Where I blog from

AJ tagged me for a neat idea -- to take pictures of where I sit/stand/spin with my computer when I'm writing for this blog. Anybody who wants to follow suit and post their own, please do so!

Below are pictures of the "comfy chair" in our den, which is my spot for blogging. I have a laptop for work that I bring home every night and use for myself, while Jamie uses the family desktop computer (visible in the corner of the room).

This is also where I sit for movie viewing, but I have to move a whole 2 feet to play the keyboard! It's a tough life.

Note: some of you may recognize "Reverend Billy" on the TV screen -- I took these pictures on the night I was watching What Would Jesus Buy?

The boy's a super freak

In some online browing recently, I stumbled across a cool survey site*. It had a Meyers-Briggs style of personality test, only instead of the usual results (I always come out as an INFJ) it puts a sarcastic and biting spin on your personality type.

For instance, instead of "spontaneous", it might say you're irresponsible. Instead of "dependable", it might say you're boring. My kind of survey! I can take a character jab in good fun. So here's what mine said:

__________________________________________________________________

Your result for The Brutally Honest Personality Test ...

Freak- INFJ
20% Extraversion, 67% Intuition, 40% Thinking, 80% Judging



Well, well, well. How did someone like you end up with the least common personality type of them all? In a group of 100 Americans, only 0.5 others would be just like you. You really are one of a kind... In fact, I do believe that that's one of the definitions for the word "FREAK."
Freak's not such a bad word to describe you actually.

You are deep, complex, secretive and extremely difficult to understand. If that doesn't scream "Freak!" I don't know what does. No-one actually knows the REAL you, do they?

You probably have deep interests in creative expression as well as issues of spirituality and human development.

You've probably even been called a "psychic" before, because of your uncanny knack to understand and "read" people without quite knowing how you do it. Don't fret. You're not actually psychic. That would make you special and you'll never accomplish that.

You're also quite possible the most emotional of them all, so don't take this all too hard. Nevertheless you most definitely have the strangest personality type and that's not necessarily a good thing.

_________________________________________________


OK, so the picture is funny, and the text is right on. Those of you who know me well know exactly how well the above paragraphs describe me.

Freaky.

So obviously this is something to keep in mind during those times when I don't feel like it fit in. I was wired with a 1-in-200 type of personality, so most people may not be able to empathize with my style of thinking. And that probably is a good thing.

*I'm not linking to the site because I discovered it automatically signed me up for a dating service. They didn't ask my permission; neither have they gotten me a hot date yet. Double fail.

This brain needs an enema!

Been a while, huh?

Not to sound insensitive, but I'm not really sorry that I was gone. I am sorry if you got the shakes or had other withdrawal symptoms as a result of my absence, but in some mysterious way my break was necessary. It was right. And I can't really explain it.

I'm in a weird season of spirit right now, and I'm curious where it goes from here. I'm not depressed, but I'm not into some of my usual activities lately (like blogging, for example). And I can't even put a finger on what my crazy brain is slowly working through, but it must be something big. Maybe soon it will let me in on it.

Until then, here's some random spewage of news and stuff:

-- My company, like many others, is about to face some hard times. I'm being asked to do more than ever before, even though (or maybe because) my little department was the sole part of the company that exceeded forecast this year.

-- This means that I'm taking some big leadership roles in some projects. Roles that make absolutely no sense organizationally, because I'm playing in other people's sandboxes and driving strategy for people way above my title and paygrade. But I'm doing it anyway.

-- At the same time, the company has hooked me up with a life/career coach. He and I clicked right away, and in the background of our discussions we know that one day I'm probably going to stop all this corporate stuff and follow my true calling. As soon as I figure out what it is. I'm thinking AJ's past recommendation of a preacher/teacher/comedian/pychologist/analyst thing sounds good. Anybody know someone who's hiring that combo?

-- Speaking of preaching, my church asked me to preach on a Sunday in January. I turned it down. That still bothers me, because I know why I turned it down. It's because I can't preach my heart there. I could give a sermon on plenty of other topics and they'd be satisfied. But I have this sense that the next time I preach, it will be about my evolved understanding of grace, and how it's changed my life and changed what I see as the Christian mission. That's the core of who I am, and to speak powerfully and genuinely, that's what I'd need to share. But I can't do it at the church where I'm a member. Frustrating.

-- I finished teaching my bible class that I've done weekly for six months. It was a wonderful, challenging experience trying to lead a group of people who are twice my age. In many ways I am kindred spirits with that generation. Weird, huh? But that's why my best friends in college were my grandparents, not my classmates. That's a weirdness I'll wear proudly.

-- The senior minister at church asked me to attend the young couples' class that he's teaching, with a tentative plan for me to take over for him soon if I connect with the group. I sat in there last week to discover that I disagreed with practically every single point of the minister's lesson. I thought it was flat out, undeniably, dangerously wrong. He taught that pain/suffering are always directly from God, and are forms of discipline for our unrighteousness. He said there's no room for random events and "life happens" scenarios -- it's all uniquely and purposely from God.

-- This stuff is making me wonder where I fit at church.

-- Jamie and I celebrate our 10th anniversary next month! We're planning on a 4-day, 3-night, jaunt to Southern California to stay in a cabin at the foot of a mountain range. A few days of quiet, sharing, nature, reflection, hiking and boom-chicka-bang-bang. Yeehaw!

-- My daughter is almost halfway through kindergarten. When did that happen?

-- We paid off the van today, 13 months early. That means we have no car payment next month, for the first time in six years. We had no car payment for the first four years of our marriage and we're thrilled to return to that place again. It will make many other things possible financially.

-- I continue studying the economic climate, and I continue to be disturbed. As I blogged about earlier, nobody seems to be discussing the fundamental weaknesses of our economy (low production, low savings, brain drain). If printing more money would fix the problem, wouldn't that have already worked by now? We're teetering on this weird edge between deflation and hyperinflation, and right now I wouldn't be surprised to see either one become reality in 2009.

-- Tonight at dinner I asked the kids what kinds of things Christmas is about. Samantha said "giving" and "sharing". Jack said "baking cookies" and "eating cookies".

-- I like cookies. And hot cocoa. And eggnog. And I've had all three in the past 24 hours.

-- Burp.

Made in God's image

Sorry to single you out again, debby, but your comment sparked another series of thoughts for me. You mentioned that your role as a mother is part of your connection to knowing/understanding God. In some ways it sounded like this was a treasured epiphany for you, but in other ways you almost sounded guilty, like it cheapens God's love to compare it to our own.

I don't think that's the case at all. Christians believe that we are created in the image of God, and although there's dispute over exactly what that means, it should at least give us peace that our own thoughts, relationships and concepts aren't laughably inept and petty to God. In some mysterious way, some "image", we and God share the same experience.

Our human role of parent is often very useful to me in thinking of the divine role of creator. You see, in our Western form of Christianity we are told that the entire purpose of the universe is to glorify God. In fact, just yesterday at church a man gave a short talk about how the entire point of Jesus' life was to bring glory to the Father. Here we inevitably get back to the Trinitarian concepts that do nothing for me (wasn't Jesus really glorifying himself, if he was God?), but the man's central message was that it's all about God.

Eastern Orthodox churches have a different picture of creation. They look at God as other-oriented, at His core. This was reflected in the life of Jesus, who spent his few years of ministry healing, teaching and loving people. There's no evidence that Jesus was doing this primarily as a self-focused exercise. He genuinely cared about the people of his time, and did his best to serve them. As his core, he was other-oriented.

So compare these two pictures of God from the West and from the East -- the creator making it for his own glory, and the creator who is other-oriented and sharing something beautiful with creations he loves. Quite different pictures... are they mutually exlusive? I don't know!

What I do know is that the Eastern view of God actually meshes better with my own experience as a father. I didn't have children with the main purpose to create a generation that would take care of me. It wasn't about me receiving service or praise from little ones. No, when Jamie and I decided it was time to start a family, the reason was something much more indefinable. It was just time. We were ready to share our home, and our very selves, with new family members. We were ready to create life and nurture it, watch it grow with excitement and concern, and then one day release it to find its way in this crazy and fun universe.

So I wonder if the "why" of creation, for God, is something similar. I wonder if that's part of his image we inherited. Maybe he didn't make this whole thing just so that he'd be praised. Maybe it was something tougher to put a finger on, and it was just time. Maybe he wanted others to share in this thing called life, and then after it's over, he'll move us on to the next adventure and once again watch with excitement, concern and pride, like any good parent would.

In the end, is it still all about God? Perhaps so. But my perception of what that means has really changed over time.

Why I believe

Debby had a good comment on my last post, and it led me to ponder my favorite part of Timothy Keller's book that I read and reviewed.

As I mentioned in the review, I like that Keller came right out and admitted that there's no proof for God. Can faith in God be reasonable in some ways? Sure. But the reasons and evidence hardly pile up to the line of inevitability. It's certainly possible that God doesn't exist, and even the term "faith" implies uncertainty and maybe even some doubt. That's okay.

This concession can be so powerful in forming healthy relationships with agnostics and atheists. I sometimes meet church members who feel that their faith is so sure, so unshakably correct and true, that anyone who doesn't agree just isn't paying attention to the obvious. There is much I admire in that kind of stalwart faith, and while I see the need for those types of followers in the kingdom, I am not one of them. My faith, at its deepest level, shrugs its shoulders and says, "You know what? I might be wrong about all of this."

This doesn't work for everybody. Some may think that this type of faith is too timid, too laced with apathy about solid answers, and too open to the possibility of dissolving altogether. Perhaps they're right... I honestly don't know, but I honestly stay true to where I am and for now I confess that my answers to every single big question (does God exist, why am I here, where do socks go when they disappear from the laundry) is, "I don't know". But even if I don't know, I believe in answers to these questions, and then I live accordingly.

One of my favorite Old Testament passages is when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are facing the fiery furnace, their punishment for refusing to worship a statue of King Nebuchadnezzar. Instead they said they only worshipped God. Before throwing them into the fire, the king gave them one last chance to bow to his image. This was their answer in Daniel 3:16:

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."

I hear them saying, "You know what? We could be wrong about this. We could totally burn up into nothingness in ten seconds. But we're sticking with our hearts and our faith. We can't prove we're right. But we go on anyway."

I admire that so much. That's the spirit of doubting Thomas in the New Testament, a guy who gets way too bad a reputation sometimes. Sure, he doubted some of Jesus' decisions and he doubted the resurrection, but he kept on anyway! When Jesus told his followers he would go to see his friend Lazarus, Thomas thought it was a bad plan. This would mean going right back to the people who had earlier tried to kill Jesus. It was dangerous, possibly silly, and there was no evidence Jesus nor his followers would survive. Jesus stood his ground and said he was going. Thomas answered (John 11:16):

"Let us also go, that we may die with him."

What a doubter! He knew there was no guarantee that he would survive, but he went away, because he believed in what Jesus was doing. I love that.

Some of my Christian friends did not grow up in Christian families -- they came to their own faith later in life and from different angles. But each of them came to faith in ways more mysterious than obvious, through feelings as much as logic. Some of them read this blog. For many of them, when I ask about their "conversion" story, it goes something like this: one day I didn't believe, the next day I did.

This gives me courage, because in the end, to answer the title of this post, I believe because I believe. I have no proof that I'm right. I confess my Christian upbringing was a major factor, and in other circumstances I'd be something other than Christian. I confess that there are social pressures to me keeping a Christian label.

I don't use science or archeology to prop up the bible as infallible truth. I don't claim any particular grasp of spiritual wisdom that is better than any other faith, denomination or church member. And yet I believe.

I may not believe the exact same things you do. In fact, we almost assuredly don't agree on many things. This often makes things a little prickly for me at church, as it's hard to find the line between healthy diversity and breaking from the faith. What things can I disagree on openly and still be considered a "brother"? It's under the surface of my mind most Sundays I go to our church.

Confession time:

-- I agree with some of Lee Strobel's conclusions in the "Case for Christ" series of books, but I find his methods faulty and his arguments weak.
-- I believe that the rule of consequences is built into the universe, but I'm highly doubtful of the traditional view of hell.
-- I believe that Jesus is my absolute biggest spiritual influence, yet I doubt some of the Trinitarian doctrines that are supposedly essential to my Christian status.
-- I believe that what we do in this life matters, but I don't fret about my "special purpose" and instead have been focused on living naturally, meeting each day ready for whatever it brings.
-- I believe that the golden rule encompasses the very essence of the most important parts of Christianity, but I admit that other religions have equal, and sometimes superior, focus on that same essence.


And I believe.

Calendar wisdom

This year my daily calendar in my office has been from the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People company.

If the very name makes you groan, no biggie -- just skip this post! :)

Not everyone is into that kind of stuff, but I like having these daily tidbits. Here are my favorites from the first half of the year. And by "favorites" I usually mean that these are the ones that made me very uncomfortable as I faced up to my own shortcomings:

"The real beginning of influence comes as others sense you are being influenced by them -- when they feel understood by you -- that you have listened deeply and sincerely, and that you are open."

"So many of us are filled with our own rightness. We want to be understood. Our conversations become collective monologues, and we never really understand what's going on inside another human being."

"If I think I see the world as it is, why would I want to bother with someone who's 'off track'? My paradigm is that I am objective; I see the world as it is. Everyone else is buried by the minutia, but I see the larger picture. That's why they call me a supervisor -- I have super vision. If that's my paradigm, then I will never be effectively interdependent, or even effectively independent, for that matter. I will be limited by the paradigms of my own conditioning."

"The difference between people who exercise initiative and those who don't is literally the difference between night and day. I'm not talking about a 25 to 50 percent different in effectiveness; I'm talking about a 5,000-plus percent difference, particularly if they are smart, aware, and sensitive to others."

"Some people become so centered on an enemy, so totally obsessed with the behavior of another person that they become blind to everything except their desire for that person to lose, even if it means losing themselves. Lose/Lose is the philosophy of adversarial conflict, the philosophy of war."

"Whenever love is given on a conditional basis, when someone has to earn love, what's being communicated to him is that they are not intrinsically valuable or lovable. Value does not lie inside them; it lies outside. It's in comparison with somebody else or against some expectation. And what happens to a young mind and heart, highly vulnerable, highly dependent upon support and emotional affirmation, in the face of conditional love? The child is molded, shaped, and programmed in the Win/Lose mentality."

"Dag Hammarskjold, past Secretary-General of the United Nations, once made a profound, far-reaching statement: 'It is nobler to give yourself completely to one individual than to labor diligently for the salvation of the masses.' I take that to mean I could devote eight, ten, or twelve hours a day five, six or seven days a week to the thousands of people out there and still not have a deep, meaningful relationship with my spouse or with my closest working associate. And it would take more nobility of character -- more humility, courage and strength -- to rebuild that one relationship than it would to continue putting in all those hours for all those people and causes."

"I do not agree with the popular success literature that says self-esteem is primarily a matter of mind-set, of attitude -- that you can psyche yourself into peace of mind. Peace of mind comes when your life is in harmony with true principles and values..."

"The real key to your influence with me is your example, your actual conduct. Your example flows naturally out of your character, or the kind of person you truly are -- not what others say you are or what you may want me to think you are. It is evident in how I actually experience you."

More on the book review

My buddy James let me know that he was a little unclear on some of my criticisms of The Reason for God. I went back and read my post through two more times, and James is right -- I don't think I expressed myself very well. Here's another try.

The intended audience for Keller's book is non-Christians. Atheists and agnostics, mostly, but he's writing to followers of other religions as well. The book is laid out into two sections -- the first covers the most common questions posed about Christianity (why does God allow evil, why did Jesus have to die, etc...) and the second half lays out his take on some of the most foundational Christian principles -- grace, love, spiritual disciplines, etc...

So given all of that, I have to think that at some point he wants the reader to ask the question that is asked multiple times in the New Testament: "What must I do to be saved?"

It's the call to action. Every church I've seen has some sort of answer for this question. Some say you must accept Jesus with a statement of faith, others perform baptism, others have a longer-term process with multiple steps of commitment.

Keller doesn't answer the question at all. He spends 300 pages telling non-Christians why they should change their minds, yet if the book actually succeeds in this, he leaves the non-churched reader wondering about the next step. I found this strange.

So this is my main critique with Keller's book:

1) He says that non-Christians are lost and destined for hell (see here on his church website for more on the topic). We'll call this "point A" in a spiritual journey, just for the sake of example.
2) He says that Christianity is not only the key to going to heaven, but it's the key to living the best life on earth. We'll call this point B in the spiritual journey.
3) He says nothing about how to get from point A to point B.

That seemed odd to me.

Book Review -- The Reason for God

The last book I finished was The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, and I thought I'd share my thoughts on it here in the blog, since many of the book's themes relate to some of my recent writings. And many of you have shared with me either through the comments, through email or through conversation that these deep questions of faith are fun to wrestle with.



So here are two things I liked about the book, and two things I didn't like.

Things I Liked

#1 -- Keller admits throughout the book that while he is focusing on the rationale for God, there is no proof that the divine even exists, let alone that the Christian view of God is correct. At some point, no matter how much evidence appears to pile up, we all make a leap of faith in our theology, if we're not agnostics. To say definitively that yes, there is a God, or no, there is no God, is a non-provable statement in scientific terms.

I like this. It's a good, humbling reminder for Christians who think their view of God and the world is so obviously correct, and it's a good starting concession to readers who have no belief in god whatsoever.

#2 -- He makes a great point that atheism, when taken to its natural conclusion, is a depressing way to view the universe. This is by no means a new thing -- Nietzsche was writing about it more than 150 years ago and the phrase "nihilism" is known mostly because of him. Or just read the first two chapters of the book of Ecclesiastes to see what life looks like if dust-to-dust tells the whole story of humanity.

Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett and others have tried to explain how this universe is still beautiful and amazing without God, and at the big-picture level I can agree. But then they say that we can encourage beautiful things like love, peace and respect for mankind with an atheistic worldview, and that always falls flat for me.

If I am simply molecules in motion, then love is merely a chemical reaction. Respect is an illusionary concept between strangely-organized pieces of moving flesh. And with such a massive universe (approximately 13 billion light years across) why would it possibly matter what I, a 200-lb. organism with DNA more than 99% equal to a chimpanzee, do with my day? Is there any "should" in the life of a tree or a fish? No. So what makes me different?

The fact remains that we have moral obligations and nearly-universal themes of conscience across cultures that make no sense on an evolutionary level. Perhaps there's more going on than just molecules in motion?

Things I Didn't Like

#1 -- He could've used some more original thought. The book is almost 300 pages long, but much of it seems to be quotes from prior apologists. The first half of the book is full of excerpts from C.S. Lewis, and the second half is peppered with NT Wright. Seriously. I've already read their stuff... I bought this book for something new.

When I was reading in bed one night, I looked at Jamie and mentioned this point. Then I closed the book, opened it to a random page and showed her. Boom. C.S. Lewis quote.

#2 -- His view of grace/law/salvation made no sense to me. I tried and I tried but I couldn't reconcile his chapters to develop of mental picture of where he stands on some doctrinal issues. This bothers me, because I love getting in peoples' heads! And when I read 300 pages of your work, I feel like that should be enough to get in your head and understand you, even if I don't agree with you.

Here's an example -- maybe you can help me.

On page 4 in his first chapter, he describes a cross-religion panel he sat on with a Jew and Muslim. During that conversation, he clearly stated that their religions are an either/or proposition, both in terms of correct doctrine and salvation. So if Christianity is "right", then the other guys are doomed. And vice versa. They didn't think these different religions could be reconciled by the same God. Fair enough -- I understand him so far.

Then he wrote a section about hell and why he thinks it's real. His sole support was the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Based on my previous writings on the subject, some of you already know that I think it's a huge stretch to use that story as evidence for the current view of hell. But whatever... I still understand where he's coming from, even if I don't agree.

Near the end of the book, he writes about the beauty of God's grace, and how it impacts our view of other people. Here's what he says (emphasis mine):

This gospel identity gives us a new basis for harmonious and just social arrangements. A Christian's worth and value are not created by excluding anyone, but through the Lord who was excluded for me. His grace both humbles me more deeply than religion can (since I am too flawed to ever save myself through my own effort), yet it also affirms me more powerfully than religion can (since I can be absolutely certain of God's unconditional acceptance).

That means that I cannot despise those who do not believe as I do. Since I am not saved by my correct doctrine or practice, then this person before me, even with his or her wrong beliefs, might be morally superior to me in many ways.

So he cannot do anything to save himself. Like Paul wrote in the New Testament, redemption is either all grace or all law. You can't have some of both. Keller seems to agree and say that it's all grace, and all from God. Nothing to do with doctine, practice or morality.

Yet earlier in the book he made it clear that many people were going to hell, and that seemed to be due to their incorrect doctrines, practices and/or morality!

And if they turn that around somehow, haven't they done something themselves to be saved?

If it's not to Mr. Keller's credit that he's going to heaven, then why is it his neighbor's fault that they're going to hell?

So there ya go -- two things I liked and two things I didn't like. If you have anything to add or if you can help me get in the author's head a little better, let me know!

Update and kid quotes

1) Our phone line has been completely down since Saturday. No phone line, no internet. AT&T said something about the line being open more than 800 feet away from our house, and that is impacting us. Yeah, I'd call an inexistent dial tone and no phone service an "impact". They're working on it but may have to call in some other team to fix it. I'm betting our bill won't be prorated down next month to compensate for the time without service!

2) I had a weird swollen spot under my right jaw for a few days. I assume it was a lymph node. Last Thursday it was sore in the morning, grew throughout the day and by that night it was like a golf ball and was hot to the touch. Gross, I know. I went to the doc and he was pretty freaked out and completely stumped by what could have caused it. That's always nice to hear from a doctor.

I've been on antibiotics since then and everything's just about normal now. I never had any other symptoms -- no fever, sore throat, earache or anything.

Just one more medical mystery from our family.

Enough of that -- onto recent quotes from the kids!

#1 -- Capital punishment

Jack (3yo) walked into a room to find our two dogs wrestling. He went to separate them and then gave them a talk:

"Who started this? Did you start it (points at Mo)? Did you (points at Z)? Whoever started this... (raises his hands dramatically)... must be killed."

Don't worry; he doesn't know what that means.

#2 -- Hurricane Ike's impact

Jack: I'm very sad.
Jamie: Why, son?
Jack: Because I'll never go to the aquarium again.
Jamie: Sure we will! But not today.
Me: No, it's closed today. Even the zoo is closed.
Samantha: Why is the zoo closed?!?!
Me: Because of the storm.
Samantha: Oh yeah... the storm. What happened to the animals?
Me: They're fine. They'll just stay in their cages.
Samantha: What about the outside ones? Oh yeah, they'll just go to their inside places. The elephants have a place that looks like jail, so they'll go there.

#3 -- Toddler version of the Z-snap

Jamie: Jack, pick up that toy and put it away.
Jack: NO!
Jamie: Jack, that's a minus (a scoring system we were trying out, unsuccessfully).
Jack: (Stomping his foot and tightening his fists) Mom, THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU!!

#4 -- Quick-witted at age three

Me: Samantha, how was kindergarten today?
Samantha: Good.
Me: Do you have friends there?
Samantha: Yep.
Me: Do they have names?
Samantha: Well, one is named Genesis.
Me: Genesis? Really?
Samantha: Yep.
Jack: What about Exodus? Was he there?

#5 -- Dream on

Jack: Dreams aren't real, daddy. Dreams aren't real.
Me: Nope, they're not. Sometimes I wish they were, though. Like when I dream I can fly.
Samantha: Ooh, ooh... you know what else would be cool if it was real??!?
Me: What?
Samantha: If I was uh INDIAN!!

#6 -- Dust to dust

Samantha: Daddy, who is Nonny's mommy and daddy? (Nonny is her great-grandmother)
Me: I don't know, sugar.
Samantha: Why not?
Me: They were too old by the time I was born.
Samantha: How old were they when you were born?
Me: Well... they were so old they weren't alive anymore.
Samantha: You mean they were dead?
Me: Yes.
Samantha: They were already dead when you were born?!?
Me: Yep.
Samantha: Whoa! They must be mummies by now!

#7 -- Faster than the elevator

Samantha: I like eating outside at the restaurant!
Me: Me too!
Samantha: Do you ever eat outside when you're at work?
Me: No, we don't have outside tables.
Samantha: Why don't you open your window?
Me: Mine doesn't open.
Samantha: Why not?
Me: Because it's on the eighth level.
Samantha: EIGHTH LEVEL!!! WHOA!!!
Me: Yeah, it'd be too high and too dangerous to open the window.
Samantha: Sure would; especially without parachutes!

#8 -- Rub it in, why dontcha

Samantha: Hey daddy!
Me: Yes?
Samantha: I bet if you didn't have kids, you'd want to be a baseball player!
Me: ....

Meme about me

I done been tagged by AJ, my sister-in-law, a sweet girl who owes all her blogging success to humble little me.

Here are the rules of the meme:



Here we go!

1. I've always been into fitness but I haven't done a single formal workout since Hurricane Ike seven weeks ago. Fortunately after years of training I'm pretty good at listening to my body, so I've dropped my calories enough that there's been no weight gain. But I'm not as strong, fast or fit as I'm used to being. In the past, breaks like this would have driven me crazy but for some reason it's not bothering me this time.

2. How have I cut calories? By using intermittent fasting, basically skipping meals as it suits my schedule and my appetite. Lately I've been purposely skipping lunch two or three times a week, and it's amazing how it works for me. I don't get hungry and I keep up full momentum at the office without worrying about food. I've done lots of study on this topic over the past few years and all the "metabolism damage" fears about skipping meals are incorrect, in my opinion.

3. Right now I am pumped about this weekend. Earlier this year I posted some pictures of our first-ever camping trip, a group outing with some other families from our church. Well, this weekend is another church camping trip, but Jamie and I have some things we really need to stay home for. Her parents, though, have volunteered to take the kids on the camping trip so that they can have a couple of days of non-stop fun with their grandkids.

Jamie and I have had plenty of dates without the kids, and even a short trip or two. But we've never been home for a weekend while the kids were away somewhere. It's going to be bizarre and I'm sure we'll miss the kids, but the prospect of sleeping in on Saturday is worth a fist pump and a "booyah".

4. When men hit their mid-30s some of them lose their minds a little bit. Sort of an early mid-life crisis. I've heard this from several guys, and I'm not immune to the phenomenon either. So it's confession time. I have decided to do something very unexpected, and to jump into an activity that I've always known I wanted to try. It just took more than 30 years to admit to myself that I truly wanted to try it. In a way I guess I'm coming out of a closet. No, not that closet.

I'm learning to play piano. I've only just begun, but I have a decent keyboard, some books and am in the hunt for a good teacher. I want to learn it the right way, and have it become both a creative outlet and a stress-relieving activity at some point. That will entail enough of a mastery that I don't have to "think" so hard about the technicality of the playing, and can just focus on the feelings of the music. I realize that's a long way away, but I'm genuinely commited to getting there.

Knowing my blog visitors, some of you are reading this and thinking, "weird, Michael". Others are chuckling and saying I'll never stick with it. Others are jumping for joy.

5. I have a Playstation 3 and a Nintendo Wii, but I haven't been playing much of either lately. Not because I don't want to... there are several games for both systems I'm interested in. Just haven't gotten around to buying them. It'll be time when it's time.

6. Most of you know I'm a geek for physics, if you've been reading my posts lately. But I'm also a geek for other areas of science too -- specifically the intersection of psychology and neuroscience. Or put another way, the world of the "mind" and the world of the "brain". Examples:

-- Alzheimer's is a physical condition, affecting the brain tissue. But it manifests itself in terrible ways on the memory and the emotions. Brain and mind are connected.
-- Take a minute to close your eyes and think of one of your best memories. Picture it, see it, hear it, smell it. Chances are good that this mental exercise brings physical results -- a smile, lower heart rate, lower blood pressure and a relaxation of normally-tense muscles like those in the neck and shoulders.

See? I'm a geek for this stuff. Our scientists are still only scratching the surface in discovering what our brains, and our minds, are capable of.

7. When I get nervous, I get sweaty on my hands and on my booty.

Alright dudes, you're getting tagged. I've got a ridiculous amount of blogs in my RSS feed (more than 40 at last count), and eventually I'll get around to building a blogroll of some of my faves. And I've got more than 7 faves, so please don't be hurt if you're not in the short list of tagees to follow:

Hal
Bob Barbanes
Bob, just Bob
Andrew
Don
Jamie
Roland


There's another Bob I could've put on this list... my Uncle Bob. Hey uncle, let me know if my tagging of you would nudge you to get to blogging again. Cuz I'll totally add you to the list.

More on the evolution panel

We had some great comments and questions after my last post -- tonight I'll answer a couple of them directly. I just know I'm gonna be wordy on these, so it was too much to leave in the comments section!

Question 1 -- Did you lose/win the debate?

Thankfully it was just setup as a panel, and the minister/moderator introduced us and explicitly stated to the room that it was not a debate. I appreciated that from him. He had worked closely with the four panel members over the past few weeks to ensure that the mood was light and respectful, and before we began on Sunday morning he read the following excerpt from an email I sent to the panel last week:

"I like to believe that our church members are unified in spite of our differences, not in the absence of them."

So if it wasn't a debate, what was my purpose/goal in serving on the panel? It was simple -- to put a personal face on a different perspective. I didn't want to change the attendees' minds on the issue of evolution -- they aren't ready for that big of a shift. I merely wanted to cause a ripple in their very clear, black/white worldview.

On my post about evolution several months ago, I noted that for some people this is a "Level Two" issue -- something that is essential to their entire worldview and faith. In other words, for them, if the world is more than 6,000 years old then you can throw the whole bible away. If the big bang really happened then God doesn't exist. They hang everything together on that single point -- a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. It's all black or white, with no room for grey, no room for the bible having things like poetry, parable or metaphor. One panel member said exactly that -- "if we leave room in the bible for poetry, then where does it end? Maybe Jesus never really lived at all."

So you see, if I win the debate and somehow get them to accept that the earth might be older than 6,000 years, their entire faith comes crumbling down. That's not my intent. Paul speaks pretty clearly about this in his letter to the Romans. Here are a few different sections from The Message translation:

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with--even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.
_____________________________

Forget about deciding what's right for each other. Here's what you need to be concerned about: that you don't get in the way of someone else, making life more difficult than it already is. I'm convinced--Jesus convinced me!-that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it.
_____________________________

Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe--some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them--then you know that you're out of line. If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it's wrong.
______________________________

Good stuff, and it reminds me to get back to following the golden rule. I want people to give me space and grace for my own opinions, then I have to do the same for them. When I spend some time seriously thinking on this, I realized there are two things that really irked me about previous conversations with creationists:

1) They assumed their own belief was the only true choice, and anybody who didn't agree was dumb, evil or terribly misinformed
2) They got very emotionally involved in the issue, literally shaking with anger at the thought of other people's weak or nonexistent faith

My main goal on the panel was to avoid both of those mistakes, by:

1) Having an open mind and projecting a sense of genuine humility
2) Staying cool, calm and loving, with no anger to those who disagreed with me

That's how I want people to treat me, so it was "golden rule" time for me to do the same.

Question 2 -- "If you dont take Scripture in its entirety, how do you reconcile the parts that dont make any logical sense. Do you actually call yourself a "Christian"?

I'll sorta be coy and devious on this one, just for the sake of brevity. These questions start to get to the core of my entire faith, and the answers are more than I can post in a few paragraphs.

So to be coy and devious, I don't really understand what "take scripture in its entirety" means anymore. I used to think I knew what that meant, and I held that over people who didn't agree.

So is the whole bible true or not? Literal or not? Song of Songs is cleary poetry, but is it "true"? If so, what is it telling us, and is that truth any less important than historical facts?

Here are my two devious closing comments:

1) If I told Jesus I was a Christian, is it possible he would reply, "You're a what?"

2) In Paul's second letter to Timothy, when he wrote that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching", did he think he was writing scripture?

The 1 and the 99

I had a follow-up post started on the evolution panel, but it will need to wait a bit.

Our new puppy Z snuck out this afternoon and we haven't been able to locate him. Some kids in a nearby apartment complex said he came through there and they played with him for a while, but then he ran off.

Hopefully he's just in somebody's home right now and either they'll see our upcoming flyers, or they'll take him to a vet or shelter where his microchip will be scanned and they'll call us.

Hopefully he's in somebody's home. The low tonight is in the 30s.

I know more fully what it means now to do all you can to find that one lost sheep.

EDIT: A sweet young couple about a mile away found Z tonight and posted on Craigslist, just minutes before my own posting went live. I got many emails from people saying, "Oh my gosh! This is so awesome -- check the website! Somebody found your puppy!" Our postings were literally on top of each other, with one titled "Lost" and the other titled "Found".

Guess it goes to show you, at any given time, if you're wondering whether you're lost or you're found, you might actually be both.

More on the evolution panel

We had some great comments and questions after my last post -- tonight I'll answer a couple of them directly. I just know I'm gonna be wordy on these, so it was too much to leave in the comments section!

Question 1 -- Did you lose/win the debate?

Thankfully it was just setup as a panel, and the minister/moderator introduced us and explicitly stated to the room that it was not a debate. I appreciated that from him. He had worked closely with the four panel members over the past few weeks to ensure that the mood was light and respectful, and before we began on Sunday morning he read the following excerpt from an email I sent to the panel last week:

"I like to believe that our church members are unified in spite of our differences, not in the absence of them."

So if it wasn't a debate, what was my purpose/goal in serving on the panel? It was simple -- to put a personal face on a different perspective. I didn't want to change the attendees' minds on the issue of evolution -- they aren't ready for that big of a shift. I merely wanted to cause a ripple in their very clear, black/white worldview.

On my post about evolution several months ago, I noted that for some people this is a "Level Two" issue -- something that is essential to their entire worldview and faith. In other words, for them, if the world is more than 6,000 years old then you can throw the whole bible away. If the big bang really happened then God doesn't exist. They hang everything together on that single point -- a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. It's all black or white, with no room for grey, no room for the bible having things like poetry, parable or metaphor. One panel member said exactly that -- "if we leave room in the bible for poetry, then where does it end? Maybe Jesus never really lived at all."

So you see, if I win the debate and somehow get them to accept that the earth might be older than 6,000 years, their entire faith comes crumbling down. That's not my intent. Paul speaks pretty clearly about this in his letter to the Romans. Here are a few different sections from The Message translation:

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with--even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.
_____________________________

Forget about deciding what's right for each other. Here's what you need to be concerned about: that you don't get in the way of someone else, making life more difficult than it already is. I'm convinced--Jesus convinced me!-that everything as it is in itself is holy. We, of course, by the way we treat it or talk about it, can contaminate it.
_____________________________

Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe--some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them--then you know that you're out of line. If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it's wrong.
______________________________

Good stuff, and it reminds me to get back to following the golden rule. I want people to give me space and grace for my own opinions, then I have to do the same for them. When I spend some time seriously thinking on this, I realized there are two things that really irked me about previous conversations with creationists:

1) They assumed their own belief was the only true choice, and anybody who didn't agree was dumb, evil or terribly misinformed
2) They got very emotionally involved in the issue, literally shaking with anger at the thought of other people's weak or nonexistent faith

My main goal on the panel was to avoid both of those mistakes, by:

1) Having an open mind and projecting a sense of genuine humility
2) Staying cool, calm and loving, with no anger to those who disagreed with me

That's how I want people to treat me, so it was "golden rule" time for me to do the same.

Question 2 -- "If you dont take Scripture in its entirety, how do you reconcile the parts that dont make any logical sense. Do you actually call yourself a "Christian"?

I'll sorta be coy and devious on this one, just for the sake of brevity. These questions start to get to the core of my entire faith, and the answers are more than I can post in a few paragraphs.

So to be coy and devious, I don't really understand what "take scripture in its entirety" means anymore. I used to think I knew what that meant, and I held that over people who didn't agree.

So is the whole bible true or not? Literal or not? Song of Songs is cleary poetry, but is it "true"? If so, what is it telling us, and is that truth any less important than historical facts?

Here are my two devious closing comments:

1) If I told Jesus I was a Christian, is it possible he would reply, "You're a what?"

2) In Paul's second letter to Timothy, when he wrote that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching", did he think he was writing scripture?

Finding balance in pride and humility

I did something good today, and I'm proud of it. I was asked to sit on a "panel" in a bible class at our church with three other men to discuss an explosive and often-divisive topic: evolution. Really the topic was science in general, but evolution has been the primary topic of that class. I've written about it here before -- just search "evolution" in the search bar above and you'll find those old articles.

Anyway, this class has continued but I haven't been able to participate because I've been teaching a class of my own for the past five months. Then this panel idea came up.

At first I was excited, but over the past week or so I'd been getting more and more nervous. I discovered that all three of the other panel members are young-earth creationists, believing that a 6,000 year-old earth is an essential foundation of the Christian faith. I don't personally hold to that view. It felt like I was walking into a very dangerous situation. In the end, though, it went very well and several people came up to me after class to say they appreciated my contribution.

Below is what I said this morning. Yes, it's pretty close to verbatim -- my memory is freaky like that. After that, I'll post something humbling to balance things out.

Question 1 -- Why are you here on the panel? What is your interest in this topic?

I have no professional training in science -- I was just a dumb business major in college. I'm here probably for the same reason many of you are here listening this morning; I just love this stuff. Science fascinates me, and I love discovering and learning more about how our universe works.

Because of that, my favorite branch of science is physics, since they ask the absolute biggest questions -- what the world is made of, how it works, what are the forces at work around us, and so on. Those big questions are so leading-edge, and the theories often so unproven, that it brings with it a big dose of humility. The people who inspire me are the expected former legends of physics like Einstein and Neils Bohr, but there are scientists today like Brian Greene and Sylvester Gates who are equally brilliant yet still able to communicate to average people like me. I read these guys' books and see them speak in person whenever possible. Like I said, I just love this stuff.

Question 2 -- What is your definition of "evolution"?

Well, my answer is different than those you've heard from the other men here, but when I say "evolution" I'm just talking about the process of species changing over time due to natural selection. It's happening in our world right now, and I'd bet that everyone in the room agrees. Here, I can test it -- would anybody here give their children the flu shot from 10 years ago? Probably not, because the virus changes ever year, and the CDC tries to keep its flu shot relevant to the currently active strains. So things are constantly changing.

Even Ken Ham (the author of the book being used in bible class) agrees that evolution is a part of the picture. Let's take his view of Noah's ark, a literal event a few thousand years ago when only a maximum of 1,000 species survived the flood. And yet today there are over a million species on our planet. His explanation is that right after the flood, God started a super-fast form of evolution, turning one species of primate into 20 in just a few generations. One dog breed became hundreds.

So both sides agree that evolution has happened and is still happening, it's just a debate over the speed that animals evolved in the past. That's all I mean by evolution. The origin of man is a different issue for me.

Aside

At this point a class member said the following -- "But if our adversaries hear us talk like that, won't it weaken our argument? If they think that in any way we agree with them then we'll appear weaker and will probably lose the debate. I think we need to tell them upfront that we don't agree with any of their stance on evolution."

This was my answer:

I don't want this to come off as a personal attack on what you just said, but I'd like to point out how differently I approach the issue itself, regardless of my conclusions on all of this.

You said words like "adversary", "debate", and "lose", and mentioned that we have to appear strong to win the argument. In my experience in speaking with scientists, this just isn't effective. A true dialogue requires me to first humble myself, put aside my judgment, and listen openly not only to the content of the speaker, but to the person himself. I need to hear where he's coming from and truly try to understand, and that can be a very vulnerable thing. It's not about strength -- strength doesn't work, at least when I've tried it. It shuts down any chance of two human beings actually having a discussion and impacting each other.

I always start with what I have in common with someone else -- always. I start with what we agree on, use that to build up a base of companionship, and then go from there into the differences with an open mind.

(The commenter came up to me after class and apologized, saying that his words didn't come out like he meant them to. We smiled, shook hands and were better for it.)

Question 3 -- How do you see science and faith working together in your life?

Wow, in a lot of ways, but first let me tell you where they don't work together for me. I think that at the very root level, deep inside my soul, science and faith answer different sets of questions.

Science seeks to answer the What/When/How of the universe. For example, on the issue of creation, science continues to examine and study what happened, when it happened, and how it happened. And if all of those things somehow get answered, although I don't think that will happen in my lifetime, they still aren't the most important questions to me, when it comes to creation.

The most important questions about creation, to me, are Who and Why. Science may someday answer a lot of the things we're discussing today, but it'll never provide a pupose for my life, the "Why" of my values and priorities. That is the arena of faith. So at the very deepest level, science and faith are attempting to answer different questions for me.

Above that deep level, though, there's all kinds of overlap. For example, one of my favorite bible passages is in Luke 1, when Mary sings a song of joy after being told she would give birth to Jesus. She said that her soul gives glory to God, and her spirit rejoices, and then she gives evidence after evidence of what God has done -- shown mercy here, given strength there, provided guidance over there. She rejoices because she looks around and sees God working.

That's how science and faith work together in my life. I read about the weird behavior of an electron and I give glory. I hear a speech about dark matter and I rejoice. It's just an amazing universe, and it's my pleasure to get glimpses of the creator by looking at things in new ways.

Question 4 -- Time is almost up, so in one or two sentences, please tell us why we should even discuss these topics, if they're not "salvation issues".

(The other three men, in their own ways, all disagreed with the question and said that belief about evolution is a salvation issue, because if we doubt Genesis 1 then we are doubting the whole bible. I kept my mouth shut and didn't mention the irony of a creedless church saying you have to believe in young earth creationism to be saved.)

I'll answer the question with another question -- if we can't discuss the important topics of the day with our fellow church members, then what are we doing here? Whatever stuff is inspiring us, challenging us or bothering us, like the financial crisis, should be discussed right here. I don't want to wrestle with life's toughest problems with strangers, I want to lean on my brother and sisters right here for those things.
___________________________________________________

So that was my morning. It was a lot of fun, althought I was terrified before it started.

And now, as promised, my dose of humility:

Z is for... Z?

There is a rumor out there that we have another puppy dog. The rumor is true.

A few months ago we were petless, and then along came Mo the Miniature Schnauzer to add a new dimension to the family. After the weeklong evacuation due to Hurricane Ike, we discovered that Mo was, deep in his heart, a pack animal. He needed a brother.

As a refresher, here's Mo -- 18 months old and 16 pounds:



And here's his new little brother, Z -- 10 months old and 12 pounds:



I admit that we're weird with names. We have two dogs and a total of three letters in their names! But the theme was consistent -- a shortened and warped version of an Old Testament biblical character.

Mo is short for Moses, because he was so extremely shy when we met him. He was rescued from an abusive puppy farm when he was four months old and still bore the emotional scars. He needed a buddy to make him more secure, just like Moses needed Aaron.

Z is short for Ezekiel, the prophet who left his home at a young age to move to Babylon, just like this doggy left his foster home to come to us. But that's where the metaphor breaks down... you see, Ezekiel was being joined to his people in exile. Hopefully my family isn't in exile. And in one of Ezekiel's first visions, an angel instructs him to eat a scroll.

Unfortunately, Z has already shredded a children's book or two around here. Maybe our naming is prescient after all!

We should've named him JC. Then he'd behave. At least until we played Monopoly on a Sunday and then he'd probably overturn the game pieces and growl at us.

Redlefty's moment in the sun

Welcome, everyone, to the unprecedented and highly-anticipated fourth presidential debate. This is being televised all over the world from a studio lot in Hollywood, and I am your host, Michael. From now on I will simply be known as The Super Moderator, or Supermod for short.

Why Hollywood as the site of this gimungous event? It's a different setting for a different type of debate. We'll be relying on props from movies (Princess Bride) and TV Shows (Fear Factor) to introduce higher stakes for this discussion. It's time for the candidates to put some skin in the game.

I will be asking serious questions of our candidates. If they hem, haw, fudge, doublespeak, lie, or just give me an answer I find unsatisfactory, they will pay a price. The price goes up as the offenses are repeated. Let us begin.

Supermod: Senator Obama, Senator McCain. Glad to have you here. It's about time we get some real answers. Let's start on the economy, as that seems to be the hottest issue in this election right now.

McCain: People are hurting and they're angry, and I don't blame them.

Supermod: Did I ask you a question?

McCain: No.

Supermod: Then shuttie.

Obama: (Laughing)

Supermod: Laugh now, while you can. Here comes the first question. Senator Obama, you've regularly stated that your economic training and background exceed that of your opponent. You claim to be the better choice for economic leadership. Yet your proposed budget adds more than $250 billion to the deficit in 2009, and that's before the recent bailout bills. Why more deficits?

Obama: Well, first I'd like to thank Hollywood for hosting us...

Supermod: Zap him.

(Senator Obama receives an electric shock. A mild one.)

Supermod: In the future I suggest you get right to answering the question. You lose your turn. Senator McCain, you've been drilling (haha) your opponent in the media and at rallies for "spreading the wealth", and saying that his progressive tax plan is socialist at heart, is that correct? Again, I suggest you stick to clear and simple answers.

McCain: Yes, that's correct.

Supermod: Do you realize our tax system has been progressive since 1913, under both Republicans and Democrats? And that 40% of Americans today pay no income taxes? And that the top 5% of American earners pay half the income tax in this country, under Republican-generated tax plans? It's already as socialist as anything your opponent would like to propose. So I ask you, is it time for the flat sales tax, so that everybody pays according to consumption and we can eliminate the IRS for good?

McCain: No that wouldn't be fair.

Supermod: Ah I see. This year 40% of Americans aren't paying income taxes, yet they receive benefits from other taxpayers. Isn't that "spreading the wealth"?

McCain: No, this is different. I...

Supermod (interrupting): Bull. Fezzik, jog his memory.

(Andre the Giant returns from the dead and gently nudges McCain's skull, sending him to the floor, unconscious)

Supermod: Well, then... Senator Obama, I guess it's your turn again. How about we switch topics?

Obama (twitching): I'm agreeable to that.

Supermod: Let's talk campaign financing. I heard you raised $150 million in September -- congratulations. Why did you go against your earlier promise to use public financing, with its $85 million total limit? I remind you that the electric shock was merely the beginning... it gets worse from here.

Obama: Well... I changed my mind once I realized how much more money we could raise privately.

Supermod: Honesty! Thank you, Senator. This is an epic moment. Now let's take it a step further. You're the candidate for middle-class America, right?

Obama: That is correct.

Supermod: You care most about the average family in need, right? Not those big corporations and lobbyists?

Obama: Absolutely. I want to help the foundation of our great country -- our families.

Supermod: Excellent. So how much of your $150 million will you be donating to food banks, job placement centers and The Salvation Army? $20 million? $50 million? You could give away $100 million and still outspend your opponent over the next three weeks.

Obama: That's an incredible question, and one I'm honored to answer. It's a complex issue, and there are at least two ways to address it. To begin, I'd like to point out that the notion that somehow my campaign does not care...

Supermod (interrupting): The notion that somehow you'll give away a single dollar of this money strikes me as unlikely. The notion that you personally gave less than 3% of you annual earnings to charity until two years ago when your candidacy became more than dream... well, that's not a notion. That's just fact. Roaches.

Obama: Excuse me?

Supermod: I wasn't talking to you. Lackeys! Bring the roaches. The hissing ones.

(A bucketfull of Madagascar hissing cockroaches is dumped on Senator Obama's head)

Supermod: McCain, you awake yet?

McCain: Mavericky.

Supermod: Close enough. You ready to talk about energy policy?

McCain: Nothing but straight talk here.

Supermod: Yeah, so far it's been as straight as Richard Simmons on disco night. We'll try anyway. "Drill, baby, drill" continues to be a chant at many of your rallies. Yet even the most optimistic forecasts calculate that we can only add 25% to our current production by tapping all available oil discoveries on our soil. And this extra 25% goes to the world market, where it only makes a 3% impact. So at most our gas prices drop 3%, right?

McCain (angry): Maybe.

Supermod: (raises eyebrows)

McCain: Yes. But you're still not accounting for shale oil.

Supermod: Shale oil?

McCain: Yes, shale oil! We have the biggest deposits on the entire planet! Have you heard about that!

Supermod: Of course I have. I didn't ask "shale oil?" because I didn't know about it. I asked because it's a dumb idea and I hoped you'd do better than this.

McCain: ...

Supermod: It's devastating to the environment, it's extremely messy, the resulting oil product is often high in arsenic content, and at the end of the day we're still burning fossil fuels and filling the air with crap. We can spend a few hundred billion in building a shale oil economy to complement our crude oil economy, or we can spend a few hundred billion and get close to moving off oil altogether. Which do you want to do?

McCain: It's a false choice. We can do it all, and at the same time too -- we're Americans!

Supermod: That's enough. Back to you later. Senator Obama, how you doing with those roaches?

Obama: I come from a humble background; I'm no elitist. I can handle roaches.

Supermod: Oh, so you're the guy to connect with lower-income America?

Obama: Certainly. That's my heritage.

Supermod: Excellent. That's going to come in handy for you tonight. We're going to get you up in an airplane, strap a parachute to you, and let you jump down into one of the most pro-Obama regions in the nation. It will be a good example of how you can identify with our soldiers, even though you have no military experience.

Obama: (Sweating). Very well. But what does that have to do with lower-income America?

Supermod: We'll be dropping you into downtown Detroit. Good luck.

Obama: WAIT! I...

(Senator Obama is secured by Jerry Springer bouncers and loaded into a waiting SUV for his adventure)

McCain: (Nervously) ...So I can go?

Supermod: You betcha. In fact, we're going to drop you at one of your own rallies in a solid "Pro-America" small town. Just your type of crowd. Heh. Hehe.

McCain: C'mon... what's the catch?

Supermod: You'll be going there as a black man.

McCain: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

(More bouncers grab Senator McCain and begin the skin transformation process)

Supermod: Thank you, America, for tuning in. Both of our candidates will get to spend the next several hours learning some empathy for the other side, as they experience the darker sides of their own constituents. You see, we all have problems. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian... there's no perfect party, no perfect solution. So whichever side you're on in this election, remember that neither your candidates nor your policy ideas are all good. And the opponents aren't all bad.

In four years, your life may be slightly different due to which candidate gets elected. Either man may be able to shape laws and policies to impact your day-to-day existence. But those impacts pale in comparison to what you do to shape your life over the next four years.

You hope for change? You hope for better days? You hope for enriched family life?

Don't hope. Choose.

Here we go again...

Do you have those parts of yourself that you don't like, and then you see those parts resurface time and again and it ticks you off every time it happens? And you can't believe you still have that same old thorn in your flesh after all these previous lessons?

So here I go again. I promised two more blog posts on the economy, even though earlier this year I promised to quit promising stuff. Because life changes, things get in the way, the muse passes and then I can no longer write what was on the tip of my tongue just days before.

My whole family got a stomach illness last week, starting with Jack on Monday and ending with Samantha on Friday. I'm woefully behind at work and scrambling to put together bible lessons for church. I'm pretty much in survival mode.

I still have the knowledge that would have enabled me to write my planned postings on the economy, but for me to get it in writing takes timing, inspiration and something mysterious that just says, "it's time". And right now those things aren't there.

For those of you I speak with on the phone or see in person from time to time, I'd be happy to talk you through any economic stuff you're curious about. But for now my writing on the topic is closing.

I would promise to quit promising stuff, but something tells me I'd regret that later!

Economy part 1 -- the real root of our problems, and nobody's talking about it

As promised, here's part one of a three-part series on the economy. Tonight I write about what I believe is one of the key underlying contributors to the economic troubles we're experiencing today -- low productivity growth, a weaker dollar, high gas prices, failing banks and mortgage companies, national debt, etc...

Debby was correct with one of her comments on a previous post, saying that the root of economic crisis is often greed and entitlement. While that may be true, I'm not even remotely hopeful in ever changing that part of the human condition. What I'd rather do is channel that reality of greed into a more constructive, contributing workforce. First, though, a small aside to set the stage:

Aside #1 -- The Shell Game

Have you ever seen a guy doing the shell game on a sidwalk somewhere, maybe in New York City or Las Vegas. They're shuffling three shells around on a table or boxtop, and underneath one of the shells is a little rubber ball? They move slowly for a while, letting you feel confident you can follow the ball, but once money is being bet they always, always win. They do this one of two ways:

1) They move so fast during a game when an actual bet is placed, you have to make a pure guess about which shell the ball is under. So you only have a 33% chance of guessing the correct shell.
2) Well, you would have a 33% chance... if the ball was actually under any of the shells. Most gamemasters do a lightning-fast trick at the beginning of the game and hide the ball in the hand or up their sleeve, so the ball isn't actually in play at all. They'll sneak the ball back under a different shell (one you didn't pick) at the end of the game for the "reveal".

Here's a video to show you -- and this completes the aside:



Back to the topic at hand.

The foundational strength of an economy is in its ability to make consistent gains in productivity. That's it. To keep making more products, more services, more new jobs, and to do it faster and cheaper than the previous year. This is how the standard of living goes up.

Yes, these gains can be compromised and sometimes even erased by other factors (tax policies, government spending), but you have to at least start with solid gains in productivity. No policy in the world can help an economy that isn't using innovation and hard work to grow.

McCain and Obama have repeatedly stated that the US has many of the best and brightest people on the planet. As a US citizen I'm very biased but generally I agree. We've got tons of sharp people in America today.

But what types of jobs are our best and brightest choosing today? Do they become doctors and lawyers, extending our lives and defending our rights? Yes, some do. Do the most innovative and brilliant go into management and build businesses that create new jobs? Yes, some do, thankfully. These are all things that contribute strongly to growth in productivity.

But for a couple of decades we've been sending more and more of our brightest into financial jobs -- namely investment banking and brokerage. In other words, instead of building new things, extending life or creating jobs, our best and brightest are merely trading stocks of other companies that do that stuff.

Aside #2 -- My own experience

I got my MBA about 10 years ago, and it was a very intense program with lots of super-brilliant people. I was the youngest student so I was never going to be the superstar of the class -- my career experience was too lacking (read: non-existent).

But many other students had solid business experience even before the MBA. And by the time we approached graduation, they were both highly-trained and highly-experienced. They were the superstars. And what jobs did they pick? All four of the top students went to Enron, because at the time they were offering the most money. The students became energy traders, essentially "moving" kilowatts around the country to take advantage of price differentials. It was a shell game. They weren't actually creating anything of value -- it was a mirage covered by lots of fast motion and activity, but in the end only the gamemasters (Enron executives) were the winners. The students' talents were being wasted. Everyone else in the economy lost out while the best and brightest chased the money.

Aside over.

Am I saying that investment bankers and brokers are only playing shell games and don't provide any value to the economy? No, of course not. In my opinion, they provide a few very important services:

1) General financial advice and education to us non-expert people
2) Corporate research that gives us more transparency into which companies are solid and which are not, and as a result, which stocks might be good buys
3) Market trading programs and systems that help more investments happen faster, cheaper and more accurately

Note that one thing I didn't put in the list is how these guys create managed mutual funds for us to buy. It's a controversial topic, to be sure, but an analysis of history hasn't been kind to mutual fund performance. In general they don't do well compared to index funds which merely follow the market as a whole. Yet the management of mutual funds is where the industry makes its huge, huge money. Even though the vast majority of fund managers don't even beat the market. That part is a shell game, becuase the fund manager is guaranteed to win with big salaries and sometimes big bonuses, even if their own fund loses money. And if their fund actually makes money? Then the bonuses enter into "ridiculous" territory.

Investment bankers and brokers do deliver a service, in the three items I just listed above. But are the benefits of that list big enough and important enough to take up the efforts of our country's best and brightest? Who will design the next breakthroughs in consumer technology? Who will help find smart, profitable and sustainable uses of alternative energy? Who will get involved in public service and help this government solve the complicated mess of healthcare and social security?

There are so many big, pressing, tough issues facing us over the next decade. Just like every decade. And we need our best and brightest working on those problems, not on how to leverage a hedge fund.

I'll close with a final aside, then I'm done for today.

Aside #3 -- Does following the money really work?

More of my experience from the MBA program. I didn't go to Harvard but we used many of their case studies in our curriculum. One of their most fascinating stories was about themselves.

You see, for over 35 years Harvard has been polling its alumni on what their dreams are for their career. They've also been polling to see how many people actually followed their dreams after getting their MBA, and how many graduates just took big money and "settled" for a safe, secure job.

What they've found is that long-term, over an entire career, the people who followed the money actually made less of it than their dream-following peers.

Lesson: Follow your dream. Use your talents. It will inherently tend to do the most good for the most people, lifting all of us up. That's how an economy, and a culture, grows. Oh, and by the way, you'll make more money too. So if you want to help people, follow your dream. And if you're just greedy and want to make money? Follow your dream.

More on economy coming

Sorry it's been over a week since I've posted -- the financial crisis has kept me plenty busy. I've been spending a lot of time over the past 10 days reading and researching more about what we're facing, both in terms of what has caused it and what kinds of things we can do about it now.

Almost nothing has changed from what I wrote here 10 days ago. It's one of those times when I hate being right.

When I haven't been reading/researching, I've been talking to banking executives (it's my job -- I'm a consultant/sales manager to bankers). In particular I've had a couple of very good, deep conversations with bank CEOs about how the next six to twelve months are looking for them. It ain't pretty and there's no quick/fast road back, no matter what our current President says. Rule of the harvest, remember?

My buddy James has implored me to write more about the economy, so that's exactly what I'll do. Over the next three days, I'll write on these three topics:

1) The real root of the problem (and the solution) that nobody is talking about
2) Tracing the life of a mortgage, in layman's terms
3) Who's to blame (everybody) and who in Washington has the fix (nobody)

Sounds cheery, huh? Don't worry, I'm not a fearmonger. I just try to be a realist.

Example: In this weeks' presidential debate, Tom Brokaw asked the candidates, "Is it going to get worse before it gets better??"

Obama and McCain both chickened out and gave long answers that meant nothing.

My answer would be "Yes. But it will get better."

Rambling thoughts on...

Storm Lessons

-- Electricity is a very, very good thing. I've heard rumors that people actually lived in Houston before the days of air conditioning, but surely those aren't true. Or those people were insane.

-- There are a few catalysts in life for making people's true colors shine through. Things that help you see right to the core of a person. One is stress. Another is when a stoplight blows away and a major intersection becomes a four-way stop. I used to think our city was metropolitan and "with it". Now I've seen the true colors and realize that we have millions of idiot savants who can somehow have the profession to afford a nice car, yet can't figure out when it's their turn to go through an intersection.

-- When the heat is on and food/ice are scarse, life gets real simple. Put another way, the mind doesn't ponder the deeper mysteries of existentialism when it's busy finding a way to make sure the body continues to exist.

-- Whomever thinks that the hurricane put Houston back in 1940s-era lifestyle is forgetting about cellphones.

-- Most people are good. We saw lots of helping hands and selfless acts, and very few angry line-breakers.

Economic Theories

Some people have asked me what I think about the current market volatility, bank failures and federal bailout plans. I practically had a double-major with economics and International Business in college, and my MBA had a lot of training in economics as well, so I know at least a little about what's going on. But I'm by no means an expert. Not that it matters, because not even the experts can predict something as complex and multi-faceted as our economy. And I'm not objective either and I'm perfectly willing to admit that.

Most of my education and training was in the "Chicago style" of economics, the free-market spirit of Milton Friedman. In other words, when it comes to the economy I was trained by fiscal libertarians, people who think the market almost always works better, faster and cheaper than any government entity we might try to use to accomplish things. For the most part I still agree with that. So now you know my bias.

I look at our current situation and think of the rule of the harvest. We reap what we sow. The seasons are the seasons -- we can't change them and must work within them. And if we don't plant our crops in the spring, there won't be any food in the winter. No shortcuts or well-wishing can change it. You can't grow a crop in a week. The rule of the harvest.

I look at our country's economy and see that the inflation-adjusted income of 95% of Americans has fallen consistently for over a decade. Yet the average size of homes continues to increase. So we keep making less yet buying bigger houses. Our national savings rate is negative, and has been for some time. Add up all our citizens and we spend more than we make, at a personal level.

No surprise that the same is true at the government level. Our national debt is over $4.5 Trillion to outside countries/investors, and we owe another $5 Trillion to ourselves in future expenses that are coming, mostly in Social Security and Medicare. So that's almost $10Trillion in the hole. To put that in perspective:

-- The entire Gross Domestic Product of our country is around $15 Trillion. That's the value of all goods and services all of our citizens produce in a year. So if no American eats or buys anything and sends every penny of income to pay for Uncle Sam's debts staring January 1, 2009, we can finally pay things off and have our first meal nine months later.

-- There has never in American history been a period of such high government spending with such low tax revenues. The past several years are unprecedented. We've added another $500 billion to our debt each and every year for the past few years. The government's spending money it doesn't have. And how do they react? In February of this year they gave us all a big tax rebate and asked us to spend it to wake up the economy! They increased the deficit even further at the national level, and encouraged low savings at the personal level!

-- To cheer you up more, analysts estimate that the Iraq war is costing us almost $15 billion a month. 50 bucks per month per man, woman and child in the country, and it adds up pretty quick. In the end we'll probably have spent at least $3 trillion on the war.

The rule of the harvest says that at some point this will end, and it will be very, very painful. Eventually the balance will shift and we will be forced to reach equillibrium. It's called contraction, recession, even depression... whatever, our economic growth over the past decade has been largely illusional and driven by money we don't actually have. So we have to pay for today's growth with tomorrow's money. And with the news coming in lately, tomorrow might have arrived.

What's it mean in real terms? Our taxes will go up. Period. Doesn't matter which party wins the election, taxes have to go up, because we just can't cut a lot of the government expenses. Yes, I know the candidates talk about "pork barrel spending bills" and how they'll cut them, but the fact is that over 50% of federal spending is categorized as "mandatory", and that percentage continues to grow rapidly. In other words it's locked in and we can't touch it. Thirty years ago less than 30% of the federal budget was locked in. So we're more inflexible than ever. Think of Uncle Sam as a household -- his mortgage is getting bigger and bigger while his income is dropping. He can cut the kids' clothing expenses and maybe buy cheaper food, but the biggest expense, the house payment, is fixed.

So 53% of the budget is alreadly locked in. Oh yeah, and 9% this year went to pay interest on all that national debt I mentioned earlier. So less than 40% of our federal budget goes to all the "discretionary" activities. Things like education, transportation, the justice system, environmental research and veterans' benefits. Which ones do you want to cut? Now you see why the candidates keep dodging this question in the debates. The rule of the harvest. We bought things with money we didn't have, and now it's time to pay. With interest. It's going to hurt, but there's no sense complaining or finger-pointing. Let's just knuckle down and admit that it's going to hurt.

The economic crisis is not a surprise -- Henry Paulson (Treasury Secretary) said last week that the bailout plan is something they've been working on for months. I'm sure they were hoping for it to pop after the election, but not even they can control the market timing that well.

Which brings me back to the beginning, and the role of government intervention in the economy. I've been trained to believe that the market is smarter than the government, and I still believe it. So Mr. Paulson can keep his bailout plans -- I don't like them. If a business took on too much risk and might fail, let it fail. Let the price be paid by them, not the taxpayer. If there is value to be had in these banks on the brink, then a private buyer will show up. The market is smart. Warren Buffet just invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs -- that's infinitely better than a government bailout. If a bank is in trouble but has inherent value, a buyer will show up and see the opportunity. If a bank is in trouble but has no inherent value, it needs to crash and burn. A government bailout is too expensive both monetarily ($700 billion?) and ethically (hey, go ahead and run a bad business and we'll step in to save you).

Rule of the harvest. If you didn't sow good seeds, then the reaping will suck. Sorry. No shortcuts.

How's that for a ramble?

In my next post I'll write about the true root of our economic problems. Hint: it's not the government. Or banks.

Kansas trip -- recap in pictures

We've been back at home for a week now, but life has been crazy and things are still far from normal in Houston. Plenty of places still don't have power. Plenty of stoplights are still not working, which makes traffic even worse than usual. My office building was damaged and out of power until late last week, so tomorrow will finally be my first day back at work. Samantha's school was out of power as well, and she starts back tomorrow too.

First things first, though. I'd like to share photos of our week in Kansas with my parents. It was a beautiful week -- an unexpected hiatus with family.

We packed so quickly for the trip (to get out of Houston before sundown/curfew, at which point the police would have probably turned us around and sent us home) that we forgot a few items. Things like Samantha's shoes and Jack's pajamas. So during our first day in Kansas we went to Target to get some things. Jack got Superman PJ's and put them on immediately. We played outside non-stop until bedtime -- a perfect midwest autumn evening:

First Day Pictures



















Mo had a great time with the Kansas terriers -- Opie and Andy.

Mo






Andy


On Tuesday morning we went to a nearby playground, where 3yo Jack showed only a tiny bit of fear, and plenty of coordination, while descending the fire pole:

Playground






Later in the week Jamie took the kids to a farm/petting zoo while I helped Mom with some chores.

Farm pictures










On Thursday night we met up with local friends and went to dinner and bowling. Samantha bowled over 90 in both games and hardly ever used the bumpers! My buddies and I had a good time making up funny names for ourselves, and in the final pic I circled my choking performance that sunk what could have been a great game.

Dinner/Bowling








On our last day the kids played football and then we went to my dad's annual company party. Although there were fun activities there for kids, I think their favorite was when their PawPaw gave them rides on the dolly. We also got a family caricature portrait done. So completeth the update!

Last Day

Made it!

We're here in Kansas, happy and exhausted. Here's a rundown on the past three nights:

Thursday: measuring, cutting and mounting plywood on the windows until midnight
Friday: huddling in the bedroom and listening to the incredible 100+ mph winds all night
Saturday: leaving our house at 5:30 pm and driving non-stop to Kansas City (via Waco... not a direct path but it avoided flooded areas), arriving just after 7am

Time to sleep tonight! We are very blessed. We are comfortable, laughing, and who knew that Mo the schnauzer would be instant best friends with the terriers Opie and Andy? I don't think Mo's gonna go willingly with us to return home whenever it's time.

Speaking of that, we don't have a clue when it will be time to go back to Houston. But we'd prefer to wait until things like power and water are functional again. We're still thinking about the millions staying there and we hope they make the best of it and continuing looking out for their neighbors.

I continue to be impressed and proud of our city. Yesterday morning the streets around our house were all impassable because of downed trees. By afternoon the streets were clear, and it wasn't because of official city crews. No offense to the crews, I'm sure they would have done an excellent job, but the citizens got there first!