What Would People Think?

On God and Our Desires, or How I Learned to Stop Listening to Al Pacino and Love C.S. Lewis (Part 1)

2010-06-27T18:48:00.001-04:00

(When I started writing this post over one year ago, I thought it wouldn't be that long. Then I realized I was writing a freakin' essay....and I couldn't find the time to finish it. I was trying to express two main points, and just last week, I finally found the time to finish writing my first point. So, after leaving my blog comatose for over a year, I've decided to go ahead and post the first part. Here's hoping I get around to the 2nd part. Also, I realize this thing is really long. If I post this in parts, maybe people will have time to read it.)

Two Quotes on the Relationship Between God and Our Desires

I begin with a quote from John Milton (a.k.a. Satan) from the movie The Devil's Advocate:

Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to
watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does he do? I swear for his own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, he sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughing his sick fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a sadist! He's an absentee landlord! Worship
that? NEVER!

And a quote from C.S. Lewis in his sermon, The Weight of Glory:

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised us in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

I want to use these two quotes as a launching point for this blog post (or, as it turns out, series of blog posts).

Many of my friends really like that first quote. I remember watching The Devil's Advocate in college and hearing friends who would cite (or at least perk up) for that line. They may just like the wittiness of it, or the audaciousness, or Al Pacino's delivery of the line. But I think there's more to it than that. I think the quote resonates with them. Even if they don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, that's what they think Christianity teaches about our desires: that our desires are bad and should be suppressed. (Or as Jeff characterized the conservative attitude toward sex some time ago: "Sex is evil and dirty and should be avoided at all costs.") I remember countless jokes about the latest dumb thing said or done by a fundamentalist or someone from the Religious Right (or, sometimes, a terrorist) being the result of repressed sexuality. I don't think they believed that, but I do think they believe that Christianity teaches suppression and denial of one's desires, and that this is unnatural and unhealthy and joyless.

Obviously, I disagree. There are two points I want to make about what Christianity has to say about God and our desires. (If you're not a Christian, you can take what I write about what God does below to mean what Christians believe God does. Being a Christian, I obviously believe these things and I just don't feel like prefacing everything I say in this post with "Christianity teaches...".) The C.S. Lewis quote applies more to the second. But, as is numerically appropriate, I'll start with the first.

To preview, these are my two points: (1) God wants us to enjoy the good things of life. But we must enjoy them, in the way, and to the extent, that he has mandated. We must not love the created things (including pleasures) more than the Creator. (2) Although we must give up some of our freedom to do what want, what we get in return is joy and life lived to the fullest in a relationship with our Creator and Savior. The exchange is worth it.

(As it turns out, the 2nd point will have to wait for a later blog post. I've got an outline.)

Everything In Its Proper Place

Al Pacino's Satan is right about one thing: God did create in us these desires for stuff like, say, food and sex. He did so not to frustrate us, but because he meant for us to enjoy these things. Even the writer of Ecclesiastes - a melancholy guy if there ever was one, a guy who concludes everything under the sun is "meaningless! meaningless!" - still says "It is good for a man to eat and drink . . . When God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work - this is a gift of God."

But here's the rub, the thing people don't like: We are to enjoy these things in their proper time and place. And, above all, we are not to seek these good things over God. We should never love the created things more than the Creator.

Why? Because of the great danger of our desires ruling over us and harming us. People think - or at least our consumer culture implicitly teaches us - that indulging our desires whenever we want is the definition of freedom and happiness - in economic terms, that it can give us the most utility. It's not. More often, it's slavery - like a drug addiction. (As Paul put it in his letter to Titus: "At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures.") Actually, drug addiction is a pretty good analogy of our desires ruling over us. The addict desperately wants more cocaine or heroin or what have you, but that doesn't make it good for him/her. But even that analogy isn't perfect; I can't envision a scenario when heroin is ever a good thing in the first place.

A better example may be food. As the quote from Ecclesiastes above acknowledges, food is a good thing. It's a necessity and one of the great pleasures of life. (Don't believe that? You haven't tried Christy's cooking yet.) But, when indulged to excess, food can harm you. Excess of food can lead to everything from indigestion to heart disease to (in the case of a relative of mine) legs that are too weak to carry all that weight. When it gets to the point that your appetite controls you, food can actually be dangerous in the long term.

Sex is another example. Contrary to Jeff's characterization above, Christianity does not teach that sex is "evil and dirty." Rather, it is a beautiful expression of love that can even lead to the creation of new life. Nobody who reads the Song of Solomon, with its frank and joyous exploration of sexuality, can believe that the Bible teaches sex is inherently wrong. But it's also perfectly clear that the Bible tightly circumscribes when sex should be enjoyed (see, for instance, large portions of Leviticus). But isn't it obvious why? As theologian Frederick Buechner once put it: "Sex is like nitroglycerin; it can either be used to heal hearts or blow up bridges." Or, as a character puts it in the movie Kinsey (never thought I'd be citing that movie, did you?): "Sex is a risky game, because if you're not careful, it will cut you wide open." Sex can bring two people together into an intimate - and, yes, pleasurable - physical, emotional, and spiritual union. But it can also tear relationships apart, cause lasting emotional damage, and lead to STDs if indulged in the wrong way. Sex can be a cruel, controlling master. See the movie Auto Focus: In it, Greg Kinnear plays TV star Bob Crane (of "Hogan's Heroes" fame). Crane has almost daily sex with strangers. Sounds like fun? Not really. For Crane it's a compulsion. It wrecks 2 marriages, leads to increasingly reckless behavior, and ultimately destroys him. It's a portrait of desires ruling over the man.

"Okay," you might say. "So we shouldn't enjoy things to excess. So far you haven't told me anything that Epicureanism doesn't also teach. But why Christianity's distinct rules? Why listen to the Bible's mandates that, say, sex should only be enjoyed within the confines of marriage?" The best explanation I can give is the one I gave to a college acquaintance (Joe Wong, founder of The Slant) when he asked me that same question. What I said then is, "Well, when I want to figure out how a VCR works [hey, it was the year 2000! People still used VCRs back then. I still do.], I read the manual written by the people that made it. I figure the people that made the thing know best how it works. In the same way, I believe that God made me and knows best how I 'work.' Therefore, I will listen to Him and read His 'manual', the Bible, and seek to do what it says. That, I believe, will be most conducive to my happiness and the happiness of others." Well, okay, that wasn't my exact words. But that was my basic point.

And how does Christianity say we "work"? Augustine had the best framework for it, so I'll paraphrase him. Basically, Augustine taught that our loves need to be properly ordered. It's not that we should love God to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. It's not that we shouldn't enjoy food, sex, fresh air, a World Cup soccer game, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, our friendships, or any of the other wonderful things of this world. It's that we should love God first...and most. And then, in loving Him, we obey Him. In obeying Him, we follow his great commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself." So we next love our fellow human beings and earnestly desire their good just as much as we desire our own good. After that, all our other "loves" fall into place....in their proper order, time, and place. When we love God, we are freed to love our neighbors and enjoy the pleasures of this world without being slaves to pleasure.

German theologian (you'll note I'm quoting a lot of theologians in this blog post....it's my new pastime) Helmut Thielicke took that concept of slavery to pleasure in a slightly different direction. We all serve a master. Much as we Americans love to say that nobody is our master, Thielicke argues it's not a matter of whether we serve, but whom we serve. We could serve God or we could serve our desires. We can choose which master to serve. One master (our desires....our idols, as he puts it) will make us slaves. The other (God) will make us children. He will adopt us into His family and then we will serve Him freely, out of love and gratitude.

Or, instead of quoting various Christian theologians, maybe I should just go back to the source of all their thoughts, Jesus. In His Sermon on the Mount, he concluded: "Seek first [God's] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

Ultimately, we must let God rule over our desires, and not let our desires rule over us.

(Part 2 - entitled "The Exchange Is Worth It" - to follow...)

Robinson Everett

2009-06-15T09:26:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite people in the world, my criminal procedure professor, Judge Robinson Everett passed away Friday morning. And one of my few remaining reasons for visiting my old law school on a whim goes with him.

Why is Judge Everett one of my favorite people in the world? It has nothing to do with his politics or his view of the law. I get the impression that he was much more conservative than me, but that never really came up in the time I knew him.

It's because of the kind of person he was. Judge Everett cheerfully and patiently mentored 5 decades' worth of Duke Law students. (He was both the youngest and oldest professor in Duke Law's history.)

Above all, Judge Everett was to me a model of grace. I mean that in the Biblical sense of undeserved favor. I'm aware of one of his friends and students who made some pretty terrible decisions, including embezzlement. Judge Everett stuck by him, defended him in his criminal case, and helped rehabilitate him after he served his sentence. I observed how he insisted on honest and upright behavior, and yet refused to abandon those who fell short. He didn't excuse wrong or criminal behavior, but he looked past it to see the fallen and hurting human beings.

I remember thinking "I want to be like Judge Everett when I grow up." I hope and pray that someday I can be half the man he was.

You Want to Draw Your Own Opinion on Judge Sotomayor?

2009-05-27T09:34:00.002-04:00

Then you should look at her opinions.

The ever-useful, and relatively unbiased, SCOTUS blog has summaries of her decisions here, here, here, here, and here.

That's a lot to read and, frankly, I haven't had the time to go through it all. But, from what I've read, I get the impression that she's a relatively unflashy left-of-center justice. Pretty much in the mold of the justice she'd be replacing.

The Law Has Seen Better Days

2009-05-26T13:44:00.002-04:00

In the news:

Supreme Court Encourages Police to Make An End Run Around A Suspect's Lawyer

President Claims Power to Detain People Indefinitely.....and is criticized for not being lawless enough.

On the other hand, the law's seen worse days. This new Supreme Court nominee looks promising.

Southern Baptist Convention Condemns Torture

2009-05-07T17:28:00.002-04:00

I haven't considered myself a Southern Baptist for some time, partly because of the pronouncements of their national political spokesman, Richard Land. Normally, he can be counted on to say whatever annoys me most about the Religious Right and whatever confirms popular misconceptions of Evangelicals as a tool of the Republican party.

This makes me all the more thrilled that Land, speaking on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention, has come out against torture and, specifically, waterboarding under any circumstances. Given that Land is right smack in the Religious Right, that's a courageous thing to say. He's going to be harshly attacked. Maybe this is a sign that a consensus is building against torture.

The money quote: "It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules."

A Quick Thought On The Torture Memos

2009-04-16T17:43:00.003-04:00

I've quickly glanced over the Torture Memos, the not-very-objective-but-still-accurate title given to the legal analyses by certain Bush Administration lawyers (i.e. John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury) which were used to provide a legal cover for "enhanced interrogation techniques." Things like making someone stand in a stressful position for hours, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, putting someone in a tiny box with an insect (with the implication that the prisoner thinks it is poisonous) and waterboarding. No matter how much the memos try to dance around it, these things are torture.

I've glanced over the memos, but haven't analyzed them in detail. The thing about the memos that truly chills me to the core is the detached, clinical way they describe heinous acts and analyze whether they violate the law. This is the kind of language I use to analyze whether some company has committed an OSHA violation. This is the kind of language lawyers use to debate whether there has been a breach of contract.

This is not the language used to describe torture. I have to wonder what part of their soul these lawyers had to shut down to think and write like this.

An Actual Conversation I Had At Work Today

2009-04-15T17:08:00.002-04:00

My co-workers and I were discussing the anti-tax "Tea Parties" taking place around the nation. (The main effect on me being such nasty traffic in Atlanta that I worked from home for the afternoon.)

Me: "So should I go down to the protest and thank them for paying my salary?"

Co-Worker # 1: "I think they'd probably stone you."

Me: "Death by stoning. Not a great way to go. Think I'll get back to work instead."

Co-Worker # 2: "Actually, they'd probably stone you with tea bags."

Me: "So instead of death by stoning, it would be death by t......On second thought, I'm not finishing that sentence."

Laughter ensues. Then work ensues. Lots of drafting of legal documents. The day gets more boring from there.

Good Friday Post

2009-04-10T15:53:00.003-04:00

Instead of saying anything profound on my own, I'm just going to link to an interesting analysis from Slate. It's about the reasons put forth by scholars as to why Jesus was crucified....and why the Crucifixion was kind of an embarassing stumbling block for early Christians. The same author, a divinity school professor in Scotland, wrote an interesting article last year about the difficulty early Christians had with the concept of the Resurrection.

Also, my friend Mike (formerly Christian, now....I dunno, something other than Christian) poses questions about the role of Judas that are worth considering. Last year, he posted a self-proclaimed "over-the-top rant" on why the heck Christians like me call it "Good" Friday.

My Father, the Saudi Auditor

2009-03-26T21:20:00.002-04:00

Well, I can finally talk about it.

My parents are moving to Saudi Arabia. My dad will be the chief auditor for a new international university that the Saudi government is building. Yeah, when they said they had something important to tell me, THIS particular piece of news was not the first thing I imagined it would be.

I've got this huge mix of emotions. I'm immensely proud that - out of all the auditors in all the universities in all the world - a mega-rich nation that could buy any talent chose my father. Let this be confirmation to all of you that my father is THAT good! I've always known he was a man of great warmth, kindness, intelligence, and integrity. Now the Middle East will get to find that out, too.

On the other hand, I'm going to miss my parents immensely. They've always been there for me. Now they'll be across the world from me. AND I'm wondering how it will be for my mother - a strong, independent woman - living in Saudi freakin' Arabia. I mean, I hear the University will be the size of a small city (with all the amenities of said city) and that she'll have freedom to move around in there....but, still!

I've got only a few more months 'till they leave. I mean, it could be worse. They're still alive. We've got modern technology to talk.

But....Saudi Arabia. Yeah. Wow.

Why That 90% Tax on A.I.G. Bonuses May Fail Constiutional Muster

2009-03-26T06:59:00.002-04:00

Bottom Line: It's because Senators and Representatives can't keep their big mouths shut.

My friend Ian Millhiser who (a) requires neither food nor oxygen because he eats and breathes politics, and (b) is populist enough that he's probably sympathetic to the bonus tax points out how the statements of various Congresspeople make it more likely that this tax, if passed, will be struck down as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

To be clear, I think there would be a fair constitutional argument that Congress has the right to see that taxpayer money is not squandered on rewarding failure via the A.I.G. bonuses. Taxpayer money almost always has strings attached. That's why some people were so leery of the bailout in the first place. BUT you can't pass a law for the purpose of punishing somebody.

And - with famed Constitutional Law prof Laurence Tribe having the same assessment as Ian - I think it's safe to say that Congress shot itself in the foot on this one. Whether that's a good or bad thing, I leave to your pre-existing opinion.

By the way, if you haven't done so yet, you should read my brilliant national security law analysis.

What Is And Is Not Different About Obama's Guantanamo Claims

2009-03-22T17:34:00.001-04:00

Recently, Obama's Justice Department filed a brief setting out his Administration's policy with regard to his alleged power to detain the folks currently at Guantanamo. You can read the NY Times story about it here (complete with misleadingly simplistic headline). The spin you're going to see on it - especially among my fellow civil libertarians - is that Obama is just continuing the Bush Administration's policies with a nice, shiny coat of paint (example of such an opinion here).

That's true....in part. But there's also some important respects in which it is not true. Since I once wrote an extensive paper that dealt with many of the same issues of executive power and international law addressed in this brief, I thought I might be able to offer some helpful perspective.

1. Yes, Obama asserts a power to detain the Guantanamo detainees without trial or charges. But the first, and most important, difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama doesn't base this asserted power on the supposed inherent powers of the Executive to detain anybody seen as a threat to national security. The Bush Administration - especially Dick Cheney and John Yoo - did. Rather, Obama bases it on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11 - which for all intents and purposes was a declaration of war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban - and on the international law of war. (For an explanation of why there is essentially no legal difference between an a declaration of war and an AUMF, see my blog post on the subject.) This is important for a couple of reasons.

First, there's a huge difference between saying the President can detain anyone at any time if he deems it beneficial to national security.....and saying he can detain people affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (More on that, including the dangers of that word "affiliated" in a moment.)

Second, there is a difference between claiming an inherent executive authority and claiming Congress has authorized an action. If Congress has authorized something, Congress has the power to de-authorize it. (As I argued in my paper, Congress does have the power to tell the President what to do, even in matters of war and national security that are traditionally considered the President's prerogative.) The part that always scared me the most about Bush's claims is that he essentially was claiming unlimited executive power to detain anyone, regardless of what Congress said or did, as long as he slaps the label of "national security" on his justification. Obama is not making that claim.

Third, in basing his claim in part on the international law of war, Obama to some extent cannot help but import the protections of the law of war as well. I would argue that means the Geneva Conventions. (Actually, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it does.) The Bush Administration specifically argued that international law did not in any way limit its powers to detain individuals.

Now there's an important downside to Obama's argument that the brief addresses (briefly...rim shot) but then glosses over. It's a relatively uncontroversial position to say that, during a traditional war between states, one side can hold the POWs of the other side until the end of hostilities without charging them with a crime. It's a more controversial - but, still, I would argue - sound proposition to say that one can declare war against non-state actors. (As early as the Jefferson Administration, we were conducting war against the Barbary pirates.) BUT, we've never quite had a war like the "War on Terror." Even if we define the War on Terror as only that military conflict authorized by the AUMF, it's still a war of indefinite duration against a difficult-to-define enemy (again, more on that in a moment). If Obama can hold POWs until the end of hostilities, what constitutes the "end of hostilities"? We're never going to sign a peace treaty with Al Qaeda. We're never going to wipe out Al Qaeda. (Or, more to the point, we arguably already have mostly wiped out the original organization called "Al Qaeda" and it's been reborn as a franchise, of sorts.) So when does the power to detain people - even obvious Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives - end? This is an important and troubling issue that the DOJ brief should have addressed.

2. Another major feature of the Obama DOJ's argument is the limits it places on whom he may detain. The DOJ brief defines the enemy in the language of the AUMF: "The President has authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for the attacks." Basically, this means Al-Qaeda (who planned, authorized, committed, and aided the 9/11 attacks) and the Taliban (who harbored Al-Qaeda).

This is important. This is a real limit on the people the President can detain. He can't just detain anybody whom he considers a threat to national security. He can't just detain anybody he doesn't like (which, let's face it, is what our concern re: unlimited detention power is really all about). In fact, there are some terrorist groups he can't detain. For instance, the Real Irish Republican Army, despite their recent terror attacks in Northern Ireland, do not fall within the President's detention authority in the War on Terror. They didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and thus fall outside the AUMF's authority (even if they are currently planning an attack on the United States). So would the Janjaweed in Darfur, or whatever militant group Timothy McVeigh was a part of. This is good. Not that I like any of those groups; of course they should all be opposed. But this means that the AUMF, and by extension President Obama's authority to detain people without trial, has real limits.

But, in its very next sentence, the DOJ brief tries to wriggle its way around those limits: "The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces. "

This is dangerous. What, exactly, is "substantial" support? What are "associated forces"? And when did the AUMF include those who are "engaged in hostilities against . . . [America's] coalition partners"? I'll tell you what all these vague phrases mean. They mean the Obama Administration does not want to shut the door on detaining people who are NOT a part of 9/11 and have tenuous connections to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Let's be clear, someone who attacks American forces in Afghanistan is probably already part of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda by virtue of that attack. The extra sentence the brief uses to define the President's detention authority therefore adds nothing...unless it is meant to keep the door open to Obama changing his mind about whom he wants to detain.

There is no textual support in the AUMF for this asserted authority. Even the brief itself only makes a half-hearted effort to argue for it, basing it in the asserted purpose of the AUMF to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." That's ridiculous. The AUMF set forth its purpose....AND specifically directed the President what he could do to effectuate that purpose. It didn't place many limits on the force he could use, but it sure as heck placed limits on whom he could use it against. Heck, the Bush Administration claimed all of its detentions, tortures, and kidnappings were for the purpose of preventing future terror attacks. (And I believe them.) The point of law is to place limits on what well-intentioned or ill-intentioned people can do. (The law can't govern people's hearts, after all.)

Still, in my calmer moments, I realize that the above definition is not so broad as to authorize the detention of, say, Bobby Jindal. We aren't yet in a state that imprisons its political enemies. Honestly, it still probably doesn't even cover the Real IRA. But the slippery language is a real concern.

Conclusion:
Now, what difference does any of this make? Not much of a difference for the guy sitting at Guantanamo Bay. Whether it's because of the AUMF or because of inherent executive authority, he's still stuck. Then again, as a matter of policy (if not as a matter of the legal limits on his authority) Obama's shutting down Guantanamo Bay. So I still have high hopes that Obama will wage a smarter War on Terror.

The DOJ brief leaves some troubling holes and presents a potentially disturbing view of the powers of the Presidency during our ongoing (unending?) War on Terror. But it's all less dangerous to our Constitutional system of government & to the rule of law than the Bush Administration's claims.

I hope all this helps my readers have a more informed view of some the latest legal developments.

Further Reading:
In the time since I started writing this (Saturday last week), a number of voices on the Web have discussed some of the same themes as this post. See the Nation, the Constitutional Law Profs Blog, and the NY Times editorial. See also Glen Greenwald's post, which I linked to in the first paragraph of this post. I swear I came up with these observations independently of what they have to say.

What's Wrong With That? I'd Like to Know.

2009-03-14T13:47:00.004-04:00

Christy and I had the following conversation on the way home from the vet.....all in schmaltzy love song titles.

Christy [seeing a stop light]: "Stop! In the name of love."

Ben: "What's love got to do with it?" [pause] "What is love?"

Christy: "Love lifts us up where we belong."

Ben: "Oh! THAT'S what love is for."

Yep, we're that awesome. (How would you continue this conversation, only in love song titles or...if you really need to stretch....famous love song lyrics?)

Enough With The Snark Already

2009-02-27T12:06:00.002-05:00

[Warning: Rambling and Potentially Uninteresting Thoughts Ahead. Or maybe not.]

I love sarcasm and humor as much as any other former Slant writer. So it's hard to say exactly when and why I got sick and tired of snark.

Somewhere along the line....maybe during the 2007-2008 political campaigns, maybe watching movie news.....it just seemed to me that nobody had anything good to say about anybody else on the Internet. I'm not talking about valid criticism of a political policy or a movie role or anything. I'm talking about a vicious willingness to pounce on any mistake, any eccentricity.....anything HUMAN.....and make it the butt of a million jokes. Jokes that make the joker and listener feel superior to the subject of the joke. Jokes that rip a person to pieces and are just cruel.

I don't know. I like satire and usually laugh at a clever turn of phrase. Perhaps it's all a good thing in small doses. But it seems like it's all anyone on the Internet ever does.

Or perhaps it's about WHAT is being mocked? A politician slips up and says something stupid. So what? A politician betrays the public trust and tries to act self-righteous about it (see Rod Blagojevich). THAT's worth mocking.

Anyways, these rambling thoughts were brought on by this Roger Ebert column. Go ahead and read it.

Let's just.....I don't know....let's try and make mockery something we do when it's deserved....not a way of life. And every now and then, maybe I'll even try and encourage someone.

Sorry for the rambling.

Just To Be Contrarian......and Inexplicably Weird

2009-02-23T23:21:00.004-05:00

Again, I'm a lawyer not an economist. But, since my friends have apparently become fiscal conservatives, I thought I would link to this op-ed. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Also, here's a link to a clown college. Your variations on "huh?" are appreciated.

That is all.

[Update:] Forgot to hat-tip. Got the link from Ian over at Overruled. The op-ed, that is. Not the clown college.

A Useful Summary of the Stimulus Package

2009-02-15T17:45:00.002-05:00

So I'm kind of shocked that not one of my friends who has registered an opinion on the blogosphere is in favor the stimulus package. Not that I really have a huge opinion on it....I feel this is outside my realm of expertise. But my mind is boggled when Kenny's conservative friend Dave (who is allegedly like me in most every way except politics....certainly we seem to share theological views) seems more in favor of some sort of government spending to save the economy than Jeff.

Anyways, whatever your views, the New York Times has a useful table which summarizes the various spending measures. You can organize by category like "Aid to States", "Tax Cuts for Individuals", and "Housing". So it's a useful source of information.

And now, having done none of the actual work it took to create the table, I will say "you're welcome."

As Long As I'm Posting Links

2009-02-08T00:42:00.003-05:00

I do have things to say. Actual thoughts that don't involve posting links to other people's stuff. I've been thinking a lot lately about my faith, why I believe what I believe.....about where I'm going with my life and whether I'm doing enough to help the oppressed (short answer: no)......about why I've come to reject a philosophy of life and politics based on the economic concept of utility, or the idea of "self-actualization." I'd love to blog endlessly about the theological mistakes of George W. Bush as they related to his Iraq policy (I've had that one kicking around in my head for years). I wanted to launch into a defense of Rick Warren before the Inauguration, or write a praise of his Invocation prayer after I saw the Inauguration, or go deeper and write an examination of the role of evangelicals like myself in the Democratic party.......and later on, I wanted to examine why I had such a chip on my shoulder about the whole criticism of Rick Warren. (Short answer: Although he's more conservative than me, I kind of saw Warren's relationship with Obama as a proxy for my relationship with the Democratic party. The furious criticism of Warren as a bigot and a huckster made me wonder if I have any place in the Democratic party. This coming from the former President of the Duke Law Democrats.) I've formulated in my head a discussion of why I follow what the Bible says about a subject even when I don't want to, and whether that makes me not-a-free-thinker or gives me a place to stand outside of the culture to critique it. And, of course, I wanted to write about life events - Christy's ongoing illness (it's been a year now and she's still having the damn palpitations!), a visit with Jeff & Danielle and their new-ish baby, Selah.....getting to know my awesome Bible study group......movies (Gran Torino = awesome).....music (wouldn't know a new song if it hit me over the head with a guitar being smashed by the ghost of Kurt Cobain)......anything! BUT I NEVER HAVE THE TIME ANYMORE!

Whew.

Okay, I'm glad I got that out of my system. Where was I?

First, see the post below. Read Ian's blog. Make him the most popular liberal legal commentator ever.

Second, check out this young artist's youtube channel. She's got an amazing voice, as does her sister. I wish she wouldn't cover the Decemberist songs so quickly. But whatever. I hope she makes it big. She's certainly got great taste in covers and the vocal talent. Is she playing the guitar well? I wouldn't even know.

For All You Legal-Political Junkies.....

2009-02-07T19:42:00.003-05:00

.....or anybody looking for something else to read.

Remember my friend from law school, Ian Millhiser (who required neither food nor oxygen because he eats and breathes politics)?

Well, he's got a new blog: Overruled. If you want to keep up with what's going on in the world of constitutional law & you want to hear about it from a passionately liberal perspective, Ian's your man.

Check it out.

Because I Haven't Posted Since December

2009-02-06T07:29:00.002-05:00

There are two schools of thought when it comes to blogging:

1) If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything. Better expressed as Jacob Grier's rules of good blogging.

or

2) Post something, dammit! I'm bored of seeing that picture of you with a shoe.

I'm going with number 2.

So, for lack of anything interesting to say.....I mean, I could update you on Christmas at sea, almost having a trial, being sick enough to go to the emergency room, visiting an old friend and his wife and baby (!), but I haven't the time. Where was I?

Oh, yeah. Get Fuzzy has been running the same joke for the past week, but it's a joke that pretty much describes me and - I suspect - a number of you. So click here and read this week's strips.

That is all. Sad, I know. I'll start again later.

Out of curiosity, DO those strips describe you, or am I the only one?

On Shoes and Democracy

2008-12-16T06:56:00.005-05:00

This is me gesturing toward a shoe 5 years ago. Back then I didn't have my famous beard.

I post this, of course, in memory of the bizarre shoe incident (which would be a great name for a rock band), in which an Iraqi journalist through his shoes at President Bush.

Bush brushed it off as an expression of democracy. I tend to agree with that. Healthy democracy allows for political protest, even of the outrageous kind. And it's kind of funny how shoes have now become a symbol of defiance in Iraq.

But here's the thing. I'd find the whole thing much more credible as a symbol of democracy if the journalist wasn't immediately taken out and beaten. And I'd find Bush claiming it to be a sign of democracy to be much more sincere if the journalist's cries weren't audible from the press room.

Now he's being detained and may be charged with a crime. Should he be? I mean, throwing stuff at people is technically assault. Should it be forgiven here because it was political protest? Even if it's technically assault, it seems pretty harmless. I'd be curious as to your thoughts.

A Lightning Quick Note on Joe Lieberman

2008-11-19T07:09:00.002-05:00

I'm no fan of Joe Lieberman, but can we all agree that Senate Democrats did the grown-up thing in not kicking him out of his chairmanship? Is there anyone among my readers who disagrees with that?

[Also, can we all agree that my posts have become shorter and less frequent since the time I wrote that post I'm linking to.....back in August of '06 before I started my job?]

Congratulations, President Obama

2008-11-04T23:15:00.002-05:00

Lots of problems to face. But that's tomorrow. Tonight, I will quote one man.

The struggle, the suffering the pain and everything we tried to do to create a more perfect union, it was worth it.

- Rep. John Lewis, former civil rights marcher.

[Also, I'm listening to McCain's concession speech. It reminds me of everything I respect about him.]

Who I Voted For And Why

2008-10-28T22:40:00.003-04:00

I voted for Democrat Jim Powell for Georgia's Public Service Commission because his opponent is a guy named "Bubba."

Okay, I realize that's not what you were curious about. But I'm at least half-proud of the fact that Christy and I took the time to do a little research and vote on stuff like Public Service Commission and state ballot initiatives that will likely have a more direct effect on our lives than whether the next President is named Barack or John or (in somebody's fantasy world - not mine) Bob. But if you're curious why Bubba's a terrible candidate for Georgia's PSC, click here. When the outgoing Republican endorses the Democrat to win her former seat, you know something's seriously wrong with Bubba the Republican. (Note: Bubba the Republican is no relation to Joe the Plumber...that I know of.)

Anyways, on to what you were really thinking.

No surprise here: I voted Obama.

The main reason is, of course, that I'm a liberal. When the Wall Street Journal warned of the Coming Leftist Supermajority (see some blog copying the article here), I laughed at how they warned of such horrors as expanded union membership, a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions and - the horror! the horror! - a voting representative in Congress for the District of Columbia. That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm voting for! I'm also voting for a government that's more likely to look out for the interests of the poor than the super-rich. And I'm voting for a foreign policy that is focused more on diplomacy than bombing away our problems. (I think the articles Jacob's been pointing to painting Obama as a warmonger of a different political stripe have been way off base - taking a few statements and policy positions out of context and missing the overall tenor of the kind of foreign policy Obama proposes.)

Among my friends in the blogosphere, I've seen a lot of skepticism about Obama. Matt Novak, while saying he will vote for Obama, seems to be holding his nose while doing so even more than he did for his 2 Bush votes. He sees Obama as a party yes-man, except when he's not liberal enough. Jacob Grier fears the rise of dictatorship - a popular, charismatic President who will grab more power for the federal government. He actually longs for the days of bitter partisan rancor under the Bush administration because it means the federal government isn't doing anything. (In case you can't tell, Jacob and I have very different philosophies of the proper role of government and of....well, just about everything else.)

As for me - I've never been part of the Cult of Obama. I never thought he was going to save American politics from itself, usher in racial harmony (though it's still momentous to have our first non-White Male president and that's worth noting, if not a reason for voting for him), and bring about world peace. I'm disappointed that he broke his promise about only accepting public financing. I'm deeply disturbed by his vote to gut FISA. And, obviously (if you know me), I'm highly conflicted about voting for a person who believes it's a matter of personal opinion whether murdering an unborn child is okay.

So - aside from general political philosophy - why vote for the guy? Because, in his answers to questions, in the way he has run his campaign, and in many of the policy proposals he has made, he has displayed the kind of temprement I want in our next president - disciplined, thoughtful, deliberate. I do NOT want another President who shoots from the hip or speaks from the gut or whatever other mid-level body part metaphor you want to employ. Obama's tightly disciplined campaign shows me that he has a measure of self-control John McCain (and before him George W. Bush) lacks. When he answers questions about issues like abortion, his answers sound like he's really thought through these issues...why he believes the way he does....what common ground can be found with those who disagree with him. It looks to me like Obama's the type who doesn't like reacting instantaneously to situations, but likes to step back and assess them and then make a deliberate choice. Sometimes, there's not time to do that and I'm not sure how he'd handle that. But usually, it's better to choose your words carefully, to think through what you're going to do and why, and only decide after giving it careful and thorough thought.

Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves too much. Maybe I'm projecting the kind of lawyer I strive to be onto the kind of President I want Obama to be. But I don't think so.

One left wing writer - I think it was on Slate - accused Obama of running a campaign of "Cunning, Calculation, and Compromise." He meant it as an insult. Actually, that's exactly what I want in my next President.

[Oh yeah, and he also had me when he cited Reinhold Niebuhr, one of my favorite theologians. And he cited him for one of my favorite insights. See the Wikipedia article.]

[I note how little I mentioned John McCain in this post. I'll say this for him: I'm scared about what he'll do in foreign policy, but - recent campaign antics aside - I generally respect the man and think he wouldn't make a terrible president. In other words, I won't weep and shudder in fear should our next President be named John.]

I Voted

2008-10-28T15:04:00.002-04:00

So, after 2 hours of waiting in line, I voted today. I have the sticker to prove it. If this is what early voting takes, I shudder to think of what Election Day will be like.

When I have more time (and I'm not typing on a government computer) I may get into who I voted for and why. Nothing as extensive as Matt Novak's post, I can promise you that.

Also, standing in front of me in line was a candidate for the United States Senate. Apparently politicians vote, too.

Since Last Sunday

2008-09-28T17:59:00.002-04:00

Since last Sunday, Christy and I saw Les Miserables at the Fox Theater.

Since last Sunday, I have learned that I won't be getting a promotion at work. (At least for the time being, until I can handle a larger caseload.)

Since last Sunday, the gas shortage in Atlanta has only gotten crazier.

Since last Sunday, Christy and I met and helped Carl (see last Sunday's post) again. This time we bought him some soap and razors to shave.

Since last Sunday, I've watched a fascinating Presidential debate. Both candidates engaged in some silly politicking, but both also gave detailed policy answers. I'm happy to report Obama did not come off as a naive fool. I'm relieved to report that McCain came off less reckless than I've previously thought him to be. (Although his behavior this past week makes me think otherwise.)

Since last Sunday....okay today....Christy and I volunteered at the Atlanta Day Shelter for Women and Children, along with our friend Chandra Hodoval (who apparently graduated with a toy bulldozer on her head) (yes, that's actually her).

This week, I want to do better at my work and stop panicking about it. I want to have a heart that cares for my fellow human beings, as opposed to coldly walking past them because I'm late and I've got some panicking to do. I want to spend time with my friends in Bible Study, prepare for my 5-year class reunion from Vanderbilt (I know Mike and Joy plan on coming and assume Bradley, Lori, and Sarah will be there), and prepare to travel to Jacksonville for my cousin Amanda's wedding next weekend. It's a busy life, and astoundingly easy to lose perspective. So that's what I pray for. A heart with love and a head with perspective.

Amen.

My First Impression of the Current State of the Presidential Debates

2008-09-26T07:39:00.003-04:00

Barack Obama: Let's debate.

John McCain: No! I'm not gonna debate until someone passes a bailout that I may or may not support anyway! Also, I'm holding my breath until somebody in Washington does something.

Conservative pundit: What willpower! What leadership! Look, he's turning blue with leadership!

American Public: Um....what?

[Note: This post is no longer current. Except for the "um....what?" Which is my reaction to much of politics.]

To Bless and Be Blessed

2008-09-21T16:49:00.002-04:00

Not only is the title of this blog post alliterative, it also describes our day.

Christy and I went to church this morning and as we were walking along the sidewalk, a homeless guy (named John, as I later found out) came by and asked us for change. My first impulse - one which, I'm ashamed to say, I often indulge - was to say "no" and hurry on to church. "For I was hungry and walking along in front of your church and you did not feed me," Jesus might say to me.

Christy's impulse was far better: She told the guy that we don't give people money, but we buy them food. She said that after the church service, our church served lunches. We all agreed to meet up at 12:30 after the church service and we would buy him lunch.

During the service our pastor, Scott Weimer, gave a good sermon on humility. The church service ended at 12:00 and Christy and I stood around wondering what to do next. During the service, we remembered about The Cup, a worship service our church does for homeless folks (along with giving them a free lunch). So we thought about telling John about the Cup and, if he wasn't interested, still buying him lunch.

In the meantime, we had half an hour to kill. So we wandered around the church, and ran into two of the newest members in our Bible Study-Community Service group - Sarah and Paulo - who were looking for directions to the Atlanta Day Shelter for Women and Children, where our group serves the children every Sunday. We weren't planning on going to the Day Shelter today, but we were more than willing to give them directions. If we hadn't been wandering around the church thinking about how to help John, we would never have been there to help Sarah and Paulo. And, just as we were talking to the two of them, this lady walked up to Paulo and me and said "hey, you look like two strong young men." [Always lay on the flattery when you want help, right?] "Could you help me move these clothes that I'm taking to the Day Shelter to my car?" Then Paulo offered to take them in his car, since he was going anyway. You see, if we hadn't been wandering around waiting to help John, then we wouldn't have been there to help Paulo get directions AND help this woman and Paulo load stuff clothes for the women at the Day Shelter into his trunk.

God is awesome and he has a weird sense of humor. (Today's experiences are just one example of that humor. Click here for images of the creature that I have long-contended is the ultimate proof of God's sense of humor.)

And so the day continued.....we still hadn't met John. We went to the room of the church where the Cup meets to get some info on it, and ran into a couple of acquaintances who were running the Cup service. She told us that we had these tickets for a certain number of lunches to be served at the end of the service, and gave us one to give to John. We went upstairs to the front steps and waited. And waited.

12:30 passed, and another guy sat down next to us. I couldn't quite tell if he was homeless. He had that hardened, ragged look of someone who had lived on the streets. But he also didn't have that defeated look in his eyes, he was slightly better dressed, and he carried a cell phone. His name was Carl. He asked if we knew "Bob." We said we didn't. He said that Bob was a member of our church who had helped him get a job at an auto parts store up in the suburbs. He was about to take MARTA to his job, but he asked us if we had any food. He didn't have money for a bus token and food. So Christy - who rocks - jumped up and instantly offered to buy him lunch from the church. (Not the Cup service, but the normal paid-for lunch our church does every week for members and visitors.) I waited outside for John.

Christy and Carl apparently had a long talk. A lot of people in the church, including Pastor Scott, knew Carl. I'm glad about that....it makes it more likely that his story was true. I wish I wasn't so suspicious. But I'm glad to know that we were helping someone who was trying to lift himself up. After Christy and Carl came back out with food, he hugged us both, thanked us, and headed off to MARTA.

Later John did in fact come, and we bought him lunch. We also helped a guy named Giovanni (also homeless) find a place to go to the restroom in the church. (That place was: the bathroom. Come on, what were you thinking? I'm not the sacreligious type.)

There were some people in our church that were happy to help and to see us helping those in need. There were others who were clearly uncomfortable to be standing around a homeless person and wanted them to go to the Cup and, in essence, know their place. That's really sad and a topic for another blog post. We returned the meal ticket to the Cup so they would have more lunches to serve the people who attended the service.

Then we went to lunch at Papi's, a spectacular Cuban sandwhich shop in Midtown Atlanta. (Kenny and Erin can back me up on how wonderful the food is there.) As we were waiting, we saw a homeless guy walk past and stare sort of longingly in. Again, my impulse was "we've already helped enough people today. I'm hungry, let's sit and enjoy our food." Christy's impulse, again, was otherwise. (To be fair, her impulse was probably aided by the fact that we were sitting right at the window and the guy was standing right there next to us.) The man - whose name was, coincidentally, Kenny - soon walked on. But Christy wanted to give half our sandwhich to the guy. She was afraid to do so, so I ran after him and asked him if he was hungry and gave him the sandwhich. And, you know what? I still was plenty full after eating the other half of the sandwhich and some scrumptious croquettas jamon.

Then we went and searched for gas. Allow me to pause here and be scared for a second.

Is it just me, or does it look like 75% of the gas stations are closed down? I've heard nothing about this on the news, but everywhere we drove the gas stations were closed with bags on the pumps. Fellow Atlantans, are you noticing this? Other readers, is this a nationwide phenomenon? What the hell is going on here? Are we experiencing some sort of stealth shortage of gas that nobody's talking about? Is there a run on gas stations like there used to be runs on banks in the early days of the Great Depression? If so, why? Is this all Hurricane Ike's doing?

Anyways, we finally found a QT with gas which was actually pretty cheap for Atlanta. ($3.97 Many gas stations in our area were selling for $4.19 or $4.29 a gallon. At least, before today, when we saw them actually selling gasoline.) And it was SWAMPED. Seemed like about 2 or 3 dozen cars vying for half a dozen gas pumps. We were behind two cars waiting for one pump, trying (with only some success) to stay out of the way of various cars that were trying to leave the station.

Then the first car moved....and the second car didn't. The poor young woman's car wasn't starting. She said she seemed to be out of gas. Well Christy - have I mentioned she rocks? - jumped right out and helped push her car to the pump. She got back in and we waited for the young lady (I'm self-consciously trying not to say "girl." She appeared to be about my age and I never refer to men my age as "boys.") to finish pumping. She did and got in her car. And it didn't move. Apparently her batter was dead or something.

Soon, there was a whole committee of people trying to figure out how to get her car moved. Now, yes, there was self interest involved. Moving her car meant getting to the pump. But in that kind of high-stress situation, I've seen people who would just yell at her for taking up a pump. Everybody was very friendly. Fortunately, there was one guy - not me - with actual mechanical knowledge. She apparently had the kind of car that would get enough battery power to start if you push it. So, with visions of Little Miss Sunshine's iconic image dancing in my head, I joined the others as we pushed her car forward. Luckily it started. Then all Christy and I had to do was move our car forward and pull the hose around to the other side of the car and pump gas. (Why not pull up the correct way to the pump, you ask? Did I mention the dozens of other cars competing for that spot?)

So, by 3:00, we were on our way home. We had helped a lot of people today. And in the process, we had stomachs full of delicious food and a tank full of gas. Despite being dragged kicking and screaming into some of this helping, I came out realizing that not only were the people we helped better off....but I was just fine. I was blessed with the means to get around town, spectacular food, and the company of my wonderful wife. I got to be a blessing and to bless. God provided opportunities to help others and He showed me that, in doing so, my riches only grow.

I'm happy to be loved and to have material abundance. But I'm even more happy to love. Thanks God!

And thanks Christy!

Another Announcement, Less Pompous

2008-09-18T15:44:00.002-04:00

Remember when I congratulated "Kenny Ching, Published Author" on this blog a while back? (It was the same post in which I proclaimed, "Jeff Woodhead, Rock God.")

Well, the same people now bring you....Kenny Ching, Published Poet.

Congrats Kenny. It's really good stuff.

A Pompous But Earnest Announcement

2008-09-11T11:57:00.003-04:00

On this day 7 years ago, a group of evil bastards murdered thousands of people.

Yes, we must always honor the memory of those who were slain. But you know what?....I refuse to let evil bastards define this day.

On this day 1 year ago, our beautiful, playful cat Marley was born. She's been a playful, energetic, endlessly curious, somewhat bratty spark of life ever since. Yes, she's just a cat, but she reminds me of life's many small joys.

Therefore, I hereby reclaim this day for life. I will honor the dead and, with God's help, I will fight the evil that I encounter (which usually comes in forms much more mundane than terrorists). But for me, September 11 is a day of death no longer.

I encourage each of you to find a way to reclaim this day for life. Let me know how!

Pompous But Earnest announcement is over.

[Terrorists, screw you.]

[Marley, you're a good kitty. Tonight we'll give you some Grown-Up Cat food and a new toy.] [Also, Marley you're an impressive cat. I had no idea you knew how to read a blog!]

A Dream and a Dream Debate

2008-08-17T01:08:00.001-04:00

Last night I dreamed that all my favorite obscure bands that are now broken up had somehow all gotten back together. They were all there - SpencerAcuff, Gone Again, The Robert Barnes Band, Be Your Own Pet, The J. Tomas Band.......and, yes, even Unexpectedly Sober. And they were all performing at some concert festival. And they all had new albums, which I proceeded to buy and get autographs. It was the happiest day of my life since I got married.

Then I woke up.

Oh well, at least I'm still married.

-------------------------------------------------

Tonight, I watched an interesting discussion, the Saddleback Civil Forum. Rev. Rick Warren, author of the Purpose-Driven Life and mega-church pastor, interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain back-to-back. He asked them about core issues evangelicals care about (abortion, gay marriage, human trafficking, poverty, international religious freedom), plus issues near and dear to Warren's heart like orphans.

I liked the questions....stuff like "What was your biggest moral failure? And what was America's?" He forced them to give thoughtful answers. The candidates had to give more than the usual stump, canned answers. (Honestly, I think there were better, non-canned answers here than I can expect in the debates.) McCain segued to his stump answers more, but Obama tended to ramble and hedge his answers more carefully.

The way it worked was Warren interviewed Obama for an hour. McCain could not hear the questions or the answers. Then the candidates met for a moment. (Even hugged!) Then he asked (mostly) the same questions to McCain.

My personal favorite moment was when Warren basically tried to get both candidates to commit to taking serious action (the kind Bush took about AIDS in Africa) on the issue of orphans. At least Obama addressed the question. McCain basically talked around it.

I liked Obama's response to the question of "is there evil and what should we do about it?" He agreed that of course there's evil and talked about the need to confront it. But then he discussed the need for humility and the obvious fact that many if history's worst evils have been committed by those who were trying to do good (or were certain that they were doing good). Any person with a knowledge of human nature - especially a Christian - should know that (1) there is great evil in the world, and (2) it must be confronted, but that (3) we must also recognized our own capacity for evil and (4) we're never more likely to commit such evil than when we're dead certain we're the good guys.

McCain's response to this question was more along the lines of "beat the terrorists." Of course that's something that needs to be done, but it didn't give me much insight into his thought processes. Makes me worried if his certainty will make him too willing to commit American troops to yet another war.

Anyways, both candidates gave answers that helped me with insight into the kind of President they would be. At the end of the forum, I had increased respect for both candidates.

Then I woke up.

Just kidding. This one actually happened. If you can find the video and have a couple hours to kill, I'd highly recommend it.

Vanderbilt Class of 2003 Reunion Again

2008-08-03T17:09:00.002-04:00

Vanderbiltians,

Anybody more certain in their plans as to whether they are going to Nashville for the Vanderbilt Homecoming? I ask because I think I'm going to go....but that will mainly be affected by whether I'll be seeing old friends there. Also hotels are going to be expensive and could run out quick....so, I should decide soon whether I'm going.

So.....y'all going?

Quote of the Day

2008-07-20T22:59:00.003-04:00

Christy: "It helps with kitty love....so we don't scream when she touches us."

Ben: "PLEASE rephrase that!"

---------------------------------------

(For the record, she was referring to nail clippers, which we use to clip Marley's claws so they don't get stuck on stuff. That's loving our cat. Also, it helps us since Marley's an aggressively playful kitty who likes to bop us with her paws as we walk by. It hurts a lot less when her claws are clipped. So you see it's all perfectly innocent.)

(Nevertheless, my wife used the phrase "kitty love.")

I Guess I Got Smart

2008-07-20T00:21:00.004-04:00

It's hard to find a movie that can please me, Christy, and Christy's Mom (visiting from out of town). (Which is why I wasn't enraptured watching The Dark Knight this weekend.) Get Smart did the trick. The trailers don't do it justice.

Having never seen the original TV show, the only thing I knew to expect was a shoe phone, catchy theme music, and a spy spoof. The trailers made it look pretty stupid, but Ebert's 3.5 star review made me hopeful. And Steve Carrell, as we all know, rocks. Also, I'm a fan of The Rock/Dwayne Johnson. He's actually got great comic timing. And Anne Hathaway....well, she's got the charm of a girl next door who would, of course, never actually live next door to you, personally. So I expected a good comedy.

I got what I expected. What I didn't expect was that the movie also functions very well as an action movie (Steve Carrell the action star!) and even a bit of a romance. It's a genuine crowd-pleaser. And, hey, we're all a part of the crowd. You should go see it.

Mayo Update 2

2008-07-13T20:58:00.003-04:00

Another week, another battery of tests. This past week Christy had 2 CAT scans, an MRI, 2 urine tests, a blood test, a mammogram and lots of consultations.

Bottom Line: We still haven't found what's causing Christy's heart palpitations or why those palpitations lead to dizziness and/or pain. And Christy has run out of sick and vacation time, so we have come home for now. BUT we have fast-forwarded the process a lot. We got maybe 6 months' worth of tests done in 2 weeks. And we've pretty much ruled out neurological problems and cancer. We've also ruled out any problems with the structure of the heart (i.e. leakage of blood from the heart or within chambers).

We're torn between relief that it isn't any one of the serious problems we were testing for...and massive frustration that we still haven't found the answer while these symptoms continue to afflict Christy.

The plan from here? Mayo's sending a 24-hour heart monitor to test more thoroughly whether there's some sort of electrical problem in her heart. If that doesn't show anything, we may look at whether there's a hormonal problem causing the heart to go haywire.

We arrived back in Atlanta late Friday night. Saturday we spent celebrating Christy's birthday by shopping at random places, hanging around the Chattahoochee River, and trying and (with some difficulty) succeeding at ordering authentic Mexican food at a place where hardly anybody speaks English. It was good to remember there's more to life than illness.

Thanks again, everybody, for your support, prayers and love. They made a huge difference in our ability to soldier on through the week. We're back in town now and will be continuing with our lives for the time being while thinking about our next plan of attack. If there's anything else to report, I'll let you know.

Mayo Update

2008-07-05T17:26:00.004-04:00

Wow, I leave this blog alone for one week, and I find a full-fledged rhetorical war on my hands. While it's entertaining to watch the sparks fly, I don't have the heart to join the fray right now. It's been a long week.

So, Christy's been through an alphabet soup of tests: EKG, EEG, ECG, MRI, Halter monitor. We've met with a neurologist and a cardiologist (2 of the latter, actually). My Dad - a saint - came down with us this past week to provide moral support and a "grown-up" presence that these doctors may be more likely to respect than us "kids." (Said the 27-year-old.)

Bottom Line: The heart tests didn't find any problems with the heart. The neurological tests didn't find any problems with the brain. (All comforting....and frustrating. After 5 months, we want some ANSWERS!) The MRI did find a few anomalies re: lymph nodes and the blood system which could range from "absolutely nothing" to "serious problem."

.....Meaning we are going back to Jacksonville next week. We'll be seeing a hematologist and also doing some tests to see if sleep apnea (sp?) is causing all these problems. The thing the MRI discovered could be nothing, or it could be something unrelated to all the problems Christy's been experiencing, or it could be the cause of the problems. We just don't know at this point.

It hasn't been all gloom and doom and tests. I got to see a couple of my cousins: Amanda (newly engaged!) and Tiffany, along with my grandmother and various aunts and uncles. We ate some of the best seafood I've ever had. We came back to Atlanta for the 4th and enjoyed the best hot dogs I've ever had. Then we came to Birmingham to hang with Ronda and Jere and their two unreasonably adorable children. We watched fireworks (and a reading of the Declaration of Independence) at American Village. And we found time to watch two movies: Hancock (fun) and WALL-E (everything you've come to expect from the folks at Pixar). (Actually, Christy went to see that American Girl movie with the surprisingly good reviews while I saw WALL-E with Jere and my nephew, Drew.) In other words, there have been some good things. Also, the folks at Mayo have been nothing but kind, friendly, understanding, and flexible.

So this has been a time of ups and downs, frustration and uncertainty, gnawing fear and comfort from friends. And there's more to come.

A last note: This past week we've been deluged with kind thoughts, prayers, and words of encouragement from friends and family. Thank you! I can't tell you how much that means to us. Your kindness and support helps sustain us.

Oh, and Christy wants me to tell you that she says "hi".

Give The Republican His Due

2008-06-27T06:35:00.002-04:00

Obviously, my mind is more occupied with the Mayo clinic than with politics these days. That said, I've got to give the Bush Administration its due in North Korea. It looks like they are making solid - if slow, uncertain, and frustrating - progress in getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program. And I can't blame them for the slowness, uncertainty, and frustration - that's the nature of negotiations.

I suppose I could blame them for taking so long to get around to negotiating, but still....it's remarkable that the man who once declared North Korea part of the "axis of evil" (implying, ludicrously, he was going to do to North Korea what he did to Iraq), actually had the patience to give Christopher Hill the go-ahead to engage in multilateral negotiations with a mercurial and unpredictable enemy. I'm thankful for the growing influence of the Rice-Hill-Gates crowd over the old Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz crowd.

Ultimately, who knows if the whole thing will work? Kim's far from the most trustworthy negotiating partner and they've broken plenty of pledges in the past. But I'm encouraged that, with vigilant observation and a serious willingness to hold Kim to his word, America and its allies can accomplish something here.

Interesting NYT articles on the issue here, here, and here.

Anyways, back to Mayo prep and to getting ready for work today. Andy wants me to blog about the recent Supreme Court 2nd Amendment decision (or perhaps he just wants to rub it in my face...which I will nevertheless take as an invitation to broadcast my opinions to the world). Indeed, with the Guantanamo Bay habeas decision, the punitive damages for Exxon's oil spill decision, the gun decision, and the death penalty for child rape decision, the Supreme Court's made a series of major decisions this past week or so that are ripe for analysis by my brilliant legal mind. Hopefully, I'll be able to analyze them.

But Time, she is a cruel mistress. (Don't tell Christy I have a mistress!) And I need to work and help Christy prepare for Mayo. That takes top priority.

Mayo Bound

2008-06-24T20:25:00.003-04:00

So Christy's been having symptoms since late January. Heart palpitations, dizziness, extreme pain in the chest, neck, and back. The symptoms come and go without warning.

And the doctors haven't found a thing. We've been going to a cardiologist who can't find anything wrong and has a horrible bedside manner. We've been to various specialists who can't see beyond their narrow discipline. And it hasn't worked.

So, in addition to prayer, we're trying a new tack. We're headed to the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL branch. Mayo's known for teams of specialists working together. Hopefully, they'll do that for Christy. Hopefully someone's thinking outside the box. So we pray.

The appointment's next Monday. Thoughts and prayers appreciated.

Today Is The Greatest....Day for Rule of Law

2008-06-13T16:57:00.002-04:00

[Note: Yes, technically the Boumediene v. Bush decision came out yesterday. But I wrote this yesterday and then my Internet went kablooie, so I could only post this today. I'm keeping the "today" language for dramatic effect and to keep the Smashing Pumpkins reference in my title.]

Today is a great day for the rule of law.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeated that the President cannot lock you up without giving a reason, throw away the key, and deny you the right to challenge the basis of your detention in federal court.

Today, the Court has declared that the political branches cannot switch the Constitution on and off at will.

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Court held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their designation as "enemy combatant" in federal court. Previously, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Court said that people designated "enemy combatants" on nothing more than the President's say-so must be given the right to challenge that status before the President can lock them away for eternity. In response, the Pentagon created Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT)- a kangaroo court in which the detainees had no lawyer and no right to actually see the evidence against them.

In addition, a compliant Republican Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, which - without saying as much - took away the right of habeas corpus: that is, the right to challenge the basis for one's detention. The Constitution allows Congress to do this...if (1) it does so explicitly, and (2) it does so in times of "rebellion or invasion." In the DTA and MCA, Congress limited the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear appeals of CSRTs......but never actually said they were taking away habeas corpus.

"Oh, no you didn't!" says the Supreme Court. If you're going to take away the right to challenge one's imprisonment in court, you have to do it explicitly and do it in times of rebellion/invasion. No tip-toeing around it.

But the important point is this: Now someone held prisoner by nothing more than the President's say-so (backed up by a meaningless, practically unreviewable kangaroo court) will be able to have an independent judiciary review the evidence and determine whether there is actually a real reason for detaining him....whether he, in fact, IS the enemy.

To clear up some confusion: No, this won't throw open the doors to Guantanamo Bay. Contrary to Justice Scalia's alarmist dissent, the Supreme Court didn't order a mass exodus of terrorists. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will probably never be released and rightfully so. The Court only ordered that detainees be given a fair chance to challenge the basis for their detention. KSM and his ilk, if given a fair chance, would still lose.

To clear up another point: this case isn't about military commissions (the military tribunals created to try a small fraction of the detainees for war crimes/terrorism). This case was only about detaining people regardless of whether they are being accused of a crime.

(Personally, when it comes to military commissions, I'd like to see something modeled upon military courts martial, the system used for trying soldier accused of crimes. With a few modifications, they just might work. Courts martial have dealt with issues like classified evidence more than most other forums. In that opinion, I'm basically following the lead of the top Air Force lawyer in the Gulf War, and my former professor, Scott Silliman. I figure he knows a thing or two about the military and military law.)

So, to conclude, today was yet another victory for law, human rights, and common sense. It was another blow to the idea that an unlimited, indefinite, global war means the government has unlimited power.

Ya done good, SCOTUS.

Strawberry Fields Forever

2008-05-26T21:10:00.000-04:00

[Y'know, I never really liked that song. If I want to listen to the genre of "Beatles drug-related songs" I prefer "Penny Lane" or "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."]

So today's Memorial Day, so Christy and I had the day off. Her grandparents were here this weekend (part of a road trip to Washington, D.C.), so we had a lot of fun.

After seeing off the grandparents, Christy and I went strawberry-picking at this place. It was awesome. Not only did we get to pick a ton of God's Favorite Fruit (a title I just made up but will apply to strawberries for the rest of my life because it's obviously true), but we simply got to enjoy time being outdoors. My favorite part was observing the wide variety of people around us. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian......people speaking all different languages......old folks and kids laughing. It felt like.....well....America. People from all different backgrounds enjoying a beautiful early summer day with friends and family amidst a bountiful harvest.

We observed a moment of silence for the fallen soldiers at 3:00 in remembrance of Memorial Day and said a prayer for the soldiers whose lives are still on the line. As I did, it occurred to me that moments like this are part of what these soldiers fought (and are fighting) for.

I'll leave my political statements for another day. I'll just say that standing in the field made me happy to be here.

Politics Has Always Been This Bad (and maybe that's not a bad thing)

2008-05-23T16:39:00.002-04:00

One of the reasons I love reading about history is that it puts modern events - especially modern politics - in a new light. When you have a shallow historical understanding which sees the past as some sort of golden age and past leaders as demi-gods, it's easy to despair the modern era of danger, divisiveness, mudslinging, and mediocrity. (That alliteration came to me without me even trying. Can anybody tell I grew up listening to Southern Baptist sermons?)

But when you study history, you learn that folks like the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln were just as human and flawed as current politicians. You learn that events seemed just as complex, muddy, and morally compromised to them in their era as our problems seem to us. The name-calling of the modern era has nothing on the Election of 1800. (My favorite is the pamphlets referring to Thomas Jefferson as a "howling atheist.")

That's comforting to me. It means we haven't fallen downhill. Things were always this difficult. People were always this messed up. And yet we as a nation have pulled through. (Of course, if you want to keep extrapolating, other superpowers of history - the Roman Empire, the British Empire - eventually fell.) The problems we face today are different....they are challenging and they are legion. But the people trying to solve those problems aren't somehow inferior to the politicians of old. I believe - for better or worse - that they have just as much chance of solving the problems they face as Lincoln and Washington had in facing the problems of their respective eras.

I've been thinking these things for a while. But an interesting thought is raised by David Greenberg in this book review. The book he's reviewing strips away a lot of the mythology of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The book shows how those debates had just as much political posturing, personal attacks, distortion of the other person's position, and base pandering as modern politics. But - and here's the key - they also still involved thorough and sophisticated debate about all aspects of the major issue of the day (the expansion of slavery). Greenberg's thesis is that "down-and-dirty politics and serious argument about burning issues need not exist in separate realms." That is, Greenberg argues that it's in the context of ugly campaigning and bitter attempts to put down the other guy that actual arguments about the issues happens.

I'm not entirely sure if I buy that. I've observed too much avoidance of real discussion of the issues in favor of name-calling, sound bites, and Swift-Boating. But even in the midst of that, I must admit that some real discussion of issues take place. And certainly it's more realistic to look at the issue-discussion that happens in the context of actual politics than to hope for some Olympian, non-existent, rationalistic discussion of the issues. Human nature is what it is. We aren't going to see an ideal, purely issues-driven campaign in my lifetime. (Although John McCain and Barack Obama are far more likely to approximate it than Bush-Rove or any of the Clintons.) It's good to think that, despite the limitations of how actual democracy works, there's still a possibility of discussion of the issues.

All this doesn't mean I won't stop decrying shallow media coverage and the paucity of actual policy discussion....doesn't mean I won't relish the thoughtful discussion that often takes place among the community of bloggers and friends I know. But I can look with a little more hope at the 2008 campaign.

(Incidentally, I've been doing a little reading into church history as of late. Turns out it's just as useful to grow from the insights of long-dead people - and learn from their failings - in the realm of my personal faith as it is in the realm of politics.)

I Cannot Think of A Good "Parrot" Joke To Go With This Post

2008-05-21T18:24:00.002-04:00

Think I could get my cat to do this?

By the way, what SHOULD I have chosen as the title of this post? Let your humorous, creative instincts run free. Everything's fair. Nothing's fowl.

[weak rim shot]

On Talking To Our Enemies

2008-05-17T01:48:00.002-04:00

Explain this one to me.

Why is it okay for Ronald Reagan to talk to the leaders of the Soviet Union (a nation he labeled the "Evil Empire" and which had enough nukes pointed at us the wipe us off the face of the earth)....but if Barack Obama suggests talking to the leadership of Iran, he's an "appeaser" right up there with Chamberlain at Munich?

Obama said it perfectly in his recent remarks:

“It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice,” Mr. Obama said. “If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”

Classic carrot and stick. You want someone to change their behavior? Then you make acting the way you want agreeable to that person and you make acting the way you don't want disagreeable. You can't very well do that without talking to them. Yes, you could make public statements, but direct negotiations are how one establishes a procedure for either fixing the problem or determining that it won't be fixed and doing sanctions (or worse).

And he's talking about TALKING. That's all. He's not giving away the Sudetenland. And if Iran fails to negotiate in good faith, then they've further isolated themselves and we've got more international capital which we can use in taking increasingly severe actions.

Furthermore, talking to Iran does not mean endorsing its views.....no more than Reagan talking to Gorbachev meant Reagan suddenly endorsed a Marxist revolution.

McCain has the gall to call Obama's approach naive. Yeah, because the Bush approach of non-engagement, saber-rattling, and invading Iran's neighbor (thereby creating a power vacuum that Iran has been only too happy to fill)......it's all worked so well in stopping Iran
so far.

Oh yeah, unless you want to invade Iran too. Because, y'know, our military isn't stretched enough. And invading Iraq has worked out so well for us. [End sarcasm] Also, there are no good military options in Iran. (Slightly dated documents, but the range of voices making this point is still impressive.)

[Note: Hopefully soon Blogger's spell-check function will recognize the words "Barack" and "Obama."]

Update [5/17/08 2:07 PM]: Moderately conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks has some interesting insights on this issue from this conversation with Obama after Obama said something that admittedly sounded a lot like "appeasement." It must be nice to be the kind of person who - when wondering what a presidential candidate meant by some statement - can simply call him up an ask him.

Much Delayed "Really Good Meme"

2008-05-04T21:06:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, Jeff tagged me with the "Really Good Meme." For those of you who don't follow stuff like this, a meme is the blog equivalent of chain mail. The rules for this meme (which I intend to stretch and which I've already seen stretched by others) are as follows:

Open the nearest book to page 123
Post sentences 6, 7, and 8 from that page
Tag five others

I've got two books nearby. First I Am America (And So Can You) by Stephen Colbert:

But my sheepskin announces to all assembled that though I may be a man of the people, I also have the keys to the clubhouse. I can't count the number of times I've heard the phrase, "You went to Dartmouth? I find that hard to believe."

Okay, so I kind of cheated and included two quoted sentences as one sentence.

The other book nearby is Great Christian Thinkers: A Beginner's Guide To Over 70 Leading Theologians Through the Ages by Colin Blakely:

He was born in Northumberland in 1502 (we think) and went from there to study classics at Cambridge. But he continued his studies at the Sorbonne in Paris and at Louvain, and it is likely that he came face-to-face here with all the Reforming ideas that were prevalent on the European continent. This was, after all, at the height of Luther's protests.

And, just for good measure, I'll also answer this meme on Christy's behalf. Her nearby book is Before You Leap: A Frog's-Eye View of Life's Greatest Lessons allegedly by Kermit the Frog. (And why not?). Since page 123 is a page between chapters, she'll do 122. Here goes:

And when I've successfully visualized this perfect frog, I send him out to deal with the problem. And when that doesn't work, at least I have someone to commiserate and share popcorn with during the debacle. When all else fails, give them stuff.

Who to tag? Jeff tagged most of my readership, and Mike tagged much of the rest. Not sure if I can think of 5 people to tag. But here goes: Monica, Kenny, my ever-positive sister Ronda, and (at this point I'm going to have to go with a friend-of-a-friend) Andy (that's, right punk! I'm making you update your blog from your nearly year-long hibernation!), and - since he's already done this once on Jeff's blog - Kenny's friend Dave. Incidentally, Kenny says I remind him of Dave and vice versa. Can't say exactly how, but it's clearly not our politics.

I'm thinking of inventing my own meme. It's called the "Love of Nouns" meme. Remind me and I'll explain later. Unless I don't. If you'll remember, I began this blog with the promise of inconsistency.

Who's Going to the Class Reunion?

2008-04-30T15:16:00.003-04:00

Hey 2003 Vandy Grads!

Are you planning on attending the Vanderbilt Homecoming/5-year class reunion this year? It's October 24-25.

They got a website which, among other things, ingeniously lists the people who have already said they are attending. Among the attending folks whose names I recognized: Joy Craun, Sarah Hille, and Lori Branyan Metrock.

Depressing Budgetary News

2008-04-27T10:12:00.000-04:00

In keeping with the quote on Mike's blog regarding budgetary issues, I bring you the following depressing news: According to a couple nonpartisan analyst groups, The Concord Coalition and The Tax Policy Center, each of the three candidates' proposals will balloon the national debt over the next decade. (See the story here.)

Unsurprisingly, McCain's proposals will fuel debt via tax cuts whereas Obama and Clinton's proposals will do so via spending. (Each candidate argues some other measures they are taking will pay for their plans, but the analysts in these two groups aren't optimistic.) Somewhat more surprisingly, it's predicted that McCain's proposal will add to the debt 3 times as much as the Democrats'.

Great campaign slogan: "Vote Democrat! Fiscally speaking, they'll only screw over your grandchildren 1/3 as much." Yup, I'm inspired.

Comic Strip Trend

2008-04-25T07:13:00.002-04:00

Everybody's into mocking The Family Circus these days. And they like doing so with bizarre, yet hilarious jokes that play upon the "reality" of comic strips.

Things I Learned In My First Trial

2008-04-19T23:32:00.001-04:00

Okay, you impatient readers named Mike. Generally speaking, the trial went well. I'm willing to talk about the trial over the phone (although not the name of the company), but, as I said before, not on the Internet. You never know who's watching. I've been Google-stalked by opposing counsel before.

So, in lieu of an actual description of the trial, I offer the following lessons learned from the trial.

(1) A sarcastic judge is awesome, unless his sarcasm is employed in ruling against you.

(2) Twelve-and-a-half solid hours of lawyering with nothing but a half-hour lunch break leads to nausea, headaches, a pounding heart, and bizarre leg cramps. Proof positive that the law should only be taken in small doses.

(3) It helps to actually know the law which is the basis for your trial.

(4) Do not, under any circumstances, either insult the judge or imply the judge lacks integrity. We will call this the Blindingly Obvious Rule of Legal Practice.

(5) One of the best ways to learn how to be a lawyer is to watch a more experienced - and incredibly awesome - lawyer in action.

(6) No matter how much you practice, no matter how methodically you plan - and, trust me, I'm methodical - you cannot predict everything that will happen at trial and you cannot have a contingency plan for everything. You need to think on your feet. I need to work on that one.

(7) As in everything, the answer you get depends a lot on how you ask.

(8) Shaking your head and making a disgusted, skeptical noise while the other guy's witness is testifying does not constitute an argument. Nor is it evidence.

And if you're living in suspense as to whether I won the trial, you'll have to continue living in suspense with me. I still have to write a post-trial brief. We're talking months here. So hold your horses, gentle readers.

And if you, dear reader, are opposing counsel in any of my cases, please find better things to do with your time.

First Trial Is Tomorrow

2008-04-16T07:06:00.002-04:00

My first trial is tomorrow. Won't say much about it here because I don't like to (and probably shouldn't) talk about my work on the Net. Call me this weekend if you want to know how it went.

Suffice to say that prayers/encouragement/a complete cheerleading squad would be greatly appreciated.

When Lingo Attacks

2008-04-05T12:08:00.001-04:00

I read the following line in a weather alert on weather.com:

"Nonflood flooding is occurring." Huh?

(Your assignment: got any other examples of nonsensical technical lingo?)

Obama's Race Speech

2008-03-22T01:19:00.001-04:00

I just took 37 minutes of my time to listen to Barack Obama's speech on racial issues in this country. Obama's speech - which, politically, was meant to confront the controversy over the idiotic remarks of his former pastor but then moved on to address the complexities of racial politics in America - can be found here. (For the moment, you can listen to it here.)

I must say I am thoroughly impressed. If you've got 37 minutes to spare (and God knows the only moment I have that kind of time is after 12:00-12:37 AM on a Friday night/Saturday morning while my wife is asleep), then I highly recommend you watch this speech.

The speech reminds me of another one-term Congressman from Illinois who ran for President: Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, yes, I know. Comparing a president to Lincoln is supposed to be the ultimate in silliness, naivete, ego, or historical ignorance. It's sort of a reverse Godwin law...trying to tie someone to the ultimate in good Presidents instead of the ultimate evil of the Nazis. But humor me for a moment. I'm not trying to say that Obama will be the nation's greatest President or anything so sweeping. It's just that, in this speech, Obama displayed many of the traits I find so awesome about Lincoln.

The qualities that made Lincoln such a great leader are present throughout his presidency but are best represented in his Second Inaugural Address. First off, Lincoln was able to understand both sides of an issue. He could see clearly where someone was coming from, even if he disagreed with that someone with every fiber of his being. In his 1858 Senate campaign, Lincoln consistently argued against the expansion of slavery and that slavery was wrong, but he also spoke to his audience of what the white slave owners would be thinking. Second, Lincoln was very reluctant to demonize his opponents. Nobody in the North would have blamed him if he blamed the South for the Civil War and denounced Confederacy as a nation of bloodthirsty, slave-owning tyrants. In fact, that was the safe position to take in the North at that time. Instead, he consistently humanized the South, charted a policy of "malice toward none", and put the blame for slavery and the war on both parts of the nation. Third, Lincoln was a realist. He knew quite well the racism of Northern whites, and timed the Emancipation Proclamation to be most palatable even to racists - after a big victory, so that morale was high, and later in the war when it could be argued emancipation was a military necessity. Fourth and finally, Lincoln was, despite his realism, an idealist. Knowing the limitations, he still dreamed big. He wanted the former slaves in the South not only free, but granted full rights as citizens, including the vote. (That's one of the reasons John Wilkes Booth decided Lincoln had to die.) He aimed, despite the deep-seated bitterness left by the war, to reconcile North with South.

I heard echoes of these traits in Obama's speech. First, he was clear-headed about both the black and the white experience when it comes to issues of race. He described in clear terms how racial resentment can and has built up over time with a clear understanding of both sides. Second, he chose not to portray other people as caricatures. Despite a few pot-shots at Geraldine Ferraro (hey, he's a presidential candidate, not a saint), he did not use his speech to portray either his political opponents or white people as somehow evil. Third, he was realistic and level-headed about the problems America faces on the issue of race and the unlikelihood that one candidacy will solve them. Fourth, despite his realism, he was idealistic and inspiring. He appeared to truly believe America can unite and solve the massive problems we face.

So no, I'm not saying Obama = Lincoln. Nor am I saying he's proven that he can solve all our problems. But the similarities between the two Illinois natives make me more optimistic about Obama than ever.

Why Easter Isn't Christmas, Culturally Speaking

2008-03-20T13:58:00.003-04:00

Not usually a big fan of Slate magazine, despite the fact that I waste a lot of time reading it. I usually find it too obssessed with the horse-race, meaningless-scandal part of politics, instead of the part where we see how ideas and policies affect our lives.

But, on the religious-cultural commentary front, I found this article fascinating and insightful. It's about why Easter has not been co-opted by the commercial culture in the same way that Christmas has (bunnies and egg hunts notwithstanding).

The Latest on Christy's Health - and a Thanks

2008-03-04T20:13:00.005-05:00

I've been getting a lot of questions about how Christy's doing.

Mostly, it's been the same. Pain's still there. Some days better. Some days worse. For the past week, she's been getting these weird heart palpitations, leading to light-headedness, chest pains, and headaches. She was put on a portable heart monitor that she carried around for 48 hours and at the end the doctors didn't find anything that looked life-threatening or otherwise scary. So, again, we're left wondering what the heck is going on. Gonna see a cardiologist soon. On the weird side, when the palpitations are happening, the pain seems to go away, and vice versa. Today has been pretty good. Some pain and some palpitations, but not nearly as much as in previous days.

What I really want to talk about though....what has really struck us, has been everybody's kindness. I've been getting comments on this blog from friends I haven't spoken to in over a year expressing concern. Other friends have been calling in to express sympathy and support. Jeff - in the midst of the giddiness of new fatherhood - still stopped and inquired about Christy's health when we talked last. Friends from our Bible study have made casseroles for us. Christy's boss bought her a heating pad. Christy's mom came over for about a week to take care of her while I was out of town doing training.

Everybody, from the bottom of our hearts - thank you. You have no idea how much this means to Christy and me. It has been such an inexpressible comfort to know we've been in your thoughts and prayers.

When faced with pain....especially when faced with the unknown....it means everything to know you aren't facing it alone. Your words and deeds have been a reminder that we aren't alone....that there are people out there who care for us. You've helped us carry on and encouraged us to love others as we have been loved.

I'm trying not to be cheesy here. I'm just trying to express that what you say and do has more impact than you think. So - to conclude as simply as I can and with all sincerity - THANK YOU!

It's Getting Worse

2008-02-14T12:24:00.004-05:00

Christy's pain is getting worse. It's getting to the point that she can't pick up a stack of paper. The anti-inflammatory which had been reducing the pain to a managable level doesn't really seem to be working anymore.

Doctors say they've ruled out neurological stuff, immune system problems, and heart problems. We're thinking it's muscular, but the doctors have no clue what caused it.

She's been prescribed physical therapy. We'll see how that goes.

Today, we were planning on going to Savannah for a romantic weekend vacation. Then, without warning, the pain flared up worse than it's ever been.

I'm about to leave work to pick her up. We'll decide whether it's a good idea to go on this trip. Too bad we've already sunk $200 on hotel reservations that are too late to cancel. Freakin' Orbitz.

Your thoughts and prayers are greatly appreciated.

Update (the next day): Well, we're in Savannah. She seems to be doing a little better. Looking forward to some fun today. Christy says "hello" to all you out there in blog-land.

Updates From South Carolina

2008-02-05T07:24:00.001-05:00

I'm attending a 2 week long trial training session in sunny South Carolina. I've been taking part in a really intensive trial practice course. Feels like I'm back in law school - work every night 'till I fall asleep. Only this time I gotta perform on my feet a lot more - doing stuff like opening statements and closing arguments, cross and direct examination, introducing exhibits, making objections...and wrapping it up with a full mock trial. So, yeah, it's pretty interesting stuff.

Meanwhile, here's what else is going on in my life:

1. Christy's sick

It's really weird and kinda scary. It started with chest pains and now it's moved across her shoulders and neck. It's actually a really crappy time for me to be away at training. Her mom flew in to take care of her this weekend, but it's still scary not knowing what's going on. We've been to the doctor and the ER, ruled out various heart troubles. But we still don't know what's causing it, and prescription painkillers have only be reducing, not eliminating the pain. Yesterday she had, like, her 4th doctor visit. And she'll be seeing a specialist of some sort next week. But not knowing and not being able to do much to stop my wife's pain is scary as hell.

On the plus side, it's been wonderful to have family and friends be really supportive of us. Folks at church have taken the time to pray for her and e-mail to ask how she's doing. It means a whole lot to know others are thinking of us.

2. I voted Obama

It's kind of nice that my vote in the Democratic primary is in a state that makes a difference. Georgia's one of the many Super Tuesday states, and I sent in my absentee ballot last week. (Since I'll still be in Columbia on Feb. 5.)

For the time being, I can't imagine voting Republican because of (a) Iraq and (b) the potentially apocalyptic danger of global warming. (Although it comforted me to hear John McCain recently argue in favor of taking action on global warming.) I like to think that one day I won't be a partisan...that I'll be able to consider voting Republican. I mean, I am pro-life, for instance. But for now....let's just say I'm no swing voter.

That said, it was really tough choosing who to vote for in the Democratic primary. After spending hours reading the policy differences between Obama, Clinton, and Edwards (who was still running at the time) and cursing that Biden and Richardson dropped out of the race, I was no closer to a decision. I swear, these people practically plagiarized from each other on Iraq, health care, global warming, and all the issues that mean much to me. Being forced to choose, I finally went with Obama for 2 reasons. 1) Compared to Clinton, he seemed to have a better emphasis on addressing poverty, with ideas like indexing the minimum wage to inflation and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. Clinton doesn't even have a section of her website devoted to addressing poverty. (Not that I don't think she would, but still, how you present yourself says a lot about your passions.) 2) My second reason is pure political calculation. Given the unpopularity of the current president and the fact that no Republican candidate has really captured the hearts of the Right, Republicans are disorganized and dispirited. Democrats are energized and hopeful. The only thing that might bring Republicans out voting in droves is to keep out a candidate they really hate......and for reasons that are entirely unfair, that candidate is Hillary Clinton. Also, I kind of like how Obama often cites one of my favorite theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr.

Now that it's Super Tuesday, we'll see how it all turns out.

Oh, as in 2000, I forgot that Super Tuesday is also Mardi Gras. So happy Mardi Gras. I expect to see everybody with ashes tomorrow! (Not that I've ever done that myself.)

3. Saw No Country For Old Men

I saw this in Columbia last Saturday. I also rented Eastern Promises. A couple of violent movies, let me tell ya. [Spoilers.]

No Country certainly was fascinating. I found myself identifying with Anton Chigurh's many victims. Especially Carla Jean. She knew she was going to die, so she called him on his posturing bullshit. Chigurh pretends that he's some sort of agent of fate....in fact, I'm pretty sure that the Coen Brothers and Cormac McCarthy intend to portray him as such. I don't buy it. He DOES have a choice, dammit! Just like Moss had a choice whether to steal that money. Sure, the movie is dedicated to the idea that things are out of our control, that random chance plays a major role in our fates, that no good deed goes unpunished (note how one of Chigurh's most common victims is a good Samaritan....note how, before the appearance of the tracking device, it seems that Moss's compassion for the thirsty Mexican is the only thing that led to him being tracked by killers). But you know what, even within the limitations of that system, people are still free agents. Moss chose to take the money and not to return it. Chigurh freely chooses every murder he commits - and he shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a coin or "his word" to not take moral responsibility for what he does (for whatever it's worth).

Didn't see Moss's death coming. I mean, I figured he was a dead man from the beginning of the movie, but after he held his own against the unstoppable Chigurh, I figured we would at least observe his death....and that it would be at the hands of someone like Chigurh, instead of the Mexicans. Interesting how, late in the movie, the plot just discards the MacGuffin and focuses on the choices and inadequacies of the characters.

Anyways, I had more thoughts, but I should be getting ready for a day of mock trial prep.

By the way, don't take the fact that I talk more about my vote and a movie than about Christy as any sign of my relative priorities. It's just a lot easier to pontificate about movies and politics than about my wife's pain.

I'm Working On A Saturday

2008-01-12T11:17:00.000-05:00

Here I am, in the office....on a Saturday. Got an amicus brief to work on that needs finishing. The 9th Circuit had better rule my way on this ERISA matter. (For you non-DOL lawyers, that's a pension protection law.)

This federal building definitely has a government mindset - no working on weekends. On the weekends, most of the lights are off, so I had to carry a lamp into work or else I would be working in darkness. Or, the light of my computer screen. Kinda weird.

I'd complain about being in here on a Saturday, but honestly......Blessed am I among lawyers that this is a rare occurrence

This Is What Happens To Your Brain When You Go To Law School

2007-12-21T00:08:00.000-05:00

He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good...

"Hey!", I thought upon hearing those lyrics. "That sounds like quite an extensive system of espionage Santa's got there. He must have a network of spies combined with a wiretapping system. That sounds like a violation of the Privacy Act."

Kudos to any of my law-related friends who can think of a good cause-of-action to use against Santa Claus. Maybe not even not related to spying. For the sheer hell of it, let's think of how many different ways we could sue Santa......

......if he, existed that is.

Meantime, read about one of my favorite cases of all time: Mayo v. Satan. Yes, that Satan.

Today's My Birthday

2007-11-28T06:24:00.000-05:00

Twenty-seven.

27.

XXVII.

Tweeeeeeenty-seeeeeeveeeeen.

20 + 7

30 - 3 (shudder)

A year closer to maturity.

Halfway (-ish) between 25 and 30.

An adult with a marriage and a job.

.....................Okay, this is going to take some getting used to.

Eat Turkey Today!

2007-11-22T08:26:00.000-05:00

That is the sum total of the wisdom I have to pass on to you today.

Let me know how you spent your Thanksgiving. Where are all of you in the world today and watcha doin'?

If You're Wondering....

2007-11-04T09:30:00.000-05:00

That's the title to an Eisley song. I choose it because (1) I'm about to do a very, very quick update on what's going on in my life, in case you were wondering, and (2) because I met Eisley yesterday.

YESTERDAY: Christy and I got to briefly talk with Eisley as they signed autographs after their concert. (We skipped out on the main act, Mute Math.) Christy told them about how I quoted them on my blog post about our wedding, which naturally elicited a lot of "awww". Also, to get a sense of what troopers those folks in Eisley are, read this post and contemplate the fact that they STILL started on time and played a great, energetic, confident show. Also, Chauntelle, my favorite member of Eisley, sings the bridge to "I Could Be There For You."

THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY: We got our new cat....finally! Marley is unreasonably cute, and she knows 3 modes of existence: Sleep, Cuddle, and Attack! Unfortunately, those modes don't always coincide with OUR modes. We've spent the past two nights "sleeping" in the same room with Marley to help her adjust to the new home. She doesn't yet differentiate between fingers and attack-able chew toys. Or between sleeping owners and conscious owners. But what she lacks in self-control and social understanding, she more than makes up for in sheer cuteness and sweetness. She's adjusted pretty quick...never seemed to have a moment where she was scared of her new surroundings or these new people.

THE WEEK BEFORE LAST: I was in the thriving metropolis of Beckely, WV (population: miners) for some training to learn about mining in order to do a better job enforcing the Mine Safety and Health Act. It was really, really interesting. And West Virginia, as far as I can tell, is one big mountain. And it was BEAUTIFUL. All these shades of red, green, orange, and yellow. Here in drought-plagued Georgia, we aren't getting much in the way of pretty colors in our thirsty trees.

THE SUBSEQUENT WEEKEND: Christy and I attended her brother's wedding in Kansas City. Her brother, Kevin, is an intensely cool guy and his now-wife, Chelsea, is truly a sweetheart. But all this didn't stop Christy from still seeing her college-graduate, Microsoft-employee brother as the high-schooler she knew when she left for college. "He's too young! Okay, I know he's not REALLY too young.....but he's too young!" was the weekend's constant refrain. During the rehearsal, when they said "you may kiss the bride" she wanted to separate them like a chaperone. This was the ultimate "D.I.Y. wedding". It took place in the bride's parents' house. (It was a small wedding, but it was still a house that was big enough to accommodate a small wedding, if you catch my drift.) The bride's mother catered with food from Costco. There was no DJ or band.....just 3 mix CDs created by the bride and groom. (A mix of the multi-generational favorites like "Love Shack", oldies that I've never heard of, and stuff that proves Chelsea and Kevin are a young, hip couple - Shins, Old 97s, Spamalot, etc.) It was great seeing the family and friends, including Christy's sister Melissa (who was also our bridesmaid and who will always be "Little One" to Christy, despite the fact that she's taller than Christy now...at age 15) and Chelsea's sister Ellie (sp?) (typical conversation between me and Ellie consists of: [awkward silence] "hi" "hi".....you wouldn't believe it from that description, but we actually got along great). A fun time was had by all.

And now, Ben looks into the future......

THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 26: Christy and I both have training in the D.C. area. Anybody gonna be there? We'd love to hang out. Also, my birthday will be that week.

(Blogger doesn't recognize the word "chaperone" or my wife's name. Just thought I'd tell you that.)

Meet the Newest Member of Our Family

2007-10-14T17:56:00.001-04:00

Here she is, in all her wondrous glory..........

Meet Marley Rainey Stark.

We've adopted her, but we'll actually pick her up in a few weeks, after she gets all her shots 'n stuff and grows to be over two pounds.

Be careful....don't look straight at her. The sheer cuteness may cause you to go blind.

[Addendum:] I found my wedding ring! YAAAAAAAAY!

It's fitting somehow. Same day we make a commitment to a new member of the family, I find the symbol of my commitment to Christy. I don't believe in coincidences.

My "Civic" Duty: Get Out of the Car

2007-10-08T17:02:00.000-04:00

So I'm about 1/4 of the way through one of my long-winded, serious thoughtful posts. This one's about the theology of George W. Bush as it relates to his foreign policy. It's inspired by two articles in Christianity Today. It's shaping up to be a good post and I hope I finish it.

But for now......a story:

I have today off of work because it's Columbus Day. Yes, only the federal government celebrates freakin' Columbus Day anymore, but let's leave that be.

I exit the movie theater having finally seen 3:10 to Yuma. I am contemplating the motives of Russell Crowe's character, Ben Wade. I am wondering what to think of the film's final moments. I open my cell phone to call Christy about her doctor's appointment.

I press the button on the key to unlock our Honda Civic and get inside. Then I notice a bunch of classical music CDs. I don't own any classical music CDs.

At this very moment, I remember that I came to the movie in my Nissan Altima, not Christy's Civic. I look up to see a middle-aged couple staring at me wondering why I just sat down in the driver's seat of their Civic.

----------------------------------

To get the full humor of the moment, you probably have to have been there and witnessed how red my face got.

Let's call this post, Humor in Humiliation....part 2 of a series in Ben's life. Part 1 was about a year ago.

Street Names in Atlanta

2007-09-29T00:47:00.000-04:00

Peachtree Street

Peachtree Road

Peachtree Industrial Boulevard

West Peachtree Street.

Peachtree Dunwoody Road

Peachtree Park Drive

West Peachtree Place

Peachtree Center Avenue

Peachtree Battle Avenue

I love my town but don't ever get lost in Atlanta. The population is skyrocketing and no wonder. Nobody can ever find their way back out again.

[Christy adds: We're well hidden on one of those Peachtrees. Good luck finding us. Do you notice a common theme? And yet I still have not seen a single peach tree....]

On the other hand, there's the possibility that you might run into this guy on the streets of Atlanta. And that always brightens things up. Or at least makes things more interesting.

How I Spent My September 11th

2007-09-12T22:06:00.000-04:00

[Note: Okay, so I tried to make one sentence in very large text to emphasize a point. But for some reason it made the entire post large text. Sorry about that, but I can't figure out how to fix it and I'm too tired to care right now.]

This is not what you think. This is not a contemplation on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For such things, look here (wherein my response gets all snippy and legal, which is what I do for a living) and here. No, this post has nothing to do with such things. It's only an account of the inconvenience and frustrations and polka of the last few days.

So, contrary to the title, let me tell you first about the Great Disaster of September 10th. I'm referring, of course, to the fact that I lost my freaking wedding ring!

My message to the married folks among my readers: Never, ever, under any circumstances take off your wedding ring. Oh, I used to think there were circumstances wherein it was okay to remove the ring....say, if a mugger points a gun at you and demands the ring. I now realize I was living in a naive fantasyland. Okay, so I wasn't mugged. I don't know exactly how I lost it. If I knew that, I'd know where to begin looking. All I know is I looked at my hand at dinner and realized my ring wasn't there. I couldn't, for the life of me, remember when I had taken it off or if it fell off or what. On Monday, Christy and I picked up her car from the service shop...did I leave it there? Did I take it off at work? Or is it, as seems likely, lost somewhere in this mess of an apartment, laughing at me? I never realized what a small thing a ring is until I looked all over my apartment for it.

In a gesture of kindness, because my finger felt naked, Christy has let me wear her high school ring these past two days.

On to September 11th.

So Christy has been sick these past few days. It's a recurring respiratory thing - mucus gets stuck in her chest, she has trouble breathing, it becomes infected. She went to the doctor today and got some medicine that we hope will help. But anyways, I drove Christy to work on Tuesday because we weren't sure whether she would make it through the day. (That way we would only have 1 car downtown and wouldn't have to leave one behind if I drove her home.) She didn't. In the early afternoon, she called me up and asked me to come drive her home. I made some preparations to work from home and picked her up.

When we got home, we walked in and were immediately hit with the most godawful chemical fumes I've ever smelled. See, the apartment complex had called in some contractors to resurface our bathtub (that's another story, and not actually an interesting one at all). Apparently this resurfacing involves lots of chemicals and fumes. We knew all this. Problem is (1) they were supposed to have done this while we were out of town last week, and (2) they were supposed to have opened all our windows to let out the fumes. Instead, they did it yesterday, they left the windows closed, and Christy's lungs were instantly burning. Not the sensation you want when you come home sick intending to go to sleep.

Of course, there was nobody at the apartment front office to complain to, which only ticked us off even more. So my poor sick wife with her (ringless) husband sat outside while I gathered our stuff to go stay at my parents' place in Smyrna, a suburb of Atlanta. Eventually, I ran into the maintenance supervisor of the apartment complex. Maintenance Dude told me the apartment complex would pay for us to stay in a hotel (it was less of a hassle just to go to my parents' place) and that, as soon as the rain let up, he would open the windows. (He didn't, but that just gets me into the frustrations of September 12......a whole 'nuther ballgame.)

So finally, we drove up to Smyrna....sick, tired, frustrated, and otherwise cranky. And now comes the polka.

Yes, that's right, polka.

Polka - a genre of music that was invented in middle Europe in the 19th century and was perfected by Weird Al Yankovic - is not a genre known being blasted in a car. No, that's something usually reserved for rap or hip-hop (and occasionally, on one exhilarating night, it's reserved for blasting Jimmy B and the Fortune 500 while driving down West End Avenue in Nashville, Tennessee). But, as we were driving, less than a mile from my parents' place, we suddenly heard the car next to us blasting some bizarre music. Christy asked me, "is that polka?!" I had to listen for a second to believe it....but yes, it was. Some truly unique individual was blasting polka music at maximum volume during stop and go traffic on that unremarkable suburban street.

And then we laughed.

We spent a fitful night trying to sleep at my parents' place and awoke to various new stresses in the morning, but somehow that moment of Polka Cranked To 11 has stuck with me. It pulled me out of my funk and reminded me to laugh. Then I remembered that, actually, my life is good. I've got Christy, God, great friends, and so many blessings I can't even count them.

So, this is my message to you, late this September 12th. Remember the Lesson of Polka - laugh at yourself and count your blessings. It's probably not as bad as you think.

Oh, and never, ever, under any circumstances, remove your wedding ring. I don't care if you aren't married. Just don't do it.

Daft Hands

2007-09-10T20:18:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure how behind I am on the latest YouTube craze, but I'll assume you haven't seen this and act like I'm revealing something to you.

Watch this (wait 'till after the first 50 seconds) - then marvel at what can be accomplished with only hands, markers, a love of the band Daft Punk, and more time on your (ahem!) hands than anybody has a right to. Then contemplate whether the maker of this video is fantastically awesome, lame beyond belief, or both.

P.S. The sequel has some humor value, too. Until you get sick of it, that is.

Greatest Movie Speech

2007-08-31T18:43:00.000-04:00

In a world of tragedy and heroism, of men of power losing control, there's lots of deeply serious things I could say. As I look at my friends and fellow bloggers, they offer defiance, deep thoughts on religion, celebration, and good headshots. All inspirational blogs that raise the bar for an increasing blog slacker such as myself.

So, naturally, it's important that I talk about movies. My topic for today is movie speeches/monologues.

This time, I'd like to offer my opinion on what is the greatest movie speech of all time.....in my opinion.....at the moment.....until I change my mind or remember something better or see something better or just get fickle. (Problem with being a lawyer is your language is filled with caveats....for the most part.)

There ain't nothing like a good movie speech to give me that joyful feeling inside. A speech can make you stand up and cheer, or it might perfectly encapsulate some memorable character....or maybe, if you love it, it says something about you. I dunno.

Anyways enough of my rambling, here's my favorite speech: Marge Gunderson, the pregnant cop from Fargo, has just captured the cold-blooded murderer, Gaear Grimsrud. She's driving into town with him cuffed in the back seat. And she says....

So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money .There's more to life than money, you know. . . . Don't you know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just don't understand it.

In a movie (and a world) full of greed, violence, stupidity, and deceit, Marge Gunderson is a beacon of virtue, love, intelligence, and determination. She is everything most Coen Brothers characters (including just about every other character in that movie) are not. And after all these desperate, violent characters are scrambling for money, she - the pregnant woman, the most unlikely of heroes - captures the killer and then gives this speech putting things in proper perspective. What I love most about this speech and this character is that she can't even understand the mindset of these criminals. It's not that she's stupid or naive. She was smart enough to tear down every smoke screen thrown up by Jerry Lundegaard and to methodically track down the killers. She knows her police work. But she's so far removed from the criminals' twisted values, so full of love and goodness, that she can't comprehend why they would do such things. She values things like love and family far more than the riches so many of us vainly scramble after.

And she's right. If I were a movie character, I'd far rather be Norm Gunderson, with a wife like Marge, than James Bond.

So, what about you? What is your favorite movie speech? I know comments aren't usually a good medium for quoting speeches verbatim, so feel free to respond on your own blog, in the comments of this blog, whatever.

If you're having trouble thinking of a good speech, or simply want to review some of the best before you decide, Tim Dirks Greatest Films site is - as always - an invaluable resource. Even with the annoying pop-ups. Here's his section on Best speeches.

In Honor of Gary Jensen

2007-08-20T15:47:00.000-04:00

I never met Gary Jensen, one of the three rescuers who perished trying to rescue those six trapped men in a collapsed Utah mine. I had never heard of him until he was already dead. But part of me still feels his loss.

I know little about Jensen, but I know this: he and I were on the same "team" - the Department of Labor. We both make a living fighting for the rights of others, but Jensen did so in a much more immediate way. He was a member of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's rescue team.

I don't know much about him, but I know he chose a dangerous job - one where he willingly put himself in harm's way to save others' lives. I know he was trying to do exactly that when he died.

I don't mean to elevate Jensen's death above the other two who perished in the rescue effort. All died tragically in the midst of a noble effort to rescue others. But Jensen's death hits closer to home because he's "one of us." I didn't know him, but I work with men like him every day. It's weird to think I could still send him an e-mail right now in our DOL Intranet...and he'll never answer. I'm staring at his work phone number (again, via the DOL Intranet) and I have this absurd notion I should call him and thank him.

But that's just bizarre. This blog post is the best chance I'll get.

So this one goes out to you, Gary. You worked honorably, died tragically & nobly, and inspired love in those who knew you and admiration in those who didn't.

I don't know you.......but, dammit, I still thank you.

This Is Apparently My New Method of Posting

2007-08-15T19:41:00.000-04:00

I no longer seem to have the time for sustained thought in my blogging.

1. For the Christians or theologically curious among my blog readers, Kenny's been posting a fascinating series of posts on his blog re: the book of Genesis. I really need to read them more in depth and comment on them.

2. Dick Cheney in 1994: "Invading Baghdad would create a quagmire." What happened? [Hat tip: Mike.]

3. On this day 1 year ago, I was having my honeymoon. Yes, Christy and I just celebrated our first anniversary. And after a year, I have one thing to say: "Yes, marriage IS everything it's cracked up to be. It ROCKS!" Had dinner at The Melting Pot on our anniversary. Crazy good. Crazy expensive.

4. Anybody out there have clean air? We'd love to borrow some in Atlanta. This running to the car while holding my breath thing isn't going to work much longer.

That's all for now.

An Even More Lightning Quick Assortment of Thoughts And Life Updates

2007-08-04T01:31:00.000-04:00

I have nothing interesting to say. Or rather, I have plenty of interesting things to say and never the time to say them.

1. Christy and I - along with 50 to 100 other Atlantans - spoke to the Atlanta City Council on Tuesday. It didn't help. They still didn't restore the funding to the homeless shelter.

2. You know you run in small American evangelical circles when you recognize an old college acquaintance in an ad in Christianity Today. (Sorry, you can't see the ad on the website.) I was riding the train to work flipping through the magazine when I thought "that picture on that ad 2 pages back looked like Meryl Cantley." So I flipped back and realized... "holy [word an evangelical probably shouldn't use] that IS Meryl!" I haven't spoken to her in years and missed her wedding - though I was invited - because it took place on the same day as Lori and Bradley Metrock's wedding. So it's just kinda surreal to see her face in a national magazine after all these years. Her name's Meryl Herr now. Any of you Vandy folks remember her?

3. Damn, it's been a while since I've posted. Sorry about that.

4. Lion King 1 1/2 - yes, it's a Disney direct-to-video. By all rights it should be terrible. It's actually pretty funny. Best watched soon after seeing The Lion King. Lion King is to Hamlet as Lion King 1 1/2 is to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

5. Well, there goes the republic. Thanks, Senate Democrats. You make me so thrilled that we elected you last year. Way to make a stand for checks and balances.

6. In music video news Eisley (new album coming soon!) has a creepy video with "Invasion" based on....well, if you don't get the movie that inspired it, there's just no helping your ignorance of pop culture. (If you check out their Myspace, Eisley's new stuff sounds VERY different from their old stuff.) White Stripes (new album kicks @$$!!!) have a booooring video with their otherwise excellent "You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do As You're Told)" I'm still holding out for them to release "Little Cream Soda" as a single. Because only the White Stripes can make spoken-word poetry ROCK! Finally Tegan & Sara (new album just out!) have an inexplicable video and even more inexplicable hairstyles in "Back In Your Head."

Finally -- If you don't click on any of the other random links in this blog post, click on this one and see why Tegan and Sara rock so much.

Weekend Plans

2007-07-14T10:46:00.000-04:00

Tonight, we plan on hanging out at a Bed and Breakfast for a change of pace. It's called Hiker Hostel.

I do wish its name didn't remind me of a series of bad movies I have no intention of seeing but whose basic plot I already know. So.....um, if you can't reach me by Monday, call the authorities.

Actually, this place looks very nice and I'm excited about it. Continuing to celebrate Christy's birthday by hiking 'n stuff. She gets a whole weekend b/c she's Christy.

Jacob and Wilhelm

2007-07-14T00:21:00.000-04:00

1. So for two out of the three times I've wished Christy "happy birthday" on this blog - the first comment I've received has been the same. Jacob Grier: "Hey, you didn't wish ME a happy birthday" or some variant thereof. (See here and here.) Just because he and Christy were apparently born on the same day, he seems to think he deserves such congratulations on the day internationally recognized as Christy's birthday. Imagine the nerve!

Just kidding, dude. Happy belated birthday. I'll look into that flower thing....but what do you think the people at Cato will say?

2. Ever heard of the Wilhelm Scream? See, apparently a fair number of sound people in Hollywood are simply uncreative. Either that or they really, really love inside jokes. There's this one scream sound effect recorded in 1951 which has been used in more than 175 films, from Westerns to Star Wars to Lord of the Rings. We don't normally notice a throwaway scream in movies because we are paying attention to something else, but when a bunch of scenes using the same scream are strung together - as in this YouTube video - the results are oddly funny. And just so you don't think this was all made up by some YouTuber editing old movies, here's Roger Ebert describing the scream.

Christy's Birthday

2007-07-12T12:43:00.000-04:00

Today, the world celebrates 26 years of Christina Marie Resnick Stark's presence. (And 11 months of her living with that extra last name.) Or, if you're pro-life, 26 years and 9 months of her presence.

[Yes, I told that lame joke for Mike's birthday. But the beauty of lameness is it can be repeated because....hey, it's already lame. There's no danger of repitition ruining it.]

I promised last year that Christy and I would never spend her birthday apart again. Luckily I haven't been sent to Zimbabwe as Mike predicted. However, I'm currently in my office on lunch break and Christy's in hers.

This is a situation that will soon be remedied. I'm planning on surprising her in her office this afternoon. I've got some flowers in a pot which she can put on her desk to remember the moment. If her office-mates are game, I might try to get them to sing Happy Birthday. Then...well, then I don't really have a plan. Whatever Christy wants to do. Maybe pottery painting and Italian food. Maybe swimming. I guess we'll find out!

And I can type this confident that I'm not ruining it for her. Because she never reads my blog! (At least, not unless I point it out to her.)

So, wish me luck. And wish Christy a happy birthday because I will eventually point out this blog post to her.

P.S. I already bought her a cooking class. Yes, yes I know that sounds like a selfish gift since I clearly benefit from it....but trust me it's what she wanted.

Sentences President Bush Actually SHOULD Commute

2007-07-06T07:23:00.001-04:00

I don't normally link to the libertarian Cato Institute - despite the fact that one of my dear friends works there - because....well, I fundamentally disagree with libertarians about the proper role of government in society.

But when they're right, they're right. Cato's blog lists a couple unjustly harsh sentences that the President actually should commute, instead of just granting favors to his political cronies.

[Hat Tip: Barzelay....back among the land of the blogging?]

Why The White Stripes Rock So Much

2007-07-04T15:21:00.000-04:00

So this morning I've been stuck in my apartment because 55,000 people decided to take a little jog down our street on the 4th of July.

So what to do but sit around and glory in the new White Stripes album? Icky Thump is everything I could want and have come to expect from Jack and Meg White - unpredictable, wildly creative, increasingly complex, and filled (even at its most angst-filled moments) with the joy of creation. (Speaking of the joy of creation, see Ratatouille.)

It got me thinking....what is it that I love so much about the Stripes? Why did I choose my wedding colors (I now confess to myself) to match the White Stripes' color scheme? Why did I recently refer to Jack White as "the greatest human being living"? Why do I fantasize about getting Meg White to drum for my college roommates' band, Unexpectedly Sober? What is the secret of the White Stripes' greatness?

First off, I think it all starts with Meg. Yes, I know Jack is the creative genius of the group. (His work with The Raconteurs and producing Loretta Lynn's album prove that.) Some have criticized Meg for her simplistic drumming or even suggested she should be kicked out of the band. Those who make such suggestions are the dumbest creatures on the planet, and I include particularly dumb amoeba in that statement. The simplicity of her drumming is the point. It anchors the music.

You see, the White Stripes are all about taking the basic elements of rock, country, and blues.....breaking them down, and putting them back together again in new and interesting ways. Their first album was very simplistic - just guitars and drums, very basic riffs, screechy vocals, and not much else. If I wasn't already a fan by the time I bought the album, I wouldn't have liked it. But with each successive album, they've taken that spine of simple blues rock and reached out in new, interesting, and increasingly complex directions. The trick is to take Jack's wild creativity and rein it in. The simplicity of Meg's drumming, combined with the rigid formality of the band's formula, allows Jack's creativity to ooze out in new and interesting ways.

Of course the other element is that Jack White is a freakin' genius, melding together elements of rock, country, blues, punk, and pop like so many Legos. He's the guy who came up with the concept of the band. He's the one with all those hyperactive freakouts during concerts. (I keep thinking of the Raconteurs's "Broken Boy Soldier" and the way he screams "the boy....THE BOY".....you have to have been there.) He writes songs about Citizen Kane, lost love, the first day of school, Rita Hayworth, yard sales, the paranoia fame causes, and whatever the hell "Girl, You Have No Faith in Medicine" is about. I never know what the next song will contain and I LOVE that.

It also helps that they put all their energy into their concerts. Jack wandering around the stage playing a plethora of different instruments like a hyperactive child let loose in a toy store. Meg bashing away at those drums like they teased her in middle school....and yet looking like she's falling asleep. I've been to two White Stripes concerts and I'm seriously contemplating seeing them again at Austin City Limits. Every single time I've been impressed at how two people can kick an entire audience's ass. I leave their concerts exhilarated and exhausted.

So, it's all about (1) Meg's drumming, (2) Jack's creativity, (3) the energy and unpredictability. Well, I'm glad to see my powers of analysis can break the greatest band of the first decade of the 21st century down to a 3-part list.

----------------------------------------------
So.............................how have you been doing? What's up in your life? Feel free to ignore the entire White Stripes analysis and just tell me about your life. Or tell me why I'm wrong/right about something.

Just comment.

Lightning Quick Updates In The Life of Ben

2007-06-21T17:12:00.000-04:00

In no particular order, certainly not in order of importance.....

1. Our cat, Max, died this past weekend

He was the greatest kitty in the whole world and much crying ensued. It doesn't feel right coming home without a cat rubbing up against me and demanding food. He was Christy's cat for 15 years. Needless to say, things are sad in the Stark household.

2. We saw Pirates 3 and Oceans 13

Critics be damned - I thoroughly enjoyed Pirates 3. That final battle kicked large degrees of ass. Oceans 13 was more slumming with the stars....and I'm okay with that.

3. Bugs invaded our house
I hate it when nature invades our house. Especially when it comes in the form of lots and lots of little crawly things infesting our hamper and all the clothes inside it. After that nightmare-inducing mental image, picture a night at the laundromat for us. Nature is, indeed, a whore - as a great poet once said.

4. Jeff's getting married
And I'm pulling groomsman duties. So it's off to Cary, NC this weekend. Jeff, having been through wedding planning myself, you have my deepest sympathies. Having been through a wedding and marriage myself, you have my deepest congratulations, as expressed in the following words of poetry: "Woohoo!" Also, I think I look pretty darn good in a tux. Also I look forward to hanging out some with Kenny and Erin, who (for the time being) live in the area.

5. Rock 'N Roll Thoughts
I remain possibly the only one of my friends who gets his rock music through standard rock radio. So - aside from the jolts of interesting music given me by my rock critic brother-in-law - I probably have the least sophisticated tastes of any of my friends now. That said.....I need to go buy Icky Thump, and The Black Parade right now. I consider Jack White to be the greatest human being living and I am constantly singing all of the recent My Chemical Romance singles. Also I need to get the new Derek Webb album. Of all the Christian musicians I listen to, only Derek Webb and Jars of Clay seem to consistently mirror my own internal musings and struggles....and thus to teach me something about my faith.

In D.C. next week

2007-06-01T14:54:00.000-04:00

I'll be traveling to our nation's capital next week for some training.

Not sure how much free time I'll have, but if any DC-area residents want to get together either Monday or Tuesday night, drop me a line.

2007-05-27T23:30:00.000-04:00

Four words: "Jeff Woodhead, Rock God!"

That is all. An explanation may follow at some point.

[Update]: While I'm remarking upon the awesomeness of my friends, here's four more words for ya: "Kenny Ching, Published Author"

Thoughts While Sick, Day 2

2007-05-22T16:57:00.000-04:00

So I'm still sick. Yesterday I attempted to go into work and got a half day in before I realized I'd made a terrible, mucus-ridden mistake. Today, after the worst night of half-sleep imaginable, I decided going to work wasn't worth the effort. Let's hear it for sick leave! Hope I'm not still sick tomorrow, since I will be traveling.

On with the random collection of thoughts.....

1. The Air Out There

Normally, Atlanta is a great place to live. Lots to do, a variety of cultures, a vibrant series of festivals, several excellent parks, and so forth. But the air quality during the summer in this car-addicted city leaves something to be desired. Especially when smoke from the South Georgia wildfires travels 250 miles to cover the city. Needless to say, this doesn't help when you're sick. And poor Christy, who has used up all her sick leave, is having to walk in this stuff in downtown Atlanta. Breathing is getting to be a real pain.

2. Relient K Concert

On Friday, before the sickness struck, I went to see Relient K in concert. Relient K is a Christian pop-punk group that stands a step above both the usual pop-punk crowd and the usual Christian music. Their lyrics are often witty and/or spiritually insightful. Their music - at least, their music 2 albums ago - is interesting and moderately experimental (for their genre). Thus, I've included a lot of their stuff on my mix CDs. Their latest album is a real disappointment, though. It seems, after finding success with the MTV generation (by which I mean "teenagers") they've decided to tone down the wit, spiritual insight, and experimentation for an album heavy on bland love songs. There are a few highlights, which will inevitably make it into a mix CD of mine....but not much.

So, when I went to the concert, I wasn't surprised to find myself surrounded by teenagers. It's weird, being 26 years old and feeling like a geezer. To the people in my office, I'm the kid. To the people in the concert, I was probably the creepy old guy. It didn't help that Christy had to bow out of attending with me because - in case you haven't guessed - she was sick.

Still, overall, I liked the show. Lead singer Matt Thiessen exudes enthusiasm and, well, niceness. When the opening act was performing, he ran out with a bullhorn to join the song and encourage the audience to cheer for the band. I liked that. I also liked that he showed that all-important willingness to make an absolute fool of himself (i.e. by introducing one song with a ballerina twirl). My favorite moment of the night came when they covered Weezer's "Surf Wax America" off the blue album. In introducing the song, Thiessen admitted they had picked an odd cover since nobody at their shows knew the song. After all, Weezer's blue album came out in 1994 and, as Thiessen told the teenage crowd, "I realize that many of you probably came out after 1994."

In the end, of course, I enjoyed the show by being Ben - full-on air guitar and singing badly at the top of my lungs. By the time they closed with "Which to Bury - Us or the Hatchet" (then the 3 song encore ending with, of course, "Be My Escape") I felt totally connected with the audience of people 10 years younger than me. (Incidentally, this night wasn't particular great for the venue's bar sales. Wrong audience, dude. A bunch of Christian kids under 21, some with chaperones. The bartenders looked kind of bored.)

3. My Character Flaw (well, one of my character flaws)

From concert reviews to introspection, here we go! Some time as I was standing there feeling like an outsider it occurred to me - I was feeling insecure because a bunch of teenagers I've never met and will probably never meet again might think poorly of me. Is my crippling need to be liked really THAT bad?

Apparently it is. In the aftermath of the theological debate on my blog, I called up Zhubin out of the blue to ask if he thought less of me now. Zhubin assured me that he did not, but nevertheless it must have been a bizarre phone call for him. After all, he and I have spoken maybe 2 or 3 times in the 4 years since we graduated Vanderbilt. (Not counting comments on each other's blogs.) Even at Vanderbilt, we were more friendly acquaintances than best buddies. So why should I be so concerned about his opinion of me that I call him while he's having dinner with his family for the sole reason of asking his opinion of me? But I'm sad to say that my biggest fear in writing those 2 blog posts was not that I would fail to represent my faith well, but that I would say something that would make people not like me.

A related manifestation of this problem - after I had satisfied myself that Zhubin didn't hate me, merely disagreed with me, I came across this comment on Zhubin's blog by an anonymous commenter with a chip on his/her shoulder. And I again spiraled into depression that this person thought so little of me. That's right, I was driven to depression by the low opinion of someone I had never met and never will meet who fails to even identify himself/herself.

I'm not sure how this crippling desire to be liked by everybody began - perhaps when I was at the bottom of the social ladder in middle school. But I find myself constantly worrying about what people think of me. This isn't a good trait to have. It's not a good trait as a lawyer - if I get too concerned about what opposing counsel thinks of me, I open myself up to manipulation by someone who doesn't have my (or my client's) best interests at heart. It's not a good trait as a Christian - as has been amply demonstrated, sometimes openly saying what I believe will piss people off....and I should not try to hide my faith to make it or me socially acceptable. Overall, it's a desire that's impossible to fulfill. It's impossible to have everybody like me. Some people are just diametrically opposed and that's that. If I try to make people on both "sides" like me, I'll just end up twisting myself into contortions and losing my integrity.

Not that it's a bad thing to be liked or to behave in a such a manner that most people who know me like me. As a lawyer, it's helpful to my clients if I am well-respected in the legal community. As a Christian, my witness comes off a lot more authentically if I'm not a loudmouth asshole (see Falwell, Jerry...next section of this post). And - hopefully - if I am a man of integrity people will like me for it. But I can't let other people's opinions control me. Right now, that's exactly what I do.

4. On Jerry Falwell

Jerry Falwell's death created in me a mix of emotions. I've been called out in the past for celebrating the death of people I don't like (actually of someone far worse than Falwell), and I like to think I've matured enough not to do that anymore. But let's be clear - I didn't like him.

Jerry Falwell was a man for whom I had no respect. In fact, I considered him a blot on the name of Christianity. One reason is that I think he's done more than almost anybody else to smother the social/political conscience of a generation of evangelicals. Falwell - along with folks like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed - funneled evangelical political energy into only 2 areas: abortion and opposition to gay rights (and perhaps the occasional Ten Commandments monument or "War on Christmas"). Meanwhile, the following issues were completely ignored: poverty, justice for the oppressed, peace, environmental stewardship. These are all issues which Scripture teaches us to be concerned about. But ignoring them allowed Falwell and his ilk to form an alliance with the business interests in the Republican party.

Whenever anybody challenged Falwell and his allies about this alliance or suggested that Christians should expand their concerns beyond his core issues, he accused the questioner of being anti-Christian. This is what I truly detested about Falwell - his bullying willingness to personally attack anybody who disagreed with him....to question their motives and, if they were Christians, to question their very Christianity. He accused the Reverend Jim Wallis of being "as much an evangelical as an oak tree" because Wallis said poverty, torture, peace, and the environment are issues Christians should care about. He called the growing concern - even among Christians - about global warming "Satan's attempt to redirect the church's primary focus" from evangelism to environmentalism - as if he hadn't done plenty of "redirecting" for his own benefit. (By the way, if any of my Christian readers think it's a zero-sum game - that Christians must be either about evangelism or social issues - I suggest you read this quote from New Testament scholar N.T. Wright.)

I'm glad to say that Falwell's influence on evangelicals has been fading. A new generation of evangelicals has recognized - and taken principled stands - on issues like torture and global warming. Groups like International Justice Mission are literally rescuing people from slavery. Even the Southern Baptist Convention is endorsing universal health care for children.

But for all our differences, Jerry Falwell and I shared one fundamental similarity: we both believed Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to earth in human form, died for our sins, and rose again. This is no small thing. My first thought is to recoil at the thought of considering Jerry Falwell my Christian brother, but Scripture won't let me: "If anyone says 'I love God' yet hates his brother, he is a liar." 1 John 4:20. The Bible speaks of Christians as being of "one body" and makes it quite clear that one part of that body cannot spite another without the entire body suffering.

So, as much as I despise their tactics....as much as I will vehemently oppose their politics....I cannot hate Jerry Falwell or others like him. In fact I am called to love them. I have no idea how to do that. All I know is that I share the same deep spiritual bond with the Falwells of the world as I do with Christians that I like.

So, rest in peace, Jerry. We'll find out soon enough who was right in our areas of disagreement. Or, indeed, if any of the things we Christians fought so passionately about really mattered.

-----------------------

Aaaaaaaand that's it for "Thoughts While Sick." Hopefully, I'll be better tomorrow. I wrote this post - in between sleeping and staring at the television - over a 5 hour period. While I'm glad to get all my thoughts down, part of me hopes I won't have this much free time again. At least, not for the same reason.

Thoughts While Sick

2007-05-21T16:13:00.000-04:00

Seems the only time I find time to blog is when I'm sick. I'm home in bed for the 2nd time in 3 weeks. A cold so bad it feels like my head is going to explode. So, logically, I might as well blog. You can draw parallels between my thoughts and mucus, but that's just gross.

So here's a random assortment of things I've been meaning to blog about.....with absolutely no connecting theme!

1. Happy Feet [Caution: here be spoilers]

Happy Feet won the Oscar for best animated film over Cars, a film that I and my toddler-age nephew love with equal fervor. Christy and I finally got around to watching it this weekend while - you guessed it - we were both sick.

It's.....kinda weird. It starts with cuteness which is made all the funnier if you've seen March of the Penguins and had to listen to Top 40 radio in the late 80s-early 90s. Dancing, singing, marching penguins. I'll accept that. Then our hero, Mumble (voice of Frodo Baggins/Kevin) gets kicked out of the pack (or whatever you call a group of penguins) because he can't sing...only dance. Typical animated fish out of water who must prove his worth. Ok, fine, I can accept that if done well. The big problem Mumble has to solve is why there aren't any fish to eat anymore. And the problem turns out to be - big surprise - humans.

Early on, this is effectively presented indirectly. Mumble almost gets run over by an abandoned bulldozer in an avalanche....a character named Lovelace claims mystical powers from the fact that he has one of those six-pack plastic things around his neck. But then things just get weird. Mumble gets caught and put in the zoo and when he looks out he sees....actual human beings. I mean, not even animated human beings....but actors. This totally wrecks the reality of the movie. It's hard to suspend your disbelief about dancing, singing penguins when there's actual human beings staring at these animated creatures. It kind of freaks you out, too. And then the movie gets all preachy with something like a U.N. meeting where the human world decides to stop over-fishing.

Sure, I agree with the environmental message. But how could this awkward message film beat out the imaginative wonder that was Cars?

Oh, crap. I need to go drive, while sick, through rush hour traffic to pick up Christy from work. Because she's sick, you know.

Coming up on Thoughts While Sick (if I have time): Spider Man 3, my report on the Relient K concert, my dilemma about Blogger ads, my discovery of one of my character flaws, and my thoughts on Jerry Falwell.

If I don't have time to write about all of those, is there any one you would particularly care to hear about? "I don't really care to hear your thoughts" is a valid answer, but not a particularly nice thing to say to sick person.

A Follow-Up Question

2007-05-12T10:21:00.000-04:00

An interesting question arising out of the discussion in the last post.

Imagine you are personally in charge of designing the spiritual reality. Not just designing a religion, but designing the way things are.

Assume also that there is something like a Heaven and a Hell. (In my belief, as I state below, Heaven is a relationship with God and Hell is separation from God.....but for the purposes of this question I'm talking about any sort of reward and/or punishment.) I know not all of you believe in such things, but let's imagine for the purposes of discussion.

What would be a perfect or correct system to decide who goes where?

Christians trumpet as great mercy the idea that all you have to do to obtain salvation (that is, re-connect with God) is.....well....ask for it. Afterwards, as I explained below, much is demanded in terms of love and self-sacrifice, but it's quite simple at the start.

Zhubin tells me he finds such a system abhorrent....a system where only loyalty is demanded no matter how loving or cruel you are.

So I ask my readers, how should it be? If there is a Heaven/Hell, what would be the right way for deciding who goes where?

If it's a merit-based system, where should we draw the line and why? If it's on some other basis
, what is that basis? Or should we just let everybody in?

I personally like a system which is simple to get into (ask for it) but demands much of you afterwards (love). But I would....I'm a Christian.

What system would you choose and why?

A Response to Zhubin, Part 2

2007-05-10T11:46:00.000-04:00

In this second post (for the first post, see here), I want to respond to something Zhubin said which has less to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity, and more to do with why Christians annoy the everlovin' crap out of him:

[I]f you can reduce the unfathomable diversity of spiritual thought throughout human history to a set of enumerated beliefs that must be literally accepted, and you honestly believe that anything less will be punished with eternal suffering, then our conversation is over, and you can shut the fuck up about the beauty of your faith. It's ugly, through and through.

How did this happen? When did "God loves you so much he sent his Son to die for you and freely offers you grace if you will accept it" become "join us or die"?

Certainly much of the blame falls on Christians. From the fire-and-brimstone preachers to the smug bumper stickers, Christians have often portrayed hell as eternal, horrific torture meted out on people for not being Christians. I can't read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" without getting pissed off. The God who "holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire [and] abhors you" is not the God I recognize.

But let's start over. Let me explain precisely what I think is beautiful about the faith I follow and the Christian God I believe in. This may not interest you, but if any of my readers believe, like Zhubin, that Christianity is "ugly, through and through" I'd appreciate if you'd at least listen to my reasons for disagreeing.

It starts with the ugly - but hard to dispute - idea that we humans screw up. A lot. Just look around you. There's war, addiction, emotional cruelty, injustice, broken friendships, failed marriages, ruined ecosystems, lies, manipulation, poverty, selfishness. Who among us has perfectly lived up to even his or her own standards of right and wrong, much less any external system of morality (whether that system comes from religion or otherwise)? If we're not guilty of murder, then I bet we're still guilty of indifference or even the occasional cruelty toward our fellow human beings. The religious term for this state is "sin", but you can call it what you like.

The other opening idea of my faith is a perfect God who (a) desires a personal relationship with each of us and (b) knows what's best for us. (Hey, he made us. Just like the manufacturer of an I-Pod knows best how to operate it and how not to.) But here's the key - by acting out our moral failings....by choosing our own way instead of his, we are personally rejecting him. We are severing that relationship. If we keep it up for a lifetime, we have freely chosen to be apart from God and He finally lets us stay away from him.

And that's what Hell is. It's an eternal separation from God. It's not, as is sometimes popularly portrayed, an eternal torture chamber to punish people for not being Christian. Don't get me wrong, eternal separation from God is horrible....we were designed for a relationship with him. But it is something freely chosen, not something imposed upon people for being in the "outsider" group.

Here's where the beauty part comes in. Despite our freely chosen rejection of him, God reached out to us anyway. He chose to come down in human form to be among us. While here, he healed the sick, hung out with society's rejects, and taught about radical, self-sacrificing love. And then, while we were still mired in our failings and self-absorption, he backed his words up with actions. By willingly suffering a horrific death and rising back to life, he took the guilt for our wrongdoing and re-opened the path to re-establishing our relationship with him. It's still our choice whether we want to take that path and establish that relationship; he hasn't robbed us of our free will. But he's given us a way.

A God who doesn't just look down from on high at our plight as screwed-up, broken souls....but who actively joins us and suffers with us......who makes the ultimate sacrifice so that we have the choice of a relationship with him. There's a word to describe that: Love.

In addition to the ultimate example of love in the form of Jesus, Christianity gives me teachings like "love your neighbor as yourself" and even "love your enemy", teachings so radical and earth-shattering that they would transform the world if only they were lived up to....and have transformed the world in part whenever people have lived up to them. (I once discussed the radical nature of these teachings here. Zhubin commented extensively on that post, though for some reason his comments are now attributed to "anonymous.") Beautiful? Damn straight it is.

The great failing of the church is how rarely we Christians have lived up to those teachings, and how often we have failed to convey the beauty of the teachings and of the actions of Jesus. But that's an indictment of Christians, not Christianity. (And that's not really what Zhubin was complaining about in the quote above, anyway.)

So, if you want to criticize the James Dobsons and Ralph Reeds of the world, I'm right there with you and will join you. (Heck, it's how I began this blog just over 2 years ago.) If you want to criticize the Jim Wallises and Tony Campolos of the world, I'm willing to listen and maybe agree. If you want to criticize the Mother Teresas and Martin Luther Kings of the world....well, I'll have to respectfully, but vehemently disagree with you. But still, let's talk. If you want to criticize me.....well, I may well deserve it and I hope I'll be grown-up enough to listen.

Christians are often - but not always - an ugly bunch, which is a damn shame given the beliefs we supposedly espouse. But Christianity is beautiful and no, I will not shut the fuck up about it.

A Response to Zhubin, Part 1

2007-05-10T11:40:00.000-04:00

[Note: I have time to write this post only because I'm at home sick. Since I might set off a lengthy discussion here, I hope I have time to actually participate in it.]

Zhubin Parang is a fellow Vanderbilt grad whose blog I read with regularity and with great pleasure. He's by far the wittiest blogger that I know - if I ever get around to that "funniest blog post" contest I said I was going to do months and months ago, he will have at least two entries that left me laughing so hard I cried (and I'm probably forgetting some). And since we share many of the same political opinions - especially a dedication to the rule of law - I enjoy reading as he says the things I want to say, only with more wit.

Several weeks ago, Zhubin wrote two posts attacking (he might say debunking) Christianity and Christians, based on his reading or Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. It has taken me a while to figure out how to respond. My first instinct was to respond in the strident, sarcastic manner of Dawkins - but I realized that all I could accomplish there was a flame war. My next instinct was to go into full-blown apologetics - before I realized that (a) that would practically require writing a book to go into all the points and counterpoints made throughout history, and (b) I'm not sure I would convince anybody of anything. Christy wanted to tell her personal story - how she went from sharing some of Zhubin's opinions about Christians (she once found evangelicals like myself to be "cultish") through her struggles with faith and God to becoming a Christian herself. That's a worthy story to tell, and maybe someday I'll post her story on this blog (or my own story, for that matter)....but not today.

Today, my ambitions are limited - and more blog-post length. I want to respond briefly to two of his assertions. Maybe this will lead to other discussions in the comment section or future blog posts. (Hopefully, they won't be one-sided discussions. The other reason for my delay in writing was that I haven't had time for more than the occasional one-sentence comment on friends' blogs, much less discussions which require actual thought and time commitment. How does a first-year law firm slave like Zhubin find the time to do this stuff?) (That was a dig at law firms which overwork their attorneys, not at Zhubin.)

The first assertion I want to respond to:

[A]ny assertions of divine intervention are actually scientific hypotheses, testable and falsifiable through the scientific method. . . .

Here's where it sucks for you as a Christian: because your religion wholly depends on divine interventions, and claims of divine interventions are subject to empirical analysis, you have committed yourself to hinging your religious beliefs on scientific analyses of those claims of divine intervention. And there is NO scientific evidence to prove a single damn one of any miracle Jesus made, let alone the Big One.

But come on, you say, it's impossible to find samples of Jesus's DNA to prove his divine heritage, or of evidence to prove his miracles two thousand years ago. Well, tough shit for you. It's on you to prove his divinity, and if you can't gather the evidence for it, what possible reason should anyone have to give your claims more validity than Scientology's claims of Xenu? You have NOTHING more going for you, you realize that? YOU HAVE WHAT SCIENTOLOGY HAS.

Tell me, Zhubin, do you believe in the existence of Julius Caesar? Do you believe he was a military leader in an ancient empire called Rome? Do you believe he was assassinated by a group of senators? That among his assassins was a guy called Brutus (or some variant on that name)?

I'm guessing that you - like any person with a reasonable grasp of history - do believe these things. What basis do you have for believing these things...or believing in the existence of any events in the ancient world? You have documentary evidence...things written by or about Caesar, as near to the time of his existence as possible.

And I have the eyewitness accounts as written in and/or recounted to the writers of the Gospels. (Along with accounts of historians hostile to Christianity in latter decades that confirm at least some of the details of the Gospels.)

Before you scoff and say I'm just making the fallacy of relying on a sacred text to prove its own truth, wait up a second. I'm only asking that they be judged on the same standard as any other historical document.

What makes a historical document reliable in the eyes of historians? 3 things come to mind:

First - Eyewitness accounts (or first-hand writings of the person himself) count more than second-hand accounts. The reason for this is kind of obvious. Same reason courts prefer direct testimony over hearsay.

Second - Number of manuscripts. This allows comparisons of one manuscript to another for accuracy and discrepancies. If an event is significant, many manuscripts would be produced. The greater the number of manuscripts shows greater circulation, geographical spread, and widespread public acceptance and knowledge.

Third - The time between the event and the earliest manuscript found to date. The more time, the more room for manuscript makers to insert embellishments and the like. If an event happened 1,000 years ago and all we have is current manuscripts, who's to correct an error in the manuscript? It's at least a lot harder than if....say, someone said the planes on 9/11 flew into the Sears Tower and the White House. We would instantly refute that assertion based on what we saw with our own eyes on TV. If someone said JFK was killed by a car bomb, we'd call him a liar...even though we personally weren't alive then, many who are alive could have conclusively refuted him and laughed him out of town. If someone said the south won the Civil War or the American Revolution was fought against Holland, we'd make sure she wasn't a history teacher that's for damn sure. Nobody alive now was alive then, but we are still close in time to know events did not happen that way.

Caesar's account of the Gallic Wars describes events happening in his lifetime (eyewitness accounts, that's good), 100-44 B.C. The earliest copy we have of his works are from 900 A.D., 1000 years after the event. We have 10 manuscripts from that era. Take most other ancient writings, and the story is the same...the works of Sophocles (496-406 B.C.) - Earliest Manuscript: 1000 A.D....Time lag: 1400 years. Number of Manuscripts: 193.

The New Testament (written about 40-100 A.D.). Earliest known manuscript: 125 A.D. Time lag: 25 years. Number of manuscripts: 24,000. (Caveat: not all are complete manuscripts of every part of it...some are only portions.)

We believe in the existence of Caesar, Sophocles and the like...and believe we are reading at least a rough approximation of their words. And we believe it based on much less - and much weaker - documentary evidence than we have for the eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

But, you say, these are religious texts...not to be believed. First off, ancient historical documents are rarely written without an agenda, but we still believe them in at least the broad strokes. (And most documents written with an agenda wouldn't make their heroes look like such losers...as most of the main characters of the New Testament except Jesus look. Someone who was more concerned with truth might be less willing to make themselves look better...and would record even their dumb moves.) Second, the fact that - decades after they were written - early church fathers chose to group these eyewitness accounts into a sacred text and call them the Gospels doesn't really affect whether they were true or not. Third, secular historians like Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus wrote about the Christian movement around the same time, confirming it in broad strokes and without any sympathy to their cause.

Okay, now I'm just rambling. I don't expect to convince people of the truth of Christianity with this. But I do intend to show that we have more than Scientology has. My point was to show that, contrary to Zhubin's assertion, Christians have evidence of their faith - documentary historical evidence. Does this prove it a 100% certainty - the same certainty with which we can say that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? No, but neither can we prove the existence of Julius Caesar to any greater certainty. How, aside from the historical record, is the assertion that any event took place in the ancient world "testable and falsifiable"?

I will respond to another of Zhubin's assertions in my next post. I've decided to split them into two posts because they would likely spark two very different discussions and I don't want one discussion to dominate the other.

Comics

2007-04-24T22:19:00.000-04:00

I like this comic. Tom Tomorrow makes a good point without going over the edge and using the Virgina Tech tragedy for political hay.

I also like this comic. Too bad I was late for that meeting.

How Can They Live With Themselves? Here's How.

2007-04-18T21:05:00.000-04:00

I could talk about Carhart II, the abortion case, but I'm not in the mood to piss off 90% of my readers by stating my well-known opinion. At least, not tonight.

I could talk about Virginia Tech, but Christy and I have been discussing writing a joint blog post...so I hope we can do that later.

No, today I want to talk about the Duke Lacrosse players who, it turns out, were falsely accused of rape. I've been shying away from the topic since Day 1. But spectacle of the state attorney general affirming their innocence - not just saying there wasn't enough proof, but actually affirming their innocence - is enough to make this would-be criminal defense lawyer proud.

It was the lawyers who scrutinized the evidence...who exposed unethical DA Mike Nifong's corruption and blatant interference with the evidence....and who finally cleared their names. I especially liked this point made in the Wall Street Journal:

Our criminal justice system does not rely solely on the fairness of the police and prosecutors to get things right. In every criminal case, there is a professional whose only obligation is to scrutinize what the police and prosecutor have done. This "professional" is a lawyer. The next time you hear a lawyer joke, maybe you'll think of the lawyers who represented these three boys and it won't seem so funny. You probably can't picture their faces and don't know their names. (They include Joe Cheshire, Jim Cooney, Michael Cornacchia, Bill Cotter, Wade Smith and the late Kirk Osborn.) That's because they put their zealous representation of their clients ahead of their own egos and fame. Without their lawyering skills, we would not today be speaking so confidently of their clients' innocence.

These lawyers held the prosecutor's feet to the fire. Their skillful questioning at pre-trial hearings revealed the prosecutor's misconduct that eventually forced him to give up control of the case and now threatens his law license. They uncovered compelling exculpatory evidence and made it available to the press; they let their clients and their families air their story in the national media.
.......

Do you suppose that lawyers like these gained their skills only representing the innocent? Criminal lawyers are constantly asked how they can live with themselves defending those guilty of serious crimes. The full and complete answer ought to be that, because we can never be sure who is guilty and who is innocent until the evidence is scrutinized, the only way to protect the innocent is by effectively defending everyone.

The "how could you live with yourself" question is one I often received when I mentioned my interest in becoming a criminal defense lawyer (not knowing at the time I was going to end up a labor lawyer). This question came from people I knew and respected - like Chris Raab, husband of fellow blogger Monica Raab. It was sometimes hard to articulate an answer to "how could you defend rapists and murderers?" Well, now I have my answer. Just read this blog post and look at the Duke Lacrosse case, and you'll know why criminal defense is a worthy profession.

A Time for Weeping....

2007-04-17T07:56:00.000-04:00

Eight years ago Friday, the massacre at Columbine scarred the collective consciousness of a teenage generation. Now even more people - kids my little brother's age - die in another senseless killing at Virginia Tech.

There is a time for everything, a season for every activity under heaven. . . a
time to mourn and a time to dance.

Ecclesiastes 3:1, 4.

There will be a time to draw lessons from this....perhaps something about gun control or the psychological help available to college students. But now, I can't think about that. Now, it is only time to mourn.

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

Romans 12:15

My heart and prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones and those who have lived through this horror. At times I can't believe how desensitized I am to all the pain in the world. Perhaps it takes tragedy striking those I most identify with to clue me in to suffering.

Since my people are crushed, I am crushed; I mourn and horror grips
me.

Jeremiah 8:21

I still identify with students. I was one only a few months ago. I still think of them as "my people."

I have no words of wisdom and few words of reflection at this point. But let us mourn. Let us never reach that place in our hearts where we do not mourn the pain of others.

Huh?

2007-04-10T07:10:00.000-04:00

Paging someone who understands the working of the Internet better than I!

Can someone explain why my recent post on the Crucifixion, Christians, and Jews was linked to by this random post called "poetry for children"? Is it just because I had the word "poetry" at the end of my blog post?

Die Elitist Die!

2007-04-07T11:57:00.000-04:00

(Told you this post was coming soon.)

No, I don't actually want anybody to die. That would be mean and, contrary to popular perception, un-Christian.

But, in keeping with the American spirit, I am incredibly annoyed by elitism....whether it comes from those rich, Harvard-educated fools who couldn't appreciate how awesome my friend Kenny is (as he related to me in an essay he once wrote), film critics who think they are above the average moviegoer looking for escapism just because they happen to have seen deeper films, or the kind of people I write about in this song.

"Die Elitist Die!" (gotta have the exclamation point) is a song I wrote (with ample help from Mike) about people who don't like mainstream music because it is mainstream. It's about all those people who look rebellious, yet think and act remarkably the same. Mike told me once about a friend who had every Modest Mouse song on his computer EXCEPT "Float On"....because, you know, "Float On" got radio play. It was somehow infected because it was listened to and appreciated by the same peons who like Linkin Park.

Having never in my lifetime been part of the in-crowd, I'm still increasingly annoyed by the "out crowd" who seem no more individualistic, but a hell of a lot more arrogant about it. Why not just be yourself? If you like something mainstream, that's ok. If you like some unheard-of garage band, that's awesome. Just don't think you're better than anybody else because of your tastes. My best friends are folks who, after long struggles of their own, are defiantly themselves.

Anyways, these rantings were swirling around in my mind when I thought of a golden line for a song: "You Indie fans can keep all of your damn street cred." Unlike some songs, this one didn't just flow out of me. It took months of trying out different lyrics to capture the sense of being....well....defiantly "sold-out." Or maybe defiantly mainstream. Then it took two "fiddling-around-with-the-music" sessions to create a supremely catchy pop-rock tune: one with Mike in Dunedin, FL before I got married, the other with Mike and Dan last weekend sitting in a park in Atlanta.

This song turned out to be rather complex (for us) musically, but hopefully one day we can record it...or Mike can if he feels like putting the work into it. (Hey, Mike! My birthday is November 28. That should give you enough time! Hint, hint.) But I really enjoyed writing it and I've already got Christy humming it to herself, so I know it's catchy.

So, without further ado....because frankly I've already included too much "ado" by way of introduction.....here's the song.

Die, Elitist, Die!

Lyrics by Ben Stark and Mike Mott

Music by Mike Mott and Dan Ortiz

Intro: D5, F5, G5 end on A, E

Verse: D, A, G, F-G

Chorus: as below

I listened to my Creed CD the other day

Played air guitar, enjoyed the sound

I prefer their mediocrity to your cliché

There’s a reason why you’re underground

You follow different shepherds but you’re all still sheep

Iconoclast right off the shelf

You call yourself a rebel but rebellion’s cheap

Just fifteen bucks to buy a self

D, C, G (alternate electric and acoustic)

“Die, elitist, die” is my cry as I listen to some pop

(Na na-na na-na na-na, na na-na na-na na-na)

Behind these hazel eyes lies a guy that’s still fighting pink robots

(Na na-na na-na na-na, na na-na na-na na-na)

Being anti-cool is the rule, why can’t you just be yourself?

(Na na-na na-na na-na, na na-na na-na na-na)

Oh well, what the hell, let’s rebel just like everybody else

A, E

I wish I could sell out so I could piss you off

I’d laugh at your faux-righteous hate

So let the sayers “nay” and let the scoffers scoff

Why bother to pretend I’m great?

(chorus)

(over intro)

I don’t why I ever even tried

To lie and cry and buy my way

To the hipster throne that I’ve never even known

I need a lyric here

Damn, I’ve blown it!

(A, then Dan’s arpeggio thing with Dm, F, G over intro chords)

I only wrote this song so I could make some bread

The girls are nice, and so’s the dough

You indie fans can keep all of your damn street cred

Go!

(close with a ROCKING solo over chorus chords)

Movies I'm Dying To See But Don't Know If I Will

2007-04-07T11:15:00.000-04:00

Grindhouse - Come on...it's Tarantino and Rodriguez. Those names mean that, if nothing else, it will not be boring.

Amazing Grace - Probably the movie on my list that I'm least excited to see. But I'll probably be joining my church's task force to deal with issues of human trafficking in Atlanta...so I need to be inspired by a good anti-slavery movie.

The Namesake - looks like an absolutely fascinating family drama. And, yes, I'm curious to see how Kal Penn holds up in a movie which is not a stupid comedy. Based on the trailer, I'd say he does rather well.

The Lookout - Combine Joseph Gordon-Levitt (star of Brick) with Scott Frank (first-time director; writer of Dead Again - which you've just gotta see - adapted Get Shorty, Out of Sight, and Minority Report for the screen) and you've got me hooked. Looks kinda noir-ish, too...which is always a big draw for me.

First Snow - Combine Guy Pearce (L.A. Confidential, Memento, The Proposition), philosophy of death, and one review saying it evokes noir and.....well, I think filmmakers are starting to figure out what hooks me in.

Coming very soon: "Die Elitist Die!"

UPDATE: Add Black Book to that list based on this review alone.

UPDATE 2: Rob Zombie is making a remake of Halloween. Yes, the man behind House of 1,000 Corpses is remaking the classic of the horror genre....the movie that valued suspense over idiotic blood and gore. Looks like it's time for Ruining Classic Movies 101.

Some Musings on the Crucifixion, Christians, and Jews

2007-04-05T20:57:00.000-04:00

Just got back from a Maundy Thursday service. Basically, it's a celebration of Christ's Last Supper with his disciples and, in some churches, kind of stands in for a Good Friday service.

Hearing the Scripture readings about the Crucifixion, I was struck by the juxtaposition of 2 verses: "His blood is on us and on our children" and "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

The first verse has been the basis for the centuries of anti-semitism via the detestable doctrine of "blood libel." Basically, Christians took it upon themselves to not forgive that which Jesus himself asked God to forgive. Using the "on our children" language, Christians blamed the entire Jewish people for Jesus' freely-chosen death and persecuted them the most un-Christ-like manner possible.

But the blood libel doctrine misses the point.

As, of course, did the people standing around calling for Jesus' death. Many sermons have been preached on the observers of the Crucifixion and their mocking call to "Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!" What those people didn't get was that he could come down at any time...but he didn't need to prove himself to them or anyone. He was there to do God's work and save the world, and no arrogant mockery was going to stop him. What the people didn't realize was that, in what seemed to them his moment of ultimate defeat, Christ won his greatest victory....striking the ultimate blow for love over hate, sin, and death.

In the same way, both the mockers at the cross and the anti-semitic teachers of "blood libel" entirely miss the point. You see, because of Jesus's plea to God to forgive his persecutors, they couldn't even call on themselves the guilt they asked for! They were powerless even to condemn themselves...at the very moment they thought they had the power to condemn Jesus. It's obviously ridiculous to blame the entire Jewish people for the actions of a few people thousands of years ago. What's less obvious is that we can't even condemn the very people who called for Jesus's death! Jesus already forgave them in the midst of the act.

Come on, all you anti-semitic Christians. You really want to go toe-to-toe with the Son of God on this one?

What a model of love we have to follow! I don't know about you, but I might find it hard to forgive my murderers. But I'm inspired to try to love that much.

[Coming soon: non-religious songs and religious poetry. Or maybe vice versa, if I feel like it.]

How Being A Government Employee Changed My Perspective

2007-03-27T19:37:00.000-04:00

In practicing law for the government, I've learned of something called the deliberative process privilege. Think of it as something akin to lawyer-client confidentiality or executive privilege; it's a legal rule that allows the government in most circumstances to keep certain documents from the other side of the lawsuit (when they would normally be entitled to it) if the documents were part of the deliberation that eventually lead to the government making a decision. This also prevents some documents from being released under the Freedom of Information Act. The idea is to encourage free and vigorous debate among government officials without concern that what they say will be used against them....or plastered across the front page of the Washington Post.

So, when the White House released a bunch of documents related to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, my first thought wasn't "these people should testify under oath." It wasn't "what do these documents say about the accusation that partisan politics led to the firing of these attorneys?" No, as much as those issues concern me, my first thought was "those documents are protected by the deliberative process privilege! YOU PUNKS JUST WEAKENED MY DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE BY RELEASING THOSE DOCUMENTS!"

This has nothing to do with whether the firings were wrong or whether White House officials should testify under oath. It doesn't change my opinion about whether certain government officials should be fired by the American people or by Congress (if you get my drift)...it's just that.....dammit, I want my privilege.

Funny how being a partisan swiftly changes one's perspective.

Things I've Learned About Myself Since Marriage....

2007-03-22T06:59:00.000-04:00

1. I am a really violent sleeper. Kicking, elbowing, or otherwise acting like I'm the Unconscious Karate Kid. I'm also an unrepentant cover thief.

2. I hate loading the dishwasher, but don't mind unloading. The opposite is true for Christy. This works out well...except when one of us is out of town. Suddenly, the dishes pile up either in the sink or in the dishwasher. It's amazing how quickly you get dependent on each other.

3. I really like giving. Seriously, nothing makes my day more than performing some small gesture (or large gesture) that takes some burden off of Christy. I actually derive pleasure from this. Actually, I've found this extends beyond Christy. Try buying a homeless guy lunch sometime...it makes the stresses of an office job seem like nothing in comparison.

4. I'm not very good at time management. A funny fact for a guy who compulsively checks his watch. If I were better at it, I would probably - among other things - find more time to post stuff on this blog.

5. Maybe I AM a cat person. Christy's cat, Max, has been conducting a stealth campaign to get me to like him....a campaign sometimes interrupted by wetting and throwing up, but nevertheless effective. Never underestimate the effectiveness of sitting in someone's lap and demanding pets. I recommend this technique be used sparingly at the office.

6. I don't hate all vegetables. I have actually eaten and even enjoyed things like carrots, spinach, onions and peppers. Don't tell my parents. They wouldn't survive the shock. Christy says broccoli is next. But there's a difference between maturing in what I eat and selling my soul to the vegetable industry.

7. I am late and need to jump in the shower, get dressed, and get to work NOW!

Bye folks. Leave witty comments.

Submission Is Subversive

2007-03-08T21:22:00.000-05:00

Christianity Today (a magazine I've subscribed to lately that includes a number of thoughtful voices across the theological - and political - spectrum of Christianity) had a cover story last December about the Virgin Mary as revolutionary. Really interesting article with a view of Mary I hadn't seen before. You should read it. Even folks who don't share my Christian beliefs would find it interesting.

Apparently some people don't agree with this view. A reader accused the author of trying to twist Mary to fit the author's (liberal) agenda. The part that really got my goat was how the reader concluded his letter to the editor:

Mary's response to Gabriel's birth announcement clearly shows that subversion was not her modus operandi; submission to God was.

Reading that sentence, I wanted to scream at the page: "Can't you see that they are one and the same?!" Submission to God IS subversive.

Submission to God means a radical rejection of this world's - and this nation's - values...its morbid obsession with money, power, and pleasure. Submission to God means sharing Jesus' identification with the outcast - the lepers and adultresses of his time, the criminals, homeless, and homosexuals in our own. Submission to God means total loyalty to Him...and at most conditional loyalty to any political party, nation, or system of government.

Too often Christians have let themselves be co-opted by the world's self-centered power lust. Thus we have the Crusades, we have Ken Lay (a Christian) throwing all moral scruples aside to enrich himself at the expense of others, we have George W. Bush twisting and manipulating his faith to endorse torture and preemptive war.

But it isn't always that way. For examples of Christians who submitted themselves to God, and thereby overthrew (or at least radically rejected) the twisted values of their societies I give you Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, St. Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. And, of course, I give you Jesus himself. Not all of these were political revolutionaries (though some were). But they all lived revolutionary lives. They were all subversive to their society's values and power structures. And they were subversive BECAUSE they were submissive to God's will and to Christian values.

The fact that such thoughts would inspire skepticism in Christians and non-Christians alike is a testament to how poorly many of us are doing at being Christian.

What cats and Joseph Biden Have in Common

2007-02-23T21:53:00.000-05:00

What they have in common is that I'm about to blog about them in another one of those multi-topic posts.

1. Christy's cat, Max, isn't doing too well. He's somewhere around 18 years old...Methusaleh in cat years. He's walking funny, slipping a lot, and not putting weight on his left side. But he doesn't seem to be in pain. Christy is distraught. We're taking him to a vet tomorrow.

[Update:] I wrote that part yesterday. We took him to the vet this morning. She says it's probably nerve damage from jumping off too high a height.....and, well, being really old. Right now we are just trying to give him a lot of rest and keep him off high surfaces. This is really hard on Christy. She's owned Max for 15 years and there were times when he was her only friend.

2. Stupid, widely publicized comments about African-American candidates be damned, I'm throwing my fickle, influence-free support behind Joseph Biden for President. Why? No, I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His name isn't Barak, Hilary, John (pick one), Mitt, or Rudy. And my decision is basically based on a sound bite. At a recent Q-and-A with various Democratic candidates, Biden is the only one that seemed to be thinking long-term. Most were talking about their various plans for getting out of Iraq. Dennis Kucinich was basically chanting about how he opposed the war from the beginning. Biden's the only one who said "we need to get out of Iraq....but then what? We need to think about how to prevent the Middle East from descending into chaos because of our mistake." Seeing as lack of foresight is one of the current administration's chief flaws, I consider such forward thinking very important. Looking to see if there was anything to back up that phrase, I looked at Biden's campaign site and saw that he does indeed have a rather detailed and logical plan for (a) getting out of Iraq and (b) preventing the Middle East from imploding in the process.

[Update:] Since I last wrote that part of the post, Tom Vilsack has already dropped out because the money's being absorbed by the likes of Obama and Clinton. Vilsack was left with no money to even pay his campaign staff. Sad that those with money are going to kick out so many candidates - including, probably, Biden - before we really get a chance to vote for or against them. Yeah, I guess I can vote with my pocketbook. Perhaps a Howard Dean-like candidate can pull together a lot of small donations and stay competitive. But let's face it, Joe Biden is no Howard Dean. Obama probably has the best chance of exciting the grassroots.

3. The Supreme Court recently struck down a large punitive damages decision against Phillip Morris. Their reasoning was that comments by the plaintiff's lawyers may have caused the jury to award the huge punitive damages sum in order to punish Phillip Morris for harm that cigarettes have caused to the public in general, not just to this particular plaintiff. As a strong supporter of punitive damages, I have my beefs with the specifics of this decision. [i.e. How can "reprehensibility" be a factor in weighing the appropriateness of punitive damages if you can't look at how much damage a particular actor's behavior causes?] But I think the idea of focusing exclusively on the parties to the lawsuit has its merits....

So, next the Supreme Court is ready to throw out 3 Strikes laws, right? I mean, you don't want to be punishing someone for actions other than the ones currently before the court, right? After all, it's unconstitutional to punish someone for harms they may or may not have caused to someone who is not a party to the current case, right? RIGHT? Be consistent, Mr. or Ms. Supreme Court Justice. Throw 'em out.

4. Oscars are tomorrow. Over the past 3 years, I can safely say that fully half of my TV watching has been seeing the Oscars. (Yes, I watch that little TV.) But this year is unique in how few of the Oscar films I've seen. I've only seen 2 of the Best Picture nominees, none of the roles nominated for Best Actor, 2 in Supporting Actor, 1 in Best Actress (Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada....for the love of God, it was The Devil Wears Prada! I've sunk that low), 2 in Supporting Actress, 2 in Cinemtography, 2 in Directing, 2 in both of the Screenplay categories.....well, I've seen 4 of the 5 Best Song nominees. Thank you, Dreamgirls.

I think there is no better way of ending a post then saying "Thank you, Dreamgirls." Oh, and Goth Pigeons. Thank you.

My Old Haunts

2007-02-17T16:34:00.000-05:00

I write this blog from Durham, NC. I lived here for three years. In fact, I'm writing this from my old apartment.

Countless times, I've driven these streets, shopped at these grocery stores, slept in these rooms. In this very apartment, I used to be the fixture with a revolving door of roommates, the last one being my closest friend in law school, Kenny, who now lives in the apartment with his wife, Erin. Now I'm the visitor. I can't tell you how weird that is.

At least it's not like Vanderbilt. When I first visited Vanderbilt after graduation, I felt just like that...a visitor. But gradually, more and more of my old friends graduated and were replaced by new Vandy students cheerfully, obliviously living their lives in the place where my memories were created......running my beloved Slant (not always up to my tastes in humor)....and otherwise proving that life moves on and you can never go back to create your old life. When I wandered Vanderbilt while visiting Christy, I didn't feel like a visitor.....I felt like a ghost haunting my old lair. Who were these people? There was nobody there I knew....just these strange faces living their life in this surreal, familiar physical surrounding.

At least right now Kenny and Erin are here. And Chris and Monica (whom I really hope to see but might not....Monica's not feeling well.). And Nathan and Bethany. And many of the old CLS folks. And Jeff is still up in Cary, currently hanging out with his old high school friend. For this visit, I'm just a familiar old visitor....not a ghost. God bless them all.

You really can't make it all come back, can you? I plan on seeing my friends in the future and love them dearly....but I can't have The Slant back. I can't have Unexpectedly Sober back (even if my friends and I continue to collaborate musically). I can't have long philosophical conversations with Jeff and Mike, or long theological conversations with Kenny back...at least not for long. I can't have walking through Vandy back. I can't have wandering the halls of Duke Law while surrounded by people I know back.

Life goes on. And I can't deny I'm blessed. I have the most awesome wife in the world, objectively speaking. I have a good job where I feel I'm doing some good. I have a food and a roof over my head and opportunities to serve. I have blogs and cell phones to reach my friends, should I choose. And I'm sure Christy and I will eventually make friends. And I have eternal life and a relationship with my Savior. Really, that's everything.

But right now, I want to either quietly weep or break out into a Bruce Springsteen song. Rock music lovers will know which one. For those who don't, here ya go.

I love you all and miss you terribly.

But now I'm going to put this computer down....wait for Kenny to wake up from his nap and Erin to get back from her run....and enjoy precious time with my friends. Don't want to ruin the present focusing on the past.

Prince....

2007-02-04T22:20:00.000-05:00

.....covered CCR/Tina Turner, Dylan/Hendrix, and Foo Fighters. Awesome.

Also, Jeff has proven he probably won't have a successful career as a prophet, and this amuses me.
Also, I miss my friends. Don't get me wrong - Christy is my best friend ever. But the only other friend I have who lives nearby is Dan, and he and I only see each other every couple of weeks. It's different being out of school. I no longer have situations which force me to interact with a bunch of people my age. I miss my old brothers in arms.

Also, Christy and I saw Dreamgirls last night. My favorite song - "Jimmy's Rap." Eddie Murphy was awesome in every scene.

Also, I'm asking y'all to hold me to something. If - as I truly believe - my purpose on this Earth is to love God and love my fellow human beings, I've got to break out of my protective professional middle class shell. If Jesus hung out with the prostitutes, the lepers, the Gentiles, and the tax collectors.....then, dammit, the least I can do is interact with the homeless person who asks me for money instead of averting my eyes and hurrying to work. Hell, that's not even the least I could do....it's not enough. I need to seriously invest my time and resources in service. I don't know what yet, but I want you to hound me 'till I get on it. If I don't make community service of some sort a regular part of my life now, it'll never happen.

Also, I've been listening to the new Switchfoot album. I LOVE "Faust, Midas, and Myself."

Also the mostly-annoying, occasionally-insightful, always-interesting Dailykos does a great job of puncturing the myth of peace protesters spitting on Vietnam (and now Iraq) vets.....and the even greater myth that the real reason we lost in Vietnam was lack of "will."

This post has been another random mix of the deep and shallow brought to you by Ben's tired brain. Wish it could have proved more worth the read.

The Divide That Should Not Be

2007-01-27T10:41:00.000-05:00

Words of wisdom I read today:

For generations the church has been polarized between those who see the main task being the saving of souls for heaven and the nurturing of those souls through the valley of this dark world, on the one hand, and on the other hand those who see the task of improving the lot of human being and the world, rescuing the poor from their misery.

The longer that I've gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it's been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord's Prayer, and ow we've managed for years to say the Lord's Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics. When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, "Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world." And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, "My kingdom is not from this world." That's ek tou kosmou toutou. It's quite clear in the text that Jesus' kingdom doesn't start with this world. It isn't a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It's from somewhere else, but it's for this world.

The key to mission is always worship. You can only be reflecting the love of God into the world if you are worshiping the true God who creates the world out of overflowing self-giving love. The more you look at that God and celebrate that love, the more you have to be reflecting that overflowing self-giving love into the world.

- New Testament scholar N.T. Wright

Political Stands for Which I Have No Sympathy

2007-01-25T19:09:00.000-05:00

Political Stand # 1: I oppose sending more troops into Iraq, but I don't want to vote on a non-binding resolution condemning the President's plan because that doesn't show national unity.

Political Stand # 2: I oppose sending more troops into Iraq to die for the sake of trying and failing to avert a civil war......but I think the current resolution is too harsh and will offer a nicer one.

Political Stand # 3: I oppose sending more troops into Iraq, and I will express that opposition in a strongly worded resolution which is entirely non-binding. Furthermore, I will expend my time and legislative energy on making these words as strong sounding as possible....while the President nevertheless sends troops.

I look at Congress right now and I see sound and fury....heat with no light.....talk masked as action.....posturing which does nothing to stop the coming bloodbath.

--------------------------------------------------------

What can Congress do?

1. Well, as I've argued in my sadly-unpublished (but still available if you ask for it) national security law paper, Congress has the power to direct movement of troops. Lots of people don't understand this - and many people willfully misunderstand it because it's in their interest. But, constitutionally speaking, Congress CAN limit the president, even in time of war. There is longstanding Supreme Court precedent supporting the practice. It's just that, practically speaking, Congress isn't structured to run the details of a war very well and usually leaves it up to the branch which is structured to be more decisive - the Executive branch. But Congress has at time exercised its power and it should do so now, before the President sends more troops to what one Senator aptly described as "that grinder."

2. Even the biggest, scariest advocates of Executive Power - like Professor John Yoo - admit that Congress has the power of the purse and can wield it to stop an out-of-control President. Congress can - and should - wield it to stop this useless escalation.

But, of course, it won't. Congress is too busy posturing while soldiers die.

I Cannot Think Of A Title For This Blog Post

2007-01-20T07:43:00.000-05:00

David Barzelay recently commented on Mike's blog that Mike and I probably haven't seen 2/3 of his top 15 movies of the year. This depresses me, for I used to pride myself on seeing all sorts of excellent, obscure movies.

Pride goeth before the fall, I guess. Or it goeth after marriage. (Yes, yes, it's still worth it.)

Nonetheless, in a desperate attempt to reclaim my movie street cred, I'll note something that kind of shocked me. Hannibal Rising is the upcoming "origin" story about Hannibal Lecter. It looks just plain awful. Nonetheless, I was shocked to realize the role of Hannibal is played by Gaspard Ulliel - that angelic-looking fresh-faced young man from A Very Long Engagement. Talk about your different roles. Of course, I guess his innocent looking face is part of the point of his casting as the face of evil.

I'm bored, so I'll toss this out there. Any other examples of innocent-looking evil in the movies? And please don't cite Macaulay Culkin in The Good Son. Show a little self-respect.

Why Everybody's Wrong About Iraq

2007-01-13T00:49:00.000-05:00

Okay, that may be an overstatement. But as I survey the debate over Iraq (sad how it's taken the focus off of the Democrats' first 100 hours, as Matt observes), I'm hearing two general theories about how to proceed.....at least 2 theories coming from the mouths of our nation's leaders.

Bush's theory: We need to throw more troops into the mix to bring the violence down to a level where compromise and diplomacy among Iraq's warring factions is possible. Only when Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has "breathing room" will he and Iraq's other leaders be able to beat back the radical elements and engage in some moderate political bargaining.

The Iraq Study Group Theory (for lack of a better term): This one is embraced by most Democrats and, increasingly, some Republicans....even conservatives like Sam Brownback. This theory states that we need to start withdrawing troops. Only then - without the crutch of American military power to hold them back from the abyss - Iraq's leaders will realize they must work toward the future on their own. Then they will compromise for the sake of their own survival.

Both these theories, in my mind, share a fatal flaw. They are dependent on the good will - or at least the enlightened self-interest - of Iraq's leaders, especially the Shiite-dominated Maliki government. And those are 2 qualities I see in short supply.

One of the major reasons strategies like "Clear, Hold, and Build" didn't work was that the Maliki government cravenly and unabashedly sought sectarian power above all other values. The strategy called for 5 or 6 (I forget which) Iraqi battalions to secure Baghdad from militias and insurgents. Maliki sent 2. Whenever the American or Iraqi military moved against Shiite militias like those run by Moktada al-Sadr, Maliki would cut them off or protest. The "build" portion fell flat because the Maliki government directed reconstruction money away from Sunni neighborhoods. And don't get me started on the monumentally idiotic way they executed Saddam Hussein!

Iraq's Shiite leadership isn't interested in building consensus with their Sunni former oppressors. They are interested in taking their long-denied power and reaping its benefits. And the Kurds.....hell, all they want is for the others to let them stay out of this and build their own nation.

So all the plans for "victory" that I'm hearing seem to rely on good will that doesn't exist. Indeed, how can anything like "victory" be achieved when everybody just wants to grab for more power?

Rodney King once said "Can't we all just get along?" I imagine the Iraqi leadership might respond "You can't make us!"

Ben's Eagerly Awaited 2006 Movie Recommendations

2007-01-02T16:54:00.000-05:00

[In honor of Gerald Ford, the President Bush has given federal employees a day off. So this post goes out to you, Jerry!]

A strange thing happened to me on the way to the movie theater (my perpetual state of being) in the year 2006. I got married.

Now marrying Christy is the best decision I ever made aside from deciding to follow Jesus. Christy has filled my life with joys great and small. She encourages me and enables me to face challenges at work and otherwise which scare me. She truly makes me happy. Marriage also, however, limits my movie-watching capacity.

First off, there's the issue of time. I spend a lot less time alone and a lot more time with Christy. Simply cooking dinner and cleaning house - acts I previously accomplished with a microwave and procrastination, but now perform alongside Christy - take a hell of a lot of time. This means less time spent watching movies. Second, Christy and I have similar, but not exactly the same, tastes. Thus, when we do go the movies - and I've only seen one movie without her since I got married - I try to pick movies we would both enjoy. This sometimes rules out ultra-violent films which I'm curious to see (i.e. Apocalypto, The Descent). Finally, it turns out there are other things to do than see movies. (Who knew?) This is something Christy likes to point out to me when I suggest for the 1,007,528th time that we watch this cool movie. She has a point.

Bottom line: My movie-watching experience was greatly limited in comparison to previous years. There are a number of good movies which I have missed. And it will likely remain that way in future years. The price I willingly pay for deep and abiding happiness. I love Christy that much.

Now, enough of this mushiness. On to the list, presented in no particular order. These are the movies I recommend from 2006:

Brick: Any lover of film noir owes it to himself/herself to see this movie. The idea of taking the film noir conventions and placing them in a high school may sound like a dumb gimmick. But it works out brilliantly. You might even be skeptical because it stars that kid from Third Rock From the Sun. Don't be. Brick is the modern-day heir to The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, Out of the Past, The Third Man, and other classics.
The Departed: This one rightfully takes its place at the top of many critics Top 10 lists. It would compete with Brick and Children of Men for me, but I can't deny how awesome this movie is. I mean, The Departed has it all. A brilliant conceit: double-agents in the police and the mob struggling to discover each other before they are themselves uncovered and dealt with. A cornucopia of top notch-talent directed by one of the all-time greats. Plot twists and backstabbing aplenty. Tension continually ratcheted up.
United 93: When I saw the trailer for this movie, I wanted to scream at the screen, "How dare you?" I expected a cloying movie which exploited the memories of 9/11's heroes for ticket sales and turned them into cliched patriotic stereotypes. As is often the case (see "Casino Royale" below), I was wrong. United 93 approaches 9/11 with a documentary-like style, immersing us on the chaos and confusion on the ground and in the planes. No cheesy music. No false character development. Just the rush of events, confusion, desperate decisions, true heroism, and tragedy. I left the theater crying and deeply appreciative that director Paul Greengrass got it right.
Casino Royale: Speaking of me getting things wrong, I owe a whopping apology to Daniel Craig, the new and perfectly fitting James Bond. I thought I would never get over my favorite Bond, Pierce Brosnan. But that thought died in the first 2 minutes of this film. And it only got better, piercing the soul of 007 and discovering how he became the cold-hearted, fearless, womanizing spy we all know and love. All while keeping up the spectacular action. Pierce who?
Little Miss Sunshine: How do you take a picture with a suicide attempt, drug use, dysfunctional families, and a chilling look into the exploitative world of child beauty pageants.... and make the heartwarming, feel-good comedy hit of the year? That takes a special kind of genius.
Stranger Than Fiction: Will Farrel pulls a Jim-Carry-in-The-Truman-Show and succeeds. Another brilliant screenplay conceit. One step below a Charlie Kaufman script, and that ain't a bad place to be.
Inside Man: Spike Lee abandons the bizarre preachiness and delivers a slam-bang heist flick. Another cast clicking on all cylinders. And I love the opening scene with Clive Owen. "My name is Dalton Russell. Pay strict attention to what I say because I choose my words carefully and I never repeat myself."
Cars: Chalk this up as another "Ben was wrong." "Surely," I thought "Pixar can't keep up their string of witty, kid-friendly, adult-friendly hits forever without eventually making a bad film, or at least a mediocre one." And Cars looked like a good candidate based on the trailer. I mean they had Larry the Cable Guy in it. I hate that guy! Instead - surprise, surprise - Pixar somehow crafted yet another film which I and my 3-year-old nephew love with equal enthusiasm. How do they DO that?
Over the Hedge: It's no Cars, but I had to include it just for these lines. "Rosebud." "We, like, worked our tails off, you know? Like, a lot! And the food we gathered was totally...you know! And you're...you're all whatever." "Look at this. The grass actually seems to be greener over here!" Also, this is a witty, ever-so-slightly subversive take on suburbia. Also - "curse you, plastic moldsmen!"
The Proposition: I'm a fan of latter-day, unsentimental Westerns. They don't get less sentimental than this sometimes-gruesome, sometimes-beautiful, morally ambiguous, compelling, set-in-Australia Western. (Does that setting make it an Eastern?) Not for the faint of stomach, but fascinating in the way it makes you sympathize with and hate all manner of characters at the same time.
Miami Vice: I never saw the '80s TV show and I don't feel any the worse for it. This is basically a run-of-the-mill action, cops-and-robbers movie which makes this list for 2 reasons: 1) 2 of the most awesome kill shots in recent action cinema history, 2) random throwaway shots of awesome beauty. You can tell this was made by the guy who made Collateral.
Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Not as good as the first, but I'm a sucker for a sword fight. And, in that category, POTC 2 does not disappoint. Swashbuckling aplenty. There is also plenty of wittiness to go around. And, of course, Johnny freakin' Depp. Have I mentioned he can do anything?
16 Blocks: Chalk this up as a well-constructed thriller. Again, not deep. It's not even a Miami Vice. But I was actually touched by the buddy story. The less you know about this picture going in, the better.
Thank You For Smoking: The most brilliant comedy I've seen in years. Turns many movie conventions on its head to get you cheering for a despicable front man for the tobacco industry. All while taking numerous well-placed jabs at a million and one deserving targets. Aaron Eckhart for Best Actor!
Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story: How do you adapt a novel which starts at the narrator's birth, gets sidetracked, and ends at the narrators birth? By being equally funny, meandering, and surprising. The film simply defies description. What do I call this - a half-mockumentary, half-adaptation? See it. You'll be glad you did.
Children of Men: It's the camera work that got me. Love at first deep-focus shot. Then there's the details of an infertile, decaying world, such as a commercial for suicide pills that looks like it's advertising anti-depressants. The chase sequences are virtuoso. The sense of bleakness, despair, and tiny glimmers of hope. Clive Owen for Best Actor! Alfonso Cuaron for Best Director! Seriously, Cuaron is a master at directing action in long shots. Children of Men blasts that other dystopian British future (V for Vendetta) out of the water

Okay, that's all I got. See you next year. And whenever I blog again. Let me know what you think of these films if you see them.

And post some of your own recommendations.

Some Thoughts This Christmas

2006-12-24T18:57:00.000-05:00

O come, Desire of Nations, bind
All peoples in one heart and mind;
Bid envy, strife, and discord cease,
Fill the whole world with heaven's peace

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!

----------------------------------------------

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners.

--------------------------------------------------

Truly He taught us to love one another.
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother
And in His name all oppression shall cease.

--------------------------------------------

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will live with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

--------------------------------------------------

And ye, beneath life's crushing load
Whose forms are bending low
Who toil along the climbing way
Through painful steps and slow
Look now, for glad and golden hours
Come swiftly on the wing
O rest beside the weary road
And hear the angels sing

-----------------------------------------------

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son; that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son to condemn the world, but to save it.

----------------------------------------------

The thrill of hope
The weary world rejoices

-----------------------------------------------------

My soul glorifies the Lord
and my Spirit rejoices in God my Savior
for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me - holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their throne
But he has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
but he has sent the rich away empty.

------------------------------------------------------

A baby. A completely helpless and vulnerable baby. A baby sleeping in a donkey's food trough. Hardly an auspicious beginning for the most important human in history/the Almighty Ruler of the Universe. (love the duality!) But then, Jesus made a career (if you can call it that) out of taking our worldly wisdom and turning it on its head:

Love your enemies....

Blessed are the meek....

I have come to preach good news to the poor....

Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for me will save it.....

Whatever you do for the least of these brothers of mine, you do for me......

Today, I celebrate the birth of the One who inspired all these songs and words of praise. Who so richly deserves all that praise.

Who inspires me and challenges me to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God. Whose example teaches me to love sacrificially....to look beyond my own narrow interests.

------------------------------------------------------

Merry Christmas, my dear friends!

Blog Contest Is Coming.....At Some Point

2006-12-13T06:24:00.000-05:00

Apologies for the long delay in launching the blog humor contest. Been swamped this Christmas season. Haven't had a chance to read any of the nominees which I hadn't read before.

But the contest WILL happen. And when it does, I expect all sorts of voter fraud and intimidation. What, you think my contest isn't good enough for the dirty tactics practiced in real elections?