second announcement

If you haven't seen Golden's site yet you probably don't know the news yet. So, in case you do not already know, we have a second child on the way. Golden is due at the very end of November.

Golden and I have both long believed that having two kids is the ideal number for us. If something happens that causes us to have more, we will enjoy it and love all our kids the same. However, since we both know life with one sibling the best, and since we both doubt that we could retain what little sanity currently have with more than two kids, that number just seems right.

I have asked many parents already how different it is to have two kids rather than just one, and I am amazed that there does not appear to be a consensus on whether a second child adds just a little extra effort or exponentially more effort than the first. In case you haven't figured out, I am hoping that for us having two kids is not much more challenging than having one. I actually think that how NJ interacts with his new sibling is going to have the biggest of any influence on this.

Finally, we do intend on finding out the sex of the baby when we can, but that will probably not happen until some time in June according to my math. I can't wait to find out.

vote for genocide

Every once in a while I get something in the mail asking me to submit a vote for my holdings in some mutual fund or stock. This happens the most with my 401(k) holdings, and I would assume this is the way it is for most people.

A few days ago I got a packet from one of the mutual funds that are in my 401(k) with following thing to vote on. Since the proposal is written vaguely, it is not clear what counts as substantially contributing to genocide. Even so, it's hard not to be a bit cynical about the mutual fund company when I read this.

The Board of Trustees Recommends a Vote AGAINST the Following:

Shareholder proposal for [list of mutual funds] concerning Board oversight procedures to screen out investments in companies that substantially contribute to genocide.

I will assume at this point that the reason the board of trustees is asking for the vote to not go through is they they believe that such screening procedures will not actually reduce genocide and will noticeably reduce earnings for those funds. Who in good conscience could actually vote against it, though? I am voting my miniscule number of shares for it.

purse of happiness

When I was ten my favorite TV show by far was the old Batman series with Adam West and Burt Ward. There were a lot of reasons for me to like the show, and since I was pretty young, none of them had anything to do with its satirical or ironic nature. The episodes were purposely ridiculous, but I thoroughly enjoyed every one of them in spite of the ridiculousness rather than due to the ridiculousness.One thing that I remember liking very much about Batman, and wishing that I could emulate in some practical way, was his utility belt. There wasn't anything that wasn't on that belt. I used to think it would be the coolest thing in the world to be able to have such ready access to anything I could practically need.

For a short while, I used a fanny pack so that I could have access to the stuff that I would need. I did like the fanny pack, but it never made sense to me why I was supposed to wear it with the pouch on my backside, as that made it more difficult to access the stuff that I wanted ready access to. Because of this, I shunned society's rules and wore the pouch near my stomach rather than near my butt. However, since fanny packs faded in 1992, that is about the same time I last used one.As I have gained more things to carry around, I have started to envy previous ages when men could carry bags without the perception that they were carrying purses. As my history indicates, I appreciate practicality in transporting my possessions. I would prefer to not have to use my pockets to carry a cell phone, two sets of keys, a wallet, an iPod, spare change, and whatever else I might need, but there really is not a good alternative. The male fashions to address this are all considered outdated, nerdy, effeminate, or they are generally impractical for everyday life.

This is one area in life where I actually wish I had baggage.

typical white guy

Not long ago someone at work commented that I have a very white personality. This is true to the extent that I probably don't act like I am from any other race, but I don't think that I am stereotypically white if there is such a thing. If there is a standard white way to be, and I am that way, I think I should constantly find that I think the same way as most other white people and have the same types of life experiences. I am more struck by how little this happens than by how much it happens.

Recently, I found satirical a website called Stuff White People Like^* that purports to relay to people who are not white the things that white people like so that they can benefit more from their relationships with white people. While it is a very funny website, by the standard of the site, I am not very white. This is largely because the standard for being white is apparently to be privileged, liberal, snobby, and status-conscious. People who are not rich, not liberal, or have unrefined tastes evidently don't count as white.

I have given quite a bit of thought to how much a person's ethnicity, gender, and so forth should define him or her. While stereotypes usually have to originate with a grain of truth, it does seem a bit unfair and lazy to rely on them. I want to believe that the less a person fits whatever should be the obvious stereotype for him or her, the more intelligent or self-aware that person is. In theory the idea makes sense, but in practice it is very hard to know how stereotypical anyone really is.

^* I just want to give some fair warning. As is typically the case with web-based satire, there are elements to this site that some people could find offensive. I wouldn't add a link, though, if I thought it was overly offensive.

church appeal

I have believed for a while that church is structured to appeal more to feminine tastes and needs than masculine tastes and needs. I am not saying that church is entirely feminine, but rather it leans that way. I am also do not want anyone to think I am griping about this right now. It is just something that is on my mind.

There are a few examples that I see. The music in a church service tends to be more targeted to women. The focus of a service is on sitting quietly for periods of time to listen to teaching or preaching. The socialization aspect of church seems more feminine than masculine. Even the motivations for going to church are more feminine, as a lot of women feel the need to bring their families to church for reasons that would not concern most men.

I know that a typical response to this is that it is easier for men to get into leadership in church, so the main influence in the church is masculine. My current concern has more to do with the user experience than with church leadership, however. It is possible that the official leadership is all or mostly male while the appeal of the church remains feminine.

When I mentioned this to my mom this past weekend her response was to ask, if church is more slanted to the feminine, what would make it more masculine. I am ashamed to say that I have no idea. Because I do not know, I would like to pose the question to my readers. Do you agree that church structure has more feminine than masculine appeal? If you agree with me, what is an acceptable means of adding masculinity to church? If you disagree with me, can you elaborate on why?

the surgery

Since I have wasted a lot of time talking about my gallbladder over the last couple of months, it would be remiss for me not to post on the actual surgery. So you don't have to read the entire post to know how everything went, I am doing fine. They actually sent me home from the hospital early since it was determined that nothing could be gained by keeping me there.

This morning, Golden and I got up a little after five to prepare for the hospital and be there for my appointment at six. This is not generally the way I like to start my day. As I have mentioned, though, I have actually been looking forward to the surgery more than dreading it, so that made it easier to get up and moving.

Around 6:30 I was called into a preparation room where I had to change into my entirely-too-immodest hospital gown, have some strange leggings put on me (to reduce the potential for a blood clot), and have my IV put in. They did not let Golden go back with me until I was almost completely done with this process. I am not sure why they didn't want her back there until then, but that's the way it was.

One thing that was frustrating was that, since I am a relatively physically private person, the very personal things that had to be done to me prior to and after the surgery are a little bothersome. I understand that there is no way around this and I understand that women have it worse, but it is still worth mentioning since I am no exhibitionist.

Just before 7:30 I was wheeled to surgery. As this was happening the anesthesiologist shot some stuff in me that she said would make me more comfortable but would not knock me out. Someone I work with who has had this surgery told me that when they did this to him he did not remember anything after getting the shot and that his wife told him that he started joking around with everyone without inhibition. Golden did not see me after I got the shot, so she doesn't know if I did anything embarrassing. I hope I didn't.

Around 10:00 I woke from what felt like a very long dream. I was incredibly groggy, so I don't remember much of what happened. I wasn't in any pain and this was roughly when they asked whether I wanted to stay at the hospital or go home. I decided that I would go home when I could, but I was not really in the strongest mental position to make such a decision.

Golden came back to see me periodically as I recovered from the surgery. She also was dealing with NJ in the waiting room, so her effort today was very noble.

Golden mentioned that a couple of people from church came to pray for me before the surgery, but were under the impression they could do so at 7:30. Since that is when I went into surgery that was not possible. They hung around and spoke with my mom until 10:30 when decision was official that I would not be staying at the hospital.

Golden also told me that the surgeon told her that he has never seen so many gallstones in someone so young. He mentioned that this had actually caused damage to my gallbladder. This is something that bothered my mom, but it made me very happy. It justifies the griping that I have been doing for the past couple of months and it validates the decision to have surgery.

While my stomach hurts some from the surgery, it is actually not a big deal. I expected the pain to be significantly worse. The one bad thing is that I have been nauseated for most of the day, and this has been much worse than lingering pain from my incisions. I expect that to pass by tomorrow given my past experience, though.

Probably the most difficult part of this surgery is that for the next two weeks I can't pick up NJ. One of the things that we both like is for me to swing him around, and that will not happen for a little while. Also, this means that Golden is going to have to hold him more, which is physically draining on her.

My assessment at this point is that the surgery really was a success. I had no real complications that I am aware of, and I am already noticeably recovering. The benefit I will get out of the surgery once my body adjusts to not having a gallbladder far outweighs the drawbacks of keeping it.

have to die

Zed: "May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die."
James: "Well, she's the only one that seemed dangerous at the time, sir."
Zed: "How'd you come to that conclusion?"
James: "...I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, you know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books. She's about to start some [stuff], Zed."

In the case that someone reading this has actually not seen Men in Black, this scene is available on YouTube at the following location (mild language warning). In the scene, Will Smith's character (James Edwards) has just shot a cardboard cutout of a little girl at a firing range after passing over more dangerous looking alien cutouts. At first blush the shot looks like a mistake, but the movie goes on to illustrate that appearances can be deceiving.

One question that I always pose in my mind at this time of year is why did Jesus have to die in the way He did. When this question arises, I typically recall the scene in Men in Black about little Tiffany having to die. In both situations, it is very understandable to ask why death is necessary. Also, in both situations, the answer to why is difficult to accept regardless as to how valid it might in reality be.

Few people who have seen The Passion of the Christ would pretend to believe that thirty-nine lashes and crucifixion is an easy way to die. I remember that one of the biggest impressions the movie had on me was that the whole process seemed arbitrary. Was there a reason that Christ had to die in this way rather than in a more humane fashion? Did the cross impart something that the guillotine couldn't?

These questions bothered me for a while. I do not like my foundational beliefs to seem arbitrary, and this seemed very much so. It didn't threaten my faith, but it was certainly an obvious irritant to my faith for a few days.

After I gave it some thought, I determined that the purpose of Jesus' death having to come through crucifixion could not be known without understanding why death was necessary in the first place. The keys to me are that sin demands a sacrifice (Romans 3:21-26) and that Christ's sacrifice is the ultimate expression of love (Romans 5:6-8).

To address my concerns I now believe that there is much more to the Crucifixion than is humanly understandable. I will never fully comprehend why sin has to be atoned because my understanding is physical rather than spiritual. If a sacrifice is demanded for the spiritual shortcomings of humanity, one physical sacrifice (significant as it is) does not seem enough. Using a physical sacrifice to pay a spiritual debt simply feels inadequate. Using a spiritual sacrifice to pay a spiritual debt makes a lot more sense. Even so, that spiritual sacrifice would have to be far more horrific than any physical sacrifice could ever be.

I personally believe that the reason that Christ had to physically die on the cross was that most any other death would not relay to us the enormity of His spiritual sacrifice. If his death was quick and painless, we would not understand how beyond valuable the gift of salvation is. We may not even believe that the sacrifice that was made was and is enough to cover all sin. We certainly would not understand the volume of love behind that sacrifice.

I do not expect that everyone is going to agree with me about this. Some might note that Isaiah seems to imply that it is Christ's physical torment that provides us salvation (Isaiah 53:4-5), though this is obviously not how I interpret Isaiah. Whether we agree on this is not important, though. How Christ covers sin is less vital than the fact that He does cover sin.


Update (12/16/14):

You will note that I have struck through a few specific sentences in the text above.  I left them in place, but marked out, because I wanted to properly illustrate my modified stance on what is ultimately a very important issue.

When Christ was on this earth he was 100% man, but he was and still is still 100% God, and as a result 100% spiritual.  In the sense of his nature being spiritual, Christ's sacrifice was indeed spiritual.  In the sense that Jesus descended into the grave before his resurrection, the process was spiritual.  However, I regretfully discounted too much the value of the physical sacrifice.  I now take Isaiah more literally to understand that we are actually healed by Christ's wounds.

I will say that the whole idea of sacrifice as an atonement for sins is still a confusing concept for me.  I do not understand the requirement for blood in the same way that people of that era would have understood it.  I do not understand the requirement of a violent death as payment for sin.  I get the drive for justice, but I do not fully understand the means (even though it is explained in Hebrews 9:16-24).  The idea of a covenant is foreign to my mind, so the idea of violent enforcement of a covenant is also foreign.

I apologize to anyone whom I confused or misled by what I wrote in error.