Pepe Day 2 Day

2004-10-19T05:14:00.000-07:00

My co-worker, an undecided voter, was visibly disturbed by the glaring inaccuracy facing him. Document one detailed the 2003 federal law banning Partial Birth Abortion (PBA). Document two contained John Kerry's remarks from the second Presidential debate where he defended his vote against the ban.

PBA is an unbelieveably gruesome procedure, one that makes people who hear a straightforward (description) of it recoil. It's a procedure that in 1997 the American Medical Association declared is "not medically indicated."

In the second debate Kerry defended his no vote by saying, "... you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother ...."

While it's true that the PBA ban includes no exception for the health of the mother (which, by the way, would create a loophole big enough to navigate an aircraft carrier through), the law clearly provides an exception for the life of the mother.

Kerry's statement is a verbal sleight of hand. By including "life of the mother" language, Kerry gains more support for his position. Pairing this language with "health of the mother" language provides Kerry a degree of cover in case anyone challenges his "facts."

But my co-worker wasn't buying it. Kerry's misuse of the "life of the mother" language had seized my colleague's attention.

Kerry's sleight of hand reveals why Kennedy is the straight-talking Senator from Massachusetts. It's also one more reason why Kerry is unfit for duty.

2004-05-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

Recently, I wrote to a friend and told him how overwhelmed I'm feeling. It's interferred with my writing to the point that I quit writing my humor column at The Cheers. So, this post is going to be about me and my response to portions of his letter.

There are some really annoying parts of my personality that I've grown sick of over my 20 years of adulthood. I have a tendency to get an idea and go gung ho with it for a period of time. Then, as the novelty wears off and the activities related to it become a grind, I find it hard to keep up. Also, my life is hectic off and on as various issues come up with being a father and a husband and an employee. Then, of course, my daughter's disability provides plenty of other things I do or could be doing to try to help her overcome some of her limitations.

So, right now I am in the phase where I have just gotten overwhelmed and I'm in a frump.

And I'm feeling worthless. And I wonder why I can't have success. And I wonder why I care that I can't have success. And I spend a lot of time not caring about much of anything.

And I get selfish and act like everyone ought to look out for me.

And I keep wondering where is God's direction for my life.

I've read things that people have written (The Four Spiritual Laws) that say God has a wonderful plan for my life. And they make it sound like there is a plan that is more than just getting saved. Like there is meaning and purpose and I'll feel fulfilled and know exactly what I am supposed to be doing.

Boy. I've never felt that feeling very much.

Actually, I felt it when we first found out about my daugter's cerebral palsy. We adopted her without it being evident that she had CP (that probably sounds odd, but CP, even a version that is pretty severe, does not necessarily become apparent even by 6 months), and we found out at 9 months that she had CP.

At that point I felt a real presence of God's purpose in my life and figured that God was placing a burden in my life that would define a major portion of my role in life.

The problem is that the feeling lasted for about six months. Then, I still had the burden, but the sense of purpose was gone. I found out that I had no particular interest in the sub-culture of the world of people who are disabled.

I'll try to explain that more precisely. We have a friend whose son is disabled in a way similar to our daughter. This lady, who I don't believe is a Christian, seems to revel in doing things related to her son's disability. She seems to have a real purpose in life and approaches the things she has to do for her son with a bigger picture in mind. For example, there is a type of therapy that is available in California but not here. She is taking her son there this summer for the therapy and indicated to us recently that maybe she could use this experience as a first step to getting that type of therapy provided in our area. Another example is that she and her husband made major renovations to their house with the idea that some day several people with CP could live there with her son.

In some ways I envy her zeal for doing these things and drawing a sense of purpose from them. But I also have absolutely no desire to pursue those kinds of things.

I've spent a lot of my life around people who have been sick. When I was in third grade, my dad was sick and spent 12 weeks in a hospital (six in a Butte, MT hospital and six in a Denver hospital) overcoming poisoning that affected him when he used a bathroom in which cleaning chemicals had been mixed that should never touch each other.

When I was in high school my mom had bone cancer in her leg which required an amputation. She battled for about two years learning to use an artificial leg. Then, she developed lung cancer and died from that about six months after I started college.

My older son, at a year old, developed a severe form of pneumonia called Legionnaire's disease that almost took his life. He was on oxygen at home for a year after that.

In some people's life, these events make them strong and give them a purpose to help others. Guess what. That "weren't it" with me. I'm just sick of adversity. I have no desire to help those with health needs. I have no desire to emotionally support those who are struggling with health issues.

In other words, it's all about ME.

Maybe I should write about health issues. Therein is a connection between my life and something that I enjoy doing (writing). But health issues bore me stiff, for the most part.

I keep telling myself and if I just could get a clear signal from God about what He wants me to do with my life, I could put aside the things that don't support that purpose and feel a real sense of purpose. And I could forge confidently ahead.

I'm pretty sure, as I think about it now, that I'm just kidding myself.

I want to do what I want to do. I feel like I've been putting off doing things I really like -- probably my favorite thing is acting -- I love to be on stage in front of a mass of people -- but acting takes up huge amounts of time at unusual hours, and I'm not willing to spend my nights performing while my kids grow up without their knowing me or my knowing them.

I want to write. But it easily gets overwhelming.

My wife has said that there will be time after the kids have grown up. My friend has said don't get ahead of God. God has a time in mind for me to pursue my writing.

Maybe.

But what if I finally reach the point where there is time to do these things, and I am physically or mentally unable to do them? Things happen. I've seen it.

Also, I find it hard to reconcile the fact that I have such strong yearnings to do these artistic types of things (by the way, I also like to perform music) and, yet, there seems to be no time to pursue them. Why am I put together this way, if God doesn't have a purpose for them in my life?

ARGH!

Then, there's this other part of me that I alluded to earlier. I've know for a long time that part of me wants to do these artistic things, because they make me feel important. It's really cool to have people oohing and awing over a performance you have done.

But the next day, when no one is around, you feel worthless. It's like a drug (at least, I think it is -- I've never done drugs to be able to develop an addiction). You need to keep being in the spotlight to feel good, but when you're away from it, you don't feel so good.

What a rotten source for self-esteem. I know I should feel good about myself, because I'm forgiven and God considers me valuable. I know that. It all makes sense. I can see the absolute folly of drawing my self-esteem from any other source. But living that way is not the same as knowing about it.

Also, as I've done my recent writing, and I've pondered what it must be like to be rich and famous and adored, I've realized that even if I could achieve that kind of success, it would never be enough. There would always be something missing. And eventually someone would come along to surpass anything I achieved, and then I would be second or third or fourth. And then I wouldn't be important any more.

I feel like a nut writing this. But who cares. This is my blog. This is what a blog is all about. It's about writing anything I want about me.

See, it's still all about ME.

And I had to write those last two paragraphs, because now I'm feeling self-conscience about revealing what goes on inside of me. And somehow I'm hoping to deflect the criticism you are probably thinking.

Awe ... who cares.

So, I don't know what to do.

Probably, God has been whispering at me for twenty years or more that he wants me to work with people who are disabled. And I keep shrinking back. Because I don't want to. It's not my cup of tea. I'll deal with disabilities to the extent that it helps my daughter, but I don't want it to become my mission in life.

Whatever.

2004-04-02T06:08:00.000-08:00

Today, I'm going to do something that many people probably will consider strange.

I'm going to write a handful of songs for my wife's 40th birthday.

My wife is quite shy, and she absolutely has made it clear that she does not want a surprise birthday party. She hates to be the center of attention.

So I got to thinking, what would be something really special that she would really like. I couldn't think of anything, so I decided to do this. Actually, I am pretty sure the gift will mean a lot to her, even if the quality of the music and lyrics leaves something to be desired (in case you are wondering, I did have years of musical training as a child and teenager, so I'm not totally going at this extreme sport without proper protection).

Time to jump in and start swimming. <{Splash!}>. Brrr, the water's cold. Hope I don't drown.

2004-03-27T21:20:00.000-08:00

Scratching your back. It's something most of us take for granted. But last night my 7-year-old daughter did something that reminded me that not everyone has the ability to relieve an itchy back.

My daughter has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. Last night, while four of our family were sitting at the table near the end of dinner, my daughter started tensing her leg and trunk muscles in a way that caused her body to move up and down in her chair. It was a startlingly unusual movement, and I wasn't quite sure what to think. Because of her very limited physical ability and her difficulty in speaking, I always grow a little concerned when she makes odd movements; I fear that she may be having a siezure (she's never had one yet, thank God, but her CP puts her at risk for them) or that some part of her body has become caught in her chair in a way that is hurting her.

Since the reason for her actions was not readily apparent, we went through our typical twenty-question routine, trying to figure out what was going on, as she alternately tried to ennunciate her problem to us, pointed toward her back with her thumb, and moved her body up and down in her wheelchair.

Finally, in a flash of brilliance, someone at the table guessed what was going on. I guess calling this guess "brilliance" is an overstatement when one considers how long the "brilliance" took to finally flash. But we figured out that her back was itchy. It's always such a relief to figure out what she is saying.

And it was so cute -- once I knew there was no danger -- watching my little girl move herself up and down in such an unusual way.

It also was a bittersweet reminder of how very limited my little girl is.

I certainly hate the feeling of an itch in the center of my back, and I will do just about anything, including rub my spine against the corner of a nearby wall -- looking ridiculous to anyone who happens to be standing by -- just to find relief. An itcy back is pretty unbearable.

But what can my little girl do when her back is itchy. She has no choice but to do her best to get the attention of someone nearby and hope that person will recognize her plight and give her back a scratch.

Failing that, about the only thing she can do is patiently struggle to make herself understood, while that sensation in the middle of her back bores a hole into the middle of her sanity.

So, last night, after we got her back all scratchy and feeling better, I made a point of going to the other members of our family and describing to them what had happened. My admonition to them was that we absolutely must remember what it means when my daughter starts moving herself up and down in her chair.

I realize that in some ways this situation seems like such a trivial matter to be making such a big deal; it's a situation that poses no real danger to my daughter. But if you are thinking that, I would suggest that this means you don't have even the beginning of an understanding of the plight of the handicapped. These are the kinds of little things, mulitplied a hundred times over, that makes life for people with handicaps such a burden. There are so many things that my daughter cannot do and so many things that I cannot fix, when something as torturous as an itchy back comes up, I want to be sure we quickly relieve her discomfort; it's just one small thing we can do to ease one small burden of her disability.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go find a good, sharp wall corner.

2004-03-26T16:06:00.000-08:00

So, I haven't said much here lately.

I've been doing writing in several different places, and it's hard to keep up. I know I'm going to have to cut something out, but I don't want to eliminate any of the writing I am doing. Each thing I'm doing has its benefits, so I want to do it all.

How do I choose?

How do I choose?

2004-03-23T06:12:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting fact.

Recently I was writing an op/ed article for an online newspaper called The Cheers. It is a pro-life article, and I wanted to include some pictures of babies developing inside the womb.

I contacted some pro-life organizations and was surprised to find that most of them did not have pictures they could provide me.

Now, maybe you're thinking to yourself, "Of course not. How would you get such pictures without performing an abortion? And then wouldn't that undermine your whole cause?"

But that wasn't the issue. According to one pro-life web site I visited, there are plenty of pictures (and drawings) of this kind in existence (I don't know how they get them, but I'm guessing that with modern technology, some have probably been obtained without risk to the unborn baby). They are primarily used for medical education. But most of the copyright owners will not allow their pictures to be used in connection with the abortion issue.

I have no way of knowing if their unwillingness is because they have a specific bias against the pro-life cause, or if their refusal is just a general desire to avoid any connection with the whole issue. But regardless of the motivation, the fact is that only the pro-life side is negatively impacted by a lack of pictures. Here's why.

The pro-choice side is very careful in their descriptions of abortion to avoid using any terms that humanize the preborn baby. They avoid using the term "baby" itself and substitute terms like "tissue" and "fetus". This terminology avoids creating a picture in one's mind that an abortion has anything to do with harm to human beings.

But pictures in the womb contradict this terminology. At surprisingly early stages of development it is easy to identify that a baby is a human.

So since the pro-choice crowd has no desire to use such pictures, the absence of pictures in the debate only gives a disadvantage to the pro-life side. Whether or not it is intentional doesn't change this disadvantage.

2004-03-23T05:22:00.000-08:00

I always feel a little out of step when I find myself on the side of the ACLU, but it's happened again.

Yahoo reports that a case before the Supreme Court will determine if people are obligated to identify themselves to police if they are not accused of a crime.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, a Nevada cattle rancher, was arrested for refusing to reveal his name to a deputy after someone complained about an argument between Hiibel and his daughter near the side of the road.

Ultimately he was not charged with any crime other than his refusal to give his name. He was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest, though he never acted in a threatening manner and he cooperated when handcuffed.

In a free society, where we presume innocence until guilt can be proved, it seems unreasonable that any of us should be required to identify ourselves to anyone when there is no probable cause that we have committed a crime. This is the same standard used to allow the police to arrest someone.

During court proceedings Justices asked what would be next if identifying oneself is required? Fingerprints? Phone number? E-mail address?

Yet Justice Scalia suggested that police need the ability to get additional facts about a person to do their job effectively.

Certainly giving citizens the power to refuse identifying themselves when they are not specifically suspected of committing a crime will add another burden to police who have an already tough job of enforcing the law. However, I think the standard of probable cause is an important safeguard to our freedom, even if some, like Nevada senior deputy attorney general Conrad Hafen believe "identifying yourself is a neutral act".

While I am appalled to ponder that people routinely get away with things, merely because there is insufficient evidence, I am frightened by an authority that is allowed to exercise improper control over its citizenry. So I have to side with the rancher. It is important to err on the side of freedom, even if some who are guilty go free, because a worse error is to unnecessarily harass the innocent.

2004-03-23T04:44:00.000-08:00

According to an article in Yahoo, The U.S. Army has released a report that says the soldier who mistakenly killed Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana in Iraq was justified. Yet Reuters disagrees. They are calling on urgent implementation of safety recommendations listed in the report.

I guess I must be naive. I had always assumed that war was a place where people get killed. In fact it is such a violent, bloody place, that the U.S. military cannot even guarantee the safety of its own people. Sometimes the military ends up killing some of its own by mistake.

And I always assumed that if I were to wander into a place where bullets and grenades and rockets were flying through the air, that chances were pretty good I was going to get hurt really, really badly. Even if I were to hole up in a building, perhaps a hotel, and only peak out a window to get some pictures, I was really taking a pretty big risk, especially if one of my priorities was to avoid harm to any part of my body.

Boy! What an idiot I've been.

Now, I find out that it doesn't work that way. Call me Pollyanna, but now I find out that all I have to do is let the military know where I'm going to be. I don't have to make arrangements ahead of time to be someplace where they think I'll be safe. I just have to put them on notice where I'm going to need my circle of safety, and then no one will hurt me.

As Reuters states, "We believe that the Reuters staff killed in Iraq...would both still be alive if the recommendation regarding improved communications between U.S. units in the field and the military's high command had been implemented before their deaths."

They continue, "The Pentagon must now accept that independent journalists will always operate in the field outside the embedding process and there need to be sensible and prudent measures to avoid them being killed."

This is so cool. I have always wanted to watch a war from the center of the action. But I've always let fear hold me back. Now, I'm ready to go. Got my camera, my beach ball, my sunscreen. Oh, wait ... let's see ... anyone have the number for the U.S. Central Command in Iraq? And I'm assuming they'll notify the opposition forces for me?

2004-03-21T06:11:00.000-08:00

Here's a sticky situtation related to freedom of conscience.

LifeSite reports that the University of Manitoba Medical School is refusing to confer a degree on one of their students for his refusal to perform abortions. University policy states that students are obligated to tell patients about all treatment options which fall within the medical standard of care.

I can certainly understand the desire of the university to ensure that its students are competent in all areas of study that the student is required to take.

However, since I am a strong supporter of protecting the life of the preborn, it is unconscionable to me to think that any doctor would be required to perform abortions just to complete his training.

In issues of this magnitude -- that involve life and death (ironically, that probably covers more than half of the issues at a medical school) -- I think serious consideration should be given by the school to allow concientious objection. In the United States military during years when the draft was active, a policy of allowing people to stand on a concientious seemingly had no materially detrimental effect on the military's ability to be effective. This is true, because the percentage of people who legitimately claimed this status was tiny.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that this university would survive a policy of allowing conscientious objectors to graduate from their institution.

Of course, this action might require a level of academic freedom that the institution just might not be comfortable with. But that's OK. Saying that universities have academic freedom is a non-sequitur. An institution that rates the work of its students with grades cannot possibly practice academic freedom. Any judgment of someone's skills or knowledge implicitly places value judgments on the same.

2004-03-20T11:50:00.000-08:00

A journalism student asked a group of us recently what we thought the proper voice was for an op/ed piece. Here's the answer I gave. I'd be interested in other people's comments.

1. Obviously, an op/ed piece is expected to be biased. I think a good op/ed piece shows a clear bias; the reader should not reach the end with any doubt about the writer's position. Beyond that I think the op/ed writer has the opportunity to take more stylistic liberties than one can in a more newsy piece. However, one should still show restraint. Outlandish writing generally doesn't appeal to a very broad audience. There are exceptions, but they are the exceptions. Try different approaches in your writing with measured experimentation. You might get lucky, if you use outlandish writing, and attract a huge base of readers. But the measured approach is a more predictable road to success, I believe.

2. Also, a good op/ed writer has passion in his writing. This is not a place to set emotion aside. However, one should not load so much emotion into the piece that logic and good sense are left out. Also, too much emotion, even if backed up with good facts, can leave a bad taste in the mouths of your opponents. Ironically, the taste of hyper-emotion can be like candy to those who support your position. Personally, I like a measuredly passioned approach with good reasoning.

3. A wise op/ed writer does not take cheap shots at her opponents. That's an easy out, but it can undermine one's credibility. Sticking to the issues is important. Attacking someone'e character, if that person's character is the point of the article may be acceptable, but attacking someone's character when it serves merely to sidetrack a reader's thinking is bad strategy.

4. I have no objection to hiding one's hand at the beginning of an article. But I don't think this is ethical if one's purpose in doing this is to manipulate readers. I think it is acceptable if your purpose is to avoid causing your opponents to throw up walls before they've heard you out. But as I said earlier, your point of view should be clear by the end.

2004-03-20T08:49:00.000-08:00

Is tact an important skill? Or is it just a waste of time?

I'm part of an email list of amateur and professional journalists and editors. We are the "staff" for a new online newspaper. Recently, one of our editors, apparently driven to the edge of sanity by too much drivel in too many of the articles she had editted, posted a list of writing rules to the email list. Many of the rules were clearly good advice.

But many of us found the way she put things pretty obnoxious. Basically she stated or implied that some of the writing being submitted was stupid or useless, and the writing was horrible. She also said that we shouldn't submit something if noone else is interested in our topic.

While her comments were insulting, I also thought her comment about not submitting uninteresting material was laughable. Think about it. How many writers dash off an article and think to themselves, "There. Something that only I care about. I better get it into the editors so I don't miss my deadline."

After several people confronted her about her insulting posting, she defended herself by saying she didn't have time to be tactful.

In one sense she is right. Phrasing the things we say, especially those things that have the potential to offend another, in such a way that we minimize the bite does take extra thought. Depending on the topic, it can take a bit of experimentation in our minds to try to anticipate how another person might react to our words.

But for the amount of time it takes, I've almost always found it to be a good investment, especially with people I see regularly. I've found that it takes a whole lot less time to get quality help from someone when the two of us have good repoire. Help given to me grudgingly, maybe because I've offended someone with present or past interactions, tends to be less complete and haphazardly offered. How much time I can waste if a person only gives me exactly what I ask for, not what I really need.

It's pretty funny how some people wear their lack of tact like a badge of honor (I hope I'm not being too tactless here. But I'm probably OK, because the only people who might be offended are those who would revile me for using tact anyway.). You'd think rudeness is a virtue. But I don't remember learning that in kindergarden. Being tactless certainly does attract attention to oneself. So maybe that's really what it's all about. But tactlessness on our part drives those around us to throw up walls so they learn to ignore what we are saying.

I do admit that using tact can be a temptation to be insincere. But the two are not inextricably tied. One can be tactful and still be straightforward. Some things we might need to say will sting no matter how much we sugarcoat them; sugar added to lemon juice doesn't mask the fact that we are still drinking lemons.

I remember a time I was talking religion with a co-worker. She asked me a pointed question. I knew she would not like my answer.

I certainly could have answered her with all the fire of a worked-up preacher.

Or, I could have lied and given her an answer she wanted to hear.

Instead, I gave her an answer that was true but offered as gently as I knew how in the moment of "being on the spot."

She was offended and switched the subject, she said, so she wouldn't get madder.

So my point was heard -- no misrepresentation -- but later we were able to discuss the topic in a non-confrontational manner, because I had used tact.

Tactlessness gives some people the ability to bully. Tact earns me the right to be heard.

2004-03-18T20:19:00.000-08:00

Two questions for my blogging buddies/visitors/guests:

1. Who is the best provider of a blogging site. By "best," I mean a) free, b) easy to use, c) lots of standard and cool blogging functionality, d) good-looking templates. As you can tell from looking at my blog, looks are not its strong point. Also, I have a friend who wants to start blogging, and I'd like to give him a good recommendation.

2. How does one make use of trackback? What is it good for? Why would I want to use it? Does it have anything to do with trains or spines?

Unfortunately, most documentation I find assumes a basic understanding of blogging that newbies like me just don't have. And I don't want to spend forever trying to figure it out. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks!!!

Bonus Question: What is one thing you would recommend to give me the biggest improvement to my site (besides pulling the plug on it)?

2004-03-17T23:44:00.000-08:00

Today I heard an interview on the radio with a man who is a rising star in the Christian music industry. He's seen a sudden jump in his popularity, and when asked how he felt about it, he was at a loss for words. About all he could muster to say was, "I'm really humbled by it."

As thoughts of his success rolled around in my head, I began to feel -- I'm embarrassed to admit -- pangs of jealousy at his success. Since I like to consider myself a tiny bit of a musician, I've always wondered what it must be like to be a star. I've actually told myself many times that I probably could be one. I just haven't tried; I don't have the time; I've pursued other things.

But I have to concede, I'm probably not being realistic.

Now. Let me stop right here a second. I just wrote that last sentence -- that I'm not being realistic -- meaning that I probably could not actually be a star, even if I tried. But it's not working. Nope. Deep down I still have this nagging fantasy that I really could make it big, if I really gave it a try.

And so I always feel this jab of envy when I think about someone else making it big.

It's a bad feeling. I feel it when a person has achieved success after years of grueling work. But I feel it even more sharply when success comes to someone at a young age.

How can life be like this? Here's a young, inexperienced talent who's hardly put in sufficient time to reach the status he is enjoying. How many thousands have work a lot harder than he has, piling up year after year of labor and never coming close to achieving the level of success that some of the newbies do.

What is that mystical element -- that Midas Touch -- that turns some people's efforts to gold, while the rest of us struggle just to dig a little copper from the mines of our everyday lives. Where do I get my golden touch?

Wait. Let me step back and take a deep breath. There. I'm going to take another run at this issue from a different direction.

I've got to believe that God plays a big part in the amount of public recognition people receive, especially for those who call Him Father. It's probably largely out of my control whether or not I receive astounding recognition. And why does it matter?

While I can acknowledge His part in this whole situation, deep down that explanation doesn't satisfy me.

I want to be somebody of significance. And -- honestly -- for me that includes an element of having others hold me in high regard.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. I have to believe that the blogosphere is full of people just like me. Looking for importance in a hurry-by world. A blog gives each of us a chance to reveal to the entire world (literally) the things that we consider important. At what other point in history have people had such a breathtaking ability, the ability to make what they write visible to people on pretty much any part of the globe?

But for most of us, the ability to be seen is just not enough. We want to be noticed. We want to know that someone's paying attention. We hope that people will read our writings and flock to our sites to sing the praises of our piercing insights.

When that doesn't happen, we practically drool for a handful of comments. Any comment, even a flaming attack on our abilities and points of view, brings some sense of relief.

Somebody actually read. Somebody actually understood. SOMEONE WAS ACTUALLY MOVED ENOUGH TO FLAME ME.

We register ourselves on blogging directories, cross-link our sites to other people's blogs, and enter contests for king of the mountain, all in hopes of bringing visitors to our sites, visitors who we secretly hope will become regular guests. We dream of our guests drinking from our well of wisdom, always thirsting for more. More guests mean more popularity. More popularity means more significance. More significance means better feelings about ourselves. Maybe we'll become the next overnight success.

Eventually, I suspect most people who have reached for widespread recognition, bloggers or otherwise, step off the "I need big success" train to content themselves with moderate recognition. Some even appear to shun the popularity contest. But I bet if we could see the secret thoughts of people, we would find many whose rejection of popularity is planted firmly in the garden of sour grapes -- if I can't achieve spectacular recognition, than I don't want it. Someday I won't be terribly surprised to find myself there.

So ... time will determine what happens with my blog, regardless of my hopes. Will it grow to a position of immortality, or will it wind endlessly through the finite existence of the mortal? And will I eventually feel a genuine sense of contentment in either case?

And my life in general. Of what will it become?

I do know one thing. Someday my Lord will look me directly in the eye and tell me something very important. He'll say, "Well done thou good and faithful servant." Or ... He'll say something different - less flattering.

If he tells me something different, then I will know that I spent my years panning for gold in the wrong creek. My struggles will have been for naught.

Recognition seems a golden prize of great worth to me; but it isn't necessarily real gold.

2004-03-17T05:08:00.000-08:00

For those who might wonder about the post that follows this one (or precedes this one in time), it is part of my submission for the King of the Blogs contest:

Write a post which incorporates all of the current top five Words or Phrases for Impact on the English language (as cited by the Global Language Monitor): "wardrobe malfunction," "bootylicious," "extreme makeover," "Gigli," and "Give it Up!"

2004-03-16T05:01:00.000-08:00

I got the following letter, today, from my cousin Moritmer Notasharpwun:

Cuzzin,

Thought I better write and let ya know what happened to my sister Mabel.

I don't know where she seed this idea, but she decided she was gonna get a little makeover of her face. Ya know hows those Hollywood beauties gets those tucks for the wrinkles and that sorta nonsense. Well, Mabel figures it was a good time to get that mole removed that's always punctuated the tip a her nose.

Let's just say things didn't go quite like we was aspectin'. The way Mabel telled it to me, that doctor had some kinda laser contraption that he was fixin' to use on her nose. The cord that feeds the power from the wall, (you know what I'm talkin' about?) caught on his operatin' coat sleeve, and he cut off a might more nose than he was a plannin'. He called it some sorta wardrobe malfunction. But when I seed Mabel, it looked more to me like a extreme makeover.

I aspected Mabel to be madder 'an a hornet all riled up over a rock hittin' his nest, but somehow when she caught a look at herself in a mirror, she just plumb started laughin'. Don't that beat all?

She was so gigli all afternoon, I finally lost my patience and yelled, "Would you just give it up?"

And wouldn't ya know it! Yesterday, I buys me some new kickers. And like a dumb ox, who don't know nothin' about anythin', I weared 'em today when I taked Mabel into town. Now my feets are akillin' me. I always hate breakin' in new boots.

I swear (hand over my heart) I'd give a whole pickup load a dollar bills if I could get me new boots with that same bootylicious feeling that the old ones offer up to a fella.

Give my love to what's her face, won't cha?

Morty

2004-03-14T15:30:00.000-08:00

Is it live, or is it Memorex?

There was a commercial a number of years ago for Memorex cassette tapes that showed an opera singer shattering a glass merely by singing. It then showed a similar glass shattering from a recording of that same singer's voice. Of course, the brand of tape used to record the singer was Memorex.

Today, I had a vaguely similar experience -- after church. Our pastor said that a woman had recently mentioned that his preaching lately seemed to have some urgency to it. This lady's mother had noted a similar urgency in several radio pastors' preaching lately. As our pastor told the story, he seemed somewhat surprised that she had made the comment, but his body language seemed to me to say, "I hadn't thought of that, but she's right."

Recently, I have felt an urgency to write. I have a particular fondness for writing, but recently I have felt a persistent urge to write, to hone my skills and place my efforts in the service of God.

So, today when our pastor mentioned the lady's comments about an urgency in his preaching, it hit me that maybe that described my recent urge to write. I felt a quickening in my gut when he mentioned it.

Later, after I put a little distance between the sermon and my feelings, I realized that many times I have felt strongly about something and wondered if it was God, only to find out that it was just me. Reminiscent of the commercial is my question: "Is it God, or is it indigestion?"

Maybe I'll take a Tums and see what happens.

2004-03-12T11:40:00.000-08:00

Oh, dear. A slip up over the new manufacturing czar.

Reports are out that the nominee for the new manufacturing czar, Anthony Raimondo, has withdrawn his name from consideration. Apparently, the chief responsiblity right now for the czar will be to hatch ideas about how to save America's factory jobs from being outsourced overseas. Unfortunately, a little tidbit from Raimondo's past seemed inconsistent with being crowned czar. As head of Behlen Manufacturing Co. he had set up an offshore factory in China.

I think the Republicans are in deep water. The withdrawal of Raimondo's name is not such a big deal. But where are the Republicans going to find the head of a major American company who hasn't done some form of outsourcing to another country? I think such creatures have gone extinct.

I hope you'll pardon my sarcasm in this post, but I've been seeing jobs in my speciality (computers) evaporate and rain down in India, so I'm wondering how long I'll remain employed. That makes this area a little sensitive to me. Surprisingly, I am generally against protectionism, but I guess it's starting to hit a little close to home?

2004-03-12T06:54:00.000-08:00

The sports world is abuzz. Did you hear about the Todd Bertuzzi incident? He's an all-star player for the Vancouver Canucks.

If you know much about hockey, you are well aware of the fact that it is a rough sport. That aspect of the game bothered me a lot when I first started watching it. But it's my favorite sport to watch (though I hardly ever watch sports). Over time I've gotten used to the hitting and fighting.

But pretty much everyone agress that Bertuzzi went way over the line with his latest stunt. If you haven't followed the story, here's the scoop.

The Colorado Avalanche (yay! my team) and the Canucks were in the middle of their contest a few games ago when Avalanche player Steve Moore elbowed Canucks star Marcus Naslund in the head. Moore claims it was accidental, and he received no penalty.

But revenge was on the minds of the Canucks.

So in the next matchup that occurred in Vancouver, a game where the Avalanche were burying the Canucks, Bertuzzi decided to play Equalizer. From behind Moore, Mr. Bigshot threw a punch, unseen, at Moore's head. Moore, unprepared for the hit, crashed to the ice -- face first -- and Bertuzzi landed on top of him. Now Moore is recovering from a broken neck and various head injuries.

I've had a whole mix of emotions over this incident.

I have no patience for intentional injury by one player to another. That conviction runs so deep in me, that if an Avalanche player routinely engages in such conduct, I don't want him around, even if he's our star player. Thankfully, the Avalanche fall on the cleaner side of play.

But not Bertuzzi. He routinely racks up penalty minutes during a season. Right now he ranks a squeakingly close third in penalty minutes on his team. The person in fourth trails far behind. Admittedly he's a skilled player, but he's also a goon (hockey terminology for a guy who makes dirty hits on opponents).

So, on the one hand I'm outraged at his behavior. Part of me wants to see him banned for life from the game. And I hope he does jail time (which is looking like a possibility).

But, then part of me relents. I understand that he was terribly upset over the incident. At least that's the story that's wound through the grapevine. And he was tearfully upset at a recent press conference. How I know the regret you can have over doing something stupid in the heat of anger and then wishing later you could rewind the tape.

So then I think his penalty shouldn't be so severe. Perhaps a short jail sentence and a 6 month to 1 year suspension from the game.

Then I bounce back the other way, because I remind myself that he's been running his whole career as a goon, and what does he expect? Duh?! Too bad that he went so far.

This issue brings clarity to one thing. Justice should be administered by people in authority, those who are trained to balance mercy and punishment. Bertuzzi's administration of justice to Moore clearly got out of hand. My view of justice for Bertuzzi is too emotional. Justice, in order to be fair, must not be based on excessive emotion, neither excessive empathy for or excessive outrage over the accused.

Hmm. This sounds like something I learned in the Old Testament.

2004-03-11T04:30:00.000-08:00

And now a word about a really COOL (brownie points here, I hope) blogging contest:

2004-03-11T04:18:00.000-08:00

King of Blogs Royal Rumble

Below you will find my entry for the King of Blogs Royal Rumble contest. The object is to write a blog entry to address the following situation:

The blogosphere has just been invaded by space aliens from the planet Zebnon. As King of the Blogs it is your duty to meet the threat. In doing this you must make a delegation of bloggers to rise up and meet the aliens. You are excluded from including members of the judging panel on this delegation. For each member you must include a reason why.

My Response

Compatriot Royal Rumble Participants:

As you know, the invasion of the Zebnon invaders threatens our blogospheric existence. It is imperative that the blogging community form a delegation to meet the Zebnoners to discern their intentions and convince them of our worthiness to live as a free people. Because you have already shown your Great Courage by participation in the Royal Rumble, I have chosen you to challenge the Zebnon invaders.

The Blogger from 1000words.net - chosen because of your eye for beauty in pictures. Your presence will convince the invaders that we are a people worthy of blogging life because of our appreciation for art and beauty.

The Blogger from thegreatseparation.typepad.com/newsfront - chosen for your commitment to the unborn. Your commitment will show the invaders that we are a worthy people because we defend the defenseless.

The Blogger from zwichenzug.blogspot.com - chosen for your ruminations on why people should follow the law. You will display to the invaders that we are a people who study the intricate details of justice.

The Blogger from themeowmeowlounge.blogspot.com - chosen for your spirited humor. You will make the invaders laugh and show them our good nature.

The Blogger from loadedmouth.com - chosen for your political convictions. You will convince our "visitors" that we are a force with which to be reckoned.

The Blogger from sarahs_stuff.blogspot.com - chosen for the clear demonstration of your Christlike spirit. Need I say more?

The Blogger from www.bullandscales.com/weblog/bull - chosen for the great skill you showed in the previous Royal Rumble. Your mastery with words will keep the invaders from playing us for fools.

And I?

Yes, Compatriots, I too will be there with you. For I hope to see familiar faces among the aliens, faces I have not seen since my Abduction in Roswell.

2004-03-09T06:01:00.000-08:00

Today I read of the efforts of several animal welfare groups to outlaw the practice of whaling. According to a recently released report, it takes an average of two minutes for a whale to die after being hit by a grenade-tipped harpoon.

Now, I have no quarrel with the efforts to prevent animal cruelty -- in fact, I support them to a great extent -- but where is the outcry against babying?

There's a term that's liable to raise the ire of some. "Babying," the slaughter of innocent human persons prior to birth.

I wonder how long it takes for a baby to die after being torn apart by the tool used to "mix things up" before they get vaccuumed out. I wonder if death lingers very long, during a partial birth abortion, after the doctor delivers all but the head of a baby and then plunges forceps into the back of the head to make a conduit through which the brain can be vaccuumed out.

Graphic, I agree. But we've sanitized abortion so much, that it's hard to care about the rights of the unborn.

The ending of the whale article reminded me of a pro-life movie called, "Silent Scream," an ultrasound filming of a baby being aborted. The article said, "The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it."

I believe that if babies could scream ...

2004-03-09T04:55:00.000-08:00

True Confessions of a Human in Weakness (written late yesterday morning):

Boy, what a morning I've been having. I started my day off early in the morning by writing a rather long letter to a friend who had asked my opinion on a particular issue. Because of that, I was late to my Bible study (only five minutes), but I felt rushed and somehow not complete.

Once I got to work, a document that I had hoped to get written as a final draft by last Friday was still waiting for me to finish it. On top of that, three people approached me to ask for assistance with some problems going on here at work.

By late morning I was feeling very alone. It felt like I was boxed in, being squeezed from all sides. No one was aware of my situation, and I had no desire to confide in someone, because:

1. I had too much to do.

2. Would anyone really care?

As I participated in conversation in a meeting I was in, it felt like the words I spoke only left the hard shell of what is me through great effort, and the words spoken by others bumped against my outer shell, so that I was able to discern their meaning, but they didn't come in.

Just thinking about my situation and thinking through how I might express my thoughts in writing has helped me feel better. Plus, before I wrote this, I at least got that document written to a point that it is in someone else's hands to do a final read.

It's always fascinated me about how we humans are ruled by our emotions. Sometimes we feel like we are flying along at 30,000 feet with hardly a care in the world. We are in control of our destiny -- at peace with the world -- and every dream we have ever had feels as if it is in reach. But then we come spiraling down to an altitude where we feel in danger of crashing. Life closes in around us as we fly at breakneck speed through life's jungle, weaving precariously through trees of overwhelming responsibilities as their branches and leaves tear at our craft.

At times like that it is good, if we can remember it, to focus on knowing that God is still in control. And there are only a few things that He deems important. We can re-center on Him and rest in His sovereign Love. An eternal perspective of life. Too bad I so rarely run to Him in these situations.

2004-03-06T05:46:00.000-08:00

Isn't this a bizarre story. I'm talking about the one where Luz Cuevas lost her daughter in a fire, or so it seemed to most people, but really her daughter had been kidnapped. Can you imagine how you would have reacted if Cuevas had been talking to you at a party and related her suspicions to you?

She tells you that in 1997 there was a fire at her house in her baby daughter's bedroom. After the fire is out, there is no trace of her baby and the police and fire fighters tell her that the flames were so intense, they left no trace of her daughter. At that point you're feeling pity for the poor woman.

But then she relates her suspicions of how she thinks her daughter had not burned up but was kidnapped. One of the things that doesn't make sense to her is why was the window open, when it was a cold night and she, herself, would not have left it that way. And a "friend" of hers, the one who turned out to be her baby's kidnapper, suddenly broke off their friendship shortly after the fire. Now you are politely smiling and looking around the room, wondering if there is an easy way out of the conversation.

But then comes the clincher. Cuevas tells you she ended up being at a child's birthday party where she saw a little girl she just knows is her little daughter. In fact she was so convinced of the fact, that she faked getting gum out of the little girl's hair just so she could get 5 strands for DNA testing. Now she is anxiously awaiting test results. At this point you are anxiously hoping someone who believes he has been abducted by space aliens will join the conversation and steer your talk back to something closer to reality.

Amazingly, this poor woman, who must have looked like a kook to just about everyone who heard her story, turns out to be right! Wow! Pardon the cliche, but truth is definitely stranger than fiction.

2004-03-05T07:18:00.000-08:00

Harry A. Blackmun was the Supreme Court justice who authored the Court's majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade case. He was an adament defender of that decision.

Recently, his personal papers became available to the public, and there was one big surprise to pro-lifers.

His notes show that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was leading a five-justice majority that planned to overturn Roe v. Wade as part of a 1992 case involving Planned Parenthood (Blackmun was not on the Court at this time). Rehnquist was already drafting the majority ruling when Justice Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun indicating that he was changing his vote. He now agreed with a compromise solution that some of his fellow jurors supported.

It is hard to believe that we came that close to seeing the abortion law overturned. I know that many people at the time expected the ruling to be overturned, but when it did not happen, I thought people had been naively optimistic. But, apparently not. I am truly stunned.

2004-03-05T07:08:00.000-08:00

The granting of gay marriage licenses in various places throughout the nation has really taken the country by storm. Some have compared the actions of these local officials to anarchy.

But that comparison is overstated. This is just routine government (and political) action.

Government officials regularly make new interpretations of existing law. I'm not talking about the extreme cases of clear, outright criminal behavior (though that happens sometimes, like President Clinton's lying to a grand jury while under oath, which, by the way, at least one court ruled is what happened). I'm talking about an elected official or other civil servant applying a novel interpretation of the law. Presidential executive orders sometimes fall into this category.

Some might like to think that no existing laws authorize the granting of marriage licenses in the places where it is happening, I think existing law actually might.

The little phrase "equal protection," which appears in our federal Constitution and many state constitutions has been interpreted quite broadly. While it might be argued that 10 or 20 years ago no legitimate court would have interpreted that phrase to allow gay marriage, the legal environment today, I think, makes that interpretation pretty likely. It's an approach to constitutional law that allows our interpretation to evolve over time (the other major approach is to interpret the law based on original intent).

So, while these local officials my be relying on an evolutionary interpretation of the phrase "equal protection," I don't think they are acting without some legal basis, though I question their motives. Truthfully, I think some of them have every intention of bending the rules as far as they can, and they don't actually give a whit about the legality of what they are doing. But they are also pragmatists. They realize that if they stray too far afield of society's boundaries of acceptability, they will pay by being recalled or losing re-election. This causes them to stay close enough to the legal limits that I can hardly call their actions anarchy.

2004-03-05T06:45:00.000-08:00

OK. I'm missing something here. Yahoo reported recently that the Education Department plans to relax enforcement of Title IX, the landmark anti-discrimination law. The changes would make it easier for school districts to create single-sex classes and schools.

For the twenty years I've been paying attention, the cultural elites have hammered me with reasons why "separate but equal" for peoples of different races is wrong. They've also pressed for equal access in career paths and military service for women.

Fine. I've been generally agreeable to that whole effort.

But now we are talking about separate but equal classes and schools. Whoa!

Then -- to my surprise -- I find out that "separate but equal" has actually been possible well before this announced change. Well, where have I been?! The rules already had allowed a single-sex school or class to be offered for one gender as long as the same arrangement was offered for the other gender. What's actually changed is that now districts will be allowed to create a single-sex arrangement for only one gender. The other gender can be left in a mixed-sex arrangment as long as it is "substantially equal."

But I thought past court decisions relating to race had found that "separate but equal" is unachievable. And I thought the big issue with gender was that women were not content to have women's groups that paralleled the ones open only to men. Call me stupid, but I thought that's what the whole issue was about!

Supporters of this change say that girls do much better academically when they are separated.

So -- let's see -- when some deemed it an advantage to males to have separate but equal, we cried foul? But now that it is deemed an advantage to females we applaud?

OK. I admit it. Trying to be consistent is one of my faults.

2004-03-03T05:51:00.000-08:00

OK. I've added my Blog to a bunch of directories, and now I'll just wait for the readers to roll in!

I'm kidding. I know that may or may not happen.

But, if you are reading this, maybe you are one of those who stopped by to check it out.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy exploring the inner workings of a fellow human being.

Now, I need to go work on my next humor column for The Cheers (http://www.thecheers.org).

2004-03-01T04:20:00.000-08:00

My wife invited me to go see a movie yesterday. We unexpectedly had a cancellation of an event at our house, so she had the good sense to suggest that we go.

So we went to the movies. But we did not go to see The Passion of the Christ (more about that in a later post). Instead we went to see Miracle, the story of the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team's stunning victory over the heavily favored Russian team. The movie focuses on their coach, Herb Brooks.

The movie was enjoyable and generally a good flick. I found it inspiring to the point that at one part of the movie I was committing to myself and to God that I would do everything I could to be the best humor writer I could possibly be, despite whatever odds might pop up. That kind of thinking seems silly now that I have gotten some distance from the film, but Herb's intense drive was contagious.

Despite this aspect of the movie, and the incredible feat achieved by the members of the team, it's not a movie I would care to see again. It does not strike me as a great movie.

Perhaps the part I most enjoyed was the portrayal of Herb's relationship with his wife, Patty. Through their interactions they displayed little relationship quirks that were unfortunately all too recognizable for those of us who have been married for umpteen-some years.

In one late-night scence, Herb is reviewing films in his study when Patty comes in and mentions that she'll need him to pick up one of his children from an activity the next day. Patty's attempts to get Herb's attention fail at first. She presses further, and after a small spat that she loses, she marches off to their bedroom. Herb tries to refocus his attention on the films, but he can't concentrate. After his guilt rises to a level he can't stand, he goes to their bedroom and tries to talk with Patty. In typical husband-wife style she now refuses to talk.

In another scene, Herb is in the kitchen getting himself something to eat. As he pulls a carton of milk from the refrigerator, Patty says something to him that he doesn't want to hear. He makes no reponse to her statement, so she tells him again. In typical husbandly response he snaps, "OK. I heard you."

Yet, despite these irritants of their relationship, they clearly have a deep fondness and love for each other. This aspect of their lives probably shows most clearly just after the US team has beaten the Russian's for the Olympic Gold. Herb, the normally stoic, stone-faced hockey coach, turns towards Patty in the audience above him and catches her eye. He smiles at her and gives her this goofy little shrug, one that no man would be caught dead giving to anyone he did not love deeply. It was a great little glimpse of the vulnerability they shared, because of their years of life together.

2004-02-27T04:54:00.000-08:00

Last night was men's basketball night at my church. I played a few times about a year ago, and then gave up because things got too busy. But I'm back. And it's really a lot of fun. Last night I even made a three-pointer.

Why is making a three-pointer so significant?

Well, for a guy like me, it's a self-esteem thing. I've never been much of an athlete. When we used to pick teams as a kid for any game, I was almost always picked last. The few times I wasn't, I was usually almost last. Now that I think about things, it's surprising how badly I would feel when I got picked last, but how elated I could feel getting picked second to last. Aren't worst and second-to-worst essentially the same? It just shows how we can use the bad fortune of others to elevate ourselves.

Ironically, despite my lack of physical ability, I've always loved playing sports. In fact, I have very little interest in watching sports, but I'm always willing to join in a good game of just about anything.

But playing basketball isn't really something I have time for. So why do I do it? It's the exercise. My wife recently said to me, "But you could stay home and exercise." Actually, that's not quite correct. The reality is that "I could stay home and exercise a few times and then only tell myself on a regular basis that I should be exercising." Basketball is much more fun, so I actually end up getting my exercise in.

That brings me to my friend, who seems somewhat drawn to the idea of joining us on a Thursday night, but so far he has not actually come. If you are reading this (you know who you are), there will always be excuses. And when you first come, since you've not been a basketball god, you will probably take some time to catch up. But that's how I was when I first got there. Now, most of the guys play a whole lot more skillful basketball than I, but I am finding my strengths and playing to them, and I am avoiding situations that expose my weaknesses; I'm holding my own. I seem to do pretty well on defense. And last night I was bringing the ball down court a lot and had a few good first passes that led pretty directly to successful shots. On the other hand I don't make any dramatic attempts at fancy dribbling moves. And when I'm under the basket going for a rebound, I don't leave the floor. At 40 years old, I don't need a pulled something-or-other.

Lately, I've been keeping a quote in mind that I saw:

To do something well, you must first do it poorly.

That's really good advice, and the fear of looking bad when doing "it" poorly can keep us from ever doing well. I think that's a large part of the reason that adults have a much more difficult time than a younger person when it comes to learning a new skill.

2004-02-26T05:54:00.000-08:00

Oops! That ugly issue has come up again. That one where some states (like California) consider it two murders if a mother and her unborn baby are killed while others consider it only one.

Now the House of Representatives is expected to pass a bill dubbed the "Unborn Victims Bill." It would make it possible to charge an assailant with crimes against two separate people, if an unborn child is hurt or killed during an attack on the mother. The bill would only apply to federal crimes.

Pro-choice (see footnote at the end of this posting) advocates are understandably concerned. They realize that this action goes far in the direction of recognizing an unborn child as a human person. The impact on the abortion issue could be significant.

But I support the legislation. Since I am convinced that an unborn baby, at any stage of development, is both human and a person, my reaction is, "What took so long?"

Footnote: I'm tempted to use the more pejorative term "pro-abortion" to describe the "other" side, because that is parallel to the term "anti-abortion" commonly used by the media, but I don't really think that's fair, so I won't. I honestly don't think the pro-choice people are in favor of abortion in and of itself. I really do think they see the issue as a civil rights issue for women, so the term "pro-choice" is more precise. What has surprised me is how hard it is to find the term "pro-life" used in the media, though the term "pro-choice" is used almost exclusively. I really have looked, and occasionally I find "pro-life" used. But the majority of the time the term "anti-abortion" is used (though recently, I may be seeing it used less). As a member of the "pro-lifers," I can assure you that we are not opposed to abortion in and of itself. We truly see the issue as a civil rights issue for the unborn. Our goal is to save lives. It is hard for me to believe the use of these terms in this non-parallel way is innocent on the part of the media. After all, people labelled as being "anti-" something are generally perceived more poorly than those labelled as being "pro-" something. This unfair treatment has long been an annoyance to me, so in the spirit of intellectual honesty, I will reluctantly use the term "pro-choice."

2004-02-26T05:06:00.000-08:00

Last night my younger son won a trophy. He won it in a fencing tournament, taking third place. This was the culmination of 11 prior weeks of grueling training.

OK. It wasn't grueling. It was just two class hours per week, and he had a ball. But why wouldn't he? Fencing is a fun sport.

I know, because I also fence.

My older son and I started fencing about 3 years ago (if I recall, correctly). I remember, before learning to fence, watching sword fights or fencing in movies and wondering how people could actually learn to fend off a blade moving at high speed toward them. Obviously, they wouldn't lack motivation for such action, just possibly ability. But what marvelous feat of human skill could allow a person to react so quickly?

Then, I found out. It just takes some training and practice. And I've actually been able to develop some of that skill, even though I'm just a hack.

After three years of recreational fencing (with a couple competitions the first year), I've gained enough skill to be able to hold off someone with a fencing blade fairly well. The "marvelous feat of human skill" is no longer a mystery.

Last night's tournament was a lot of fun. Of course, I was thrilled to watch my son beat some of his classmates in a sword fight. It was particularly satisfying, during one bout, to watch him climb out of a 4 to 0 hole to win 5 to 4 (yes, that's five blade "touches" in a row!). It was great to see him enjoying himself.

Now that he has had his "graduation tournament," he is an official member of our fencing club, and the three boys in our family can all fence each other at weekly club "get-togethers."

I know he's excited (has been ever since my older son and I started; couldn't wait to get old enough to take the class), and I'm feeling a resurge in enthusiasm to go to the next club session.

The wonderful thing about fencing is that it is not just for the athletically superior among us. Admittedly, high-level fencing takes a great deal of athletic skill, but at the lower levels, it is a sport in which people of a wide variety of abilities can successfully partake.

It is largely a game of finesse, one where subtle movements and "faking out your opponent" are key elements. And the physical features that make you unique can often be used to your advantage.

For example, a person of small stature has an advantage when he or she fences "in close" to someone who is larger. Someone who is lower energy can lull their opponent into a false sense of security and then successfully hit their targer if they can learn to make some quick, unexpected attacks.

It is quite the head game. A common name for it is physical chess.

The suitability of the sport to a wide range of abilities is most apparent at a tournament. How many sports are there where adults and children, men and women, routinely compete against EACH OTHER? And being an adult male does not come close to guaranteeing a victory against someone who has a similar amount of experience as you. In fact, more than once I've seen someone with significantly less experience than his or her opponent take a bout.

I'm glad my younger son has decided to join us in fencing. Fencing promises to strengthen our family bonds as we hone our skills in a fun and exciting sport.

2004-02-25T05:11:00.000-08:00

More related to my post of February 19 ....

The New Orleans-based appeals court who decided to take Norma McCorvey's case has cancelled oral arguments scheduled for March 2. Instead they are only going to rely on written briefs. The court gave no reason.

McCorvey's lawyer said it probably means "that the judges have made a decision and are fairly confident in what they intend to do."

Hmmm. Stay tuned.

2004-02-24T05:48:00.000-08:00

What if this were how government worked.

President Bush appointed a judge to the federal appeals court in a recent recess appointment. But what is a recess appointment?

First, when you think recess, you probably harken back to your younger days of playing on a playground with your little friends. Maybe the game that comes to mind is "Cooties" -- you know, where the girls chase the boys and if a boy gets caught he yells, "Cooties." But rest assured, our female legisators are not chasing our male legislators and making them yell, "Cooties." Wouldn't that be scandalous?

But recess does occur twice a day for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In fact they share the same playground. Now the picture that creates in your mind probably shocks you, that our legislators take recess on a playground. But it's a little different than what you and I remember from school.

For example, the swings are bigger.

And the merry-go-round isn't one you have to push. It's got a motor so it can go really fast. In fact, there's a sign on it that says, "Everyone needs to hold on. This means you!"

If you're like me, I'm sure you're having a hard time picturing our Congress men and women playing on a playground. But here's the scoop. Our legislators are no dummies -- at least not most of them -- well, OK, not some of them. They understand that to run a country really well, you need to take time out at least twice a day to have fun just hanging with your friends.

And that's why they do it.

And every once in awhile the President stops by to hang with his buddies in Congress. He's very busy, so he doesn't get to do it much. But it turns out that it's a great way to get disagreements resolved. Somehow the motion of swinging on a swing, trying to go higher than everyone else, really calms people down so they can have a good, heart-to-heart talk.

Anyway, the appointment of judges has been a sore spot between the President and the Senators. Normally, the President nominates a person for a judicial spot, and the Senate takes a vote to decide whether to accept or reject the nominee. Unfortunately, the Senate hasn't been voting on many of the President's nominees. They won't say, "Yes," and they won't say, "No." I think that's so childish! Just say, "Yes," or just say "No." It's not like it's gonna kill you.

When the President stopped by the playground recently, the whole judge topic came up, and they decided to tackle the issue right then and there. They almost had a fist fight to decide, but cooler heads prevailed. And so, they decided to do what what I, and probably you, used to do in elementary school. Remember the rhyme:

Eany, Meany, Miny, Mo.
Catch a Cougar by the Toe.
If He Hollers, Make Him Pay.
Fifty Dollars Every Day.
My Mother Told Me To Pick the Very Best One.
Peaches, Pears, Plums, Apples.

That's just what they did. And the Senator who won got to decide if the President's nominee was accepted. Fortunately, for the President, who had been the highest swinger that day, the Senator felt compelled to defer to him because of his dominating performance on the swing, so the Senator accepted his appointment.

And that's why it's called a recess appointment.

2004-02-24T05:11:00.000-08:00

How quaint. According to a report in Yahoo! yesterday, the Academy Awards announced that they would be screening the content of advertising during the upcoming awards program. Apparently, they are not going to allow the likes of those crass ads shown during the Super Bowl. Has the organization's leadership suddenly gotten religion?

What a laughable irony. The advertising surrounding the entertainment extravaganza will be squeaky clean while many of the films receiving recognition will, no doubt, contain a combined smut level dwarfing that of the Super Bowl ads.

Isn't this just a little hypocritical?

Not really. The organization is being perfectly consistent. Their industry makes huge amounts of money from creating films with low moral content. And they themselves make money from advertising. In the wake of the Super Bowl uproar, there's no point in stirring more of the advertising hornet's nest. That might cost money.

What is the bigger irony, though, is that many of us Americans just don't get it. Hollywood feeds immoral content to us by the barrel. And we tolerate that with only a feeble wringing-of-our-hands wondering what we can do. Yet when an incident occurs during a half-time show, which is shocking in its display but mild when compared to the volume and depravity of everyday entertainment, the outcry is deafening. I can't help but wonder, "Where has everyone been?"

I can't believe that I'm about to say what I am going to say, but someone who actually does "get it" has been a prolific creator of entertainment smut. This week my family and I watched the video "Daddy Daycare" with Eddy Murphy. Now, I have always avoided Murphy films, because I don't need to hear the filth that his mouth has traditionally generated, but this movie proved to be a surprise.

Why we even considered a Murphy move was because my older son was presented the opportunity to watch the video recently. We were completely shocked to read the reviews and find out that Murphy's mouth dressed up for the film. More investigation revealed a shocker. Now that Murphy has kids, he realized he wants to be able to take his children to see him in a movie.

The reaction of the Academy Awards folks show that Hollywood will follow society, if society is willing to lead. And Murphy models the fact that the "harmless" fun of entertainment filth is horrible fare for our kids. How about if we raise our expectations a notch and hammer Hollywood to "clean it up."

2004-02-23T04:29:00.000-08:00

The following comment was left on February 18, 2004, and I would like to respond to it:

The post-modern world we live in today should lessen the impacts of thoughts of "How quickly America is evolving into Soddom?", but they are not. Just because I acknowledge the fact that most people today believe that truth or righteousness is different for everyone and whatever works for me may not work for them the profuse continual rulings in the courts today are still baffling. Lets disregard the fact that this case is about the marriage of gays and lesbians. Now, the reality that the judges in this case are actually overtly ignoring the fact that the practice is "probably" (probably does not exist in substantiating laws) wrong is interesting enough. To enhance the foolishness of this reality is that one judge is allowing his or her bias beliefs to exist in making decesions in the courtroom. This is not a battle of right or wrong by the standards we live by, but spiritual warfare; what we can do is maintain in our minds that these events happening in todays courtrooms are amazingly wrong according the only law of Love; the Truth of the Law of God.

Here are four questions I'd like you to consider, based on your response:

1. If you were arguing a case with a religiously moral content before a judge, how would the things you said affect your arguments?

2. What line of reasoning would you use if that judge made it clear that he had no regard for religious-based approaches to cases?

3. I'm not sure if I know what you mean by the phrase "probably does not exist in substantiating laws," but I think the concept of "probably" shows up in such legal terms as "probable cause" or "likely to be overturned". The first term is the legal standard for deciding if a police officer, for example, is justified in arresting someone. The second term is one part of the legal standard judges use to decide if a stay should be put on a law to prevent its enforcement while waiting for an appeal.

4. How does the "spiritual warfare" you mentioned play out in the day-to-day actions of a legal system that must deal fairly both with Christians and non-Christians? I think the answer to this question is a critical issue for fair-minded Christian lawyers. And I think the answer can sometimes be very difficult to answer in the nitty gritty details of new legal issues.

2004-02-22T15:01:00.000-08:00

My 7-year-old daughter, who has cerebral palsy, has spent most of her life struggling to communicate. She has normal intelligence and has no trouble understanding speech, but her motor skills have created overwhelming hurdles to her learning to speak. She has been extremely limited in her ability to verbalize more than vowels and a few consonants. Because of these limits, she uses sign language (which, itself, presents severe limits, because with her limited motor skills, she finds it difficult to make one sign appear different from another) and an electronic speech device (which is slow, because she has to create what she wants to express one word at a time on a computer-like device).

But recently she has made noticeable improvement in speaking. She's making greater efforts to express herself through speech, and her ability to make her words sound more like they really should has jumped ahead.

This advance has been an encouraging, but trying time. It's encouraging for the obvious reason that maybe she'll be able to speak well enough to eliminate the other modes of communication she has been forced to use. It's trying, because many of her attempts to communicate turn into a game of "20 questions," as we try to figure out, through a process of elimination, what precisely she is trying to express.

Sometimes we can guess what she is saying, just by the context of the conversation the rest of us are having. Sometimes we can guess by remembering the situations that occurred today or yesterday that have excited her. But if a few guesses don't hit their mark, we resort to "20 Questions." What gets hard is that rarely am I in the mood for "20 Questions" when the need comes up -- I'd far rather engage in a quick game of "1 Question" and then "You just tell me the answer."

I hate to admit it, but sometimes I just give up, if I think I can get away with it -- if I think she won't be too disappointed if she goes without expressing herself. This happens when I'm tired or distracted. But most of the time I make myself give full-hearted support to her efforts. It's all in the hope that some day she'll speak well, if we can focus our efforts today.

I just can't take the easy path here.

2004-02-20T09:08:00.002-08:00

I've just been accepted as a humor columnist at a start-up, online newspaper called The Cheers. My first column will probably appear next week.

These kinds of things are always funny. You enter a new situation like this with high hopes and expectations. But that's often because you don't know what you are getting into. Anyway, I think this will be a lot of fun.

Come see my column, featuring Professor Nutbottom, at www.thecheers.org.

2004-02-19T21:11:00.000-08:00

Well, this is an unusual turn of events. Norma McCorvey, aka known as Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade court case that legalized abortion, has been granted her request to have her case re-heard.

In case you don't know, several years ago Norma became a Christian, and after some soul-searching, decided that she wanted to do whatever she could to reverse the famous abortion-legalizing Supreme Court decision. Apparently, in June of last year she requested that a federal court reconsider her case. But the judge threw out her request. Now the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up McCorvey's case with arguments scheduled for March 2.

Besides the obvious irony of her reversal, what makes this case interesting is that so far there is no second side in the case. The current Dallas County DA, the predecessor of the DA in the original case, has not filed a response to Corvey's appeal. The DA says there is nothing to be done now, because the original law against which Corvey went to court no longer exists. The appeals court is apparently set to hear only one side of the case.

However, 20 Texas law school officials are concerned about an unbalanced trial, so they have filed briefs asking the court to allow them to argue the other side.

It's an odd request for a court to consider.

Ultimately, one would think that nothing will come of this case. The Supreme Court has several times, since their original decision, affirmed the validity of the 1973 hallmark decision. However, maybe the odd twist at the beginning of this appeal is only the start of a series of odd twists. For example, if Corvey were to show that she had been coerced into being the defendant in the original case, might that perhaps be grounds for the Supreme Court to vacate the original decision? I doubt it, but this case sure has my attention.

2004-02-19T14:23:00.000-08:00

"They're really proud of those things."

I always thinks it's funny when a company is proud of a product they sell, but their customers don't share their exuberance.

My daughter is disabled and uses a special walker called a "gait trainer." We've had her current walker for quite some time, and the casters on the thing have collected hair around their axles, until the wheels hardly move. I took the casters off to try to clean them, but they're built in a way that makes it impossible. The axle is cleverly protected inside two wheels with plastic housings. And there is seemingly no way to take them apart.

So, today we took the walker in for service at the medical equipment distributor we use, and the man who makes adjustments there took a shot at cleaning the axles. Same result. He got them rolling a little better with some lubricant, but he couldn't get them apart either. The hair remained tightly wrapped around the axle. That's when he said, about the manufacturer, "They're really proud of those things." Then, he mentioned that the casters cost $70 apiece.

What?

Forget about my backup plan to just buy new ones. Such a disappointment for a piece of equipment that sells for around $2,000. For that price you can get a car that is still capable of running.

A bit of advice for those seeking to give good customer service: If you take pride in what you sell, be sure your customers agree. If they don't, find something else to take pride in. And never neglect your customer's point of view on what's great and what's not.

2004-02-19T05:03:00.000-08:00

Of course!

Yesterday I could think of a hundred things to blog about. Today ... Well?

I can think of a hundred things, but none of them hold a particular attraction for me right now. Some blogger am I!

But here are some items of interest.

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" opens in 6 days. What an irony, that Mel Gibson became a superstar in films like "Mad Max" and "Lethal Weapons" and now he's produced this movie. I admit, I have seen neither of his "superstar" films, but I can guess from the titles what they are about. Ok, so, I don't know where I am going here. I'm drawing conclusions about movie content based on titles, but this is lunacy. Drop that line of reasoning and say something brilliant. OK - The controversy over "The Passion" promises to make the movie a real hit (wow! - that's deep).

Howard Dean has effectively dropped out of the Democratic Presidential nominee race. This, after categorically stating, only a couple days ago (before the vote in Wisconsin) that he was in the race to stay. I guess placing a distant third in what he had previously called a "must-win" state can shock anyone, even a political candidate, back into reality.

Britain is mulling the idea of taxing fatty foods, an effort to reverse the increasing obesity those people have seen in recent years. Unfortunately, these kinds of efforts always create their own catch-22. Initially the tax brings in sizeable revenue, money that the government begins to depend on. Then, if the tax ultimately works as intended, revenues drop off, leaving the government with a budget shortfall. If it doesn't work, the government has a new, hefty, reliable source of revenue. I'm guessing some of the money will go to "education" targeted at changing people's eating habits. These efforts will go full-throttle at first, but eventually I'm betting they'll move to half-hearted.

2004-02-18T04:21:00.000-08:00

The San Francisco situation with the city marrying gays and lesbians is interesting. I was somewhat surprised at the gall of the mayor to authorize this activity. But I'm not terribly surprised at the actions of the two judges, yesterday, who refused to stop the practice.

It was surprising that one judge actually admitted that the practice was probably illegal and then refused to stop the practice.

I thought in situations like this a judge will normally put a stay on a new practice to maintain the status quo. The theory is that the status quo is least likely to cause irreparable harm, unless it can be shown that the status quo is likely to be found illegal and unless compelling arguments can be given that the status quo is likely to cause irreparable harm.

I suspect both judges are activist judges, who want to see gay marriage become legal. I started to suspect this last week, when the judges refused to stop the practice and delayed any court action until at least yesterday.

Now the judges have delayed court action until March. I think it is likely that the judges purposely took advantage of the legal system to delay any additional court proceedings until March. At that time, even if the courts find that the city's actions are illegal, I suspect the courts may rule that things will have gone too far by then. They might acknowledge that the marrying of gays and lesbians has been breaking state law, but then they will point out that the harm caused by "rolling back the clock" will be far greater than allowing the practice to continue. On that basis those judges will declare gay marriages legal in the state of California.