Insanely busy at work, but did take a few minutes to watch this. Greg, it reminded me of some things you've said in the past about marginalization.

During my events of daily living, I often think—this would be a great topic to hobo about. But alas, I never seem to get around to it. But here’s a noteworthy incident that has stuck in my psyche.

And it’s a repeat topic: Largely that of White Guilt. During the grad student’s last semester, they go through a series of written and oral exams that suck for both faculty and student alike. And during one of the three-full-days-of-oral-comp-goodness, one student was given a case describing the language sample of some 4 year old kid. And by reading the language sample (i.e., African American English, other wise known as AAE), it was evident that the kid in the case was black. So the (white) student that drew this question totally botched the answer. She prepared response was essentially to say that AAE is a dialect, not a disorder. (Which is the current paradigm.) Thus the kid’s language impairments are acceptable. (Despite the reality that there was delayed language regardless of dialect—a reality that she later acknowledged during questioning.) Point being—my student was so ingrained to fear the race issue, that she avoided the question rather than answer it. (i.e., place definitive quantitative and qualitative standards on a hypothetical black child.) Subsequently, had this kid been real, he would not have received treatment secondary to white guilt and fear of the race issue.

And while this train wreck was going on… I honestly thought about asking (or rather stating) to her that she ought never ever let her fear of political correctness impact her quality of care.

But in a sense, I cannot really blame my student all that much. People that consider the south (by default) as discriminatory and racist… well, it’s complete ignorance. Sure some of that goes on, as it goes on everywhere. But to me, the larger problem is the whole white-guilt aspect; it becomes the 500 pound gorilla that everyone knows is there, but all are way too afraid to acknowledge. So when a student is discussed among faculty—even if she is (on paper) average or commensurate with her peers, she becomes a rising superstar dependent on her race. Similarly—while at a football game, I noticed a white lady go out of her way (almost eerily and awkwardly so) to show her appreciation to a concession stand employee for a Coke.

And don’t get me started about the admissions process. That just wouldn’t be a wise thing to do. Suffice it to say that there is a soft bigotry of low expectations prevailing in the air. And nobody will touch it; they won’t even poke it with a stick. I am for the idea of giving students that have had less a chance; however, there becomes a fine line between a "chance" and an oppurtunity to fail by (academic) drowning.

So it just seems to me that this whole race issue is going nowhere when there is this denial of fear and white guilt running around. Stated differently, we're not doing anyone any favors by applying differential standards to people based on fear of the race card and white guilt.

Cool.

... Matt... time to start going to McDonald's.

An exceedingly interesting article. (I hate unions, but not as much as I hate the credit industry.) The interesting thing about unions is that they often are so short sided and greedy that they ultimately pay themselves out of a job.

I don't know if you guys watch Mythbusters at all. At first, I really didn't like the show--but it's grown on me. Anyway--here's an unaired clip that is pretty dang funny... And here's another look at Saint Bono's fiscal practices; the article seems balanced and fair.

Update: Here's an interesting article describing how the Green movement is creating a significant increase in the cost of food staples... which specifically hits the poor, women and children the hardest. (The latter comment was my addition, relative to my newfound liberal media bias.) Anyway--it's really interesting to see the duplicity of values all within 1 political group. Feed the poor. Save the earth. Screw the poor.

WoT is the Democrats' problem

Michelle gives me a hard time for voting almost exclusively Republican yet refusing to label myself one. Technically, I'm right; I'm "Unenrolled", and will remain so for the foreseeable future (primarily because I don't want to get onto anyone's mailing list, e- or snail or otherwise). But I see myself turning into a one-issue voter by the time 2008 rolls around, and to hear Jeff Jacoby tell it (not that I had to), the Republicans are the ones who are serious about homeland security and who know how important it is for us to fight—and win—the war on terror.

Ok--I'm tired and I took a break... and ran across this and this. The former is an interesting commentary on the hypocrisy of anti-capitalists. The second is funny as poo, and thinking so doesn't make me racist. It makes me human.

Update: This article on Gay Sheep was pretty interesting too... (Reminder--Hobo is a safe place for gay rams and ewes.)

You know Scott, I’m not one to feel guilty. Unless I feel like I deserve it. Then I do feel guilt. So in this case, all I can discuss is how I see it.

And miracles happen. Not only that, miracles have happened to me. However, I have always operationally defined miracles into two categories: the first being inexplicable coincidences, and the other being an utter disregard to the laws of nature. I’m not saying that the second does not happen, I just don’t know if they happen as often. Or—perhaps more precisely said, they don’t happen as often (if ever) to me. And perhaps this is a reflection of me, or perhaps this is how God works. Either way, I’ve put God in a box—and I’ve come to realize that humans are incapable of otherwise. And in my box, God doesn’t seem to do a lot of the physics bending/breaking miracles. Why? I don’t know. Maybe they don’t work. (And by that I mean like saving a jar of Manna for the Israelites so that they could remember. I mean—think about it. We’ve got nutsos saying that the holocaust didn’t happen, and that was 70 years ago. You’ve gotta think that the same stupidity held true for some (if not many) of God’s own flock. What's that jar full of? I dunno--some stupid story. So maybe these nature-breaking miracles do not produce long-term human results? Just a dumb idea being thrown out there.)

But that of the other variety—the inexplicable coincidences—these seem to be present in my life. When I was a kid around between the age of 4 to 7, I had a dream of a place called Wheaton. I dreamt of a large hill without a lot of trees and a stone building. (This was weird for me at the time, as all hills that I was familiar with were wooded.) So when it was time to go to college, there was really no question in my mind. And when my parents said that I wasn’t smart enough to get in, their disbelief in me wasn't significantly bothersome. It was predestined. And as it turns out, I believe that building to be Blanchard Hall, and the hill to be Blanchard’s front lawn.

And one thing in which I am perpetually grateful is that God realizes that I am slow and dim-witted. As such, these divine messages are often as subtle as an iced snow ball to the face. One such example was when I took the GRE. At that point, I had graduated Wheaton early, and still unsure of what to do with my life. I had a degree in psychology, and a temporary dead end job selling electronics. So I had signed up to take the GRE, not knowing where it would take me—but that further education would take me there. So my testing center of choice was filled, thus forcing me to go to some Podunk school that I didn’t want to go to in the first place. And I get there, and was assigned to a desk in which to take the GRE. And on that desk was their school newspaper, weeks old at that time, opened to the page with a leading article about their SLP program. Ok—message received.

Or the time that my father had his cardiac surgery. That whole experience is best described as fine-tuned and highly orchestrated. Almost as if the path was already forged and established. Everything, down to the smallest detail, fell into place. Everything. Even down to the ideal care of our rabbits, which was a freakish last second event. And there have been others examples, but these are sufficient…

So when I detailed the accounts of my father’s situation to my non-practicing Jewish friend, his response was to agree that it was special. And to support me in my beliefs of the miraculous account. But his belief was that it was a fluke. And his explanation was that he’s an avid poker player, and that every now and then—the cards do amazing things. The cards had done amazing things. These are the miracles that take faith to recognize; albeit not very much to do so. Recognition of these occurances is a choice.

However, at least in my life (and those in which I know personally)—the law of nature-breaking parting of the red-sea type of miracles do not seem to happen. At least until Monday. The miracles produced have largely remained within the laws of nature. This isn’t to say that such things do not exist; they just haven’t existed with me. Till Monday. And as mentioned before, perhaps this is secondary to the box in which I put God—or perhaps it’s just not the way God chooses to roll these days.

So I don’t know if God shakes his head in disgust. I rather doubt that. I’m not sure how I feel; I think my response to the situation would have been similar. Shake my head in disbelief; search for common sense answers; not find any; scratch my head and wonder. Have a D'oh moment. Game over.

It just seems that, for whatever reason, God has moved away from the paradigm of the block-buster miracle. Maybe/Probably they still occur, but with less frequency or fanfare. And my guess is that this is secondary to the activation of the Holy Spirit; the one in which faith is required to recognize the action.

Your Post is My Point ...

My apologies for the inaccuracies in reporting. The first CAT scan revealed that an artery had likely ruptured as there was evidence of dried blood on the brain. My statement that there was "blood all over the brain" should be taken as nothing more than sloppiness on my part. But the presence of blood on the brain was confirmed by the original neurologist as well as the neurologist at Freodtert Memorial in Milwaukee. They both read the same scan and came away with the same conclusion. The problem (as far as Freodtert saw it) was that the CAT scan they ran showed nothing.

So if you can set aside my sloppy reporting, there is still evidence on blood and then no blood. And that's where I wrestle. Because like you, Greg, I too apparently lack even the faith of a mustard seed. Do I believe in miracles? Yes, in an abstract "God can do anything he pleases" kind of way. But do I believe that He performs miracles in the lives of my family members ... I don't know. I want to say "Yes I do," but the truth of the matter is ... I don't know. I don't know the "truth of the matter" and that's what is driving me nuts.

But here's a bigger question. I wonder if the lack of evidentiary miracles in the Western world has more to do with the fact that we place greater faith in science than we do in God. Could it be that He is not terribly inclined to "show up" (so to speak) when we go to such lengths to uninvite him from the party.

So when I read your post, Greg, I find myself thinking: here is another guy just like me. He "believes" in miracles, but doubts that they show up very often. It's like we're hedging our bets. We want to say that we believe. On a rational level, we have to say that we believe because a God who creates all this is certainly capable of bending it as His will. But in the presense of a potential (note the hedging I am doing even with that word) miracle, do we really believe, or do we turn away and look for a scientific explanation?

I don't know. Sometimes, I think He must just shake His head in digust.

Of Panic and Extended Family…

I’m not claiming to be a radiologist or neurologist, and I do believe that God can do whatever He wants—including bending the laws of physics (if He so chooses). But given that I’m not sure such things happen on a frequent basis (and to this, I may also be wrong—not having the faith of a mustard seed)… I’m wondering if you’ve been given accurate information.

When there’s an aneurism to the severity that there is “dried blood all over the brain” … well, that’s pretty dang severe. Certainly more than a headache would warrant, even if it is severe. Further, an aneurism doesn’t necessarily suggest that it hemorrhaged; although all that alleged “dried blood” would suggest so. However, blood is a rather polar substance; so much so that when it becomes in direct contact with brain cells, it essentially kills it (i.e., the grey matter). Or at least, that has been my understanding secondary to the cellular physiology classes taken while at PhD. And to suggest that this occurred “*all* over the brain” is a pretty serious charge—and one that (again) is not commensurate even with the most severe of headaches. Headaches can certainly come from lowered pressure of CSF… but this diffuse bleeding just doesn’t seem to fit. As such, I wonder if the family members, in their state of panic, understood the diagnosis correctly. Consequently, I wonder if this (mis?) information was relayed accurately (i.e., with validity).

PS—hope she gets better…

Of Aneurisms and Miracles ...

So it's been awhile since I've had the chance to post. Things have been rather busy around here as of late, but I guess that's the story for everyone.

Anyway, last Thursday night, I got a call from my sister. She was in tears and quickly relayed the message that my sister-in-law, who had just given birth to a child three weeks prior, was being transported from a local emergency room to the neuro-intensive care unit of a major metropolitan hospital. Apparently, she had gone to the ER because of the severity of a headache that had been plaguing her for several days. While there, the docs did a CAT scan and it revealed that she had suffered an aneurism. There was dried blood all over the brain.

Fast forward about 24 hours. New CAT scans have been done and these new scans show no signs whatsoever of a brain aneurism. And yet, when comparing the current scans to the previous scans, the neurologists are at a loss to explain what has happened. The evidence is clear and unmistakeable in the first scans while the second set of scans, performed by their very own technicans, are equally clear.

Moreover, my sister-in-law continues to suffer from low fluid pressure in her spinal column, which, apparently, is a common lingering effect of a brain aneurysm.

So this raises the obvious question: what happened between the CAT scan in the ER and the CAT scan at a hospital an hour away by car? The faithful answer, of course, is that God miraculously intervened. But if that is the case, why am I having such a difficult time going there?

It was only a matter of time, I guess

Yes, the internet is a cesspool of evil, full of people who say naughty words, but somehow this feels like too much.

Soon our Christian teens won't ever have to interact with a single non-Christian! Oh, except when they try to convert them, of course.

Hi Scott,

Apologies for the belated response--but in all honesty (and this is even coming from me)--politics just aren’t doing it for me anymore. It’s certainly a phase, but I’m spent.

But in any event, I would suggest that your position undergo further evaluation. And I’ll provide a whole host of reasons why. Examples: Your first paragraph on the non-threat of Iraq… I question the subconscious integration of 20/20 hindsight into the perspective. Most everyone believed Iraq to be a threat. The past administration is on record as such. Every spy agency in the developed world stated as such. The democrats even demanded a special vote such that they could go on record as supporting the regime change. Then, when things didn’t turn out as expected, everyone tries to change their story--and the media allows them to do so. So if you were truly the lone eyes of foresight, disregarding every single piece of universally agreed upon evidence, please quit your job and join the CIA. We need good people like you in there.

Secondly—I don’t necessarily believe that there were *not* weapons in Iraq. Take a look at all the crap Russia has pulled. They sold anti-aircraft surface to air missile systems to Iraq which were supposedly immune to GPS guided weaponry. (And as it turns out, those systems failed miserably—egg on the face of the former soviets.) This, and many other dubious actions on behalf of the Russians, including assisting the Iranians with their nuclear plans. Is it entirely possible that the Russians help supply Iraq with the materials and technology to make WMDs? I certainly think so. And when the poo hit the fan, is it entirely possible that Russia help destroy or remove said weaponry? I wouldn’t put it past them.

And this leads into your second point about the cold war being over. It’s far from it, my friend. Espionage has actually *increased since the late 80’s and early 90’s. Look at all the poo Russia is doing all over the globe. The fall of communism didn’t end the cold war, it just blurred the boundaries and took the axe off of neck of western Europe. Russia isn’t our friend, nor our ally. And they’re doing all they can do in a subversive fashion to systematically undermine US global authority.

And your inclusion of Israel into the mix as an explanation for why Europe doesn’t care about facist islam… well, I’m not buying that either. If there was no Israel, Europe still wouldn’t care. Why? Because they’re not directly affected, and they (too) would like to systematically undermine US global authority.

I will happily agree with your infantile account of European actions; that’s perhaps the single best explanation I’ve heard to date. Like a petulant child, Europe wants to feel like someone again. And with the decline of the dollar relative to the Euro, they probably feel like they have earned their right to act in such a fashion.

But in any event—all of this is entirely immaterial, as reality is reality. True peace only comes through indisputable victory, and current geo-political military theory does not allow for such. And since we’re fighting not-to-lose, we will clearly and ultimately do so. We had an opportunity, but are choosing to limit ourselves from seeing it come to fruition. The more I think about it, the more I realize that we’ve screwed ourselves from the inside out. Today’s baby-boomer generation doesn’t understand the sacrifices necessary to win. (Just look at the DECADES in which we occupied Europe & Japan. And this legacy remained until Rumsfeld ordered an executive overhaul of US troop (global) deployment.) And I also largely blame the democrat party for this, as they have banked their political future on our own military failure. (And this legacy continues today--as Hillary is set to propose a "troop cap". Yeah--because LA has a good ball team, they should only be allowed to play with 4 players; not five.) Finally, moral relativism makes waging a successful war campaign impossible. An entirely different discussion.

The thing is—the US is just as much of a super-power as we ever were. If not more so, due to (our) massive technological disparity. What has changed is the mindset of the people. We don’t walk, talk, act or think like a super-power, thus we are limiting ourselves.

Finally—your rebuttal relative to the WWII analogy is incomplete. The japanese were entirely torn relative to the notion of surrender to the white man. We’re talking about a culture that would have gladly chosen suicide over the shame of defeat, and a culture which employed the use of suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism to do precisely this. So when the emperor, who was viewed as a god, began to mull over the concept of surrender, the near mutiny to overcome this deity-gone-wild would have killed the entire deal. Seriously—you should read some of the accounts. Japanese parents through their own kids off a cliff, rather than have to surrender themselves and their families to an American GI. Their level of fanaticism was just as great as what we’re seeing today, and perhaps the only reason why the surrender went down as it did was secondary to a failed military coupe attempt to overthrow a god-gone-crazy. The military and much (if not most) of the japanese population was fully prepared to continue their suicidal military effort rather than unconditionally surrender; they, too, were fighting for their god. The only significant difference between the japanese of then and the islamics of now is that we actually fought the japs to win. White guilt and moral relativism has since forced us to fight on the level of our enemies to ensure them a fair fight.

So where does that leave us? Well, for me—it leaves me apolitical for the moment. We’re fighting not-to-lose, and as such, we will. The current geo-political military paradigm is fatally flawed. And for that matter—so is the notion of a democratic republic (as we know it today). And this too, is a talk for another time.

But moving on to something that I actually care about… Pandas. That’s right. Pandas. Apparently female pandas only go into heat some 3 days out of the entire year, and the Memphis zoo wanted some hot-hot panda love. So they closed the panda exhibit for a week—to give the panda couple some privacy and alone time. Perhaps some candle-lit bamboo dinners, champagne, maybe a little Barry White in the background. But apparently, male pandas are notoriously bad lovers. Bad in the sense that they don’t know how to score; bad in the sense that they cannot have successful troop deployment. So after a failed attempt or two, they decided to artificially inseminate the female panda. (Logistics that I really don’t want to go into; although I knew a girl that worked on a stud-farm…so I know what goes down…) But here’s the funny part. Why artificial insemination? Especially when the Panda Porn industry has proven results time and time again. (And time again.) Well—I guess it’s because we’re in the Bible belt. Because porn is wrong. Maybe the zoo-keepers didn’t want the boy-panda to have unrealistic expectations? Maybe they didn’t want the girl-panda to feel insecure or self-conscious? Perhaps they just felt panda porn was ultimately detrimental to their relationship… I don’t know. But a funny conversation nonetheless…

Here's where I have been and where I am at right now. Prior to the invasion, there was a fair amount of chatter regarding the nuclear build-up in the rogue state of North Korea. At that time, I honestly felt that the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" was far more identifiable in Korea than it was in Iraq. Turns out, I was right. So we went into Iraq on false pretenses and committed the United States to a position that is widely unpopular in the world.

Now, I am not necessarily against doing the unpopular thing. But I think the Bush administration failed to account for the fact that the Cold War was over. In years past, Europe was always relatively quick to respond to the lead of the United States because they knew that the "bogey man" was right next door and that the United States was the only thing keeping the "bogey man" at bay. So the US not only had a position of authority, but by virtue of being the protectors of the West, it had the allegiance of Europe.

What Bush and his administration failed to account for is the simple fact that Europe does not support Israel in the same manner or to the same degree that the US does. Thus, Europe does not rile the angst of the Islamic Middle East in the same way that the US does. And now that the Cold War is over, Europe mistakenly believes that they no longer need the US in the same way that they did during the Cold War. I say "mistakenly" because I also believe that Europe is acting in a rather infantile way -- exploring its newfound independence at the expense of a united West. I would go even farther to suggest that if Europe recognized the value of maintaining a united front, we would be seeing a much different situation in Iraq than what we are currently witnessing. For if Europe had the vision to recognize the stabilizing benefit of a Western superpower, the Middle East would essentially be taking on the entire world as opposed to one country. And that would make life very difficult for the oil-producing region.

Having said all that, we did go in to Iraq and we have committed ourselves to a course of action. My problem is that I have conflicting thoughts that I have been unable to sort out. On the one hand, I believe that Iraq has decended to the level of a civil war; and furthermore, I believe that civil war is fueled by religious differences that date back many, many years. So I have real doubts as to whether Iraq can be stablized by building up US forces in the region. You can't overpower religious hate. You can guard against it. You can do what you can to minimize its impact. But in the end, religious worldview coupled with ethnic differences is a deadly recipe for hundreds of years of anger and hatred (see the 1500 year history of the Balkans for instance). So I don't know if I really believe that we can stabilize the region and install a viable democracy.

On the other hand, the United States is in a very dangerous position. The last major war we fought (By "major war," I am of course referring to Vietnam, not the "Gulf War" of the early 90s because that is a misnomer of the highest degree) ended in a disasterous withdrawal and arguably the loss of respect on a worldwide level. We were no longer invincible. We were no longer the US of World War II. We pull out of this one, and I would argue that we may end up losing our status as the last remaining superpower of the world. Europe has abandoned us and the Middle East will have stood up against us. And that is a very, very bad thing.

So on the one hand I am not sure that a viable democracy can be established. But on the other hand, withdrawal could arguably damage our credibility in the future and could even leave us open to more attacks because the agressors no longer believe we can and/or are willing to defend ourselves. So its a bit of a rock and a hard place.

As for your comparisons to post-World War II Japan, I don't know if I buy it. There are two major differences in my mind. One, through the use of nuclear power, the United States had put on a display of force unlike anything the world had ever seen. Thus, there was no real option for Japan other than cooperation. Two, the Japanese were not internally torn in the same way that Iraq is. Thus, Japan was not tearing itself apart on the inside while the US was trying to rebuild.

So, now that I have shared where I am at, what do you think? I would really like to know, becasue I don't think there is an easy answer to this; and I think you guys often have interesting insights.

Scott--relative to your question, Do you honestly believe that a viable democracy can be installed in an Arabic world that has traditionally eschewed anything other than totalitarian regimes founded upon the Koran?

If I may bring in a historical perspective--the very same concept was applied to the nation building of Japan post WWII. How on earth can one establish a democracy in that culture, when it had been a Feudal Imperialistic culture for thousands of years? Well, it did. And history speaks for itself. (And it took longer than 4 years too!)

So relative to this current situation--I don't pretend to know how things will turn out. But history has set a precedent for such a change. And people, specifically those left of the isle, appear to be entirely ignorant of this reality.

Greg, I do think that one's will is a huge factor. I believe there is a part of my brother that is simply enjoying the "vacation" from something that (he feels) was drilled into his head at a young age. But that's not really something I can bring up with him easily. No one wants to be told (essentially) that they're really just stubborn, and don't want to believe these things even though they're true.

But yeah, arguments alone will always be insufficient. I think stuff will just need to simmer, in its own time. I do believe that if he truly seeks, he shall find.

Scott, I'll have to respond to your posts later. Which may not be until Tuesday, as I'm going up to NH with the fam for the long weekend, and I'm going to try to make it a laptop-free trip. :-/

It’s been a while, and for that—I apologize.

I’ve wanted to reply to your post for a while, Matt. And on a number of points. First—you guys are just better read than I. I just don’t like to read. Think—yes. Read—no, not really. Only if I have to. So when you guys read this book and that book, I can’t really follow along. On the other hand, I do like to think.

So when you detailed a little about that Science/Religion book that I probably should but will never read, it was good to hear that others within my discipline have come to essentially the same conclusions. And to be honest, I’ve grown a rather large annoyance with “religion” as it were—as it often seems to be used as a tool in which to dogmatically strike people in such a fashion that cannot be rebutted. (Well, without lowering yourself to their level.)

I guess a decent example would be how someone in my office questioned my faith because I don’t necessarily believe that the *whole* earth was flooded; or how another (student) did the same because of my occasional potty mouth. (The latter of which has improved since fatherhood.) One of the recent highlights was someone calling me a “so-called-Christian” because of my Science/Religion view. (And it gets exasperating, as such accusers have confused nature with science, and fail to recognize that science is nothing more than a theoretical methodology of systematic investigation.) In the past, I would take such comments and proudly wear them on my sleeve; but now I wonder if they are the insecure dogmatic abuse of religion as an entity unto itself. I guess my question is—why are people inherently insecure about their religious beliefs? I’ve not given it much thought—but my initial gut reaction is because, deep down, nobody really knows what lies exactly on the other side of death.

So this brings me to your brother, or others in his situation. It seems like your response was simply to suggest that there are answers, and that you’ve got a lot of great resources that have helped you make sense the abyss of the unknown. But I honestly wonder about that. Are the answers (or lack thereof) the obstacle that people cannot get over, or is it the person themselves? I guess what I am trying to say, in a very poor fashion, is this: I wonder if the Christian faith essentially boils down to one thing: A leap of faith. One believes it, because they *want* to believe it. It comforts me to believe it. My life seems to have a little more purpose and makes a little more sense because I believe it. And this faith in my belief does absolutely nothing to help elucidate my process of understanding reality, or the use of the method of science.

Maybe I’m unread or ignorant of apologetics, but maybe Calvin was on to something. I’m not sure if one can go from empirical to the intangible without the desire to do so. But then again, maybe I’m talking out of my …

On a completely separate note, what did you guys think of Bush's speech last night? Not from an orator's standpoint (although comments on that could be interesting as well), but from a content perspective. Did you buy what he was selling? Do you honestly believe that a viable democracy can be installed in an Arabic world that has traditionally eschewed anything other than totalitarian regimes founded upon the Koran?

I ask because after hearing the speech, I am admittedly torn. Prior to the speech, I was deep suspicious of any benefits that could be potentially reeped from an infusion of 20,000 new troops. But after hearing him talk ... I don't know. He had some interesting points.

Yes, Matt, I have seen it and I love it! I know this probably sounds like the ramblings of an Apple addict, but is there any other viable company that is actively targeting the tech-geek sector with such aplomb? I think not.

Speaking of tech, have you guys read the early reviews of Microsoft Office 2007? Apparently, in the three key applications (Word, Excel and Powerpoint), all drop down menus have been eradicated as have the formatting bars that have been the hallmark of the suite for many years now. In its place, Microsoft has put in "the ribbon," which for the casual user is rather obnoxious, but for the demanding user is rather sweet. Or so say the reviews I have read ...

Anybody drooling over this yet?

True, it's very cool, but I'll be happy to sit back and let others be the guinea pigs.

Plus, I'm in a Verizon contract, and iPhone is Cingular-only. Can you imagine the rejoicing at Cingular when that deal was struck?

Science v. Religion

My grandmother gave me The Language of God, by Francis S. Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project, for Christmas. Already finished it. (That's fast for me.) He basically presents how he reconciles his love of and trust in science with his faith in Christ. He talks precisely about how science is ill-equipped to answer the "why" questions, and why belief in evolution does not render God "unnecessary" (he is a "theistic evolutionist"). It was really good; highly recommended.

Which brings me to my brother. Some years ago--five or six or so--Luke shared with me that he didn't really consider himself a Christian anymore. I didn't want to overreact or try to use my apologetics-fu on him then and there. So I just kind of let him do his thing. Every once in a while the subject would come up, but not for very long. (Luke's generally not a very talkative guy.) Anyway, about a month ago he sent me and my sister a link to a video of a talk given by Richard Dawkins (biologist & The God Delusion author), basically enumerating a number of arguments against belief. He said he wasn't trying to "convert" us, he just wanted us to "know where he was coming from".

I watched about 15 minutes of it, and it was fairly standard stuff. Anyway, the other day when I was home sick, he sent another e-mail asking if either of us had watched it. And that wound up starting a long back-and-forth e-mail conversation about such things. (We both do better with text than with speaking.) I think it was really good. It sounded like he was starving for some Christian answers to these tough questions. I did what I could with some of them, but basically said, "Look, I've got ALL KINDS of books I could lend you from when I was asking these same things. They were really helpful, and they could be helpful to you too." He said he'd like to borrow them. We were going up to see him next weekend anyway, so I've got a stack of about 17 or so books ready to bring with us.

Anyway, your prayers would be greatly appreciated. I feel like, if my math/science brain can wrap itself around the mystery of faith, then his ought to be able to as well. But I'll need some patience and some graciousness for the conversations that are bound to follow this book exchange.

As to your second topic, Greg... I often think about careers I wouldn't mind being able to jump right into (as in not having to go to school and all that). But I don't think in terms of, how else could I use my particular talents, but more like, which jobs do I wish I had the talents for? I definitely wish I had some visual arts talent. I mean, something like drawing storyboards for films for a living... that would be an absolute blast to me. Or even film direction. I don't quite have the authoritative a-hole thing going on, which you kind of have to in order to get what you want, and the obligatory hobnobbing and schmoozing would drive me crazy, but again... I'd love reading screenplays, visualizing scenes in my head, and then making them reality. That's just one of many artistic venues I wish I had some talent for.

I ran across this tonight in a Fark thread. And I think it may encapsulate the issues associated with religion and the method of science. One is concerned with Why, while the other is concerned with How. Two totally different sets of questions and answers, and are thus in different realms. Interested in other views on the topic.

And in a totally different thread, I was thinking--now that my life (and career) is pretty much set, is there another career that I wish I had chosen? (Or that I could have chosen, based on my current level of experience or views.) And I think I could have been a good vet. I like animals; I try not to eat them or wear them; pretty good at trouble shooting, and I have a healthy respect for all the systems within the body... I think I could have been a good vet. Wondering what others think... (about themselves). (Or not. Whatever.) (NO--Being Bono's personal assistant isn't on "the list".)

The majority of my first 12 hours of 2007 were pretty much spent in the bathroom, where my stomach and intestines declared a full-scale evacuation. It was a blast (ha-ha). I'm still not at 100%--stayed home from school today.

Anyway, I'm really just posting to share this: British schoolboy sails across Atlantic and into history.

This kid is a stud. Seriously, compare a feat like this with those that your typical American teenager is engaged in. Something goes wrong, you can't go crying to mommy or daddy. You have to deal. And fast.

Actually kind of makes me jealous. Which is weird, since I can't sail for beans.