The first and last things you witness at the Liberty World War I Memorial Museum are striking, overwhelming, and contemplative. For lack of a better description, they are, “Whoah!” moments. And everything in between is like walking through a History Channel special – complete with sounds and music, wafting through the museum, from the video repeating itself at the far end of the exhibit.
The first “Whoah” comes with the entrance video that uses the primitive footage of the day to describe the factors leading up to the first World War. Social, economic, political, nationalistic. Along with ominous drums beating, the video informed us that the pot was boiling. And then, the assassination of the Archduke of Hungary.
What comes next is what makes the entire video worthwhile – the words scroll up too quickly to write down or memorize, but I will summarize from what I can remember. One at a time, in complete silence, the following sentences appear on the screen. “One month later, within the course of a week:” “Russia declares war on Austria.” “Germany declares war on Russia.” “Germany mobilizes its troops against Belgiuim.” “France declares war on Germany.” “Russia declares war on Germany.” “Germany declares war on France.” “England declares war on Germany.” Within a week, the entire world is at war.
The first half of the museum takes you through the first half of the War – when only Europe was involved. You are astonished by the death toll – over 20 million – not just stated, but displayed in various graphs. One in three soldiers die. You see photographs of ancient castles in Europe destroyed. And you peer into diorama trenches to see exactly what trench warfare looked like from a soldier’s point of view and hear him describe his experience. Trench warfare defined World War I – in a little less than a month after the war began battle lines were drawn. Both sides dug trenches and waited. Waited for the other side to lose enough men to give up. For three years, the battle lines barely changed. Meanwhile Germany began to suffer a horrible famine, even as its resources were being sent to the war.
Another moving, although less mind-boggling, video describes the environment in which America entered the war. In short, Germany offered Mexico the Southwest states if they would join the war against the U.S. and convince Japan to do the same. In an act of outrage and self-defense, President Wilson, who had just been re-elected because of his stance of trying to gain peace in Europe while staying out of the war, declared war on Germany. Coming from a museum in Kansas City, MO, USA, perhaps the video was a little one sided. But I couldn't help but be moved by the thought of the Americans coming to the rescue - that it was our entrance into the war that changed the outcome and spelled the beginning of the end.
In fact, after three years of deadlock, the war the Americans entered was fairly fast paced. Just the body count of the troops we sent to Europe drastically outnumbered the German soldiers. Even though Russia pulled out to deal with its own crisis, the Allies still pushed through. Once the war was won, it was interesting to think of what a horror that time period must have been. The dead, over 20 million, were barely buried when a flu crisis swept around the world, killing as many. Communism swept through Russia, causing panic and scare in America. And Germany was left bitter. Even more interesting was learning that England was already setting up a Jewish state in Israel and dealing with Palestinians to negotiate a treaty - a treaty that would be vague and broken and lead to lasting tensions 100 years later.
The museum is set up in a kind of mirror image, and so the last "Whoah" moment came at the end, in a room of quotes. Each quote was on a holographic display, and when you moved around it, you could see who said it and when. The second to last quote hissed, "The deaths of 2 million German boys shall not have been in vain - we demand vengeance." Who said it? Adolf Hitler, 1923. Chilling.
The first time I went to the museum another takeaway was the sheer brutality of the conditions of war. Men lived in trenches filled with icy mud, with very little room. They were dirty, cold, sick, scared. We really have no appreciation for intense pain these days. But then again, not long before World War I, pioneers were travelling through heat and cold to cross the country and living amid bugs, bad water, and dangerous attacks. People were working in dangerous factories and living in dirty slums. Life was just plain harder back then. Add to the distress the sheer pointlessness of the war - a war even experts can't quite agree on why it happened.
But one thing is for certain - although we may not understand why World War I happened, we know exactly what caused World War II. The War to End All Wars did not take the pot off the heat, it just left it simmering.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
DiSCover Your Personality Type
Red, yellow, lion, D, C. What do these things have in common? Why, they're personality types, of course! In my short life I have undergone multiple personality tests. They are an almost magical window into the unknown world of me, or anyone else, and yet, they use a simple and accurate method to analyze your deepest desires. You. Unlike horoscopes and bogus personality tests that ask your favorite color, real personality tests ask you to describe yourself in unique ways and by thinking of different situations. And what I find interesting is that the three legitimate tests I know of end up with four basic personality types. Now, I don't know if a Lion and Red and i are all the same thing - I get more confused allocating the animals out. So I am going to talk about a personality system I took last summer, DiSC, because I am most familiar with it, and because my family members have also happened to take this test.
In one sentence or less, the personality types in the DiSC test are:
D - Leader, impatient, results oriented, fast paced decision maker.
i - Politician, personable, chatty, people oriented
S - Loyal, kind, nice, friendly
C - Logical, wants the correct answer.
Note that the i and S personality types are people oriented and describe people that most of us would want to be our friends. The outer two are more results oriented, and they describe traits that many of us would see as key to success. Remember that.
Now, the DiSC test can actually create infinite personality types, but there are 12 main ones. Each person has a most dominant and second most dominant personality trait. For instance, my mom is a CS - Logical but also really nice. The infinite number of traits just depends on the person. Some people have almost even traits - where all four are either high or low. Some people have dramatic differences between their first trait and their second. There is a graph I filled out for myself, but just imagine each trait being assigned a number, and the higher the number, the more of that trait you have. But the 12 main ones are the combinations of the strongest and second strongest trait for any given individual. And that is what we were asked to look at when learning about our personalities.
So if there are 12 traits, we end up with 2 traits being predominantly results oriented (non-social), and 2 traits being predominantly people oriented - DC, CD, iS, Si. Assuming that personality traits are evenly distributed across the population (which they very well may not be) that results in 1 in 6 having very few people skills and 1 in 6 being incredibly people oriented. When I think of this, it makes sense. Most people are just normal, but get a group of friends together and you will ultimately have one wallflower and one social butterfly (unless the group is of 12 people, in which case you will have two of each, and so on).
Now, I wanted to blog about this, because I want to bring it up later. In addition, I think it's important to be aware of the different personalities and what they bring to the table. Their strengths and weaknesses. I think everyone should participate in a personality study (not just the test - there should be some formal or informal learning ABOUT the different personalities as well, not just your own) at some time in their life. Many companies promote these as well. But your personality types affects how you see the world. I, unfortunately, am of the 1 in 6 with double no-people-skills personality whammy. DC. That is not an excuse for me to be rude or anything, but it helps me understand some of my difficulties in working with people. I also wish more people would attempt to understand the DC's and CD's.
When I was learning about the DiSC personalities, our instructor divided us into groups by strongest trait, so I was with the C's (my test was wrong the first time I took it, but my CD numbers are similar). It was fun working with like-minded people to answer the instructor's questions. (I also had fun pointing out when my C's were acting like D's "Let's just answer the question and keep going." Because I was at a training for accountants, there were quite a few C's that had strong D traits and, I assume, vice versa). Right before this exercise I had been complaining to a friend that the i's ruled the world. Even though we all went through these nice little personality sessions, at the end of the day we were all expected to talk to each other and behave like i's. During show and share my worst fears were confirmed. When asked how their personality group could change and be aware of other personality types, the i's said, "We don't change for other people. Other people change for us."
A year later, I am still exhausted by this mentality. Being an i is a self-perpetuating talent. At some point you were accepted in a large peer group, you developed skills for engaging with lots of people (I think i vs. S may have a little to do with those who prefer a large circle of friends vs. a smaller circle). And now you will always have a large circle of friends because you have a sort of magnetism. You are popular.
I wonder if there was ever a time where the "popular" or "admired" personality type was a D or C. I think, perhaps, during the times of the Greek philosophers C's were admired and respected. D's or Di's are probably in their prime in times of war - when great leaders need to take charge. (Now a Di or iD is probably a politician, and you can see how respected those are). And some personality traits are gender linked, too. I don't think there are more female S's than i's, but if you have the people personality, I think women are expected to behave more like S's, while men are expected to behave more like i's.
Ultimately I have never walked away from a personality session without being cognizant that it takes all four types to really get anywhere - whether we have that in people with two strong traits or a mix of one strong trait for everyone. I just wish the world at large would begin to recognize the contribution of the D's and C's.
In one sentence or less, the personality types in the DiSC test are:
D - Leader, impatient, results oriented, fast paced decision maker.
i - Politician, personable, chatty, people oriented
S - Loyal, kind, nice, friendly
C - Logical, wants the correct answer.
Note that the i and S personality types are people oriented and describe people that most of us would want to be our friends. The outer two are more results oriented, and they describe traits that many of us would see as key to success. Remember that.
Now, the DiSC test can actually create infinite personality types, but there are 12 main ones. Each person has a most dominant and second most dominant personality trait. For instance, my mom is a CS - Logical but also really nice. The infinite number of traits just depends on the person. Some people have almost even traits - where all four are either high or low. Some people have dramatic differences between their first trait and their second. There is a graph I filled out for myself, but just imagine each trait being assigned a number, and the higher the number, the more of that trait you have. But the 12 main ones are the combinations of the strongest and second strongest trait for any given individual. And that is what we were asked to look at when learning about our personalities.
So if there are 12 traits, we end up with 2 traits being predominantly results oriented (non-social), and 2 traits being predominantly people oriented - DC, CD, iS, Si. Assuming that personality traits are evenly distributed across the population (which they very well may not be) that results in 1 in 6 having very few people skills and 1 in 6 being incredibly people oriented. When I think of this, it makes sense. Most people are just normal, but get a group of friends together and you will ultimately have one wallflower and one social butterfly (unless the group is of 12 people, in which case you will have two of each, and so on).
Now, I wanted to blog about this, because I want to bring it up later. In addition, I think it's important to be aware of the different personalities and what they bring to the table. Their strengths and weaknesses. I think everyone should participate in a personality study (not just the test - there should be some formal or informal learning ABOUT the different personalities as well, not just your own) at some time in their life. Many companies promote these as well. But your personality types affects how you see the world. I, unfortunately, am of the 1 in 6 with double no-people-skills personality whammy. DC. That is not an excuse for me to be rude or anything, but it helps me understand some of my difficulties in working with people. I also wish more people would attempt to understand the DC's and CD's.
When I was learning about the DiSC personalities, our instructor divided us into groups by strongest trait, so I was with the C's (my test was wrong the first time I took it, but my CD numbers are similar). It was fun working with like-minded people to answer the instructor's questions. (I also had fun pointing out when my C's were acting like D's "Let's just answer the question and keep going." Because I was at a training for accountants, there were quite a few C's that had strong D traits and, I assume, vice versa). Right before this exercise I had been complaining to a friend that the i's ruled the world. Even though we all went through these nice little personality sessions, at the end of the day we were all expected to talk to each other and behave like i's. During show and share my worst fears were confirmed. When asked how their personality group could change and be aware of other personality types, the i's said, "We don't change for other people. Other people change for us."
A year later, I am still exhausted by this mentality. Being an i is a self-perpetuating talent. At some point you were accepted in a large peer group, you developed skills for engaging with lots of people (I think i vs. S may have a little to do with those who prefer a large circle of friends vs. a smaller circle). And now you will always have a large circle of friends because you have a sort of magnetism. You are popular.
I wonder if there was ever a time where the "popular" or "admired" personality type was a D or C. I think, perhaps, during the times of the Greek philosophers C's were admired and respected. D's or Di's are probably in their prime in times of war - when great leaders need to take charge. (Now a Di or iD is probably a politician, and you can see how respected those are). And some personality traits are gender linked, too. I don't think there are more female S's than i's, but if you have the people personality, I think women are expected to behave more like S's, while men are expected to behave more like i's.
Ultimately I have never walked away from a personality session without being cognizant that it takes all four types to really get anywhere - whether we have that in people with two strong traits or a mix of one strong trait for everyone. I just wish the world at large would begin to recognize the contribution of the D's and C's.
Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer
For C.S. Lewis to write a book on prayer would have been too hard. It would have been boring, dull, and full of claims he could not substantiate. So instead he wrote, "Letters to Malcom" (by the way, I know the correct grammar for a book title is to underline it, but because of limited formatting here on the internet, I put the titles in quotes, I hope you don't mind). These were imaginary letters to an imaginary (I assume) friend in which Lewis discussed his thoughts on prayer and many other things. How fun would that book have been to write! Not only did he put down all the thoughts he wanted to convey to the general public in the letters, but he had to imagine what the response of his dear friend had been and so formulate his writing. It is not, I think, unlike when I write and wonder what some of my close friends would say in response to my ideas or opinions and then try to address such objections or comments before they are made.
It was, I believe, a quote from C.S. Lewis in a different book on prayer (but by Philip Yancey) which taught me that we can pray for past events, so long as we do not know the outcome. I heard once of a man who said, jokingly I believe, that he always prayed his parents would meet or that a great Christian writer would be converted. But this was silly, since he knew the positive outcome of both. While he could pray in thanksgiving for the occurrence of the events, intercessory prayer was no longer needed. On the other hand, if his friends had handed him St. Augustine's "Confessions," and he had proceeded to read it, knowing nothing of Augustine but only that he truly lived, it would seem reasonable to pray for his conversion, until one had finished the book and found that said conversion had, indeed, happened. As he said, our prayers are answered from eternity (no matter what the answer is) - because God is outside of time as we know it.
Another mind-boggling concept that Lewis put forth in his book was about our attitude toward prayer. It's hard, isn't it? I mean, he blatantly stated that many times we rush through it, get distracted easily from it, or do it out of a sense of obligation. I have been driven to distraction by how much I am distracted at prayer. But Lewis also adds an excellent point - perhaps the times when we pray because we feel obligated to, or when it is hardest to do so because we are tired or distracted or bored, are the times when our prayers are most pleasing to God. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to cultivate a joy of prayer and focus on developing our relationship with God. But it makes perfect sense that it doesn't make sense to pray, especially if you don't enjoy it. So forcing yourself to do something unpleasant is a true sign of belief, of faith, of desire to please God. Think about it - a man who is scared for his life may pray very earnestly and without distraction even if he has never prayed before. Another man may dutifully sit in his room twice a day to speak to the Almighty, even when he'd rather be fishing or reading or eating or sleeping. Doesn't the second man show more of a devotion? A desire to cultivate a relationship?
Another point he makes is that ready-made prayer and home-made prayers have a blurry line between the two. Some people look down on ready-made prayers, when in reality, the Lord's Prayer is one of the most popular prayers of all time (and rightly so, given its context). But Lewis also points out that many times our prayers become formulaic, whether we mean for them to or not, and sometimes they become outright repetitive. So is a home-made prayer recited every night any better than someone else's prayer recited every night? Wouldn't it be the heart behind the prayer that matters more than who came up with the original words? I have also heard that some repetitive prayers serve more as a meditation tool - to be background noise to the heart as the heart works out its own prayer, whether that prayer be with words or not.
It was, I believe, a quote from C.S. Lewis in a different book on prayer (but by Philip Yancey) which taught me that we can pray for past events, so long as we do not know the outcome. I heard once of a man who said, jokingly I believe, that he always prayed his parents would meet or that a great Christian writer would be converted. But this was silly, since he knew the positive outcome of both. While he could pray in thanksgiving for the occurrence of the events, intercessory prayer was no longer needed. On the other hand, if his friends had handed him St. Augustine's "Confessions," and he had proceeded to read it, knowing nothing of Augustine but only that he truly lived, it would seem reasonable to pray for his conversion, until one had finished the book and found that said conversion had, indeed, happened. As he said, our prayers are answered from eternity (no matter what the answer is) - because God is outside of time as we know it.
Another mind-boggling concept that Lewis put forth in his book was about our attitude toward prayer. It's hard, isn't it? I mean, he blatantly stated that many times we rush through it, get distracted easily from it, or do it out of a sense of obligation. I have been driven to distraction by how much I am distracted at prayer. But Lewis also adds an excellent point - perhaps the times when we pray because we feel obligated to, or when it is hardest to do so because we are tired or distracted or bored, are the times when our prayers are most pleasing to God. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to cultivate a joy of prayer and focus on developing our relationship with God. But it makes perfect sense that it doesn't make sense to pray, especially if you don't enjoy it. So forcing yourself to do something unpleasant is a true sign of belief, of faith, of desire to please God. Think about it - a man who is scared for his life may pray very earnestly and without distraction even if he has never prayed before. Another man may dutifully sit in his room twice a day to speak to the Almighty, even when he'd rather be fishing or reading or eating or sleeping. Doesn't the second man show more of a devotion? A desire to cultivate a relationship?
Another point he makes is that ready-made prayer and home-made prayers have a blurry line between the two. Some people look down on ready-made prayers, when in reality, the Lord's Prayer is one of the most popular prayers of all time (and rightly so, given its context). But Lewis also points out that many times our prayers become formulaic, whether we mean for them to or not, and sometimes they become outright repetitive. So is a home-made prayer recited every night any better than someone else's prayer recited every night? Wouldn't it be the heart behind the prayer that matters more than who came up with the original words? I have also heard that some repetitive prayers serve more as a meditation tool - to be background noise to the heart as the heart works out its own prayer, whether that prayer be with words or not.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
It's So Crazy It Just Might Work...
So I've been thinking up some crazy/controversial/would never work in a million years improvements we could make to the government and tax code. And, like any out of this world idea, the more I think about it, the more I like it, and the more reasonable it becomes. So I've decided to share it - because it seems so ingenious, and also because I am trying to find flaws in it (other than the obvious, "People would never go for it!" and "It's too much change!")
First of all - the change I think is more realistic, which has to do with Congress. I would like to make each state pay for its own congressmen. Doesn't this make sense? All states are equal in senators, but why should a state like Kansas, with four representatives, also pay taxes in to support the salaries of the many many many California reps? Further, if states paid salaries, then the states could dictate how much the congressmen should make. Instead of allowing Congress to vote themselves pay raises, the state senate and state house could decide if a raise was in order. This wouldn't necessarily eliminate a, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation, but it would be at least one additional control to, "Why, yes, thank you, I do think I deserve a raise!" Within the state, we could also add a control - the Senate votes for the House raises and vice versa. And salaries could be set a one level, say $50k, and then indexed for inflation using an unbiased index, to be re-evaluated only once every 10 years or so.
Now, as states start to see this cost coming out of their own budgets, they will naturally want to cut costs, which leads to the second phase - telecommuting congressmen. Honestly, of all the jobs in the world, this should be one that is acceptable to perform from home or the state capitol - unless you are emotionally attached to the U.S. Capitol building. I think this will make congress much more productive. Sure, filibusters would be easier, but you could also do online voting to break it. Imagine congressmen dealing in multi-tasking politicking - chat sessions while watching the video of a speaker and making phone calls to their peers. Work could be done around the clock. Controls would have to be made - such as a fingerprint or retina scan to vote - because a really good hacker or wife could easily override a password control. How much money do we waste flying congressmen back and forth? We could completely eliminate that. And congressmen would have to live at home like the rest of us. Finally, this would set an example by all the "Green" politicians for individuals and businesses to conserve energy and minimize commuting and travel.
My next idea is crazier.
I propose that the government evaluate its budget and create three categories - Necessary Infrastructure (such as roads, the Executive Branch, and revenue department), Military (including FBI and CIA), and Social Programs / Services. This last category would be a catch all for everything except Social Security and Medicare (which I will someday write about separately). Let's throw it all in there - schools, national parks, welfare, foodstamps, everything. (By the way, I think we could privatize much government - for instance, what if all interstates were toll roads? It is not reasonable to toll a city street, but an interstate is different. Then the cost of driving on it would be burdened by those who drive the most - a cost driver, or add a surtax to airplane tickets to pay for airport security). Let's say that the analysis comes out as such: Infrastructure 10%, Military 40%, Everything Else 50%.
I now suggest that, after a quick delousing of the tax code, a new tax structure is put in place. It will look a lot like the old one - with the brackets and all. (Although I generally favor a flat tax - let's make baby steps here). Citizens will now have only half the amount of taxes taken out of their paychecks as before. The other half will be calculated the same way, by the government and tax code, as a mandatory charitable contribution. Everyone will have to contribute to any charity of his or her choice, else pay a tax fine. For instance. Roy makes $100k. His tax rate is 30%. He now pays $15k in taxes to the Federal Government (I am only talking about the Federal government here at all) and is required to pay $15k to a charity or charities of his choosing. If he does not pay the $15k, then he must pay the entire amount plus an extra 5% ($5k) in additional taxes to the federal government.
Charities would continue to be defined as the not-for-profit organizations currently recognized by the government, and they would be expanded to include other groups, such as schools. (Local municipalities would be able to continue to support education with local taxes, but the federal funding would go away). All Federal Social programs would cease. They would have been replaced with charities.
The benefits of this idea are obvious. First of all, the free market and not special interest groups or the vocal few, would determine the value of a social program. (Think, the arts vs. food for the hungry - art is nice and all, but it should be able to sell on its own just like any product. I don't want my tax dollars paying for some of that sicko stuff). Second, charities are MUCH more efficient than the federal government and have less red tape to deal with. Even if "taxing" charitable contributions caused a decrease in the funding of these programs overall (compare the dollars spent before on Federal Programs + Charities to the monies spent afterwards on Charities alone), the efficiencies of the charities, which now have an influx of money, would overtake the decrease in dollars spent.
Another obvious benefit would be the economic impact. "Taxes" would go down for everyone, while we pay the same amount or less to help people. (There were always those who spent nothing, and there will always be those who spend more than is required). As charities get the funding they need, they can hire workers instead of relying on volunteers, they can buy the supplies they need, and they can execute large projects they had been putting off. All this will add money to the economy while still helping those in need.
There would be a psychological impact as well. People would get to take ownership of their money and help people. If you gave me $1,000 to give to charity, I would still feel good about it if I got to pick the charity, even though it was never my money. Consider the increased impact of giving my own money away, even if it is forced. Everyone has different passions, and each person can use their money towards the not-for-profit(s) he or she feels most strongly about. Parents can use all their contribution towards their local school. Animal lovers can give to the Humane Society. Bleeding hearts can donate to homeless shelters. All these diverse interests would simply help to buoy charities that are already successful and fill almost every need society can come up with. Further, people can start their own charities knowing that when they ask for donations, people might be more willing to give (in an effort to fulfill that tax requirement by the end of the year).
Now, the potential pitfalls of this plan should be addressed, and with the addressing of them, a little bit of beaureacracy - but I like to call it clarification.
First of all, if not-for-profits got an influx of money, would they not just hoard it? Or become "for-profit?" Well, we would have to start taxing them. The charity tax would be different than that on individuals and corporations - they would just have to pay 100% to other charities. So, if a church had an operating budget of $1 million but received $1.2 million in tithes, it could do one of several things. It could increase spending, perhaps by paying a higher salary to the staff (a higher salary which would, in turn, result in "tax" revenue for other charities), or it could set aside the money for a capital project (a reasonable amount, subject to audit), or it could donate a percentage of its operating surplus (like 25%) to yet another charity.
What about charities that are competing for public attention focusing too much on advertising? Well, for one, this is not entirely bad, because it will employ advertisers and raise awareness. But the tax law should not change for charitable events. For instance, if Yellowstone had a fundraiser where, for $5,000 you could go on a private tour of the park and stay there for a week in a fancy suite, you could only count, say, $4,000 towards your required yearly charitable contribution if the cost of a normal trip to Yellowstone was $1,000. If you pay $50 for a charity banquet, that won't count unless you fork up additional money once there (because you got a fancy meal).
And what about charity waste? What if schools start lining their hallways with gold? Well, so what? Already we donate to a lot of programs that can be eccentric or wasteful - many churches are oversized or over-glitterized. But the government creates a lot of waste, too. Anything the charity spends its money on also creates commerce.
Finally, what happens when charities start mixing their donations with services? Like, if you want to use your entire donation towards your child's private school, but then they waive the tuition? I'd say they shouldn't be able to do that. But that will even out as well. If a school charges $5k a year in tuition, but then concerned parents start donating like crazy to the school, the initial reaction will be to lower the tuition for all. But lower tuition will open the doors to private schooling to many who could not afford it before, and the rollbooks will swell beyond capacity. The school can then either add on (which will require capital expenditures and therefore once again raising tuition) or it can cut students. But now it is cutting the amount of students by a qualification other than money - test scores, locality, etc. When it does this, a new mix enters the private school - a mix of higher and lower income students all chosen for their academic abilities. Once some high earning parents choose to donate their money elsewhere (their son or daughter's new school), the school will once again need to raise funds. This cycle will repeat until a good medium ground is met. Tuition may settle down at $3k a year, and parents with school age children will choose to spend all or most of their required charitable contributions at the school.
In fact, I believe one of the greatest beneficiaries of my idea will be schools. Parents will begin taxing directly to schools, and will therefore hold those schools more accountable. School budgets will skyrocket. And as education gets better, our entire country will benefit.
Scams may be inevitable, but they are inevitable now.
As far as implementation, I recommend a one year phase-in. Instead of a charitable deduction, people will be allowed a charitable credit on their taxes up to 50% of their tax expense for the year. The government may collect a lot less money this way, but it can also start phasing out social programs. It can find those programs that can easily be assimilated into a successful local charity and facilitate that process (sending federal funds to the charity until the new tax code is phased in). It can then start to cut other, more wasteful programs, either cold turkey, or by phasing out the impact (for instance, if you qualify for foodstamps perhaps the monthly amount on your card would decrease throughout the year. In the mean time you would be sent information on local food kitchens and pantries - food kitchens and pantries that would theoretically be ramping up production).
One final benefit - and it has to do with the psychological impact. Some may choose one large donation a year. Others may set aside the required amount each paycheck. Still, everyone will be tested - we will all have to keep charitable programs near the top of our minds. We will look around for ways to help people and see ways we can and take ownership. Instead of pushing the task of taking care of our fellow man on to the government, the government will be pushing the task on to us. As we "fix" our country by improving schools, helping the homeless, and keeping the environment
First of all - the change I think is more realistic, which has to do with Congress. I would like to make each state pay for its own congressmen. Doesn't this make sense? All states are equal in senators, but why should a state like Kansas, with four representatives, also pay taxes in to support the salaries of the many many many California reps? Further, if states paid salaries, then the states could dictate how much the congressmen should make. Instead of allowing Congress to vote themselves pay raises, the state senate and state house could decide if a raise was in order. This wouldn't necessarily eliminate a, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation, but it would be at least one additional control to, "Why, yes, thank you, I do think I deserve a raise!" Within the state, we could also add a control - the Senate votes for the House raises and vice versa. And salaries could be set a one level, say $50k, and then indexed for inflation using an unbiased index, to be re-evaluated only once every 10 years or so.
Now, as states start to see this cost coming out of their own budgets, they will naturally want to cut costs, which leads to the second phase - telecommuting congressmen. Honestly, of all the jobs in the world, this should be one that is acceptable to perform from home or the state capitol - unless you are emotionally attached to the U.S. Capitol building. I think this will make congress much more productive. Sure, filibusters would be easier, but you could also do online voting to break it. Imagine congressmen dealing in multi-tasking politicking - chat sessions while watching the video of a speaker and making phone calls to their peers. Work could be done around the clock. Controls would have to be made - such as a fingerprint or retina scan to vote - because a really good hacker or wife could easily override a password control. How much money do we waste flying congressmen back and forth? We could completely eliminate that. And congressmen would have to live at home like the rest of us. Finally, this would set an example by all the "Green" politicians for individuals and businesses to conserve energy and minimize commuting and travel.
My next idea is crazier.
I propose that the government evaluate its budget and create three categories - Necessary Infrastructure (such as roads, the Executive Branch, and revenue department), Military (including FBI and CIA), and Social Programs / Services. This last category would be a catch all for everything except Social Security and Medicare (which I will someday write about separately). Let's throw it all in there - schools, national parks, welfare, foodstamps, everything. (By the way, I think we could privatize much government - for instance, what if all interstates were toll roads? It is not reasonable to toll a city street, but an interstate is different. Then the cost of driving on it would be burdened by those who drive the most - a cost driver, or add a surtax to airplane tickets to pay for airport security). Let's say that the analysis comes out as such: Infrastructure 10%, Military 40%, Everything Else 50%.
I now suggest that, after a quick delousing of the tax code, a new tax structure is put in place. It will look a lot like the old one - with the brackets and all. (Although I generally favor a flat tax - let's make baby steps here). Citizens will now have only half the amount of taxes taken out of their paychecks as before. The other half will be calculated the same way, by the government and tax code, as a mandatory charitable contribution. Everyone will have to contribute to any charity of his or her choice, else pay a tax fine. For instance. Roy makes $100k. His tax rate is 30%. He now pays $15k in taxes to the Federal Government (I am only talking about the Federal government here at all) and is required to pay $15k to a charity or charities of his choosing. If he does not pay the $15k, then he must pay the entire amount plus an extra 5% ($5k) in additional taxes to the federal government.
Charities would continue to be defined as the not-for-profit organizations currently recognized by the government, and they would be expanded to include other groups, such as schools. (Local municipalities would be able to continue to support education with local taxes, but the federal funding would go away). All Federal Social programs would cease. They would have been replaced with charities.
The benefits of this idea are obvious. First of all, the free market and not special interest groups or the vocal few, would determine the value of a social program. (Think, the arts vs. food for the hungry - art is nice and all, but it should be able to sell on its own just like any product. I don't want my tax dollars paying for some of that sicko stuff). Second, charities are MUCH more efficient than the federal government and have less red tape to deal with. Even if "taxing" charitable contributions caused a decrease in the funding of these programs overall (compare the dollars spent before on Federal Programs + Charities to the monies spent afterwards on Charities alone), the efficiencies of the charities, which now have an influx of money, would overtake the decrease in dollars spent.
Another obvious benefit would be the economic impact. "Taxes" would go down for everyone, while we pay the same amount or less to help people. (There were always those who spent nothing, and there will always be those who spend more than is required). As charities get the funding they need, they can hire workers instead of relying on volunteers, they can buy the supplies they need, and they can execute large projects they had been putting off. All this will add money to the economy while still helping those in need.
There would be a psychological impact as well. People would get to take ownership of their money and help people. If you gave me $1,000 to give to charity, I would still feel good about it if I got to pick the charity, even though it was never my money. Consider the increased impact of giving my own money away, even if it is forced. Everyone has different passions, and each person can use their money towards the not-for-profit(s) he or she feels most strongly about. Parents can use all their contribution towards their local school. Animal lovers can give to the Humane Society. Bleeding hearts can donate to homeless shelters. All these diverse interests would simply help to buoy charities that are already successful and fill almost every need society can come up with. Further, people can start their own charities knowing that when they ask for donations, people might be more willing to give (in an effort to fulfill that tax requirement by the end of the year).
Now, the potential pitfalls of this plan should be addressed, and with the addressing of them, a little bit of beaureacracy - but I like to call it clarification.
First of all, if not-for-profits got an influx of money, would they not just hoard it? Or become "for-profit?" Well, we would have to start taxing them. The charity tax would be different than that on individuals and corporations - they would just have to pay 100% to other charities. So, if a church had an operating budget of $1 million but received $1.2 million in tithes, it could do one of several things. It could increase spending, perhaps by paying a higher salary to the staff (a higher salary which would, in turn, result in "tax" revenue for other charities), or it could set aside the money for a capital project (a reasonable amount, subject to audit), or it could donate a percentage of its operating surplus (like 25%) to yet another charity.
What about charities that are competing for public attention focusing too much on advertising? Well, for one, this is not entirely bad, because it will employ advertisers and raise awareness. But the tax law should not change for charitable events. For instance, if Yellowstone had a fundraiser where, for $5,000 you could go on a private tour of the park and stay there for a week in a fancy suite, you could only count, say, $4,000 towards your required yearly charitable contribution if the cost of a normal trip to Yellowstone was $1,000. If you pay $50 for a charity banquet, that won't count unless you fork up additional money once there (because you got a fancy meal).
And what about charity waste? What if schools start lining their hallways with gold? Well, so what? Already we donate to a lot of programs that can be eccentric or wasteful - many churches are oversized or over-glitterized. But the government creates a lot of waste, too. Anything the charity spends its money on also creates commerce.
Finally, what happens when charities start mixing their donations with services? Like, if you want to use your entire donation towards your child's private school, but then they waive the tuition? I'd say they shouldn't be able to do that. But that will even out as well. If a school charges $5k a year in tuition, but then concerned parents start donating like crazy to the school, the initial reaction will be to lower the tuition for all. But lower tuition will open the doors to private schooling to many who could not afford it before, and the rollbooks will swell beyond capacity. The school can then either add on (which will require capital expenditures and therefore once again raising tuition) or it can cut students. But now it is cutting the amount of students by a qualification other than money - test scores, locality, etc. When it does this, a new mix enters the private school - a mix of higher and lower income students all chosen for their academic abilities. Once some high earning parents choose to donate their money elsewhere (their son or daughter's new school), the school will once again need to raise funds. This cycle will repeat until a good medium ground is met. Tuition may settle down at $3k a year, and parents with school age children will choose to spend all or most of their required charitable contributions at the school.
In fact, I believe one of the greatest beneficiaries of my idea will be schools. Parents will begin taxing directly to schools, and will therefore hold those schools more accountable. School budgets will skyrocket. And as education gets better, our entire country will benefit.
Scams may be inevitable, but they are inevitable now.
As far as implementation, I recommend a one year phase-in. Instead of a charitable deduction, people will be allowed a charitable credit on their taxes up to 50% of their tax expense for the year. The government may collect a lot less money this way, but it can also start phasing out social programs. It can find those programs that can easily be assimilated into a successful local charity and facilitate that process (sending federal funds to the charity until the new tax code is phased in). It can then start to cut other, more wasteful programs, either cold turkey, or by phasing out the impact (for instance, if you qualify for foodstamps perhaps the monthly amount on your card would decrease throughout the year. In the mean time you would be sent information on local food kitchens and pantries - food kitchens and pantries that would theoretically be ramping up production).
One final benefit - and it has to do with the psychological impact. Some may choose one large donation a year. Others may set aside the required amount each paycheck. Still, everyone will be tested - we will all have to keep charitable programs near the top of our minds. We will look around for ways to help people and see ways we can and take ownership. Instead of pushing the task of taking care of our fellow man on to the government, the government will be pushing the task on to us. As we "fix" our country by improving schools, helping the homeless, and keeping the environment
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Fresh Breeze
When I stepped outside my house yesterday morning, I was hit with a refreshingly cool blast of air. The outside temperature had dropped to somewhere in the 60's, and I believed I could have stood outside much longer without being too cold and yet still feeling the rush of cool wind on my face. Again I experienced the coolness, and also the silence, at 2:30 this morning when I took my dog out, although I kind of rushed inside creeped out a bit. Outside the streets are silent, cool, inviting. It feels like fall and school, even though we all know another heat spell or two are around the corner before the leaves start to change.
I love fall. Fall is so motivating to me. It always feels like something exciting is coming, even though that something is winter, which is not exciting (unless that Something is Christmas, which is). Looking back on my life, I suppose I see why. Although summers were good for vacation, camps, rest, and working hard, fall brought me back into daily contact with my friends, into exploring new subjects in school, and to fresh blank notebooks, ready to be written in! What is more exciting than an open book?
And in recent memory, I can honestly say the best three months of my life (in, say, the last 10 years or so), happened during the fall.
And this fall I absolutely know something is coming because I am in planning mode. If my plans fail, or if my dreams are not realized, I have backups and alternatives galore to fill my head with excitement. Yes, an intense fall prepares me for an exciting winter and so on. Life will move fast now or it will drag on. I only have to savor it.
Fall is also nice because we can once again venture outside. Every summer we get excited at the opportunity to spend our days at the pool and our nights in the backyard barbecuing. But reality hits, and we rush into the air conditioning to escape the biting bugs and the searing sun. And compare fall with spring, where hopes are also born of venturing out in the warming weather. But spring is always wet. And, although October has its fair share of rain, I feel like the tendency in fall is toward the perfect crisp, cool, sunny day.
Walking down the city street in the cooler weather made me FEEL much more like I was in a big city again. Perhaps this was because one fall I was. Or perhaps because I felt more able to enjoy my surroundings in general, no matter where they were. Still, as I readied to cozy up in the winter, I imagined a new social experiment - a month without a car. These are my chronicles of commuting on public transportation.
Fascinating, right? After I had mentally planned everything out, I realized none of it would work. I would have to walk 1.5 miles each way to the bus stop each day, and I would need to get there by 6:00-ish. Rain or shine. And in September I would have to start wearing dress-clothes to work again. What about volunteering on the weekends? Was there a stop any bit closer to my house? Oh, the weight I would lose! But financially I'd be no better off! I'd have to drive more miles into work or pay for parking to break even on the bus. So my mental experiment with big-city life failed from the get-go, but it was nice to dream.
Then again, if I really lived in the big city, I would miss out on the joys of fall. As mornings grow colder and colder, still refreshing, but edging closer to dastardly cold. As the nip in the air is joined with the faint smell of smoke in fireplaces. As trees change colors, spiders retreat (at last!), pumpkins pop up, and children walk to and fro with their backpacks on. I'm so glad this happens every year - hands down my favorite season. And something's coming (watch for "Sarah's Top Secret Project" in the future).
I love fall. Fall is so motivating to me. It always feels like something exciting is coming, even though that something is winter, which is not exciting (unless that Something is Christmas, which is). Looking back on my life, I suppose I see why. Although summers were good for vacation, camps, rest, and working hard, fall brought me back into daily contact with my friends, into exploring new subjects in school, and to fresh blank notebooks, ready to be written in! What is more exciting than an open book?
And in recent memory, I can honestly say the best three months of my life (in, say, the last 10 years or so), happened during the fall.
And this fall I absolutely know something is coming because I am in planning mode. If my plans fail, or if my dreams are not realized, I have backups and alternatives galore to fill my head with excitement. Yes, an intense fall prepares me for an exciting winter and so on. Life will move fast now or it will drag on. I only have to savor it.
Fall is also nice because we can once again venture outside. Every summer we get excited at the opportunity to spend our days at the pool and our nights in the backyard barbecuing. But reality hits, and we rush into the air conditioning to escape the biting bugs and the searing sun. And compare fall with spring, where hopes are also born of venturing out in the warming weather. But spring is always wet. And, although October has its fair share of rain, I feel like the tendency in fall is toward the perfect crisp, cool, sunny day.
Walking down the city street in the cooler weather made me FEEL much more like I was in a big city again. Perhaps this was because one fall I was. Or perhaps because I felt more able to enjoy my surroundings in general, no matter where they were. Still, as I readied to cozy up in the winter, I imagined a new social experiment - a month without a car. These are my chronicles of commuting on public transportation.
Fascinating, right? After I had mentally planned everything out, I realized none of it would work. I would have to walk 1.5 miles each way to the bus stop each day, and I would need to get there by 6:00-ish. Rain or shine. And in September I would have to start wearing dress-clothes to work again. What about volunteering on the weekends? Was there a stop any bit closer to my house? Oh, the weight I would lose! But financially I'd be no better off! I'd have to drive more miles into work or pay for parking to break even on the bus. So my mental experiment with big-city life failed from the get-go, but it was nice to dream.
Then again, if I really lived in the big city, I would miss out on the joys of fall. As mornings grow colder and colder, still refreshing, but edging closer to dastardly cold. As the nip in the air is joined with the faint smell of smoke in fireplaces. As trees change colors, spiders retreat (at last!), pumpkins pop up, and children walk to and fro with their backpacks on. I'm so glad this happens every year - hands down my favorite season. And something's coming (watch for "Sarah's Top Secret Project" in the future).
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime
I just finished reading a book called, "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime." The book is written from the perspective of a boy with autism who is trying to solve the mystery of a neighbor's murdered dog. Written very simplistically but with lots of cursing, the book is a fascinating insight into the life of an autistic child. Given that autism now affects (liberally, I think) 1% of the population, the chances of any given individual interacting with someone with autism seem higher than ever, and anyone who does should take steps to understand the disorder. My relationship with autism is fairly well removed - my sister's friend's son has it. And I've really never met him.
But I have a closer relation to Asperger's Syndrome, which is described as a mild form of autism. My sister believes she has it. Now, with Asperger's you have to be careful - because it is more mild, many of the signs appear the same as stereotypically "nerdy" behaviors - specifically poor social skills and obsessive behaviors. I think what made my sister believe she had it was her complete inability to read certain obvious social signs, but as she has matured, she has grown out of this, and I think overall if she does have the Syndrome it is a mild case. Still, walking back on the autism scale from the actual disorder to Asperger's to nerd to well-adjusted human being, I can relate. I, myself, am closer to nerd and Asperger than I am to "normal."
For an example, let me relate a few items a person with Asperger's shared on an Internet discussion board. He said that it was hard to meet girls, and so his buddies suggested he ask girls he was interested in about their job, to start up a conversation. But he didn't understand because he didn't care about their jobs. And when girls were interested in him, they would remark that he was tall, but he didn't catch that they were flirting, he just thought they were stating the obvious, and it kind of annoyed him. As another example, take the character Sheldon on the sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory." He is a guy who is stuck in his own world, cannot read people, and gets fixated on various things. He also has OCD tendencies.
What is interesting for me is that I GET this. I GET why the guy on the discussion board was so confused, and yet I also GET what he was doing wrong. I like being able to see both sides of the coin. Frankly, I think people put too much emphasis on certain social skills, and sometimes it has gotten to the point that it is not a social skill but an interest that is in play. For instance, the inability to make good small talk in a group may have less to do with social skills than simply not being interested or informed on the topic of discussion. Likewise it should be allowable to simply not be interested in talking to others in certain social situations, but wallflowers tend to be looked on with suspicion by social butterflies.
Reading the book about the autistic boy took these social ponderings to a new level. I think I could work with him - I really do. It wasn't until near the end of the book that I caught that he was screaming a lot (he says it so matter-of-factly it's easy to glance over). But when he is not screaming, his perspective of the world is tolerable if you are willing to be patient. For instance, he is very literal, so you should be literal when interacting with him, and you should do fine. And he has his OCD items, which you can work with. And he doesn't read emotions on faces - so you should be clear about what you are thinking. (Say, "I am angry right now...") Of course, I have never interacted with someone with autism to know how easy or difficult it would be. My college roommate went through classes and read books on dealing with different learning disabilities, and autism was one of her favorites. I wonder now if one reason is that she, like me, feels comfortable working with someone who processes things through logic and literalism, rather than emotions and good interpersonal skills. People are hard - I understand why anyone could have trouble understanding them, especially someone absorbed in logic.
Personally, I have my own people skills problems. For one, I find it hard to distinguish some suggestions from commands. Like, when someone says, "Are you coming to the meeting?" when he means, "Let's go to the meeting." And I am thinking, "No, I wasn't planning on it." Another thing I hate, not dislike, hate, are superficial greetings. And these are so common, it sometimes makes it almost hard to function in an office. What I mean is when, in passing, you see someone you know, and they say, "Good morning!" I don't need to hear that. A simple smile would do, although, depending on the strength of the relationship, I prefer averted eyes. Still, even with a close friend "Good morning!" is just too shallow. No real conversation ever comes from it. Or when someone asks how you are. True friends greet each other more familiarly, as though already in the middle of a conversation, "George, you will never believe what just happened." Pleasantries are not pleasant. Nor are those statements, again, often made to near-strangers or strangers, that appear to be conversation starters but really lead nowhere. "My, you guys sure drink a lot of coffee." "Looks like rain, doesn't it?" and my favorite, "Looks like your food will get cold before you ever get to the 11th floor." These are statements of facts, not ice breakers. I know social norm is to come back with some cute, witty comment, else give a simple acknowledgement. But my mind gets so stuck searching for the first, I have little energy for the second.
My final thought about the book is that autism is a sliding scale - which we can see with it sliding down to Asperger's Syndrome, and then on to "nerd." And it makes me wonder - if social skills are unavoidable in the modern world and workplace, how do we treat people with mild forms of autism? We cannot discriminate against them in our hiring practices, but if they cannot communicate, their job opportunities are limited. I don't mean that people with Asperger's should try to become salesmen or politicians any more than I believe I should be allowed to be a professional football player. Instead, I think of my own world - one of accountants and actuaries and, to some extent, IT personnel. None of us are known for our people skills, and yet I have found over and over again that I, who am not clinically challenged in this area by any means, struggle to keep up with the high interpersonal standards of the business world. So if one without good people skills cannot be safe even here, then where can someone who does have a Syndrome find meaningful work without some sort of protection? But if protection is offered for those who have been diagnosed with social problem, how fair is it that I, who naturally struggle, am not offered the same protection simply because it is my personality, and not misfiring neurons in my head, that are causing my social issues.
But I have a closer relation to Asperger's Syndrome, which is described as a mild form of autism. My sister believes she has it. Now, with Asperger's you have to be careful - because it is more mild, many of the signs appear the same as stereotypically "nerdy" behaviors - specifically poor social skills and obsessive behaviors. I think what made my sister believe she had it was her complete inability to read certain obvious social signs, but as she has matured, she has grown out of this, and I think overall if she does have the Syndrome it is a mild case. Still, walking back on the autism scale from the actual disorder to Asperger's to nerd to well-adjusted human being, I can relate. I, myself, am closer to nerd and Asperger than I am to "normal."
For an example, let me relate a few items a person with Asperger's shared on an Internet discussion board. He said that it was hard to meet girls, and so his buddies suggested he ask girls he was interested in about their job, to start up a conversation. But he didn't understand because he didn't care about their jobs. And when girls were interested in him, they would remark that he was tall, but he didn't catch that they were flirting, he just thought they were stating the obvious, and it kind of annoyed him. As another example, take the character Sheldon on the sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory." He is a guy who is stuck in his own world, cannot read people, and gets fixated on various things. He also has OCD tendencies.
What is interesting for me is that I GET this. I GET why the guy on the discussion board was so confused, and yet I also GET what he was doing wrong. I like being able to see both sides of the coin. Frankly, I think people put too much emphasis on certain social skills, and sometimes it has gotten to the point that it is not a social skill but an interest that is in play. For instance, the inability to make good small talk in a group may have less to do with social skills than simply not being interested or informed on the topic of discussion. Likewise it should be allowable to simply not be interested in talking to others in certain social situations, but wallflowers tend to be looked on with suspicion by social butterflies.
Reading the book about the autistic boy took these social ponderings to a new level. I think I could work with him - I really do. It wasn't until near the end of the book that I caught that he was screaming a lot (he says it so matter-of-factly it's easy to glance over). But when he is not screaming, his perspective of the world is tolerable if you are willing to be patient. For instance, he is very literal, so you should be literal when interacting with him, and you should do fine. And he has his OCD items, which you can work with. And he doesn't read emotions on faces - so you should be clear about what you are thinking. (Say, "I am angry right now...") Of course, I have never interacted with someone with autism to know how easy or difficult it would be. My college roommate went through classes and read books on dealing with different learning disabilities, and autism was one of her favorites. I wonder now if one reason is that she, like me, feels comfortable working with someone who processes things through logic and literalism, rather than emotions and good interpersonal skills. People are hard - I understand why anyone could have trouble understanding them, especially someone absorbed in logic.
Personally, I have my own people skills problems. For one, I find it hard to distinguish some suggestions from commands. Like, when someone says, "Are you coming to the meeting?" when he means, "Let's go to the meeting." And I am thinking, "No, I wasn't planning on it." Another thing I hate, not dislike, hate, are superficial greetings. And these are so common, it sometimes makes it almost hard to function in an office. What I mean is when, in passing, you see someone you know, and they say, "Good morning!" I don't need to hear that. A simple smile would do, although, depending on the strength of the relationship, I prefer averted eyes. Still, even with a close friend "Good morning!" is just too shallow. No real conversation ever comes from it. Or when someone asks how you are. True friends greet each other more familiarly, as though already in the middle of a conversation, "George, you will never believe what just happened." Pleasantries are not pleasant. Nor are those statements, again, often made to near-strangers or strangers, that appear to be conversation starters but really lead nowhere. "My, you guys sure drink a lot of coffee." "Looks like rain, doesn't it?" and my favorite, "Looks like your food will get cold before you ever get to the 11th floor." These are statements of facts, not ice breakers. I know social norm is to come back with some cute, witty comment, else give a simple acknowledgement. But my mind gets so stuck searching for the first, I have little energy for the second.
My final thought about the book is that autism is a sliding scale - which we can see with it sliding down to Asperger's Syndrome, and then on to "nerd." And it makes me wonder - if social skills are unavoidable in the modern world and workplace, how do we treat people with mild forms of autism? We cannot discriminate against them in our hiring practices, but if they cannot communicate, their job opportunities are limited. I don't mean that people with Asperger's should try to become salesmen or politicians any more than I believe I should be allowed to be a professional football player. Instead, I think of my own world - one of accountants and actuaries and, to some extent, IT personnel. None of us are known for our people skills, and yet I have found over and over again that I, who am not clinically challenged in this area by any means, struggle to keep up with the high interpersonal standards of the business world. So if one without good people skills cannot be safe even here, then where can someone who does have a Syndrome find meaningful work without some sort of protection? But if protection is offered for those who have been diagnosed with social problem, how fair is it that I, who naturally struggle, am not offered the same protection simply because it is my personality, and not misfiring neurons in my head, that are causing my social issues.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Time to Buy Buy Buy!
As a mere speculator - someone making observations without a vested interest - might I suggest a house within the Kansas City, MO school district for your next purchase? That is, of course, if you have a job in the Kansas City area and Johnson County is not an option for you.
To be sure, real estate prices are continuing to plummet (oh woe be to we who already own price-inflated homes) along with the interest rates (oh woe be to we who are locked into 30 year mortgages over 5% - unable to refinance but just terrified that the next loan we take out will be at 14% when inflation hits). So now is a prime time to buy a house almost anywhere. (Please buy one in my neighborhood - I'd like to get some of the competition off the market in case I ever decide to sell).
However, I have been thinking that now might be the time to buy in Kansas City - because their schools are terrible. I don't know of a lot of big city school districts that you would say "do well." But Kansas City has big problems. Amidst a budget crisis common in these times, the district cut half the schools. Lights out. Go home. Not wanted anymore. It can't get much worse than this.
Which is precisely why it's the time to buy! Everyone knows that a school district has a tremendous impact on the value of a home - even if you don't have kids, if you expect to sell it to someone with kids, you want your house to be in a good school district. So why am I suggesting you buy a house in the worst school district for miles and miles? Because I think that the KCMO school district has hit rock bottom. And if the schools have, the housing prices are about to.
One of the reasons the district has been suffering is that those who could afford to have moved out of the district - to Johnson County or Independence, MO. Those left are those who cannot afford to relocate, and thus cannot pay increasingly high property taxes to support the schools. The quality of education deteriorated, and now people predict it will get worse because class sizes will increase and children will have to go to new schools.
But in every dark cloud there is a silver lining, and the KCMO school district is taking advantage of an opportunity to restructure things. Obviously kids need to be reshuffled to new schools, and teachers need better expectations in order to perform better. So the district has adopted a new educational philosophy that is starting to grow across the country - let kids move at their own pace.
There is a fear, of course, that this would "leave kids behind." Those who cannot grasp the material would never learn it. But I think just the opposite would happen. First of all, kids would be placed where they need to be intellectually. This means the faster learners would jump into more difficult subjects. Many behavioral problems actually come from children who are simply bored (read "Matilda"), and if they were challenged in their classes they would pay more attention and learn better, and school would be more interesting. Slower learners would not be distracted by these faster learners nor intimidated by them. They would have teach help, and we could minimize the collective sighs that happen when a child asks a question the rest of the class finds obvious. Let's face it, the American school systems generally cater to the lowest common denominator, meaning the children who get "left behind" are actually those who have the most unlocked potential.
In addition, there is pressure to advance children to the next grade whether they have mastered the material or not. One reason is so the child can remain with his friends and peer groups and not "feel" dumb. So to protect his feelings, we harm his education - if he did not get pre-algebra, how is he expected to get algebra, and so on? How can he keep up if he reads at three grade levels below his peers? Education builds on itself, so if we don't give children the fundamental building blocks, they will always be behind. This kind of structure minimizes social advancement because children will not necessarily be placed in grades with children of their own age. If they don't get the material, they don't move on. But they can move on in the subjects they do understand. This lets kids who excel at math continue upwards while they develop their reading skills at a lower level.
Ultimately, I think this may result in more kids graduating high school and entering college - perhaps even on time. So much of what we learn, especially in our high school and college years, is not relevant for its factual data but seen as a way to help us "grow" as individuals. So if a person completes 13 years of public education and passes his ACT's, why not let him go to college, even if he hasn't taken Chemistry yet? (There will be a college version of chemistry he can take). If he needed help getting through high school, he can start with community college before going on to university.
Even if you don't believe in this system, you have to acknowledge that the KCMO school district is attempting to restructure and fix a broken program. This attention to details and this effort will not be wasted. There's really nowhere to go but up for the city, so buy up now! Your property could be worth a lot more in a few years!
To be sure, real estate prices are continuing to plummet (oh woe be to we who already own price-inflated homes) along with the interest rates (oh woe be to we who are locked into 30 year mortgages over 5% - unable to refinance but just terrified that the next loan we take out will be at 14% when inflation hits). So now is a prime time to buy a house almost anywhere. (Please buy one in my neighborhood - I'd like to get some of the competition off the market in case I ever decide to sell).
However, I have been thinking that now might be the time to buy in Kansas City - because their schools are terrible. I don't know of a lot of big city school districts that you would say "do well." But Kansas City has big problems. Amidst a budget crisis common in these times, the district cut half the schools. Lights out. Go home. Not wanted anymore. It can't get much worse than this.
Which is precisely why it's the time to buy! Everyone knows that a school district has a tremendous impact on the value of a home - even if you don't have kids, if you expect to sell it to someone with kids, you want your house to be in a good school district. So why am I suggesting you buy a house in the worst school district for miles and miles? Because I think that the KCMO school district has hit rock bottom. And if the schools have, the housing prices are about to.
One of the reasons the district has been suffering is that those who could afford to have moved out of the district - to Johnson County or Independence, MO. Those left are those who cannot afford to relocate, and thus cannot pay increasingly high property taxes to support the schools. The quality of education deteriorated, and now people predict it will get worse because class sizes will increase and children will have to go to new schools.
But in every dark cloud there is a silver lining, and the KCMO school district is taking advantage of an opportunity to restructure things. Obviously kids need to be reshuffled to new schools, and teachers need better expectations in order to perform better. So the district has adopted a new educational philosophy that is starting to grow across the country - let kids move at their own pace.
There is a fear, of course, that this would "leave kids behind." Those who cannot grasp the material would never learn it. But I think just the opposite would happen. First of all, kids would be placed where they need to be intellectually. This means the faster learners would jump into more difficult subjects. Many behavioral problems actually come from children who are simply bored (read "Matilda"), and if they were challenged in their classes they would pay more attention and learn better, and school would be more interesting. Slower learners would not be distracted by these faster learners nor intimidated by them. They would have teach help, and we could minimize the collective sighs that happen when a child asks a question the rest of the class finds obvious. Let's face it, the American school systems generally cater to the lowest common denominator, meaning the children who get "left behind" are actually those who have the most unlocked potential.
In addition, there is pressure to advance children to the next grade whether they have mastered the material or not. One reason is so the child can remain with his friends and peer groups and not "feel" dumb. So to protect his feelings, we harm his education - if he did not get pre-algebra, how is he expected to get algebra, and so on? How can he keep up if he reads at three grade levels below his peers? Education builds on itself, so if we don't give children the fundamental building blocks, they will always be behind. This kind of structure minimizes social advancement because children will not necessarily be placed in grades with children of their own age. If they don't get the material, they don't move on. But they can move on in the subjects they do understand. This lets kids who excel at math continue upwards while they develop their reading skills at a lower level.
Ultimately, I think this may result in more kids graduating high school and entering college - perhaps even on time. So much of what we learn, especially in our high school and college years, is not relevant for its factual data but seen as a way to help us "grow" as individuals. So if a person completes 13 years of public education and passes his ACT's, why not let him go to college, even if he hasn't taken Chemistry yet? (There will be a college version of chemistry he can take). If he needed help getting through high school, he can start with community college before going on to university.
Even if you don't believe in this system, you have to acknowledge that the KCMO school district is attempting to restructure and fix a broken program. This attention to details and this effort will not be wasted. There's really nowhere to go but up for the city, so buy up now! Your property could be worth a lot more in a few years!
Pieces o' Eight
Arghh matey! Me's got myself a bag full of pieces o' eight just nigh screamin' to be spent on rum! Treasure, aye, that's what me calls these beautiful little shiners.
Ooh I just shiver my timbers to think about it - coins! Practically worthless these days, coins still get me excited when I find them all jumbled up. The heavier my purse is laden down with change, the happier I am. And, accountant that I am, they make me even happier when they are properly sorted. I love to store them in bags reminiscent of old-time leather purses (not just for women!) and those $$ bags you saw in old cartoons.
When I was in Europe I marveled at the abundance of coins. Both 1 and 2 (and maybe even 5 and 10) euro coins circulated freely. And, because I couldn't use my credit card very often because over overseas fees, I loved to transact in them. I have always liked to break my denominations down - whether it is giving a $20 for a $4 item or a $10 for a $1.80 item, I like to use up the biggest bills first. And this practice in Spain helped me break up my silly paper euros into glittering gold and silver coins.
There was a drawback. Not one to wear a purse back then, my pockets were many times heavy laden with the jingling currency. But it was worth it to reach my hand into my pocket and pull out a handful of treasure! The only sad part was that these euros represented about $1.20 each, and as such all but a few souvenir pieces had to be spent or turned back into American money before going home. So I handed in my beautiful pieces of eight to be given back a floppy, dirty piece of paper and two tiny dimes. Click clack.
Now back in the States (for many years, in case you were wondering - my Spain trip was in 2003) I mostly use my credit card - it gives me that 1 - 5% cashback discount that we happy few who pay our bill monthly so do love to see. I'm not going to lie, plastic is fun. It feels so grown up. So futuristic. And kind of silly - like being tickled - to hand someone a worthless plastic card and then make out with all kinds of treasure from their store. I feel a little mischievous.
But, to be true, my eyes glittered like the sun on the sea when I read an article the other day that combined two topics dear to my heart - cost savings and coinage. Yes, it said that the United States could save half a billion dollars (every year?) if we stopped printing paper money (well, paper $1's) and instead traded in dollar coinage. The article made perfect sense to me - bills are much more fragile and wear down easier, wheras coins last almost forever. Consumers, the article said, do not respond well to coin money. I hear them. Whenever the government issues new coins, my first impulse is to hoard. My precious! How pretty all those little Susan B. Anthony dollars look on top of a pile of quarters. How shiny are those indian dollars! Pretty pretty pretty. My motive may be different than other Americans - when I have a chance to spend a dollar and must choose between the bill and the coin, it is going to be the bill because I am holding on to that coin! But if they took the bills away (or stopped printing them and eventually let them run out) one of two things could happen. I could either start hoarding the bills (see the historic $1 bill!). Or I would spend the coins because they were less novel. Either way, the coins would be spent.
I think it's a good idea. This is one situation (a very rare one) in which I think we should follow Europe's and Canada's example and go metallic! We can issue $1, $2, and $5 coins! Little schoolchildren would love us.
Now, there is one other drawback, other than consumer response (and not having enough change receptacles in the standard cash register for these coins). That is, of course, the increasing trend towards a cashless society. As I said, I put every transaction I can on plastic. I do this because I know I am responsible with my money and will not go into huge debt or spend more than I meant to. (I say this because most money advice books tell you to use cash so you can see and feel exactly how much you are spending). And there are transactions that I cannot but use my credit card, such as purchases on the internet. My cafeteria has gone cashless in order to "speed things up." Checks are becoming a thing of the past as money transfers pay most bills and many vendors don't want to deal with the possibility of a bounced check (cash, debit, and credit are all more secure from the store's perspective). It seems to me that cash is on the verge of being outdated - something we give to children to teach them about money, or something we transfer between ourselves since most of us don't come equipped with credit card machines.
So, although I would like to once again feel my pockets laden down with coins that actually amount to something, I feel the trend in America today is one that should be followed. We can probably generate as much cost savings through the gradual phasing out of cash altogether than to begin a new coin pressing project that will spend what we saved on paper bills in the start up costs to get going. Let American capitalism determine the capital!
Ooh I just shiver my timbers to think about it - coins! Practically worthless these days, coins still get me excited when I find them all jumbled up. The heavier my purse is laden down with change, the happier I am. And, accountant that I am, they make me even happier when they are properly sorted. I love to store them in bags reminiscent of old-time leather purses (not just for women!) and those $$ bags you saw in old cartoons.
When I was in Europe I marveled at the abundance of coins. Both 1 and 2 (and maybe even 5 and 10) euro coins circulated freely. And, because I couldn't use my credit card very often because over overseas fees, I loved to transact in them. I have always liked to break my denominations down - whether it is giving a $20 for a $4 item or a $10 for a $1.80 item, I like to use up the biggest bills first. And this practice in Spain helped me break up my silly paper euros into glittering gold and silver coins.
There was a drawback. Not one to wear a purse back then, my pockets were many times heavy laden with the jingling currency. But it was worth it to reach my hand into my pocket and pull out a handful of treasure! The only sad part was that these euros represented about $1.20 each, and as such all but a few souvenir pieces had to be spent or turned back into American money before going home. So I handed in my beautiful pieces of eight to be given back a floppy, dirty piece of paper and two tiny dimes. Click clack.
Now back in the States (for many years, in case you were wondering - my Spain trip was in 2003) I mostly use my credit card - it gives me that 1 - 5% cashback discount that we happy few who pay our bill monthly so do love to see. I'm not going to lie, plastic is fun. It feels so grown up. So futuristic. And kind of silly - like being tickled - to hand someone a worthless plastic card and then make out with all kinds of treasure from their store. I feel a little mischievous.
But, to be true, my eyes glittered like the sun on the sea when I read an article the other day that combined two topics dear to my heart - cost savings and coinage. Yes, it said that the United States could save half a billion dollars (every year?) if we stopped printing paper money (well, paper $1's) and instead traded in dollar coinage. The article made perfect sense to me - bills are much more fragile and wear down easier, wheras coins last almost forever. Consumers, the article said, do not respond well to coin money. I hear them. Whenever the government issues new coins, my first impulse is to hoard. My precious! How pretty all those little Susan B. Anthony dollars look on top of a pile of quarters. How shiny are those indian dollars! Pretty pretty pretty. My motive may be different than other Americans - when I have a chance to spend a dollar and must choose between the bill and the coin, it is going to be the bill because I am holding on to that coin! But if they took the bills away (or stopped printing them and eventually let them run out) one of two things could happen. I could either start hoarding the bills (see the historic $1 bill!). Or I would spend the coins because they were less novel. Either way, the coins would be spent.
I think it's a good idea. This is one situation (a very rare one) in which I think we should follow Europe's and Canada's example and go metallic! We can issue $1, $2, and $5 coins! Little schoolchildren would love us.
Now, there is one other drawback, other than consumer response (and not having enough change receptacles in the standard cash register for these coins). That is, of course, the increasing trend towards a cashless society. As I said, I put every transaction I can on plastic. I do this because I know I am responsible with my money and will not go into huge debt or spend more than I meant to. (I say this because most money advice books tell you to use cash so you can see and feel exactly how much you are spending). And there are transactions that I cannot but use my credit card, such as purchases on the internet. My cafeteria has gone cashless in order to "speed things up." Checks are becoming a thing of the past as money transfers pay most bills and many vendors don't want to deal with the possibility of a bounced check (cash, debit, and credit are all more secure from the store's perspective). It seems to me that cash is on the verge of being outdated - something we give to children to teach them about money, or something we transfer between ourselves since most of us don't come equipped with credit card machines.
So, although I would like to once again feel my pockets laden down with coins that actually amount to something, I feel the trend in America today is one that should be followed. We can probably generate as much cost savings through the gradual phasing out of cash altogether than to begin a new coin pressing project that will spend what we saved on paper bills in the start up costs to get going. Let American capitalism determine the capital!
If It Makes You Happy
On my desk at work, I have two elongated sticky notes with red cursive writing on them. I wrote these notes in an attempt to minimize any opportunities for my coworkers to call me crazy. I speak, of course, about those rare instances when you are walking down the hall and a memory of something incredibly funny comes to mind and you can't help but laugh or grin. Yes, grinning for no reason seems to turn others off - I don't know why.
Still, I sometimes glance over at the ever-growing list and get an instant lift from something I see on it. (On the top - the second page is hidden, I don't know how useful it is to have my funny moments hidden). So I have decided to share the list with the world. Granted, some of these are inside jokes or "You had to be there" moments, but I will do my best to explain.
- "Practical joke of sending Maggie to the clippers and she falls off the table." That dog is impossible to trim her nails. So in desperation I took her to a professional groomers at PetSmart. They asked me to step outside to pay, and as I stood at the cash register, I could see Maggie and her handlers inside the window. She was desperately trying to get away, and they were desperately trying to hold her still, and then, whoops! Her paws slide off the table. Don't worry, she didn't actually fall. If she had, it would not be so funny. But it felt like I had just played a mean joke on the PetSmart employees - "Here, declaw my dog!" When in fact, the task I had asked of them was physically impossible.
- "Talking about the advertisement on PBS and it pops up (Ken Burns)." One Sunday I had spent the entire afternoon with the PBS channel on. I wasn't watching it so much as listening to it as I did other things. When Kristen came home she sat in the living room as I explained to her how all the advertisements repeat. I listed them off - in the perfect order to which they appear on the channel - and was in the middle of saying, "That one where Ken Burns pops on the screen," and the TV said, "Hi! I'm Ken Burns." Little ironies like this happen all the time, but it was pretty funny that night.
- "Anything from Meet the Robinsons." But mostly Goob.
- "Dogs in UP." Have you seen that movie? I would say 80% of it is kind of a snoozer, or give it a B- rating overall, but the dogs are hilarious! It is because they capture the very essence of what dogs are like. "Hi! I'm Doug, and I just met you, and I love you." He he he...
- "The day I accidentally called MP to his face." That's actually what I wrote down. Anyway, my sister was dating (and is now married to) a guy named Michael. Because it was her first serious relationship, we gave her a hard time about it, and I joked that she called him "Mikeypoo." What my parents forget is that they joined in the fun, too. Anyway, maybe the third time he met my parents they told him that I call him that. It was a good joke. But to his face I was careful not to call him that. Until one night it just popped out. I kept talking, but my mom grew mysteriously silent before erupting into laughter. I'm glad it happened, though. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I never worry about whether "Mikeypoo" is around when I call him that. And, of course, MP is short for Mikey-Poo.
- "Maggie bounding into her cage." Well that was a cute moment more than anything else, and how I long for it to repeat itself! I think she was tired. And I give her a nice big treat whenever she gets in her cage. But one morning Maggie saw me getting my stuff by the door ready to go and just bounded into her cage as if it was a game. She always looks betrayed when I close the door on her, though...
- "Punchy." That was a new term I heard for grumpy, and it made me giggle. Now whenever I am "punchy" I just remember that I am "punchy" and I feel better. :)
- "Listening to the spaghetti conversation next door." Men are Like Waffles, Women are Like Spaghetti. That is the title of a pretty decent book I just read. It's one of those "understanding the opposite sex" books. Men are like waffles because they compartmentalize their lives into boxes. Women are like spaghetti because everything runs together in and around itself and touches every other aspect of their lives. One day, during the few weeks I was reading the book, I tuned into a conversation in the cubicle next door - a conversation amongst three women. I had to laugh because, with the help of the book, I could see the conversation through the eyes (perhaps) of a man. It noodled in and out and all around, starting in one place, going somewhere else, and still ending up where it should be. Something completely simple for me to understand, and I then realized that perhaps a man would be overwhelmed to hear it.
- "Maggie burying her bone in the chair." This is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. When I give Maggie a bone she walks around with it in her mouth crying for a while and then "buries" it either by "hiding" it (usually next to the book case or some other obvious place) or by "burying" it in the chair. To do this, she jumps on the chair and vigorously scratches it for a while, making digging motions with her arms. Then she gingerly places the bone on the chair. I had seen this several times before but almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw the conclusion. She then "pushes" the "dirt" back over the bone by rubbing her nose, in a circular motion, on the chair around the bone. She has now gone through all the necessary motions to bury a bone, and the bone still sits in plain sight. It is so funny to watch and, of course, cannot be repeated on demand.
- "Pushing Maggie off the bed." This is not animal cruelty, it's just one of those little "ha ha" moments in life, like when we watch Funniest Home Videos. No animal is hurt. In fact, the reason it's on my list is more for the emotional mindset of the dog. I am trying to train her that the bed is not an appropriate place, but I can almost sense her frustration. She thinks that I am a puppy and, as such, am quite rude to take the comfy spot for myself while she sleeps on the floor. It's that little, "But...but...but..." that I can almost hear coming out of her mouth when her attempt to jump on the bed is foiled by a quick placed hand.
- "Mom picking up her domino and saying, 'I have a two...'" A non-thinking moment for the members of my family. We were playing Mexican Dominoes, and as we started to set up our trains, my dad said, "Wait, don't we need to draw to see who goes first?" Well, that was a non-thinking statement for him. In Dominoes we don't do that - whoever has the appropriate double (Double 12, Double 11, and so on) places it on the table as the first move. So that was strike one. Strike two was my mom, sister, and I all mindlessly obeying and drawing an extra domino. It wasn't until my mom proudly announced, "I have a two..." that we all realized the GroupThink that had just happened. It was like waking up from a trance, and I still giggle about it.
- "Me blowing out my candles super quick." The same night another example of mindless obedience. My mom, sister, and I were in the middle of some (probably goofy) conversation while my dad was preparing my birthday cake. All of the sudden, my sister said, "Blow your candles out, Sarah." and my mom began to sing "Happy birthday." Without thinking, I turned my head to where, as if by magic, my dad had appeared at my side with a cake, and blew out the candles in a rush. My mom suddenly cut off her song. It was the world's shortest rendition of "Happy birthday" ever, and I barely even knew what I had done. I was just obeying orders.
- "The crazy people on the video game." All my life I have never been good at video games, but I have usually enjoyed watching other people play, especially when they make light of it. Anyway, my sister was playing "Indiana Jones" and had just finished destroying all the minions when her husband came into the room. "Why are you killing all the crazy people?" He asked. The minions weren't bad guys at all but crazy people. Then, to make the moment even funnier, they all ran back onto the screen in a dance-like manner waving their arms about. Erin had to lasso them and drag them over to a switch to sit on in order to pass the level.
Well, looking at this list I know it is probably hard to see the humor I see in most of these. But I also wanted to share the concept of the list itself. It is so nice to be able to glance over at it and suddenly be able to chuckle my way through a bad day. It is the perfect tool at work, a place that many people find stressful in its own right, and it helps me keep a crazy smile on my face.
Still, I sometimes glance over at the ever-growing list and get an instant lift from something I see on it. (On the top - the second page is hidden, I don't know how useful it is to have my funny moments hidden). So I have decided to share the list with the world. Granted, some of these are inside jokes or "You had to be there" moments, but I will do my best to explain.
- "Practical joke of sending Maggie to the clippers and she falls off the table." That dog is impossible to trim her nails. So in desperation I took her to a professional groomers at PetSmart. They asked me to step outside to pay, and as I stood at the cash register, I could see Maggie and her handlers inside the window. She was desperately trying to get away, and they were desperately trying to hold her still, and then, whoops! Her paws slide off the table. Don't worry, she didn't actually fall. If she had, it would not be so funny. But it felt like I had just played a mean joke on the PetSmart employees - "Here, declaw my dog!" When in fact, the task I had asked of them was physically impossible.
- "Talking about the advertisement on PBS and it pops up (Ken Burns)." One Sunday I had spent the entire afternoon with the PBS channel on. I wasn't watching it so much as listening to it as I did other things. When Kristen came home she sat in the living room as I explained to her how all the advertisements repeat. I listed them off - in the perfect order to which they appear on the channel - and was in the middle of saying, "That one where Ken Burns pops on the screen," and the TV said, "Hi! I'm Ken Burns." Little ironies like this happen all the time, but it was pretty funny that night.
- "Anything from Meet the Robinsons." But mostly Goob.
- "Dogs in UP." Have you seen that movie? I would say 80% of it is kind of a snoozer, or give it a B- rating overall, but the dogs are hilarious! It is because they capture the very essence of what dogs are like. "Hi! I'm Doug, and I just met you, and I love you." He he he...
- "The day I accidentally called MP to his face." That's actually what I wrote down. Anyway, my sister was dating (and is now married to) a guy named Michael. Because it was her first serious relationship, we gave her a hard time about it, and I joked that she called him "Mikeypoo." What my parents forget is that they joined in the fun, too. Anyway, maybe the third time he met my parents they told him that I call him that. It was a good joke. But to his face I was careful not to call him that. Until one night it just popped out. I kept talking, but my mom grew mysteriously silent before erupting into laughter. I'm glad it happened, though. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I never worry about whether "Mikeypoo" is around when I call him that. And, of course, MP is short for Mikey-Poo.
- "Maggie bounding into her cage." Well that was a cute moment more than anything else, and how I long for it to repeat itself! I think she was tired. And I give her a nice big treat whenever she gets in her cage. But one morning Maggie saw me getting my stuff by the door ready to go and just bounded into her cage as if it was a game. She always looks betrayed when I close the door on her, though...
- "Punchy." That was a new term I heard for grumpy, and it made me giggle. Now whenever I am "punchy" I just remember that I am "punchy" and I feel better. :)
- "Listening to the spaghetti conversation next door." Men are Like Waffles, Women are Like Spaghetti. That is the title of a pretty decent book I just read. It's one of those "understanding the opposite sex" books. Men are like waffles because they compartmentalize their lives into boxes. Women are like spaghetti because everything runs together in and around itself and touches every other aspect of their lives. One day, during the few weeks I was reading the book, I tuned into a conversation in the cubicle next door - a conversation amongst three women. I had to laugh because, with the help of the book, I could see the conversation through the eyes (perhaps) of a man. It noodled in and out and all around, starting in one place, going somewhere else, and still ending up where it should be. Something completely simple for me to understand, and I then realized that perhaps a man would be overwhelmed to hear it.
- "Maggie burying her bone in the chair." This is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. When I give Maggie a bone she walks around with it in her mouth crying for a while and then "buries" it either by "hiding" it (usually next to the book case or some other obvious place) or by "burying" it in the chair. To do this, she jumps on the chair and vigorously scratches it for a while, making digging motions with her arms. Then she gingerly places the bone on the chair. I had seen this several times before but almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw the conclusion. She then "pushes" the "dirt" back over the bone by rubbing her nose, in a circular motion, on the chair around the bone. She has now gone through all the necessary motions to bury a bone, and the bone still sits in plain sight. It is so funny to watch and, of course, cannot be repeated on demand.
- "Pushing Maggie off the bed." This is not animal cruelty, it's just one of those little "ha ha" moments in life, like when we watch Funniest Home Videos. No animal is hurt. In fact, the reason it's on my list is more for the emotional mindset of the dog. I am trying to train her that the bed is not an appropriate place, but I can almost sense her frustration. She thinks that I am a puppy and, as such, am quite rude to take the comfy spot for myself while she sleeps on the floor. It's that little, "But...but...but..." that I can almost hear coming out of her mouth when her attempt to jump on the bed is foiled by a quick placed hand.
- "Mom picking up her domino and saying, 'I have a two...'" A non-thinking moment for the members of my family. We were playing Mexican Dominoes, and as we started to set up our trains, my dad said, "Wait, don't we need to draw to see who goes first?" Well, that was a non-thinking statement for him. In Dominoes we don't do that - whoever has the appropriate double (Double 12, Double 11, and so on) places it on the table as the first move. So that was strike one. Strike two was my mom, sister, and I all mindlessly obeying and drawing an extra domino. It wasn't until my mom proudly announced, "I have a two..." that we all realized the GroupThink that had just happened. It was like waking up from a trance, and I still giggle about it.
- "Me blowing out my candles super quick." The same night another example of mindless obedience. My mom, sister, and I were in the middle of some (probably goofy) conversation while my dad was preparing my birthday cake. All of the sudden, my sister said, "Blow your candles out, Sarah." and my mom began to sing "Happy birthday." Without thinking, I turned my head to where, as if by magic, my dad had appeared at my side with a cake, and blew out the candles in a rush. My mom suddenly cut off her song. It was the world's shortest rendition of "Happy birthday" ever, and I barely even knew what I had done. I was just obeying orders.
- "The crazy people on the video game." All my life I have never been good at video games, but I have usually enjoyed watching other people play, especially when they make light of it. Anyway, my sister was playing "Indiana Jones" and had just finished destroying all the minions when her husband came into the room. "Why are you killing all the crazy people?" He asked. The minions weren't bad guys at all but crazy people. Then, to make the moment even funnier, they all ran back onto the screen in a dance-like manner waving their arms about. Erin had to lasso them and drag them over to a switch to sit on in order to pass the level.
Well, looking at this list I know it is probably hard to see the humor I see in most of these. But I also wanted to share the concept of the list itself. It is so nice to be able to glance over at it and suddenly be able to chuckle my way through a bad day. It is the perfect tool at work, a place that many people find stressful in its own right, and it helps me keep a crazy smile on my face.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Feeling Good
As I lay on the newly shampooed carpets of my house and looked around today, I realized I was in a good place. I am established. The kitchen is finished. The carpets are cleaned. My couch is as awesome as ever. If my life were a running TV show, my house would be the welcoming, familiar set that identifies the show - perhaps even more so than the characters.
An hour later, the floor was covered with green puffballs of various shapes and sizes, half a dozen doggie toys, and bits of the recliner. Kritsen was watching the travel channel, and dreaming up a video blog tour of Hamburger, so that we could find the banana guy. Maybe not the best scene for a TV sitcom, but it's home. It looks like a two year old lives here. It's lived in.
Still, last week I sat on the clean floor (near daily vacuumings, thanks to Maggie), and had similar thoughts of contentment. Truth be told, I feel like my life is missing its soundtrack. Not that I'm not listening to enough music. But that seriously there's a symphony underscoring my days that I just can't hear. Musical vibrations are all around me just waiting to be heard, and I can't make them out. I think the song is exciting, fast, happy, with a driving beat. It's transitional music - music that underlies that day to day monotony that leads to a new adventure.
So I'm feeling happy - settled, content.
My feet hurt - this weekend I made two lasagnas, three pies, spaghetti, eight burritos, and four hamburgers. A good month's supply of food.
I would like to spend Christams in Germany. Actually, I would like Christmas to come - that would be so pleasant!
An hour later, the floor was covered with green puffballs of various shapes and sizes, half a dozen doggie toys, and bits of the recliner. Kritsen was watching the travel channel, and dreaming up a video blog tour of Hamburger, so that we could find the banana guy. Maybe not the best scene for a TV sitcom, but it's home. It looks like a two year old lives here. It's lived in.
Still, last week I sat on the clean floor (near daily vacuumings, thanks to Maggie), and had similar thoughts of contentment. Truth be told, I feel like my life is missing its soundtrack. Not that I'm not listening to enough music. But that seriously there's a symphony underscoring my days that I just can't hear. Musical vibrations are all around me just waiting to be heard, and I can't make them out. I think the song is exciting, fast, happy, with a driving beat. It's transitional music - music that underlies that day to day monotony that leads to a new adventure.
So I'm feeling happy - settled, content.
My feet hurt - this weekend I made two lasagnas, three pies, spaghetti, eight burritos, and four hamburgers. A good month's supply of food.
I would like to spend Christams in Germany. Actually, I would like Christmas to come - that would be so pleasant!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A Royal Problem
I'm an accountant, and accountants don't like change. I'm also a recovering anglophile - someone obsessed with England. My obsession was strong in my high school years when I could often be found reading books set in England, such as Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, and Jane Austen novels. I even did an independent study on the history of England and spent Sunday mornings teaching my mom and sister (the total population of our Sunday school class) what I had learned. It was this memory, as well as the fading memory of a dream about George II - IV, that had me thinking about the Royal Family this morning.
I read an article recently about protesters who want to end the English monarchy. I don't know that, as an American, I can technically weigh in on the argument, but the idea just makes me think a lot. England DOES spend a lot of money to upkeep the monarchy, especially considering that the Queen has very little real power - if any. On the other hand, the monarchy is a symbol of England, and perhaps the money spent on the family could be equated with money we spend to upkeep national monuments like the Lincoln Memorial.
We have moved long past the days of the French and Russian revolutions, where dispensing with a monarch meant dispensing with his head. So I imagine if England quit the monarchy, they would simply say, "Ok, go about your business, but we are not going to pay you a salary anymore." No more bodyguards. No more palaces. (Or would they give them a palace or two to keep - would it be upkept by the state as a historical place - what assets are actually Elizabeth's vs. England's?)
How odd would that be - to wander around knowing you were a direct descendant of a royal line, perhaps the most well-known and powerful royal line in recent Western civilization, but not actually BE a prince? How strange would it be for Prince William to just become William and say, "I could have been king."
I read an article recently about protesters who want to end the English monarchy. I don't know that, as an American, I can technically weigh in on the argument, but the idea just makes me think a lot. England DOES spend a lot of money to upkeep the monarchy, especially considering that the Queen has very little real power - if any. On the other hand, the monarchy is a symbol of England, and perhaps the money spent on the family could be equated with money we spend to upkeep national monuments like the Lincoln Memorial.
We have moved long past the days of the French and Russian revolutions, where dispensing with a monarch meant dispensing with his head. So I imagine if England quit the monarchy, they would simply say, "Ok, go about your business, but we are not going to pay you a salary anymore." No more bodyguards. No more palaces. (Or would they give them a palace or two to keep - would it be upkept by the state as a historical place - what assets are actually Elizabeth's vs. England's?)
How odd would that be - to wander around knowing you were a direct descendant of a royal line, perhaps the most well-known and powerful royal line in recent Western civilization, but not actually BE a prince? How strange would it be for Prince William to just become William and say, "I could have been king."
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Refinement of Drinking Options
I tend to see a lot of dichotomy in the world - good and bad, this or that, if you're not with us, you're against us. Look at all the examples in real life - the two political parties, Pepsi vs. Coke, KU vs. KSU. But it seems to me that, when it comes to what people drink or don't drink, there is a certian pride, even snobbery. It comes from the strangest places, but it seems to divide people into two classes - those who drink it and those who don't. For my part, I partake of all three of the concoctions listed below, and quite proudly so. Perhaps it is because of this that I notice the pride of those who abstain. Judgment.
Pop
I could actually say there are three classes of people - those who drink pop, those who drink diet pop, and those who don't drink pop at all (and those who call it soda and those who call it Coke). I drink regular pop, and all flavors (except Coke). Yum! The sugar, and to some extent caffeine, really makes my day. I drink root beer as though I am a connossieur, trying it at different locales. I know which types of pop taste best with different types of food. Pepsi goes well with popcorn and pizza (ANY pop goes well with pizza). Root beer and Mexican go well together. Dr. Pepper is good with a nice steak dinner.
If anything, I may look down on the people who drink Diet Pop. I don't understand what kind of game they're playing. I'd be the first to admit that pop is insanely bad for you, which is why I want mine loaded up with sugar. If I am going to die from it, I want to go down happy. To me, diet pop is worse than tasteless - it tastes bad. And the sugar also keeps me accountable. If I know it is going to my waist, I will drink in moderation. Oftentimes diet pop drinkers overindulge, without realizing that there are other detrimental effects of pop besides sugar.
But all pop drinkers are looked down on by those who don't drink pop. Time after time I remember offering pop to someone, only to hear a nasty, "Oh, I don't drink pop." I mean, sometimes it's nasty. Sometimes I suppose it's meant to be a neutral statement, but it just feels that way. I mean, why can't they say, "No thanks." Instead, they load a world of meaning into one little comment. "I'm a fitness and health buff who has trained myself to LOATHE sugary drinks in favor of water water water and I don't drink little fizzy drinks designed to bust my diet and add ten pounds to me." Every time I encounter these people, it's like overhearing someone slam my favorite movie. I just want to slink off into the corner and sip my grape soda until it's time to go home.
On the other hand, I have met former pop drinkers who say the same thing. But for them, it's a statement of how far they've come. For them, "I don't drink pop." is like saying, "I used to be 100 pounds overweight and one sip away from a coronary, so I broke the habit cold turkey 10 years ago and now I don't drink pop at all." But the other crowed is so much bigger. They are the same people who won't consider eating at any fast food establishment. I believe in moderation - yes, my pop drinking needs to be toned down, but I can indulge in pop and fast food every now and then without severely endangering my health.
Coffee
I've been an insider and outsider of "Coffee Clubs." You know, those people who go to coffee houses and sit and talk for hours about science and philosophy and religion. They know the different types of beans and brews and can double as their own barristas. For some reason, these people tend to be the ones most likely to drink their coffee plain, or with minimal additives. They also drink TONS of coffee - like six cups a day or more - and you are as likely to see them in the coffee house at night as in the morning. Sometimes people develop these habits because they need caffeine to keep them going on their busy schedules. In my case, I liked the coffee house atmosphere.
Then again, I drink my coffee with lots and lots of milk and sugar. Before I joined the coffee drinkers, I was a casual coffee drinker. Usually I partook of that nasty stuff offered at church events because it was something different than water. If there had been more lemonade in those days, I probably never would have developed a taste for coffee. Still, I learned to like it, and in college I just loved going to the coffee house to study. I still like the thought of sitting in a dark corner with a book on a rainy Saturday morning with a coffee in hand listening to jazzy music. Aaahh!
For a while I was on the anti-coffee-snob side of the table. I would drink it, but I never wanted to become reliant on it. I didn't want to need a cup of coffee (or two or three) in the morning to get me going. Yet here I am today, drinking two cups a day on average and walking into work most mornings grumpy because I'm going to have to wait 15 minutes for the first cup to brew.
But my anti-addiction stance was never as strong as some I have seen who don't drink coffee. Like the non-pop drinkers above, they say it with a certain pride. What's worse, there is an implied addition to their statement that they don't drink coffee. "And I don't understand those who do." Well, in fairness the taste is a learned one - who likes it on the first try? And it gives you HORRIBLE breath. Also, when I first encountered espresso, I couldn't stand the jitters it gave me. I still can't to some extent - it was too powerful. Non-coffee drinkers don't upset my sense of self esteem as much as the non-pop drinkers, but they sometimes have to add little snippets to their statements. "I don't drink coffee, I drink TEA." As though this makes them somehow more refined? I guess it is back to the British vs. the Americans when it comes to morning drink of choice.
Alcohol
People could write books on this testy drink, and I believe the 18th and 21st Amendments attest to how controversial alcohol is. But I'm talking specifically about pride here. Let's start with the teetotalers. Now, I believe you can be against personally drinking alcohol yourself without being a snob about it. But there are people who look down their noses at even moderate drinkers. Someone once told me that if I abstained from drinking among a group of drinkers, I would appear snobbish. Part of that may be just being too sensitive, but part of it may be bad past experience with non-drinkers. It's very easy to get into a list of all the negative impacts of alcohol with someone who is drinking, but non-drinkers need to consider all the facts before they judge. Is the person driving? Is he drunk? How often does he drink and why? A moderate amount of alcohol may actually have beneficial health impacts, so the drink should not be ruled out all together.
On the other side of the spectrum are binge drinkers. These are the people who go out every weekend and drink to get drunk and then go home, sleep off the hangover, and start all over. It is hard for me to understand why someone would want to spend their free time engaging in activities that are designed to make them forget said free time and end up sick the next morning. Not understanding, I avoid these situations like the plague, but when I go I try to have a drink in my hand - to avoid offending them. Still, it's odd that on the days they are sober, I'm the one who feels like an outcast. Everyone had so much fun last night, but no one is able to quite tell me why. It's so hard to feel the outsider - perhaps this is what non-coffee drinker feel like when everyone is over at the coffee pot at the office.
Among moderate drinkers, there are drinking snobs as well. I absolutely do not like beer - ugh. I have an almost involuntary reflex to it - ugh. This disdain (of the flavor, not the concept really) makes me a "wine snob" I suppose. I like the idea of wine. I like the idea of pairing it with food - and cheese, I LOVE cheese - of drinking it with a good book and maybe some chocolate, of visiting wineries because they are always in the most beautiful parts of the world, of going to wine tastings and so on and so forth. It's such a social drink but also relaxed. It's versatile. It's pretty. It can be sweet. But it does have a certain snobbishness to it, doesn't it? I mean, it just reeks of "the finer things" in life and contrasts with the idea of a "beer after a hard day's work." It implies a quieter, nerdier type of person who wants to come home and read a book, as opposed to a louder, more boistrous person who wants to go to BWW and watch sports. So from that aspect, I suppose it is kind of snobby.
Now, the underlying point of my story here is to do all things in moderation. Don't look down on people who drink pop, coffee, or alcohol because in moderation there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these drinkgs. But if you are a drinker of these, be careful. Too much of any of these can be very very bad for you and for others. Oh, and the other point is that maybe we should all find more important things to take pride in than what we do or do not drink.
Pop
I could actually say there are three classes of people - those who drink pop, those who drink diet pop, and those who don't drink pop at all (and those who call it soda and those who call it Coke). I drink regular pop, and all flavors (except Coke). Yum! The sugar, and to some extent caffeine, really makes my day. I drink root beer as though I am a connossieur, trying it at different locales. I know which types of pop taste best with different types of food. Pepsi goes well with popcorn and pizza (ANY pop goes well with pizza). Root beer and Mexican go well together. Dr. Pepper is good with a nice steak dinner.
If anything, I may look down on the people who drink Diet Pop. I don't understand what kind of game they're playing. I'd be the first to admit that pop is insanely bad for you, which is why I want mine loaded up with sugar. If I am going to die from it, I want to go down happy. To me, diet pop is worse than tasteless - it tastes bad. And the sugar also keeps me accountable. If I know it is going to my waist, I will drink in moderation. Oftentimes diet pop drinkers overindulge, without realizing that there are other detrimental effects of pop besides sugar.
But all pop drinkers are looked down on by those who don't drink pop. Time after time I remember offering pop to someone, only to hear a nasty, "Oh, I don't drink pop." I mean, sometimes it's nasty. Sometimes I suppose it's meant to be a neutral statement, but it just feels that way. I mean, why can't they say, "No thanks." Instead, they load a world of meaning into one little comment. "I'm a fitness and health buff who has trained myself to LOATHE sugary drinks in favor of water water water and I don't drink little fizzy drinks designed to bust my diet and add ten pounds to me." Every time I encounter these people, it's like overhearing someone slam my favorite movie. I just want to slink off into the corner and sip my grape soda until it's time to go home.
On the other hand, I have met former pop drinkers who say the same thing. But for them, it's a statement of how far they've come. For them, "I don't drink pop." is like saying, "I used to be 100 pounds overweight and one sip away from a coronary, so I broke the habit cold turkey 10 years ago and now I don't drink pop at all." But the other crowed is so much bigger. They are the same people who won't consider eating at any fast food establishment. I believe in moderation - yes, my pop drinking needs to be toned down, but I can indulge in pop and fast food every now and then without severely endangering my health.
Coffee
I've been an insider and outsider of "Coffee Clubs." You know, those people who go to coffee houses and sit and talk for hours about science and philosophy and religion. They know the different types of beans and brews and can double as their own barristas. For some reason, these people tend to be the ones most likely to drink their coffee plain, or with minimal additives. They also drink TONS of coffee - like six cups a day or more - and you are as likely to see them in the coffee house at night as in the morning. Sometimes people develop these habits because they need caffeine to keep them going on their busy schedules. In my case, I liked the coffee house atmosphere.
Then again, I drink my coffee with lots and lots of milk and sugar. Before I joined the coffee drinkers, I was a casual coffee drinker. Usually I partook of that nasty stuff offered at church events because it was something different than water. If there had been more lemonade in those days, I probably never would have developed a taste for coffee. Still, I learned to like it, and in college I just loved going to the coffee house to study. I still like the thought of sitting in a dark corner with a book on a rainy Saturday morning with a coffee in hand listening to jazzy music. Aaahh!
For a while I was on the anti-coffee-snob side of the table. I would drink it, but I never wanted to become reliant on it. I didn't want to need a cup of coffee (or two or three) in the morning to get me going. Yet here I am today, drinking two cups a day on average and walking into work most mornings grumpy because I'm going to have to wait 15 minutes for the first cup to brew.
But my anti-addiction stance was never as strong as some I have seen who don't drink coffee. Like the non-pop drinkers above, they say it with a certain pride. What's worse, there is an implied addition to their statement that they don't drink coffee. "And I don't understand those who do." Well, in fairness the taste is a learned one - who likes it on the first try? And it gives you HORRIBLE breath. Also, when I first encountered espresso, I couldn't stand the jitters it gave me. I still can't to some extent - it was too powerful. Non-coffee drinkers don't upset my sense of self esteem as much as the non-pop drinkers, but they sometimes have to add little snippets to their statements. "I don't drink coffee, I drink TEA." As though this makes them somehow more refined? I guess it is back to the British vs. the Americans when it comes to morning drink of choice.
Alcohol
People could write books on this testy drink, and I believe the 18th and 21st Amendments attest to how controversial alcohol is. But I'm talking specifically about pride here. Let's start with the teetotalers. Now, I believe you can be against personally drinking alcohol yourself without being a snob about it. But there are people who look down their noses at even moderate drinkers. Someone once told me that if I abstained from drinking among a group of drinkers, I would appear snobbish. Part of that may be just being too sensitive, but part of it may be bad past experience with non-drinkers. It's very easy to get into a list of all the negative impacts of alcohol with someone who is drinking, but non-drinkers need to consider all the facts before they judge. Is the person driving? Is he drunk? How often does he drink and why? A moderate amount of alcohol may actually have beneficial health impacts, so the drink should not be ruled out all together.
On the other side of the spectrum are binge drinkers. These are the people who go out every weekend and drink to get drunk and then go home, sleep off the hangover, and start all over. It is hard for me to understand why someone would want to spend their free time engaging in activities that are designed to make them forget said free time and end up sick the next morning. Not understanding, I avoid these situations like the plague, but when I go I try to have a drink in my hand - to avoid offending them. Still, it's odd that on the days they are sober, I'm the one who feels like an outcast. Everyone had so much fun last night, but no one is able to quite tell me why. It's so hard to feel the outsider - perhaps this is what non-coffee drinker feel like when everyone is over at the coffee pot at the office.
Among moderate drinkers, there are drinking snobs as well. I absolutely do not like beer - ugh. I have an almost involuntary reflex to it - ugh. This disdain (of the flavor, not the concept really) makes me a "wine snob" I suppose. I like the idea of wine. I like the idea of pairing it with food - and cheese, I LOVE cheese - of drinking it with a good book and maybe some chocolate, of visiting wineries because they are always in the most beautiful parts of the world, of going to wine tastings and so on and so forth. It's such a social drink but also relaxed. It's versatile. It's pretty. It can be sweet. But it does have a certain snobbishness to it, doesn't it? I mean, it just reeks of "the finer things" in life and contrasts with the idea of a "beer after a hard day's work." It implies a quieter, nerdier type of person who wants to come home and read a book, as opposed to a louder, more boistrous person who wants to go to BWW and watch sports. So from that aspect, I suppose it is kind of snobby.
Now, the underlying point of my story here is to do all things in moderation. Don't look down on people who drink pop, coffee, or alcohol because in moderation there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these drinkgs. But if you are a drinker of these, be careful. Too much of any of these can be very very bad for you and for others. Oh, and the other point is that maybe we should all find more important things to take pride in than what we do or do not drink.
A Taste of Wichita
For my birthday, my sister invited me down to Wichita to experience the Taste of Wichita, a new event designed to raise money to fight hunger. I had been to the Taste of Chicago before, and I figured it would be like that, but on a smaller scale. It actually had more differences than size - and I'd actually say its size was proportionately smaller for the size of Wichita - making for both positive and negative aspects of the day.
I think the Taste of Chicago is not a charity event. It is more money making oriented, and you buy tickets that you use to purchase food at many of the different booths. You can spend a long time there, but you also have to pay specifically for the food you eat. We found that it worked well to get our food, go sit in the shade to eat, and then walk around trying to decide what to eat next. This made for eating something every half hour or so. And you split what you eat, and you try crazy new things!
At the Taste of Wichita, you buy an arm bracelet that simply lets you into the event. Instead of choosing food to "purchase" from vendors, each vendor has a specific food item they want to share. Because this is a charity event, it means the vendors are there for some publicity and often want to give you their menus and fliers. Still, not having to worry about the quality of food we were about to receive made going from booth to booth more relaxing. And even though the portions were small, I was stuffed by the time we left. It was the hottest day of the year, or so it seemed, so we generally grabbed our food and headed to the shade to eat it. The price to get in was only worth it if you considered you were giving money to charity, but getting a filling meal was also nice.
The sun and heat had made me tired, so I insisted we get rehydrated (with pop, of course). Erin didn't want to head home yet, because she didn't want our dad making fun of the short amount of time we had spent at the event. So we headed back to her house, where the plans changed again. In order to only take one car back to my parent's house, she insisted on waiting for her husband to come back from shooting with his friend.
So we played "Lego: Indiana Jones" on the Wii. I am a terrible video game player, and most of the time in the past when people are playing the games I am content to be fascinated watching them. For some reason (perhaps a sugar high) it seemed that this game was hillarious. When Erin let me jump in, it got even funnier, due to my lack of skill. We ended up playing for hours, and yet it didn't feel like a wasted day because I was spending time with my sister. And it was a game that I was actually able to somewhat succeed in, so that helped.
We went home and had steaks for dinner, and then we played Mexican Dominoes, which is one of three games we generally play in my family (domonioes, progressive rummy, or rummikubs). Of course we always have a good time laughing and telling jokes and playing around, but this time it felt even funnier.
My mom went to church with me, which really meant a lot on my birthday an all! Unfortunately we were celebrating the Assumption, which can be awkward for a non-Catholic who doesn't understand what is going on. I wish she had been able to come to a more "typical" mass, but I am also glad she went to this one. Hold nothing back - be not ashamed - put your best face forward - that kind of thing.
I drove home, which I think exhausted the puppy. She doesn't sleep in the car anymore. She sits down, leaning against the seat, and looks up at me with her ears down. I don't know if she's bored or carsick or what. Near the end of the trip today she was trying to sleep sitting up. In a construction zone we had to drive on the shoulder, and it completely freaked her out. She jumped into my lap (awkward!) and kind of sat there shivering until I found a rest stop and let her walk around a bit.
It's a nice enough day, I'm hoping we can take a long walk tonight - but first, I have to forage for food!
I think the Taste of Chicago is not a charity event. It is more money making oriented, and you buy tickets that you use to purchase food at many of the different booths. You can spend a long time there, but you also have to pay specifically for the food you eat. We found that it worked well to get our food, go sit in the shade to eat, and then walk around trying to decide what to eat next. This made for eating something every half hour or so. And you split what you eat, and you try crazy new things!
At the Taste of Wichita, you buy an arm bracelet that simply lets you into the event. Instead of choosing food to "purchase" from vendors, each vendor has a specific food item they want to share. Because this is a charity event, it means the vendors are there for some publicity and often want to give you their menus and fliers. Still, not having to worry about the quality of food we were about to receive made going from booth to booth more relaxing. And even though the portions were small, I was stuffed by the time we left. It was the hottest day of the year, or so it seemed, so we generally grabbed our food and headed to the shade to eat it. The price to get in was only worth it if you considered you were giving money to charity, but getting a filling meal was also nice.
The sun and heat had made me tired, so I insisted we get rehydrated (with pop, of course). Erin didn't want to head home yet, because she didn't want our dad making fun of the short amount of time we had spent at the event. So we headed back to her house, where the plans changed again. In order to only take one car back to my parent's house, she insisted on waiting for her husband to come back from shooting with his friend.
So we played "Lego: Indiana Jones" on the Wii. I am a terrible video game player, and most of the time in the past when people are playing the games I am content to be fascinated watching them. For some reason (perhaps a sugar high) it seemed that this game was hillarious. When Erin let me jump in, it got even funnier, due to my lack of skill. We ended up playing for hours, and yet it didn't feel like a wasted day because I was spending time with my sister. And it was a game that I was actually able to somewhat succeed in, so that helped.
We went home and had steaks for dinner, and then we played Mexican Dominoes, which is one of three games we generally play in my family (domonioes, progressive rummy, or rummikubs). Of course we always have a good time laughing and telling jokes and playing around, but this time it felt even funnier.
My mom went to church with me, which really meant a lot on my birthday an all! Unfortunately we were celebrating the Assumption, which can be awkward for a non-Catholic who doesn't understand what is going on. I wish she had been able to come to a more "typical" mass, but I am also glad she went to this one. Hold nothing back - be not ashamed - put your best face forward - that kind of thing.
I drove home, which I think exhausted the puppy. She doesn't sleep in the car anymore. She sits down, leaning against the seat, and looks up at me with her ears down. I don't know if she's bored or carsick or what. Near the end of the trip today she was trying to sleep sitting up. In a construction zone we had to drive on the shoulder, and it completely freaked her out. She jumped into my lap (awkward!) and kind of sat there shivering until I found a rest stop and let her walk around a bit.
It's a nice enough day, I'm hoping we can take a long walk tonight - but first, I have to forage for food!
My Happy Movies
My family has kind of obsessive personalities...nothing insane or anything, but we tend to get in ruts. My mom quilts. My sister, well she went a little overboard with her comic book phase. On the wonderful ven diagram that my coworker has in his cube, my mom and sister are "nerds." I have a little bit less of the obsessive tendency, but other nerd traits, so I think that actually makes me a "dweeb." :)
Of course, I get in ruts, and I tend to watch movies or listen to songs until I can't ever see them again the rest of my life. Star Wars. Pirates of the Caribbean. Any song by Avalon. Of course the real winners last forever. (And this throws me back to the conversation I had with my brother in law, where we talked about how you can own a movie, but when it's on TV you drop everything to watch it, or you own a song, but you always stop the radio on that song when it's playing. Ironic!)
Well, I would like to introduce three movies that may soon go the way of Star Wars for me, but I think everyone should see for themselves. These are movies that either put me in a happy place, or I watch when I want to feel good. They are the chocolate chip cookies of movies.
The first is not well known. It is a 1960's movie creatively titled, "Francis of Assisi." I received it in a package of Catholic movies a friend sent me, which I may dive into more later. However, this was a movie that surprised me, and I think I watched it about three times in a row. It has all the characteristics of a goofy 60's movie - although I think Francis is a pretty good actor. But I was more inspired by the positive (not 100% historically accurate, but then again, what St. Francis movie is?) motiff of the movie, and also the religious aspect. Friendly for non Catholics, although non Christians may not love it, it really talks about the yearning to follow God's will and go the extra mile to do what you think is right. As someone who has always struggled with loneliness, the passion of Claire rips out my heart and reminds me that there is only One person who can make me perfectly happy. Even though the movie ends with his death (I hope that's not a spoiler - it's an autobiography and the man IS a saint...), it still makes me feel happy afterwards. And maybe that I put my priorities where they should be.
The second movie should not be surprising, given my recent post lauding C.S. Lewis. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (and to some extent its sequel) is a story that almost cannot go wrong, no matter how portrayed. Still, in leaps forward from the old BBC version of the movie, the recent movie is one of the few movies that is as good or better than the book it was based on. I could go on an on about the story - it is so magical, yet it is a parable, too! And this representation makes it so much better - the colors, the characters! The animals seem (a little) more lifelike. And the music is incredible! Many times it gives me goosebumps! Of course, the end of the movie is a little bittersweet. It kind of makes me sad because a) it's over and b) I was not able to participate. I will never open my closet to find a secret world inside. I will probably not even find a secret passage. But it's nice to imagine. By the way, the music in this movie is incredible and the movie is set in an era I have always found fascinating - World War II. Of course, I watch this one so much, it is soon likely to go the way of Star Wars...
The final movie I could go on an on about - Meet the Robinsons. First of all, it is incredibly quirky. And it has a good message (Keep Moving Forward). The music is enchanting, although I think the best part is the song, "Little Wonders" at the end of the movie. The movie is hilarious! I sometimes walk down the hall with a goofy grin on my face just thinking about aspects of the movie. The bad guy is Classic! Well, not classic in a traditional way, but just really funny - perhaps my favorite character! I don't know what it is about this movie, but it just gets me all giggles to watch it or think about it or talk about it. I think one reason is it reeks Disney. Even the future world imagined in the movie reminds me of the dreams of Tomorrowland and Epcot in Disneyworld. But this movie, too, leaves off a little bittersweet - I think it's the reporter that says, "You have a bright future ahead of you!" I know we have to keep moving forward and shape our destiny, but who among us really knows with as much certainty as Lewis did that our future is going to be bright? I mean, my current life is not as good as the bright future I imagined as a kid - will my future go better or worse? I can do everything I can to make it go better, but I cannot be certain that it will. Lewis was certain (and I guess you can't go too far downhill from orphan no one wants), and that's why the movie ends a little bittersweet.
Of course, I get in ruts, and I tend to watch movies or listen to songs until I can't ever see them again the rest of my life. Star Wars. Pirates of the Caribbean. Any song by Avalon. Of course the real winners last forever. (And this throws me back to the conversation I had with my brother in law, where we talked about how you can own a movie, but when it's on TV you drop everything to watch it, or you own a song, but you always stop the radio on that song when it's playing. Ironic!)
Well, I would like to introduce three movies that may soon go the way of Star Wars for me, but I think everyone should see for themselves. These are movies that either put me in a happy place, or I watch when I want to feel good. They are the chocolate chip cookies of movies.
The first is not well known. It is a 1960's movie creatively titled, "Francis of Assisi." I received it in a package of Catholic movies a friend sent me, which I may dive into more later. However, this was a movie that surprised me, and I think I watched it about three times in a row. It has all the characteristics of a goofy 60's movie - although I think Francis is a pretty good actor. But I was more inspired by the positive (not 100% historically accurate, but then again, what St. Francis movie is?) motiff of the movie, and also the religious aspect. Friendly for non Catholics, although non Christians may not love it, it really talks about the yearning to follow God's will and go the extra mile to do what you think is right. As someone who has always struggled with loneliness, the passion of Claire rips out my heart and reminds me that there is only One person who can make me perfectly happy. Even though the movie ends with his death (I hope that's not a spoiler - it's an autobiography and the man IS a saint...), it still makes me feel happy afterwards. And maybe that I put my priorities where they should be.
The second movie should not be surprising, given my recent post lauding C.S. Lewis. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (and to some extent its sequel) is a story that almost cannot go wrong, no matter how portrayed. Still, in leaps forward from the old BBC version of the movie, the recent movie is one of the few movies that is as good or better than the book it was based on. I could go on an on about the story - it is so magical, yet it is a parable, too! And this representation makes it so much better - the colors, the characters! The animals seem (a little) more lifelike. And the music is incredible! Many times it gives me goosebumps! Of course, the end of the movie is a little bittersweet. It kind of makes me sad because a) it's over and b) I was not able to participate. I will never open my closet to find a secret world inside. I will probably not even find a secret passage. But it's nice to imagine. By the way, the music in this movie is incredible and the movie is set in an era I have always found fascinating - World War II. Of course, I watch this one so much, it is soon likely to go the way of Star Wars...
The final movie I could go on an on about - Meet the Robinsons. First of all, it is incredibly quirky. And it has a good message (Keep Moving Forward). The music is enchanting, although I think the best part is the song, "Little Wonders" at the end of the movie. The movie is hilarious! I sometimes walk down the hall with a goofy grin on my face just thinking about aspects of the movie. The bad guy is Classic! Well, not classic in a traditional way, but just really funny - perhaps my favorite character! I don't know what it is about this movie, but it just gets me all giggles to watch it or think about it or talk about it. I think one reason is it reeks Disney. Even the future world imagined in the movie reminds me of the dreams of Tomorrowland and Epcot in Disneyworld. But this movie, too, leaves off a little bittersweet - I think it's the reporter that says, "You have a bright future ahead of you!" I know we have to keep moving forward and shape our destiny, but who among us really knows with as much certainty as Lewis did that our future is going to be bright? I mean, my current life is not as good as the bright future I imagined as a kid - will my future go better or worse? I can do everything I can to make it go better, but I cannot be certain that it will. Lewis was certain (and I guess you can't go too far downhill from orphan no one wants), and that's why the movie ends a little bittersweet.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Why Can't Christians Defend Themselves Properly?
"In a posting on her Facebook page, she [Anne Rice] said, “I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or being a part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/08/rev-shuler-anne-rice-christianity-quit-christ-pharisees-god-love-forgiveness/
I will be honest, the first time I read this article, I was kind of angry. In quickly skimming the article, I thought the pastor had watered down Christian faith into the "Jesus was a cool dude" attitude. "How like a Methodist." I thought. (I also had the opportunity to hear him on the radio). However, reading it again, I think Bill brings up good points.
And I'd like to bring up some other points. I think that Christians take this kind of criticism lying down too much. I suppose that statement doesn't sound like, "Turning the other cheek," but at the same time, if we were more vocal about what we believe, and not what the media wants to make it seem like we believe, then people like Anne Rice may think again before "quitting" Christianity. (By the way, I also think that if she had taken the time to sit down with a spiritual leader to voice her concerns, she may have come to a different conclusion - but I hope she at least did that and just couldn't accept what she heard).
I recently told a friend that I was afraid to put any kind of fish or cross bumper sticker on my car because I tend to be a defensive driver. I didn't want people to associate any unpleasant driving errors I committed with my Christianity. My friend told me I should put the fish on the car - "That way people will be reminded that Christians are people, too." I think we are both right, in ways. I WISH I could take my friend's advice with a clean conscience. However, there are so many in the media that jump on just that kind of behavior.
Christians are hypocrites! That is their cry. Sometimes they rightly point out a person who claims to be a Christian or even a minister but who is cheating someone. Or the unchristian behavior, more common before the 1950's, of some parents who had teenage daughters getting pregnant.
But when we don't properly respond to these accusations of criticism, by saying, "We are people, too, and we have failings," we set ourselves up for people like Anne Rice who just quit.
If we appear to be anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-democrat, anti-secular humyanism, anti-science, and anti-life it is because we have allowed others to define the debate. For years we have allowed popular media to level all these accusations at us without speaking out. As Reverend Bill and my friend said, perhaps the first response to these criticisms is that we have failings ourselves. But we also need to explain WHY we appear this way.
What are all these "rules" and talk of "sin?" Well, sin is something that separates us from God. So what does that mean to an athiest? Sin is something that hurts us, hurts others, or hurts God. Could we not, as Christians, stand up in a court of law and logically defend unpopular Christian stances, such as abstinence, heterosexuality, and marriage? Are there not reasons enough for us to obey the 10 Commandments, even for a non-Christian?
I'd like to address Anne's problems with Christianity, because if she, or others, are misinformed, they need to know the truth.
Anti-Gay
Although I would like to write more extensively on this later, we'll just start out by saying Christians are NOT anti-Gay. Most Christian denominations ask that people with same sex attractions remain celebate. They define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and they extol the values of a two-parent home with a mother and a father. However, they also try (as best as we imperfect humans can do) to love both people who have same sex attraction and those practicing homosexuality.
But we have lost control of this debate somehow. The reasons we are perceived as anti-gay is mostly because we do not support gay marriage, and to a lesser degree because we support abstinence for those with homosexual tendencies. So the debate is really about sex. And in that case, it's a tired, old debate. Christians are not judging people for who they are - they are saying that sex outside of marriage is a sin, just as we would say to any heterosexual unmarried couple. Of course, there is forgiveness for sins and redemption, and chaste couples have their own problems. No one denies that. I could write forever on this, so I will move on.
Anti-Feminist
The major problem I hear from feminists about Christianity is the lack of leadership and the pro-life attitude of the church. I will address the latter in the next section. First of all, not all Christian denominations are male dominated. Many allow female pastors and elders. Some even refer to God as "Our Mother," and so on. If Anne sees anti-feminism in the Church, perhaps she should look to a different denomination.
However, her conclusion on the rest of the denominations is also false. Jesus was very pro-woman. He spoke to women and loved them and they followed him in troves! But he also chose men to be his disciples. Perhaps it was the prejudice of the day, or perhaps there was a leadership role he felt men could naturally fill. Still, many denominations choose to mimick Jesus in having men lead.
Just because men are leading does not mean that women are held in contempt. Quite the opposite. Women play a very important role in the life of all of us, and so they play an important role in the body of the church. The church celebrates the differences between men and women.
Further, as a woman, I feel there is, or can be, more power in being the "strong woman behind a strong man." When you speak quietly, more people listen, and women have been driven for centuries to do good in their communities, right wrongs, and persuade the men around them, even when they had no official rights, to take their point of view.
Anti-Artificial Birth Control
As with the last objection, this can be a denominational thing. However, having recently learned more about the objections to artificial birth control, I think it is defensible and, like the "anti-gay" issue, could probably use its own blog.
One reason artificial birth control is seen as an issue is because life begins at conception. That is the view of many Christians and it is not something that can easily be proven or misproven, so you will have to take that as our premise if you want to understand us. You don't have to agree, but it is critical for understanding. So if life begins at conception, any birth control that could interfere with that life is, well, deadly. Many hormonal birth controls can cause a fertilized egg to be rejected by the body, thus ending the life of a very very young embryo. For this moral reason alone, hormonal birth controls are rejected by some deonominations.
Secondly, artificial birth control creates the perception that sex is safe. It has created a noticeable increase in sexual activity among non-married couples, especially teens, and teenage pregnancies are soaring. If you argue that, for married couples, it is okay, you still cannot turn a blind eye to the rate of unwed mothers and STD's exploding in our country today.
Also, it creates a barrier between you and your partner and you and God. This is hard and abstract for people not brought up in it, I know. But one way I look at it is putting your needs above what God wants and above your potential children. Yes, God could make you get pregnant if He wanted to. (He did it to Mary). But he wants you to be involved and open to it. Birth control allows us to put our priorities before God's. It promotes the idea of, "I'm not ready to have kids."
Anti-Democrat
Christianity does not, or at least should not, tell you how to vote. If social positions are leaning towards Republicans, it would appear that we are anti-Democrat. But is that Christianity's fault or the Democrats? What I mean is, I think the largest reason that so many Christians are Republicans is because Republicans are friendly to Christians. So you see, it is not that Christianity is Anti-Democrat, it is that many Christians perceive Democrats to be anti-Christian. It all comes down to everyone being able to have their own vote, and to vote what their conscience tells them.
It seems to me that Christians are about as politically divided as any other group of people - with some siding with Democrats and some siding with Republicans. If the church appears to side with one party, it may be because of a certain issue, most of which are issues Anne already complained about, and which I am addressing.
Anti-Secular Humanism
I am not going to lie - right off the bat I had to goole this word, because I wasn't sure what Anne was talking about. I found a website of Secular Humanists and read their definition. I would note that they describe themselves as non-theists, so, yes, that would not quite be Christian. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main
But in more detail, why would Christianity be anti-Secular Humanism. The "secular" part of the term is very helpful. Christians belive in a better world after this one. We hope there is something more, and therefore we ask of ourselves to give to those in need and not cling to the things of this life, which include objects, experiences, and people.
Another tenet of secular humanism is that we can reach Truth through self realization and earnest searching. But Christians believe that we cannot ever be perfect humans on Earth and that we need God to come down and redeem us and bring us to him, not the other way around. Although there are some ideas that secular humanists have that may not, by themselves, be contrary to Christian beliefs, their main points are pretty much opposite of what Christians believe!
If Anne Rice is a secular humanist, then it may explain why she was so quick to dump Christianity. If she had expanded her understanding "beyond" the church. Her last statement about continuing to follow Jesus kind of says it all. The "Jesus was a great teacher" mentality, a mentality rejected by some of the greatest Christian theologians, takes Jesus as God out of the picture. It becomes the heresy that the church was fighting against in the 4th century, alive and well today. So, no, it is not compatible with Christianity.
Anti-Science
Well, some Christians have dug the grave for all of us on this. They refuse to look at scientific evidence if they have any inkling of a suspicion that it might go against what the Bible says. However, these Christians seem to be forgetting some of the most important Christian beliefs - that God is all powerful, that He is in control, that He can do anything!
Most mainstream Christians do not see a contradiction between Christianity and science. I personally think Science supports Christianity - it shows how many questions are left unanswered! And it shows the wonders of God in his creations, and his ingenuity in how He created us! It is unfortunate that some who want the earth to be 6,000 years old or refuse to believe in the theory of evolution cannot accept that, if God is supernatural, He can also create THROUGH science. Be creative - God is!
Anti-Life
I don't know what Anne means by this. Most Christians are "pro-life" from an abortion standpoint. Many are also against the death penalty. We like to give to our fellow man so that he can live...eat, have shelter, and so forth. I cannot address her concern because I just don't understand it.
So that's my thought on some of the issues Anne, and most of the popular media, have with Christians today. That, and hypocrisy, which will always be around. Who among us are not hypocrites? I think we need to take time to address these issues so that people like Anne who are really trying to search for Truth do not reject us as biased. In the end, she may still not agree with Christianity, but at least she will not think that we are just "anti" everything good in life.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/08/rev-shuler-anne-rice-christianity-quit-christ-pharisees-god-love-forgiveness/
I will be honest, the first time I read this article, I was kind of angry. In quickly skimming the article, I thought the pastor had watered down Christian faith into the "Jesus was a cool dude" attitude. "How like a Methodist." I thought. (I also had the opportunity to hear him on the radio). However, reading it again, I think Bill brings up good points.
And I'd like to bring up some other points. I think that Christians take this kind of criticism lying down too much. I suppose that statement doesn't sound like, "Turning the other cheek," but at the same time, if we were more vocal about what we believe, and not what the media wants to make it seem like we believe, then people like Anne Rice may think again before "quitting" Christianity. (By the way, I also think that if she had taken the time to sit down with a spiritual leader to voice her concerns, she may have come to a different conclusion - but I hope she at least did that and just couldn't accept what she heard).
I recently told a friend that I was afraid to put any kind of fish or cross bumper sticker on my car because I tend to be a defensive driver. I didn't want people to associate any unpleasant driving errors I committed with my Christianity. My friend told me I should put the fish on the car - "That way people will be reminded that Christians are people, too." I think we are both right, in ways. I WISH I could take my friend's advice with a clean conscience. However, there are so many in the media that jump on just that kind of behavior.
Christians are hypocrites! That is their cry. Sometimes they rightly point out a person who claims to be a Christian or even a minister but who is cheating someone. Or the unchristian behavior, more common before the 1950's, of some parents who had teenage daughters getting pregnant.
But when we don't properly respond to these accusations of criticism, by saying, "We are people, too, and we have failings," we set ourselves up for people like Anne Rice who just quit.
If we appear to be anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-democrat, anti-secular humyanism, anti-science, and anti-life it is because we have allowed others to define the debate. For years we have allowed popular media to level all these accusations at us without speaking out. As Reverend Bill and my friend said, perhaps the first response to these criticisms is that we have failings ourselves. But we also need to explain WHY we appear this way.
What are all these "rules" and talk of "sin?" Well, sin is something that separates us from God. So what does that mean to an athiest? Sin is something that hurts us, hurts others, or hurts God. Could we not, as Christians, stand up in a court of law and logically defend unpopular Christian stances, such as abstinence, heterosexuality, and marriage? Are there not reasons enough for us to obey the 10 Commandments, even for a non-Christian?
I'd like to address Anne's problems with Christianity, because if she, or others, are misinformed, they need to know the truth.
Anti-Gay
Although I would like to write more extensively on this later, we'll just start out by saying Christians are NOT anti-Gay. Most Christian denominations ask that people with same sex attractions remain celebate. They define marriage as being between one man and one woman, and they extol the values of a two-parent home with a mother and a father. However, they also try (as best as we imperfect humans can do) to love both people who have same sex attraction and those practicing homosexuality.
But we have lost control of this debate somehow. The reasons we are perceived as anti-gay is mostly because we do not support gay marriage, and to a lesser degree because we support abstinence for those with homosexual tendencies. So the debate is really about sex. And in that case, it's a tired, old debate. Christians are not judging people for who they are - they are saying that sex outside of marriage is a sin, just as we would say to any heterosexual unmarried couple. Of course, there is forgiveness for sins and redemption, and chaste couples have their own problems. No one denies that. I could write forever on this, so I will move on.
Anti-Feminist
The major problem I hear from feminists about Christianity is the lack of leadership and the pro-life attitude of the church. I will address the latter in the next section. First of all, not all Christian denominations are male dominated. Many allow female pastors and elders. Some even refer to God as "Our Mother," and so on. If Anne sees anti-feminism in the Church, perhaps she should look to a different denomination.
However, her conclusion on the rest of the denominations is also false. Jesus was very pro-woman. He spoke to women and loved them and they followed him in troves! But he also chose men to be his disciples. Perhaps it was the prejudice of the day, or perhaps there was a leadership role he felt men could naturally fill. Still, many denominations choose to mimick Jesus in having men lead.
Just because men are leading does not mean that women are held in contempt. Quite the opposite. Women play a very important role in the life of all of us, and so they play an important role in the body of the church. The church celebrates the differences between men and women.
Further, as a woman, I feel there is, or can be, more power in being the "strong woman behind a strong man." When you speak quietly, more people listen, and women have been driven for centuries to do good in their communities, right wrongs, and persuade the men around them, even when they had no official rights, to take their point of view.
Anti-Artificial Birth Control
As with the last objection, this can be a denominational thing. However, having recently learned more about the objections to artificial birth control, I think it is defensible and, like the "anti-gay" issue, could probably use its own blog.
One reason artificial birth control is seen as an issue is because life begins at conception. That is the view of many Christians and it is not something that can easily be proven or misproven, so you will have to take that as our premise if you want to understand us. You don't have to agree, but it is critical for understanding. So if life begins at conception, any birth control that could interfere with that life is, well, deadly. Many hormonal birth controls can cause a fertilized egg to be rejected by the body, thus ending the life of a very very young embryo. For this moral reason alone, hormonal birth controls are rejected by some deonominations.
Secondly, artificial birth control creates the perception that sex is safe. It has created a noticeable increase in sexual activity among non-married couples, especially teens, and teenage pregnancies are soaring. If you argue that, for married couples, it is okay, you still cannot turn a blind eye to the rate of unwed mothers and STD's exploding in our country today.
Also, it creates a barrier between you and your partner and you and God. This is hard and abstract for people not brought up in it, I know. But one way I look at it is putting your needs above what God wants and above your potential children. Yes, God could make you get pregnant if He wanted to. (He did it to Mary). But he wants you to be involved and open to it. Birth control allows us to put our priorities before God's. It promotes the idea of, "I'm not ready to have kids."
Anti-Democrat
Christianity does not, or at least should not, tell you how to vote. If social positions are leaning towards Republicans, it would appear that we are anti-Democrat. But is that Christianity's fault or the Democrats? What I mean is, I think the largest reason that so many Christians are Republicans is because Republicans are friendly to Christians. So you see, it is not that Christianity is Anti-Democrat, it is that many Christians perceive Democrats to be anti-Christian. It all comes down to everyone being able to have their own vote, and to vote what their conscience tells them.
It seems to me that Christians are about as politically divided as any other group of people - with some siding with Democrats and some siding with Republicans. If the church appears to side with one party, it may be because of a certain issue, most of which are issues Anne already complained about, and which I am addressing.
Anti-Secular Humanism
I am not going to lie - right off the bat I had to goole this word, because I wasn't sure what Anne was talking about. I found a website of Secular Humanists and read their definition. I would note that they describe themselves as non-theists, so, yes, that would not quite be Christian. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what§ion=main
But in more detail, why would Christianity be anti-Secular Humanism. The "secular" part of the term is very helpful. Christians belive in a better world after this one. We hope there is something more, and therefore we ask of ourselves to give to those in need and not cling to the things of this life, which include objects, experiences, and people.
Another tenet of secular humanism is that we can reach Truth through self realization and earnest searching. But Christians believe that we cannot ever be perfect humans on Earth and that we need God to come down and redeem us and bring us to him, not the other way around. Although there are some ideas that secular humanists have that may not, by themselves, be contrary to Christian beliefs, their main points are pretty much opposite of what Christians believe!
If Anne Rice is a secular humanist, then it may explain why she was so quick to dump Christianity. If she had expanded her understanding "beyond" the church. Her last statement about continuing to follow Jesus kind of says it all. The "Jesus was a great teacher" mentality, a mentality rejected by some of the greatest Christian theologians, takes Jesus as God out of the picture. It becomes the heresy that the church was fighting against in the 4th century, alive and well today. So, no, it is not compatible with Christianity.
Anti-Science
Well, some Christians have dug the grave for all of us on this. They refuse to look at scientific evidence if they have any inkling of a suspicion that it might go against what the Bible says. However, these Christians seem to be forgetting some of the most important Christian beliefs - that God is all powerful, that He is in control, that He can do anything!
Most mainstream Christians do not see a contradiction between Christianity and science. I personally think Science supports Christianity - it shows how many questions are left unanswered! And it shows the wonders of God in his creations, and his ingenuity in how He created us! It is unfortunate that some who want the earth to be 6,000 years old or refuse to believe in the theory of evolution cannot accept that, if God is supernatural, He can also create THROUGH science. Be creative - God is!
Anti-Life
I don't know what Anne means by this. Most Christians are "pro-life" from an abortion standpoint. Many are also against the death penalty. We like to give to our fellow man so that he can live...eat, have shelter, and so forth. I cannot address her concern because I just don't understand it.
So that's my thought on some of the issues Anne, and most of the popular media, have with Christians today. That, and hypocrisy, which will always be around. Who among us are not hypocrites? I think we need to take time to address these issues so that people like Anne who are really trying to search for Truth do not reject us as biased. In the end, she may still not agree with Christianity, but at least she will not think that we are just "anti" everything good in life.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Westward Ho
All trails do not lead to Kansas City, but they do lead from it. The Oregon, Santa Fe, and California trails all started out in Independence, MO. Twice now I have visited the Frontier Trails Museum in that same city to learn about the journey westward these pioneers had. Surprisingly enough, the days of the wagon trains were pretty short. Perhaps 20 years passed between when the west started to open up and when the transcontinental railroad was completed. When I look at the trail travelers in that light, I really admire them. I mean, they suffered and took months to do what the next generation did in a week. The really did blaze a trail.
It was hard for me to see a direct connection between these trails and my own life. Sure, I live in Kansas, but our state was pioneered by farmers and ranchers. I haven't really heard of a "Kansas Trail." And neither did any of my ancestors come here in a covered wagon (that I know of). But the Santa Fe trail did cut right through, which I hadn't realized before.
But more interesting was the brochures we found at the museum, courtesy of the National Park system, that gave us a driving tour of the Santa Fe and Oregon trails. These brochures have been made for each state along the trail, and we only had the first brochure! There were some 37 stops, which would have taken us all the way to Topeka. Instead, we went through the first 12.
Stops included sites the pioneers may have seen along the way or popular camp grounds. We went to a graveyard that had once been on the trail and stopped to read some headstones. The graveyward was much newer than the trails, but the headstones still told stories. A man was written to have given up everything for his family - his family which consisted of a child who died young and a wife who died soon after. And the strangest headstone I have ever seen, "The Horse Thief 1898."
Most of the sites were to see the swells of the wagons. The best I can describe this is the space between wagons. The wagon ruts themselves have long since been covered by dirt and grass. But they carved holes so deep, that little miniature hills can be seen all across the metro area. Once you see them, it will be easy to see them again, and perhaps you will mistake any little hill for such a swell.
Going on this tour gave me an odd feeling. I have visited old buildings before, but I never felt so much like I was standing IN history. 150 years ago, THIS was the frontier! And people were embarking on a journey that 1 in 10 would not complete. They were headed into months of misery for something better on the other side. Only three days out from Independence, many were already experiencing incredible difficulties. And this early on, the number of wagons would have been unthinkable. At the trail head, the Oregon trail was a mile wide.
Even now I can't go out my door without recognizing where I stand. My house may not be a historic site, but it is so close! So many buildings and streets cover these trails! We have a Santa Fe Trail Drive that actually was the Santa Fe trail! I always think of history as something that happened back east or in Europe, but it's right here under my nose. And all it takes to discover it is a little bit of gas!
It was hard for me to see a direct connection between these trails and my own life. Sure, I live in Kansas, but our state was pioneered by farmers and ranchers. I haven't really heard of a "Kansas Trail." And neither did any of my ancestors come here in a covered wagon (that I know of). But the Santa Fe trail did cut right through, which I hadn't realized before.
But more interesting was the brochures we found at the museum, courtesy of the National Park system, that gave us a driving tour of the Santa Fe and Oregon trails. These brochures have been made for each state along the trail, and we only had the first brochure! There were some 37 stops, which would have taken us all the way to Topeka. Instead, we went through the first 12.
Stops included sites the pioneers may have seen along the way or popular camp grounds. We went to a graveyard that had once been on the trail and stopped to read some headstones. The graveyward was much newer than the trails, but the headstones still told stories. A man was written to have given up everything for his family - his family which consisted of a child who died young and a wife who died soon after. And the strangest headstone I have ever seen, "The Horse Thief 1898."
Most of the sites were to see the swells of the wagons. The best I can describe this is the space between wagons. The wagon ruts themselves have long since been covered by dirt and grass. But they carved holes so deep, that little miniature hills can be seen all across the metro area. Once you see them, it will be easy to see them again, and perhaps you will mistake any little hill for such a swell.
Going on this tour gave me an odd feeling. I have visited old buildings before, but I never felt so much like I was standing IN history. 150 years ago, THIS was the frontier! And people were embarking on a journey that 1 in 10 would not complete. They were headed into months of misery for something better on the other side. Only three days out from Independence, many were already experiencing incredible difficulties. And this early on, the number of wagons would have been unthinkable. At the trail head, the Oregon trail was a mile wide.
Even now I can't go out my door without recognizing where I stand. My house may not be a historic site, but it is so close! So many buildings and streets cover these trails! We have a Santa Fe Trail Drive that actually was the Santa Fe trail! I always think of history as something that happened back east or in Europe, but it's right here under my nose. And all it takes to discover it is a little bit of gas!
A Typical Sunday
Well I have been reading Anna's blog, which is much better than mine. And I am thoroughly impresssed by the full life she leads! She has challenged me to seek out better opportunities for education and entertainment. But I also thought it would be nice to blog about what I am doing for a change, rather than what I think or feel. (The guys at work call blogging your "Feelings Journal.") So I thought I'd write about a typical Sunday, because this is one day that is usually the same each time I do it. And I don't mind, because it all goes back to that resting thing God wanted us to do. After a Saturday like yesterday, I needed this, and I was, as usual, sad to hit the 4:00 mark - the time on Sunday that I would have gotten home on a weekday, thus marking the end of any "extra" freetime over and above that.
6:00 - I woke up to take Maggie out - she is sleeping in my room now, but I still don't trust her enough to not have an accident when she first wakes up. Human or dog, we all have to hit the bathroom right away.
7:30 - Go to church. Sometimes it is donut day, so I go downstairs after church and grab a chocolate covered donut and a small coffee. It always takes longer to drink the coffee than eat the donut. I read the bulletin while doing this. The last couple of times, Anna and Patrick (her Irish husband) come and talk to me. Anna helped teach RCIA last year. They are an older couple who like to travel. He is very opinionated about Ireland and England. She is just a beautiful person. I think they must be within 10 years of my parents age, but they seem kind of older.
8:30 - Back from church. On non donut Sundays I sometimes buy the 49 cents drink from Quik Trip. I come back and usually take a nap.
10:00 - Nap is over. I work on my crossword puzzle. This is the giant one on my wall. I pour some Mountain Dew into a wine glass and work on the puzzle as long as the Dew lasts. I opene the curtains so the natural light can hit the puzzle. This has a much greater effect in the winter, and I love sitting up there on winter mornings in the sun!
11:00 - Took Maggie out to work on tracking. We had a long course today, but she pretty much followed it through!
12:00 - Went shopping. I do my grocery shopping on Sundays. Some weeks it's all out grocery shopping. Most weeks it's just fresh fruits and veggies. Today I had to buy shoes as well. I am mad - WalMart only carries one brand of shoes now.
1:00 - I come home and start cutting up my veggies and sorting the fruit into baggies to take for lunches this week. Today I also started a rib meal in the slow cooker. Then I made cookies. I was supposed to fry them, but it didn't turn out. I ended up baking them. I am now waiting for Kristen to come home and tell me if I can take them to work, or if I have to eat them myself.
3:00 - Done with all official tasks for the day. I spend the rest of the night (usaully until 9:00 - I'd like to go to bed at 8:00, but Kristen comes home then, and we inevitably talk) doing anything I want. Today it was a nap and blogging. On cooler days a walk is involved. Sometimes I write letters.
Boring - maybe - but I like the routine. I need the rest. I need to recouperate. I am already dreading next Sunday because I will be driving home, but I will cope somehow.
6:00 - I woke up to take Maggie out - she is sleeping in my room now, but I still don't trust her enough to not have an accident when she first wakes up. Human or dog, we all have to hit the bathroom right away.
7:30 - Go to church. Sometimes it is donut day, so I go downstairs after church and grab a chocolate covered donut and a small coffee. It always takes longer to drink the coffee than eat the donut. I read the bulletin while doing this. The last couple of times, Anna and Patrick (her Irish husband) come and talk to me. Anna helped teach RCIA last year. They are an older couple who like to travel. He is very opinionated about Ireland and England. She is just a beautiful person. I think they must be within 10 years of my parents age, but they seem kind of older.
8:30 - Back from church. On non donut Sundays I sometimes buy the 49 cents drink from Quik Trip. I come back and usually take a nap.
10:00 - Nap is over. I work on my crossword puzzle. This is the giant one on my wall. I pour some Mountain Dew into a wine glass and work on the puzzle as long as the Dew lasts. I opene the curtains so the natural light can hit the puzzle. This has a much greater effect in the winter, and I love sitting up there on winter mornings in the sun!
11:00 - Took Maggie out to work on tracking. We had a long course today, but she pretty much followed it through!
12:00 - Went shopping. I do my grocery shopping on Sundays. Some weeks it's all out grocery shopping. Most weeks it's just fresh fruits and veggies. Today I had to buy shoes as well. I am mad - WalMart only carries one brand of shoes now.
1:00 - I come home and start cutting up my veggies and sorting the fruit into baggies to take for lunches this week. Today I also started a rib meal in the slow cooker. Then I made cookies. I was supposed to fry them, but it didn't turn out. I ended up baking them. I am now waiting for Kristen to come home and tell me if I can take them to work, or if I have to eat them myself.
3:00 - Done with all official tasks for the day. I spend the rest of the night (usaully until 9:00 - I'd like to go to bed at 8:00, but Kristen comes home then, and we inevitably talk) doing anything I want. Today it was a nap and blogging. On cooler days a walk is involved. Sometimes I write letters.
Boring - maybe - but I like the routine. I need the rest. I need to recouperate. I am already dreading next Sunday because I will be driving home, but I will cope somehow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)