My friend Forest, whom about half my readers know, needs your prayers. He has a very serious form of cancer and direct intervention from God is currently his hope, and unfortunately his only hope. Please also pray for his family as well, as they need strength and peace as much as Forest does.
I am not abandoning the blog, and will likely put something up in the very near future. I simply have not been in the mood to compose something, as everything I have sat down to type has felt trite in comparison. Not to fear, though, my standards will go down to my normal level shortly and I will post again.
Update (7/6/2012):
Forest passed away yesterday. Please remember his family in your prayers.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, May 04, 2012
boundaries
I frankly don't know precisely where boundaries should be drawn in my life. I never have. In college I became overly active in classwork, student government, work, and maintaining a relationship with Golden and nearly burned out mid-way through my third semester. A few times in my adult life I have swung the opposite direction and purposefully shut down nearly all offers for social activities beyond what was absolutely necessary.
I'm somehow guarded and over-sharing at the same time in my friendships. In my close relationships I don't usually know what reasonable and unreasonable expectations are. Do I expect too much or too little? Do I sacrifice too much or too little? Again, I think it's paradoxically both, but I usually cannot identify the specifics of what needs to change.
In social situations I frequently miss social cues, though I also notice people who miss them much more than I do. Some people seem to be able to feel out others in a way that I can only dream. Other people seem to miss what I think are obvious signs that whatever they are doing violates whatever the local social mores are.
The thing is, the more I think about this, the more I think this describes most people. There is definitely a small group of people who seem to get where all of the social and personal boundaries are or should be, and there is a small group of people who have no clue. In the middle, though, I think everyone relies on others' reactions to figure out the grey areas. What happens, though, when the people we use for reference have it wrong?
I'm somehow guarded and over-sharing at the same time in my friendships. In my close relationships I don't usually know what reasonable and unreasonable expectations are. Do I expect too much or too little? Do I sacrifice too much or too little? Again, I think it's paradoxically both, but I usually cannot identify the specifics of what needs to change.
In social situations I frequently miss social cues, though I also notice people who miss them much more than I do. Some people seem to be able to feel out others in a way that I can only dream. Other people seem to miss what I think are obvious signs that whatever they are doing violates whatever the local social mores are.
The thing is, the more I think about this, the more I think this describes most people. There is definitely a small group of people who seem to get where all of the social and personal boundaries are or should be, and there is a small group of people who have no clue. In the middle, though, I think everyone relies on others' reactions to figure out the grey areas. What happens, though, when the people we use for reference have it wrong?
Monday, April 23, 2012
hymns
Tonight our church had a hymn sing, and this brought to mind how full circle I have come on this genre of music.
When I was growing up my family listened to hymns a lot, and since I went to church regularly in traditional churches I heard my share of hymns as a kid. As anyone who hears a lot of a specific type of music will do, there were songs that I liked and songs that I did not like. I appreciated hymns overall, though, until I became a teen.
As I got into adolescence I grew to resent the expectation that church-goers would like the one genre of music over the others, and the attitude that many had that everything that was not a hymn was inferior (or worse, unholy). I also got tired of the tendency of hymns to use outdated jargon, and plenty of "thees" and "thous." As such, while I did not hate hymns, I learned to strongly prefer other styles of music.
As I have grown as an adult, and especially in the past two or three years, I have come to appreciate the depth and maturity that exists in many hymns. This is probably mostly due to the fact that I have more life experiences to appreciate a This has been in part because my understanding of Scripture and what practical Christianity really is has increased, and so some of what I thought I grasped before strikes me more seriously now. Some of this is that I am no longer in a situation, or have recently been in a situation, where there are any expectations on what music I am going to like or what I am going to relate to.
One example of a song that I have only recently been appreciating on a doctrinal level is "Rock of Ages." I am not Calvinist, and maybe this is one of the reasons it has taken some time to connect with me, but I feel I am only now grasping what I always claimed to believe—that I, and everyone else, truly come to God empty-handed. I bring nothing to the equation except a reticent willingness to be changed.
An example of a song that I appreciate based on life experience in a way that I did not when I was a kid is "The Solid Rock." Of my myriad of weaknesses, if there were one that I would pick out to say how much I underestimated the depth of it earlier in life, it is my ability to trust God. My strength is in trusting Him, but it's something I need His help to even consider doing.
One song I am including here just because I like it is the Owl City version of "In Christ Alone." It was written more recently than most traditional hymns, but it is essentially a hymn. It is also every bit as meaningful as the other hymns I have been contemplating lately.
There are certainly some hymns I still do not enjoy, and probably never will. However, I am getting to the point in my life where a good number of songs that I may have overlooked ten or twenty years ago can profoundly touch me. I must be getting old.
When I was growing up my family listened to hymns a lot, and since I went to church regularly in traditional churches I heard my share of hymns as a kid. As anyone who hears a lot of a specific type of music will do, there were songs that I liked and songs that I did not like. I appreciated hymns overall, though, until I became a teen.
As I got into adolescence I grew to resent the expectation that church-goers would like the one genre of music over the others, and the attitude that many had that everything that was not a hymn was inferior (or worse, unholy). I also got tired of the tendency of hymns to use outdated jargon, and plenty of "thees" and "thous." As such, while I did not hate hymns, I learned to strongly prefer other styles of music.
As I have grown as an adult, and especially in the past two or three years, I have come to appreciate the depth and maturity that exists in many hymns. This is probably mostly due to the fact that I have more life experiences to appreciate a This has been in part because my understanding of Scripture and what practical Christianity really is has increased, and so some of what I thought I grasped before strikes me more seriously now. Some of this is that I am no longer in a situation, or have recently been in a situation, where there are any expectations on what music I am going to like or what I am going to relate to.
One example of a song that I have only recently been appreciating on a doctrinal level is "Rock of Ages." I am not Calvinist, and maybe this is one of the reasons it has taken some time to connect with me, but I feel I am only now grasping what I always claimed to believe—that I, and everyone else, truly come to God empty-handed. I bring nothing to the equation except a reticent willingness to be changed.
An example of a song that I appreciate based on life experience in a way that I did not when I was a kid is "The Solid Rock." Of my myriad of weaknesses, if there were one that I would pick out to say how much I underestimated the depth of it earlier in life, it is my ability to trust God. My strength is in trusting Him, but it's something I need His help to even consider doing.
One song I am including here just because I like it is the Owl City version of "In Christ Alone." It was written more recently than most traditional hymns, but it is essentially a hymn. It is also every bit as meaningful as the other hymns I have been contemplating lately.
There are certainly some hymns I still do not enjoy, and probably never will. However, I am getting to the point in my life where a good number of songs that I may have overlooked ten or twenty years ago can profoundly touch me. I must be getting old.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
demonization and favoritism
Something that perplexes me is the human drive to like and rationalize for those who we agree with and to demonize those we do not. I am not pointing to any one group of people in particular. In fact, what surprises me is how universal this appears to be. I am also shocked at how on guard I have to be to keep from doing it myself.
This is probably the most pronounced in politics, but it also shows up in most other areas of life like religion and fandom. Rather than accept that all humans are flawed and endowed with some redeemable traits, no matter their particular opinions, it is easier to see only the bad in those with whom I disagree and the good in those with whom I agree.
I cannot emphasize enough how amazed I am at how easy it is to slip into the line of thinking, "Of course that politician had shady dealings. Have you seen his policy positions that completely contradict mine?" It is also easy to think regarding my teams, "Ref, are you blind calling that unnecessary roughness? That was a perfectly legal hit by the player on the football team I am pulling for. I'd bet he volunteers his time and resources to his community, and saves people from burning buildings in his spare time—the saint!" All of this is as if someone's position on the ideal tax system or role in a team from Detroit has anything to do with the quality of their character.
This sort of philosophical favoritism, giving some people unwarranted hate and others unwarranted admiration, is obviously not what God called us to. I am not convinced that this is the sort of thing that most Christians are aware they need to give over to God, though. Even though we all know that anything short of love for our neighbors is sin and we know that favoritism has been forbidden, do we (and I am certainly asking this about myself) really believe it? Does this sort of thing truly make the cut of things we really think of as falling short of God's glory?
I am as in need of as much assistance in countering this flaw in my thinking on this as anyone else. That is the point, though. We all have natures so horribly flawed that we cannot on our own obey a simple command like, "Love your enemies..." (Matt 5:44). This, even when the only thing that makes them an enemy is a difference of opinion about something relatively minor when considered in the grand scheme of things.
Disagree with me on this if you must. Just understand it means that you must be a bad person.
This is probably the most pronounced in politics, but it also shows up in most other areas of life like religion and fandom. Rather than accept that all humans are flawed and endowed with some redeemable traits, no matter their particular opinions, it is easier to see only the bad in those with whom I disagree and the good in those with whom I agree.
I cannot emphasize enough how amazed I am at how easy it is to slip into the line of thinking, "Of course that politician had shady dealings. Have you seen his policy positions that completely contradict mine?" It is also easy to think regarding my teams, "Ref, are you blind calling that unnecessary roughness? That was a perfectly legal hit by the player on the football team I am pulling for. I'd bet he volunteers his time and resources to his community, and saves people from burning buildings in his spare time—the saint!" All of this is as if someone's position on the ideal tax system or role in a team from Detroit has anything to do with the quality of their character.
This sort of philosophical favoritism, giving some people unwarranted hate and others unwarranted admiration, is obviously not what God called us to. I am not convinced that this is the sort of thing that most Christians are aware they need to give over to God, though. Even though we all know that anything short of love for our neighbors is sin and we know that favoritism has been forbidden, do we (and I am certainly asking this about myself) really believe it? Does this sort of thing truly make the cut of things we really think of as falling short of God's glory?
I am as in need of as much assistance in countering this flaw in my thinking on this as anyone else. That is the point, though. We all have natures so horribly flawed that we cannot on our own obey a simple command like, "Love your enemies..." (Matt 5:44). This, even when the only thing that makes them an enemy is a difference of opinion about something relatively minor when considered in the grand scheme of things.
Disagree with me on this if you must. Just understand it means that you must be a bad person.
Friday, April 06, 2012
blood and pastels
Easter, and Holy Week in general, is one of my least favorite holidays. By rights it should be among my favorites because it represents the event that forms the foundation of my religious beliefs and my relationship with Christ. It just seems so feminized, though.
This may come down to the fact that the real holiday is considered Easter and Good Friday is a day leading up to the ultimate holiday, but when I think of the Crucifixion and Resurrection I am disappointed with the emphasis on pastel colors and dressy attire. I'd mention cute, furry animals as well, but that opens a can of worms about pagan roots on some of the celebration that I don't care to debate here.
In my thinking, Christmas should be the more feminine holiday and Easter should be the more masculine holiday. Christmas is about birth and potential. Easter is about violent death, death's defeat, and promises fulfilled. Mary is as much the symbol of Christmas as anyone because God used her humble spirit for His glory. Christ is the symbol of Holy Week because he showed what true humility and sacrifice was. Christmas is about love and commitment in new relationships (Mary and Joseph), and Easter is about what love costs in a mature relationship (Christ and the Church).
We all choose how to celebrate and contemplate the holiday, but there are also cultural expectations within the church regarding how the holiday should be observed. I wish you a great Good Friday and Easter as we all contemplate Christ's sacrifice and its implications on our lives. This is what I will be doing this weekend.
This may come down to the fact that the real holiday is considered Easter and Good Friday is a day leading up to the ultimate holiday, but when I think of the Crucifixion and Resurrection I am disappointed with the emphasis on pastel colors and dressy attire. I'd mention cute, furry animals as well, but that opens a can of worms about pagan roots on some of the celebration that I don't care to debate here.
In my thinking, Christmas should be the more feminine holiday and Easter should be the more masculine holiday. Christmas is about birth and potential. Easter is about violent death, death's defeat, and promises fulfilled. Mary is as much the symbol of Christmas as anyone because God used her humble spirit for His glory. Christ is the symbol of Holy Week because he showed what true humility and sacrifice was. Christmas is about love and commitment in new relationships (Mary and Joseph), and Easter is about what love costs in a mature relationship (Christ and the Church).
We all choose how to celebrate and contemplate the holiday, but there are also cultural expectations within the church regarding how the holiday should be observed. I wish you a great Good Friday and Easter as we all contemplate Christ's sacrifice and its implications on our lives. This is what I will be doing this weekend.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
it worker backgrounds
I have worked in technical support ten of the last eleven years, and have had significant interactions with people with all kinds of technical skill sets. This post is about one observation I have made that I have not seen anyone else make about people in general in the industry. Specifically, I think technical workers are disproportionately from poorer backgrounds.
My observation that a lot of people in IT came from poorer families could be completely wrong, and it is almost certainly partially due to the fact that my career to this point has mostly been in technical support rather than something more glamorous in the industry. I have seen a large number of technical workers who have purported to come from modest backgrounds, though. Beyond this, I have also noticed an inordinately large number of people from modest backgrounds who have taken a significant interest in tech as their key to a better life, even if they have not ultimately gotten a technical job.
In some respects this makes total sense. It seems like the industry more than most others rewards and punishes workers based on ability and intelligence. Politics applies, but to a lesser degree. If you're not cut out to be a programmer, or a systems administrator, or whatever it is going to matter less if your dad is the CTO for the company. You probably could coast in a different department, such as Marketing, where individual contributions are more difficult to quantify. On the flip side, if you are naturally skilled and someone gives a chance you can do well.
This also makes sense from the education perspective. This is a white collar profession where a bachelors degree or a graduate degree is not required. The same cannot be said for other white collar roles, from doctors to lawyers to mechanical engineers. Sure, most technical jobs claim to require at least a bachelor's degree, but most of those will also allow for "equivalent work experience." Less of an educational requirement means a lower barrier for people who don't have the money up front for a college education and/or four to eight years available to make a bet on a specific career.
I think the biggest reason for this, however, is the marketing from schools like DeVry and ITT Tech. By their nature they target students with lesser means (in either time or money) than a traditional school targets. Since the biggest bang for their buck is to target those industries where someone with an undergrad degree or less can make a decent living, they focus on the tech and healthcare industries. I have worked with a lot of DeVry graduates, and an unfortunate side-effect of their education that seems to be a universal is significant student loan debt. Since not everyone is cut out to work in technical fields, this presents a bit of a risk that the degree will not lead to a job to pay off the loan for the degree. It presents a hidden risk to those who are cut out for the industry as well, though.
Something that I learned before I had much technical experience on my resume is that, unless your degree is from a relatively prestigious school, experience matters far more than education when applying for a technical job. The places that hire straight out of school usually expect some specific ability or depth of knowledge that you don't necessarily get in the classroom. The people who do well tend to be the ones who did a lot of out-of-class learning on their own. This is a problem for any student with limited real-world experience. For-profit school students, with their higher-than-average debts that will not go away until they are paid off, are in a much tougher situation, however. A degree does not guarantee a job in the industry, and one may not ever be available for specific, individual graduates.
As a final note, I do seem to run across a lot of people who think that IT is the gateway to six-figure incomes, and I think this draws in people looking for something akin to an earned lottery payout. There are people who make that but, based on what limited information I have, they tend to fall into one or (very likely) more of the following four categories.
My foundational point is that technical jobs do offer opportunities that do not exist in other places, but they should not be pursued by people who do not have a genuine interest in the work. The payout simply is not as high as some people think it is, and there is a good chance a person looking to enter the field for the money will have to fight for opportunities just to get a position to acquire the experience employers expect. If you do like the work and have realistic expectations regarding what you will make, then entering the industry makes sense.
My observation that a lot of people in IT came from poorer families could be completely wrong, and it is almost certainly partially due to the fact that my career to this point has mostly been in technical support rather than something more glamorous in the industry. I have seen a large number of technical workers who have purported to come from modest backgrounds, though. Beyond this, I have also noticed an inordinately large number of people from modest backgrounds who have taken a significant interest in tech as their key to a better life, even if they have not ultimately gotten a technical job.
In some respects this makes total sense. It seems like the industry more than most others rewards and punishes workers based on ability and intelligence. Politics applies, but to a lesser degree. If you're not cut out to be a programmer, or a systems administrator, or whatever it is going to matter less if your dad is the CTO for the company. You probably could coast in a different department, such as Marketing, where individual contributions are more difficult to quantify. On the flip side, if you are naturally skilled and someone gives a chance you can do well.
This also makes sense from the education perspective. This is a white collar profession where a bachelors degree or a graduate degree is not required. The same cannot be said for other white collar roles, from doctors to lawyers to mechanical engineers. Sure, most technical jobs claim to require at least a bachelor's degree, but most of those will also allow for "equivalent work experience." Less of an educational requirement means a lower barrier for people who don't have the money up front for a college education and/or four to eight years available to make a bet on a specific career.
I think the biggest reason for this, however, is the marketing from schools like DeVry and ITT Tech. By their nature they target students with lesser means (in either time or money) than a traditional school targets. Since the biggest bang for their buck is to target those industries where someone with an undergrad degree or less can make a decent living, they focus on the tech and healthcare industries. I have worked with a lot of DeVry graduates, and an unfortunate side-effect of their education that seems to be a universal is significant student loan debt. Since not everyone is cut out to work in technical fields, this presents a bit of a risk that the degree will not lead to a job to pay off the loan for the degree. It presents a hidden risk to those who are cut out for the industry as well, though.
Something that I learned before I had much technical experience on my resume is that, unless your degree is from a relatively prestigious school, experience matters far more than education when applying for a technical job. The places that hire straight out of school usually expect some specific ability or depth of knowledge that you don't necessarily get in the classroom. The people who do well tend to be the ones who did a lot of out-of-class learning on their own. This is a problem for any student with limited real-world experience. For-profit school students, with their higher-than-average debts that will not go away until they are paid off, are in a much tougher situation, however. A degree does not guarantee a job in the industry, and one may not ever be available for specific, individual graduates.
As a final note, I do seem to run across a lot of people who think that IT is the gateway to six-figure incomes, and I think this draws in people looking for something akin to an earned lottery payout. There are people who make that but, based on what limited information I have, they tend to fall into one or (very likely) more of the following four categories.
- They hold a senior role.
- They live in an expensive city that necessitates high pay.
- They are a consultant and can tolerate the income variability.
- They happen to be an expert in a relatively new and highly-used technology.
My foundational point is that technical jobs do offer opportunities that do not exist in other places, but they should not be pursued by people who do not have a genuine interest in the work. The payout simply is not as high as some people think it is, and there is a good chance a person looking to enter the field for the money will have to fight for opportunities just to get a position to acquire the experience employers expect. If you do like the work and have realistic expectations regarding what you will make, then entering the industry makes sense.
Friday, March 16, 2012
kony
I figure that most people reading this know about the "Kony 2012" video that has been circulating the web, but in case you haven't seen it, it is below. As a warning, this is a half hour long so it requires a bit of a time commitment to watch.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
