I don't know how often this happens for other people, but on occasion I don't get something. For example, someone might use a double entendre and I might be at a loss at what everyone is laughing at. One of my coworkers has pointed out that something like this may be happening with my blog name.
I have already explained the shakedust name in a previous post. What I have been told, though, is that "shake dust" is a drug reference having to do with a powdery substance. After some initial thoughts that this may be true, my googling the term has not turned up anything yet. "Gold dust" is apparently slang for cocaine, though.
Regardless, I am not changing my name because a few people somewhere may use it as an obscure drug reference. It'll take more than that to shake me from this name.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
back to school
Tomorrow is my first day back at KU for the school year. I anticipate that this semester will be among the most difficult of all my semesters. This is not completely because of the content, but because Golden and I are still adjusting to the impact that NJ has on our lives, and me going to school two nights out of the week and doing homework does not bode well. I know we can survive, though.
The three main classes that I am taking this semester (besides a four-week simple lecture course) are Statistics, Accounting, and Finance. This brings me to the topic of math, since all three of these subjects involve numbers.
When I was growing up I was pretty good in math. It made sense. As I got into high school I was less good in math. This may surprise some of my audience.
The main problem is that a lot of the more complicated math is taught as a series of steps to memorize rather than a logical representation of how to get from point A to point B. If I am given the reason why a formula structured the way it is what the practical value of what I am learning is it generally sticks. Otherwise I tend to memorize long enough to pass a test. This is why I am relatively good at problems that rely on logical deduction, but I don't do as well on problems that require me to have memorized information ahead of time.
Here's hoping I get the background information for everything I need in Stats. I have less hope about Finance. I have no hope with Accounting.
The three main classes that I am taking this semester (besides a four-week simple lecture course) are Statistics, Accounting, and Finance. This brings me to the topic of math, since all three of these subjects involve numbers.
When I was growing up I was pretty good in math. It made sense. As I got into high school I was less good in math. This may surprise some of my audience.
The main problem is that a lot of the more complicated math is taught as a series of steps to memorize rather than a logical representation of how to get from point A to point B. If I am given the reason why a formula structured the way it is what the practical value of what I am learning is it generally sticks. Otherwise I tend to memorize long enough to pass a test. This is why I am relatively good at problems that rely on logical deduction, but I don't do as well on problems that require me to have memorized information ahead of time.
Here's hoping I get the background information for everything I need in Stats. I have less hope about Finance. I have no hope with Accounting.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
have mercy
A short comment was made at my office the other day stating that maybe God doesn't show mercy. While I don't agree with this, I don't fault the conclusion. Even C.S. Lewis pointed out that he was in danger of viewing God as evil or uncaring.
This issue is relevant for me, though, because a foundational theme of Christianity is that God is merciful. If you don't believe that God is somewhat merciful, you have to believe that either the crucifixion was con game or that it didn't happen at all. Belief in God is not really Christianity if it doesn't accept this mercy.
The following is not an indictment of those who do not see mercy in God, but rather a question of whether there is even any way for us to determine whether He is merciful.
When this issue of God's mercy is bothering me the step I usually take is to question how I would interfere if I were God. I think that there would be two complications that I would run into if I were God. First, I don't believe that abolishing all pain is a good thing, because having a cushy life really does make a person rotten. An all-knowing God would be well aware of this. Second, I would have to allow people a semblance of free will. Otherwise, all of creation is just an elaborate marionette set.
About abolishing all pain, I have observed that almost always if someone has selfless demeanor it came out of some sort of pain. A lot of people turn more evil when they go through pain, but few or none who haven't had to deal with pain are not at least selfish. This fact would make the process of how I interfered with others' lives harder because people want cushy lives. No matter how cushy their lives are now, they want them to be just a little cushier. Unless everyone knew for sure that everyone else's life was equally cushy God would appear unfair. People are unique, though, so such a "fair" setup hardly seems ideal.
The second problem I would run into is that I could not stop every evil act that someone might commit because I would eventually be removing free will. If I said that I would simply not allow truly evil things like murder or rape to occur, the complication that I would run into is that since people now don't know about murder and rape, they will still think me unmerciful because I have not removed the next worse evil from their world. Maybe there are more horrible crimes than this that God did decide to remove from existence, but that act of mercy is lost on me because I don't know anything of that evil. If I keep on removing the ability to perform evil acts, eventually there is no such thing as free will.
After I have worked through this logic, as I have done hundreds of times, I always conclude that I have no means of knowing that God is unjust, so I have to go on faith that God is or isn't unmerciful. This is not a conclusion that I enjoy, because I don't like answers that do not completely address my concerns.
I have to live with this being a faith issue, though. It is like baby who has no way of knowing whether his parents are caring for him or if they are just meeting enough of his needs to keep from being reported to the authorities. A baby does not have any frame of reference for what a caring or an uncaring household looks like. In the same way, I have no frame of reference for what a universe ruled by a caring or an uncaring God would look like, so I have to accept that this is something that I cannot deduce through logic, like a lot of things that have to do with God.
I sometimes think that using logic to define God is like washing my hair. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. At least I have clean hair.
This issue is relevant for me, though, because a foundational theme of Christianity is that God is merciful. If you don't believe that God is somewhat merciful, you have to believe that either the crucifixion was con game or that it didn't happen at all. Belief in God is not really Christianity if it doesn't accept this mercy.
The following is not an indictment of those who do not see mercy in God, but rather a question of whether there is even any way for us to determine whether He is merciful.
When this issue of God's mercy is bothering me the step I usually take is to question how I would interfere if I were God. I think that there would be two complications that I would run into if I were God. First, I don't believe that abolishing all pain is a good thing, because having a cushy life really does make a person rotten. An all-knowing God would be well aware of this. Second, I would have to allow people a semblance of free will. Otherwise, all of creation is just an elaborate marionette set.
About abolishing all pain, I have observed that almost always if someone has selfless demeanor it came out of some sort of pain. A lot of people turn more evil when they go through pain, but few or none who haven't had to deal with pain are not at least selfish. This fact would make the process of how I interfered with others' lives harder because people want cushy lives. No matter how cushy their lives are now, they want them to be just a little cushier. Unless everyone knew for sure that everyone else's life was equally cushy God would appear unfair. People are unique, though, so such a "fair" setup hardly seems ideal.
The second problem I would run into is that I could not stop every evil act that someone might commit because I would eventually be removing free will. If I said that I would simply not allow truly evil things like murder or rape to occur, the complication that I would run into is that since people now don't know about murder and rape, they will still think me unmerciful because I have not removed the next worse evil from their world. Maybe there are more horrible crimes than this that God did decide to remove from existence, but that act of mercy is lost on me because I don't know anything of that evil. If I keep on removing the ability to perform evil acts, eventually there is no such thing as free will.
After I have worked through this logic, as I have done hundreds of times, I always conclude that I have no means of knowing that God is unjust, so I have to go on faith that God is or isn't unmerciful. This is not a conclusion that I enjoy, because I don't like answers that do not completely address my concerns.
I have to live with this being a faith issue, though. It is like baby who has no way of knowing whether his parents are caring for him or if they are just meeting enough of his needs to keep from being reported to the authorities. A baby does not have any frame of reference for what a caring or an uncaring household looks like. In the same way, I have no frame of reference for what a universe ruled by a caring or an uncaring God would look like, so I have to accept that this is something that I cannot deduce through logic, like a lot of things that have to do with God.
I sometimes think that using logic to define God is like washing my hair. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. Lather, rinse, repeat. At least I have clean hair.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
all you need is love
From All You Need is Love by The Beatles.
The reason the song has been going through my head, though, is that Chase currently has an advertising campaign using the song as a backdrop to people making purchases with credit cards. Am I the only person who thinks this is the dumbest song a credit card company could pick to encourage people to make purchases with its cards? I have an idea for a minor rewrite so Chase can keep the same tune but the lyrics will be more applicable.
As idealistic as I think the song is, I like it. While I am quite sure this is not what McCartney and Lennon were trying to say, God is love, and I think you can follow the logic of why I like the song from here.All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.
The reason the song has been going through my head, though, is that Chase currently has an advertising campaign using the song as a backdrop to people making purchases with credit cards. Am I the only person who thinks this is the dumbest song a credit card company could pick to encourage people to make purchases with its cards? I have an idea for a minor rewrite so Chase can keep the same tune but the lyrics will be more applicable.
All you need is stuff.There. That's better.
All you need is stuff.
All you need is stuff, more stuff.
Stuff is all you need.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
barks has bite
At the end of last week it seemed everywhere I turned to for news decided that news content need not actually be news. I must have heard about or read about Paris Hilton getting bitten by her dog four or five times. In what universe is this valid news? Even considering her celebrity status, she didn't get bitten hard enough for it to be news. I'd bet if Ted Dansen or Hillary Duff or Derek Jeter had been bitten by a dog that no news outlet would have reported it unless it was a serious bite. So why should I care about Paris?
I think this probably annoys me more because I think most celebrity news is unbearably shallow.* What difference does it really make who Brad Pitt ends up with or whether Michael Jackson is bankrupt? Why should I care about celebrity relationships in an environment where it's way out of the norm for someone to be married longer than it takes for their driver's license to expire?
Anyway, back to Paris. I think maybe a cameraman and reporter should be assigned to follow her 24/7. It would be a shame for the world to be deprived of an inside story if she does something groundbreaking like stubbing her toe or forgetting to eat breakfast. Inquiring minds want to know.
* In an effort not to look like a hypocrite, I acknowledge that sports news is shallow too. I sometimes enjoy the competition involved in sports, but sports news isn't any more relevant to my actual life than celebrity news is.
I think this probably annoys me more because I think most celebrity news is unbearably shallow.* What difference does it really make who Brad Pitt ends up with or whether Michael Jackson is bankrupt? Why should I care about celebrity relationships in an environment where it's way out of the norm for someone to be married longer than it takes for their driver's license to expire?
Anyway, back to Paris. I think maybe a cameraman and reporter should be assigned to follow her 24/7. It would be a shame for the world to be deprived of an inside story if she does something groundbreaking like stubbing her toe or forgetting to eat breakfast. Inquiring minds want to know.
* In an effort not to look like a hypocrite, I acknowledge that sports news is shallow too. I sometimes enjoy the competition involved in sports, but sports news isn't any more relevant to my actual life than celebrity news is.
Monday, August 14, 2006
what a personality
Forrest asked me a couple days ago about two recent posts: Ambivalent and Beliefs. The questioning had something to do with what caused me to take such a gaurded approach in life. That's an interesting question because I don't completely know and because I am very intrigued in what forms people's personalities.
What is amazing to me is that seemingly insignificant stuff can greatly influence a person's approach to life. A key disappointment, an influential friend, or a lost loved one, or a TV show can impact the outlook, humor, belief system, and general being of a person for the rest of his or her life.
Since I can see that simple things like that have had such an impact on me throughout life I am a little concerned about how those sorts of things will impact NJ or any siblings he may have in the future. This is not something I can control very easily. If I succeed in not screwing him up too bad, how can I keep something else from doing the job for me?
I can be assured of one thing. I'll be watching for those potentially pivotal experiences as well as I can. Perhaps by being there I can help him be as well-adjusted as a kid can hope to be. Or perhaps that'll screw him up more.
As an addendum, Forrest asked whether my cautious personality was due to being burned at some point in my childhood when I was not cautious enough. I think this is probably true. Burn me once shame on you. Burn me twice isn't going to happen.
What is amazing to me is that seemingly insignificant stuff can greatly influence a person's approach to life. A key disappointment, an influential friend, or a lost loved one, or a TV show can impact the outlook, humor, belief system, and general being of a person for the rest of his or her life.
Since I can see that simple things like that have had such an impact on me throughout life I am a little concerned about how those sorts of things will impact NJ or any siblings he may have in the future. This is not something I can control very easily. If I succeed in not screwing him up too bad, how can I keep something else from doing the job for me?
I can be assured of one thing. I'll be watching for those potentially pivotal experiences as well as I can. Perhaps by being there I can help him be as well-adjusted as a kid can hope to be. Or perhaps that'll screw him up more.
As an addendum, Forrest asked whether my cautious personality was due to being burned at some point in my childhood when I was not cautious enough. I think this is probably true. Burn me once shame on you. Burn me twice isn't going to happen.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
our sixth year
Today is Golden's and my sixth anniversary. It leaves me in a quandry. I don't want to drip sap on my blog for every brithday, anniversary, etc, but I want Golden to know I appreciate her on this special occasion. In an attempt to be caring without sappy this year (on the blog) I will simply list some of the reasons I love being with Golden.
- She looks past my every flaw (except my tendency to make us late for church).
- There is a lot more to her than she advertises. People write her off as being boring, so she tells me. Anyone who cares to dig deeper knows better.
- She is way funnier than almost anyone ever realizes.
- She is and will be a good mom.
- We both understand each other's personality (introverted) needs.
- We were made for each other.
Happy Anniversary, Golden!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
