nine lives

A couple of years ago we got a cat, and CD fell in love with it.  Since then, a significant part of her identity has been one of a cat lover.  So, once she found out about the movie Nine Lives several months ago, about a man who is switched into a cat's body, she has waited in eager expectation

for when she would be able to see the movie.  So, we had to watch it this past weekend when it opened.

It is obvious from the trailer what sort of movie it is, so I fully anticipated not caring too much for it.  However, I did find it more tolerable than I expected.  The reason I was largely uninterested was the same reason I didn't care for Click or The Family Man.  It belongs to a specific genre of  movie where the central point is that a dad needs to learn to lessen his focus on work to focus on his family.  That point is not a bad point, but the point is typically made in a way that makes it look like it is less than ideal for a man to be committed to a job that supports his family.  So, imagine my surprise when a Nine Lives subplot almost went the opposite direction.

Certainly, the central theme of the movie is a man's discovery that he has not been there for his kids.  Not to spoil too much, but the protagonist cannot switch back to being a human until he learns that lesson (Surprise!).  This character being mind-bogglingly rich removed most concerns about the portrayal of a man who is just trying to support his family, and the secondary plot in the movie actually goes the other direction.

In this subplot this man's passion in life, to own the tallest building in North America and have his name on it, is ultimately presented as more of a positive than a negative.  This would go over the heads of most of the kids watching the movie, but the story is presented in a way that idealizes rather than demonizes a man who is willing to squander other peoples' investments for what amounts to a vanity project.  This is ultimately a minor quibble I have with the movie, but it was a surprise.

The movie itself was enjoyable enough for what it is--a kid's movie that is complex enough to entertain adults.  It isn't ridiculous enough that it would be embarrassing to watch without kids, but it isn't a movie I'd seek out if I didn't have kids. Now that I think about it, that describes almost everything I see in the theater these days.

song of songs

FYI, the topic below is somewhat adult in nature, but it is Biblical.

Along with teaching Sunday School, I also alternate with someone else teaching a men's class at church.  I could take the easy way out with video series, and I am leaving myself open to the possibility in the future, but I have been doing expository teaching through different books of the Bible.

What I hate teaching (or sitting through a lesson on) the most is something that everyone in the room already knows.  If I know a passage or a topic has been taught repetitively and I don't have something new to bring to the table, I really don't enjoy teaching the lesson.  Because of this, I am drawn to teaching things that others have not focused on, for one reason or another.

All of this is to say that I decided a while back to teach the Song of Songs in the men's class.  I used two books in planning my lessons (The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy by O'Donnell and Exalting Jesus in the Song of Songs by Akin and Platt). I am going to be wrapping up the series in early August, and so have pretty much gotten through the entire book.  I have included some thoughts I have about teaching the book below.

• I never appreciated the true spiritual value of the Song.  Marriage represents the Church and Christ, and so the quality of union we have with our spouse reflects how we value the relationship between Christ and the Church.  The purpose of the Song is to celebrate and promote Godly marriage that properly reflects the relationship between God and His people.
• I never appreciated the context and target audience of the Song.  This is probably a song (or series of songs) meant to be sung at a wedding celebration, and targeted to unmarried girls.  One can imagine singers taking the roles of husband and wife, and a choir of girls singing the "friends" parts.  Who the target audience is explains a lot of the content in the book, not the least of which are the three commands in the Song to not forfeit one's virginity too quickly.
• I did not appreciate that reading this song literally is a relatively recent approach.  For centuries commentators assumed that the book is a metaphor for God and the Church or God and Israel.  The Song couldn't be about intimacy between a married couple because that would degrade the Holy Scripture.  This is a perspective that seems laughable today, and it is a ridiculous position, but it was the de facto position of all of Christianity and Judaism for over a millennium.
• Some weeks were flat-out awkward because my sources assumed that if something could be describing a very intimate part of the body or intimate action that was probably the correct interpretation.
• I used to have a real problem with the Song because I believed that the man in the Song was Solomon.  One of my sources (Akin/Platt) believes that this is true, but my other source (O'Donnell) believes that Solomon is only introduces for comparison purposes.  This is appealing for a few reasons, one of which is that it solves the very difficult challenge with the book that the Song does not describe a polygamist's marriage.  This would conflict with the mutual ownership that the woman expresses throughout the Song (Song 2:16; 6:3; 7:10), as well as with the fact that polygamy was not God's perfect ideal for marriage.  I agree with O'Donnell that Song of Songs is written by Solomon to describe a different, idealized couple.
• I did not realize that the Song was written very much with the intent of praising the value of virginity.  Apart from the commands to wait for love in the Song, there are a couple of clear indications that the woman (This song is targeted to girls) saved herself for marriage.  First, in the honeymoon chapter her husband refers to her body as a locked garden and a sealed fountain, indicating that she has closed herself off from men until this time (Song 4:12).  Second, in the conclusion the woman describes herself as a wall in comparison to a door, which likely establishes her virginity because a wall is not entered but a door is (Song 8:10).

The most practical lesson I have gotten from teaching Song of Songs is that a husband has a responsibility to praise his wife's beauty to her frequently and in detail, and see her as his standard for beauty, Likewise, a wife has a responsibility to periodically make herself physically available to her husband.  Those points sum up about half of the book.

I am looking forward to being done with this series.  That is less about the awkwardness of the topic and more about the time I have to spend in preparing these lessons.  I'm ready for a less-involved series.

like edison

When I was a kid I dreamed of being an inventor.  The idea of taking materials that weren't all that valuable on their own and assembling something valuable out of them was extremely appealing.  As a result, stories like that of Thomas Edison's were very appealing.

I remember hearing about all of the things Edison created, with over 1000 patents to his name, and the underlying philosophy that was part of his persona.  He is credited with the assertion, "Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration."  I remember visualizing him sitting in a dark room trying material after material in his light bulb until something worked.  This whole ideal perfectly fit the philosophy of a nation where most would at least claim to believe in meritocracy.  Intelligence is just hard work, and intelligence that doesn't work can't be called genius.

While I don't fault the focus on effort, as it is a necessary ingredient to success, this philosophy misses a ton of what made Edison successful.  Because the story has historically stopped here many have been led to believe that his secret was simply trying hard, when there was a bit more to it.  Edison brought a bit of intelligence and a lot of elbow grease to the job, and that's all it took to get all of those patents.  So, all that is stopping you is the elbow grease.


In more recent years Edison's reputation has taken a bit of a beating due to what is viewed as his mistreatment of Nikola Tesla.  While I don't know enough to know whether this new reputation is deserved, what I do know is that it shines light on where that perspiration came from.  Edison was right that the genius of his success was in hard work, but it is not appreciated that he hired a lot of that work.  There isn't anything wrong with this, except that the team and their work is always forgotten in order to give credit simply to the guy who hired them.

Also, this illuminates (Ha!) that sometimes one guy working really hard isn't enough.  Some jobs require a team to be successful.  This doesn't fit into a narrative that celebrates our individualistic ideals, so it is scrapped.

I wish I understood all of this earlier, because this is extremely helpful to understanding how the world works today.  If you're fortunate you could be successful as some guy working by himself, but it's unlikely.  You're certainly not going to emulate Edison levels of success that way.  To be successful like Edison isn't just to work hard, but to get others to work hard as well toward that same goal.

I don't actually feel the need to be as successful in this world as Edison today, but since I did aspire to that in my youth I wish I understood what that really meant.

provide a boy

Golden and I both always wanted a boy and a girl because that is what we both grew up with.  We didn't, and I still don't, think of either as being easier or harder to raise, or more or less fun to have around.  Golden had another pressure that I never understood, though.  She felt that she needed to provide me a boy.

I wish she never saw this as a burden, because I always considered the idea silly. Since I never got the impression that it was a big deal to my dad, and it isn't a big deal to me, I always assumed the idea of having someone carry on your name was a dying artifact of a bygone era that modern people didn't care about.  While we did have a boy--and a wonderful one at that--I wouldn't have cared if we only had girls, other than that I would have felt bad for Golden for the burden.

In the past few years I have actually heard a few men make comments about this that have shocked me.  They implied that having a boy was much better than having a girl.  There are actually men who care about this!?  And not only that, I've heard this from some who consider themselves "progressive"! Unless I felt pressure from my parents on this I cannot fathom it being a huge deal what gender my kids were.

We're happy with our boy and our girl.  I can honestly say I would be just as happy if we had two boys or two girls, though.  We love them both!

social needs

My pastor has gotten much of his education in Psychology and Counseling, so has taught a few times that there are six dimensions under which people's needs can be defined.  Those are spiritual, emotional, social, sexual, family, and financial.  I don't know if this is based on any real research, but it is indeed a convenient way of categorizing needs.


There are times that I feel like most of my needs are atypical.  I don't know what really counts as typical or atypical, though.  A great example, and most of what has been on my mind, are social needs.  I just seem to have different social drives than many other people I speak with.

While it has happened, I have very rarely in my life experienced a need to be out among people.  Usually when it has that is because I have been home alone for more than a day.  When I was fourteen living with my family at my grandparents' house I remember wanting to get out to social events, but that was more an issue of circumstance than a reflection of a strong social need.

I do have a strong social need, but that is for people I can have in-depth and analytical conversations.  To do something like this, though, requires a connection.

Something I have noticed is that I can get standoffish to people I detect have strong social needs.  When people start talking about wanting to get together on the spur of the moment, and I don't already have a strong connection with them, my gut reaction is to view them as stealing my precious time resource without paying me something I can use.  I feel overwhelmed very quickly around those sorts of people.

This is a problem because I am starting to understand that to maintain friendships you have a good connection with you need to care about others' needs as well.  I can understand those characters who get older and shut in and don't want to interact with others because that is one of my tendencies.  It's easy to think in the short term that I should only do things that directly align with my needs, but then eighty-year-old me will have few close friendships.

teaching in church

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."- James 3:1

I have been the primary teacher in our Sunday School class for just short of four years now, along with rotating through teaching a men's class on Wednesday nights for the past couple of years.  Many of the classes I have taught have been very thin in attendance (I've taught a solitary person more than once), but many have been well-attended by very intelligent people.  That might sound like bragging, but what what has struck me over and over the past few years is how unqualified I am, and how ridiculous it is that I presume to be able to teach many of the people who regularly fill the seats.  I don't have more knowledge or experience.  All I have is that I put in time to research and prepare a lesson every week.  Just about anyone could do that.

The reason I teach is not skill or a love for teaching.  I'm not a great speaker.  What drives me is the fact that it seems like a waste of time if everyone takes the time to show up and the topic of discussion is either shallow or not well researched.  Why even show up, then?


In light of the statement above from James, it is scary what I don't know.  How can I teach when there are so many questions that I don't know let alone the answers?  There are passages of Scripture that flat-out confound, and there are realities of life I am not close to grasping.  People ask hard questions in class and pose difficult scenarios, as they should.  There is a limit to my knowledge, and the a big theme of the last five years for me has been realizing how much I still need to understand about the Bible and doctrine.  This being the case, how do I keep from leading people down wrong paths on this issue or the next?

Really, the only thing I know to keep myself in line is something I mentioned in class a few months ago.  If I get to the end of class and haven't mentioned how the passage we're looking at points to Christ, then something is wrong.  I pray that there aren't other things that I state wrongly along the way.

conspiracy theory, take 2

Years ago I wrote a blog post where I was very sarcastic toward people who held to conspiracy theories. That is not something that I would write again today, as I have realized in retrospect that the tone was somewhat detestable and more than a little self-righteous. If I haven't repented of this before, consider this my repentance now. That was a vain approach, and it wasn't the only vain thing I wrote in that era.

I have given a lot of thought to conspiracy theories since, however.

My issue with conspiracy theories has long been that they are intellectually lazy. The approach takes the form that I believe the world is a certain way, but the objective evidence suggests otherwise, so I decide that the objective evidence is just what some secret and powerful group of people want everyone else to believe. It exchanges a logical approach for storytelling, and it implies that anecdotal evidence is more valid than quantitative evidence.  It also appeals to the human desire to be superior to others since I get to be part of the small group of people who have figured out the way the world really works.

The mathematical take on this is that a true conspiracy with many members would be difficult-to-impossible to maintain, but as the number of people involved shrinks the potential for a secret conspiracy to be maintained increases.  So, a secret cartel in some industry that requires ten or twenty people to keep a secret is logically feasible, whereas a secret but huge cabal of thousands necessary to convincingly fake the moon landing or hide the fact that the earth is flat from the populace is not logically feasible.

The problem is, a lot of people whose opinions and intellect I respect do buy into specific conspiracy theories. The list of people I respect who I know believe in some conspiracy theory or another has grown significantly in the past few months. I don't know what to do with that fact. It bothers me because my respect for them is challenged, but then I still see the other areas of their lives and intellect that are worthy of respect. It's a difficult thing to reconcile.

So, the way things are now, if I hear someone relay their opinion that some conspiracy theory is true my reaction is one of two things. If it's a small conspiracy it is to consider the greater-than-zero odds that the theory is accurate. If it's a large conspiracy it is to do my absolute best not to let that theory tarnish my respect for that person. So, I'm doing my level best not to hold Fox Mulder in disrespect, but it's a serious challenge!

feature i wish netflix had

This is very much a first world problems post, but they happen.

A little under a year ago we cut the cord on cable.  Between Netflix, YouTube, and an over-the-air recorder (Tablo), Golden and I get most of what we want to watch..  However, I am sure the kids might prefer to have more ready access to the Disney and Nick channels.  One thing that gets on my nerves more now that we rely on it, though, is Netflix's impossible-to-navigate interface.

At first blush, the Netflix interface looks great.  It's clean and attractive.  It does a decent job of recommending things we'll probably want to see.  However, it is a major source of frustration for the way I want to use it.

The way I want to use Netflix is that I want to be able to go out searching for things I might like to see when I have spare time to investigate.  Then, I want to tag a movie or a show as "Something only I will like" or "Something to watch with Golden and I" or "Kid's shows" or "Good for watching with the family over the holidays."  What Netflix offers me instead is the ability to add the show or movie to a single list.  We have decided at times not to try to find something to watch on Netflix because we couldn't easily find something that fell into one of those categories on the spot.

This idea could be expanded upon as well.  As a parent it would be great if I could tag shows as "Only play once I enter a code" or take the opposite approach of disallowing everything unless I have tagged it as allowed.  It would also be nice to be able to tag movies in this way that are not yet on streaming, but might be some day.

A year ago I looked into whether I could write something like this myself using the public APIs Netflix allows developers to use.  I found that this may have been possible in the past, but they recently locked down what is truly accessible through their APIs to block what they viewed as competing services from using their data/system.

I also looked into submitting this request directly to Netflix because I imagine a lot of people would like a system like what I describe, and it honestly would not be very difficult to build.  It turns out that Netflix does not have a support email address to send these requests to, and only has an online chat function which is never active when I have time to submit my request.

So, I post my request here.  Maybe at some point someone in Netflix Product Management will be doing a Google search for desired features, run across this post, and decide that it isn't such a bad idea.  That's my only real hope for getting this incredibly useful feature added to the product that I subscribe to and use with some regularity.

melancholy songs

I'm not usually drawn to melancholy songs, but every once in a while I'll lock onto one and listen to it to death.  When I was in high school it was Elle G. by The Newsboys.



In my twenties I could not stop listening to the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt.



Oddly enough, the melancholy song I've been going to lately is an old one rather than a new one.  It's the Gary Jules cover of Mad World.


For whatever reason, these particular songs are the sad ones I decided I wanted to listen to when I want to listen to a sad song.  The songs themselves feel like they have more substance than a run-of-the-mill sad song, but that might be me rationalizing after I've decided I like a song.

Do you have any that serve this same function?

what people say about mormons

I have a strange litmus test that I use to determine how tolerant people are of others who are different.  I listen for how they talk about or treat Mormons, or members of the LDS church.

If you are a Conservative and are not Mormon, you are probably a Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or Evangelical Christian who believes that their teachings are heretical.  For my part, I believe their views on the Trinity are heresy.  As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who hold that belief.

If you are Liberal, you may or may not be Christian, but you are likely to strongly disagree with the political positions the church has taken over the past few decades.  As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who belong to that church.

So, when Mormonism is brought up (very rarely), I perk up to pay attention for how people speak of the people who hold that belief.  Will they talk disparagingly about the people?  Will they withhold judgment on the people, regardless how they feel about the church and it's positions and/or doctrines?  It's edge-of-your-seat suspense!

In related news, I probably need to get out more.

karma and schadenfreude

Every once in a while I will hear someone say that they believe in karma or that they get enjoyment out of karma.  In some instances I will hear of someone getting their just desserts as karma exacting revenge on that person.  This usage of "karma" is not technically accurate.

First, I should note that since I am Christian I do not believe in literal karma, no matter how it is defined.  It is important to understand what I am disagreeing with when someone declares karma, however.

The real definition of karma comes from the Hindu religion.  The idea is that good deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in good outcomes for people, and that bad deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in bad outcomes for people.  The key is that this is supposed to be experienced in a person's next life.  Someone's karmic state is intrinsically linked to his or her reincarnation, and so payback would probably be in the quality of someone's next life, which would be lived without an understanding of the evils committed in the previous life.  Based on my understanding of the concept, which is admittedly imperfect, karma would have to be experienced a long time later, and probably in a future life rather than in this one.

I believe that a better word for what people mean when they say, "karma," is, "schadenfreude."  It's also a much more fun word to pronounce!  I believe that most of my audience knows what it means, but for the uninformed the dictionary.com definition is, "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune."  I have mostly heard it used in conjunction with enjoying someone else's misery because one believes that misery is deserved.  So, when I hear that someone believes in karma, or enjoys seeing examples of karma, I understand that they simply like seeing the suffering of those they believe to be immoral.  This is more accurately the practical definition for schadenfreude.

Christian believers are not permitted to believe in Hindu karma or partake in schadenfreude.  Real karma is in direct contradiction to Heb 9:27, which states that people are destined to die once, and then to face judgment.  Schadenfreude is founded in a desire for vengeance that violates the spirit of Rom 12:17-21, fun as it is to say.

I'll certainly grant that both concepts are interesting, and have some allure.  At the very least, they can make you sound intelligent to adeptly use them in conversation.  However, a Christian believer shouldn't revel in either.

why i'm a tightwad

I used to watch Suze Orman quite a bit.  It could have really been any personal finance advisor on TV, but she was the one who was on CNBC on Saturday nights years ago when I had an hour every week.

The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories.  The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice.  The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it.  I never felt I fit in either category.  That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.

Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes.  We are nowhere near destitute.  We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.

One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions.  I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature.  As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.

I know that the worry that drives this is sinful.  I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives.  It is something God is still working on in me.

The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is.  Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family.  What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though.  What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.

Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option.  If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.

I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation.  I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans.  I still think about it, though.

multi-factor issues

People are naturally wired to be lazy in many ways, and one of those ways has piqued my interest recently.  People like to find a singular cause for issues.  As a result, most people aren't wired to address complex issues, and have to fight their wiring to do so.

As an example, when the crime rate rises or falls in a region there is rarely one factor in play.  Policing, the justice system, the socioeconomic situation, etc all play a role, and people are prone to pick their favorite factor as the be-all, end-all reason for the good or the bad things they see on the streets and the news.  All may be factors, but it is unlikely that one is the primary factor that dwarfs all others.

I say this because I see the same tendency in myself.  When I see something broken I want to identify the issue and move toward a fix as closely as possible.  If I can identify an issue I want it to be the issue so that I can pin all of the problems I see on that one blamable and ultimately fixable thing.  I don't want to research more once one factor has been identified, because it's not in my nature to look for a second factor.  That approach leads to incomplete fixes, though.

I don't have much more to add on this.  This is just something I've been observing.

self-absorbed

I like to type introspective things because it helps me work through my thoughts.  When I do that, though, I find at the end that it sounds super self-absorbed.  As stuck-on-myself as I sound on this blog, most of what I write that sounds that way has been edited down and the worst of it peeled away.

Has anyone else run into this problem?

marker words

The professor who taught my undergraduate Business Communications course offered a free service to review students' resumes and provide recommendations for modifications.  She definitely helped me craft what was the first draft for the resume that I would continue to use for years to come, so for that I am immeasurably grateful.  There was one minor thing that always stuck out to me that I have thought of throughout the ensuing years.  She recommended that I note that I was looking for an environment that offered employee empowerment.

Employee empowerment was a specific concept that she taught in one of the classes I took from her, though I don't remember which  one.  I took three classes from this particular prof.  The idea was simply that a business that espoused this belief allowed employees the leeway to make decisions (and potentially mistakes) because the net result for a good employee would be positive.  It's not a bad concept, but the phrase has always been odd to me.

What seems weird about the phrase is that I don't believe I have ever in my life heard a man use the word "empowerment" or "empowered," even though I have heard several women use it.  It seems like one of those words that I suspect both sexes have that serve as markers for, "A woman said this," or, "A man wrote that."

A few other words that stick out to me as marker words that a woman said it are "blessed", "tacky", "sweet", and "vile."  I may have heard the odd man or two use them, but they show up far more in women's vernacular.

I tried to think of marker words for men, but I must have a natural blind spot to it.  Everything I have been able to think of has too many exceptions to be usable.  As an example, in the past most crass language probably served as marker words for men, but things are different today.

Are there any marker words that you have noticed in your interactions?  Is there a word or phrase that, if you see it in an article or book, you immediately have a guess at what the author's gender is? Do you disagree with any words I mentioned above?

kids and politics

With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids.  Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.).  I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics.  Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.

My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you.  My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity.  The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs.  I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise.  It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though.  I know because I remember thinking that way.  It's just a natural, human inclination.

Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious.  We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion.  It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that.  Alas, many do.  Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.

I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions.  This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives.  I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid.  Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.

All of this just leads back to my original point.  I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.

stepping down

Just short of ten years ago I agreed to be an usher at our church. At the time it wasn't a big deal. I just had to pray for the offering every couple of weeks and manage the collection plate in my aisle.  In the time since the role morphed into more a position of greeting and directing people to empty seats.  This is not at all my forte, and since I'm otherwise very involved, I am backing out of this responsibility after this month.  That I have stayed in the role as long as I have is an example of why I am always hesitant to agree to commit to things, though.

Any time I am in a role of responsibility, even something as small as this, I don't feel the freedom to back out.  I am very well aware that in a lot of cases there will be no one else to step up, and few things make me feel more rotten than leaving someone else holding the bag.  Because of this, I usually view new commitments through a very long-term lens, and hem and haw before committing.

As I noted, I am not suited for the current ushering role in our church.  The job is not mentally difficult in the least, but the responsibilities are a serious chore for someone who is as introverted as I am.  It is not in my nature to approach people I don't know, get information about them, and ask others to make room for them in the row where they're sitting.  When I hear about the reasons visitors do not return to churches I wonder if it was because I was not outgoing enough for some folks to want to return.

Even so, the only reason I feel the freedom to step down from this specific role is that it has interfered with my other responsibilities.  Sometimes the kids are in service, but Golden has to be in the nursery and cannot watch them.  Sometimes someone wants to talk about the lesson after Sunday School and I have to rudely rush out.  There is always the specter of what to do when one of the kids is sick and I have to usher and Golden is on the schedule to help in the nursery.  Without those conflicts of interest I'd probably stay in the role out of a sense of duty or guilt, which is every bit as pathetic as it sounds.

So, I guess that means that it's time for someone a bit more extroverted than I am to step up.  I hope they do.

ten years ago...

Ten years ago today was my first day in my MBA program.  I'm at the age where I look back ten, fifteen, or twenty years a lot, and I'm struck by how those events feel both like yesterday and forever ago at the same time.  There were many times during my four-and-a-half years in the program that I questioned the wisdom of pursuing the degree, and ten years ago all of that work and all of those questions lay ahead of me.  It's just odd.

Another milestone I passed in the last year is the twenty-year anniversary of getting my first job in high school.  In fact, a couple of months ago I passed a the twenty-year milestone of my second job in high school, which I held concurrently with the first one until I went to college.

It used to be that any milestone I had like this only reached a few years back to when I was in high school and living with my parents, but those days are long past (about ten years past, to be precise).

I can't be the only person who does this.  Who else notes anniversaries of what was happening in your life one or two decades ago and asks where the time went?  Where did the time go?!

powerball

Recently, the Powerball lottery got up to some ridiculous level that causes a lot of people to want to gamble.  Usually when that happens someone in my office decides to buy a pool of tickets, and whoever contributes gets a share of any winnings.  I always go in for the price of one ticket for one reason and one reason only: insurance.

Like most things, my view on gambling is that it is not sin, but the attitudes a person brings into it are frequently sin.  So, for a lot of people gambling is sin because of why they gamble, or what gambling brings out in them.  In fact, I do believe it's difficult to gamble without a sinful attitude.  If I were to find myself daydreaming about never working again, or longing for whatever luxury items something like that would afford, or risking my family's stability, those would likely indicate underlying problems.  I hope in that instance I would avoid participating, because that would be a sign of something wrong with my motives.

What I don't want to happen, and what I am genuinely concerned about, is for everyone else in my office to win then quit on the same day.  Being the last guy left in the department would be an absolute nightmare.  So, I throw in the minimum so that if that sort of thing happens I have a little more freedom to decide what to do.

Truth be told, I don't really want to win the lottery.  Sure, I would love the money, but the problems that would come from getting the money in this way would probably outweigh that.  There are a number of people in my life who have moral issues with this, so it would open multiple uncomfortable conversations.  Then, there would be pressure to contribute to specific causes, and while it would be great to have that opportunity, it would open up a lot of saying no to disappointed people as well.

Another concern I have has its basis in pride.  The odds of winning the lottery are outlandish, and I don't want people to think I that I bought tickets with a serious hope of winning.  The joke goes that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, and a prideful part of me doesn't want others to associate me with that.  How could I not if I were known to have won the lottery?

So, while I try to make sure I'm technically covered from the bad results of everyone winning the lottery at a cost I'll gladly pay, I'm not actually hoping for us to win.  The good news is that, unlike most people playing the lottery, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of what I am hoping for.

tabula rasa

Several years ago I learned about the concept of tabula rasa, which asserts that a baby is born with a mind that is largely a blank slate.  Personality, behavioral tendencies, intellectual capacity, etc are all things that spring out of the environment a child is raised in rather than from genetics.

I have heard from various sources that research done in the last two or three decades has largely discredited the idea of tabula rasa to the point where it is not a seriously held position in academic circles now, though not long ago this was not the case.  Having had two kids I have to strongly question how anyone who raised more than one child ever believed in tabula rasa.

While our kids are still young--just seven and nine--it is striking and unavoidable to see where specific aspects of our kids' drives and personalities are not only unique, but have been that way from birth.  In fact, I have a very difficult time believing that someone could have kids and not notice this, as I see this uniqueness in a lot of the other kids I am occasionally around as well.  Kids with strong personalities always had strong personalities, and they often have siblings with completely different personalities, though they grew up in the same household.  Things like birth order play a part, but only as an outgrowth of what they were from the start.

If it is obvious to a parent that the foundations of our kids' personality is due to nature rather than nurture--and I have definitely heard other parents observe this as well--why was this not obvious to the academic world for a large percentage of the twentieth century?  Do (or did, since this idea is no longer widely held) academics in psychology/psychiatry simply not spend time with and observe their own families?  It's baffling!