I Carved A Punkin'

Check It

If you haven't had the pleasure of visiting Greg's blog, do it now. The man is spending the next five months in Antarctica and has great pictures and stories of what seems like another planet.

I Have A Sneaking Suspicion

That my 79% score on our Ethnic and Minority Lit midterm essays had a lot to do with me not so subtly calling most of it crap. Granted, these were not the well-crafted pieces that I would like to take credit for, which is why you didn’t see them posted here, but I really think that if I’d just written five essays on how tough Jewish immigrants had it and said only complimentary things about their writing, I could’ve knocked out an A without having read half the material. But bitterness prevailed, and I just couldn’t let the opportunity to attack this rubbish pass me by, and lo, my 79%.

We Love Our Clichés

Above Reproach

“I feel the darkness growing stronger as you cram light down my throat.”

When asked about these lyrics in an interview, Dave Bazan said that “the force and the arrogance or whatever with which Christians wield their Christianity--actually furthers the cause they’re supposedly fighting against [and] doing harm to the concept of who Christ is.” The next line of the song follows:
“How does that work out for you in your holy quest to be above reproach?”

I’ve always loved this line, the dig at one of the most widely thrown about phrases in modern Christendom, and one that clatters against the lives of the apostles, disciples, Moses, David, and Christ. “Above reproach” has taken on this meaning of being blameless in the eyes of everyone, including non-believers. Peter explicitly says that they’ll malign us because of our faith and the ensuing lifestyle. The Savior of the world was accused regularly of being a drunkard, demon-possessed, and a liar. Especially in light of all the claims He made, He could possibly be the most reproachable person in history.

It’s in God’s Hands Now

Because before it wasn’t, right? “Lord, I now give this problem over to your control, now you can fiddle with it.”

God Helps Those Who Help Themselves

Typically, God will more than likely pick the guy that’s slouching in the corner avoiding His gaze, drag him to his feet and use him to save Ninevah. The Lord doesn’t seem to operate like a CEO, promoting his servants on the basis of how well they pull themselves up the ladder by their own bootstraps. Noah was a boozehound whom God chose to repopulate the world. I’m well aware that merely the presence of an action in the Bible doesn’t justify my imitation of it. More often than not, these examples of folly are specifically there for us to avoid slipping on the same spot. But looking at the history of “who God has helped” doesn’t seem to back up this phrase. The big issue here is largely the order of action that it implies. FIRST I’ll help myself THEN God will help me. Once I get going (on my own), God can kind of push me along. ‘Fraid not.

Interview w/David of Pedro the Lion

For Jay

Dear Dr. Science,
How come when you're riding a ten speed bicycle, when you're not pedaling the bike makes a clicking noise?


Mike, let's get this straight from the starting gate. I don't ride bicycles. Ever since I realized how ergonomically efficient the bicycle is, I knew that I would be doing a disservice to our petrochemical and nuclear energy industries by participating in this form of mechanical subversion. If you could build a bicycle that somehow consumed gasoline or uranium, well, maybe I could be persuaded to hop on, but until that time I'll either ride in an automobile or stay put, thank you. To answer your question, that little clicking noise is a gauge put on your bike by the Communists who made it. It's counting off all the lost oil revenue, the money not going into American coffers because you chose to ride a Communist produced instrument of subversion. If that makes you feel a bit guilty as you ride, relax, it should.

If Only...

“Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, my name is Scott and I’ll be your flight attendant today on our flight to Salt Lake City. The cabin is being pressurized for your comfort. Should there be a loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will fall from the overhead compartments. Please secure your own mask before assisting others. Even though the bag doesn’t inflate, there is oxy-“

“Scott?”

“gen… flowing…um, yes?”

“Scott, is it at all possible for snakes to drop out of the overhead compartment instead of oxygen masks? Poisonous snakes?”

“I..- no…it’s not.”

20/20

The Scene: A group of 18-25 year-olds, engaged in relatively intellectual discussion. College classroom perhaps. An opinion is presented. There is general disagreement amongst the participants. Looking for a way out, the opinionated claims something along the lines of “Well you’re just looking at it through your worldview lens, your paradigm.”

This seems to be the favored way of disregarding an opinion we don’t like in academic settings, and armed with a bandolier of trite expressions we proceed to show how another’s thoughts are merely the product of the culture they are surrounded by. I find it interesting that this tactic is used to trivialize someone’s opinion in an age where the world places so much importance on individuals’ feelings. It’s commonly believed that just because there’s a thought in your head that it’s worth hearing about.

The popular view seems to be to rid oneself of any prejudicial paradigm and look at everything “objectively,” without the hindrance of those pesky lenses. Rubbish I say. Why would we attempt something like this, even if it were possible? Hans-Georg Gadamer states that it’s nonsense to even entertain the idea that you can achieve some kind of clean slate mentality when looking at literature, that your reading will always be affected to some degree by your culture.

So if we can’t get to a clean slate, what’s another option? Acquire as many pairs of lenses as possible. Be able to look at a text as though you grew up under Marxist thought, or during the Impressionist movement. Hand in hand with that is the necessity for discernment, when to use what lens. This to me is similar to Samuel Johnson’s idea of suspension of disbelief in the theatre. It’s not that you are totally sold on the idea of Formalism as a valid worldview, but you recognize that the most enjoyment/benefit will come from donning those glasses in this situation. We “suspend” our default lenses when we know that they won’t reveal as much as another.

Playing a little more with the analogy of lenses, what are they designed for? Improving one’s vision. Why would we try to strip ourselves of something that by its nature is designed to better our sight? We would be blinding ourselves. Granted, not every lens is good for every scenario. We shouldn’t try to study the stars with a microscope, even though it’s a lens. And we don’t want to use the wrong prescription for our close readings. But I’ve heard it said before that the possibility of misuse is poor excuse for not utilizing a tool.

Practically, I don’t think that you need to have an intimate knowledge of every lens under the sun. And likewise, some lenses are weightier in authority than others. But that’s for you to decide, because I’m heading to bed.

Today's Irony

Many of you know that I don't get poetry. I can't read it, I don't like it, and I'm taking a class in the Romantics to try to learn how.

That being said, let me direct your attention to the right of this blog, where I have inadvertently done something poetic at least in form. Take a look at the list of folks under 'Noteables.' A six word line, then a three, a one (composed of three characters), then three, and ending with six. Now how about that?

On another note, I saw a sticker on a car while riding my bike back from class that read, in Gothic font, "God is Fear." I didn't have a chance to check out the surrounding stickers that would have given me proper sticker/ideology context (since I'm SOOOO fast), so I'm left wondering if that's meant to have a negative slant. Odds are, this fellow or gal who so boldly displayed their theological views via adhesive vinyl would tell me something along the lines of religion being used as a scare tactic to keep a brother down. Whatevs.

I’m also very disappointed in all four of you who read this and haven’t pointed out to me that Noteables is misspelled. But that's also a bit ironic that I started this post to show some higher use of the language, right under something that spellcheck would pick up. The comedy that is life. I’ll fix it right now.

Fire Survivor

Christmas

For Christmas this year, my gift to you (yes you) is pictures. If you'd like anything from my flickr site or that I've posted here, or maybe you've just seen around my house, let me know and it shall be a Merry Christmas indeed.

I can email anything to you in the original size, or print them out if they were taken digitally. Most stuff on flickr was taken at 6.0 megapixels, but there are a few scanned film shots on there as well. I can blow up the film to 8 x 10" for sure, and maybe 10 x 13.

What Can We Get Away With?

We’ve heard it said that “With Much Wisdom Comes Much Vexation, and Increasing Knowledge Results in Increasing Pain.” I think the fellow that said it was pretty bright too. Hm.

So there are a few obvious was of rationalizing to ourselves how getting smarter brings about vexation and pain. Looking at the word vexation (note, not the original word, but for our purposes…), we see a connotation of nuisance, annoyance. We’re usually vexed by termites in our home, not by divorce in the family. Most of us can probably relate to being annoyed by the asininity of a conversation held between college students on the level of third graders. We hear Chet complain to Kyle about the complexities of Psych 101; We, in our greater knowledge, could deal with said problem in our sleep, and are annoyed by those who struggle with such a simple task.

Hopefully I don’t have to point out that in this situation, while the greater wisdom provided the platform, you still took the step over to judgment and general snobbery.

Here’s another scenario, more addressing the increasing knowledge resulting in increasing pain bit: The world has a lot of ugliness to find. The happy fool sits on his box, sometimes giggling between drool at the pleasure of his simplicity (although of course, he wouldn’t actually be aware of his state as such, but he might have random flashes of enlightenment as to his condition.) But we also know that the simple are killed by their turning away and the complacence of fools destroys them. Maybe not the best option. But be warned that when you seek knowledge, you’ll find that quite a chunk of what’s out there is bad enough to cause you pain. Better to suffer in seeking wisdom, than be destroyed by your apathy.

I’m sure there are a few other ideas out there about how, pragmatically, Smarts = that smarts (hoho). But here’s what I’ve been thinking on the past few days that was certainly new to me: With much wisdom often comes the ability to defend your wisdom. The more you know, usually the better you can explain what you know. Great, right? Lucidity rules. My concern isn’t with simple clarity of expression, but more with the rhetorical swagger that too often tends to accompany “much wisdom.” Often, before a young fella has this wisdom, he’s proven wrong in an argument and has to sit in it. But ah, now that knowledge has entered the picture, he may be able to present his opponent with an airtight case for whatever inane thing he wishes.

Put more simply (hopefully), I think that often what keeps us in check isn’t our better judgment or morality, but the fact that “I couldn’t back this up.” Regardless of my position being right or wrong, I know that my first thought has been something similar at times. “Can I make a case for this? What would their response be? Then what would I say? Ahhh, forget it, I can’t sustain that argument.” Little or no thought (initially) given to whether or not what I’m arguing for is right.

Consequently, with increasing knowledge and much wisdom, the potential for making a solid argument for something ridiculous grows. With a loaded rhetorical arsenal, we sometimes become trigger happy, all too ready and willing to open fire on anything we see.

Art Needs You

I was thinking today about ways to present my senior thesis at the end of this semester, and the idea popped into my head of using some of my photography. As I pictured myself showing and explaining my own pictures, it seemed ridiculous. I thought “Who does this?” Other people should be critiquing my work and telling the group what I was doing, what I intended, because that’s largely what we do in the arts. The creator of what we’re studying is rarely presenting his own material, or even sitting in the back to chime in with “Actually, that’s not at all what it means.”

There’s a certain level of protection for the artist in this. As soon as he puts something out there, the populace will begin dissecting, embellishing, musing, and basically doing whatever they want with it. But the responsibility seems to be somewhat lifted from the creator; and the explanatory weight seems to be shifted away.

But isn’t this fact largely what makes art and talking about it interesting? I’m definitely not a proponent of “everyone’s opinion is equal and we all have the same right to be heard on a level playing field” crap. Some people are vastly more qualified than others to relevantly discuss certain issues. If I were to be involved in a discussion on poetry, the majority of my time would be spent listening, because chances are everyone in the group would be better equipped than I to comment and I know that. But it is the difference of opinions and perspectives that make up a large portion of what’s interesting about art. And unless we’re dealing with an artist harboring some personality disorder, we’ll only get one interpretation from him, and any discussion would involve creator vs. non-creator. Were he alive, would you tell Rembrandt what he meant by painting “Christ on the Storm on the Lake of Galilee,” after he’d already told you?

So in the artist’s absence, we’re able to hold conversations that may make the creator roll in his grave. But we may also touch on something that he didn’t intend at all, and benefit ourselves and others beyond any of his dreams. This more active engagement with art is, I think, what motivates new artists to create. If we were to hear one side of every poem, painting, song, and story, most of us would probably think along the lines of “Well, I can’t do that kind of thing.” I think I would.

Bucer's Bible Study

Bible study at Bucer's, 1:00 on Wednesday. This week we'll read through the entire book of Isaiah aloud, which may take anywhere from two and half to three hours. After that, we'll discuss the book in smaller chunks every week. You're invited.

Observations on Kamp’s “Progress” in the Time I’ve Been There

Having just recently finished my 5^th summer of work at Kanakuk Colorado, I’ve noticed a few things about the change (or lack thereof) that I’ve seen over the years.

Some Background:

Kanakuk Colorado officially became a branch under the Kanakuk dynasty in 2001 to offer kids an alternative to hot, sweaty Branson. Kids are also able to branch out a bit from their normal sports and activities they could enjoy back home (which is usually somewhere in the south/south-Midwest). They get to pick from five ‘specialties,’ which are Mountain Biking, Rock Climbing, Backpacking, Fly Fishing, and Wet & Wild (river rafting and lake sports.) Ironically, despite our offering of “something different,” the most popular specialty by far is the one that most of these kids already do nine months out of the year; tubing, waterskiing and wakeboarding. Coincidentally, hoho, it’s also the laziest specialty you can choose. Fly fishing at least requires you to stand under your own power and not be towed about by a boat.

We’ve had basically the same options offered each summer with a few small tweakings. The sameness of the sports year after year for returning kids isn’t too big of a deal, since they can always choose new specialties, and the actual trips that we take them on change almost yearly.

Another aspect of camp is Andy’s “Institute.” Don’t let the name scare you too much, it’s only half as creepy as it sounds. Roughly every other day, the kids are presented with a series of talks from Andy on “Christian worldview” issues with an apologetic leaning. These include taking a look at the media that these kids are immersed in, defining and examining dating relationships, and exposure to other major religions of the world in relationship to Christianity. A lot of work goes into these talks, lots of research and tons of resource-gathering time. During the two weeks that the kids are here, they’re certainly given a bit of info on a multitude of issues that a young Christian deals with. And therein lies the first flaw that I’ve noticed.

The problem can be pretty much summed up in the phrase “A mile wide and an inch deep.” Andy ends up flying through a lot of material just to get through it all. Not only is he not always able to mention everything he intended to, but the general atmosphere suffers greatly when he ends up kicking it into hyperdrive and zooming through PowerPoint slides. No one wants to hear about morality issues with the speed of a cattle auctioneer. It’s hard to think of something as important when it’s flying by you without time or chance for reflection or question.

I’ve known a few campers that have decent heads on their shoulders and aren’t too shabby at thinking for themselves. As soon as they pick up on the fact that Andy is making sweeping generalizations for the sake of time, they tend to have a hard time putting any faith in what he has to say afterwards. On top of that, kids that come for a few years are getting almost verbatim the same talks every summer.

Hearing the same material a few times isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And given that there are quite a few new kids each summer, it’s all new material to them. The problem that I see is that kids who have gotten past the basics that Andy spends most of his time on (evolution, sex, racy movies, etc) and are ready for something deeper are pretty much out of luck. They’re going to hear the same thing they heard last summer, and the summer before that.

What this tends to do is keep kids in a stagnant spiritual state. The common cliché associated with camp is to come off of two weeks with other Christians, “get your life back on track,” and experience “The Camp High.” And of course, like any other altered state, it goes away when you stop shooting it and you’re usually in worse shape than when you started. Camp as a whole suffers from this still-water problem, as the aim is for college kids to be around and influencing high school kids. Staff at K-Colorado average one or two summers of work. With a turnover rate like that, how can you expect to grow as a whole? We’re so busy bringing new people up to speed that it’s a battle to just hold our ground. No thought is really given to maturity as a body.

Now I try not to criticize something at this length without offering some semblance of a solution, so here it is:

Institute: I feel that if Andy were to pick one of the many topics he works with every summer and really focus on that and take the time to explain it clearly and critically, campers would gain more from it. For example, next summer could be all about Creation and Evolution. Appropriate time is given for all the subheadings involved, and he could work without the pressure of everything still to cover in the time given. Next year, focus on the media. Not only would this give everyone a chance to slow down and really examine the issue at hand, but it would work well for kids who come back for multiple summers. They won’t hear the same thing for 11 years (yes, I had a camper who was on his 11^th year). There’s also more of a sensation of moving forward, towards something, instead of each summer being a copy of the previous.

I’m afraid my idea for the problem of staff turnover doesn’t have as technically applicable a solution. More or less, people need to want to be there. It truly pains my soul to hear co-workers at camp just finishing their freshmen year of college talking about summer school and internships to fill the next few summers. If you’re “good at camp,” by all means, take advantage of the fact that you have summers off of school and can work at place like K-Colorado.

Up Next: Night Life at Camp or How We Make Camp Sweeter For Those Who Already Love It, and Consequently More Painful For Those Who Don’t.

Only In Dreams

At about 5:00 this morning I found myself in the Logos field house, near the end of a Christ Church Service. I was sitting in the second of two rows of desk/bleachers that ran along the entire length of the building along the side walls. There was a smallish group of folks occupying folding chairs in the middle, near the stage. I was seated about even with the back of the chair group, but about forty yards from them. The building was roughly three times its normal size this morning.

On my right sat Susanna Rench, taking notes with her left hand. I vaguely remember DW making some concluding remarks, but can't remember the details. Then, the overhead LCD projector kicked on, displaying the church's plan for dealing with the issue of "Hurricane Seeds." The first and only bullet item underneath the heading was the word "Frumption."

At this point, Asher Weinbaum, who had apparently been sitting in front of me the entire time, turned around and mouthed the phrase "Mutha Frumption!" with a look that said "Oh yeah, I went there!"

I only remember five or six dreams a year, and they are usually ended by me laughing myself awake. This was no exception.



By the way, isn't Only in Dreams the best weezer song ever?

Purty

Ein bisschen mehr.