute conversation with everyone, you would need to have at least 70 different conversations (or about 6 hours of talking). Therefore, the average bride-groom give, at most, a pass by hello. Further, they probably don't notice if the average guest is there or not.
Back to the second hand, there is something incredible about talking to a couple immediately after their nuptials have taken place, and if you get to say a few words, you will probably remember it forever. It is also an incredible way to catch up with the mutual friends that you haven't kept up with like you should, but you may commit to be better at doing so, which basically means one email may get sent until the next wedding.
I have things pulling on me to say that I think weddings are merely an obligation, while others are telling me that weddings are a great spectacle that are a fitting beginning to a wonderful marriage. This is ambivalence! I love it; I hate it. I don't know what to think, but I do know that every time a wedding invite comes (for people that I care about), something in me wants to completely bail, while another part of me wants to go and be front and center in all my congratulatory things. And dependent upon what my other opportunities are for that day, I may attend or not attend weddings with a pattern that just seems plain silly when looked at in a vacuum.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
I Promise I'm Not Angry
Most of the time one gets introspective, it is attached to a desire to become better. Sometimes, despite tremendous amounts of introspection, it just isn't possible to know what to do to actually make the changes necessary for personal betterment. I currently find myself in such a situation.
It came to my attention this week, that at my college graduation, I came across as being rude and unexcited. You might wonder why that would even require a firs thought, as it was so long ago. Well, I am now being exposed to the reality that people think this of me with a relative amount of regularity.
There are very few times where I purposefully come across in a bad mood or angry with a given individual. Those times do exist, but they are not at issue here. There are also the times where you are actually frustrated and while you may try to hide it, the fact that it comes out is understandable. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. These are happy tiems in my life, where I am accused of just being angry or being mean.
Gorwing up, I was known to say, I hate being accused of being in a bad mood (or argumentative or being mean or angry or the like), because there is no legitimate response to that. If you argue, you are just proving their point. While I might not say it anymore, I am feeling it more than ever.
I've always considered myself a happy-go-lucky guy with a cheery disposition. Unfortunately, I am realizing more and more that people sometimes find me a drain to be around, despite the fact that I don't want to be. I am learning that people frequently think me angry when I am not and often think I am in a bad mood, when I am not.
So, what can a man do? I'd like to go through some groovy explanation, but I am afraid that I am at a loss. I neither know what to do nor where to turn. I don't know how to change or what to do. I'm just getting depressed that people don't like being around me.
It came to my attention this week, that at my college graduation, I came across as being rude and unexcited. You might wonder why that would even require a firs thought, as it was so long ago. Well, I am now being exposed to the reality that people think this of me with a relative amount of regularity.
There are very few times where I purposefully come across in a bad mood or angry with a given individual. Those times do exist, but they are not at issue here. There are also the times where you are actually frustrated and while you may try to hide it, the fact that it comes out is understandable. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. These are happy tiems in my life, where I am accused of just being angry or being mean.
Gorwing up, I was known to say, I hate being accused of being in a bad mood (or argumentative or being mean or angry or the like), because there is no legitimate response to that. If you argue, you are just proving their point. While I might not say it anymore, I am feeling it more than ever.
I've always considered myself a happy-go-lucky guy with a cheery disposition. Unfortunately, I am realizing more and more that people sometimes find me a drain to be around, despite the fact that I don't want to be. I am learning that people frequently think me angry when I am not and often think I am in a bad mood, when I am not.
So, what can a man do? I'd like to go through some groovy explanation, but I am afraid that I am at a loss. I neither know what to do nor where to turn. I don't know how to change or what to do. I'm just getting depressed that people don't like being around me.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Shining Brightly
In my youth, I celebrated the 4th of July. As a child, I don't think we grasp the completeness of Independence and what it means, but I did understand that my dad put on the absolute best firework shows! Fireworks were never necessarily my favorite thing as they shone brightly for a second or two, but then they just faded away. I focused on the pointlessness of the fading away. One of the many things my wife is doing to improve my life is she is getting me to start focusing on the majesty of the display while it is happening.
July 3 is the day I had my first child (my wife did most of the work, and Jacob is such a perfect first child also). I therefore don't believe there will ever be a danger of my not focusing on wonderful things on this day. We have been fortunate to have such wonderful influences in our life, who share a birthday with our Jacob. Our current church planting pastor and music leader shares a birthday with Jacob. This year, however, I would be remiss if I did not mention Bob Collins. As my wife is continuing to teach me, I need to focus on the majesty of his display while here.
Bob was a man I met right around the time that Jacob was born, so it was always easy to remember his birthday. I'll never forget sitting in the pews at Faith Baptist and hearing someone say from the pulpit, "You have an incredible opportunity coming to church here. Bob Collins is one of the most godly men with one of the most exciting testimonies that you will ever meet. You need to get to know him. Cherish these forthcoming years with him and know that you are enjoying a gift from God."
With such a ringing endorsement, how could I think anything other than this was a man I need to get to know. And while many sought him, and he was a phenomenal man, for some reason, he took an interest in me personally. From about 2005 to 2011, we met almost every Monday morning at his house to pray together. We'd do a little rudimentary study of the Bible, talk about God, talk about church and the people we should pray for, and then we'd spend an hour or so praying. I got to know him well, and it will always be a period in my life that I look upon fondly.
I remember him coming to my house a few times. I remember his coming to see my daughters after their birth and holding them as babies. I remember his stories of running an adventure camp in South America, writing hymns for Word of Life, playing sports, running a radio show, doing a headstand at church in his 70's, telling about getting support at many different churches, talking about the births of his children and the unfortunate miscarriages, preaching from all kinds of pulpits, seeing his friends shot off horseback, enduring persecution for the sake of the call, and trading some livestock in order to marry his wife just to name a few.
Most of all, however, I remember him pouring into my life. I remember him being an encouragement to me to never quit striving to live the gospel out. He always encouraged me to live a life after God. He called me out when he disagreed with me, and supported me when he thought I did the right thing in a situation (even if it was unpopular). I also know that even when I didn't deserve it, he went to bat for me, and really cheered for me and my ministry.
It has been almost a year since God decided he was more useful in Heaven than on earth, but I know that no one who met him will soon forget the man he was. I thought about talking about it at the one year anniversary of his death, but I wanted to celebrate his life more than talk about his death. I know that I was blessed beyond measure to get to know him better than most, but most of all I know that I cannot honor him in any legitimate way without doing the thing he always did—point people back to Christ.
So, if you want to find out about his life read God Planted Five Seeds and know that the man named Clyde in the book was him. Talk to those of us who knew him and we can tell you many stories about it. But more than anything, he would appreciate you being pointed to the God he loved, as that is a Light that will never flame out!
July 3 is the day I had my first child (my wife did most of the work, and Jacob is such a perfect first child also). I therefore don't believe there will ever be a danger of my not focusing on wonderful things on this day. We have been fortunate to have such wonderful influences in our life, who share a birthday with our Jacob. Our current church planting pastor and music leader shares a birthday with Jacob. This year, however, I would be remiss if I did not mention Bob Collins. As my wife is continuing to teach me, I need to focus on the majesty of his display while here.
Bob was a man I met right around the time that Jacob was born, so it was always easy to remember his birthday. I'll never forget sitting in the pews at Faith Baptist and hearing someone say from the pulpit, "You have an incredible opportunity coming to church here. Bob Collins is one of the most godly men with one of the most exciting testimonies that you will ever meet. You need to get to know him. Cherish these forthcoming years with him and know that you are enjoying a gift from God."
With such a ringing endorsement, how could I think anything other than this was a man I need to get to know. And while many sought him, and he was a phenomenal man, for some reason, he took an interest in me personally. From about 2005 to 2011, we met almost every Monday morning at his house to pray together. We'd do a little rudimentary study of the Bible, talk about God, talk about church and the people we should pray for, and then we'd spend an hour or so praying. I got to know him well, and it will always be a period in my life that I look upon fondly.
I remember him coming to my house a few times. I remember his coming to see my daughters after their birth and holding them as babies. I remember his stories of running an adventure camp in South America, writing hymns for Word of Life, playing sports, running a radio show, doing a headstand at church in his 70's, telling about getting support at many different churches, talking about the births of his children and the unfortunate miscarriages, preaching from all kinds of pulpits, seeing his friends shot off horseback, enduring persecution for the sake of the call, and trading some livestock in order to marry his wife just to name a few.
Most of all, however, I remember him pouring into my life. I remember him being an encouragement to me to never quit striving to live the gospel out. He always encouraged me to live a life after God. He called me out when he disagreed with me, and supported me when he thought I did the right thing in a situation (even if it was unpopular). I also know that even when I didn't deserve it, he went to bat for me, and really cheered for me and my ministry.
It has been almost a year since God decided he was more useful in Heaven than on earth, but I know that no one who met him will soon forget the man he was. I thought about talking about it at the one year anniversary of his death, but I wanted to celebrate his life more than talk about his death. I know that I was blessed beyond measure to get to know him better than most, but most of all I know that I cannot honor him in any legitimate way without doing the thing he always did—point people back to Christ.
So, if you want to find out about his life read God Planted Five Seeds and know that the man named Clyde in the book was him. Talk to those of us who knew him and we can tell you many stories about it. But more than anything, he would appreciate you being pointed to the God he loved, as that is a Light that will never flame out!
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Free Money
I know some people who feel that the government should never give anyone anything. While not everyone would agree with this, probably greater than half the population in America has a strong feeling that the number of "handouts" should be dramatically reduced. Many would go as far to say that those taking money from the government are actually sinning. A fair enough assertion if you believe taking advantage of money is bad.
On the other hand, I know a great deal of these people watch a show called Extreme Couponing. Many who don't watch the show at least like the concept and might even be someone who says, "This is a wise thing to do." This coupon craziness involves attempting to get hundreds of dollars worth of items from a store for literal pennies on the dollar.
Why is this a problem? Well, those who get things from the store for essentially free are increasing the cost for the rest of us who are footing the bill. Well, one might ask, aren't they just being smart by taking that which is going to be given out and using it for their own advantage? Maybe, but that is the same argument for those who take advantage of government offers like food stamps, free rent, or college grants. So, those who deal with many coupons is that they have to do the research and clip the coupons themselves and pay attention to sales. Well, try to get money from the government and you'll learn that the exact same skills are required.
I guess I just get frustrated by these people who take advantage of one system and then complain about those who take advantage of another. Consider any argument you like against government programs and the same is true of those who thrive on getting a truckload of coupons. Consider any justification for coupons and the same justification can be used for jumping on these government programs.
The best argument for the separation of these is that the government should not give out money, while the stores can choose to if they are so desirous. While that may be the case, it is difficult to make an argument that if it is beneficial to the stores to do so, it is not beneficial to the government. The reality is that before you start throwing stones by telling people what they shouldn't do, you need to make sure that you aren't doing the same thing.
On the other hand, I know a great deal of these people watch a show called Extreme Couponing. Many who don't watch the show at least like the concept and might even be someone who says, "This is a wise thing to do." This coupon craziness involves attempting to get hundreds of dollars worth of items from a store for literal pennies on the dollar.
Why is this a problem? Well, those who get things from the store for essentially free are increasing the cost for the rest of us who are footing the bill. Well, one might ask, aren't they just being smart by taking that which is going to be given out and using it for their own advantage? Maybe, but that is the same argument for those who take advantage of government offers like food stamps, free rent, or college grants. So, those who deal with many coupons is that they have to do the research and clip the coupons themselves and pay attention to sales. Well, try to get money from the government and you'll learn that the exact same skills are required.
I guess I just get frustrated by these people who take advantage of one system and then complain about those who take advantage of another. Consider any argument you like against government programs and the same is true of those who thrive on getting a truckload of coupons. Consider any justification for coupons and the same justification can be used for jumping on these government programs.
The best argument for the separation of these is that the government should not give out money, while the stores can choose to if they are so desirous. While that may be the case, it is difficult to make an argument that if it is beneficial to the stores to do so, it is not beneficial to the government. The reality is that before you start throwing stones by telling people what they shouldn't do, you need to make sure that you aren't doing the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)