Greed.

Would it be exceedingly shallow of me to inquire as to the brand and style of said shoes? You've gotten me curious...

P.S. Matt--I believe that Scott is saying that we are piss. And that Christ came in piss form and endured our piss to save us from our piss--which is ourselves.

So for us to have (and defend) an idolitarized or iconic view of an incarnate Christ (as a symbol) may not be accurate, because it's glossing over all the piss. [Although I could be totally off in this interpretation...]

Perhaps Bill was getting at this issue when he wrote:

life is coming to grips with what you're worth
when God says one thing
but your heart says another...

First, Scott, I agree 100% about the whole living-as-if-God-doesn't-exist thing, and am as guilty as anyone. And I also concede your point about the photo being of Christ incarnate, not the risen Christ.

As to your third point, though...

Visual art is not propositional. It is an attempt to capture a moment or an idea, but because there is no written or verbal explanation, it leaves itself open to all manner of interpretations. So regardless of the artist's intentions, he put something out there and asked people to think about. This is where I landed.

I can be a rather literal person. When you wonder, as you did originally, "whether we missed the point entirely", that implies to me that there was a "point" to begin with--one and only one. And I assumed that the person making that point would be the artist. That's all.

So back to the photo itself. I'm still not clear.

Maybe that photograph (regardless of the artist's second-rate intentions) is really, REALLY accurate.

Christ really was immersed in piss?

Maybe I really am that vulger. Maybe I really am that shallow.

Did you immerse him in piss? Maybe that's it--that we metaphorically "immerse Christ in piss" every day?

I swear, I'm not a robot or a cretin. I'm just not connecting the dots here.

EDIT: Another thing I thought about... if you didn't have the title to tell you, and you just had the photo... you wouldn't have had the same reaction. You had to know what the yellow was to "get it". I don't really have a point, I just found that interesting, that the photo couldn't stand on its own. I guess I do feel like that's "cheating" almost.

Puzzle pieces ...

To be honest, it doesn't really surprise me that the two of you were a touch lost by my recent post. Have you ever had the experience where you feel as if God begins to give you puzzle pieces. They pieces arrive at rather random intervals, and unfortunately for our restless, unsettled minds, they arrive one at a time with no box and no picture of what is to be built. If that at all resonates with you, than you should have some idea of what the last nine months have been like for me. I have been "receiving" puzzle pieces at a rate of one-per-month for about nine months now, and it is only over the last week or so that I am starting to get a clue as to what the final picture may look like.

The Pacific Garden piece had to do with human depravity. If the three of you are anything like me, you probably tend to live with the mistaken belief that, generally speaking, you have it together. You have wives, you have a house, maybe you have a kid, you got jobs that you like ... In that kind of environment, its sometimes tempting to live as if God doesn't exist. And no, we would never say this out loud, becasue that is offensive to Christian ears. But if we're being honest, we sometimes get so caught up in the journey of our daily lives that we lose sight of the fact that God has a vested interest in what we are doing and why.

What I failed to mention in my last post is this: while sitting listening to my friend, I was also staring at a new pair of shoes I was wearing. It sounds dumb, but I really like these shoes. These are probably some of the best shoes I've ever owned. They feel good, they look good, and for whatever reason, I couldn't stop admiring them.

So I'm sitting there in this stench, and I'm thinking about Jude and how he says that our rotted flesh is so nasty that it even stains our clothing (including my fine new pair of shoes), and I'm thinking about that photograph of Christ, and I get this flash that I am still a very long way away from being perfected. I'm sitting with all these desperately impoverished people - any by impoverished, I'm not just talking about material wealth -- and all I can think about is the fact that I look good in my new pair of shoes.

And that's when it strikes me. Maybe that photograph (regardless of the artist's second-rate intentions) is really, REALLY accurate. Maybe I really am that vulger. Maybe I really am that shallow. Maybe, Christ really did have to come all that way just for me ...

P.S. In response to your post, Matt, I would say two things. One, when it comes to visual art, that is one of the few arenas where I believe the postmodernists are right. Visual art is not propositional. It is an attempt to capture a moment or an idea, but because there is no written or verbal explanation, it leaves itself open to all manner of interpretations. So regardless of the artist's intentions, he put something out there and asked people to think about. This is where I landed.

Two, in my opinion, your point about Christ no longer being in a place where He lives in vulgarity misses the point of my interpretation. The photo is a depiction of Christ on the cross in His incarnate form. Regardless of where and how He lives now, at that time in His "life," He was living in a corrupted body that was decaying and capable of death. If the photo had been some representation of the Risen Christ floating in urine, I would agree that it is non-sensical. But the fact that it is His incarnate form suggests that an interpretation close to mine is at least one valid possibility. What do you think?

Scott-- I still think about your post every now and then, because it certainly seemed to be an important experience to you. And I wonder if I'm catching a glimpse here--(And please excuse the fog; my mind has been absent the past few days, secondary to some cold or flu bug...) The other day, I was talking to a friend who is considering throwing in the towel on his personal business that he's run (mostly subsistently) for the past few years. He's been praying about it for quite some time, and reports no feedback. And our discussion is based on this frustration.

And my reply to him--in my usual blunt form--was to suggest that perhaps God didn't care. (Let me rephrase--God may not care about that.) I'm not sure if God has 1 unique plan for all lives, or if there is some type of matrix in which any number of permutations are divinely inspired. But what I do wonder is if we, as a function of our own human (American) prosperity, have largely lost touch with a true dependence on God? God doesn't care if you have a BMW or a Porsche, because it's all superfluous anyway.

And yet--even in our relatively sheltered society, you still get the reality moments that drag you down on your knees. The mixture of gratitude for blessings, hatred of sin's influence on our lives and others, humility with yourself and others, coupled with hopes and prayers for the future. So that's what I got out of your post. Don't know if that even resembles your experience though.

P.S. Tokyo Rose died Tuesday.

Hey Scott--I'm with Matt on this one. It's apparent that you did have a moving experience; I'm just not sure it could be gotten w/o the experience. Further, from a deconstructionist perspective, anything can mean anything--which I suppose is part of the "art".

But as an aside, I just saw this diagram--and wow. Profound. (Yet not completely applicable to us Wheatonites.) Where was this when I was a freshman?

I started to wonder whether we missed the point entirely.

A quick scan of the internet yielded no comment from the artist himself, Andres Serrano, on "the point" of his photograph. A quick glance at some of his common subjects--such as bodily fluids and rotting corpses--indicate that the guy may just be a second-rate provocateur.

was it Christ's dignity that we were trying to protect, or was it the illusion of our own dignity?

I'm not quite getting your point. I mean, yes, Christ allowed himself to be humiliated for our sake, which had its purpose at that time and place. But he's no longer abasing himself by inhabiting human form. Anyway, if you'd like to elaborate, please do.

Pacific Garden Mission ...

Do any of you remember a photograph from the late 80s where the photographer had taken a crucifix and submerged it into a jar full of urine. I remember people at Wheaton chattering away about this in a rather offended tone, wondering how an artist could dare to represent Christ in this fashion.

The reason I ask is because I was down at the Pacific Garden Mission (PGM) last night, listening to a friend preach to a crowd of 200 or so. The stench in this room was nothing short of horrific. Most of these guys hadn't bathed in a month (if even that recently) and to be honest, I really didn't know what to do with that. It was that overpowering.

Anyway, as I sat there listening to my friend, I couldn't help but think back upon that painting, and I started to wonder whether we missed the point entirely. We (being conservative evangelical Christians) were so worried about protecting the dignity of Christ, that we tended to forget that He sacrificed His dignity of His own accord. Leaving all that was pure and holy and set apart, He descended into our vulgarity for the sake of you and I ... And as I sat there watching these men, I found myself thinking about that painting and thinking about Jude 22 and 23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear -- hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."

Kind of makes me wonder: was it Christ's dignity that we were trying to protect, or was it the illusion of our own dignity?

Hey Matt--You know what , I'm going to go ahead and say it. My boss is unstable; at least she's not as bad as my old boss. And I'm going to spurt out a view that was given to me by a woman: Women do not make good bosses or leaders because they have trouble keeping their emotions in check.

That's it. I said it. It wasn't my idea. I just wonder if there's a shred of truth to it.

And secondly--I have no idea where I got there---but here is an interesting quote:

Yep, you heard right. I was feeling ashamed at being such an unworthy dirty whore.

The genius goes on about her trials and tribulations here.

After reading this--I honestly wish that shame would come back in vogue. We need more shame... let's start bringing shame back...

Wow. It's hard to say what I'd do, since I don't know what kind of boss-lady we're talking about (well, the one data point I have is not good). I mean, you're the student's advisor, she's her professor... seems legit to me to be able to ask, "Um, want to let me in on what's going on here?"

Honestly, that would bum me out, that my dept chair could do that to a student and not think twice about it.

Dudes...

So I get a call yesterday from an advisee, who wants to see me (soon) regarding a class that she's in (taught by my dept. chair).

And she's a very likeable student--definately smart, although not as focused or driven as others. She's a B/C student, with the potential of being a true-A.

Anyway--she basically starts talking about how the dept. chair doesn't like her, that the chair makes her feel ashamed and stupid, and that she's "made an example of" every class session. So she wants to drop the class. And you know--I don't buy into student emotion; generally, I really don't care. So I certainly wasn't going to stop her from this choice, but her dropping the class was likely more to do with her own personal slacker-ness than anything else.

So I go into the office to find a drop form, and the chair sees her. And lets into her. Public shaming, belittled; the chair reacted personally. Instantly--all of the student's complaints were validated. She basically fled the scene and started sobbing hysterically in my office. Dammit--I hate it when students cry in my office.

And I'm really struggling if this should be brought up to my boss' attention. The boss lady was clearly out of line--no doubt about it.

I'm not sure I have ever seen anything quite so gratuitously violent as the opening sequence of Volume 1 where the Bride gets mauled in the church.

You chose that scene over the finale at the "House of Blue Leaves"? Interesting.

In the end, I guess I walked away from both feeling like QT has gotten completely trapped by the success of his first two films... It's like he's afraid of outgrowing his fan base.

Or maybe he has no interest? Maybe he's doing what Kevin Smith should have done... which is sticking to what he knows!

Tim, help a brother out.

I haven't seen Sin City, but I think it's in my Netflix queue.

Hey Scott--it's in the mail... :)

Having completely abandoned you in your reaching out for some QT love, let me throw you this bone. Have you seen Rodriguez's "Sin City." Completely violent, and yet stylistically enthralling. I absolutely could not turn away. And yes, before you ask, I am aware that he is working with QT on Grindhouse. I'm still not going.

While we're on the subject of pop culture, I recently picked up the first volume of "Pinky and the Brain." Do you remember watching that back at Wheaton. I was amazed at how well it held up. Yes, some of the references are definitely dated, but the humor is actually quite subversive. Funny, funny stuff.

I saw the two Kill Bill films a couple of years ago. To be honest, I was so underwhelmed by the over-the-top violence of the first, that I seriously debated even bothering to see the second. I'm not sure I have ever seen anything quite so gratuitously violent as the opening sequence of Volume 1 where the Bride gets mauled in the church. But I took a gamble on Volume 2, and was pleasantly surprised by move back towards his original form. More dialog, less gratuitous violence (notice I did not say "no gratuitous violence.").

In the end, I guess I walked away from both feeling like QT has gotten completely trapped by the success of his first two films. Both were fantastically violent and "chatty", and now everything he makes has to fall into that category. It's like he's afraid of outgrowing his fan base. Kevin Smith, like him or not, at least took a swing with Jersey Girl. The film bit, but at least he tried moving beyond near-constant sex jokes. (Of course, Jersey Girl tanked and Smith has returned to his juvenile ways with Clerks 2.)

I guess what I'm saying is this: I think I have left QT behind. I will always love Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs for what they were, but I seriously doubt I will even give his next film (I think it's called Grindhouse) a chance.

Is the Pope a wuss?

Pope B. is now saying that his words had been misunderstood and expressed "profound respect" for Muslims.

All this stemming from the suggestion that everything the Prophet Mohammad brought was evil, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (Quote taken from Manuel II Palaeologus.)

Again--this is doing my head in. It is apparent that muslims aren't into free speech. But what's more, the Pope seems to be engaging in appeasement.

In other news... California filed suit against 6 carmakers over greenhouse gases. You see--global warming, in which cars cause, will cost the state millions. Bad car. Bad car.

Next, a Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused. He's right--it's caused by cars.

Ok--I'm going to go take a dump on a koran. See you guys later.

The older I get, the more I just don't care for hyper-violence and potty-mouth-ism.

I'm sure becoming a dad had something to do with that too.

It's not as though I liked the over-the-top violence (although in a way I'm glad it was as unrealistic as it was). I think it detracted from the movies' other merits. I think I was able to enjoy the movies as much as I did because on some level I understood what QT was trying to accomplish, and was somehow able to just let him take me on the ride. (I don't remember my adrenaline pumping as hard watching a movie as it was during the Bride/Elle Driver fight scene in the trailer in Part 2.) I think that just comes more easily to me than it does to most people (one of whom I'm married to); I can just turn my brain off and immerse myself in the world I'm presented with. Well, for the most part, anyway.

This came up because I've been holding off buying the DVDs until they're released in one package, with all the extras QT is bound to throw in. I've read here and there online that he wants to re-release them to theaters as a single huge movie (with an intermission) in "late 2006", but... can't find official word of that anywhere. Or any dates. Waah.

I dunno Matt, I saw the films--and they were alright. Didn't make much of an impression on me. The older I get, the more I just don't care for hyper-violence and potty-mouth-ism. (Although I do struggle with the latter myself...)

And while I'm here--just read an article; and while depressing, I wonder if it's true. (Based on the values of secular America...)

This is going to sound like it comes out of nowhere, since they came out 3 and 2 years ago, but indulge me... What did you guys think about the Kill Bill movies? If you saw them, of course.

2T, 3T, 4T, 5T (best read in the cadence of "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish")

So I stopped by the U's bookstore to see their toddler-wear, and was a little disappointed at their 3T selection. But then I went to compare all the T's, and they seemed to be the same functional size to me. (2T all the way through 5T.) But then I'm thinking--I really don't know this kid... Maybe I ought'a just get him a football/basketball set or something. But then I'm thinking--No, I don't want to buy him a weapon. Then again, a shirt can be used as a suffocation device--so it's a lose-lose.

All I know is--kid went from being the center of the universe to being Pluto asteroid number 134340.

I'll get it out on Thursday, so that the card can be signed by 21 girls with cooties. Ethan will be a rock-star!

And as far as the, "nice and white, maybe pointy at the top with a couple of eye-holes" comment--I only need to look in my closet for those. They hand those out in the welcome baskets.

Actually, babies do slow down in a sense. They typically have a major growth spurt around 2 years, and then they stand pat for a while. So that's why clothing sizes start stretching out to a full year as opposed to new stuff every three to six months.

Oh, and if you are going to go with something in the "stars and bars" vein, can you make it nice and white, maybe pointy at the top with a couple of eye-holes?

A lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) basically said, "The Pope Is Not Smart Enough To Understand Islam."

Ok--that's it. A derogatory remark… It’s time to over-react and set something on fire.

Oh--P.S. Scott--Ella wears 2T. Do they slow down or something? Anyway--I'll pick him up some Rebel gear. I'll try to find something with the Stars & Bars for 'em.

Hey Greg,

Given his reaction to his new brother, I think your gift of a t-shirt would be very, VERY appropriate. So thank you in advance for the thoughtfulness. His t-shirt size is a 3T.

And as for my other son, Gavin, this is what he looked like as he arrived home in his car seat.

Congrats, Bryants!!! Excellent news. Our best to everyone.

So, one full week of school down. I gave my first quizzes Thursday and Friday, and... I tell ya, them things are a lot easier to grade when they get the answers correct!!! I don't think the quizzes were a lot easier than ones I've given in the past. I think the girls are just plain old more hard-workin'! So that's nice.

My freshman girls seem to be taking to logic quite well. They're a pretty sharp bunch; I'm going to enjoy that class. The others are with upperclassmen, which will be a little more of a challenge... but overall, I'm very glad I'm here.

Congratulations Scott, Sarah and Ethan. Glad to hear that things went so well; and all our best to you guys in this fun (yet tiring) time.

And if you could--shoot me Ethan's specs; I'd like to send him a "Yes, your paradigmatic view of the world and your place in it has just radically shifted in the span of a second, but you still matter to us" t-shirt.

I know I'm a few days late, but your post on the media tickled the reflexes. A few years ago, when I was still at Trinity, I had a professor who was finishing his doctorate at Northwestern's School of Divinity. As you may or may not know, Northwestern is well-known for its journalism school.

Anyway, back then, I got into a conversation with Peter (my prof), and he told me that the entire journalistic school of ethics has changed. During the modern era, they were actually deluded enough to believe that they could be genuinely objective with no point of view. But in the aftermath of the postmodern cultural shift, schools started changing. Now, journalism schools teach that it is not possible to be objective. So instead of teaching the detached journalist ethos," they teach something called "Advocacy Journalism" (The name might be slightly off, but I have captured the idea). In short, advocacy journalism suggests that it is impossible to be objective, so the journalists job is to advocate for the underserved, underpriviliged, etc... Again, the exact terminology is off, but this is a definite shift in the journalistic paradigm.

I don't know about Tim, but Sarah and I have been having a baby!

Gavin Isaiah was born on Thursday night at 10:11 pm. Given the fact that we arrived at 9:30 pm, it is a no smalll understatement to say that things went extraordinarily well. In fact, the labor itself went so fast that the docs did not even have the time to get two liters of fluid into Sarah so that they could start the epidural. So natural birth, no drugs, 40 minutes. It was like a McBirth!

I'll post more later, but as for now, just know that Sarah and Gavin are doing very, very well.

Obscure WWII Trivia:

The US developed (and successfully tested) bat bombs. Imagine mini-napalm bombs surgically attached to bats. Said bats were cooled to induce hibernation. These bats were enclosed in special bomb-like bat-homes, that would warm them up enough (out of hibernation) while being dropped on Japanese cities (Osaka, in particular); these cities were known to be developed with wooden and bamboo structures--thus the idea of incendiary bombs. Bats would then take up shelter in these wooden structures, and subsequently burn them down.

It was tested, and found to be remarkably effective. Ultimately, the project was cancelled after the first (successful) nuclear test.

So Tim--what have you been up to?

Did God just take me to school?

9/13: Lunch meeting with the dean, where she asks, "When do I get to see your lab?" My internal thought, "well, not now--that's for damn sure. Seeing that the 25k in gear is still sitting all boxed up on my office floor." "How about after the Fall Institute?", I reply. "Fine then--Monday it is." Internal thought: "fark!"

9/13: The lab in which she is referring is mine. It cost the U about 25k, and a whole lot of bickering. Such a lab has never been successfully assembled, although my peers (that copy me because they lack their own research paradigm) have tried. So I look around and find the parts, that--in theory--should make this beast come to life. Much research was done to understand the inherent problems, as well as how to get around them.

9/14: So yesterday and today, I am unpacking, assembling, and making a patch-cable list. I still don't know if it works. It should--in theory. I'm beginning to get nervous. It's intimidating the crap out of me. Me, of all people.

9/15, 9:35 am CST: I get at the lab with some patch cables. I turn it on. It doesn't work. *wince*. My theoretical lab, costing 25k and a whole lot of bickering, does NOT work.

9/15, 9:37 am CST: Panic attack ensues.

9/15, 9:38 am CST: Prayer Submitted: Please God, help this work.

9/15, 10:00 am CST: Meet Courtney and Ella to scan in stuff. Can't enjoy my baby because I'm thinking where I can get another job to support my family.

9/15, 10:15 am CST: *Wonders if that job offer from the University of Alberta is still open* Goes back to the lab. Is directed to flip an obscure jumper-setting on one of the many gizmos. *turns it on* *Sees that it works*

9/15, 11:10 am CST: Checks Hobo. *Wonders what just went down*

Dear Lord, as I keep rolling this die, please let me roll a 1 at some point...

Greg--stories like that always make me feel oogy, primarily because the implication is that we always get what we pray for. And I don't know about you guys, but that has not been my experience. So I don't think we should be selling that.

In fact, I've noticed that I rarely pray for things to go my way anymore. It's usually more along the lines of, "I'd like Desired Outcome X to happen, but if Undesired Outcome Y is going to happen instead, please help me to see some good in it or come out of it." I know, I know, I'm essentially asking to know "what God was thinking", fat chance. What can I say.

Oh dear--here I go...

Apparently a church in TX prayed for rain on July 30th. It's rained since then. Now they're praising God.

Ok--help me out here guys. I mean, I want to believe as much as the next guy... but the scientist in me is looking at the odds of it raining in an unspecified amount of time in the future? Well--that would be 100%, given the theory of the water cycle holds. And in this case, it did.

So should I be looking for a lightning bolt any time soon--or is this just a bad case of _____ (evangalism)?

I'm a Colin Powell lover? Maybe a decade ago. All I can say is that I do not agree with his latest sentiments.

A housekeeping note: I just activated comments. I figure that we will still operate as usual, where if one of us wants to respond to someone else's post, we would do it with a post of our own. If we want to respond to a commenter, we would do it in the comment area. (Unless it really warrants its own new post.)

Matt--oh lover of Colin Powell, you will be glad to know that he is continuing his agenda with his most recent open letter. His belief is that the use of "torture" (of which is never operationally defined) would put our own troops at risk. Right--yes. Good point. If we treat them with the utmost of respect, our troops will be fine.

Why do people seem to think think that subtle changes in our behavior will appease the islamo-facists, so they'll pack up and head home? Such a belief just does my head in, as there's never been a historical or current example where appeasement has (ever) worked. Ever. In reported history. At all. Period.

This just annoys me on so many levels. First, that there is deliberate actions to undermine unity. Second--that boneheads actually believe this; a premise in which I still cannot accept. No one, no matter how much self-loathing, can actually truly believe this. Help me out here, if I'm wrong...

On the one hand, yes, I believe that sensationalism, scare tactics, and manufactured outrage rule the day in the media (outside of any kind of political bias). When it comes right down to it, they're competing for eyeballs, and they'll do whatever it takes to get them.

But on the other hand... to blame Nancy Grace for Duckett's suicide--which genuinely seemed like what the AP writer was trying to do--seems off to me, in a post hoc ergo propter hoc kind of way. I would wager that it was something Duckett had been considering before the interview, and that it was because she had something to do with her son's disappearance (despite those quotes from her friends and neighbors). Just my inkling.

Today is just wicked, and I do not like leaving drive-by postings... but I am interested in some thoughts about this. Apparently a (CNN) TV Anchor gave a pretty tough interview to a mom that was a "person of interest" regarding a missing 2 year old child. After the interview, the mother killed herself.

Has the state of our pop-culture-media, that has the holy grail of "bringing somebody down" (ala Woodword & Bernstein), gone too far? Has the Ivory Tower of journalism bred a new beast that ceases to actually report, but rather advocate an agenda?

I think you guys know where I stand--although others on the board haven't shared their opinion on it as much as I? Further--do you think said TV anchor was appropriate? And if not, is she an accessory to murder?

Meow indeed! :-)

But on that note, did you hear that Mark Noll (one of the more respected evangelical thinkers) has left the hallowed halls of Wheaton for the even more hallowed halls of Notre Dame. He hasn't converted. Far from it. But apparently Notre Dame was willing to put up with his evangelical bend in order to obtain his scholasticism.

From what I can tell, this survey suggests that 39% of evangelicals and nearly 70% of Catholics believe that non-Christians will be in Heaven.

Might I suggest that there are significantly more "nominal" Catholics than there are "nominal" evangelicals? That's been my observation, at least up in my neck of the woods. I've always thought of Catholicism as being MORE "restrictive" as to who gets to Heaven than Protestants. As in, Catholics believed that ONLY Catholics were going to Heaven, but Protestants at least extended a little grace back to their Catholic and Orthodox friends. I guess it's not quite that simple.

I've been thinking a lot about your comments regarding your reading of Kreeft, a Catholic apologist. And then I found myself thinking about your gift to me at the Wedding - a copy of Thomas Merton's writings. And I found myself wondering: is this a trend or just two random examples.

Actually, random examples. For one, I would call Kreeft a Christian apologist rather than a Catholic apologist. Although he is Catholic, his apologetics stuff argues for the broad umbrella of "mere Christianity". (Might I recommend in particular Christianity for Modern Pagans, Making Sense Out of Suffering, Fundamentals of the Faith, and Three Philosophies of Life.) As for Merton... I actually haven't read that much of him (is that bad?), but he is respected highly by people I respect highly (even while disagreeing with him frequently), and the things that I have read by, and about, him made me think that you would enjoy him.

Anyway, while there are aspects of Catholicism that I like, I don't see myself being dragged all the way there. The few times I have heard Kreeft argue for Catholicism have rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, he is of the "Rome has decreed it, so that's that" variety, which... I don't know, I just can't trust fallen human beings to speak for God "unfilteredly". He also talked once about how when the priest serves you communion, it is not only Jesus' actual body and blood, but His actual voice you hear saying "this is my body, broken for you." Kinda creeps me out--which doesn't make it wrong. Just creepy.

I wondered whether you have found much of Evangelical thinking to be too simplistic?

Evangelical thinking? Yes. (Can you say oxymoron?) Protestant thinking is another matter.

Meow.

or whether it is further evidence that relativism is slowly creeping into the church as a subversive and destructive force.

Suggested Translation: If God loves man, then He won't hold them accountable for their choices. Interesting (potential) example of relative premise previously stated: Jesus on the cross. One felon is "in" (w/o all the process involved in modern Evangelicalism), the other is "out". (Note the pop-culture reference to Project Runway.)

My new operational definition for political correctness:

Denial of an unpleasant truth.

My new operational definition in action:

The church is becoming politically correct, which is a byproduct of incremental moral relativism.

And now--for something completely different:

I wondered whether you have found much of Evangelical thinking to be too simplistic?

Probably. But it's the prevailing paradigm... Who am I to go against the grain? I'll just enjoy life as a mind-numbed robot, thank-you-very-much!

Religion in America (through the eyes of a Baptist University) ...

So I'm in Panera this morning, buying my morning coffee, when I happen to look over and catch the lead article on the front page of USA Today: "View of God can Reveal your Values and Politics."

Over the last several years, Baylor University has been making a move to reposition itself as the leading evangelical institution of higher education by refashioning itself as a research university (along the lines of Catholic Notre Dame). Already in the news for being on the cutting edge of "Intelligent Design" research (through the efforts of William Dembski), this is their newest big-ticket project.

Anyway, I picked up the paper and read through the article. Quite a few interesting early finds. For instance, "most people said they believe in prophetic dreams." I found that statement to be facinating. Or how about this: "four in 10 say there were once 'ancient advanced civilizations' such as Atlantis." Seriously, four out every ten believing in things like Atlantis! Is it wrong of me to blame the X-files, Matt?! :-)

Here's what I thought was really interesting though. According to this vast survey (which was conducted by Gallop), 61% of evangelcial Protestants say "only Christians will get into Heaven" will 66.9% of Catholics say "all or most non-Christians will." Which brings us back to the whole Billy Graham/Peter Kreeft who's in and who's out conversation. From what I can tell, this survey suggests that 39% of evangelicals and nearly 70% of Catholics believe that non-Christians will be in Heaven. What I wonder is whether this position is grounded in the respondant's beliefs that God's grace will not condemn those that have not heard, or whether it is further evidence that relativism is slowly creeping into the church as a subversive and destructive force. In other words, are these respondants more likely to agree with Matt, or are they merely becoming more like the world as they loose their sense of "in, but not of?"

Matt: I've been thinking a lot about your comments regarding your reading of Kreeft, a Catholic apologist. And then I found myself thinking about your gift to me at the Wedding - a copy of Thomas Merton's writings. And I found myself wondering: is this a trend or just two random examples. I guess I ask because Wheaton recently had a minor controvery when they let go of a professor because of his conversion to Catholacism. Apparently, his journey to faith had come through his doctoral studies in philosophy, and ultimately, that journey lead him to a place where he believed that the Roman Catholic Church valued the intellectual pursuit of God more highly than did the Evangelical church. I'm guess I'm just curious. You were always one of the "smartests cats in the room," even at Wheaton; and I wondered whether you have found much of Evangelical thinking to be too simplistic?

Monday night Football was on last night. In fact, in a rare move, the NFL decided to schedule two games for the Monday night slot. But instead of watching (while my wife was out with her friend and my son was sleeping peacefully), I found myself glued to CNN and other like-minded channels. And I found myself thinking about airports, and times that I have sat near the window marveling at the size of an airliner -- wondering how something that big could ever manage to get off the ground. And then I found myself thinking about what it must have been like to be looking out the window and realizing that this massive jet was coming right at you. Five years later and it still has the power to take me down a very dark path ...

Funny.

Not Speaking Clearly ...

Apparently, I am not doing well in terms of my online efforts at communication.

Greg: In one regard, I think you are I are actually on the same page. I too believe that the media probably did not represent Billy's arguments in the way that he intended. Hence, the "letter to the editor" clarifying that he still believes in the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and in the fact that Christ is the only way to Heaven. My frustration, however, is not related to content of what he believes. That much is not in question. My frustration is twofold:

1. Why in the world would Billy Graham ever consent to an article in which he is going to discuss nuances of Scripture and interpretation without getting final editorial veto power. Seriously, this is Billy Graham. He doesn't need "Newsweek." "Newsweek" needs him (to sell that particular issue). So get your editorial rights if you are going to talk about these kinds of issues. Cause you are going to confuse many people if you don't.

2. Why discuss army counts and other such minutea with an individual that is not likely to understand the context of Ancient Near Eastern genres (which are radically different than modernist genres that tend to be far more technically precise). His examples of "errors" in Scirpture are all things that a first-year grad student deals with in seminary, and a secular news magazine is not the place to wrestle that down.

Matt: I can actually understand why you were confused. Even as I pressed "publish post," I knew there would be questiosn. One of those times where it is clear in your own mind, but you are too tired to get it out on paper. Here's the deal. While I would never again presume to tell someone that a certain individual is either in Hell or Heaven, I have no problem talking about groups of people. Muslims are people that define themselves as being worshippers of Allah. They deny the risen Christ, and deny that He was, in fact, the Son of God. Thus, a Muslim is going to Hell. However, if you ask me whether Abdul the Muslim is in Heaven or not, I honestly don't know the answer. Because Abdul, the individual, may have, on his death bed, responded to a gospel message he heard a long time ago. Or perhaps God Himself reaches out to Abdul in a supernatural way and reveals the Risen Christ to him. The distinction here is in the wording. A Muslim will not be in Heaven. But Abdul might because he may have made a move of faith that is unknown to other people. But if that is the case, at that point in time, he ceased to become a Muslim and by definition became a Christian. Thus, I am comfortable saying that there are no Muslims in Heaven, but I am not comfortable declaring that a given individual is or is not, because I don't know what was going on in his or her final moments.

I tend to think that Graham was probably thinking along the same lines. Perhaps he said more an it was edited out by the journalist. Perhaps he left it at that and said nothing more. I don't know. But it brings me back to my original point which was the frustration that he granted this interview without editorial power in the first place. These are not things that you entrust to a secular media that is openly hostile to the claims of Christianity. Just look at the title alone. "Billy's new thinking on ..." Even the title suggests that Billy has rejected certain stances of his ministry. And that is a dangerous thing to allow to happen when you are such a public voice for the Gospel of Christ.

Does that make sense?

You know Scott, I actually took the time to read the entire article--and while I do agree with your points... I honestly wonder just how unbiased the piece was written. The more I learn about the reported news vs. the actual events--I have just lost almost all faith in the mass media.

My second point is to suggest that this change in perspective (if it indeed is representative of what he now believes) is secondary to the aging process. It is easy for me to see that as one draws closer to death, the questions of religion become more introspective and self-centered, rather than esoteric extensions of one's faith onto global politics.

When it all comes down to it--all we have is our faith. And I'll be the first to admit, a lot of our theology just doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Why would God banish satan to earth? It's as if the cardinal sin was only a matter of time... And you've probably experienced traveling to a culture that is almost exclusively another religion--and that's a very sobering realization. If my belief is true, this entire civilization is crisp toast. That just does not make sense. Yet I am secure enough in my faith to continue my beliefs and my actions (i.e., behavioral manifestations of faith).

Is it possible that Dr. Graham is facing a reality in which we cannot relate. And in his new reality, his new struggle, his statements are honest reflections of his change in world view--that is a function of him nearing the biggest test of faith that exists--a prolonged and uninterrupted view of your own dwindling mortality.

And speaking of death--here's some good info that you guys might want to know...

Scott: I don't quite get it... I can't square your incredulity over this:

And here's where the mindblowing emerges. Billy doesn't want to speak for God as to who will be in heaven and who will not ... Yes, a man who has spent his entire career speaking for God, no longer wants to do so. God will save who he saves, and Billy is just glad that he is covered by the blood of Jesus.

with this:

Now, when someone asks me whether so and so is in Heaven (especially if they believed such-and-such), I have learned to say that I do not know.

Help me understand. Is it that he didn't even mention Christ? Oh wait, he did.

Oh and out of curiosity... how many points does your Calvinism have? ;-)

Greg: I haven't used eBible. I've used BibleGateway.com by default for years, but I'm sure there are better alternatives out there.

I hate to leave a drive-by posting, especially on today of all days... But I was wondering if you guys have used eBible? It does seem to provide some pretty interesting results...

Nuances ...

Many years ago, back in High School, I became a believer in Jesus Christ. Like many new believers, I was filled with the fervancy of the gospel. I wanted everyone to know ... whether they wanted to or not. One day, a week after a friend's mother passed away, this friend asked me what I believed about eternity. I told her, without hesitation, that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. When she told me that her mother had been a Buddhist, she gave me the chance to gracefully back out. I did not. Insteady, I told her that if her mother had been a Buddhist, and did not believe in the atoning death of Christ, she was, in fact, not only in Heaven, but in Hell. Needless to say, the conversation did not go so well after that ...

That's around about the time you all met me at Wheaton. Of course, following that incident, and the loss of a good friend, I became far less ... enthusiastic. Yes, I still beleived what I believed, but I was more jaded and cynical. It turned out that the church wasn't all that it was cracked up to be, and now I had lost something I valued.

Years later, I sought the friend out. I asked forgiveness for my arrogance. Remarkably enough, she extend to me the very grace I had failed to offer her. Now, when someone asks me whether so and so is in Heaven (especially if they believed such-and-such), I have learned to say that I do not know. What I do know is that Christ is the only way. What I do not know is what so-and-so was thinking or contemplating when they died. Nor do I know if our how God may have reached out in a supernatural way to expose them to the love of His Son. In short, I have learned that grace invovles a great deal of mercy that truth, in its nakedness, lacks.

I guess what I'm really getting at -- in a very long, round about kind of way -- is this: my answer has never waivered. Like you Matt, I too believe that Christ is the Way, and the Truth. I also believe very passionately that those who seek and knock will be answered. That is why people like Kreeft believe Socrates to be in Heaven. They believe that Greek philosophy is the tool God used to prepare the hearts of the Gentiles for the story of Christ. And if He used them as a tool, how could He not reveal to them the very thing that they were seeking?

I'm not convinced. Yes, Socrates was actively pursuing truth. But the human heart has a remarkable capacity for self-deception. Was he seeking truth for the sake of living up to it (as best as he could), or was he seeking truth for other, less altruistic motives. The human heart is rather devious, and I for one do not trust it. I guess that's one of the many reasons I have come to embrace Reformed Theology. It takes an awful lot off the human plate and places it where it more properly belongs -- on the plate of the Creator and Redeemer of humanity.

I have to say, I've become more of an agnostic when it comes to "who gets in and who doesn't" kinds of questions. No, I'm not a universalist. I do believe that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and "no one comes to the Father but through me." But what does that mean? Are millions of people in third world countries who have never even heard Jesus' name kind of up a creek? Or is it possible to "know" Christ in some other way, other than personally?

For example, Peter Kreeft (pronounced CRAYFT) is a Catholic philosophy professor at Boston College. Back when I was big into apologetics I read quite a few of his books, and loved them; they really "spoke my language", as it were. Anyway, I was a little surprised to read somewhere that he believes that Socrates, for one, is in heaven. Now, granted it would have been hard for him to even have known OF Christ at all. But I think Kreeft's argument had something to do with Socrates' love of truth. I'm not saying I agree, but it did get me thinking.

But before too long my head starts to hurt, and I just rest in this conclusion... I sure am glad that it's God making such decisions, and not any of us human beings.

Billy in Newsweek ...

Did you guys happen to catch the "Newsweek" article on Billy Graham. It came out about three weeks ago? Not to speak to disparagingly about our illustrious fellow alumni, but this article was really disturbing. The whole thing is framed around a rift that has emerged between himself and a his son, Franklin. Apparently, Franklin has made some rather bold (and accurate) comments regarding the evil nature of Islam. Billy (and his daughter, Anne Graham, who comes off as a total kiss-up) doesn't agree with his son. In fact, Billy has many friends who are Islamic and they are all wonderful people.

At this point, the reporter rightly sniffs out a story, and asks Graham to comment on whether their goodness will lead them to heaven. Well, I'm probably butchering that a bit. What he really asks is whether Buddhists, Muslims, etc... will be in Heaven. And here's where the mindblowing emerges. Billy doesn't want to speak for God as to who will be in heaven and who will not ... Yes, a man who has spent his entire career speaking for God, no longer wants to do so. God will save who he saves, and Billy is just glad that he is covered by the blood of Jesus. To go along with this, he also throws in some comments about no longer being certain that "every jot and tittle" of Scripture is inspired. Now how one is supposed to know what is inspired and what is not inspired is never discussed. But in one staggeringly foolish interview, Graham undercuts the authority of Scripture and then says that he doesn't want to speak for God on who gets into heaven.

Did any of you guys see this?

Anyway, Graham has now written a letter to the editor of "Newsweek." He reaffirms his stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture, as well as his belief that Christ is the only way to redemption. But seriously, this is a short little letter as opposed to a multi-page article prefaced by a covershot talking about Billy's "new thinking." You would think that at this stage in the man's life, someone would be working to make sure that he has final approval of all articles before they are printed for millions. Seriously, no editorial rights, no interview! End of story. Instead, millions are mislead and have to go digging for a tiny little letter that contradicts the article. Foolish! Foolish! Foolish!

This kind of stuff just ticks me off. Think about who you are dealing with before you start talking about minutea that can easily be misinterpreted.

[pre-church-post:] Bill Clinton's last gasp to (further) censor ABC...
[post-church-post:] Never before have I attended a service where the speaker gave an address for an audience of 1... himself. I have never seen this amount of disconnect between pastor and congregation--ever. Next!
[post-post-church-post:] Just read an intersting article detailing how many employers are looking at the applicants credit history in the hiring process. I personally think it's a great idea, as it's been my experience that the manner in which people treat finances is often a direct reflection on their character.

And Ella speaks her mind online:

dcx yt76
rd xf54r 97n 78bn
c5
.6fj6mr596
\ 0 \ zx c q2q332q.0 32nbhj-++++++++++699999999993
3c

f r 5trtre4
/4

/that is all

This made me laugh

Hm, that's not very tolerant!

Greg, as a college professor you'll appreciate this: Top Ten No Sympathy Lines (Plus a Few Extra)

My favorite:

There Was Too Much Memorization

Sad to say, students have been victims of a cruel hoax. You've been told ever since grade school that memorization isn't important. Well, it is important, and our system wastes the years when it is easiest to learn new skills.

Memorization is not the antithesis of creativity; it is absolutely indispensable to creativity. Creative insights come at odd and unpredictable moments, not when you have all the references spread out on the table in front of you. You can't possibly hope to have creative insights unless you have memorized all the relevant information. And you can't hope to have really creative insights unless you have memorized a vast amount of information, because you have no way of knowing what might turn out to be useful.

Rote memorization is a choice. If you remember facts and concepts as part of an integrated whole that expands your intellectual horizons, it won't be rote. If you merely remember things to get through the next exam, it will be rote, and a whole lot less interesting, too. But that is solely your choice.

It is absolutely astonishing how many people cannot picture memorization in any other terms than "rote memorization," - even after reading the paragraph just above.

In all seriousness, out of sheer boredom, I looked at your goofy tolerance site. And I wonder if they aren't accurate about something--we'll tolerate you killing us. Whatever we have done that offended you, we're sorry; and if you still want to kill us anyway--we'll understand, we deserve it anyway.

And in all seriousness--can someone please define the concept of racism to me. Because I just don't get it. It seems that racism isn't words or beliefs expressed, but instead, an interaction between the speaker and the words or beliefs spoken.

In short--racism can only be labeled after the fact; once the interaction between speaker and content is analyzed. This, ipso-facto, is pseudoscience; and subsequently, I can't accept it as valid.

As I was being oriented at my new school's library, in the periodicals section my eyes fell upon a copy of "Teaching Tolerance" magazine. Yes, that's right. So I decided to check out their website, tolerance.org.

This really is the religion of the 21st century. Gosh, if everyone would just be nice to everyone, all wars, pestilence, and famine will cease. I really think this is a root cause of this "divisiveness" everyone likes to talk about these days. "We're too divided. We need to be unified." Well, that's because when people disagree, they just smile, nod, turn around, and keep their disparaging remarks to themselves--and people who will agree with them--lest they be perceived as intolerant, rather than having civilized yet impassioned discussions.

Anyway, I especially "liked" the "Talk to Kids About..." section. So Greg, if you ever need help talking to Ella about white privilege, same-sex marriage, or--heaven forfend--The Boy Scouts... don't despair! You have a resource you can turn to!

Well if that's the case, I think you should go for it. And I particularly like the final two topics of the seminar. I think comparing the religous undergirdings of Islamic terror against the imperialist designs of the Japanese war machine could actually produce some really facinating discussion.

"Would you not be required to demonstrate some level of credibility through obtaining some sort of certification through a degreed program before they allowed you to teach a seminar? I mean, if not, what's to prevent you from suddenly deciding to teach vector calculus or some other such thing? ... I'm just curious as to how/why the university would let you do this ..."

You cut me deep, Scott. You cut me real deep just now.

It's actually a basic writing class, so the topic is merely a means to the (writing) end. It can be taught by any full-time faculty in their areas of expertise or interest. What attracted me to the notion was the ability to do something totally different. And I was only joking with the Shrek allusion; I love that quote.

Belated lunch time post: Brangelina to Marry When Everybody Can

I'm kind of curious how the whole WWII seminar would work. Would you not be required to demonstrate some level of credibility through obtaining some sort of certification through a degreed program before they allowed you to teach a seminar? I mean, if not, what's to prevent you from suddenly deciding to teach vector calculus or some other such thing?

That is not meant to suggest that you could not teach a seminar on WWII. Clearly this has been a long-standing interest of yours; and you obviously have studied it a great deal. I'm just curious as to how/why the university would let you do this ...

Any thoughts on the democrats trying to censor ABC/Disney?

Still thinking of teaching a seminar on WWII for some incoming freshman in the spring. After a little thought, I narrowed it down to the Pacific Theatre, using the following events as a tentative outline:

Events precipitating Pearl,
Pearl Harbor,
Wake Island,
Midway,
Tulagi and Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands,
Philippines,
Iwo Jima,
Okinawa,
Proposed Japanese Invasion / the bomb,
Various Japanese Wartime Atrocities,
Compare & Contrast Japanese Terror vs. Fundamental Islamic Terror,
Compare & Contrast America's fight against Japanese Terror vs. FIT

This course would be an overload, and it may very well suck a ton of my time. Although it would be a refreshing change of pace. Any thoughts or comments?

I don’t know if it’s possible to honestly assess when one would sacrifice themselves. And while odd and morbid, I’ve actually thought about this type of thing quite a bit. [A little side-note, once during Gospel Choir practice, a little girl got her (head, leg, arm, limb, whatever) caught in a folding chair in that psych auditorium a few rows away-- so she started screaming, and I just kind of stood there looking at her. And that inability to act swiftly and meaningfully *really* bugged me; it actually changed the way I think to a certain extent-- it’s almost like I’ve created situational mental scripts in advance, so that they can be executed without thought.] So I’ve actually created any number of mental scripts (or course of actions) to any variety of morbid situations; and I think this new presence-of-mind has allowed me to react more effectively.

But back to my point, I’m not sure we can say with any kind of validity what we’d do before it all goes down, just as Peter denied Jesus in a repeated fashion. And while I very much like to think (and honestly believe) that I’d sacrifice myself for family, friends, or strangers on the street without hesitation-- I’m not sure that one can say.

But here’s another story with a point-- A few years back, when I was flying all over for job interviews, there was a time when I was home 5 days out of an entire month. So I was standing at some magazine rack at O’hare (IIRC) reading the news headlines. It was negative story lines on Iraq-- one after another. And I muttered something to myself, and found that the 4 or 5 other (stranger) businessmen all verbally replied in agreement to (whatever it was that I had said). (Likely to have been something about the negative / inaccurate media portrayal of the situation.) And that was a comforting moment, as I realized that I was not the only one—and that this random incident is likely to be more representative of America… certainly more so than any big media outlet would ever let on…

So my point is—I am not unique. And I certainly think and believe that I’d sacrifice myself without thought for any number of persons, strangers, or situations. So if the two prior tenets are true, then it can only be assumed that others feel the same way. I prefer to believe that Americans have not lost their uniqueness nor exceptionalism. (Undoubtedly, this does not apply to all-- but this has always been the case.) I know that Scott discussed more, but I really don't have the time for it at this present moment.

P.S. --Scott-- Gavin is alright by me. Although I still maintain that you can't properly name a child without seeing them first...
P.P.S. I'm really thinking about teaching a history seminar on WWII... Thoughts?

See, Massachusetts politicians aren't all bad...

Romney Denounces [Former Iranian President Mohammed] Khatami Visit To Harvard

Said Romney: "The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple."

It's Bizarro World is what it is. I'm sure this guy knows just the right tone to strike in talks like these to make the ivory-tower academic types just eat it up.

It seems to be common knowledge now that Romney is looking to run for President. If he can continue to not be wishy-washy about this stuff, I'll like him a lot.

Oh, and Scott, as for the name, sounds good. I mean, it's not one I'd choose, but that's not what you're asking (and Michelle has already ascertained that I pretty much don't like any names for my own eventual children).

As for who or what we would die for... I agree, dying for one's country is somewhat out of vogue these days. We've become so self-loathing that the attitude seems to be, "Who would die for this country?!?" We don't have allegiances to countries; that's so... 20th century. And even allegiances to our families are starting to dwindle. We pretty much look out for Number One first and foremost. I guess that counts as "the elevation of the individual".

[lunch time posting:]
AAAaaand we have lost our ability to truly win the war against terrorists.

Scott--I'll holla' atcha later, after my class.

And his name shall be ...

Gavin Isaiah. What do you think? Do you like it? Or by giving our son an Irish/Jewish name, have we condemned him to constantly feeling oppressed?

Greg: My apologies for failing to credit you with the ingenious Kitler safe place posting. That had to be one of the funnier things I have seen in a few weeks. :-)

All: So I just finished reading A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, and I am absolutely enthraled. Truly one of the more moving books I have ever read. But part of what intrigued me so greatly was Dickens view on the French Revolution. Here in the States, we generally view the Revolution as a time when the "evil monarchy" was overthrown in the pursuit of democratic reform. What I found so interesting was that Dickens showed the dark underbelly of that pursuit. In their zeal to overthrown all that had oppressed them, the "reformers" (if you can call them that) actually became the oppressors themselves. Countless innocents were thrown into prisons and executed by the Guillotine, all on very circumstantial evidence similar to the evidence required during the McCarthy era. Someone doesn't like you. They whisper into someone else's ear. And before you know it, you're considered guilty. Just a really nasty undercurrent to an historical event that I was taught was all wine and roses.

But back to the book. Ultimately, what makes this book sing is the idea that someone who was formerly beyond redemption can, in his final days, choose to set aside his vice and become something more than anyone ever dreamed he would. And in those final pages, that character keeps repeating the "I am the resurrection and the life" passage suggesting that for his impending sacrifice, he found a model in Christ who had died for him.

This, of course, got me to thinking. What would I actually lay my life down for? And what do other people lay their lives down for? Greg just posted about the death of a former Marine who single-handedly convinced 1000 Japanese to surrender. Do people like that exist anymore? Are there actually people willing to live and die for the sake of others? I know Greg is going to point to many who presently serve in the military, but I don't know if I buy it. The folks I know who are currently serving are serving not because they believe in the cause. They are serving because of the excitement, the adventure, the college tuition, or even because they lack something better to do. It just seems to me that this idea of laying down one's life is a dying notion. And I would submit that this is actually another cause of our declining democracy. The elevation of the individual over and above the value of the collective whole. What do you think?

Tim: This study doesn't seem too impressive, as the methodology is (fatally?) confounded. It would have been significantly stronger had they used a variety of populations, and over extended periods of time. As it stands right now, their results seem pretty uninterpretable.

But with that said--it's pretty well accepted that scientific revolutions come from the innovations of single men before the age of 29. Thomas Kuhn writes quite a lot about this in this theory of scientific evolution / revolution. Apparently, marriage and family is a distraction, and people get too invested within their own paradigms after the age of 30 (or so), thus lessening the possibility to significant out-side-the-box innovations. (There are always exceptions, however.)

So in short--all of us are pretty much spent. It's all downhill from here...

Tim: Is this type of security really possible, or is this yet-another-claim to be cracked in 3 months?

Everyone: Guy Gabaldon, who as an 18-year-old Marine private single-handedly persuaded more than 1,000 Japanese soldiers to surrender in the World War II battle for Saipan, has died. He was 80. (Lunch break addition!)

Everyone: Kook Alert--The Lords' Witnesses and the True Bible Code (Lunch break addition!)

Everyone: It may be worth your time to check out ING Direct for your personal and family savings account. I gave it a shot a month or two back, and have been really pleased with the results. It feels like a PayPal account, in that you can easily transfer money to and from ING to your personal checking/savings, but the interest rates are about 3 times the amount of normal brick-and-mortar banks. (Well, ING is a real bank too; FDIC insured and all--just online.) If you decide to do this--let me know; if I refer you, you'll get 25 bucks for free. (I score an additional 10 bucks.) They've also got 6-month CD's at 5%; early withdrawl at 3-months w/ no penalty. Their mortgages are junk, but their savings and short-term CD's are pretty darn competitive.

More about Steve... This is the best single article that I've read about the incident to date. Yeah--this one really caught me off guard too; at first, thinking it was a joke. Then--reading about 15 articles on it last night...

Say what you want, but I read a quote last night that I think sums it up the best:

The thing with Steve was he mixed damn good science with showbusiness and I don't know anyone else who did that. -David Bellamy

Wish I could claim credit, Scott, but that was all Greg. (Author names go below the post!)

Which means the bulldog was mine. :-)

Matt ... What can I say. That was an absolutely brilliant tie between two differing threads. Kitlers and BLTG stickers. Man, that tie was almost worthy of Seinfeld! My hat is off. :-)

So I know I'm a little behind on jumping in on this thread, but you all have made me a little happier that I happen to be allergic to cats. Kitler?!? Next thing you know somebody is going to post a study about the Jew versus non-Jew ownership of kitler cats. Speaking of stupid research, did you know being married makes you stupid? Yeah, and you thought things were going to get better.
I was really hoping to have a nice relaxing day off. Instead, I've been mixing my time between house work and homework. Beth is over at her sister's house putting in tile. So much for R&R. Tomorrow starts another exciting round of work. On the positive side, school starts so the Friday traffic should start to improve. I was getting a little tired of having to orient my life around how bad traffic was going to be on Friday/Saturday/Sunday. If America really wanted to save on gas, they would mandate an every other Friday off schedule. 10% saving on gas consumption right there - not including all the lights/heating/cooling that can be saved at the office. Wouldn't hurt morale either. And can corporate America really put a price on the happiness of their employees?

Yeah that sucks mightily. Celebrity deaths rarely affect me much, but he was different somehow. I mean, he was everywhere on TV for a while, and I watched many a documentary of his. There was one that was a little more up-close and personal, talking about his family life, the birth of his daughter, etc, and it was really nice to see. My heart breaks for his wife and little kids.

Down with Fascist Felines!

I could be wrong, but looking back on things, I think the signs were there way back in Wheaton. I distinctly remember seeing Matt kick a small kitten with a harmless little 'stach. Bastard anti-kitlerite!

I appreciate the levity, and don't mean to truncate it, but here's some more "drive-by linkage"--as in, linked with nought but a thumbs-up by me. I enjoyed reading this, since my new workplace seems to have a disproportionate amount of lesbian employees. It's pretty idealistic, but... still, something to shoot for.

Speaking of work... this week has been meetings, meetings, meetings. And I think things are looking very good, as far as this year being better than last goes. I don't know if this is a boarding school thing--it's my first boarding school position--but these people have their crap together. Every "t" crossed and "i" dotted, no stone unturned, etc. I mean, they have their way of doing things, with every contingency accounted for, and that's that. Some people would hate it, but I really like the structure. It helps me get my act together.

Other good things...

• I have my own room.


• All five of my classes are in it.


• No other classes are in it.


• I have a SMARTBoard in my classroom.

What's a SMARTBoard, you ask? It's only the hottest thing to hit education. Your computer screen gets projected onto a white board, which senses touch, so your finger (or any hard object) can act as the mouse. You can stand at the board and control your computer. There are other features, but... suffice it to say, it's fun to play with--and might actually wind up being useful in class!

Well--that does it. I guess Matt's an Anti-Kitlerite. Living in southern-state Mississippi makes it easy to forget that stuff like this still goes on.

Ok--*that* was designed to bake your taters...

My vote is for real. You can't fake this crap, or where would you find the joy?! Did you happen to notice that you can actually purchase a t-shirt with the kitler logo on it. I dare say, it could be quite the conversation piece in your wardrobe...

I do not concur. I found the site to be well worth my time. As a matter of fact, I suggest we make the following a new thread.

Is the tache real or photoshopped? My hunch is the latter...

I think prisoners in solitary confinement have better things to do with their time.