Leibovitz Phones It In

Over the years, I've built hundreds of websites. However, I sometimes worry that what I've really done is build one website hundreds of times. Such is the nature of any recurring creative endeavor, especially when working for a client. There's a continual struggle between trying to keep things fresh while keeping the customer's wants and needs at the forefront. There's also a tendency to fall back on the approaches and layouts that have worked in the past (not an altogether bad thing, of course, assuming that they'll continue to work into the reasonable future).

Which brings me to the current hoohaw around Annie Leibovitz's photograph of Miley Cyrus* for Vanity Fair. If you've just emerged from a cave after years of seclusion, you still know what I'm referring to, and it's not my intention to hash out the details of something to which millions of words have already been applied. There's no lack of culpable parties to which blame can be easily assigned (although I'll say that the one party who shouldn't be blamed is, oddly enough, Vanity Fair, any more than one blames a rattlesnake for biting the foot of someone who steps on it. That's what rattlesnakes do, and everyone knows it. Vanity Fair also has a natural and reliable role in lowering the bar for public decency and decorum).

What I want to focus on instead is Leibovitz's unimaginative photographic work that resulted in the Lolita-ization of a fifteen-year-old girl. The photographer claims that her work was "misinterpreted" but no one is buying that. You don't become that skilled at celebrity portraiture without knowing precisely the reaction the shot will engender in its viewers.

But, in the end, regardless of the moral or ethical implications of the photos in question, what Leibovitz did was clichéd and smacks of someone trying to collect a paycheck as quickly as possible. What was she thinking? "Oh, here's a cute and perky girl whose reputation is wholesome and charming. What kind of picture should I take? Oh, I know...let's make her pouty and sullen and have her throw a knowing look over a bare shoulder. That's never been done!"

Leibovitz may have been working an agenda at the same time, but that doesn't make the result any less disappointing from a creative perspective, especially for an artist whose prior claim to fame was the ability to capture the true personality of her subjects in a photograph. Miley Cyrus deserved better than that, and Annie Leibovitz can do better than that.

*I know...two posts that include mentions to Miley Cyrus in one day. But look at it this way: that averages out to one reference every two years.

Al Jazeera visits Midland

I did some quick searches on a few local blogs that I thought might have already covered this, and found nothing. If you had a more timely report, please feel free to provide a link in the comments.

I stumbled across the following YouTube videos after following an unrelated Google link. They are a couple of 11-minute programs produced by the [infamous] Arabic news organization, Al Jazeera in September, 2007, and are entitled Main Street USA – Midland, Texas. The reports focus on the role that faith and religion play in the public and private lives of our citizens, and, of course, how they influenced George W. Bush. Midland residents will recognize many of the individuals interviewed during the course of the filming.

The underlying message is that Midland is a city of "Christian fundamentalists," a term used with great frequency, and applied both to individuals as well as the community as a whole. It's hard to tell if the Al Jazeera report is using that word as a term of disapprobation; if so, the irony is thickened given the network's Muslim target audience.

Regardless, I found the reports to be fairly evenhanded, especially considering their source. A local Muslim was interviewed and expressed his happiness at being able to live in a community where he can practice his faith without fear. In a rational world, that should be a revelation to his counterparts in the Middle East, or at least a source of cognitive dissonance, but I'm not that naive.

The most disturbing thing about these reports is not the content of the videos, but the comments left on YouTube regarding them. Read them at your own risk, if you're easily offended.

By the way, if you define "fundamentalist" as being someone who believes that there are certain doctrinal truths given down by a holy and just God that we as individuals and collectively as a nation ignore at our own peril, then I willingly place myself firmly into that category.

China's Olympic Village Bible Ban: Good News?

Reports of China's prohibition of Bibles inside the Athlete's Village at next year's Beijing Olympics are slowly trickling out (do a Google News search for the topic and see how many mainstream media outlets are not reporting on it), it occurs to me that this action serves to highlight the power of the Gospel, and the fact that the Chinese government is operating not from a position of strength, but in abject fear.

That the iron-fisted government of one of the world's superpowers would simultaneously recognize and fear the power of God's word enough to ban it, while thinking that such a ban will actually be the slightest bit effective in blunting that power would be laughable if it wasn't so pitiful.

What the Chinese government seems to be incapable of grasping (or perhaps it's just in desperate denial) is that whether or not the Word is present in paper form, it will still be carried by thousands of visitors and athletes in their hearts and souls, and it will be shared by the millions of Chinese Christians for whom the term "freedom" has a connotation that many of us in the comfortable West can scarcely begin to imagine.

Some are reporting that the Koran will not be subject to a similar ban. If this is indeed true, it seem to indicate that the Chinese government doesn't fear the power of that book. Again, Christians should be flattered by the comparison.

Twins Wed Twins: Mystifying Marital Math

My wife called my attention to the wedding photos page in yesterday's Lifestyle section, where the pictures of two lovely – and apparently identical – young women posed in (non-identical) wedding gowns. The twin sisters had gotten married on Saturday, one at 5:00 p.m. and the other at 5:30 (wonder how they decided the times?), in the same church.

As if this wasn't unusual enough, further reading of the accounts of the weddings revealed that the girls' new husbands are also twins. And that raises all sorts of interesting questions.

According to this article, there are only about 250 documented instances where identical twins married identical twins (for the record, we don't know if the people described above are identical twins; the girls certainly look that way, but we weren't given photos of the guys). I'm sure this combination has practitioners of various disciplines – including psychologists, geneticists, and, um, crime lab scientists – salivating at the prospect of doing research.

The primary question that came to mind was whether any of the children born to these couples would be identical (and would they be cousins...or siblings?). There seems to be a difference of opinion regarding this issue (just google "twins marrying twins" and start reading; I can't do all of your research for you!), but the most compelling scientific arguments give the answer of "highly unlikely."

But, still, as I dimly recall some of the basics from my college genetics course, there is at least a statistical possibility that the offspring of these couples could be genetically identical. In any event, I'm sure these folks will be a hoot at family reunions. I hope name tags are provided.

"Are we that shallow?"

Following up on the previous post about Making News: Texas Style, I revisited Geoff Fox's blog to get his impressions of the second episode. The title of this post was lifted from his report; here it is in context:

Geoff uses "we" in the first sentence because he's a TV weatherman at WTNH in Connecticut. He's experienced and competent (they don't give Emmys to just anyone) and so it's a bit surprising to me that he'd even ask the question.

Yes, Geoff, you are that superficial. But, really, it's not your fault; we've made you that way.

We – the TV audience – judge you on-camera folks on the most shallow of criteria: Are you thin enough? Are your teeth white enough? Is your smile winsome enough? Do you have good hair (weathermen and, occasionally, sportscasters get a pass on this one)? If you're not at least as pretty as what we see when we look in our mirrors, then your credibility takes a hit. Your career is dependent on whether you can entice us to keep putting your channel on at 6 and 10, instead of watching Seinfeld reruns.

The good news is that you're no more superficial than anyone else in America who makes more than a subsistence income and thus has the time and energy to worry about what other people think about them. You just happened to have chosen a profession that requires you to stress over the issue.

If I have a beef with your observation, it's that you've labeled as shallow people you don't know. You, of all people, should know how the camera and the editor can join forces to make a silk purse from a pig's ear, or a saint from a horse's rear. Judging the competence of the news crew at KOSA – and especially their "intellectual depth" – based on a few minutes of "reality TV" is unfair at best. (And before you take me to task for doing the same thing, keep in mind that I've observed many of these folks on TV and in "real life" for years.)

Maybe we don't have as many life-or-death issues out here in the flatlands of west Texas, or perhaps our discussions aren't often burdened with an excess of gravitas. Frankly, that's why we like living out here. (Lord knows it isn't for the scenery.) Having nothing to cover except a basketball game featuring some waitresses doesn't make the reporter any less serious about his profession, or any less competent. We all have to work with what we've got.

I know. Perception is reality. That's the curse, and the pleasure, of so-called realty TV. But heaven help us when we start believing everything we see.

Technorati tag: Making News: Texas Style

Sharia Banking

I bought a copy of The Economist last week, enticed by the cover story, Apple and the art of innovation. Imagine my surprise to find that the article was a one page essay which, while mildly interesting – especially the contention that much of Apple's success is due to its willingness to bring in ideas from outside the company, and then build on them – was hardly worth the $5.99 cover price. (To be fair, there was another three-page profile of Steve Jobs elsewhere in the magazine, but it didn't plow any new ground.)

Fortunately, The Economist is chock-full of interesting tidbits that almost justify the steep single-issue price, especially if you can get a post or two out of it. One that caught my eye was a profile of Hussein Hamid Hassan, a resident of Dubai who has the highly specialized profession of issuing financial fatwas, which are essentially Islamic seals-of-approval certifying that the instruments or arrangements in question are sharia compliant.

The sharia financial system prohibits, among others things, the charging or paying of interest (although, apparently, returns from equity investments are permitted; you're just supposed to not make money from money. This Wikipedia article clarifies the concept somewhat.). Financial instruments that skirt this prohibition are called sukuk, the equivalent of an Islamic bond. I don't purport to understand the intricacies of such an instrument, but it appears that the main distinction between sukuk and traditional bonds is that the former is more closely tied to a specific tangible asset, a technicality that presumably qualifies it for Mr. Hassan's fatwa.

A lot of this seems to be financial sleight-of-hand, semantics, or playing loose with the facts, but the real significance is that the Islamic financial system is rapidly gaining strength. Mr. Hassan is quoted in the article as predicting that "...in a few years all the Gulf states will move to an Islamic financial system." And, in fact, last year East Cameron Partners, based in Houston, issued a $166 million sukuk, making it the first American company – and an oil company, at that – to do so. This PDF describes in detail that instrument, which was used to finance the acquisition of overriding royalty interests in some offshore GOM production. It's interesting to note that the transaction was scrutinized by not one but two shariah advisers, one in the US and one in Bahrain. The final instrument was actually a "Sukuk al-Musharaka", which is a joint venture arrangement.

It remains to be seen whether sharia-compliant banking is another sign of an Islamic conquest of the world. The issuance of significant numbers of sukuks and other shariah-compliant instruments by non-Islamic entities seems to be a double-edged sword, and raises some interesting questions, such as whether US companies should engage in business practices that are explicitly Islamic in nature.

In the attitude of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," some might argue that one might as well make the best of things, and make money in the process. In addition, there's an argument to be made that investment decisions surrounding sharia-compliant financial instruments are not substantially different than those made in keeping with other ethical or moral guidelines (e.g. the decision to buy stock in cosmetic companies that don't do product testing on animals).

There are some equally interesting peripheral issues, as well. If sharia banking grows as predicted, business schools will be forced to adjust their curricula accordingly. Tufts University's Fletcher School of International Affairs has a course entitled "Islamic Banking and Finance," which is an overview of the subject; it has similar courses for finance in China, Latin America, and East Asia. However, at some point the business school curricula will have to move from the overview into the practical, training accountants, economists, bankers, financiers, and so on in the hands-on issues related to such things. That transition may not be smooth. It took decades of corporate abuse to convince MBA programs of the need for beefed-up ethics training; what will it take to make them create a curriculum that is explicitly rooted in a specific religion?

And, finally, the new instruments could present challenges to analysts and potential investors who are trying to assess the financial status of companies who have issued (or invested in) them. Should a sukuk be treated as traditional debt in computing liquidity or leverage ratios? How does one assess the risk associated with such instruments? Clearly, these are issues that require new thinking for professional training and investor education.

An excellent overview of this topic is found here, Islamic Finance - The New Mainstream Alternative, via InvestorsOffshore.com.

Technorati tags: Islamic Finance | Islamic Banking | sukuk

Hard Day

I've never seen a book or a course entitled "How to be a Freelance Web Designer" but I'm sure there's one out there somewhere. However, I'll bet it doesn't include a chapter or lesson about dealing with the unexpected death of a client, which is what I've been doing since Monday. In fact, I just finished an email to the client's widow giving her some ideas about a notice to put on his website.

Drafting a death notice for a client's home page. It's probably inevitable that one will eventually face that situation, but does anybody really spend time planning for it?

I plan to write more about the client, because he was a special guy, someone who became as much a friend as a customer over the past few years. He was also what some would consider to be a "public figure," internationally known in his field. However, I want to hold off until the family has published an obituary. It's not my place to make the announcement.

There's also the unfortunate reality that losing a top-tier client directly affects the finances of the freelancer's business. Again, this is not something one can plan for in any meaningful way, but it underscores the importance of trying to diversify one's client base as much as possible.

In the final analysis, however, things like this also serve to remind one to consider what's truly important in life. In that respect, being a successful web designer falls pretty far down the list.

The Incredible Shrinking Reunion

Another 700-mile weekend, this time to attend a family reunion (my wife's family on her mother's side). It was a poorly attended affair. I've been going to this one for about 35 years and I can't remember one with fewer participants. Scheduling conflicts and health concerns kept some away, but I suspect plain old apathy was a factor in others deciding to skip the event.

The younger generations don't seem to be interested in building or maintaining the ties to their extended family. This is understandable, if not comfortable, as many of them probably feel they have more in common with their neighbors, golfing buddies, or fellow church members than with those distant cousins and in-laws. The older generations had the benefit of growing up together, or at least in close proximity. I know some of my wife's extended family better than I know some of my own blood relatives, simply because I've seen the former more often, generally via gatherings such as this one.

One of her cousins remarked that his family's reunions were called "funerals," and he didn't like that. Too often, that's the only time extended families unite nowadays, to mark the decrease in their number.

Unfortunately, my observation is that once family members become complacent about such things, the trend is rarely reversed. Perhaps there's a social aspect of chaos theory at work, but the center rarely seems to hold, and as the matriarchs and patriarchs begin to leave for their final resting places, the circles of the rest of the clan no longer intersect as frequently or as meaningfully.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter, in the final analysis. But I can't help feeling that we're all diminished in some respect when we allow our family – however distant – to slip away due to inattention.

Dunbar's Number: Mark of the Decreased

A special welcome to those coming here via Jeremy Keith's follow-up post in which he ridicules my attempt to discuss a sociological phenomenon within a Christian context. That's OK, although he really got a bit derivative with his post title.

I confess that I'd never heard of Dunbar's Number until I came across a reference to it in this post in which the author, Jeremy Keith, explains his rather unique approach to dealing with comments on his blog (he collects them for a period of time and then shuts them off, reviews those submitted prior to the deadline, and then publishes all the acceptable ones at the same time, in one batch). Jeremy's reference sent me to the relevant Wikipedia entry where I learned that Dunbar is a British anthropologist and "evolutionary psychologist" who contends that the size of the human brain's neocortex is the limiting factor in determining the optimal size of any given person's social group (I'm simplifying to the extreme here). He's even computed that number, which is 150.

Put another way, 150 is the average number of people with whom we've sufficiently cultivated relationships to the extent that we can ask them to do us a favor and they'll likely comply.

This theory has widespread implications in many facets of our lives. For example, it could explain why it's more difficult to make new close friends after we reach a certain age; we've already reached our quota, so to speak, and we just don't have the capacity to enlarge our social sphere -- unless we drop someone else.

[For bloggers, it might also explain why it's darned difficult to maintain active online relationships with other bloggers beyond a certain point, and why gaining increased readership and comments quickly reaches a point of diminishing psychological returns. We may need to visit this issue in a separate post.]

A more significant -- in my opinion, anyway -- implication to Dunbar's theory is that the other six-billion-minus-150 people on earth aren't important to us in any personal way. They're statistics, or news items, or members of a huge crowd of beings whose lives have no qualities apart from those that might impact ours (as in, for example, serving us our food in a restaurant, or cleaning our teeth, or mowing our yards).

Dunbar has done research to qualitatively support his thesis, and the number 150 (actually, it's 147.8, but who's counting?) apparently has statistical verifiability. However, from my perspective, he's left out one crucial factor: Jesus Christ.

Christ's Dunbar Number is -- to quote a popular movie character -- "like, infinity." His ability to love, accept, listen to, interact with, minister to, care about, and save has no limit. He doesn't see nameless faces, or faceless crowds, or crowded planets. He sees -- and knows -- individuals.

And here's the thing: He wants us to be the same way. He calls us to a life of ministry and service and caring that doesn't stop once we check 150 people off the list. Obviously, we can't know everyone like He does (truthfully, we can't know anyone like that, not even ourselves), but that doesn't let us off the hook for understanding the importance of trying.

I don't mean to give the impression that I know how to do this, because I don't. There are a lot of people whom I don't know how to care about, much less love. But I'm pretty sure that God can and will provide us with the means to remove the caps on our personal Dunbar numbers if we'll but seek to do so.

And failing to do that lessens us all.

Putting a speed bump on new Texas tollroads

The Texas Insider reports that a Houston state representative has co-authored a bill that puts a two year hold on the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) and allows the legislature to study the way the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) handles all toll roads.

The report says that Dwayne Bohac has some of the same concerns that a bunch of ordinary Texas citizens have about the state's plans to grab a huge swath of land through the central part of the state on which a toll road would be built and operated by a Mexican company:

I'll confess that when I first encountered the arm-waving over the plans for the TTC, I chalked it up to the usual flat-earth backlash against anything that smacks of progress. But the more I learn of the project, the more odious it seems, and I applaud the move to slow things down in order to get full disclosure on the table.

If you want to track the flipside of the coin as shown on the TTC site linked above, visit CorridorWatch (which sports the world's longest home page). One key difference between the two sites that's more telling than one might initially realize: the TTC site is also provided in Spanish.

Technorati tag: Trans-Texas Corridor

Municipal WiFi: Bloggers Beware

An article in this weekend's Midland newspaper described several "WOW" projects being considered by the city, and among them is the implementation of citywide WiFi.

At first glance, this seems to be a wonderful idea, and at least a couple of people over at Jessica's Well profess great enthusiasm at the prospect of dumping their current ISPs in favor of the municipal option. I've given the issue literally minutes of thought and have come to the conclusion that I won't be one of them.

There are a lot of unknowns in the proposition, including pricing, reliability, and security. What is not unknown, at least in my mind, is that giving control over my internet access to the government seems foolish.

Last Tuesday, my internet access went missing all day due to a still-unexplained technical problem at my service provider. Annoyed as I was at the interruption, I felt confident that the company was (a) doing all it could to get things back online, if for no other reason than to minimize the chance of losing customers, and (b) the outage was not intentional. Perhaps I'm naive and paranoid, but as much as I personally like and respect most of the people I know in our city government, I cannot bring myself to assign those motivations to any government entity in a generic sense. Nor can I count on having our government perpetually staffed by people with noble intentions.

The folks who should be most skeptical of government-provided WiFi are those who consider blogging to be a valid form of journalism. I fall into that category, although the reality is far less impressive than the concept, given the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio we currently experience in the blogosphere. (And I count myself in that non-journalistic ubër-majority -- most of the time.)

Blogging does have the potential to play an important role in keeping citizenry informed, but it has the distinction of being a medium in which its practitioners have little control over the actual dissemination of the information they generate. Very few of us know how to independently build and maintain a backbone to the internet; we're at the mercy of folks who have the technology and willingness to do that for us. Up to now, those folks also need what we're willing to trade in exchange for that access. The real question is whether we can say the same thing about the government.

In closing, I'd like to address one additional piece of that article, a quote by one of our city councilpersons to the effect "...government should compete with the private sector as long as it can beat it." The previously linked post at Jessica's Well took issue with that statement, but I happen to agree with it. In fact, I wish that was the cornerstone of all government endeavor, for if the government actually limited itself to only those things it can do better than the private sector, I think we'd be in much better shape overall.

An Inconvenient -- But Self-Imposed -- Truth

Planned Parenthood has been running an ad in our newspaper for a screening of a film entitled Rosita. Here's how the ad describes this film:

"Rosita" is an award winning documentary that shows the plight of a nine year old Nicaraguan girl, who becomes pregnant as the result of rape. This emotional story pits her family against the government, the medical establishment and the church in a battle over whose life has precedence.

Did you catch that last phrase? ...a battle over whose life has precedence. The logical inference when one considers that phrase is that more than one life is at stake, and it can also be logically assumed that if one of those lives belongs to Rosita, then the other belongs to Rosita's unborn child. What's intriguing is that the Planned Parenthood ad seems to be admitting that the fetus is, indeed, a human life, and I don't recall ever seeing that in any of their material.

Assuming that this isn't an oversight in letting copy stray from the "party line" (which I suspect it is), it would be wonderful if Planned Parenthood's "counseling" of pregnant women would now include the fact that their decisions impact two human lives, instead of one life (the mother's) and one blob of inconvenient tissue. When presented with the truth of the matter, I wonder how many of those women would elect to proceed with disposal of their inconvenient truths?

I also discovered via the ad that Planned Parenthood has a "national chaplain." Rev. Ignacio Castuera holds that position of dubious integrity. My initial thought was that one would have to be able to perform some prodigious feats of self-delusion to hold such a position, but after some additional consideration, I admitted that nothing surprises me anymore. Anyway, Rev. Castuera was recently given an award for his work in the "choice in dying" arena. It's devastatingly ironic that such a choice is not extended by the Reverend and his flock to those who are most vulnerable -- the other life alluded to in the above mentioned ad.

What I've Been Doing

The bereavement photography website that I mentioned a few months ago is now a reality; we went live yesterday.

Jennifer Taylor is a former Midlander, having recently relocated to Lubbock, and she's providing her services for free to residents of Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, and Amarillo. "I Say My Prayers" is an extension of her photography business -- and just one of the ways she's using her gifts and training in service to others.

For what it's worth, after seeing her plans for this ministry and her generosity with her time and resources, I felt compelled to donate my time in building and maintaining this website. It's a tiny contribution compared to hers, but it's what I can do.

If you know of families who are in the position of needing this service, please refer them to I Say My Prayers. I can assure you that they'll be in good hands with Jennifer.

Technorati tags: Bereavement Photography | Jennifer Taylor

Living History

Gwynne has put up an absolute gem of a post about her husband's family's experiences during the war in Croatia. I won't presume to tell you that you have to read it, but you'll be missing something special if you don't.

"Interesting" Week

So, where were we?

Lots going on this week, but before getting to that, let me once more thank you for your kind, encouraging, and sympathetic comments, emails, e-cards, and prayers. My family was blessed by your caring spirit.

My uncle's funeral is tomorrow in Gainesville, and I'll be flying up and back to attend, along with my brother and his wife. My wife is staying here to keep The Niece company. Did I mention that she's spending four nights with us while her brother and mom are in College Station for a student conference? Not a big deal, but one more thing to keep the activity level for the week in the red zone.

I made a cryptic remark in the previous post that the tragic loss in our family might have had the unlikely result of helping my aunt avoid future health problems. That may or may not be the case, now that I know more facts, but let me explain.

My aunt was the first on the scene after her brother apparently fell and suffered a fatal blow to the head. She called 911 and accompanied him to the hospital. Obviously, she was badly shaken by the experience. Later, she began to suffer chest pain and was also admitted to the hospital. The preliminary diagnosis was that she was suffering the precursor to a heart attack. The next day, she went through a series of tests where her heart was found to be strong and healthy; the official call was that the pain was brought on by stress.

That sounds logical. We had at first thought that what she experienced was triggered by the stress, but which had roots in an underlying medical condition -- blocked arteries, perhaps -- that would not otherwise have been discovered without this unfortunate stimulus. I guess we were wrong about that.

On the other hand...

I do know that prayers went up literally across the country as soon as her situation was made known. I'm not prepared to concede without a doubt that her heart was healthy before those prayers were offered. The fact that the doctors could find no problems afterward could simply underscore the wonderful mysteries of the workings of the Great Physician.

Can I prove it? Nope. Can the doctors prove it didn't happen that way? Again, nope. Which side you come down on depends, I suppose, on how often you've seen things like this in the past, and how your faith shapes your view of the natural and supernatural world. One thing I do know for certain is that the God I serve is more than capable of this and much, much more.

Melancholy

Update (Tuesday afternoon): First, let me say how humbled and blessed I am by your kindness and words of comfort. My uncle died last night, as expected. What we didn't know was that he was an organ donor, and if plans unfold properly, a desperately ill 44-year old man is receiving new hope via a liver transplant as I type this. It's amazing at how much peace that knowledge brings. In addition, the last report on my aunt -- the deceased man's sister -- was also quite positive. Her brother's untimely death may have actually prolonged her life, an amazing turn of events I'll try to share later. Again, thank you so much for your thoughts and prayers and words of encouragement.

I don't feel much like posting anything, and may not for a while.

The fragility and uncertainty of life has been reimpressed on my family, as an uncle lies in a coma in Dallas, without hope of recovery, and an aunt was admitted to the hospital in Denton this morning with a possible heart attack and faces the prospect of surgery.

It's an ironic blessing that I had not seen either of these people in at least a couple of years, until we visited with both of them at our family reunion only ten days ago. Both seemed in good health.

At this time of life, each family reunion is adjourned with the silent thought that this might be the last time we're all able to be together. It's still a shock when that inevitability actually becomes reality.

Thankfully, the reports on my aunt are quite optimistic.

I appreciate your understanding if posting is sporadic, and perhaps non-existent over the next few days.

Vocabulary Time Out

So, tell me this. If the noun form of the adjective "ironic" is "irony," why isn't the noun form of the adjective "sardonic" "sardony"?*

And should there be a comma between the last two words of the previous sentence?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled international nuclear crisis.

*The correct nounish manifestation is, of course, "sardonicism**," which makes sense, I suppose, since the meaning of "sardonic" is closely akin to that of "sarcasm," (he wrote, displaying not a smidgen of either in his demeanor).

**The best quote via a good googling of the word is this one: "For the record, yes, I too love sardonicism...now that I know what it is."

Day-um, Dubya...

There's a scene in John Carpenter's 1988 sci-fi cult classic (a euphemism for a movie that's so bad, it's actually good) They Live in which the character played by that consummate thespian and pro wrassler Rowdy Roddy Piper confronts the mean aliens intent on subjugating humanity and announces his intentions: I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a**. And I'm all out of bubblegum.

The US President's address to the UN General Assembly a few moments ago reminded me of that quote.

Mr. Bush made John Bolton look like a silver-tongued devil as he went through a murderer's row listing of primarily Islamic nations which foster, support, or otherwise allow themselves to be used to advance terrorism, including Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He spoke directly to the citizens of each nation, going over the heads, as it were, of their leadership...making it clear that it was that leadership that was at fault.

He addressed directly Iran's nuclear plans -- OK, its nookular plans -- stating plainly that (a) we were OK with the country having nuclear power, and (b) a program to develop nuclear weapons would not be tolerated. It'll be interesting to see how the Iranian president reacts in his address to the same body later this evening. I look for a measured response full of goodwill and diplomatic reciprocity. I also think the Houston Texans will win the next Super Bowl.

Equally interesting was what the President didn't talk about. He didn't express confidence in the United Nations as a body which could or would be instrumental in spreading democracy and liberty, or in fighting terrorism. He also didn't mention those partners-in-lunacy, Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro (a brilliant tactic, by the way, given Chavez's megalomania; he's got to be really torqued at the snub).

Couple of final, random observations:

• I wish the cameras had spent more time on the delegates during the speech. At one point early in the address, one of the delegates from Lebanon seemed to be giggling like a teenager immediately following Bush's mention of Hezbollah's hijacking of that nation for an unprovoked attack on Israel.


• Perhaps I've spent too much time reading the Bible (ha!), but the roll call of the nations (including complimentary comments directed toward the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates) struck me as being very similar to the accounts of Christ addressing the seven churches in the first couple of chapters of the book of Revelation, where the merits and shortcomings of each were detailed, and warnings (or rewards) were issued. I certainly don't believe that was intentional, or that the President or his speech writers would even recognize the similarity. Just sayin'...

Technorati tag: United Nations

Caution: Brains Working

The human brain is an amazing organ, and mysterious in its functioning.

Two cases in point. First, my new writer friend over at SanLeon.net, Deborah, shared via a comment thread that she once had a car that she was never able to unlock on the first try, even after ten years of ownership, because she always turned the key the wrong way. That confession caused me to wonder if there are specific cultural cues that cause our minds to equate "clockwise" with "unlock" (or whatever), or is this simply learned behavior? But if it's the latter, then how do we explain why an otherwise highly intelligent woman would have such a problem with such a minor detail?

I'm not picking on Deborah, by the way, as every one of us can come up with at least one example of a detail that we've been unable to master. I, for example, cannot position myself on the backside of a bolt and remember which way to turn it to loosen it. My brain just can't visualize that simple action.

Then there's the question of pattern recognition. Another blogging friend, Jim, detected an amusing acronym in the comment thread for an otherwise inconsequential post. Something in Jim's brain is apparently wired to try to interpret initial caps in a string of words, a skill that is no less impressive simply because we can't discern a use for it.

And so it goes. Some people can glance at a long block of text and the misspelled words leap out as if on fire (I'm that way, except when it comes to the titles of posts, which are apparently kryptonite to my super powers of detection). NASCAR and Formula One racers apparently can process scores of variables instantaneously and [generally] make the right decisions required to ensure their safety and competitiveness.

Ever think about the dynamics of the mental and physical interplay of standing at at your back door, arms full of groceries but with one hand just free enough to unlock the door? You've got a carton of eggs under one arm but that hand is also holding a 12 pack of Diet Dr. Pepper; in the other hand you've got a half gallon of milk and your rather fragile sunglasses, as well as the door keys. How does your brain communicate to your arms, hands, and even individual fingers just the right amount of pressure that needs to be applied to keep control of each item without overdoing it?

Well, I obviously have no insights as to how any of this works; I'm just endlessly amazed (and often amused) at the way we've been fearfully and wonderfully knit.

I'd like to hear your observations of similar Behavioral Mysteries (or "BMs" to Jim).

"Lebanon and the End Times"

Dr. Jim Denison has an informative essay up over at GodIssues.org about the new developments surrounding Israel and Lebanon. He gives a brief history and overview of Hezbollah and Hamas, the Muslim organizations who use terrorism as their chief weapons in pursuit of their goal of eradicating Israel as a nation, and then addresses the question of whether the events that are now unfolding in that part of the world herald the end times, as described in the Bible.

I'm not an eschatologist. Frankly, I've never understood why anyone would obsess over an apocalyptic timeline when it's pretty clear that none of us can predict the second coming. I suppose it's a harmless study, but I also don't see the benefit. Perhaps someone reading this can enlighten me.

Anyway, I tend to agree with Jim's leanings in the matter of Israel's role in the end times:

"Significant and valuable." I think that's a good -- if overly succinct -- description of modern day Israel. I agree, and I also believe strongly that Israel has the right to defend itself with all resources at its disposal against the same strain of terrorists who would do the same damage in America if given the opportunity.

I don't know. Maybe we are seeing "the beginning of the end" in the escalation of conflict between Israel and its myriad enemies. There's certainly enough lunatics in power in Iran to provide all the dangerous jokers the game can support. On a national level, I hope our country stays the course in providing Israel with the ally it deserves. On a personal level, I hope these events serve to motivate folks to figure out which side they're on from a spiritual perspective, because -- in the end -- borders and nationalities won't mean a thing.

As Dr. Denison puts it:

Riding Alone

I saw the old man on the tandem bicycle again this week, as I hurried through the neighborhood that marks the beginning of the end of my regular route. I suppose it’s his neighborhood, because that’s where I always see him, pedaling slowly on a bicycle that appears to be decades old, although well maintained.

And I pedal harder, as if doing so will clear the sweat that has unaccountably obscured my vision.

"Which way are the rafts headed?"

Bill Whittle strikes again.

He promises to be more prolific with his posts, as he begins to craft an entire book on his blog through the summer.

Regardless of which end of the political spectrum you place yourself, his insights are worth considering.

Hat tip: Jen over at Lintefiniel Musing

Much Obliged

Got a lull in the action -- I know, I'll blog!

I spent a couple of hours this morning at church, conducting interviews of people wanting financial assistance for luxury items like electricity and gas bills. We did what we could with the $1K that was allotted to us for the day. If we'd known that the woman asking for a big rent check was going to be a no-show (how does that happen?), we could have been more help to a couple of folks. As it was, we had to send them along to other agencies to seek the balance of what they needed to make it through another month.

I went from there to the Petroleum Club, where I sat in a leather armchair, was attended to by a bevy of waiters with thick accents, and dined on poblano cheese soup and chicken salad chile rellenos, in the company of bank presidents, oil company executives, and gentlemen ranchers who spend more for gasoline in a month than most of those above-mentioned folks spend for housing.

What's wrong with this picture?

Well, not a thing, in my humble opinion. Don't get me wrong -- the contrast was thought-provoking, and even sobering. But I don't think it requires much more response than to consider (1) my own blessings and (2) whether I'm being a good steward of them. It certainly didn't cause me to question whether those aforementioned swells (I'm not a member of the Petroleum Club, by the way, but my Durango does use its share of gasoline) would be judged harshly for being so prosperous while others weren't. In fact, I happened to know that some of those folks also give away more of their money than some of us make in a year.

In fact, the purpose of that lunch was to discuss with a client a new program by which people can set up permanent endowments to benefit our community by providing funds for things like scholarships, assistance to the disabled, and capital for the expansion of social services.

So, the surroundings may change, and the approach may be more, well, peripheral, but benevolence comes in many shapes and from many directions. Whether any of us are doing all that we should be doing is something that's between us and our Creator, and with a sincere question of "are we doing what we need to be doing?" we're probably on our way to assuring that, indeed, we are.

An Artistic Approach to Fighting Crime

I spend most of my waking hours deep in thought, figuring out ways to help mankind. This likely explains why my lawn looks the way it does, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, today I've been considering ways to bring high-speed freeway car chases to less violent conclusions. Yesterday, I watched on CNN as a SWAT team shot and killed a murder suspect who led them on a chase along a California freeway, and I wondered if there wasn't a better solution.

One answer would be to equip all vehicles with tamperproof, radio-activated engine kill-switches, and give the police the transmitters to control them (sort of like the transmitters that allow the firetrucks to remotely change traffic signals in order to clear the traffic ahead of them). This approach has many flaws, not the least of which is the potential -- OK, the certainty -- that those transmitters would fall into the wrong hands. [Like mine, for example. I'd love to have one to rein in drivers who I consider to be idiots or jerks, recognizing that the likely upshot would be that mine would occasionally be the only moving vehicle on the road. But, think about it. Wouldn't you just love to kill the engine of that guy who just ran a red light in front of you?]

Another drawback is lack of specificity. You wouldn't want a Matrix-like EMF transmitter that shut down everything within transmission range (I guess we'd need to make sure that the other police cars were shielded...but then what happens when one of them is stolen?). A solution would be to tie the receiver frequency to the vehicle identification number (and then to make the receiver into a transmitter as well, which would broadcast the VIN).

Well, this is all very complicated and not as artistically satisfying as the solution that I think should be given further consideration, and that is to employ technology that convinces the lawless driver that it's in his best interests to stop... without actually throwing up a physical barrier.

How to do this? Well, look no further than the timeless feud between Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, where the former cartoon character often endeavors to trick the latter into knocking himself senseless by running through a tunnel opening that is actually just some black paint thrown on a solid rock face. (Never mind the fact that Road Runner generally successfully disappears into the tunnel, whereas the coyote tries it and knocks himself silly. It's just a cartoon, folks.)

But the philosophy's the same: use a trompe l'oeil display to fool the offender into thinking he's about to smash into something unpleasant. Simple, huh?

The execution is the tricky part, but I've got that figured out, too. Enter one Julian Beever, the world-acclaimed practitioner of the art of anamorphic illusions. Beever's sidewalk art is simply amazing. He uses photorealistic illustration techniques combined with perspective to make paintings that seem to rise up from the sidewalk when viewed from just the right angle.

It's that latter phrase that we have to address in order to perfect this solution, as the apparent reality of the anamorphic illusion disappears as one gets too close to the image. But this is a problem that's easily solved with a radar gun and a laptop. All you have to do is mount the image on a large flat surface which is itself mounted on a hydraulically-controlled mechanism that tilts up and down. This mechanism would be towed and stationed across the highway where the offender was heading. As the vehicle approaches, the image comes into view. (Let's say that it looks like a deep ravine suddenly bisecting the highway, one that no criminal in his right mind would want to drive into. [Let's hope that Keanu Reeves never actually hijacks a bus.])

As the vehicle gets closer, the radar gun/GPS device plots the precise location with respect to the image, and sends a signal to the computer controlling the hydraulic angle-adjuster. Voila! You have an anamorphic illusion that maintains its effectiveness right up to the last second, where, presumably, the driver will either stop or attempt to turn around (at which point the coyote drops a huge net over the car...but that's another installment).

Of course, a more satisfying variation on this technique would be to actually have a massive barrier dragged across the highway, coupled with an anamorphic illusion that makes it look as though the highway is clear. But the creation of replacement illusions and tilting devices could get expensive.

OK, I've done my job. It's up to you guys to take this idea and run with it.

Whiplashed by the Throes of Creativity

Brian over at BeanQuest links to this great website wherein a guy named Dave Devrie uses children's sketches as the foundation for finished artwork. Apart from numerous violations of international child labor laws (just kidding, Dave...just kidding!), Dave's work is delightfully creative. It also led me to think about the creative process and, much to the dismay of those who have some aberrant need to read every word published on the Gazette, to also write about it.

Primary vs. Secondary Creativity: A Brief History

During my previous life as a corporate drone, one of my peripheral responsibilities was to do college recruiting. This involved attempts to lure unsuspecting seniors into careers in corporate dronery, specifically in the area of accounting. Thrill-a-minute, adrenaline-pumping oil and gas accounting, to be exact. Our main competitors in these endeavors -- aside from the other major oil companies -- was the public accounting sector. I won't go into the sordid little details of the depths we plumbed in our attempts to lessen the competition's sheen, but we do need to focus for a moment on one strategy of particular relevance to the topic at hand.

The fellow who coordinated our on-campus efforts was named Joe A. Watson (the "A," we were told, meant "Accounting," in order to distinguish him from a fellow employee named Joe M. Watson, for whom the "M" meant "Machine" as he worked in the IT Department. Man, those were craaaaazy times.), and Joe was one of the all-time great lateral thinkers. He probably still is, but I lost track of him years ago. Joe came up with the idea of contrasting the work we did in private sector accounting with that in public accounting by classifying our modus operandus as "primary creativity" while those other guys were stuck in the obviously tedious and inferior "secondary creativity." (Note that we never realized at the time that there were actually technical definitions for primary and secondary creativity, the internet being only a vague concept, and the thought of doing any actual research being laughable. And it's a good thing that our audiences were as ignorant as us, because in Maslow's system, secondary creativity was superior to primary. But, I digress.)

In Joe's construct, primary creativity (what we did) involved being the First Responder to problem situations. That in itself was a bit loose and difficult to prettify, so we instead focused on secondary creativity, which we defined as something along the lines of taking the work someone else did and fooling around with it. The obvious example (if you were an accounting student) was auditing, where Company A's drones did all the exciting heavy-lifting, and the public sector auditors came in after the fact and <yawn> double-checked their work. Who in their right minds would want to do the latter -- and for 70 hours a week, at that -- when you could work in the comfortable confines of a Modern Corporate Office surrounded by the finest in Corporate Art and make Primarily Creative decisions until the cows came home, or 4:30 p.m., whichever came first.

Real World Creativity

While our "primary vs. secondary creativity" smackdown gained limited traction (which is just as well, as oil went to $8/barrel and our budget for new hires went to zero), I continue to believe that there's some value in considering that dichotomy, albeit without the judgmental baggage we attempted to hang on it.

In point of fact, I consider myself to fall into the camp of those who are better at secondary creativity than primary. Frankly, I rarely have an original thought -- even recognizing that in the cosmic scheme of things, nobody has original thoughts. But when given an inkling of an idea, or a proposal, or a snapshot...I think I'm pretty good at putting meat on the bone, of moving the ball across the goal line, of driving in the nail...in other words, of abusing every tired metaphor in the book.

I also think this has an analogy in the blogosphere. I even wrote about it, way back in Ought-Three, in this widely unread post in which I classified every blogger in the world as either a Linker or a Writer, and then proceeded to attribute primary creativity to Writers and secondary creativity to Linkers. It's all hogwash, of course, but sometimes you find yourself engaging in gross generalizations just for the heck of it.

And in Conclusion...

I've long since forgotten the original point I hoped to make in this post, which, if nothing else, confirms my status as a Secondary Creativitist. But if I had a point, it would likely be along the lines of suggesting that you might want to think about the concept of primary and secondary creativity (couched in the definitions I've used, not Maslow's loftier and more legitimate ones) and see if they somehow apply to your own strengths. The idea here is to get comfortable with your creative gifts, regardless of where they fall along the spectrum. The product of creativity is uniformly pleasing and helpful, regardless of its origins and I, for one, would like to celebrate it.

Risky Business

It's a mystery as to how the tree limb came to rest in that odd position, sneaking out of the snow at a 15° angle, perhaps three feet of exposed wood and who knows how much buried. Another six inches of snow would have safely covered it; six inches less would have made it more obvious. The limb was stripped of bark, smooth and as big around as a man's leg...the part of the leg just below the knee joint. The upper part of the tibia, to be more anatomically specific, because sometimes specificity matters.

I suppose that we all undertake activities that others might consider to be risky, and we mentally chide them for being so timid. Perhaps we've done those activities so often and so successfully that they are no longer risky in any practical sense or we simply don't view them as dangerous. Or we've grown comfortable with the "worst case scenario."

Only thing is, the worst case scenario is something that, well, happens to someone else.

Tom and I had been skiing together for the better part of a decade. He's a better skier than me -- unlike him, I have no natural athletic ability -- but not by much, and we've been able to keep one another challenged but not humiliated. (You guys may understand that better than the girls.)

Over the past few years we've developed a fondness for skiing between the groomed runs, which, if you've spent any time on a ski slope you'll understand to mean "through the trees." We're not fast in absolute terms, but we are quick and [generally] precise, the latter being measured by some arbitrary scale that involves the avoidance of contact with immovable objects. We both enjoy the thrill of picking out a line through a forest and improvising when that line proves to be impractical. The trees are usually much less crowded -- sometimes, our tracks are the only evidence of human intrusion -- and a bit less noisy (we would confess to being skiers of the shouting persuasion).

And so it was that on our first morning of skiing at Lake Tahoe's Heavenly Mountain Resort we naturally gravitated (clumsy pun intended) to the line of trees separating two intermediate runs named Liz's and Jackpot (the latter actually has an exclamation point but that's too cute to type), and another line separating Liz's from a black diamond run called Express Line.

After three runs, we were getting warmed up (meaning that I was growing accustomed to falling) and also getting our bearings on a mountain which was completely new to us. (As a parenthetical note of self-defense, let me say that my propensity for falling is not my fault, not really. In its natural pose, my right foot makes a 45° angle to whichever direction I'm facing, and I couldn't stand straight and touch my knees together if my life depended on it. These peculiarities are simply symptoms of the way my bones developed as I grew up, and, frankly, it's amazing that I can ski [or run or bike] at all. Just wanted you to know that.) The sky was that deep blue color you can see only at 10,000 feet of altitude; the snow was packed and occasionally icy, with the last deposit more than a week old. It made for fast and sometimes tricky maneuvering.

Does God have an opinion about our risky activities? Are we exercising faith or are we failing to use the intelligence He blessed us with when we undertake potentially dangerous business? Is it OK to pray for safety before setting out on such things? How should we react when the answer to such prayers is "no"?

Tom and I alternate leading ski runs. It's generally easier for the one following, if only because fewer decisions are required. We're close enough in ability that if I see that he can make a certain turn or clear a certain obstacle, I'm confident that I can as well...all other things being equal. Sometimes the leader can warn the follower about a potential hazard, but that's rare. We try not to follow so closely as to lose escape routes.

I'm leading the fourth run down the mountain, and I'm beginning to exercise a bit more command over that wayward right ski that often seems to have a mind of its own. Sure, I've fallen four times already, but all but one came in the middle of groomed runs, not in the trees. Anyway, like I said, I'm leading...but Tom's not following. He wants to follow, but the newness of the runs has caused us to periodically lose contact. At one point, I see him on the other side of Liz's; he's in the trees, but not the same ones I'm in. I yell at him, he slows up and we regroup. This scene plays out a couple of times. It's not our usual mode, although it's also not a problem.

The run named Liz's winds to the left but if you keep going straight, you find yourself in a steep chute called Sky Canyon. It's smooth and icy...and for some reason, we've never noticed that we've missed the bottom part of Liz's and instead ended up on a black diamond run. Did I mention that the trail signs at Heavenly are sometimes confusing? But that's neither here nor there. What's relevant is that on this particular run I'm approaching the end of the trees on the right side of Liz's, and I've already decided to pull up once I'm in the clear to contemplate continuing onto Sky Canyon.

As I approach the open area, I spot no obstacles that serve as a warning to slow down, so I keep my ski tips pointed downhill. Just as I'm starting to relax and prepare to turn to the left and start slowing up, I see a tree limb inexplicably coming up from the shaded snow, the thick broken end pointed left and rising to a level approximately even with the ankle of my boot. I reacted -- twitched, spasmed, whatever -- and somehow willed my left ski tip up over the limb at the last second. I instantly realized I had dodged a bullet, so to speak, and my heart was pounding as I came to a stop some twenty yards away and down to the left. I turned around to see if Tom had stayed on my trail, or if he was again improvising somewhere else.

The Heavenly ski area is a monster: 4,800 acres spanning two states (Nevada and California); a max top-bottom descent of more than 5 miles; 92 runs and 30 lifts; 7 on-mountain lodges. More than a million people ski at Heavenly each year, and its lifts can carry more than 50,000 people per hour to the tops of its peaks.

Heavenly also has a fully-equipped medical clinic complete with x-ray machines at its base. The clinic is associated with South Lake Tahoe's Barton Memorial Hospital, and it has its own television ad campaign. Something along the lines of "we hope you don't need us, but if you do..."

I turned and looked back uphill just in time to see Tom left leg slam into the protruding limb. His momentum lofted him headlong while the limb sent him into a 360° flip. His skis flew off somewhere around the 90° point. He hit the ground -- not hard, thanks to his forward momentum -- and he slid down toward the point where I was standing. He was clutching his leg even as he slid to a stop. I yelled, pointlessly but without thinking, bounced off my skis and ran to him.

There's no point in laboring through the rest of the day and the week. My friend had sustained a compression fracture of his tibia. In effect, the bone had been driven up, past the knee into the femur, which sheared off one side of the tibia, and sent a fracture line all the way across it. The laceration of the tree limb against his skin was not serious but it had the unexpected and unwelcome effect of delaying the necessary surgery until it heals, which will be another week. In the meantime, he has to live with a broken leg, and the understanding that he will likely never ski again.

It was his only fall of the day.

This shouldn't be about me, but I can't help it. There are so many "what ifs?" Some of them I couldn't control -- What if he'd been just 12" higher or lower on the trail than I was? What if he'd been closer and had seen what I did to avoid the limb? But some of them still haunt me, justified or not. Here's the biggie: What if I'd had the presence of mind to yell out a warning to him?

Skiing is an inherently dangerous sport. You have to sign a piece of paper acknowledging that fact before you can even rent a pair of skis. At times it seemed as if half of South Lake Tahoe was wearing a cast, a brace, a bandage. The emergency clinic had five injuries before 9:00 a.m. on that Wednesday. Theoretically, the mountain doesn't open until 9:00 a.m. In the global scheme of things, a broken leg is not a matter of life and death.

But, I gotta tell you, it sure seemed like it at the time. Still does, for that matter. That was Tom's last ski run...and mine, too.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammo

I realize that we've had quite a few recent posts on the Gazette dealing with guns, but I hope you'll indulge me at least one more.

Someone who I consider to be a friend, even though I've never met him, sent me an email last week in which he commented on the potential inconsistency between my faith in God and my plans to get a concealed handgun permit for protection, primarily while my wife and I are riding our tandem bike in remote areas. He described his satisfaction at how he'd successfully relied on God's protection while working in various hostile and hazardous environments.

I didn't take his observations in a negative way, nor did he mean them to be. Friends can raise questions like this without damaging relationships. And I have to admit that I have occasionally engaged in some introspection about my motivation and about what kind of message I might be sending to others. But I've never really felt that I'm either lacking in faith or betraying it by owning firearms and having them available for protection.

Perhaps this is a clumsy analogy, but I carry a spare tire in my Durango. I would never set out on a long trip without it, yet I've never used it in all the years I've owned the car. If I left it at home, went on a drive and had a blowout, I'd feel pretty dumb. We could argue until the cows come home about whether the flat tire was due to my lack of faith or something else, but I'd still be hitching a ride back to town to retrieve the spare.

That's how I view carrying a handgun in certain situations: it's a precaution that I likely will never need or use, but I'd feel pretty silly (or worse) if the need arose and I was without it. This goes double when I consider that I'm responsible not only for my own safety but also for that of my wife.

In any event, I think it's important to understand that I grew up around and with guns; I understand and respect them, but I don't revere them. A firearm is a tool, albeit a very powerful one. Consequently, my decision to buy a new one for concealed carry purposes carries about the same psychic weight as deciding to buy a new lawnmower. I realize that this attitude will be completely alien to some who are reading this, but that's more than likely due to the differences in our upbringings rather than a chasm between our respective moral, ethical or religious outlooks.

I do think it's important that each person work this out for themselves. For Christians, it's also important to consider the words of the apostle Paul, found in his letter to the Corinthian church, where he observes that while "all things" are lawful, they're not all edifying...some can be stumbling blocks to others. This, too, needs to be worked out with God, but the thinking about it is a good first step.

In closing, I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy who appeared before God after drowning in a flood. The guy had waved off a helicopter, then a boat, stating that he was relying on God to save him. He was ticked off, accusing God of ignoring his prayers for a miraculous rescue. God asked, simply, who do you think sent the helicopter and the boat?

$60/Barrel Misers?

I had lunch today with an executive of one of the larger foundations serving our area and our conversation turned to the state of philanthropy in an economic climate where our community is the beneficiary of high oil and gas prices. I opined that these must be the best of times in the world of philanthropy and nonprofit organizations and his response was that it just wasn't so.

He said that the foundation had not seen any signficant increase in donors or donated amounts since the runup in oil prices. Further, the general population of nonprofit organizations in our area were still struggling to raise money, just as they always had. We discussed the most obvious examples of Midland's United Way campaign falling a few thousand dollars short in its just-completed campaign, while the Odessa United Way met its much smaller goal by just a few thousand dollars.

I'm having a hard time reconciling those very credible observations with what I see in the way of proliferation of new Hummers and Escalades on our local streets and $300,000+ homes under construction and packed parking lots at Best Buy and the tony new restaurants in town. A lot of people are making more money than they've ever made before in their lives. So why isn't that fact translating into a more obvious increase in financial support in the areas that make us stronger as a community?

I've got three theories, none of which I can prove. First, it could be that the philanthropy is being conducted outside our community, perhaps at various universities and colleges around the state and country. Perhaps those investments seem more glamorous, somehow, than an equal grant to the local Meals on Wheels program.

Then again, maybe the beneficiaries of this -- dare I say it? -- windfall are "hunkering down," determined not to squander their new wealth as in past boom times. If this is the case, and I hope I'm wrong, then it's evidence of what I think are misplaced priorities.

I'm not going to try to tell someone they have a moral obligation to fund a daycare program instead of buying a new Corvette, and I won't argue that the latter purchase doesn't play some small role in keeping our economy healthy. But it should be obvious that if everyone makes that same decision, our community will eventually suffer as a result.

Finally, maybe there's the feeling that $60 oil and $8 gas means that no one in Midland needs the help. I won't dignify that fallacy with a response.

Much that's good about our community was built on the generosity of people who felt it important to give away their money. Interestingly, not all of those people were wealthy. There are plenty of scholarship funds, for example, set up by teachers, coaches, small business owners, and retirees who lived lives of modesty and humility and viewed their stewardship of whatever resources they'd been given as being best fulfilled by sharing those resources.

It saddens me to think that this is somehow changing, that there's not a new generation of philanthropists stepping up to continue the work of community-strengthening that's long been the hallmark of west Texas. I hope I'm wrong; I hope that what we're perceiving is simply a lull, a catching of the breath before a great release of funds into the economy of giving.

I hope that, but I'm not confident. One of the last things my lunch companion expressed was a perception -- and keep in mind that he's an expert in these things -- that the quality of volunteers to serve on the boards of various nonprofits was declining to the point where some organizations were experiencing significant problems. Too many board members viewed their service as either a favor to the organization, or simply something to pad their resumes.

Such stinginess with one's time and expertise coupled with financial stinginess paints a disturbing picture about the future of our quality of life.

Technorati tag: Philanthropy

Roadmaps for Illegal Immigrants

A Tucson-based organization called Humane Borders has prepared detailed maps of certain remote portions of the US/Mexico border to assist illegal immigrants in their journeys. The maps show, among other things, the locations of water stations and rescue beacons (which may be activated by people in distress to attract the attention of the US Border Patrol), and the extent of cell phone coverage in the mapped areas.

The group has also prepared and will distribute warning posters describing the dangers of attempting to cross in these remote areas. (For a graphic description of those dangers, read Urrea's The Devil's Highway, a review of which is here.) These posters (and the maps, for that matter) also pinpoint known locations of previous deaths related to attempts to cross the border, presumably as a warning to those contemplating a similar undertaking. Somewhat ironically, the posters also show the estimated walking time to cover the required distance.

I don't question the righteous intentions of the folks behind this project -- they want to save human lives -- but I do believe they're seriously naive about what it will accomplish. For example, setting aside the fact that the group is facilitating an illegal activity, here are a few flaws in their approach:

• It's unlikely that most illegals will have either the skill or the equipment to effectively use these maps; I doubt that most have ever seen a compass, much less used one. In any event, they'll likely be relying on a coyote or guide (often with disastrous results, as Urrea points out in the above-linked book).


• Even if you have a map and the skill to use it, that shouldn't give you the confidence of surviving the hellish trek through the Sonoran desert in high summer. How many people will overestimate their survival abilities based on having a map? How many can actually assimilate the reality of walking 40 miles over brutal terrain in 100° temperatures -- at night?


• The posters are designed to educate and warn folks about that previous point, but how many of the immigrants (a) can read, or (b) will view them as anything other than American propaganda designed to keep them from the Land of Opportunity? In any event, I doubt such posters will remain posted very long considering the huge amounts of cash accruing to the organized criminals engaged in smuggling human cargo across the border.

The real problem is, of course, the last thing we need to do is provide a terrorist with resources designed to make undetected entry into our country easier. A terrorist who, by the way, will surely have both the skills and the equipment needed use those resources.

In a pre-9/11 world, we might just shake our heads at the well-intentioned but ultimately misguided efforts of these folks. Today, however, the stakes are considerably higher, and the unintended consequences could literally reverberate through our nation.

Tip: GOPUSA's The Loft

Technorati tags: Illegal Immigration | Humane Borders

Why blog?

Contrary to what some who give me way too much credit believe, when I posted this a couple of days ago, I had nothing in mind in terms of placing any responses into an overarching context. I was simply curious about how fellow bloggers viewed their own work.

But, I never cease to be amazed at how the intricate tracings of God's hand form pictures of surpassing beauty and joyful symmetry out of what I initially perceive to be random and unrelated occurrences.

And so another picture began to come into focus when I opened an email last night and read these words:

The identity of the writer isn't important to the telling of this story, and I wouldn't reveal it anyway out of respect for him, but he's been a regular visitor around these parts for a while. I can't begin to express how humbling it is to read something like he wrote.

In a subsequent email he shared with me the exact thing that I wrote that caused this epiphany of sorts...and it was almost a throwaway comment that I frankly had no recollection of making. But it made an impact on him.

Which brings us in a big circle back to the original point of this post. When I asked other bloggers how they defined blogging success, I didn't anticipate that God was going to reveal to me what my answer needed to be to that question.

That answer is similar to what many of the respondents wrote: success is not measured in numbers of readers, but in the impact made upon them, whether in terms of stimulating conversation, providing encouragement, issuing challenges, etc.

I encourage other bloggers -- especially those who are seeking to share their faith and spiritual perspectives, no matter how covertly -- to remember that the ideal audience for your blog can number as few as one, as long as it's the "right one." Fortunately, God seems to have a way of taking care of that aspect, so we don't have to worry about it.

In addition, the thought that our simplest words can have great impact on others ought to instill in us a sense of great humility and awe: humility in that none of us is wise enough to fully anticipate and understand how we can either encourage or hurt with our words...awe in how wonderfully God's grace can bend the results of those words to His perfect will.

For me, the words of my friend -- whom I've never met, by the way, and perhaps never will, this side of heaven -- encourage me to keep on keeping on. I share them in the hope that you, too, will be likewise encouraged. Who knows? You might just open an amazing and unexpected email tonight...

Brother Ben's Traveling Salvation Show

Because of the veritable groundswell of demand (OK...two people, but that's a significant percentage of my regular readership), I'm going to complete the post that I began yesterday morning. It's better that I took a little time to think about it anyway. I've got a different perspective now than I did right after the event.

We attended Ben Stein's lecture Thursday night at Midland College, courtesy of the Davidson Distinguished Lecture Series. For those readers not in Midland, this program invites generally well-known speakers and provides free admission to the public.

You can read Stein's creds on his website if you're not already familiar with him. Given his success in a wide range of endeavors, labeling him a "Renaissance Man" is probably not hyperbole, at least with respect to the breadth of his intellectual achievements. But whatever it was that Ben once staked his claim to fame on, he's nowadays first and foremost an entertainer. Sure, he's got a background in law and economics and was a presidential speech-writer and was active in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, and his conservative take on most* things political and economic give him a broad and enthusiastic base of support from those on the right of center...like, say, the typical audience in Midland, Texas.

What he provides is an entertaining and often humorous monologue, filled with easily digested sound bites and a lot of "motherhood and apple pie" homilies that we've heard many times before. I suppose that it's encouraging to hear such things from someone who rubs shoulders with the "elite" in Hollywood and Malibu (he and Babs apparently do their grocery shopping in the same store), but I can't help wondering if and why those things have any more relevance when coming from his lips than from the pulpits and coffee shops and cafés and living rooms all around our city and our part of the country. Really, the adage about preaching to the saved was never more appropriate than Thursday night.

Stein does know how to hook an audience. In our case, he began by referring to Midland as "the last refuge of the sane American" and the place "where I'm moving when I retire." Responding to the warnings he was given about Midland being a treeless landscape, he said "people are the trees; they give you shade and shelter."

I'm sure he was suitably impressed by the pre-lecture reception in his honor at The Racquet Club, a lovely venue that I suspect 90% of Midlanders have never set foot inside. And I'm sure he was gratified by the applause that frequently interrupted his talk, in response to comments like...

• Poverty does not yield to paternalism; it yields to free market capitalism and democracy.
• If the people who run the New York Times could see the peace of mind on your faces, it would drive them insane.
• Major media and Hollywood are having a negative effect on our determination to defeat the enemy that wants to destroy America.
• The US military can't save America by itself. Someone more than likely died for us today in Iraq or Afghanistan. What did we do today to deserve that honor?
• Tony Blair says that the simple measure of a country is by counting how many people want in, and how many want out. As far as I can tell, the only people who want out of America are Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin. I've offered to help Barbra move, but so far, she's ignored me.
• After Katrina, the media rioted...in it's hatred for Bush.

He paid a well-deserved tribute to those serving in America's military, to the "first responders," to school teachers, to Laura Bush and to her mom (who was in the audience). He contrasted the heroism of various well-known actors in WWII to the noticeable absence of similar stories today.

He devoted a few minutes to describing the dangers and life-threatening situations faced by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. His remarks were made uncomfortable by the fact that we were sitting next to a friend whose son was shipping out to Iraq -- and, specifically, to Baghdad -- as a combat soldier the very next morning.

Stein left us with the simple admonition that we should and could find meaning in life by doing things for other people. At the end, he got a standing ovation.

But, a couple of days after the event, I can't help wondering...what did we learn? What was accomplished? I guess I was hoping for more...more facts, more analogies, more historical perspective...to help us create a better and more satisfying context within which to view current events and economic trends. Perhaps he feels the need to "dumb down" his remarks for general audiences such as this. Or, perhaps, Ben Stein is just another actor -- albeit much better educated and informed than 99% of his fellows -- who happens to have a worldview and values that closely parallel those of the audiences in his chosen venues.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing Ben Stein for getting large sums of money to say things that his audience wants to hear. It's a basic matter of supply and demand, and as an economist he understands that as well as anyone on the planet. I simply want to make sure to remind myself that letting someone else do our thinking for us is a dangerous strategy, and while we need cheerleaders, the real action is on the playing field. Thursday night's pep talk was entertaining but I didn't leave better prepared for the game.

For additional, and differing, perspectives on his lecture, be sure to visit Wallace's post at Streams (if the permalink doesn't work, look for the 9/23/05 post), and the article in the Midland Reporter-Telegram. The one quibble I have with the latter article is in the use of "hundreds" to describe the number of people in attendance. That's technically correct, but conveys a different impression than if the more accurate "thousands" had been used.

*Perhaps the most interesting thing he revealed was during the Q&A that followed his prepared remarks, where he was asked about alternatives to the current income tax system. He espouses something like a VAT, but also specifically calls for the continuation of a progressive form of whatever tax system is used. In other words, he believes that the "rich" should pay proportionately more in taxes than the "poor." Given that many economists who hold political views similar to Stein's seem to agree that it's the wealthy who create the jobs and power the economic engine, I was somewhat surprised by his statement.

Technorati tag: Ben Stein

Life in America, post 9/11

I'm not really a very contemplative guy. I tend not to dwell on the past, and I spend a lot more energy dealing with the "whats" in life than the "whys." Don't ask me why; I just told you that I'm not very contemplative.

So it came as a surprise to me when late yesterday I realized that the time I was happiest and most content to be an American was the period immediately following September 11, 2001. Even as I could scarcely bear to consider the vulnerabilities that had been exposed by the horrifying events of 9/11 and the pain that had been generated by the crimes of that date, I was never prouder of the unity and -- OK, I'll say it -- the love Americans showed for one another, beginning at Ground Zero and radiating outward, across state lines and socioeconomic categories and political alignments and religious barriers.

For one brief and shining moment, we truly were one nation, united and indivisible, with the collective will and ability and vision to accomplish whatever needed to be done.

How far we've fallen in four years. Even though we're again seeing the strength of the American spirit in the aftermath of Katrina, it's no longer the dominant voice. No, the dominant voice is now uglier, more strident. Whatever unity we once had has been shattered into a million agendas based on the petty need to prove that we're smarter, stronger, more perceptive, wittier or just plain better than everyone else who doesn't agree with every jot and tittle of our arbitrary tests of dogma.

It's not that I think we need to agree on everything. That would, in fact, probably be a terrible thing, because none of us has all the correct answers. What I'm growing weary of is how badly we treat one another while we're disagreeing.

I'm including myself in that indictment, by the way.

God help us as a nation and a people when even a 9/11-magnitude tragedy isn't enough reason to unite.

[By the way, Jim does a much better job than me at articulating the situation and the first steps to dealing with it.]

What would you pack?

My wife and I were talking a couple of days ago about the evacuation of New Orleans and we wondered what we would have packed if we had been living there and had only a couple of hours to load and leave.

It's a deceptively simple question, and the answer depends on the assumptions you make about how long you think you'll be gone, and to what you think you'll be returning. My packing list would be different, I think, if I knew that anything I left would likely be lost.

This exercise is not intended to be a blog meme. There are too many who had to do it in real life to make it seem a cavalier and trivial exercise. In fact, I feel a little conflicted even posting this so soon after it was so real to so many people. At the same time, it is a good way to assess one's priorities, and, perhaps, do a little emergency preparation of your own in case you ever have to go through something similar.

Here's what I think I'd pack if I had two hours and believed that all I'd have left would be what I took with me (this list is not prioritized):

• Family photo albums
• Computers (desktop & laptop), external hard drive & CD burner, wireless base station and the last six months of backup CDs/DVDs.
• iPods, cell phone, digital camera with tripod and PDA, all with chargers
• Installer disks for ten most critical applications
• A packing box of books chosen from various shelves throughout the house, representing either sentimental favorites or comfortable "friends" (or essential reference books)
• DVD collection
• Abbye, her crate, medicine and food
• Running shoes, hiking boots, cycling shoes, Camelbak, bike helmet
• Ski parka, gloves and goggles
• Tandem bike (assuming we had the 20 minutes it takes to assemble the rack and mount the bike)
• Main tool bag; bicycle tool box
• Suitcases (2) full of underwear, socks, t-shirts, jeans and shorts
• Essential toiletries (razor, toothbrush, etc.)
• A few pieces of artwork with value in excess of insurability, or sentimental value, as well as the few pieces of jewelry I own (mostly watches that I don't wear)
• Sterling silver set, mostly provided by friends and family as wedding and anniversary gifts
• All the blank checks in inventory at that point
• Both handguns and ammo
• My favorite pillow!
• Insurance policies and most recent 401K and bank statements

Looking back through my list, I see that my priorities are to take those things that would help me support my family, help us survive unexpected crises (as if losing everything else wasn't enough), and bring us some comfort in memories.

Things I don't think I'd try to pack include (too bulky, easily replaced, or just not that important):

• Furniture, TVs or home theater components
• Guitar or keyboard
• Paper copies of business files (other than those few listed above)
• My single bike (we can both ride the tandem, together or individually, as needed)
• Scuba gear
• Power tools

Now, before you slam me for not packing any of my wife's stuff, I've made the assumption that she's simultaneously packing our second car. I know there'd be some overlap in our lists (Abbye, for example), but she'd also grab a bunch of things I'd never think about. I count on her for that, you know.

If you want to get down to the nitty-gritty, do this exercise but give yourself ten minutes.

Slow Response? It's all relative.

It's now been a full week since the full impact of Katrina was first perceived. Seven days...168 hours, give or take. Let's assess where we now find ourselves:

• The broken levees in NOLA have been repaired and floodwaters are now be pumped out of the city.


• Practically every willing evacuee (and many unwisely unwilling) has been taken out of the city to safer, drier ground.


• Those evacuees have been staged, processed and distributed to havens across the country, havens established in many cases by nothing more complicated than citizens in a community getting together and deciding to offer their resources to help.


• Millions of meals have been served, millions of pounds (if not tons) of supplies have been collected and delivered, millions of dollars collected to pay for it all, and more.


• The federal government has created new programs to insure individual losses, and ensure individual jobs and homes.

It's been pointed out that Katrina's devastation affected 90,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of Kansas. The number of people devastated is more than a million. The cleanup and reconstruction will extend for years, if not decades. Given a challenge of this magnitude, I'm just wondering how much more effective and how much quicker the response should have been?

The Bible tells us that God created the universe and all it contains in seven days (including the debriefing and paperwork). Despite our protestations to the contrary, we're not God, but we've done a pretty darn good job in the past seven days, all things considered.

Technorati tag: Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts

Pink or Grey?

Bill Whittle doesn't post very often, but when he does, his work is, well, stirring. His latest post went up at 6:52 a.m. today and has already generated 160 comments. Read it to see why.

Tip o'the hat to Jen over at Lintefiniel Musings for noticing Bill's essay.

Corporate Philanthropy

Jen over at Prepare to Meet Your Bakerina* is a bit exercised over her employer's perceived stinginess in the area of contributing to Katrina relief efforts. She brings up some interesting points for discussion in a wide-ranging post, but I want to focus on the issue of corporate philanthropy.

First, when we talk about corporations donating money, whose money are they donating? After all, a corporation is just a legal construct, and its purposes are carried out through employees on behalf of its owners, also known as stockholders. Thus, decisions about spending money for any purpose need to be made in accordance with the wishes of the stockholders.

Thus the next logical question is what do the stockholders want? I assure you that while there's a whole laundry list of answers to this question, the first item on every list is this: to make money. A corporation formed for business purposes necessarily has as its primary goal the creation of enough profit to (1) pay its bills and (2) reinvest in its business in order to make more profit. And it's a fact of life that donations for charitable purposes don't contribute directly to those purposes.

So, why is it that corporations continue to donate billions of dollars in cash, goods and services each year, if there's no direct contribution to the bottom line?

Two reasons, at least. First, each of those donating corporations has determined that even if there's no direct contribution to its business goals, there is an indirect contribution, and it's significant even if it's also unmeasurable. The company has determined that customers will view it more favorably and thus tend to buy its product or services more often; that the communities where it does business are likely to be more cooperative with its business proposals and operations; that its employees will feel better about their jobs and thus be more productive. There's also the pressure brought about when one's business competitor donates.

The second reason that corporations get involved in philanthropy is that its stakeholders -- stockholders and employees -- demand it. The bigger the corporation becomes and the more diversified its owners, the less impact these demands will have, but they're still real. Generally speaking, the stockholders will also have a stronger voice in this area than the employees. Of course, in this era of 401Ks heavily weighted with employer stock, employees are also stockholders.

Now, I don't know what has guided Jen's employer's decision to go light on its contribution to relief efforts. It could be that it doesn't feel any competitive pressure to donate or that it has no employees or operations in the stricken area that would be shored up by donations. It might have a donation budget that is generous in a predetermined area and which can't be adapted to meet a new demand without hurting prior commitments. It might even feel that its stockholders and employees have the responsibility to make donations on their own, feeling that the corporation's primary objective is to make money on their behalf so they can continue to do so.

Regardless of the reason(s), Jen's employer is taking a risk by appearing to be less than generous. The following is taking from an article in the spring, 2003 newsletter of the Committee to Encourage Corporate Philanthropy:

I suspect that if Jen and her fellow employees were to make known their desire for a more generous corporate contribution, and couch that in terms that addressed some of the preceding issues, they might actually succeed in generating some extra funds for the relief efforts.

*I find myself jumping over to read PTMYB more and more frequently, so I've elevated it to "Neighborhood" status on the Gazette's blogroll. Jen and I don't really have much in common other than the ability to not take ourselves too seriously but, sometimes, that's more than enough. Besides, she was such a good neighbor during Blogathon, and it's always important to have good neighbors who are also good cooks! ;-)

Technorati tag: Corporate Philanthropy

Misconception about National Guard's Mission

A letter to the editor published in today's local newspaper is an example of the kinds of misconceptions floating around in the climate of stress: