The Artesian Wells

What Does It Take?

2008-08-22T20:36:00.001-07:00

So quoth as the innumerable times I tried to login to this blasted thing. But have no doubt - I deciphered the Google code, and am once again the master of my domain.

Victory!

Van Til on Christian curriculum

2007-03-28T10:15:00.000-07:00

"[Christian curriculum] deals with nature and history. "

At the bottom of the same page:

"The whole of 'space-time facts' should be set into the pattern of the conception of the absolute personality of God."

This is from an essay by Cornelius Van Til on "Antithesis in Education." Van Til very precisely lays out the necessity for an utterly Christian system of education, and the above quotes are from when he is talking about Christian curriculum.

To unpack this slightly, Van Til is essentially saying that education deals with two things; nature and history. In other words, observing the world around us in terms of space (nature) and time (history). It doesn't get any more basic than this. Biology, chemistry, geometry, algebra, languages - all these deal with the nature side. History, literature, theology, all deal more with the history side; although it is important to note that none of these deal solely with nature or history. It is impossible to separate those two in any of these subjects, as every subject that deals with nature must also have a history behind it, and any subject that deals with history, must also talk about its nature.

The second quote is the one that gets me, though. "The whole of 'space-time facts' should be set into the pattern of the conception of the absolute personality of God."

I can think of no greater antithesis between Christian and secular education - Christian education is set in a pattern, and the pattern is pointed toward conceiving the absolute personality of God.

Just sit there. Think about it. If this is at the center of your education, what would change? What should change? Think about the utter impossibility of this becoming a foundation for secular education. Think about the glory and wonder of an education that does center on this.

I recommend two responses to this. One, think about your own education; if it did fit this, praise God and thank your parents and teachers because this is one of the most wonderful gifts you can give a child; if it didn't, thank God for His grace, and because mercy abounds so fully. Two, think about how you can apply this to your life, whether you are still learning (trust me, you are), or whether you are teaching someone else. And again, thank God for His grace, because I don't think anyone can do this perfectly.

Now, I need to finish that essay...

The Last True Roman

2007-02-17T16:20:00.000-08:00

That's his reputation at least. The other competitor for that title happens to be the chap that invited the Vandals into North Africa, which didn't work out so well. Let's just say that, prior to that little episode, calling someone a 'vandal' had nothing to do with rapine, pillaging, and slaughter of innocents (or very bad football teams). And, prior to that episode, North Africa was actually part of the Roman Empire.

But my point isn't to talk about the other guy, but the real, last true Roman: Flavius Aetius.

By the time Aetius was born, the Roman Empire was already toppling. The Goths, of both the eastern and western variety, had already entered the empire and were causing trouble, and the Huns were also proving a menace up near the Danube. Aetius, as a youth, was actually sent to the Huns as a hostage, as part of peace terms that were set at that time. Now, hostages in those times actually had a pretty decent life, provided the countries involved in the exchange didn't go to war (in which case you were executed). As a hostage, you would actually get good treatment at the hands of your captors, and after the requisite time, you could be sent back home. This is what happened to Aetius.

Part of the great irony about Aetius being the 'last true Roman' is that he was educated by barbarians, and may well have been half-Goth himself. But it was these very experiences with the barbarians that set him in good stead to be the leader in the last great Roman victory, the Battle of Chalons. Without going into great detail, Attila the Hun had invaded France and was doing his Scourge of God routine all over in the north, until he finally came to beseige Orleans. Aetius met him with a coalition of Romans and Visigoths, and in defeating Attila, shattered the Hunnic leader's aura of invincibility, and drove him back across the Danube. Attila wasn't stopped by a long shot, but his invasion of Italy the following year was turned back after a visit by the first bishop of Rome to be called 'Pope', Leo the Great. Attila never menaced the empire again, dieing not long after, by some accounts at the hand of his own wife.

Aetius, meanwhile, had clearly established himself as the most capable man in Rome, which turns out to be a BAD idea, when the current emperor is excessively paranoid. And, indeed, Aetius was murdered in 453 by the emperor's own hand, while delivering a report of some kind. This has been noted, historically, as the worst job review ever received.

Another member of the court at the time remarked to the emperor that, while he no doubt had reasons of his own for the deed, it looked very much like cutting off one's own right hand with one's left, implying that Aetius was in fact that necessary to the empire. The emperor himself was assassinated a couple of years later, while guards who had been loyal to Aetius looked on in indifference. The Roman Empire lasted only 23 years after Aetius' death, the last emperor being deposed in 476 AD.

A word of explaination...

2007-02-05T08:48:00.000-08:00

Normally, I hate largely self-referential blog posts (by me, at least), but I think the picture that you'll find of me here needs a bit of explaination.

This picture says everything about me. Its a reference to Uncle Sam and the old military recruiting posters, and it also shows how ruthless I am in debate. "You may disagree now," it says, "but I'm pointing my finger at you! Hi-yah!" It also gives you an inkling of how much more intimidating I am in person. Especially when I point my finger.

In fact, from now on, whenever I make an emphatic point on this blog, I want you to think of this picture, and imagine its me, in the room with you, right then, pointing my finger at you in exactly that menacing and very persuasive fashion. Imagine how quickly you would quail and submit. Yeah, that's right, I'm pointing at YOU. Hah!

It's also apparently the only digital version of me that exists. Weird.

Wikipedia

2006-12-13T11:47:00.000-08:00

I use Wikipedia. A lot. It, along with Google, my email, and mlb.com, rests on my browser toolbar for easy clickage. It makes it possible for me to have the thought, "Hey, what about this?" and have a basic answer to my question in just seconds. Immediacy. Instant satisfaction. Also, profoundly lazy.

It is well said, by Neil Postman and others, that the medium effects the message. The way information is dispensed actually effects the content of that information. Wikipedia is no different. While it is enormously useful, it can also be deceptively useful. I'm not talking about the ability to edit content and the possibility of foul play, etc., but the nature of the way Wikipedia causes us to look at information. First, Wikipedia, by its very nature, must present all information from a kind of intellectual mean. Because it relies on a large body of contributors, it is unable to represent a consistent bias - thought bias will exist in individual articles. I should note that one of the things to be aware of is that although it does rely on a kind of collective wisdom, it does spring from a particular source, and there are people behind the scenes managing the editing and structure of the project. For this reason, if I were engaged in a debate with someone, I would refuse to consider Wikipedia a legitmate authority to appeal to.

Second, Wikipedia is unable to cover anything in true depth - an overview is all it is capable of. This is useful for getting your bearings, but cannot provide you with true understanding of the subject. This is partially the defect of all encyclopedic formats - it is intended as an easy tool for reference, and cannot be a basis for true knowledge of a subject, but only a reminder or a starting point. The temptation is to use Wikipedia as a crutch rather than as a supplement.

What may be most interesting about the way Wikipedia effects us is that Wikipedia is a postmodern revision of a very modernist concept. It was modernism, after all, that gave us the encylopedia, and the idea that all essential knowledge could be condensed into a series of authoritative volumes. The wikipedia removes the modernist assumption that it must be the certified 'experts' that write the articles, instead trusting to a kind of collective wisdom and the peer review of the broader population. Modernism still lies behind the concept of encylopedic knowledge, but it is implemented in a very postmodern way.

Part of this is to be expected. As the globalization of culture progresses, the consensus of the mean gathers more and more weight. Of course, the Wikipedia project is repudiated by Encyclopedia Britannica, as might be expected, citing its vulnerability to vandalism, etc. But wikipedia is a serious challenge to the old intellectual guard of modernism, part of the nature of its challenge being that it is far more easy to access and thus more available to the broader population, which by default gives it the potential to have a far greater impact than the old encyclopedias.

I mentioned the consensus of the mean - as globalization progresses, we find that experts in different cultures can disagree. This disagreement forces us, the non-experts, to make decisions on who we trust. In the past, this decision was usually to pick a certain expert to trust. Now, it seems that the prevailing sway of modern opinion seems to hold almost equal weight, or perhaps the prevailing sway of modern educated opinion. I see this used as a rationale for evolution very often; that all the intelligent scientists believe in it, therefore you are ignorant to oppose it. For another example, the sway of popular opinion in polls seems to carry great weight within the political realm.

What is the answer to this? As a Christian, the decision of 'who to trust' is clear - the Very Word of God, by Whom all things were made, and Who was made man for our salvation. The first step is submission to the Lordship of Christ over all the world, and over all knowledge, and the second is to pursue wisdom like it was buried treasure, as it says in Proverbs. As Calvin says, knowledge of self must begin with knowledge of God (and yes, knowledge of God must begin with knowledge of self), and it is necessary for us to seek God first out of all things. Seek him through the Word, through His creation, through history - and it is then that we are able to turn to the sources of worldly knowledge and evaluate them clearly. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you."(Matthew 6:33)

My point? Wikipedia can be an awesome tool, when used properly. A huge amount of information is placed at our fingertips via the internet, and Wikipedia is, along with Google, one of the best resources for accessing that information. It is also wonderfully interesting. But it should never be mistaken for true knowledge, nor should it be assumed that reading Wikipedia can replace reading the actual books from which much of its knowledge base is derived. Wikipedia can only give short summaries and, ultimately, cannot give true understanding. At best, someone who relies solely on Wikipedia will be freakishly good at trivial pursuit, and utterly devoid of wisdom.

A Random Christmas Thought

2006-11-27T15:36:00.000-08:00

Try this on for size:

Achilles is to Alexander as King David is to Jesus Christ.

I know I'm stretching a bit here, but the Illiad is the closest thing the Greeks had to a Bible, and Achilles was their model for a hero. We may consider Achilles arrogant and whiny, but that's our hangup, not a Grecian one(which isn't to say that it is a BAD hangup, just that it's ours). Alexander was called "Achilles" as a nickname by one of his teachers, and obviously adored the image of Achilles, sacrificing at his tomb and so on. Alexander in many ways seemed to consider himself an embodiment of the virtues Achilles was the model for, and even their fate was similar - to live a brief life, but to thereby achieve everlasting fame. Alexander also served to be a kind of messiah for the Grecian world, nearly creating a world empire.

Now, compare that to the connections the Bible makes between David and the Messiah. Note, in particular, the promises of a kingdom and a throne that are promised to David and filled in Jesus. The fact that Jesus subverts the expectation of a physical empire (like David's and, I might add, Alexander's), is just part of the glorious truth of the Incarnation.

So, what do you think? Good enough to get slapped on the next SAT?

Scutum Sobieskianum

2006-10-19T22:08:00.000-07:00

I must admit, that the Northern Cross is my favorite constellation. Gleaming in the midst of the Milky Way, almost directly overhead in the summer months, it declares to all and sundry that the great plan of God for the salvation of mankind was foretold in the stars even from their time of creation. It is a glorious thing, and a constant reminder of the remarkable symbol of the cross - a symbol of mockery and shame, of humiliation and anguish; and yet the symbol in which we recognize our salvation, and we rejoice in it.

But I recently discovered my second favorite constellation. Scutum, a dinky little, hard to recognize constellation just below Aquila and near Sagittarius. Scutum is the modern, abbrieviated name, and the full, glorious name of this constellation hasn't been in regular use for many, many years. The full name? Scutum Sobieskianum: "The Shield of Sobieski"

One of the reasons this name is remarkable is because, as you may notice, Sobieski is not a traditional Latin name, no, nor Greek. It is, in fact, a Polish name. It refers to one Jan III Sobieski, the Lion of Lehistan, King of Poland, great victor at the battle of Vienna in 1683, and the man God used to save Europe from the Ottoman invasion of the late 17th century.

Jan Sobieski had proved himself a capable military commander by the time he was elected King of Poland (they elected their kings in those times). Jan III's reign was the reign of the last great king of Poland, and for the duration of it the Poles enjoyed relative stability as a country.

Conflict with the Turkish presence in the Balkans was a constant at that time, and in 1683 the Ottoman army had set seige to Vienna (the second time that city was beseiged by Muslim forces), and Jan Sobieski came to help. The Turks had laid seige with some 130,000 men, according to modern estimates, while the combined forces in Vienna numbered no more than 80,000. On September 12th, the battle took places, beginning before sunrise, and lasting all day. The Germans held the line valiantly against Turkish assaults, while Polish artillery helped to repel the swarming Ottoman troops in a particularly strong assault upon the center line. Late in the day, around 5 PM, Jan Sobieski pointed out the broad white tent of the Grand Vizier of Turkey to the captain of the Hussars, and ordered him to ride straight for it.

After a full day of battle, that cavalry charge of 3 Polish troops and 1 Austrian, totalling some 20,000 men, broke the back of the Ottoman army. The Turks were shattered, and fled, beaten, from the field. It not only ended the seige of Vienna, but marked the beginning of a long string of victories for the west, driving the Turks almost wholly out of Europe, and signalling the beginning of the end for the Ottoman Empire. Sobieski himself captured the Grand Vizier's tent, which included a wealth of riches and the Vizier's personal banner.

Sobieski sent the green Muslim banner to the Pope, with the following message: VENI, VIDI, DEUS VINXIT. (I came, I saw, God conquered.)

Prophecy and Proof

2006-10-15T20:49:00.000-07:00

When it comes to anchoring yourself in the Bible in the "Sola Scriptura" sense, the modern and the post-modern alike want to know - why trust what the Bible says? Its just a human document after all; little changes over time add up and all that sort of thing.

Now, part of these objections are simply grounded in the fact that the skeptic has a base assumption that humans authored the Bible, and if that were the case, Christians ought to be the first to toss it out. Of course, the evidence of Scripture itself is proof enough that it was inspired by God, but if your local skeptic wants more proof, what about prophecy?

Even by the most skeptical, it cannot be doubted that Isaiah and the rest of the Old Testament significantly pre-dated the coming of Jesus. Furthermore, the Old Testament is filled with prophecies that are only fulfilled when Jesus is incarnated and lives on the earth. When the apostles, and even Jesus Himself explain the gospel, one of their primary tools is to point to the witness that the Old Testament bears to Christ. The prophets point with clear and unmistakable accuracy to the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and His identity as the Saviour of the world. This is both a profound indication of Divine authorship, as well as affirmation of the gospel itself.

In order to deny this, the skeptic must either deny that we have accurate knowledge of Jesus' life (i.e., the four gospels were altered to fit the prophecies), or else the Old Testament was altered or interpreted with an extremely heavy prejudice in order to make it fit the events of Jesus' life. What the skeptic cannot deny is the presence of the prophecies. In other words, there must be some sort of cover-up somewhere - if the gospel is not true, there was some serious foul play going on.

Oh, look! Somebody left his razor here. Hmm...Ockham...I don't know any Ockham's...must be from the next town over. Oh well.

Impress your friends, frighten your enemies!

2006-09-21T07:38:00.000-07:00

September 21 is traditionally the first day of fall. It often feels like fall for some weeks before that, but the choice of the date has less to do with local weather patterns than it does with the earth's rotation.

As everyone knows, in the winter the northern hemisphere of the earth angles away from the sun, and in the summer it angles toward it. Between these two extremes, there are two days in which the earth is exactly in the middle - the sun shines directly on the equator, and the days and nights are of equal length (thus 'equinox' or 'equal night'). Of course, there's just enough funkiness in the earth's orbit to mean that the equinox actually has slightly longer days, but the pricinpal is there. September 21 and March 21 are the days that fall and spring officially begin, most of the time. Again, because the circuit the earth makes around the sun is not exactly 365 days (it has a little bit over, roughly 1/4 of a day, which explains the leap year concept), the equinoxes don't always fall on exactly the same day. Most of the time they land around March 20th, or September 23rd. Of course, the time the equinox occurs (when the sun is perfectly centered on the equator, speaking from the terrestrial point of view), happens at the same moment for the entire earth - but not the same time. With the whole slicing-the-earth-into-time-zones project, the equinox will occur at twenty-four different hours around the world - all instantaneously. In the Pacific time zone, it will be about 8:03 PM.

The cool trick to remember around the equinox, is that they are the only two days (broadly speaking) on which you can stand a raw egg on end, and it will remain upright. As I write, an egg is resting upright on my desk. To do so, simply pick an egg (preferably one that is more squat), and a flat, level surface. Use your fingers to set the egg upright, making sure it doesn't tip in any direction, until it stands on its own. And it is as simple as that. This trick should work for a least today, tomorrow, and the next day. After that, I'm not certain.

Avast, there, lubbers!

2006-09-19T07:48:00.000-07:00

Yarr. It be talk like a pirate day today.

Unfortunately, they say nothing about typing like a pirate, so I'll leave it at that. You may wonder, "Why talk like a pirate day?" I believe the official answer is, "Why not?" It might be "Because we can," as well. Or, "Its fun!" I think that covers all the bases. Er, I mean...yarr, all me bases be covered, you lily-livered land-lovin' log of a lubber!

Makes me wonder, though. If there can be a talk like a pirate day, what about a Loqaciously Rhapsodize in the Manner of Cicero day? Or a Insult Pagans like Luther and Augustine day? 'Cause that would be really fun.

I'm laughing on the inside. Really.

2006-09-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

For some reason, certain plays on words just get me. Like one of my students last year did a book report on 'Artemis Fowl' which is a, um, strange book. It has fairies and such, but as best I could tell they use magic AND large caliber weaponry, which means they're fairies that you don't want to cross. Anyway, there's a police force specifically for the wee little men, also known as the 'Lower Element.' So the police are called the 'Lower Element Police', see. And one character is in the recon division, which is known as the LEP Recon...get it? LEPrechaun? Ha! The book report was OK, but that pun made me snicker for weeks.

Almost as much as this other fairy related one I ran across recently in Terry Pratchett. There's these wee little men, see? And they all talk in outrageous Scottish accents and they prefer to be known as...wait for it...pictsies!

Get it? Pictsies! Like pixies, but also like Picts, as in the old name for Scotland! Ha! Oh man, that one had me rolling, let me tell ya.

Anyway, speaking of such things, I recently discovered that two of the best lines in Fiddler on the Roof never made it into the movie version. To wit:

Perhick: Remember, God said, "Let there be light."

Hodel: Yes, but he wasn't speaking to you personally!

And another...

Golde: My grandmother told me in a dream!

Yenta: So what? My grandfather came to me in a dream and said her grandmother was a liar!

And, for the curious, Yenta was paraphrased, there. You get the idea.

As the good book says, if a man eats a chicken, one of them is sick!

Good service is so hard to get these days.

2006-09-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

I've been pestering the postal office here for a couple weeks now. They seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that I live in 1/2 a place, but I do. Its in my mailing address. But it would seem they didn't think that passed muster with them, or something. Those uppity postal workers.

I finally got some mail the other day, and heh, boy was it worth the wait. Just a simple little box, really. Not much to get excited about, it would seem. But inside that box, well...putting a price on something is a tricky thing. For instance, what I paid for the contents of that box cost me only a few hours of labor in a field that I don't really consider laborious. What those contents are worth to me is a different matter. I'm not saying I'd kill to protect them, even hyperbolically speaking, but that's only because I don't think anybody would bother to steal them.

Its funny, really. If a thief was looking to rob my place, he'd probably make off with the laptop as the only thing worth stealing...unaware that, to my rough estimate, he could probably get double what that laptop was worth by stealing my books. Honestly, I think I've got more, er, 'capital' wrapped up in my books than I do in my car. Although, if you've seen my car, you know that's not exactly saying a whole lot.

Anyway, that's all just a lead in to say that what was in that box were eight, earth toned, nicely bound volumes, containing, yes, Schaff's History of the Christian Church. When I realized what had arrived, I skittered about giddily. I may have bounced up and down a couple of times. I have, since long ages past, firmly asserted that men do not 'giggle' but rather 'chuckle.' Giggles only take place in alto and soprano registers. Today I freely admit that I giggled. Several times. I opened the box. I slowly lifted each volume out in proper order. I placed them on my shelf. I giggled again. Then I removed the first volume and smelled it. Yep, that 'old book recently printed' smell. Its very similar to a 'new book' smell, but you can tell they used a more reverential variety of pulp to make the pages. Then I buried myself in Schaff's various introductions...I'd seen the words before, but I'd never possessed them. Now their mine. I can underline them, and make little 'whoo hoo!' and 'amen!' comments in the margins. I own Philip Schaff. (The set is on sale at CBD, by the way - $50 for the set; a buyer's price that would be considered highway robbery in most civilized countries.)

Funny, because I actually have come to love my church father's set far more, in a way, but that only served to highten my anticipations for finally acquiring Schaff.

And my students think I'm strange.

You can call me...Perchik

2006-08-26T17:05:00.000-07:00

In reference to the 'Fiddler on the Roof' auditions mentioned in passing below, I should add that they turned out well. I got the part I wanted (which is to say, a part that is enjoyable and doesn't require me to sing anything in the tenor range), namely that of Perchik. I've always wanted to be a Russian revolutionary, but it never worked out before. So, that'll be fun.

Speaking of Russians, and revolutions, and such things...how about that Bismark? Not the ship, but the statesman it was named in honor of, as in 'Otto von.'

Otto von Bismark was an amazingly effective statesman. Those of you who have read Donald Kagan's superb work 'On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace' may remember Kagan's comparison of Bismark's strategy as chancellor of a unified Germany to Pericles' strategy as leader of the newly powerful Athens; i.e., an effort to maintain the status quo once it had reached a status that they liked.

But what Bismark did to produce the state that he then wished to maintain was nothing short of astonishing. Germany, before Bismark, was a scattered collection of states that shared little more than a common language, and was dominated by the Austro-Hungarian empire to the south. Europe was essentially dominated by the presence of a powerful France and Russian, while Britain spent most of its efforts in naval and empirial matters. After Bismark, German was a powerful nation, unified and in a position to dominate European politics. In addition to this, it was also under Bismark's watch that the Rhineland exploded into productivity in Germany's industrial revolution.

Bismark was probably better than any modern statesman at getting what he wanted. He never toed a party line because he wanted the good of that party - Bismark used rival political factions like a chess player uses his pieces. Bismark, by the end of his career, had sided with conservatives, liberals, Catholics, and Protestants. Bismark was interested first in Prussia, his home state, and then when Germany became a nation under Prussia's dominating influence, Bismark threw all his effort into preserving and making Germany great. Bismark was a strong Lutheran, although some suspect his Lutheran convictions were only announced as a means to gaining the approval of his wife Johanna's father, who was a devout Lutheran.

Bismark's political career started after his marriage (which seemed to give him a focus he had lacked in his youth), and he served as an ambassador to Austria and Russia. Bismark proved to be astonishingly effective at getting what he wanted, and adept at playing rival states against each other, especially Austria and France. In 1862 he was appointed as Chancellor and Foreign Minister by King Frederick William, after Bismark convinced the King not to abdicate in a personal confrontation. Throughout the rest of King Frederick William's reign, Bismark used these personal confrontations to get his way, as well as his effective control of the rest of the Prussia, and later German government.

One of Bismark's specialities early on was goading other countries into declaring war against Prussia or Germany. First it was Austria, which was soundly defeated by the superior Prussian troops, leading to the consolodation of the German states under Prussian, rather than Austrian domination. Then, in 1870, Bismark supported a Hohenzollern (i.e., German) candidate for the crown of Spain, which infuriated the French. After King Frederick William gave in to the French on that point, another ambassador was sent to gain the German's assurance that NO Hohenzollern would ever be advanced as a candidate for the Spanish throne again. The King was accosted by the ambassador in the street, and after a brief conversation, sent the Frenchman on his way. A telegram was sent to Bismark, telling him of the incident. In stroke of masterly political manipulation, Bismark carefully shortened the telegram (not adding or editing anything, but merely removing a few words), and had it published. The published telegram gave the impression that the Prussian king had summarily dismissed the Frenchman and the suggestion, and gave no thought to considering the demand. The military general von Moltke, who was with Bismark when he edited the telegram, said the edited version "has a different ring; in its original form it sounded like a parley; now it is like a flourish in answer to a challenge." Bismark himself said that he hoped it would "have the effect of a red flag upon the Gallic bull."

The result was the Franco-Prussian War and the ultimate unification of Germany. Europe didn't fight another war until 1914, largely through the efforts of Bismark himself.

Fallon: The Return

2006-08-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

Things can change quickly in this world. Much of that change is facilitated by vehicles. To take a simple example: at 10 PM on the 16th, I was in Moscow, finishing up what was possibly the most enjoyable summer I can remember, for a variety of reasons. The dominating characteristic of my summer was books, which came to its highest culmination during the two weeks of Hill Abbey (reference my last post, speaking of which, go here to find the some of the pictures, and the very handy links to the blogs of the other attendees).

By 2 PM on the 17th (Thursday), I was in Fallon NV, having driven about 600+ miles that day, and feeling overwhelmed by a sudden explosion of duties and tasks. In addition to all of the expected stuff that I just set aside and didn't worry about over the summer (lesson plans, getting my classroom arranged, getting an apartment, etc.), I also apparently got in town just in time for the last day of auditions for 'Fiddler On the Roof.' I performed in 'The Music Man' last year with these same folks, so I was very happy I got back to town in time for this.

What is truly amazing is the sheer contrast of the thing. Within a span of less than 24 hours, every single thing that defined the context of my life was inverted, all by simply sitting still for a few hours in a transportation machine, when walking the same distance (i.e., no reliance on other means of transportation), would have taken me over a month, not to mention that I probably would have died trying to make it through the Nevada desert.

There is a plethora of observations I could make upon this phenomena, which is one of the most remarkable in the modern world (and even this is dwarfed by the fact of air travel). I will restrict myself to this: the American road system is one of the greatest feats of modern engineering, not in terms of complexity but of scope, and is unmatched by any other road system in the world. Thank President Dwight Eisenhower. In 1919 a military expedition set out to cross the country using motor vehicles, and it took them 62 days. I've traveled the same distance in 4 days, and could have done so in 3. Eisenhower was a part of the expedition as a young man, and when he became president he signed into effected the Interstate Highway project in 1956. We still enjoy the effects of it, and for good or bad it defines at least western America culturally and economically probably as much or more than any other single factor. It makes highway travel an effective means for transport, is responsible for almost the entirety of the organization and planning of towns in the West, and makes personal transportation swift and exceptionally easy, as well as making travel in general far more bland and lifeless. It is difficult to sum up all the things it has changed or made possible - it is so ingrained into the western American lifestyle that it has become all but invisible. Read this article for a good summary of the history of the project, and then take a few minutes and ponder just how staggering and unique it is.

The City of God

2006-08-12T10:12:00.000-07:00

For the past two weeks I deliberately abandoned (almost) all electronic communication, in favor of reading carefully one of the greatest works known to Western literature and Christendom - Augustine's 'City of God' - with 11 other like-minded individuals (making 12 of us in all). This statement is not meant to reflect pride in an accomplishment, but joy in what I think was a wonderful opportunity and a gift. When I find them, perhaps I will post links to the blogs of the chronic picture takers (a thousand blessings be upon their heads!). For the rest, I find this medium wholly inadequate for attempting to summarize those two weeks. The closest I think I could come would be to commend Psalm 133 for earnest reflection.

"1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity!

2 It is like the precious oil upon the head,
Running down on the beard,
The beard of Aaron,
Running down on the edge of his garments.
3 It is like the dew of Hermon,
Descending upon the mountains of Zion;
For there the LORD commanded the blessing—
Life forevermore."

The Comfort of History

2006-07-21T19:44:00.000-07:00

Let me preface this by saying that, for this summer, I have what is possibly one of the coolest jobs in the world. My job is to sit on a chair with a microphone nearby and read, slowly, clearly, and with feeling, very good books. To date, most of them have been written by Dr. Peter Leithart. And may I also say that the more I read, the more I am impressed with Dr. Leithart's clear insight into Scripture.

That said, this post is inspired by Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter, which I heartily recommend, as soon as it becomes available. I should also note that, if this seems disjointed, it is because I am simply grasping at some of the glorious ephiphanies that have been thrust upon me, and attempting to share them in my excitement. I scribble furiously, in dread fear that the right words shall slip out of my frail memory before I have time to write them down. But I digress.

A passage I have refered to often in my explainations of why history is valuable is 1 Corinthians 10:11: "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come."

In other words, the sins of the Israelites show us a clear example of what not to do. Specifically, as Paul mentions, they turn to idolatry, which Paul tells us to flee in verse 14. By observing history throughout the ages, we see example after example of the people of God turning away to idolatry, and this includes not only Israel, but also the New Israel, the Church - our current age of European and American apostasy among them.

There is, however, a flip side to this that is found in 2 Peter. In 2 Peter, Peter is most likely writing to Christian Jews, scattered through the Roman world. In it, he writes concerning the coming judgement (which, taking the preterist viewpoint the Dr. Leithart advocates, took place in 70 A.D.). Peter writes to assure his readers that it WILL come to pass, and to prove his point, he points to history. By pointing to three specific judgements, Peter emphasizes that the Lord is faithful to His promises, and that He WILL bring judgement upon the ungodly, as He did in the Flood, and on the cities of the plain (Sodom and Gomorrah).

The point I wish to make is this: Peter and Paul are doing nearly the same thing here, but in two different ways. Paul points to the examples of history as a warning: don't let yourselves be drawn to idolatry! Look at what happened to Israel. Let it be an example to you. Peter points to judgements far more devastating than Israel ever received (up to that point), and makes a similar point: Look at how faithful God is, in bringing His judgement on the ungodly, and is preserving His people. Know that you, as the people of God, WILL be vindicated, and the the mockers and false teachers (a big theme in 2 Peter 2) WILL be destroyed in judgement. Peter also reminds us: "You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."(2 Peter 1:20-21) This is, in a way, declaring the message we see in history, but in reverse. We can look back in history, and see that God has kept His promises in the past, fulfilling the prophecies because they are not the words of men, but of God Himself. Thus, we can look to the future in confident expectation of His fulfulling THIS prophecy, because God keeps His Word. Part of Peter's point is also that God doesn't just judge the wicked, but rescues His servants from the judgement, as He did with Noah and Lot. "If this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment."(2 Peter 2:9) At the same time as Peter is offering this encouragement, he is also offering a warning, to avoid the same idolatry that Paul warns us about. For God is faithful, and more than that, He is longsuffering, give us time to repent from our idolatry, which we have fallen into.

So, we can take comfort from history in another way: God is faithful to vindicate His people. God is faithful to His promises, and yet a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day to Him, allowing us time to forsake the idolatry we invariably fall into, despite Paul's warnings.

Sheesh. What a hard-headed lot we are. The history of the world is laid before us, and we turn our backs and rail at the sky. What fools we mortals are. Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy. Kyrie eleison.

1984

2006-07-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Apple has, in the past, been a remarkable company to watch for its ad campaigns. They are responsible for what could easily be the most remarkable commercial in history. It is the ad they made in early 1984 for a new computer. Because of its timing, they made a wonderful use of Orwellian '1984' imagery in the commercial. All of the 'Big Brother' imagery is blocky and lined, alluding to the other developing computer rival, IBM. Apple, by contrast, casts itself as supple and rounded, with warm colors and an implicit rejection of the 'authority' represented by the IBM allusions. I will not attempt to describe it further here, just go watch it.

(As a pure aside, when was the last time you saw so much literary allusion in a TV ad?)

However, the reason I bring this up is that I recently saw some of Apple's latest ads. They are not nearly of such a legendary and, dare I say, artistic caliber, but they are, I think, quite effective (not to mention amusing). They consist of two actors, one pale, pudgy, and flabby, the other lithe, young, and handsome. Of course, the flabby nerd in glasses is the 'Microsoft' OS, while the hip looking young man is the Apple. The ads are simply them introducing themselves, and then alluding to their various features, Apple's representative always coming off better, naturally.

The reason it caught my attention was that Apple seems to have retained its core identity for some time now. It allies itself closely to a 'cutting edge' ideal, that rejects the authority of the standard norm, and its physical representation is always youth, good looks, and brightness and warmth in the colors. If you watch the new ads (just go to apple.com), you find that these elements are all there.

This is, of course, all wrapped up in the classic symbol of Apple computers - the apple with the bite out of it. The old symbol was multi-colored, the current is simply solid, clear, and light (a light grey or white). The original Apple had similar lines to IBM, but was curved and colored - the current is, I'm guessing, illustrating the reliability and simplicity of the Mac in constrast to the PC.

The apple has many, many possible allusions, but the obvious one is to the first sin in the garden; the apple (as popular imagery has it) bitten by Eve and then Adam. This is fitting - that apple is the visible symbol of the very first rejection of authority, a rejection of the 'norm' and the established power structure. Adam and Eve were doing something new, daring, unique. Rebellion and rejection of authority has that appeal of independence, of strength and color, of vibrancy and life. Apple, throughout its life, has pulled on that imagery to draw customers.

I should note that I'm not saying Apple is especially anathema for drawing on this imagery, because it is no more out of line than any other commercial on American television. But it is good to remember: the most effective use of metaphor, symbol, and artistic style in America is found not in poetry, prose, or movies. It's found in commercials. Why is that? And what does that say about us?

Earl Weaver would have approved...

2006-06-27T11:25:00.000-07:00

In the "Man, I wish I had been there" category comes this story about a minor league manager.

I especially love the part about him cleaning off home plate with a water bottle after he covered it up with dirt. Watch the video in the linked article to see how awesome the whole tirade was (he literally dives into second base before he tears it out of the ground).

Classic.

Classic Allusions in the style of Captain Aubrey

2006-06-22T10:32:00.000-07:00

'Well, you could say that they are as much like sheep as they are horses,' said Jack, blowing his nose. 'But sheep ain't poetical, whereas horses are.'
'Are they really, sir? I was not aware.'
'Of course they are, William. Nothing more poetical, except maybe doves. Pegasus, and so on. Think of the fellow in that play that calls out "My kingdom for a horse" - it would not have been poetry at all, had he said sheep.'

- Patrick O'Brian 'The Ionian Mission'

Not in 102 years

2006-06-07T17:01:00.000-07:00

See, this is one of the reasons I love baseball. Man, I wish I could have been there for that game.

Jason Schmidt pitched a complete game, and struck out 16. In case you aren't aware, that means he averaged just shy of 2 K's per inning - out of 27 outs, 16 didn't even put the ball in play. And yes, that is a phenomenal feat. The last time that was done by a pitcher in a Giants uniform was 1904, by none other than Christy Mathewson. Any time you pitch a game and get compared to Christy Mathewson, you did something pretty special.

Of course, the other thing about this that makes me snicker contendedly to myself, is that Jason Schmidt is obviously the best pitcher in the NL right now. Perhaps in baseball. For the past 6 or so starts, he has been not merely equal to his almost-Cy Young seasons of a couple years ago, but clearly dominating every time he pitches. If he stays healthy, he should have another 18-20 starts. If he keeps pitching like this, I find it unlikely that the Giants win less than 15 of those. Of course, those are rather sizeable ifs - but that's part of the joy of it all; the uncertainty, the expectation of what could be...

Every once in a while, that expectation is utterly surpassed by what actually happens - moments that are rare, but when they happen, unforgettable.

Ah, summer!

2006-05-30T19:38:00.000-07:00

The school year is ended. What I find remarkable is that, while there is a sense of relief, I do not feel suddenly freed from the shackles of labor. Maybe this is due in part to the fact that teaching doesn't really feel like drudgery. Also, this may be due to the fact that I'm still rather busy. I have to line up an apartment to rent in Fallon for next August (since I'm staying here for another year), pack up everything that isn't necessary into a storage shed, and help formulate the curriculum for the upper grades for next year. I also need to leave for Idaho soon, since I plan to spend the summer there. Among other things.

School has ended, and so also has my first ever theatrical production - i.e., one that I directed - a comedic mystery entitled, 'The Play Is In The Soup.' It was a challenge, certainly, but extremely rewarding. I had jumped into it with almost no preparation and without a plan, so managing to put on a play by the end of the year really felt like a big accomplishment. It was short, and was planned to have little in the way of prop and costume requirements, but it came off beautifully. Mostly. There were lots of dropped lines, sure, since it was a cast made up entirely of 5-8th graders, but what was absolutely marvellous were the recoveries.

There was one 5th grader who, at his last speech meet, had left the stage crying, unable to complete his poem. In the play, he not only delivered his lines with enthusiasm, but when another actor mistakenly skipped half a page, he managed to track back and fill in the information needed by ad-libbing.

Another time, the actors onstage forgot to say the line which was the cue for the next actor. The next actor dutifully waited offstage for her cue, while one of the others onstage filled almost 30 seconds of dead stage time with some very convincing hysterical weeping.

Still another time, somebody misplaced a prop which was supposed to be delivered to a policeman onstage. Completely unconcerned, the actor simply mimed holding a gun, and passed it along, never missing a beat. It might have been nice if the policeman had mention that it was a gun they were holding, but I'm not one to quibble over details like that.

Of course, most importantly, I learned all sorts of things that I will be able to apply toward our next play, which should be next fall. The two most important things are to start earlier, and to delegate certain tasks rather than do the leg work myself. Its amazing how much doesn't get done if I try to do it myself.

Of course, now I'm on the prowl for the next play...ideas are always welcome.

A Parable

2006-05-19T16:24:00.000-07:00

Once, there was a man named Gunther, and Gunther was very tidy. Everything in his house was labeled and named. The spoons had little signs that said 'spoons,' and the knives had little signs that said 'knives.' What's more, Gunther was not easily fooled; if a knife got in with the spoons by accident, he didn't call it a spoon. No, he put the knife back in its proper drawer.

Gunther's hobby was collecting bugs, and he was as tidy with his labels for the bugs as he was with his house. And, just like the knives and spoons, Gunther was very good at recognizing what bugs belonged to what sorts of labels. When he found a yellow, instead of a red, ladybug, he would look at it carefully and say, "The bug may be yellow, but it has the shell, antennae, spots, and all the other features of the ladybug beetle; therefore I shall label this bug a yellow ladybug beetle." You see, he was so precise, that he knew the ladybug was actually a beetle.

One day, Gunther found a very unusual bug. It was unusual for two reasons; one is that, althought it was a June beetle, it was solid gold; the second was that, although it was solid gold, it was very much alive. Gunther was appropriately amazed, but his first reaction was still to kill it, for he knew nothing about enjoying something while it was alive. You see, unless he could kill, label, and mount it in his collection, he felt that he had not actually seen the bug properly. Gunther sprayed the golden beetle with a can from his shelf, and sure enough, it stopped moving. But when GUnther tried to pierce it with a pin, the pin bent because, after all, the bug was solid gold. Gunther was not easily deterred, and he proceeded to glue it into one of his little, velvet-lined boxes. Then he puzzled over how to label it.

"It is a June beetle, certainly, but it is also gold. Therfore, I shall call it a gold June beetle."

So saying, he put the label on the box. No sooner had he done so, than the beetle vanished in a puff of gold dust, because, you see, the beetle was actually a magic beetle (how else could it be solid gold, and still alive?). However, Gunther did not have any labels for magic beetles of any sort, so he concluded that it must have camoflauged itself, and added a word to the label - "chameleonic."

Before long a friend of his came over, and Gunther proudly showed him his box with the Chameleonic Gold June Beetle. Now, his friend actually knew about magical things, and understood what had happened far better than Gunther himself. He patiently explained that the gold dust left in the velvet box actually showed that the beetle had disappeared and was somewhere else entirely, and not in the box at all (for magical beetles can't be contained by boxes). However, as Gunther had no labels for magical beetles, he concluded that such a thing couldn't possibly be the case. He refused to listen to his friend, and would not throw the velvet box away - he refused even to change the label on the box.

And the label is still there. Even today, if you try to talk to him yourself and explain that it really is a magical beetle, he will label YOU with a sign that says "ignorant." For he has labels for that sort of thing, but still has none for magical beetles.

David Copperfield - Notes (cont.)

2006-05-14T17:26:00.000-07:00

Since most of the book is a collection of memories, it can be difficult to find an overall plot. Ultimately, I think that this structure is found in the overarching goal of David Copperfield himself - simply stated, to find peace and tranquillity - happiness. (Dare I say, innocence?) As far as David himself goes, this peace is disturbed in the early chapters by the Murdstones, and all is not right until he is finally settled with Agnes at the end.

The Murdstones, incidentally, are closely associated with the condemnation of the law, and have no mercy. For example, they seem to enjoy reciting passages of the Law in church, and the confession of sin, but are almost disappointed when forgivness of sin is mentioned. Their religion delights in the condemnation of the law, and not in the mercy of the cross. When this is thrust into the world of David Copperfield as a child, it shatters his innocent world. Mr. Murdstone, in threatening him with the punishment of the law, provokes David into biting him. It is a sin for David to do so, but we percieve that the harshness of the Murdstones' punishment is not merited. Since they have no room for grace, David is left to wallow in his guilt. This grave and serious presence of the Murdstones is what drags David's own mother to the grave, and ultimately David finds the mercy he lacked in the hands of his aunt - someone who at first introduction seemed to have a firmness almost equal to the Murdstones, but who is shown to have a far softer side, and only maintains an appearence of severity. As soon as he arrives at his aunt's house (hitherto known to us only as an eccentric and rather frightening figure), his case is considered and judged, the Murdstones are spurned, and as Mr. Dick suggests, David is given a bath, and then a hearty meal. He is also renamed 'Trotwood' in honor of his non-existent sister. This immersion in water, meal, and renaming strongly resembles the Christians sacraments, and it is shortly after this that David begins a completely new life (in Caterbury, no less, the chief town of the English church), and meets his ultimate salvific character, Agnes. However, I will come back to Agnes later.

Rooks also form a theme, and they are at first connected with the senior David Copperfield - the father we never meet. D. C. Senior named his house after the rooks' nests, "The Rookery," despite the absence of any rooks in the nests, rather like Copperfield, Sr.'s own absence. We do not see the rooks again until the setting moves to Canterbury, where Copperfield finally gains the home he had lost. Even when he leaves Canterbury, the rooks follow Dr. Strong to London, implying that perhaps Dr. Strong is a kind of father figure for David Copperfield.

David Copperfield - Notes

2006-05-07T22:33:00.000-07:00

The following are a few random notes I've been taking on David Copperfield, while I've been reading with my junior high kids. I'm going to split them into a few posts, in order not to make them too overwhelming.

Beware of major spoilers if you read on. If you haven't read the book yet, I'd recommend doing so. This is probably my favorite Dickens novel, although I do have certain reservations regarding Dickens, given that his novels usually are soggy with sentimentalism. A lot of the reason I enjoy Dickens is his humorous characters, and a lot of my favorites are in David Copperfield.

Since the novel is told from the first person, the way it is told informs us about the title character. Thus, we can get a very full glimpse of David Copperfield by what he chooses to relate, and how he relates it to us. When the narrative begins, in his childhood, it has a childlike simplicity, although it is interspersed with sardonic humor, as the adult narrator makes clear to us things that the child never notices (like Brooks of Sheffield). Also, the characters gain more depth as the child in the narrative grows older. A prime example of this is the Peggotty family, which figures largely throughout the book. Early on, they are seen to have that childlike simplicity of life, but after Emily's trangression they are suddenly thrown into a starker circumstance, and their character proves to have far more depth than we had originally supposed. This episode also marks the author's use of "foreshadowing." When we first meet Little Em'ly as an innocent young girl (mirroring the young David's own innocence), the author (an adult David Copperfield) intimates to us that something dreadful is in store for Em'ly. This foreshadowing continues to occur throughout the book, for almost every character.

Since Copperfield is our narrator, we come to know him especially well. He shows himself to be possessed of an almost photographic memory (hence the overwhelming detail in his story), and as an adult, he is able to perceive the character of others very well. He always retains a very sentimental outlook throughout, and innocence is one of his most highly regarged virtues. David Copperfield is never ashamed to mention when he breaks down into tears, and is quick to show sympathy for others in his path. Despite rarely doing much of anything, he is percieved by his enemies as a chief rival or opponent.

Innocence, however, forms a main theme throughout the novel. It is often associated with flowers - the flowers on his mother's grave, his own nickname given by Steerforth (Daisy), and Dora's constant association with flowers. This is contrasted with the sterness of the Murdstones, or the mercurial behavior of Steerforth. Other themes are often associated with particular characters - such as the professed "umbleness" of the Heeps, or the firmness of the Murdstones. The firmness of the Murdstones is placed opposite the ideal picture of innocence - David's childhood home. It is no accident that the Murdstones reappear when David, as an adult, finds a mirror-like image of that same innocence in Dora.

The Science of Unbelief

2006-04-26T17:46:00.000-07:00

Christianity is one of the most unique religions, from anyone's perspective, because of the following thing: its entire existence is rooted in a historical fact - the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - and without that fact, the entire thing is worthless.

This observation is more than just a curiosity - it means that being able to point to a specific point and time in history and say, "this happened" is at the heart of Christianity. It means that any system that seeks to redefine either history or facts is, at its core, a false gospel. Marxism, Modernism, Evolutionary theory, Postmodernism, Political Correctness, and many other philosophies that offer 'alternative' explainations of history are thus false gospels and nothing more. This can help to shed light on unbelief as well - in order to deny Christ, Christianity, and the gospel, it is first necessary to deny the historical fact. This can be done through an appeal to ignorance for only so long, and the reality of a living Christ must be denied either by word or deed, and most often both. The philosopher that believes that Christ really lived, died, and rose again must either kiss the Son, or be driven to madness - there is no alternative.

I raise the point because of the trend I see in the national media. Much of it was kicked into the limelight by an utterly ridiculous novel by a chap named Dan Brown. It goes hand in hand with evolutionary theory at its core, whether or not the people involved actually believe in evolution. This is because the theory of evolution is much more than a contradiction of what is said in Genesis - it is a foundational claim about the nature of history. I won't try to summarize it, except to refer back to the false gospel motif. If evolution isn't a false gospel, I don't know what is.

This is why producing counter-arguments saying why evolution is wrong is simply not enough. The cross lies at the center of any argument against an unbeliever - being able to point to the cross and say simply, "Jesus died there, and in doing so, conquered death; and after He died, He rose from the dead" is the ultimate proof not merely of evolution's falsehood, but of the truth of the gospel, and everything else. If Christ really died on the cross and rose again, all the arguments of the evolutionists are put to shame. I am not just speaking metaphorically, here. It means that we can be certain about something that happened in the past, and evolution is a theory that thrives on the unprovable. If we can't be certain about something in the past (which the historical elite have been shoving down our throat for years) then why can't evolution be viable? It means that if Christ truly rose from the dead, there is something that evolution and 'science' cannot account for. It is utterly necessary for proponents of evolution to deny the resurrection of Christ - it is foundational that the resurrection was a story spread by his disciples, or Paul, or Mary Magdalene.

This, alas, is why National Geographic is doing a jig over the dusty remnants of the 'gospel' of Judas. When a denial of the resurrection is so utterly foundational to what they are doing, they can't be troubled with the possibility that the documents and traditions that deny the resurrection have never been given the slightest credence at any time in history. The denial of the resurrection is so necessary to unbelief, that any historical document that also denies the resurrection must be true, regardless of any evidence.

Now, there is such a thing as historical inquiry into whether a document is true, or spurious. Ironically, in investigating the canonical gospels and the aprochryphal gospels, the result is predetermined. If you believe Christ rose from the dead, the Bible is true. If you do not, the others must be true. This conclusion is made by default - there is no other way. Either Christ did rise from the dead, and the Christians really were spreading good news, or Christ did not, in which case the Christians must have been squelching the people who knew the truth. There is no other option.

The glory of this is that any discussion on the 'gospel of Judas' or 'The Da Vinci Code' or even evolution, ought to, by necessity, gravitate toward the truth of the resurrection. Thus, in some ways, I don't mind people jumping on the gnostic bandwagon (by which I refer to the 'secret tradition' nonsense contained in the 'Da Vinci Code' and elsewhere), because the more they talk about it, the sooner they will be brought face to face with the gospel. And that is never a bad thing.

On Fellowship

2006-04-21T18:20:00.000-07:00

From "Post-Captain" by Patrick O'Brian; an excerpt from the diary of Dr. Stephen Maturin.

"Even a frigid, self-sufficing man needs something of this interchange [of affection] if he is not to die in his unmechanical part: natural philsophy, music, dead men's conversation, is not enough."

Of Steroids and Baseball

2006-04-20T11:10:00.000-07:00

The whole steroid flap going on in Major League Baseball right now is curious for a number of reasons. Before I delve into the subject, let me offer the following caveat: I do not have first-hand information of any sort. I cannot offer these words as anything but opinions. I happen to think them fairly sound, given what I know of human nature, but that is as far as I can go.

It seems that the basics of the controversy is this; players began taking steroids in large amounts during the mid-90's. It was not against the rules of baseball, but these drugs were illegal without a prescription, which none of these players had. Because of the sudden surge in steroid-taking, there was a corresponding surge in offensive production, culminating in '98 and '01 when first McGwire and Sosa, and then Bonds broke the single-season home run record. In the past couple of years, Congress and the baseball elite have been taking a second look at the use of steroids in baseball. Currently, the entirety of the controversy seems to swirl around Barry Bonds, though it has already ruined the reputations of McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro.

Since there was no rule about steroids until testing began a couple years ago, there is no question of punishing players ex post facto - that has never been the American way. There are many ways of skinning a cat, however, and in our resentment, we seem to think that there are certain cats in need of a good skinning, Barry Bonds first and foremost among them, and he is currently being examined on perjury charges.

This whole thing is very odd, especially since it is filled with such a large amount of self-righteous trumpeting. Ultimately, it comes down to the media. The media has always had a watchdog kind of status in our society, and it wasn't until Ken Caminiti turned himself into a martyr in...2003 was it? that the media started angrily plucking the steroid string on their guitars, expecting us to dance to it in fury. Leading the charge in many ways has been the SF Chronicle, a Hearst-owned newspaper. Yes, as in William Randolph Hearst, the guy that Citizen Kane is supposedly about. The Hearst franchise is not unknown for manufacturing a crusade in order to sell papers, and given the utter viciousness of some of their attacks, and the fact that they did not shrink from using illegally leaked Grand Jury testimony in order to further their cause, I suspect a similar tactic here. Not surprisingly, the recent book about Bonds and steroids came from the same source.

The reason why the whole situation is difficult is because people are involved. This always complicates things. When one talks of Law, with a capital 'L', one thinks of a pristine standard of justice. But when people get involved, the pristine quality of the thing gets mucked beyond belief. This is because humans aren't perfect, and whenever there is a system, even one ordained by God (authorities are given the sword for a reason, you know), humans tend to make it a little more complicated. In this particular situation, we need to be aware of the biases on both sides. The media has a great deal of vested interest in making themselves appear to be the watchdogs we expect them to be, whether they actually succeed at the endeavor or not. Congress wishes to appear a dutiful legislators, doing the right thing by the American pasttime. Players wish to be remembered for what they did, without having a big asterisk hanging over their lifetime stats.

Personally, I am inclined to sympathize with the players for more than the other groups. They were the ones with a career on the line, and the ones taking grave risks with their bodies. Players have always done stupid things. The media, the owners, and all the higher-ups, however, are the ones responsible for protecting the sport as a whole. Frankly, they have a long and dismal history of turning a blind eye to stupid or illegal goings-on of the players simply because they had no desire to upset the status quo, which was bringing in a great deal of money. They ignored all the cocaine in the late '80's that almost ruined the entire '86 Mets team, and later ignored the steroids for almost a decade, until Ken Caminiti died.

There are two options - either the steroids were widespread, or they were not. All indications seem to point toward the former. This brings up another curious thing - all the emphasis has been on offensive players. If steroids were really that widespread, it implicates pitchers just as much, and actually implies a relatively level playing-field. It also means that this almost maniacal focus on just a few key players, coupled with rapid speculation over who may have taken, is extremely unfair. For myself, I look upon the media coverage of this situation with an ever skeptical eye.

The ultimate irony is that my skepticism matters not a whit. Ooh, I'm skeptical, what are you going to do now Ray Ratto(the Giants reported for the Chronicle)? Also, as a last observation, I admit that I have a vested interest in this thing as a Giants fan, and I could very well be biased in this regard. But hey, at least I'm aware of my bias.

Harper Valley PTA

2006-04-14T20:59:00.000-07:00

I think I heard this song for the first time in a neighboorhood near Dale City, VA on a classic rock station, despite its being a country song. It's from 1968, and the very first time I heard it, I thought it summed up a lot of the attitude of the '60's pretty nicely - not that I was there for them. Just, you know, from what I've heard.

Essentially, the song is about a woman who gets censured by the local PTA for behaving in a more 'liberated' fashion than they think is proper, so she heads down and rips into the members of the PTA for the hypocrisy in doing so. Interestingly, there was eventually both a movie and a TV show that came out of this song, both of them comedies about the mother making fools of the uptight townspeople.

The lyrics are posted below for your enlightenment.

(Tom T. Hall)

I wanna tell you all a story bout the Harper Valley widow wife
Who had a teenage daughter who attended Harper Valley's Junior High
Well her daughter come home one afternoon and didn't even stop to play
And she said mom I got a note here from the Harper Valley PTA
Well the note said Mrs Johnson you're wearin' your dresses way too high
And it's reported you've been drinkin' and a runnin' round with men and goin' wild
And we don't believe you oughta be a bringin' up your little girl this way
Yeah it was signed by the secretary Harper Valley PTA
Well it happened that the PTA was gonna meet that very afternoon
And they were sure surprised when Mrs Johnson wore her miniskirt into the room
And as she walked up to the blackboard I can still recall the words she had to say
She said I'd like to address this meeting of the Harper Valley PTA
Well now there's Bobby Taylor sittin' there and seven times he asked me for a date
And Mrs Taylor sure seems to use a lotta ice whenever he's away
And Mr Baker can you tell us why your secretary had to leave this town
And shouldn't widow Jones be told to keep
Her window shades all pulled completely down
Mr Harper couldn't be here cause he stayed too long at Kelly's Bar again
And if you smell Shirley Thompson's breath you'll find she's had a little nip of gin
Well when you have the nerve to tell me you think that as a mother I'm not fit
Well this is just a little Payton Place and you're all Harper Valley hypocrites
No I wouldn't put you on because it really did it happened just this way
The day my mama socket it to the Harper Valley PTA
Yeah my mama socket it to the Harper Valley PTA
My mama really socket it to the Harper Valley PTA

Rough Year in Mammoth

2006-04-07T18:21:00.000-07:00

Already several deaths have occurred on or near the Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort in the eastern Sierra Nevadas this year. You can read about the latest tragedy here. Read the linked article for the basics, but the ski run these men died on is right smack in the middle of the mountain. I've always seen the marked off areas, but never realized what it was for.

Spring

2006-04-06T21:02:00.000-07:00

It has finally come to that time of year, when I can turn on the radio (or the MLB stream) and listen to the warm mutter of 30,000 fans watching a team that I love. Baseball is here. The Giants are so going to beat the tar out of the Dodgers...again. I don't even mind ending our 5 year opening day winning streak, because, hey, the Giants never won a World Series once during those five years. This year is going to be different. Bonds is going to pass Ruth AND Aaron, and the Giants are going to beat the Yankees in the World Series. This IS next year.

Of Demons and Oracles

2006-03-27T20:10:00.000-08:00

Back in the day when Christianity was a new young religion, the great intellectual minds of Greece and Rome still pondered the old mysteries. There were many schools of thought that provided the answers to the big questions, and thousands of disciples followed in the steps of the Epicureans, the Stoics, the Peripatetics, and many others. Some of the less prominent thinkers dealt with smaller, yet still important issues, like the "Training of Children", the "First Principle of Cold," the "Three Sorts of Government," the "Virtues of Women," "Whether it is Good Manners to Talk Philosophy at the Dinner Table," "Why Mushrooms are Produced by Thunder," and "Why Women do not Eat the Middle Part of a Lettuce." The author of all of the above treatises is none other than the inestimable Plutarch, more famed for his Lives of Famous Greeks and Romans than his philosophical inquiries.

Among his list of philosophical dialogues is one that discuss the possible "Passing of the Oracles." Oracles had long been a part of life throughout Grecian, and thus Roman culture. Stories about the various predictions of oracles abound, almost as much as those stories in Livy about a sheep giving birth to a calf in the forum, while lighting struck the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus three times, thus signifying a defeat of the Samnites or some such enemy of Rome. Probably the most famous of all oracles is that of the Oracle at Delphi, a shrine sacred to the god Apollo.

Herodotus, in Book I of his Histories, tell the story of that fabled king of Lydia, Croesus. Having decided to find out which oracle was the true one, Croesus devised a test. He sent out messengers to every known oracle, with instructions for each messenger to wait until one hundred days before consulting the oracle to which they had been sent. On the one hundredth day from when they set out from Sardis (Croesus' capital), they would ask the oracle what Croesus was doing at that exact time. They would bring back the various responses, sealed, and Croesus would then determine which oracles correctly identified his actions. After the messengers departed, he racked his brain trying to come up with the most bizarre thing he could be doing, so as to throw off those oracles that weren't truly prophetic. He come up with the idea of chopping up a turtle and a lamb, and tossing them in a brass cauldron, and making soup out of it.

After a long time, the answers all came back, and only the oracle at Delphi nailed it. The priestess there, called the Pythoness because Apollo supposedly slew a python that dwelt there when he founded the temple, said, in the poetry peculiar to pagan prophectic priestesses, "Oooh, I smell turtle, and...lamb...and there's lots of brass. Cooking...stew! Oh, that sounds good. I want turtle stew."

Okay, okay, those weren't the priestesses exact words, but that's pretty much the idea. Anyhow, Croesus was convinced, and then asked if he should attack Persia, and if he would come out on top if he did? The oracle told him that he would destroy a mighty empire if he attacked Persia, which was all the encouragement Croesus needed. He attacked Cyrus' burgeoning empire, and destroyed his own magnificent Lydian empire by doing so. Whoops! So you can see, those oracles can be tricky.

In Plutarch's day, however, there was a good deal of curiosity over why the oracles seemed to have gone silent. So much so, that Plutarch tackled the problem in a philosophical treatise. He asks the question: where have all the oracles gone? For some reason, in his day, oracular prophecy seems to have dried up like a desert streambed in the dry season. Among the stories the people in his dialogue relate, is that of a man named Epitherses. According to the story, this man was sailing on a ship near some islands in the Aegean Sea, when a voice from one of the islands hailed their Egyptian pilot by name, which was weird because nobody on the ship had bothered to learn the guy's name. Anyhow, the voice called Thamus (for that was his name) three times, and when the bewildered pilot answered. The voice told him that when he was opposite a certain place, he was to shout out from the ship, "Great Pan is dead!" Everyone of the ship was in awe, but the pilot did as he was asked. As the ship drew across from the appointed place, Thamus shouted "Great Pan is dead!" Immediately there arose a sound of a multitude of voices wailing in sorrow from the land. Pan, it should be mentioned, is a kind of goaty god of pastures and sheep and stuff.

The story spread quickly after that, so much so that Tiberius Caesar (the imperial heir of Augustus, who ruled from 14 to 37 A.D.), sent for Thamus to hear the story for himself, and ask the experts what the deal with Pan was.

I bring up this story in particular to offer support for the theory that I consider well-founded, regarding the pagan gods. Namely, that these 'gods' were demons. Now, this 'theory' is nothing new, and the story I tell was certainly well known in its day. But I just want to point out a couple of things. First is the strong evidence of the accuracy of some of the ancient oracles, which I do not consider to be at odds with the idea of demonic workings, and that they controlled the oracles and spoke through them; and second is the timing of this story. Note that the emperor is Tiberius - the man who was emperor when Jesus was raised from the dead, and conquered death itself. The traditional date for that death is 30 A.D. - leaving only a span of a few years for the demon Pan to die. Plutarch himself is probably writing somewhere in the vicinity of 100 A.D.

Whether or not the story is true, the timing of the oracles passing away is certainly not to be doubted. Indeed, to those who have eyes to see, is not the Lordship of Christ plainly evident? He has risen, and He has conquered. Even the pagan prophets witness to His glory.

ETA Lays Down Arms

2006-03-23T16:28:00.000-08:00

For nearly half of the past century, certain radical Basque Nationalists resorted to terrorism to achieve their goals. Wednesday, a video was released by the ETA claiming to herald an end to their terrorist activities. You can find an article about it here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2098207,00.html

The Basques have fascinated me for some years. They are quite possibly the longest inhabitants of Europe, pre-dating the Iberian Gauls, Romans, Franks, and all other inhabitants of their particular slice of France and Spain. The Basque people is not apparently related to any other people group in Europe, nor is their language, Euskara. The closest match would be Finnish, which is still a ways off.

The Basques live in seven provinces, four of them bordering the Bay of Biscay and stretching into the Pryenees in Spain, the other three just across the border in a little seaside corner of France. They have intruded themselves into history a few times, but for most of their history have lived rather quiet lives, making their living from the sea (they were some of the more prominent early whalers) or from herding sheep. Today they are famous for one nationalist splinter group (the ETA, which is a Basque acronym for something along the lines of "Basqueland and Freedom"), but that is only a tiny sliver of their rich history. Given that they predate anyone else in Spain, they have a fairly unique history - which is another way of saying that they've been the subjects of more foreign rulers than any other people in Europe. Except perhaps the Poles, but the Poles are special that way. But the only time the Basques have been remotely under their own rule was in the medieval kingdom of Navarre, which wasn't totally theirs anyway.

Probably the most famous city in Basqueland is Guernica, made especially famous after Pablo Picasso painted a picture of the massacre that took place there in the Spanish Civil War in 1937. It has only been in recent years that Basque nationalism has become well known, and only since about 1965 has the ETA been using terrorist tactics to try to advance its goals.

Very few Basques have come to America, and almost all of them have settled in the Western states - Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and California - continuing to pursue the national pastime of herding sheep. Though numerically small in these regions, the areas that most Basques have settled in are so sparsely populated, that they form a considerable segement of the regional culture. On any long drive through the Great Basin, it likely that you will see a Basque resturant in almost every town.

Lastly, it is the Basque nationalists who are responsible for my favorite graffiti: 4+3=1. It is a reference to the four provinces in Spain and three in France, making up one united Basqueland. Of course, the great irony is that, to the best of our knowledge, there has never been a united Basqueland in the history of the world, so I'm still unsure as to why the Basques are so adamant on the subject. But, until the day that a united Basqueland rises, here's to the Basques, and may their rich culture never again be overshadowed by a single violent faction!

Schliemann

2006-03-21T16:34:00.000-08:00

I happened to find a copy of Heinrich Schliemann's "Ilios" the other day(the book where he talks about finding Troy), and couldn't resist buying it. I also couldn't resist cracking it open the next evening despite the seemingly dozens of other books I have in my queue to read. His brief autobiographical account at the beginning of the book utterly enthralled me, particularly the parts about how he came to learn English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese in addition to his native German, in the course of only a few years. He later learned Russian, Arabic, and both Modern and Homeric Greek. He describes a method in which he read a great deal in the new language aloud, without translation, "taking a lesson every day, constantly writing essays upon subjects of interest, correcting these under the supervision of a teacher, learning them by heart, and repeating in the next lesson what was corrected on the previous day." In addition to this, he mentions memorizing entire books in the language he was learning - a rather impressive feat. He goes on to advocate this sort of method (the reading aloud and large amounts of composition) as being far superior to the grammar based techniques he saw in use in schools.

It makes me wonder. Over the past couple years I've found myself able to pull the old 'recognize a few words and guess at the context' trick to fool people into thinking I knew French, Spanish, or Italian, but I've never made a serious effort to learn another language on my own. I have a fair bit of Latin and Greek on my shelves, thanks to NSA and Loeb Classical Library, and one book in Dutch (sort of a gag gift). I think I may have some Spanish around somewhere too. But nothing substantial in the languages I would like to learn (chiefly Italian and German). I think perhaps I'm going to start looking for some.

Semi-autobiographical content

2006-03-07T20:21:00.000-08:00

In reading David Copperfield with the junior high kids I'm teaching, I've begun to wonder what my 'fictional' semi-autobiography would look like. Other than the necessary addition of owning my own flamethrower, I hadn't decided on any details. I decided to try and come up with an episode from that fictional autobiography. The result is the following section, blandly titled "The First Day on a Job." This particular episode is absolutely true, but names have been changed to protect the...well, actually, just because I thought a fictional autobiography should have changed names.

By the time we reached a small block of houses, I had no idea where we were. It was a quiet street, with small blob-like culdesacs jutting out at random intervals. The entire area was surrounded by trees, and the persistent buzz of cicadas. The 'music of the spheres' effect was setting in by this time, so that I hardly noticed the noise that had been so overwhelming only a few hours before. Jim hopped out of his company truck and walked back to Tyler and myself. We both got out to see if he was going to have us start, finally. Both Tyler and I were wearing the 'company' uniform of a white polo shirt and khaki shorts. My legs seemed to gleam an even brighter white in the cloudly gloom, almost enough to match the iridescent glow of the new poloshirt. Jim pointed at Tyler first. "Okay, Tyler's with me. Wes, start knocking across the street and get rejected for a while. After I'm done with Tyler, I'll go around with you."

I nodded my understanding and set off. I recall disctintly the mixed feeling of utter dread - my childhood gregariousness seeming to have worn off, so that now I had mixed feelings against forcing my conversation on strangers - and muddled bewilderment. I had been told what to say to start my converstations - "Hi, I'm the bug guy" - but after that, I had nothing. I didn't even know how to fill out the paperwork, if by some miracle I found someone that wanted to purchase the service I was offering. I walked up the nearest culdesac as I tried to work out some sort of plan in the event I ever got past 'hello.' It seemed a wasted effort, however. I walked onto the front porch of a modestly decorated home. Two stories, colonial windows, with a white railing and posts on the porch. Some sort of small fern sat placidly near the door, unconcerned with my approach. I pressed a finger into the doorbell, and heard the bell chime distantly. After waiting some 30 seconds, I pressed again. The fern next to me continued its policy of of complete serenity, and maintained a studious ignorance of my presence. The house seemed to be taking its que from the plant, and there was no response from within. For a time, at least, I was preserved from forcing myself upon strangers. I shrugged my shoulders helplessly, and tried to convince myself that I was disappointed I hadn't had the chance to try the pitch on the occupants of the house.

I walked on to the next house, and the next, and so on to the rest of the culdesac, all with the same result. The houses stood stately and undisturbed, while the various hanging plants on the porches pretended I was not there. I took note of the time, and reasoned that the potential customers were not yet home from work. That was fine by me, I decided, and trudged across the street to begin working up the other side.

The next house was built on a slightly different model, the outside consisting of a dark paneled wood that seemed as though it belonged in the leafy background, like a domestic camoflage. There was no fence around the yard of this house; just a green lawn that sloped away in the back. Again, however, I found no result came from ringing the bell, or rapping my knuckles on the door - a new tactic that had just occurred to me. Feeling strangely helpless in a foreign world, I fancied myself rather like Abraham - a stranger in a strange land. But he had only needed to dig a few wells. He was never obliged to go round, poking his head in other sheiks' tents and seeing if they wanted to buy any livestock, great prices, fed off good Euphrates valley fodder, no better sheep in Canaan, no sir, well maybe next time, say is the wife at home, maybe she'd want...no? Well, that's fine.

I reflected on the relative ease of Abraham's life, when compared with my own, as I walked toward the next home. I was interrupted by a determined shout. A "hey" uttered in a meaningful voice, in a tone weighted heavily with an attitude of civic responsibility. I turned around to see a solid man hurrying towards me. He had sandy hair, and a rather portly build. Everything about him seemed to glow with this civic responsibility that dripped from his words. The clipboard, in particular, seemed to enhance this effect. To this day, I have no idea where he came from, or what the clipboard was for. I have half a mind that he appeared out of nowhere, a kind of municipal fairy, - one of those fairies that carries a clipboard and marks you off for things like not scooping up after your dog, for later punishment by one of his leprechaun friends. Admittedly, there was nothing fairy-like about his build, which was more along the lines of a 20th century battleship. He surged toward me in a battleship-like fashion, his belly making for a rather intimidating bow, and his eyes gleaming like signal beacons atop his bridge.

"Are you soliciting?" he asked in a sharp tone.

I was caught completely unprepared, and had no idea how a person of my position was meant to respond to such a query. So, I blurted out the first thing that came to my mind, the thing I had been repeating to myself for at least five hours solid. "Hi, I'm the bug guy," I said.

The bow of the battleship surged forward several more feet, and he pressed his questions harder. "Do you have a license to do what you're doing? Are you aware this country requires a license for door-to-door solicitations? Did you know this neighborhood is exempt from solicitors? Didn't you see the no-soliciting sign?"

He paused to reload after this salvo. Realizing that I stood no chance against any more such barrages, I opted to wave a white flag. "You know what?" I gulped, "You're right. I should just...leave. I'll just go over here."

I pointed to my car some 20 yards away, and turned and began to walk briskly away from the imposing battleship. Apparently, he wasn't content with a mere interdiction between me and the citizens he was protecting, as he surged forward again at flank speed, maintaining a constant distance behind me. As I neared my car, I pulled my cell phone out of my pocket, in order to warn Tyler. If I had to go down, I could at least warn him. Turning to the concerned citizen behind me, I gestured lamely to the phone. "I'm just, uh, calling my boss."

He ignored, having discovered a fresh violation. He harshly scribbled on his clipboard, and pointed at the license plates of my car. "How long have you been here? A month, more than a month?"

I barely spluttered a negative to this last question before he continued. He hadn't yet delivered a full broadside. "Are you aware that you must register your car in this state within thirty days of moving here? Do you have a drivers license from this state yet?"

I was reeling, but unable to reply, as Tyler finally answered his phone. "Tyler, let me talk to Jim," I said. After some indistinct mumbling at the other end, I heard Jim's friendly voice wafting through.

"What's up, Wes?"

"Um, there's a guy here, and he wants to know something about a license, and..."

Jim cut me off. "I'll be right there."

I hung up, and turned weakly back to the concerned citizen, trying to generate a smile. He merely raised a disapproving eyebrow, and continued to scribble on his clipboard. Within a matters of seconds, Jim came running up, grinning lopsidedly and apparently completely unconcerned. The obviously concerned citizen prepared to let loose another salvo on this new target. "Are you his supervisor? You should be aware that he cannot be soliciting without a license. Are you aware this is a no soliciting area? Didn't you see the sign?"

Jim intervened, cutting off what appeared to be an extended series of salvos. "Yeah, we know all about that stuff. LIsten, just give the guy a break. He just got in this morning, and we haven't got the license to him yet. It's his first day on the job..."

The concerned citizen frowned severely at Jim. "He told me he'd been here a month."

I blinked in astonishment at this new accusation, which I did not recall affirming, and did not notice for several seconds that Jim was winking at me. "Yeah, Wes is just going to get that license RIGHT NOW, aren't Wes? GO GET THE LICENSE, right now, right Wes?"

I jolted myself out of my shock, and nodded. "Yeah, right away."

I understood enough that Jim was telling me to get in my car and fetch Tyler. The time had come to cut our losses, and retreat to fight another day. I leaped into my car, and peeled out down the street. Several houses down, I found Tyler, crouching outside a house with another man. The other man was pointing out something on the sidewalk, and Tyler was doing his best to look concerned and interested. I pulled up, honked the horn, and popped out of the driver's side door, hollering over the car to Tyler. "Tyler, come on!"

Tyler turned around, surprised, and then excused himself from the gentleman he was with. Tyler rushed up, a picture of bewilderment. "Get in, we have to go," I informed him curtly.

Tyler submissively jumped into the passenger seat, and I peeled out for a second time. Barrelling down the street toward the exit, I found the concerned citizen attempting to blockade us in. I swerved to miss him as I whipped past, although I was sorely tempted to pretend I had lost control of the wheel and could not swerve. Jim was already in the company truck, and racing away ahead of us. Some 8 miles later, still in completely foreign territory, Jim pulled off the side of a road, and we pulled up behind him. Jim hopped out, and came back to us, shaking his head. Tyler and I got out, hoping to get an explaination for what had just happened. Jim look at both of us, and shrugged. "Sorry, guys. I've been in this business for four years now, and I've never seen anything like that."

America the Imperial - NOT!

2006-02-24T17:38:00.000-08:00

Much has been made about how similar America is to the Roman Empire. The comparison arises from several things - a conscious founding of America's government on the example of the Roman republic; a similar sense of profound world destiny; an early form of government that created checks and balances intended to limit the possibility of a tryannical monarchy; a rapid rise achieved within the course of a few generations from a growing backwater nation into the world's biggest military presence; a military that innovates and adopts technology and tactics in order to become and subsequently remain the most effective in the world; a generally two-party political system that pits the lower classes verses the upper; and a fundamental and persistent fear/desire that the future will see the establishment of the republic as a world-dominating empire.

So, yes, the list is large. America is very similar to Rome. Because of this, there is a sort of general expectation that America will soon (or at least eventually) shift to become even more like imperial Rome than republican Rome. I would like to submit that this expectation is wrong, at least as far as the next few hundred years. After that, well, who can tell? I should also add a qualifier - America is very similar to the Roman republic. However, that is no very special claim. Britain, at the very least, is almost as similar, and almost every government using a representative system will have a good deal of similarity. When you're the first people to pioneer a certain system of government, that ends up ruling the world for several centuries, that kind of imitation is to be expected.

The thing about Rome is that the Roman empire ever will be repeated in that way. A very large number of very amazing feats had to fall in exactly the right order for Rome to first conquer the Mediterranean, and then not to be torn apart from within or from without. I don't say that it's impossible for that sort of thing to happen again, but there is a huge difference between what is possible, and what is even remotely probable.

For the sake of this argument, however, let me list off some of the ways in which America is not like the Roman empire .

First, America does not have the political apparatus in place to give one man absolute power. Not that it would be impossible to achieve, but there would have to be a massive amount of groundwork accomplished ahead of time, and support from people all over in the government in order for it to happen. Checks and balances, you understand. Rome, on the other hand, had a regular habit of giving absolute power to a single man for six months at a time, whenever they was any particularly annoying trouble near at hand. So when Julius Caesar declared himself "Dictator for life" it was merely extending the term of an office that already existed.

Second, Rome had already been ripped apart by civil war long before Caesar made any grab for power. Julius Caesar's uncle, Marius, had engaged in a struggle for power with Sulla, and lost. Caesar was merely resurrecting Marius' old party. America's only Civil War was idealogically driven, which doesn't give much room for personal power grabs. It did serve to massively centralize power, but that isn't the same thing.

Third, even the great Julius Caesar was unable to actually start the empire proper. It was left to his nephew Octavian to actually start the Roman Empire proper. Even Octavian took nearly 20 years before he finally got the thing set up, at which point it was nearly 100 years since Rome's republic had first come into real danger of disappearing. Even if we were following the same pattern (which we aren't), and we were seeing the beginning of the end of our own Republic (which we aren't), we could assume that such a collapse would take another hundred years or so. That's quite a ways away.

Fourth, America's military doesn't lend itself to military coup-de-etats, which is what made the Roman empire possible.

Fifth, the world setting is a completely different place. America, though individually the most capable military power on earth, has a number of allies or rivals who could effectively intervene to stop an American conquest. Rome, on the other hand, by 50 B.C., or even by 200 B.C., had NO other power which could match them. In a military sense, they were surrounded by either barbarians (Celts, Germans, desert tribesmen), or weakened, far-off empires (Parthia). Gaul, as big as it was, allowed itself to be chopped up piecemeal because it was never fully united against Rome. Once Carthage was defeated, there was nobody to stand in between Rome and world conquest except Rome herself.

Sixth, the Romans had a taste for conquest. America does not. America's last military conquest of any size worth mentioning was our war with Mexico, which netted us most of the American southwest. Even that was protested by some in the government. Yes, we invaded Iraq, but that cannot be considered a contest. Also, Iraq is, governmentally, completely separate from America. Rome never did any such thing.

Seventh, with no ability to go a-conquering, there is no way either to create a pool of great military leaders who command the utter loyalty of their troops, nor provide a way for said military leaders to plunder their way to great wealth, which any aspiring emperor needs. Julius Caesar practiced on Gaul and Spain, and then sent money back to the Roman populace by the cartload, thus purchasing all the popularity he needed. There is also no way to create rival generals who's armies represent the only defense the nation has, as happened first with Pompey and Caesar, then with Antony and Octavius.

Eighth, America does not have the authority gene. The Romans did. Frankly, we do far too effective an impression of an invertebrate culture to actually try to seize imperial power. We gawk and waver at things like 'world opinion' which just would not do for any nation destined for world domination.

Ninth, the UN, in concept more than the actual entity. I can't say I'm a fan, but the concept represents a profound difference in the way the countries of the world look at themselves. Theoretically, the little countries can ask the big guys for help, and get it. In the classical world, Rome didn't have no UN. Rome didn't need no stinkin' United Nations! What Rome decided to do, Rome did. The modern world, having got a taste of attempted world conquest from one industrialized nation (Germany), decided it didn't like it much, and has been keeping a sharp eye out ever since.

Tenth, the last and weightiest reason. The gospel is already here. Rome, and all her amazing history, and the astonishing series of improbable victories and accomplishments that led the Romans to believe that they truly were the pinnacle of history, was simply a table setting, for the meal of the gospel that was to follow. With Roman government in place over the entire Mediterranean world, the gospel was able to spread far and wide almost immediately. Now, I'm not saying that I know God's plans, and He certainly could use that tactic again - but given the patterns we've seen in history, we know that God doesn't ever tell the same story twice. Whatever purpose America will serve in God's plan, and however it turns out, I think it will be something completely unexpected, and far more glorious than we ever would have imagined.

Flying Snakes

2006-02-23T17:09:00.000-08:00

I remembered it dimly from the first time I read Herodotus, as one more among the various fantastic and wildly entertaining tales that he told. But just recently, I took the time to actually do a brief review of all the sources. To my mind the evidence is pretty much overwhelming, and very specific. It runs roughly as follows.

Herodotus, in speaking of Egypt, talks about the ibis, a bird held in high esteem there. The reason the ibis is so revered in Egypt is because of its habit of killing snakes - particularly nasty snakes, in fact. And not just regular snakes, but flying snakes. According to Herodotus, these snakes come flying into Egypt every year from the east (i.e., the Arabian peninsula or Sinai wilderness), but the ibises catch them as they fly through a rocky pass, and sluaghter the flying snakes there, so that they do not invade Egypt (Herodotus 2.75-76). This is all to the good, as Herodotus reports that these snakes only live in the Middle eastern deserts, perching in trees in large numbers, and happen to be very vicious and poisonous. They also happen to be cannibalistic in reproducing, as the female consumes the male in the style of the praying mantis, and then when the young are born (live, not from eggs), they eat their way out of their mother's belly. If it weren't for this, Herodotus says, mankind would likely be struggling to survive. (3.107-110)

So much for Herodotus. Many may doubt him on this point, and admittedly, there's enough confusion on other things that he reports that I can't blame them. However, this is not one of Herodotus' second-hand reports, this is a self-report, as he claims he has seen the skeletons piled in the pass himself.

Another place these little creatures show up, also connected with Egypt, is in the writings of Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in order to show the Roman Empire the history of this nation which they had subdued and then destroyed in 70 AD. He tells many, many stories that are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but are about various Biblical characters. Some of the most interesting are the stories he relates concerning Moses while he was still the Prince of Egypt. In one of these, Josephus mentions the time that Moses went up to fight the Ethiopians (remember, Ethiopia, though south, is upstream from Egypt on the Nile - thus, you go up to Ethiopia). On his way south, Moses went by land in order to surprise his enemies. The land was filled with dangerous serpents, some of whom would bury themselves in the sand and come out unexpectedly (the horned snake of Egypt, vipera cerastes, one of the three known deadly snakes native to Egypt), and others which fly in the air. Moses made baskets to carry ibises with him, and by this means kept his army safe from the snakes. (Aniquities, 2.10.2)

Again, perhaps the story is suspect. Josephus has been proved wrong in certain details. On the other hand, this very story (of the war on the Ethiopians) is referred to by Iranaeus as if an established fact, and it could possibly be what Stephen was referring to in Acts 7:22. William Whiston, a translator of Josephus, speculates that it is entirely possible that the Josephus had access to a library that contained Jewish writings going back to the time of Nehemiah. At any rate, now we have two witnesses.

For the last, I refer you to the Bible itself. In Isaiah 30:6, the prophet refers to "fiery flying serpents", which is a translation of the word "saraph" when both a's are long. This word shows up once more in Isaiah (14:29) and in Numbers 20:8. Now, I don't know Hebrew so I can't be authoritative on this part, but in the New King James this word is translated as "fiery flying serpents" every time. It is worth noting that all of these references can mesh with the Egypt/Arabia theme we discovered already in Herodotus. The Numbers reference is the time the Israelites complained, and were plagued with fiery serpents. Moses puts a bronze one on a pole, and all who look at it are healed.

It may be that you still doubt the existence of flying snakes. I freely admit that we haven't run across any recently, but I confess myself mystified as to why that prevents anyone from believing that they ever existed. To my eye, what I see are three independent witness testifying strongly, and I am fully convinced. If I ever go travelling in Egypt or Arabia, I want to have my ibis with me.

Bookstore Coup

2006-02-22T20:50:00.000-08:00

My latest used bookstore triumph came in my most recent long weekend in Bishop. I swung by the used bookstore (there's only one - under new owners since August) and found some good deals. My tally runs as follows:
Satires of Juvenal
Selected Lives and Essays by Plutarch (I already have all the lives - the essays were what I wanted)
3 out of 4 volumes of the History of the English Speaking Peoples by Winston Churchill (for some reason they didn't have volume 2)

Total cost? Nothing. The clerk asked me if I had any store credit - I told her I couldn't recall voluntarily giving up a book in my life, but she looked anyway. Turns out, there was still a good bit of credit in my parent's name which they acquired just before the move, and it was up to me to use it. A very pleasant surprise.

The rest of the weekend was also pleasant, although the day will come when my brother shall finally fall victim to my table tennis prowess. Oh yes, my day shall come.

Why I Hate Tombstone

2006-02-11T18:05:00.000-08:00

For a long time, I thought that my dislike of the movie Tombstone was because of my own little 'historical accuracy' hangup. I reject a lot of movies because they don't give a very accurate picture of the historical scene they are trying to portray. Tombstone tells a story about a very different Wyatt Earp than the one I was familiar with. The one I knew cleaned up towns by limiting his use of deadly force, usually pistol-whipping the rowdy cowboy that got out of line. In Tombstone, however, Earp goes on a murderous rampage. Historically, there are accusations about his methods in eliminating a gang of outlaws that shot his brother in the back, but the general character of the real Wyatt Earp is not what Tombstone portrays. But while I was talking to my brother Justin on the phone today, I finally hit on exactly what it was that bothers me.

Almost every Western movie deals with law. More accurately, they deal with some sort of absence of law. The Old West is traditionally a lawless place, and the original stories are of the men who tried to bring the law to the West. The traditional cowboy hero has no existing legal structure to defend him, and so he undertakes to enforce the law himself. We can see this, and root for our hero, knowing that, ultimately, he is acting as a kind of representative of the law. This is the ideal that John Wayne generally embodied, and James Arness as Matt Dillon in Gunsmoke.

Tombstone deliberately overturns this. Wyatt Earp and his brothers ARE the law. So when, late in the movie, they go on a bloody, vindictive rampage, slaughtering outlaws, they end up doing violence to the idea of law. When you have the law in place, it becomes necessary to submit to it. Pursuing vigilante justice after the law has already been established is to act against the law. By enforcing the law the way he does, the Wyatt Earp of Tombstone is actually undermining the law that gave him his authority in the first place. He doesn't simply capture the outlaws and bring them in to face justice, but brutally murders them in their beds. He murders men whom he could easily have captured. And the way it is presented to us in the movie, we are supposed to root for Earp when he does this. The outlaws are bad guys anyway, so who cares how exactly they die? The point is that they bite it in the end.

This is in perfect accord with one of the dominant messages of our society. Namely, that the law only matters on a personal level. When we deny universals, the idea of a universal law is among them. It is no conincidence that story after story is told in pop culture involving a corrupt judicial system, and the protagonist pursuing personal justice in spite of the judicial system. Justice is suddenly placed on a purely personal scale, and as long as you satisfy your own personal vendetta, all is well.

But the American judicial system is founded on a system that presupposes that the occasional guilty man will go free. The point is not that every criminal is punished, but that no innocent man is. There are reasons for why the Bible gives us a mandate for sufficient witnesses in order to convict someone of a crime. We need guards against the very kind of personal vengence that our culture would have us pursue. Not that our judicial system is perfect - no human system is. But imperfection is no reason to cast out the entire system, which pop culture would have us do.

Seeing Wyatt Earp, as a lawman, pursuing the kind of personal vendetta that he does in Tombstone, just drives me up the wall. It is even more maddening to think that I am supposed to be rooting for him to do this.

Veni, vidi, vici...almost.

2006-02-03T16:08:00.002-08:00

One of the things I am encouraged to do at Logos Christian Academy is integrate various subjects. So, when I teach Latin, I am not merely permitted but instructed to give the kids doses of Roman history.

One of my favorites is the story of Julius Caesar and his assassination by Marcus Junius Brutus.

After Caesar returned from Gaul, accompanied by a fiercely loyal army, his only obstacle to complete power was Pompey, the well-loved general who had command of the entire Roman navy. Pompey was known as Pompeius Magnus and had a wonderful reputation. The Roman citizens trusted in him to defend them from Caesar's grab for power. Alas, Pompey fled Rome with his army and sailed to Greece, the worst of his possible choices. Caesar chased him down, and defeated him in battle, and Pompey was killed in Egypt by King Ptolemy. In honor of Pompey and the love they bore him, the Romans and their Senate put of a statue of Pompey near the entrance to the Senate building.

Since Caesar had defeated Pompey, all the power in Rome was his. Caesar became Dictator-for-life and assumed absolute power. This was not to the taste of certain conservative elements, led by Cassius. Cassius appealed to Marcus Junius Brutus, a man of the same name as his famous ancestor who ridded Rome of her last tyrant (King Tarquin) and founded the Roman republic. Brutus was well respected as a man of virtue and wisdom, and as a man who loved the Republic. Brutus was swayed by Cassius' arguments, and threw in his lot with a conspiracy to assassinate Caesar.

It should be noted that Brutus was also very close to Caesar, in friendship and possibly in blood. Brutus was many years Caesar's junior, and Caesar had been very close to Brutus' mother. This led to speculation that Brutus was actually Caesar's bastard son.

Nevertheless, Brutus held the Republic in such high esteem, he was willing to make any sacrifice in order to protect her. So, on the Ides of March, the conspirators craftily encircled Caesar while he was entering the Senate. At a given signal, the conspirators drew their daggers and fell upon Caesar. Still a military man, though old, Caesar fought back, until he saw Brutus. When he saw Brutus standing there, dagger in hand, Caesar cried out, "Et tu, Brute?" which means, "Even you, Brutus?" Caesar stopped struggling, and Brutus' dagger plunged home. Out of Caesar's dozens of bloody wounds, the only fatal wound came from Brutus. Caesar fell and died, his blood spilling out upon the marble base of a statue...that very statue of Pompey, the only man ever to rival Caesar in Rome's affections.

All this is just setup, so that you can get how apropo it was when one my third graders drew a picture of Caesar's death scene. It included Caesar and the conspirators, as well as Pompey's statue, on which was the inscription "Veni, vidi, vici...almost."

The Greatest Epic of them all...

2006-02-01T16:05:00.000-08:00

I can't believe I overlooked him in my list of choices for Hollywood's next sword-and-sandals blockbuster. Hannibal is a perfect choice. His story has three major battles you would have to include (Trasmine, Cannae, and Zama), a dominating character with a few tragic flaws (propensity for torture, greed, a blind hatred of Rome), and one of the most dramatic stories of all time. Seriously. The whole march over the Alps with the elephants thing just siezes the imagination.

The main reason I would love to see Hannibal immortalized in film is the battle of Lake Trasmine. In fact, I think that's where the movie should open. The misty hills, cool waves lapping the shore of the pebbly beach. All is silence except for the clink of metal and shuffle of feet. Mist everywhere. Then the Carthaginians sweep down from the hills and shatter the Roman army.

You can imagine ambushes of a few hundred guys or whatnot, but this was the perfect ambush, with well over 50,000 men involved on both sides. In both scale and drama, this battle is one of my favorites.

Sword and Sandals Epics

2006-01-28T16:58:00.000-08:00

I watched the Oliver Stone movie "Alexander" recently. Honestly, I expected to be more surprised. I was expecting a complex, dynamic character, and lots of action, with an inordinate amount of focus on Alexander's homosexual practices.

I have to say I was disappointed. Oliver Stone's Alexander, played by Colin Farrel, was certainly a complex and tortured character, but the portrayal falls so far short of the picture we receive in Plutarch's account that I find the movie Alexander a relatively weak character. The thing that makes Plutarch's Life of Alexander so great is the way he uses a thousand little stories to draw out the complexities of Alexander's character. Oliver Stone picks up on, like, 2% of these. He includes the necessary Bucephalus scene, the death of Clitus, the death of Hephastion. A few others. The rest of the movie is two big battles scenes and tons and tons of tortured dialogue. There is no Gordian Knot, no massacre at Thebes, and no philosophers at all (except a token appearance by Aristotle).

As far as the homosexuality is concerned, a friend of mine hit the nail on the head when she observed that this is just Hollywood trying to say that homosexuals can be manly and go to war. Alexander was no more homosexual, and probably less, than any of the rest of the Greek population.

However, thing that annoyed me that I didn't expect was the battle scenes. I'm getting increasingly disillusioned with Hollywood battlescenes set in any pre-gunpowder era. Its because they are all exactly the same. Seriously. Two big lines. They line up. The good guy gives some variation on a speech that is a rip-off of Henry V's St Crispin's Day speech. Two big lines. One line starts moving forward. Shouting. Two big lines. One line still moving forward. More shouting. Oh, look! One side has 14th century English longbows! Lots and lots of arrows, and half of them hit. Two big lines. Finally the one that started moving forward breaks into a run about a mile from the other line. Two big lines. More arrows. Finally the two lines slam into each other and the entire battle degenerates into a series of one-on-one conflicts.

Every single time! I mean, seriously, do they think people who lived before the invention of gunpowder were just stupid, or what? Oliver Stone is no exception. Apparently, in his mind, Alexander's Macedonian phalanx, the most fearsome and impregnable military formation ever to exist in the ancient world on even ground, needs to break up defensive formation in order to have to requisite amount of close-ups of people having limbs chopped off by swords. No difference in tactics, discipline, nothing! The Greeks fight just like the crazy Celts in Braveheart, who are just like the bizarrely uncoordinated and undisciplined legionaires in Gladiator.

That said, I think Hollywood could use some help in picking their subject for the next sword-and-sandals epic historical film. They are back in style now, and there are a lot of historical characters that are being overlooked as the next great action hero. These are some of my suggestions.

Harald Hardrade

The last true Viking. Everything is there. Nephew of Norway's only saint, he's disinherited as a youth, and wins his fortune fighting for the Byzantine emperor in the Med. Comes back, after marrying the princess of Kiev, regains the kingdom that belongs to him, and culminates his life in an almost completely forgotten invasion of England. A story filled with action, intrigue, mystery, romance, and that bizarre Norse randomness we all know and love.

Julius Caesar

Seriously, how has anyone not made an action movie about him? Ambitious, dynamic character, brilliant military leader, adored by the common people, and betrayed at the end by one of his most respected friends, the descendant of the man who gave Rome her freedom in the first place, and suspected by many of being Caesar's own illegitimate son.

Judas Maccabeus

The underdog, fighting against an oppressive empire. Fighting against an anti-Semite, for crying out loud. There has to be some political consipracy that has kept this story from being a blockbuster action movie.

Roland, knight of Charlemagne

Admittedly, this would probably be a hard sell right now. A heroic Frenchman? Not an idea that appeals to today's America. However, this story is just awesome, and has things like men and horses being cleaved in two by a single sword stroke, a clergyman who is just deadly on horseback, and entire armies swooning in unison.

Jan Sobieski

This follows the "Braveheart" idea. Take a relatively unknown character who is a national hero, and turn him into an American icon. Jan III was a king of Poland, known as the "Lion of Lehistan" for his victories over the Muslims, and was the hero of the Seige of Vienna in 1683.

Belisarius

The Byzantine Empire is the Rodney Dangerfield of important historical eras - it don't get no respect. Belisarius was one of the Byzantine Empire's greatest generals. While recognized for his military brilliance in some historical circles, he is an utter unknown to most Americans.

The Tragedy of Hall of Fame Voting

2006-01-15T16:42:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, the voting results for the Hall of Fame can be hard to explain. Like this year - why does Sutter get in, and not Goose Gossage? Who on earth voted for Walt Weiss? And the biggest question of all - how did Will Clark get bumped off the ballot his first year?

In case you didn't know, you have to garner 5% of the votes in order to remain on the ballot - Will Clark, arguably the best first baseball in baseball in the late '80's and early '90's, missed that marker by three votes.

Before I launch into a tirade, let me note several things. Will Clark was my favorite player growing up. He was the Giants' best left handed hitter, and his sweet swing is still remembered fondly as one of the best ever. 'The Thrill' we called him, and I had a big poster of Will Clark and Kevin Mitchell adorning the door of my room. However, I am realistic, and I don't think Will Clark quite deserves to go into the Hall of Fame. In my mind, he is a borderline candidate, similar to, say, Dale Murphy. That said, he was good enough to at least merit some decent consideration, and he was definitely better than two men who received far more votes, Don Mattingly and Steve Garvey.

To me, this was a tragedy. Will Clark garnered a measly 23 votes. Don Mattingly got 64 votes, and I'm guessing all but three of those are because he was a Yankee. The boggling part is that Steve Garvey got 135 votes. So far as I can tell, that can only be explained by assuming there were at least 120 rabid Dodger fans in the number of voters.

Now, in order to show you just how bizarre this phenomenon is, let me show you a few statistics. First, the career statistics for the big, eye-catching numbers.

Don Mattingly

G AB Avg HR RBI OBP
1785 7003 .307 222 1099 .358 14 seasons

Steve Garvey

G AB Avg HR RBI OBP
2332 8835 .294 272 1308 .329 19 seasons

Will Clark

G AB Avg HR RBI OBP
1976 7173 .303 284 1205 .384 15 seasons

Now, none of those career lines look terribly impressive today, but you must remember that all three men played during an era that was offensively depressed. A .300 batting average and 20+ home runs was star power in those days.

But note carefully how far outstripped both Mattingly and Garvey are by Will Clark in every category. Home runs? Clark has the most, as well as the best home run/at bat ratio. Garvey had more RBIs, but Clark clearly drove in runs more frequently. Mattingly had a slightly better average, but his on base percentage was far lower.

Now, I am not a sabermetrician by any means - there are just certain things that statistics can't do - but that doesn't mean I can use some of their tools from time to time. One of the more recent tools in the sabermetric arsenal is OPS - simply put, on-base percentage + slugging percentage. It serves as a good estimate for a hitter's offensive ability. In comparing the three men above on this statistic, Clark is again the clear superior. Over the entire career, Garvey had an OPS of .775, Mattingly of .830, and Clark of .880. Garvey is, simply put, no comparison to Clark - in his best year, Garvey's OPS still falls short of Clark's career average. In his best year, Mattingly tops Clark, barely. But it ought to be remember that Mattingly played in the American League, while Clark spent his best years in the National. All of Mattingly's peak years, his league had a significantly higher OPS overall. Further, Mattingly only had 4 years in which his OPS topped Clark's career average, 1984-1987. In order, Mattingly posted an OPS of .918, .939, .967, and .937. Clark's top four years all land in the same range, with three seasons in which his OPS topped .950. In addition, if you compare the OPS of Clark and Mattingly relative to their leagues, Clark was consistently more dominant than Mattingly. Clark's career average OPS+ (the OPS adjusted for ballpark factors and league average) is 138 (i.e., 38% better than league average), while Mattingly's is 127 (i.e., 27% better than league average). Also, Clark's best year of 175 far outstrips Mattingly's best year at 161.

But perhaps you think it is more significant how many runs a hitter produced. Okay then. Runs Created is another sabermetric tool, indicating a hitters overall contribution to his team's total runs scored. Garvey is credited with 1307 runs created, Mattingly with 1202, and Will Clark with 1369. Not only does Clark have the most, he does it in far less at bats than Garvey, and has a better ratio than Mattingly. In fact, if you were to make up a lineup of just Steve Garveys, another lineup of Don Mattinglys, and another of Will Clarks, the lineup of Will Clarks would win easily. On average, the Will Clark team would score 7.03 runs per 27 outs, while the Mattinglys would create 6.29 per 27 outs, and the Garveys a meager 5.29.

There is only one area where either Mattingly or Garvey might be considered superior to Clark, and this is defense. But lets face it, 1st base is traditionally an offensive position, and what's more, all three were Gold Glove winners. When it comes to the important statistics, Will Clark is significantly better than both of the others, both in the absolute career numbers, and in relation to his league. Garvey was essentially a good player for a long time, while Mattingly was a great player for 4 years, and a poor player the other ten. Clark was a great player for five years, and a very good player his other ten. He even went out on top, batting .319 with 21 homeruns his last year.

Suffice it to say, I don't know what those Hall of Fame voters were on. I'm not offended that Will Clark doesn't get into the Hall of Fame, but I am offended that over 20% of the voters thought Steve Garvey was more deserving.

A Double-standard of Biblical proportions?

2006-01-08T23:56:00.000-08:00

I've noticed an interesting tendency I have when I interact with pop culture. It goes something like this: I run across a piece of popular entertainment - a movie, show, song, it matters little which - and I decided I like it. "This song is good," I say, bobbing my head to the tune. Then I listen to the words. Despair and depression, perhaps, or maybe desire, longing, humor - any number of emotions may be expressed. "Yes, yes," I say, "this song could be construed as adhering to the Biblical idea of x." Some time later, I discover the author was a rank pagan, living a vile life filled with immorality. "Eh, so?" I mutter. "I take the good that I find inherent in the song. I'm, er, plundering the Egyptians. Yes..."

Scenario 2: Talking to a militant athiest, I find myself shocked when he begins intepreting the Chronicles of Narnia allegorically, and also very, very wrongly. "No, no, Aslan is not a representation of the ultimate Communist Utopia," I tell him. "Lewis was never a communist and would be horrified at your misrepresentation." "So?" replies the athiest, "I can intepret it however I want. The author's intention means nothing." At this point, I am effectively handcuffed. If the atheist is at all aware of the way Christians interact with secular culture, he has caught me in a bind. I've been applying a severe double-standard. I claim common grace and Egyptian plunder for whatever I like out of the atheist's world, but I restrict him from doing the same. I justify my choices by denying that the intent of the author has any weight, and then become upset when an atheist does the same.

On the one hand, there is a basic principle to observe - whatever certain literary critics of the postmodern stream may say - that what the author intended the work to mean has greater weight than what I intend that author's work to mean. I cannot slice the author away from the work and treat it as its own entity. The creation cannot be fully separated from the creator in this way. For me to cast this aside when I want to hold on to something I like, something that is clearly sinful, is a double-standard and is simply wrong.

However, there is another aspect to this, in which I do have the upper hand over the atheist. You see, I believe that man is made in the image of God, and that man is a subcreator. As such, no man, however pagan, can escape this fact. Thus, I am able to look a pagan artist square in the eye and tell him, "What you intended for evil, God intended for good." And this is true, because God is a sovereign God, and common grace does show up all over the world. The atheist, or the agnostic for that matter, does not believe this. He either has to accept the author's intent for what it is, or else simply ignore the author's intent altogether.

So there are two sides. On one, I have a responsibility to be aware of what I am partaking in; aware not only of the content, but of the intended purpose of the content. It isn't acceptable for me to claim that a movie based on personal revenge is an expression of Biblical justice, because it is intended as a subversion of Biblical justice. Secondly, it is possible for me to claim certain unaviodable truths that are expressed in a work of art as the print of God coming through in His creation. Thus, a movie that is made to proclaim the hopelessness of life does express a true picture of life without God. But, and this is important, there are limits. One key difference is the distinction that needs to be made between a man seeking truth who has not yet found the gospel (the main reason we have such a wealth of Greek and Roman art) and a man who has rejected the gospel, and is seeking truth as distinct from God. Living in a society like ours, the former is not precluded, but the latter is far more common.

This sort of thing comes to a point when movies come out that are like The Matrix or Star Wars. They use imagery that is wet with Christian symbols, but the point isn't that the symbols are there, the point is how they are being used. This is because the use of Christian imagery does not equal a Christian movie. This is, apparently, an easy mistake to make. I think the thing that needs to be pointed out here is that symbols, or semiotics, or metaphors, or whatever you wish to call them, can be used well, or they can be used poorly.

For example, as my brother is fond of pointing out, Neo is intended as a Christ figure in the movie 'The Matrix.' He is a promised savior, he has a clear baptism, and he is the way to salvation for the human race. This in no way means the movie is Christian - remember, it is possible to have a poor Christ figure, one that does not figure Christ properly. An important thing to notice in the Matrix is how Neo achieves his redemption - via a kind of self-enlightment. At the very root, Neo turns out to embody a kind of Buhdist ideal, and is actually a false Christ, presenting a very old, very wrong false gospel. (All credit for this observation goes to my brother Justin, who actually notices these kinds of things in movies)

The point is that even though Christian symbolism is being used, it is a very anti-Christian movie because it presents a false gospel. So you can see that symbols, types, allegories, and metaphors can all be used either well, or they can be used poorly. It is my strong suspicion that a large percentage of pop culture's metaphors are being used poorly. I'm not saying they can't be useful for our edification, but, for crying out loud, Nietzche's writings can be useful for that same purpose. The difference is, there is no mistaking where Nietzche is coming from. We should be careful that we don't blind ourselves to what the intent of the author is, because it does make a difference. Wise as serpents, innocent as doves.

Edit Me

2005-12-29T23:34:00.000-08:00

The silent yet persistent plea from the sidebar. It lingered long, begged, beseeched, then gave me the silent treatment. Yet still, I did not edit. I have no time, I don't know how, I'm not good at these things - such were my excuses.

No longer. Time weighed upon my hands like an alarm clock made of lead. If I clicked the little 'edit me' link, it instructed me exactly how to insert links. My excuses were as a little ball made of glass - I tossed it quietly to myself, up into the air, and then I would catch it. But then I dropped it, and the glass shattered, little slivers of excuses flinging themselves into the carpet, never to be found again.

Note the links now in the sidebar. They are titled after the titles of their repectives sites. The one I wish to draw your attention to is the nifty little link titled 'Wine, Cheese, and Theology.' That's my brother Justin's blog, which is another way of saying that it is a blog that you should read. And not just because he says nice stuff about me on it. No, he posts on things that are deep and thought-provoking, like wine, and cheese, and theology. And if you write enough comments about it, maybe he'll tell you why Jennifer Lopez calls him 'sweetie.'

Shoeless Joe

2005-12-22T22:18:00.000-08:00

Travelling down to San Diego on Wednesday, I listened to the novel 'Shoeless Joe' by W.P. Kinsella, the movie 'Field of Dreams' was based on. The movie is a waste of time. 'Shoeless Joe' is not. Kinsella taps into the power that baseball has to move and inspire. It is a novel chiefly about redemption for all the characters. Shoeless Joe gets his redemption, finally getting to play baseball again, along with his other seven teammates, all banished from the game by Commissioner Landis. Ray Kinsella, a man firmly rooted in America's rual past, a man who loves the earth and loves the Iowa cornfields which he farms, gets redemption handed to him unexpected after he carries out the intructions from the mysterious voice. Moonlight Graham (who really did play only one game in the majors, and never batted), J. D. Salinger (not some fictional poet named 'Terrence Mann'), Ray's twin brother, and Eddie 'Kid' Skivvins all achieve a redemption of a sort.

Of course, any theme of redemption has to focus on some mode of redemption, and Kinsella's means of redemption is the religion of baseball. It is a strange kind of blasephemy that pervades the book - baseball is clearly the religion at the center of it. Baseball rises up as a kind of strong, solid entity, guiding and safeguarding the lives of those who believe in it.

I wish now that I had a physical copy of the book to hold in my hand, so I could point out the really revealing quotes, and show just how remarkable the book is. Since I cannot, I will refrain from commenting further on the book, for fear of half-formed impressions being cast into words and appearing as well-founded opinions.

Suffice it to say, baseball does have something of a religious quality about it, which no other sport approaches. To the atheist or secular humanist, it actually does get placed into those voids where religion traditionally goes. Baseball games take on a kind of liturgy, baseball players take on the form of a kind of Pantheon, and a man like Steven Jay Gould, who has brutally cut all things supernatural out of his life as a die-hard apologist for evolution, talks of baseball with a kind of religious fervor.

For the Christian, baseball becomes a mirror and template for certain truths. The theology in it comes blaring out with themes of death and resurrection, personal struggles encompassed in a worldwide battle, and the Trinitarian miracle of a circular path round the bases becoming a linear journey of homecoming. There is no sport like it on earth.

Running gags never die

2005-12-14T20:24:00.000-08:00

Ever notice how kids will hang onto an especially good wheeze for way longer than you thought they would remember? I mean, I did the Pwells thing only a couple of weeks into the school year, with the fourth graders. They still correct each other over the correct pronounciation of my name.

"Mr. Wells...I mean, Mr. Pwells, I need help."

I smile indulgently at them. Eventually I'm going to give up reminding them that the 'P' is silent.

Book Reviews

2005-12-06T20:37:00.000-08:00

These are books that I've read recently, that is, within the past few months or so.

The Space Trilogy by C.S. Lewis

I That Hideous Strength back in, oh, April or May or something, for a class at NSA. The first two, Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra I read just recently. Lewis is one of those rare authors who consistently sweeps me off me feet with his insight and his clear, lucid writing. I just finished reading Out of the Silent Planet aloud to my 7th & 8th grade English class, and read the other on the side. More than ever, I recognize the last novel in the trilogy as the best, by a wide margin, but other two are still amazing reads, far superior to any regular 'science fiction' book ever written. They are all worth reading over and over.

Watership Down

I'd never read it before, although I had seen the rather surreal 70's cartoon version. The book is far better, and is very well written. It immerses you in the world of rabbits, and its impossible not to like the intelligent, quiet leadership of Hazel-rah. Enjoyable and imaginative, it is a book that I would readily recommend to children.

The Pearl by John Steinbeck

I read the Grapes of Wrath years ago, in junior high, I think, and I recall being fairly shocked at some of Steinbeck's content. Realistic portrayal, yes, but sometimes realism isn't everything. I think I'd like to go back and read it again, now that I won't be quite as surprised by the swearing, death, and sex that is in Steinbeck's most famous work. The Pearl is far cleaner, in that regard, and I actually read it because a student had asked if it was acceptable as a book report. Set in Mexico, it is about a poor peasant with a child at the threshold of death from a scorpion's sting. That day, he also happens to find a pearl, which, if he sells it, will let him pay for a visit from the doctor who would otherwise not deign to come. The story unfolds from there, and true to Steinbeck's style, the story is grippingly told, and very, very depressing.

Books I'm currently in the midst of include: Beowulf, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Vol. 1), Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, The Collected What-If edited by Robert Cowley, Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen, and King Lear by William Shakespeare.

Things that describe...me

2005-12-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

I always let the third grade class doodle on the back of their quizzes once they finish. There's always a few that finish really quick, and others that take their time, and this method saves me the need to shove some unnecessary pile of work at the quick ones just to keep them busy. Every once in a while something especially amusing shows up on the back of the quizzes. There was a rash of teacher portraits at one point, but so far the most entertaining went as follows:

Things that describe Mr. Pwells [Ed. comment: This is in reference to a joke I made to them some months ago about my name being spelled with a silent 'P' - in honor of Psmith, of course.]

1. shh
2. hands behind back
3. arms crossed
4. shakes his arms when crossed
5. holds his tie
6. finger to his chin
7. hands folded

I find myself only slightly disappointed that this isn't a top ten list entitled "You know you're Mr. Pwells if..." The funny thing is that when these kids are writing such things down, they cover them protectively when I walk by, apparently unaware that the document is simply going to be turned over me in a few minutes for grading. Of course, this list of traits is only the tip of the iceberg, from what I hear. There are rumors of a dance bearing my name making the rounds in the sixth grade...

News update

2005-11-22T16:46:00.000-08:00

Not convinced that my life was exciting enough, I decided to move into a new place. Or more accurately, my roommate bought a new place on the southeast end of town, and has allowed me to tag along. It was jolly decent of him to let me come along, actually. Of course, now his dogs have free rein in the house. I will confess that it is slightly disconcerting to see your own garments dangling in a friendly manner from the mouth of a dog, but I decided to take it as a sign of affection. Affectionate, perhaps, but I'm keeping my door closed from now on.

But the new place is actually quite nice. I get my own room (same as before) and bathroom (the first time since, um...ever), and the storage room doubles as my study. Most of the unpacking is done, now that the play is finally over.

Speaking of which, the whole production was a success, playing to a packed and enthusiastic house every night. Lots of fun, and lots of good people in the cast and crew that I got to know.

My newest project is to start a drama club for 5th grade and up here at the school. Its going to be a weekly thing, and I think it will culminate in one big performance in the spring. I have yet to find a play, though. I'm open to suggestions, and I'm looking for a decent comedy that would be suitable for the junior high level. Musicals are pretty much right out.

In other news, I've proved to myself that I am indeed a Latin nerd. There was always that sneaking suspicion, but the other day I convinced myself beyond all doubt. The sixth graders were working quietly on some assignment or other, and I was at my desk with my mind wandering. I remembered that Steven Wright quote, about how "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." Almost without thinking, I noted to myself that in Latin, the first half would be in the subjunctive, and it would be interesting to come up with some sort of idiom for 'jet engine.' The end result? Aquilae subvolent, sed mustelae possunt non sugere trudentem machinam.

What You Never Knew About Commercial Radio

2005-10-22T21:42:00.000-07:00

The influence of radio, FM and AM, is far greater and more pervasive than you might think. The estimated 12 year old+ listening audience of radio is an estimated 223 million - well over 94% of the population. In other words, pretty much everyone listens to the radio. Of course, since the advent of television, the format of radio has changed drastically. In the '30's through the 50's, radio had huge amounts of popular shows ranging from top news shows, to dramas, comedies, mysteries, and variety shows. Now, such shows are the exceptions, not the rule, in American radio.

Radio today consists of two basic catagories: music and the news/talk/information format. There is certainly a variety of forms within these two catagories. Music includes adult contemporary, urban, rock, Hispanic, country, oldies, and others. The other catagory is self-explanatory.

The average home has, supposedly, 5.6 radios, and the average dose of radio for a medium sized adult is about 3 hours a day. For 223 million people, that's a lot of listening.

The peak hours for radio stations are from 6-9 AM, the morning drive hours. A huge proportion of their advertising dollars are made during those three hours. Consequently, it is no surprise that radio stations often live or die by how popular their early morning personalities are.

Officially, the news/talk/information format is the most popular with listeners, garnering 16.5% of the market share. In case you were wondering, that's about 36 million people. The reason why it is the most popular is because the demographic were that format dominates (people over 45 years old) is substantially the largest demographic in the US. Folks of the younger stripe prefer Adult Contemporary and top 40 stations, which happen to be the two next most popular formats for radio stations.

Now, for one of the most interesting tidbits. Country music officially claims an 8.2% market share. In no demographic does it place higher than 4th, or garner more than 11.6% of the market share. Of course, this catagory includes both the old kind of country (aka real country) and the new, popularly termed 'country western' (aka 60's soft rock, revamped and turned sentimental and introspective). Now for the really interesting part. Despite having a relatively small overall popularity, as of 2003, there were over 2,000 country music stations out of not quite 11,000 radio stations total. That's nearly 20% of the radio stations! There also happens to be more country stations than the next two catagories, combined (news/talk & oldies, if you were interested).

Of course, there is reason for this. Satallite radio (XM and Sirius) has about 7 million subscribers, and the I-Pod phenomenon has made it possible for millions more to listen to the music they want in a more personalized format. Consequently, the competition between stations pandering to the younger demographics has been even more keen in recent years. On the other hand, fielding a country station is an easy way to appeal to a large demographic, and also one that is not likely to abandon the radio in favor of recent technology.

That's all as regards the formats of these stations, but who runs them, you ask? Interesting question, that. In 1996 the FCC dropped its regulation limiting a single entity to owning only 40 radio stations. Since 1996, Clear Channel has grown into a media giant, owning over 1,200 radio stations - round about 10% of all the stations in America. NPR is the next biggest group of stations, at about 740, but I'm talking about commercial radio, here. There are other coporations that own large numbers of radio stations, but none even get close to Clear Channel. Because of Clear Channel and all the Clear-Channel-wannabe companies, there is a strong trend toward the big coporation style of radio, with beamed in satellite feeds, and little or no local interaction. This has given rise to the current perceived antithesis in American commercial radio. There is the big corporation/impersonal kind, where the disc jockeys simply read announcements and oversee contests in between breaks in the playlist; and the local/personal kind, where the DJ uses his knowledge and expertise to guide you through the music he plays. Of course, the irony is that it is basically the same kind of radio experience for the listener. No longer do people gather around the radio to listen to a carefully prepared show - the radio exists as background filler, and a means of keeping yourself awake on the freeway.

Just something for you to think about, the next time you turn on your radio.

Book Reviews

2005-10-03T19:17:00.000-07:00

The following books are ones that I've read relatively recently - any time within the past couple months, say. It is limited to books I have finished, not ones I am currently working through.

By Right of Conquest by G.A. Henty.

A good, though clearly opinionated, portrayal of Cortez's conquest of Mexico. The true historical situation is never as clear cut as Henty usually makes it, but then, that's the point. He offers a fairly balanced view of Cortez, chastising him for his faults and lauding his efforts, while taking pains to point out the depravity of Aztec society.

The storyline of his fictional character, one Roger Hawkshaw, is that of your standard Henty hero. This is a good book for the junior high age, especially boys, and for anyone who is curious about the basic story behind the conquest of Mexico. It is also a good read for anyone who enjoys a grand style of prose, at which Henty excells.

Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes

This is a wonderful book. It is historical fiction, but not in quite the same tone as Henty. Forbes actually creates a character that is interesting in its own right, and though flawed, highly sympathetic. This book could work as a novel in its own right, aside from the historical name-dropping. Major historical figures do flit through the story, including Paul Revere, John Hancock, and Sam Adams, but Johnny Tremain himself is the rightful focus. Well worth reading, and easily readable by many ages.

Lieutenant Hornblower by C.S. Forester

One of the early titles in the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester, a popular author and screenwriter from the early 20th century. I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Hornblower is a very admirable character, being a man of utmost integrity and character. However, Forester artfully manages to keep Hornblower from becoming insufferably perfect, and you end up with a very engaging and very appealing portrait of a young man in His Majesty's fleet. Most of the book is from the prespective of Bush, and it is through his eyes that Hornblower's character is revealed bit by bit. Aside from all that, it is a rollicking good sea story.

I must confess, however, that the A&E miniseries, at least so far, has disappointed me. It is, to put it plainly, too unrealistic. I simply could not suspend my disbelief sufficiently to maintain an interest in the story. It is possible I was simply spoiled by a combination of reading the book first, and exposing myself to the gritty realism of Patrick O'Brian (of Master and Commander fame) at the same time.

The Princess Bride by S. Morgenstern

Wonderful. Fantastic. It has fencing. Fighting. Torture. Poison. True love. Hate. Revenge. Giants. Hunters. Bad men. Good men. Beautifulest ladies. Snakes. Spiders. Beasts of all natures and descriptions. Pain. Death. Brave men. Coward men. Strongest men. Chases. Escapes. Lies. Truths. Passion. Miracles. Did I mention true love?

Of course, there really is no S. Morgenstern, but William Goldman does such a delightful job of abridging Morgenstern's original work, I don't mind. It is filled with the same delightful wit that fills the movie, and is one of those rare books whose movie adaption was written by the original author. As a result, the movie is wonderfully free to remain close to the spirit of the book, while changing details of the story at will. (See the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for another wonderful example of the same phenomenon) All I can say is find it, read it, and then watch the movie again.

Dum spiro, spero.

2005-09-26T23:58:00.000-07:00

My heart still palpatates unevenly. Perhaps the rest of the world doesn't notice - they look down on the NL West and sniff. But for Giants fans, the impossible remains tantalizingly close.

Here we stand - 6 games left in the regular season and three games behind the division leading Padres. By all accounts, we have, at best, a 5% chance of making the playoffs. And yet there remains 'that hope which springs eternal in the human breast.' Especially after tonight.

The Giants stood there, down 2-1 as the visiting team. Bottom of the ninth. Trevor Hoffman, the most brilliant and consistent closer of our era, was on the mound. 2 outs. Man on first. Randy Winn at the plate.

Among the most poignant and multi-faceted words in the English language are these: 'it's a long fly ball...' At one and the same time, it sweeps the hearer up with both the anticipation of victory, and the teetering brink of defeat. The possibility of the home run, or the game saving catch at the warning track.

In this case, the ball flew to deep center field...it might...it could...it will...no! It lands into a hated web of black leather. But then, oh glory! The miracle! The ball, ripped from its rightful path over the wall, it knocked loose by a blow. It lands, rolls in the soft dirt of the warning track. The runner races around from first to score, having broke at the crack of the bat. Winn rounds into third with a triple. He's a homer shy of his second cycle as a Giant, but no one cares. The game is tied.

Vizquel somehow draws a walk, and is followed by sweet-swinging Snow of the velvet hands, who strokes his second masterpiece of the night through the hole on the right side of the infield. Winn scores, the Giants lead. The bottom of the ninth rolls around, and Padre bats flail ineffectually at 94 mph heaters, and just like that, the game is over.

Even if the Giants don't make the playoffs, they've had some magnificent games of late.
And besides, anything is possible. They made up a much worse defecit back in '51, as I recall...

On a complete different, but still baseball related note, look at the following site: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/stories/storyReader$3682

It contains a bunch of baseball haiku. Yes, haiku. Some of it is actually pretty good. These are a couple of the better ones:

first red leaves
i swing late
on a change-up

law office picnic --
the ump consults
his Blackberry

a long fly ball
arcs above the moon...
summer deepens

And this one is my personal favorite:

rainy night
a hole in the radio
where a ballgame should be

While you're at it, visit http://humbug.baseballtoaster.com/ to see a fascinating baseball blog. About half the posts are in poetry - haiku and other forms.

Coffee Shop Metaphysics

2005-09-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

I got to meet a real, honest to goodness heretic today. Friendly fellow, and one who cheerfully professed a kind of postmodern Arianism. He claimed to be a lover of Truth and held up the conscience as the supreme arbiter of said Truth.

I got into a conversation with him in the little coffee shop attatched to the Borders bookstore in Reno, because he noticed I was reading a book of historical 'What if's' (a kind of historical inquiry that seeks to answer the question of what the world would be like if God was not sovereign in certain situations - chiefly remarkable because the historians that are asking these question do not realize just how powerful an evidence they are providing for God's sovereignty over all of history). Jim (for that is his name), started in on a rather amusing summary of his personal conspiracy theory (all the power is held by a select few very rich and very bad individuals, and Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly NOT the only gunman...). He talked in that vein for quite some time before he finally got around to attacking the witness of the church, claiming that the fruits of the church didn't match up with its message (also denying the divinity of Christ as a kind of side point). At that point I jumped in, arguing for a kind of historical postmodernism (that the gospel has transformed and lifted up every culture it has touched) and we went back and forth for an hour at least, possibly two. Jim clearly disliked the idea of condemning certain people because of their beliefs (particularly Muslims), and ended up espousing the gospel of sincerity. I condtradicted him on the points I felt it would be most useful to do so, and at least twice managed to give a fairly direct summary of the gospel, in response to his assertions. One of his most interesting comments was how he dislikes the Psalms and thinks that David is a man of rather weak character. It was possibly the most revealing statement he could have made. I used the opportunity to point out that David was a man after God's own heart, and that Jesus was the fulfillment of everything David should have been. Of course, now that it's after the fact, I'm remembering all the things I wish I would have brought up, but overall I was pleased.

But after the conversation was over, I was reminded of the observation of Chesterton about humility. "Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed." This phrase rather neatly sums up Jim, and all his fellow postmoderns. The one place they have any certainty is within their own minds - everything else is open to doubt. On the other hand, I have peace and rest, fully confident that if I turn into a flaming heretic tomorrow, the gospel will still be true, and Christ will still have dominion.

A different kind of optimist

2005-09-15T23:35:00.000-07:00

On those rare moments when I am not occupied with teaching Latin or learning the musical numbers for my role in The Music Man, it has been my great pleasure to engage myself in rediscovering Chesterton. Certainly, I've read Orthodoxy before, multiple times, but the book responds well to re-readings. Chesterton has a profound and refreshing perspective on life itself. Every time I have finished a portion of Orthodoxy recently, the sun and stars shine with an exhilirating keenness, colors leap forward out of a brown and dusty background, and I remember exactly why I am so thrilled by the very fact of life. There is a kind of wild joy in noticing the little things that you can get nowhere else, and the beauty of the little things is that they are everywhere. It is simply impossible to escape the glories of creation - all you can do is distract yourself from them for a while.

The latest bit of Chesterton that I read was the first part of his chapter called 'The Flag of the World.' In it, he makes the rather potent point that loyalty to this world is not a choice made after weighing your options - you are simply loyal from the start, long before you ever know what loyalty is. Ever since I first read that chapter, I've felt that this perfectly sums up loyalty to a baseball team. I never actually chose to root for the Giants. I simply grew up and recognized myself for what I am - a Giants fan. And, as Chesterton says, "The point is that when you do love a thing, its gladness is reason for loving it, and its sadness a reason for loving it more."

Optimists Anonymous

2005-09-11T13:26:00.000-07:00

Every day, when I drive into town, I pass the signs that list the churches and clubs of Fallon, Nevada. One in particular catches my eye every time - the one for the 'Fallon Optimists,' who meet every two weeks in a casino downtown.

This just seems odd to me. First off, that there would be a club for that. But also, what could be worse than a bunch of optimists in a casino?

Optimist #1: I really think I'm going to win this time. They just started advertising looser slots.

Clink. Whirr...doop. Doop. Doop.

Optimist #2: Tough luck. That's a good sign for next time, though. The more times you miss, the bigger the payoff will be.

Pause. Clink, clink. Whirr...doop.

#1: I don't think gambling is really addictive. It's just a healthy form of entertainment.

#2: Well, I'm just glad the economy is so good that the casino can offer that great $10 steak dinner.

And what must the meetings be like?

Chair: Next on the agenda, charity projects. Well, there are none going right now, but hey, who's complaining? Life is good, isn't it? Okay, membership dues. No one has paid in three years, but I'm sure all you need is a gentle reminder. See if you can get them in by next Tuesday.

I bet there used to be a pessimist club, but the founders gave up because they thought they couldn't possibly do any good..

First Day of School

2005-08-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

The first day of school has arrived. The hours of tense wait are over. And the conclusion is this: Knowing the theory and carrying it out are two different things entirely. Over the past week, I've been immersed in the theory of classical education, and trying desparately to apply it. Today was my first effort. In some ways I was pleased, in other ways I felt woefully unprepared. That the kids are helpful, obiedent, and well-mannered managed to smooth over a lot of my mistakes. But, by Bede, the execution of this teaching stuff is hard. It isn't so much physically or mentally challenge, stretching me beyond what I know. Its the little details that keep slipping past my notice; all the small things that, done right, make the day run smoothly, but done wrong, creates potholes and washboards all over the road. But, I earnestly hope that as time goes on, I begin to settle into good patterns and come to be more efficient and effective.

The Move to Fallon

2005-08-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

I've made it, safe and sound, to my new digs.

Granted, I didn't know exactly where my new digs were until about 6 PM last night. But somehow, through no merit of my own, I was allowed to move into a small house a couple miles outside of Fallon, securely tucked behind a corner of a cornfield and locust trees. There'll be another chap living there with me for a couple months, and then, if we hit it off, we'll probably head to the other place he's going to move into.

In the meantime, I have heaps of school prep to do, and little time to do it in. I have to keep this short because I don't yet have internet access at home and the librarians here are really strict. I'll post at more length later.

Moving Day

2005-08-12T22:23:00.000-07:00

This is my last night in Moscow, and thus probably my last night with wireless internet. I leave for Fallon late Saturday morning, with a stopover in Boise for the Visser/Helsel wedding, before finishing up the trek to Fallon on Sunday. As things wind up here, I find I have many things to thank God for. If it weren't for His timely provision in so many ways, I never would have been able to finish New St Andrews, or even to have come here in the first place. My time in Moscow was marvellously rich and refreshing; far more than I could ever have hoped or deserved. As I prepare to leave for Fallon, I realize that I must again rely on God to provide, in so many ways.

I can't help but be nervous about the upcoming year. I feel so woefully unprepared. The school year hasn't even started, and I feel like I'm hanging on by my fingernails. This is way beyond teaching 4-year-olds how to do the snowplow on their skis. Every instinct I have is telling me to worry and fret, but God clothes the lilies and gives food to the sparrows - what cause have I for concern?

Now I feel like I need to sing St. Patrick's Breastplate... "I bind unto myself today, the strong name of the Trinity..."

In other news, the Giants won their second straight, defeating Dontrelle Willis and the Marlins 1-0, behind a stellar pitching performance from Noah Lowry. It is also the second straight day in which new outfield acquisition Randy Winn has homered, bringing him to 8 homers on the season. Man, I'm really glad we got Randy Winn to round out our lineup so we can make a good run for the pennant down the stretch...

Oh. Wait a minute. I forgot - we aren't even remotely in the pennant race. Dagnabit!

Tolerance Nazi's Strike Again...

2005-08-11T11:31:00.000-07:00

Every society has certain things that are protected. They are sacred, and free speech does not apply in their presence. As Doug Wilson has often said, you can identify a society's gods by looking at what they protect; what they shield from any criticism or humor. In Moscow, we've discovered just how near and dear the subjects of tolerance and racism are to local secularists. Well, it seems that San Francisco has its own racially sensitive tolerance police, and to my great dismay, they are all in the Giants organization, most prominent among them, the manager Felipe Alou.

To give the back story: the Giants stink right now. They are a terrible team, and have quite simply fallen to pieces this year. So, a frustrated radio host named Larry Krueger on the Giants' flagship station, KNBR, took it upon himself to ream the Giants for their performance. In the midst of his comments, he made the mistake of characterizing the Giants' hitters as 'Carribeans hacking at slop nightly,' referring to their inability to take a pitch, and described Felipe Alou's brains as having turned into Cream of Wheat.

Alas, Larry Krueger didn't know what he was in for. Granted, he was stupid for making those remarks - if nothing else, he made it seem as if he personally attacked Alou inappropriately. Of course, if you listened to his entire rant, you would have found out that Krueger actually sympathized with Alou, and thought that the real problem was that the organization hadn't given him any talent. But, Krueger's real mistake was using the words 'Cream of Wheat.' If he had simply said 'oatmeal,' he would probably still have his job. But you see, Cream of Wheat has a picture of an old black servant named Rufus offering up a bowl of the steaming goodness on the front of the box, and that obviously means that Krueger was making some kind of racist connection. (the Alou family is black, and come from the Carribean) His Carribean comment was also out of line, mainly because the Giants are equal opportunity hackers - the white guys flail away just as ineffectively. Again, if Krueger had simply referenced the old baseball joke that you can't walk off the island of Haiti (i.e., you don't get signed out of the Dominican for knowing how to take a pitch), he probably would have been fine.

Anyway, his stupidity went out over the air, and now he is paying the consequences. Alou was understandably furious, but he has since lost all my sympathy. Alou quit his weekly show on KNBR, and publicly stated that he would not forgive Krueger for his comments. Then, on an ESPN interview, he called Krueger an emissary of Satan. The Giants have backed Alou up, and Krueger has lost his job because of it. You can read about the rest of it here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/10/KNBR.TMP

I would like to sympathize with Alou - he did, after all, grow up in an atmosphere of real racism, and that sort of thing makes a lasting impact. But he is now showing the same kind of hyper-sensitivity to any racial reference that Barry Bonds has showed in the past. If I thought that Krueger was racist in the slightest, it might help, but the poor guy is clearly not. He made one bad metaphor and is paying big time. The secular god of tolerance must not be questioned. Woe betide the fool who angers him.

Richard the Lion-Hearted

2005-07-30T12:37:00.000-07:00

Often a figure from history acquires an aura about him, a reputation that in the end grows far larger and lasts far longer than the man himself. Often we can discover little about the man other than this reputation, such as in the case of King Arthur. But when it comes to Richard Coeur d'Lion we know exactly why he has his reputation for a man of considerable skill and courage. Ironically, he is overshadowed by a contemporary that was enshrined in ballad form: Robin Hood. However, Richard I was important for far more than pushing forward the later plots of that famous outlaws' adventures; he proved himself a capable and competent commander in the Middle East, successfully dueling with one of the greatest Muslim leaders ever, Saladin.

One particular example, I think, will suffice. Richard and Saladin engaged most famously at the Battle of Arsuf in 1191. To briefly sum up the tactical situation, the most effective Muslim forces were their mounted archers, who engaged enemy forces in a swarm, pouring arrows into their ranks while staying out of reach themselves. Their favorite tactic was to outflank the enemy and get at their rear. Foot archers were the most effective defense against these tactics, because of their superior range. However, it was necessary for them to be supported by other infantry, and they in turn supported the most valuable soldiers of the European armies; the mounted knight. Richard was aware of this, thanks to the bloody lessons learned by the Crusaders that preceeded him. Accordingly, when he travelled, he kept his troops in tight discipline and well supported.

Well, Richard and his army were marching along the Mediterranean coastline, headed south from Acre down to Jaffa. Richard kept his army in full readiness, and consequently was not disturbed by Saladin for most of the march. However, as he drew near Arsuf, there was a place where his road lay between a large forest and the sea. It was an ideal place for an ambush, and both King Richard and Saladin were well aware of the fact. King Richard gave special orders to his men to maintain their formations under attack, and to let his crossbow men (stationed all along the left of his army, which was nearest the forest) do the work.

Of course, Saladin had concealed his men within the forest, and as soon as enough of Richard's army had passed, the Arabs poured out, significantly outnumbering Richard's army. The Muslim horse archers poured arrows into Richard's lines, but the men held firm, including his knights, although they were eager for close combat. However, the knights simply sat on their steeds, letting the arrows clank harmlessly against their armor, while the crossbowmen fired back their deadly bolts.

Richard gave orders to hold in place, in order to draw the Muslim forces in closer. But his mounted knights were being sorely taxed, their manly chivalry thwarted by their inability to charge. The Muslim arrows cut down a number of their steeds, but still they remained steadfast. Richard passed word the when the trumpet sounded three times, the knights would turn and charge. But the rear of his column, now the far left of his line, finally couldn't hold it any longer, and they wheeled their chargers and galloped toward the Muslims. Richard, knowing his hand was forced, called for the trumpets to be sounded, and all his knights charged forth.

The result was a cascading effect of knights crashing into the Muslim line, like a wave that rolls onto the beach at an angle, starting at one end, and the other end not breaking for some seconds longer. The charge worked magnificently. The Muslim forces were caught in disarray, and blocked each other's escape. Foot soldiers were ridden down and Muslim cavalry was trapped and slaughter by the more heavily armed European knights.

Saladin retreated his troops as quickly as he could, having taken great losses, and King Richard marched the rest of the way to Joffa unopposed.

American Aristocracy?

2005-07-25T22:44:00.000-07:00

I went looking through my old notes from last year, hoping to find my notes from Dr. Leitharts lecture on A Midsummer's Night's Dream in the Shakespeare elective he offered. I wanted to review what he said, since I'm now playing Theseus in a production of said play this summer.

Well, I never found my notes (not suprising, given the disarray of my organizational system this past year), but I did find something I had jotted down during one of the other lectures. For some reason, I think because Dr. Leithart was lecturing on some political aspect of Shakespeare's play Coriolanus, I got to thinking about the idea of aristocracy. It some ways it seems inherent to the way society works, it is simply the entry requirements that change - in America we call it the 'upper class.' But I'm talking about an actual political structure, i.e., the supposed 'rule of the best' which aristocracy is meant to represent.

The question I came up with was this: can any American seriously advocate a form of aristocratic government, without believing that he ought to be a part of the ruling class? How many Americans can you concieve saying, "Well, there definately should be a ruling class of all the wisest people, if we want this land to be in the best hands. Me, I'll just be happy scrubbing toilets, so long as I know that the smart folks are up there running this ship." Perhaps the reason Americans seem unable to abide nearly any kind of rigid authority structure is because we've lost the ability or desire to function as servants. Any society with a ruling class, by default, has a serving class. What American would voluntarily place himself in the latter? And if we won't, what does that say about us as a Christian nation, and what should our response be?

Post Game Report, Seattle 7/16

2005-07-21T22:44:00.000-07:00

It was a bright, warm, and sunny day. Normal for a summer day, maybe, but not in Seattle. A sure sign the baseball was going to be good.

The Seattle Mariners were meeting in a contest of skill with the Baltimore Orioles, a team for which I have some fondness ever since my tenure on the east coast. Rafael Palmeiro had, the night before, joined the ranks of those who have stroked 3,000 or more hits in their career: a magnificent accomplishment. I attended the game along with my roommate Nathan Anderson (and his assorted Seattle relations), David Hoos, Casey and Jesse Sumpter, Dave Henrickson, and Dave Young. We picked up a batch of tickets from the scalpers, overpaying slightly for seats way up in center field just beneath the jumbotron screen. We were about as far removed from the action as you can get in Safeco (which really isn't that far), and my, but it was glorious.

Jaime Moyer pitched against Bruce Chen, two one-time journeyman starters without a lot of overpowering heat. Chen started out weakly, falling behind in every count, and allowed a couple of early runs, including a towering moon shot from Richie Sexson and dropped over the left field fence. However, he settled in after that, and pitched seven strong innings.

Moyer was a craftsman. I'd never seen him pitch before, but my gosh, he is beautiful to watch! He never topped 84 on the radar gun, but he controlled the hitters perfectly, for the most part. He was tagged for two quick runs, but then settled in and shut the Orioles down through the 8th inning. He worked the corners, changed speeds, and never gave the Orioles hitters something decent to hit. The Orioles threatened a couple of times, but couldn't put anything together. Of course, part of the problem is their inability to play decent small-ball. They got runners on with no outs more than once, but never put on a hit and run, and only once attempted a sacrifice bunt (which didn't work, because the hitter couldn't lay the bunt down). It looked like they were relying on the strategy of Earl Weaver, once an Orioles manager, that consisted of pitching, defense, and three-run homers.

Finally the ninth rolled around, with the bullpens finally being engaged. J.J. Putz came in for the M's and gave them a nasty scare, allowing the go-ahead run to get on base, but eventually closing it out. Chris Ray had stepped in the previous inning for the Orioles, and was bringing a 94 mph fastball into the game. He worked himself into a similar situation with the Mariners, but when he threw the ball past first he allowed the runner to advance to second and third with no outs. Mike Morse, the rookie shortstop, who I guarantee will not be a shortstop five years from now (the guy is possibly the tallest shortstop I have ever seen), slapped a hit into shallow right and won the game.

It was great; intensity, excitement, good pitching, and some great players to watch. I was excited to see a number of guys play, including two sure-fire Hall-of-Famers and a couple more who could make it with several more good seasons. Moyer was pitching, while, of course, Ichiro patrolled right field. On the Mariners, Rafael Palmeiro was at first, Sammy Sosa in left field, Brian Roberts was at second, and Miguel Tejada was at short.

Ichiro was everything I expected him to be; patient at the plate, quick in the outfield, a quick swing and a great eye. Palmeiro ripped his 3,001st hit with his classic swing. He may have been slumping earlier this season, but that guy has still got his talent. Sammy Sosa was a little disappointing. I think it's clear he's in the twilight of his career. He didn't have a lot of presence at the plate, and pitchers weren't afraid to pitch to him. He did stroke a hit late in the game, but there were no displays of raw power and that classic leap after driving one out. Brian Roberts impressed me; he seems to have a good eye, and makes excellent contact. However, he also swung at the second pitch in the game, which isn't a great trait for a leadoff hitter. With some more patience at the plate, he could work the opposing pitchers more, helping out his teammates, and rely on his ability to make contact and protect the plate with two strikes. Miguel Tejada was great. He has good range at short, and is a very dangerous bat. And even from centerfield, you could see his enthusiasm.

It was a wonderfull game, overall. And Safeco is a beautiful field on which to see such a game unfold.

Cross-pollenation or common ancestry?

2005-07-04T12:28:00.000-07:00

When you find common features within widely separated cultures, be it in appearance, myths, rituals, language, etc., there are three possible explainations. 1) It is simply coincidence and proves nothing; 2) The cultures have met sometime in the past and interacted enough to cross-pollenate each other; or 3) they are both descended from a single culture or related culture sometime back in the murky past.

The reason why this is important is that cultures that we consider very distinct, like ancient Middle-Eastern and ancient American cultures, somehow have common elements, such as flood stories and these pyramid looking thingys. (For more on flood stories check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html for a very interesting collection.)

This is something that shows up very heavily amongst kooks trying to prove that this or that culture made it to America long before Colombus or the Vikings, usually making use of some kind of linguistic connection. Name the ancient culture, and I can pretty much assure you some nut has tried to prove that they made it to America first. Usually, the critics answer back these astonishing leaps to conclusions with explaination 1 listed above. I would have to count myself among the skeptics, but I would much rather point to option number 3 as the answer.

I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but if we assume the Genesis is historically accurate (a safe assumption, given that it is the Word of God and presents itself as historical narrative), we can point back to a common ancestry of all cultures, with the joining point being about 5,000 years ago. A model based off of this, would place the ultimate origins of each race in the Middle East, and then spreading outwards into outlying regions. The whole process is pretty much static until after the Babel incident (around the time of Peleg's birth; 'for in his time the earth was divided'), at which point they scatter wide and far. According to Josephus, Javan was the ancestor of the Greeks, Gomer of the Celts, and so on.

The reason I bring all this up is because I recently ran across a rather interesting article in the creation science journal TJ in the NSA archives. It is by a chap named Robert Bowie Johnson who, in addition to having a cool middle name, thinks he has the answers for the origins of Greek myths. The article is intitled 'Athena and Eve' and basically attempts to prove that the Greeks were cult worshippers of the the serpent (i.e., Satan) and thus deified Eve in their rebellion against God. R.B. Johnson points to a good deal of serpent and woman imagery in Greek myth as evidence of this. In the midst of his other arguments, Johnson throws out a couple other interesting opinions, among which are that Hercules is really Nimrod, and that Zeus and Hera are really Adam and Eve. He later claims that the Eve imagery was transferred to Athena.

I am not at all convinced by most of his arguments. For example, I don't believe for a moment that Zeus and Hera could be Adam and Eve - I could more easily believe that they are Cain and his wife, given the myth of Zeus's rebellion against Chronos, etc. The value I see in his article is the suggestion that the dieties of Greek myth are actual Pre-Flood characters. I have my doubts about whether they are conciously worshipping the line of Cain as Johnson suggests, as the myths of the Tatars, etc., would seem to line up with the Nephilim. Still, the clear destinction between Gods and heroes, while still maintaining that the heroes are sons and daughters of the gods seems to fit. I would love to see more work done in the area.

Of course, there is a lot more one could say on the subject, long before you ever get to the subject of Atlantis or the stange consistency in American and Pacific mythology of a ruling race of white men being defeated and driven west into the ocean. But that's a topic for another day.

Battle of Daras

2005-06-25T20:40:00.000-07:00

I just happened to find a two volume history of warfare in the middle ages by an Oxford prof named Charles Oman while setting up the new NSA library and, well, I just couldn't resist taking a look. Lots of interesting stuff, but one of the cooler items was a brief description of the Battle of Daras in 530 AD.

Justinian was the emperor of the fledgling Byzantine Empire at the time, and Belisarius was his top general. Like Rommel and Patton all rolled into one. This particular battle was one of his earliest, and his first decisive victory. Daras was basically a border fortress, and Belisarius had marched there with about 25,000 men to lift the Persian seige of the city. The Persian army was around 40,000, leaving Belisarius significantly outnumbered.

Now, this whole battle is just a great example of Belisarius' brilliance. Basically, he pulled a reverse Cannae, with a little more flashy use of cavalry. To wit: he set up his line, with his back to the fortress walls, thus covering his rear. Then he set his cavalry on the flanks forward significantly, leaving a slight gap between the cavalry and his main body of infantry. Within these gaps, one on either side, he stationed some of his mercenary cavalry (Huns, to be precise). Then he dug a trench in front of his entire line. Not enough to prohibit movement, but enough to make it more difficult.

The Persians lined up opposite, in one solid line, presumably with infantry in the center and cavalry on the flanks. Because Belisarius had his center drawn back, those parts of the line never met, but just exchanged arrow fire from a distance. On Belisarius' left flank, which was anchored against a small hill, his cavalry began to be slightly pushed back, at which point he threw in the Hunnish cavalry on one side and another hidden contingent of mercenaries from behind the hill on the other, and the Persian cavalry was repulsed.

On the right flank, the Byzantine troops were driven back almost to the wall, causing the Persian flank to overextend and separate from the main body. Belisarius then threw the Huns into their suddenly exposed flank, and also personally charged with his own mounted bodyguard. The Persian force was driven back and away from the main Persian line, at which point Belisarius was able to hurl his cavalry from that flank into the body of the Persian infantry, and roll up their entire line with much slaughter.

It was a magnificent victory, because even if the Persian general had compensated and extended his center to meet with the Byzantine center, they would have still been severely outflanked by the cavalry and defeated just as handily. It is also rather interesting to see how minimized the infantry were in the entire battle, which was Professor Oman's whole point in bringing it up, to illustrate the shift away from Roman pedestrian warfare to the era of the medieval knights.

Sanchez joins the Giants

2005-06-24T13:07:00.000-07:00

So, the Giants picked up Alex Sanchez off of waviers. Sanchez just happened to be the first MLB player to get suspended for steroids (of course, he claims that he tested positive because of a legal suppliment). I guess the Giants were feeling left out of the steroids thing with Barry Bonds on the DL...

No, seriously, this is a good pickup for them. It is a little depressing to be picking up a Devil Rays castoff, but, well, that's no worse than what the Yankees did going back to Tino Martinez. Besides which, Sanchez adds good speed and will probably hit in the top of the lineup when he plays. Hopefully, this is a sign the Grissom is on the way out. He's already lost his job to the pleasant surprise of rookie Jason Ellison, and with Sanchez as the backup for Alou, Ellison, and Linden, there's really no need for Grissom.

Apparently Sanchez is no whiz defensively, but his speed makes up for quite a bit. However, Sabean (the Giants GM) did say that he would need to pick up his game if he's going to keep playing for the Giants. If Sanchez can learn to judge the fly balls better, he could become a very good defensive outfielder, and we already know he can hit.

Now, if only the Giants can get some starting pitching...