If any article has ever deserved to be placed in the “Writer’s Block” family of articles, it is this one. I have been so destitute of anything remotely resembling an idea that it would be laughable if it was not so terribly serious. I have attempted to simply wait it out, which is why I have not written all week up to now. But since the “Writer’s Block” series lacks an article for June, and since simply waiting it out may not be the surest way to beat the problem, I am writing today. Who knows? I may have waited so long that I have forgotten how to write, or at least forgotten my old style and created an entirely different one. But I do know this – the fact that I am writing proves the truth borne out by the words of that old 1960s song – I can’t wait forever, ‘cause time won’t let me.
Speaking of waiting, there are different types of waiting, all of them with their own interesting nuances. I experienced one of them not too long ago. The type of waiting I have in mind is waiting at a restaurant, and not just any restaurant – it must be anything other than a fast-food restaurant (because no one really waits at a fast-food restaurant, and if they do, they are out the door in a heartbeat due to false advertising on the part of said fast-food restaurant). No, I have in mind those restaurants that are a little more substantial – they have menus, and waiters, and something approaching an ambience. In such restaurants – depending on the time of day, the part of town, and the reputation of the eatery – you will encounter a waiting period every so often. I was in a Mexican restaurant not too long ago, and we were no sooner in the door than we were informed that there would be a twenty-minute wait.
Now, all manner of things happen during this twenty-minute wait. You can look at the disgruntled would-be fellow-eaters around you, who were informed forty-five minutes ago that their wait was going to be twenty minutes. You can smugly eye the newcomers after you, who are informed that their wait will be a full half-hour (although your smugness turns to chagrin when you realize that something must have gone wrong to extend the waiting period). You can, discreetly with your eyes, follow out the door the rather large-sized family of twelve that just finished their dinner, wondering if there could possibly be any food left in the joint. Then relief comes in the form of another hefty family of thirteen that comes in, at which you realize that you came in ahead of them and just might get a dinner after all if you can only manage to squeeze into a booth before they get theirs and no doubt put the place out of business for a month. Then you begin to wonder if, with all of these large families coming in, the lobby won’t become a real-life recreation of the ridiculous Marx Brothers scene where there are far too many people for the room. And that is the point at which a tired-looking waiter comes and invites you to follow him to your table.
Other kinds of waiting are simply terrifying. Take, for instance, the tax office or the driver’s license office. All you really want to do is get some new tags for your car or renew your license or something presumably simple. The only problem is it’s not simple. First you realize that you got there five minutes later than you should have, which means that a line of no less than 55 persons has formed in front of you. You take your number and humor yourself with the idea that 52 or 53 of those people will have quick business to take care of. What you will not let your mind consider is that there is really only one person at the desk today (the girl that got hired a week ago Friday), and the people in front of you would have had simple errands if only they had come prepared. But no – one person can’t speak good English, and another one has to go back out to the car because they forgot something. Then two or three get into a heated argument with the girl at the desk. And all this time there are no magazines to read, chairs to sit in, or music to listen to (unless you count the oldies that are just audible out of the back room where two or three clerks that could be working are taking an amazingly long time with their lunch break, which consists of two amazingly small Taco Bell burritos). By the time it’s all over, you have either forgotten what you came for or given up altogether.
Waiting at the doctor’s office can be somewhat interesting, especially if you don’t care for doctors or their offices. There are usually stacks of different magazines from two months ago, and you may flip through these even though you don’t really care about who broke up with whom or about the feature story in Sports Illustrated about that pitcher’s exercise program that keeps him in shape at 52. All this time you are full of nervous fidgeting (again, assuming you don’t like doctors). You tap your foot at a few dumb songs playing quietly over the speakers. You stare at the people around you and wonder what they’re in here for. Then you wonder what your doctor is going to say, whether your blood pressure will be too high, whether you’ll have to get a shot, or eye drops, or some such unpleasant procedure. By the time the nurse yells your name the waiting is over.
Some waiting can be excruciating, such as when you are waiting for important and possibly unpleasant news. For instance, after Hurricane Ike we waited anxiously as my father went to see if our house was still in the zip code. It was (thank God), but the time we waited seemed like hours, and it was one of the most uncomfortable times in my memory.
All in all, I suppose waiting can make time slow down, especially if you’re focusing intently on whatever it is you’re waiting for. It goes back to the old adage of “a watched pot never boils”. Take me, for instance – I’ve been waiting for weeks now for my college diploma to arrive in the mail. I’ve even forgotten about it. But it still hasn’t come.
Well, it wasn’t so bad writing a little something while I wait for a good idea. I’m glad to get some of that rust off and discover that I haven’t forgotten how to spel. Now I’ll go back to waiting out this case of writer’s block. If it’s to be a staring contest between me and it, then there’s no question of who will win. That block has to blink sometime. I think. Or at least I hope.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
To Dad With Love
Father’s Day – a time to remember, honor, and thank Dad for all that he does for us and means to us. All we need to do is think and recall our childhood, and the picture of what Dad means becomes clearer. I remember him reading me bedtime stories. I remember sitting on his lap and watching television. I remember him carrying me in his arms. I recall playing with him – whether it was a board game like chess or a backyard sport like throwing a baseball or football. I remember him teaching me things about car engines or about what a word or phrase means; I can think of his many simple and direct lessons about life and what it means to work hard or live with integrity. I remember how stern his warnings could be if I did something that wasn’t right. I remember him assuring me that whatever I was afraid of wasn’t that bad and that I would be just fine. I remember his stories about his growing-up days and about his own father. While some of these things remain childhood memories, others continue even today.
Dad is a leader. He leads and protects the entire family in a spiritual and physical sense, but he also leads by example. It is from Dad that we get our ideas about what it means to be a good, honest, hard-working man who fears God. As children we watched everything he did and often imitated it – which may have caused him to tell us to “do as I say, not as I do”, because we know that Dads are imperfect. Still, Dad led us through our formative years by what he said and did, and that leadership has made us what we are today.
Dad is a teacher. When we were little, it seemed as if he knew everything. If we wanted to know what some object was, or why this or that was the case, or what a certain thing meant, all we had to do was ask Dad, and he was sure to have an answer. And then there were the lessons that prepared us for life, like how to use a power tool or hammer a nail; how to change the oil in a car or even drive it; how to fix something or make it from scratch. Sometimes Dad’s lessons were not invited, like all the times he told us what we were doing wrong and even the times he had to punish us for it. Dad could be gentle and patient, and other times he was a little harsher, but he always got his point across, and we respect him for that. It was all for our own good, and as we have grown older we have come to realize this with increasing clarity.
Dad is also a friend. He is one of the best friends we can ever have. He comes alongside us and asks us how we are doing, or comforts us when we are sad, or encourages us when we feel like giving up. He would do anything for us, because he loves his own flesh and blood; and we can go to him with anything, for he is ready to listen and lend a hand. For those of us who are sons, he treated us like soon-to-be men and had man-to-man talks when necessary. He treated his daughters with delicacy and respect, like little princesses.
Dad is not perfect – we understand that. But he is the only Dad we have, and we love him for who he is and for what he has done for us all our lives. He has had to put up with a lot from his children, but never once has he even considered giving up on us. In a small and imperfect way, he is an example for us of our heavenly Father. There is no way to fully realize how much his love, care, attention, and guidance have made us the people we have become. Today we take a moment to think about that and to thank him for his labor of love. We love you, Dad.
Dad is a leader. He leads and protects the entire family in a spiritual and physical sense, but he also leads by example. It is from Dad that we get our ideas about what it means to be a good, honest, hard-working man who fears God. As children we watched everything he did and often imitated it – which may have caused him to tell us to “do as I say, not as I do”, because we know that Dads are imperfect. Still, Dad led us through our formative years by what he said and did, and that leadership has made us what we are today.
Dad is a teacher. When we were little, it seemed as if he knew everything. If we wanted to know what some object was, or why this or that was the case, or what a certain thing meant, all we had to do was ask Dad, and he was sure to have an answer. And then there were the lessons that prepared us for life, like how to use a power tool or hammer a nail; how to change the oil in a car or even drive it; how to fix something or make it from scratch. Sometimes Dad’s lessons were not invited, like all the times he told us what we were doing wrong and even the times he had to punish us for it. Dad could be gentle and patient, and other times he was a little harsher, but he always got his point across, and we respect him for that. It was all for our own good, and as we have grown older we have come to realize this with increasing clarity.
Dad is also a friend. He is one of the best friends we can ever have. He comes alongside us and asks us how we are doing, or comforts us when we are sad, or encourages us when we feel like giving up. He would do anything for us, because he loves his own flesh and blood; and we can go to him with anything, for he is ready to listen and lend a hand. For those of us who are sons, he treated us like soon-to-be men and had man-to-man talks when necessary. He treated his daughters with delicacy and respect, like little princesses.
Dad is not perfect – we understand that. But he is the only Dad we have, and we love him for who he is and for what he has done for us all our lives. He has had to put up with a lot from his children, but never once has he even considered giving up on us. In a small and imperfect way, he is an example for us of our heavenly Father. There is no way to fully realize how much his love, care, attention, and guidance have made us the people we have become. Today we take a moment to think about that and to thank him for his labor of love. We love you, Dad.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Follow Me
If any man will serve Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall also My servant be; if any man serve Me, him will My Father honor.
John 12:26
If life is like a road, which road are we on and who are we following on that road? Are we on the crowded, well-traveled broad road that leads to destruction, or are we on the obscure, neglected, and narrow road that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14)? Are we following the travelers that seem to be the smartest, that look as if they know where they are going? Are we simply following our own “inner compass” or the example of everyone around us? Or are we following the still small voice of the One who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life – no man comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6)? In our main verse, John 12:26, Jesus said that if anyone classifies himself as a servant of Christ, there is no question as to whom he is following. That servant quite simply follows wherever his Master leads. What exactly does this look like in a practical sense?
In broad terms, it means that if we are to truly serve Christ, He is the Lord, Master and Boss of our entire life. Nothing is to be omitted from His authority and control. Wherever He leads, wherever He directs, whatever He commands, this is what we do and where we go, for “where I am, there shall also My servant be”.
Jesus has already showed us much of what He expects us to do. The gospels are full of His commands to His servants – love one another, seek to serve others, let your light shine, do not worry, believe on the Son of God, etc. Moreover, the rest of the Bible is equally packed with commands from God to His people as it concerns what He expects from them in relation to God, themselves, fellow believers, and unbelievers. This is our starting point if we are to figure out where our Master is, which is where He expects us to be. We cannot call ourselves servants of Christ and ignore anything of what He has given to us in Scripture, for Jesus Himself told us, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
This can play out in many different ways in our everyday lives, and it is far from easy to follow our Lord. In Matthew 16:24, Jesus said, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” There are many parts of the Christian life that require us to die to self. Perhaps we feel lonely because the people around us who do not know Christ mistreat us or do not include us in their circle, and we feel that we are missing out on the good things in life. However, the Bible says that there will be a clear difference between the children of light and the children of darkness; if we choose to follow Jesus and be where He is, we are guaranteed, as was the Lord, to face some form of persecution from those who do not follow Him (2 Timothy 3:12).
Perhaps the Lord has not answered your prayer in the way that you wanted or expected Him to answer it; and maybe He has even called you to give up something that you wanted very much to have. This is painful, but it is all part of following Christ as Lord of our lives. If we let go of our own lives and let our Lord call the shots, He may ask us to do things that are unpleasant to us or take us out of our comfort zone. But we can rest assured that He has only the best in mind for us; He knows that perhaps that thing He calls us to surrender to Him was never the best thing for us, and may have actually been harmful in the long run. He will not withhold anything that He knows is truly good from those who walk in His ways (Psalm 84:11).
Do not make the mistake of believing that following Christ is easy or always enjoyable. Paul, the great apostle who reached untold multitudes for Christ, led a life that none of us would ever sign up for – and which he himself would probably have rejected if he knew beforehand what it entailed. He was shipwrecked, imprisoned, and tortured; he went hungry and without shelter; his friends forsook him and he was constantly hounded by enemies of the gospel he preached. Even though his life was often profoundly unpleasant, Jesus Himself assured him that “My grace is sufficient for you” (2 Corinthians 12:9). And that same grace is sufficient for us, whatever the Lord calls us to do.
Following Jesus certainly has its “down” moments, but we must keep in mind that this world is not our home – we are just passing through it for a time, after which we will be with Him forever. But we need not wait until then to experience the great “up” moments of the Christian life. Those moments can fill our present earthly lives. Our main verse promises that if anyone follows Christ, they will be honored by God the Father. If we humble ourselves, he will exalt us. If we serve Him and others, He Himself will reward us. If we suffer, His Holy Spirit will comfort us. There will be victories. There will be gloriously answered prayers. The Lord will work in awesome and even miraculous ways on our behalf. Our labor of love will bear fruit, as when a person comes to Christ or when a fellow believer is comforted, taught, discipled, and refreshed through our help or example. We have Christ’s assurance that wherever we travel on the road of life, He will be right there with us, providing us with His presence and fellowship every step of the way. No matter what our trials might be, there is no other way of life that is so sweet and spiritually satisfying as the life lived with Christ as Lord. Through it all, we have access to a joy and a peace that is indescribable and found only in Christ’s way.
Where is the Lord on the road of your life today? Are you seeking to be wherever He is, go wherever He goes, and do whatever He does? Or is Jesus a little farther up the road from where you are, gently waiting and beckoning you to follow and to go on with Him from the spot where you currently are? Let us leave aside all the self-centered distractions we encounter every day and fix our eyes on Jesus in order to follow Him and be where He is.
John 12:26
If life is like a road, which road are we on and who are we following on that road? Are we on the crowded, well-traveled broad road that leads to destruction, or are we on the obscure, neglected, and narrow road that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14)? Are we following the travelers that seem to be the smartest, that look as if they know where they are going? Are we simply following our own “inner compass” or the example of everyone around us? Or are we following the still small voice of the One who said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life – no man comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6)? In our main verse, John 12:26, Jesus said that if anyone classifies himself as a servant of Christ, there is no question as to whom he is following. That servant quite simply follows wherever his Master leads. What exactly does this look like in a practical sense?
In broad terms, it means that if we are to truly serve Christ, He is the Lord, Master and Boss of our entire life. Nothing is to be omitted from His authority and control. Wherever He leads, wherever He directs, whatever He commands, this is what we do and where we go, for “where I am, there shall also My servant be”.
Jesus has already showed us much of what He expects us to do. The gospels are full of His commands to His servants – love one another, seek to serve others, let your light shine, do not worry, believe on the Son of God, etc. Moreover, the rest of the Bible is equally packed with commands from God to His people as it concerns what He expects from them in relation to God, themselves, fellow believers, and unbelievers. This is our starting point if we are to figure out where our Master is, which is where He expects us to be. We cannot call ourselves servants of Christ and ignore anything of what He has given to us in Scripture, for Jesus Himself told us, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
This can play out in many different ways in our everyday lives, and it is far from easy to follow our Lord. In Matthew 16:24, Jesus said, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” There are many parts of the Christian life that require us to die to self. Perhaps we feel lonely because the people around us who do not know Christ mistreat us or do not include us in their circle, and we feel that we are missing out on the good things in life. However, the Bible says that there will be a clear difference between the children of light and the children of darkness; if we choose to follow Jesus and be where He is, we are guaranteed, as was the Lord, to face some form of persecution from those who do not follow Him (2 Timothy 3:12).
Perhaps the Lord has not answered your prayer in the way that you wanted or expected Him to answer it; and maybe He has even called you to give up something that you wanted very much to have. This is painful, but it is all part of following Christ as Lord of our lives. If we let go of our own lives and let our Lord call the shots, He may ask us to do things that are unpleasant to us or take us out of our comfort zone. But we can rest assured that He has only the best in mind for us; He knows that perhaps that thing He calls us to surrender to Him was never the best thing for us, and may have actually been harmful in the long run. He will not withhold anything that He knows is truly good from those who walk in His ways (Psalm 84:11).
Do not make the mistake of believing that following Christ is easy or always enjoyable. Paul, the great apostle who reached untold multitudes for Christ, led a life that none of us would ever sign up for – and which he himself would probably have rejected if he knew beforehand what it entailed. He was shipwrecked, imprisoned, and tortured; he went hungry and without shelter; his friends forsook him and he was constantly hounded by enemies of the gospel he preached. Even though his life was often profoundly unpleasant, Jesus Himself assured him that “My grace is sufficient for you” (2 Corinthians 12:9). And that same grace is sufficient for us, whatever the Lord calls us to do.
Following Jesus certainly has its “down” moments, but we must keep in mind that this world is not our home – we are just passing through it for a time, after which we will be with Him forever. But we need not wait until then to experience the great “up” moments of the Christian life. Those moments can fill our present earthly lives. Our main verse promises that if anyone follows Christ, they will be honored by God the Father. If we humble ourselves, he will exalt us. If we serve Him and others, He Himself will reward us. If we suffer, His Holy Spirit will comfort us. There will be victories. There will be gloriously answered prayers. The Lord will work in awesome and even miraculous ways on our behalf. Our labor of love will bear fruit, as when a person comes to Christ or when a fellow believer is comforted, taught, discipled, and refreshed through our help or example. We have Christ’s assurance that wherever we travel on the road of life, He will be right there with us, providing us with His presence and fellowship every step of the way. No matter what our trials might be, there is no other way of life that is so sweet and spiritually satisfying as the life lived with Christ as Lord. Through it all, we have access to a joy and a peace that is indescribable and found only in Christ’s way.
Where is the Lord on the road of your life today? Are you seeking to be wherever He is, go wherever He goes, and do whatever He does? Or is Jesus a little farther up the road from where you are, gently waiting and beckoning you to follow and to go on with Him from the spot where you currently are? Let us leave aside all the self-centered distractions we encounter every day and fix our eyes on Jesus in order to follow Him and be where He is.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Translating the UN
No one, to my knowledge, has ever leveled against this blog the charge that it is not diverse or multi-cultural – which is good. It is good because this entry will head off at the pass any possibility that such a charge will be leveled against this blog in the future. What you are about to read is the very picture of diversity and multi-culturalism, because its subject is that august, that austere, that venerable, that imposing institution that we call the United Nations, which itself is composed of many nations, ethnicities, languages, and cultures.
Today I am going to do a bit of translation. No, I am not going to pretend for a moment that I am fluent in any language but my own, and thus I am not going to pretend that I am about to take a job as a translator at the UN itself. However, I am going to perform a very valuable service to the common man – namely, the service of translating UN-speak into the vernacular.* So without further ado, let us begin – and I shall be sure to restrain myself, in my enthusiasm, from beating my shoe upon the podium, a la Nikita Kruschev.
We all know that the United Nations is the top dog of all watchdog groups, and as such it keeps a close, sharp, and constant eye on everything that is afoot in the world today. It usually does so amid a misty and imperturbable cloud of silence, so when it speaks, we all notice it and would do well to pay attention. However, sometimes it is unclear to us exactly what the United Nations actually means to say when it speaks. This is understandable and a phenomenon quite comparable to the disconnect between a college student and his professor. You see, the latter knows quite a bit more than the former, and such knowledge is often lost in translation. That is why I am here to translate.
There is a hierarchy of language which the UN employs constantly. That is, one phrase or set of phrases is necessarily of a higher and different order than another. So let us begin with a basic beginner’s phrase. Sometimes the UN will say that it is “closely monitoring” something in the world. This simply means that something has caught the attention of the watching eye of that world body – something that may (or may not) require their attention at some future moment.
Once a closely-monitored situation has become significant enough, the UN will say that it is “concerned” about it. This is no cause, necessarily, for any kind of alarm. It simply means that the UN is thinking about thinking about going into a mode more consistent with thinking about taking action on the matter. However, should the language suddenly shift to being “troubled” by a situation, that means that the UN is now actually thinking about going into a mode more consistent with thinking about taking action.
Adjectives, as we writers know well, are powerful little things. Any time that the UN attaches the adjective “deeply” to one of the previous two phrases – as in “deeply concerned” or “deeply troubled” – it is tipping us off to something we should not take lightly at all. It means that the UN has now officially gone into a mode consistent with thinking about taking action. This is a dangerous threshold to cross. But it pales in comparison with what I will translate next.
When the UN says that it “condemns” an action (whatever it happens to be), then it is a rare example of that robust and respected institution’s rousing itself out of its dignified calm and rolling up its proverbial sleeves. Whoever did something so horrific as to cause the UN to “condemn” the action had better sit up and take note – for the UN now has its eye closely pinned on you and even has a folder filed away with your name on it.
But I shudder to report that it can and sometimes does get even more alarming. In fact, I would caution that only readers above the age of 18 continue on from this point. There is a phrase that the UN reserves for the most urgent of emergencies. In these cases, when world peace is literally threatened, the UN (that guardian of democracy and liberty the world over) will say that it “condemns in the strongest terms” whatever action carried with it that threat. Every now and then, it will be necessary to add a word, turning the phrase into “condemns in the strongest possible terms” – at which point no one with a working brain sincerely believes that the hour of action is not imminent. And so it is, for this is the tip-off phrase. Shall we now boldly peek into the realm of what happens when the UN takes action? I believe we must in order to be fair and thorough. It is a realm that few have ever visited, but we must and shall address it now.
The UN is patient. It must be, for it never takes action lightly, and when it does, it does so deliberately (partly because its member nations deliberate among themselves before any action can be taken). When this point is reached (a point of profound tension for the world community), the UN will customarily take out a piece of paper and write. Upon that terrible document will be affixed the phrases we have just learned, along with other, more stern warnings. Often the UN will warn the object of its wrath that if it continues or repeats a certain warned-against action, then in that case the UN will warn that party again of its need to stop. Some parties are stubborn and very belligerent, in which rare cases the UN will indeed take action on such a warning and warn the party again that it will be warned a third time if it does not cease and desist at once. We shall not go into detail about what happens when the UN finds it necessary to take such robust action a fourth, fifth, sixth, or (heavens!) a seventh time.
So next time you watch the news and encounter these phrases, you will not be intimidated by them, for you will understand them. The only thing you would have cause to be intimidated by is the severe global trial that occasioned such stern and effective rhetoric. But now that we understand what the UN means when it speaks, we can better and more fully appreciate the fact that this impressively strong world body truly does have the world’s problems firmly in hand, if not quite yet solved.
*Author’s Note: Strangely enough, this entire article, with few exceptions, could also be applied very satisfactorily to the United States State Department. This is a happy coincidence, because instead of my having to write a totally separate article, the reader, if he wishes to gain proper enlightenment, may choose to replace “United Nations” with “U.S. State Department” wherever he feels such a replacement is necessary or desired.
Today I am going to do a bit of translation. No, I am not going to pretend for a moment that I am fluent in any language but my own, and thus I am not going to pretend that I am about to take a job as a translator at the UN itself. However, I am going to perform a very valuable service to the common man – namely, the service of translating UN-speak into the vernacular.* So without further ado, let us begin – and I shall be sure to restrain myself, in my enthusiasm, from beating my shoe upon the podium, a la Nikita Kruschev.
We all know that the United Nations is the top dog of all watchdog groups, and as such it keeps a close, sharp, and constant eye on everything that is afoot in the world today. It usually does so amid a misty and imperturbable cloud of silence, so when it speaks, we all notice it and would do well to pay attention. However, sometimes it is unclear to us exactly what the United Nations actually means to say when it speaks. This is understandable and a phenomenon quite comparable to the disconnect between a college student and his professor. You see, the latter knows quite a bit more than the former, and such knowledge is often lost in translation. That is why I am here to translate.
There is a hierarchy of language which the UN employs constantly. That is, one phrase or set of phrases is necessarily of a higher and different order than another. So let us begin with a basic beginner’s phrase. Sometimes the UN will say that it is “closely monitoring” something in the world. This simply means that something has caught the attention of the watching eye of that world body – something that may (or may not) require their attention at some future moment.
Once a closely-monitored situation has become significant enough, the UN will say that it is “concerned” about it. This is no cause, necessarily, for any kind of alarm. It simply means that the UN is thinking about thinking about going into a mode more consistent with thinking about taking action on the matter. However, should the language suddenly shift to being “troubled” by a situation, that means that the UN is now actually thinking about going into a mode more consistent with thinking about taking action.
Adjectives, as we writers know well, are powerful little things. Any time that the UN attaches the adjective “deeply” to one of the previous two phrases – as in “deeply concerned” or “deeply troubled” – it is tipping us off to something we should not take lightly at all. It means that the UN has now officially gone into a mode consistent with thinking about taking action. This is a dangerous threshold to cross. But it pales in comparison with what I will translate next.
When the UN says that it “condemns” an action (whatever it happens to be), then it is a rare example of that robust and respected institution’s rousing itself out of its dignified calm and rolling up its proverbial sleeves. Whoever did something so horrific as to cause the UN to “condemn” the action had better sit up and take note – for the UN now has its eye closely pinned on you and even has a folder filed away with your name on it.
But I shudder to report that it can and sometimes does get even more alarming. In fact, I would caution that only readers above the age of 18 continue on from this point. There is a phrase that the UN reserves for the most urgent of emergencies. In these cases, when world peace is literally threatened, the UN (that guardian of democracy and liberty the world over) will say that it “condemns in the strongest terms” whatever action carried with it that threat. Every now and then, it will be necessary to add a word, turning the phrase into “condemns in the strongest possible terms” – at which point no one with a working brain sincerely believes that the hour of action is not imminent. And so it is, for this is the tip-off phrase. Shall we now boldly peek into the realm of what happens when the UN takes action? I believe we must in order to be fair and thorough. It is a realm that few have ever visited, but we must and shall address it now.
The UN is patient. It must be, for it never takes action lightly, and when it does, it does so deliberately (partly because its member nations deliberate among themselves before any action can be taken). When this point is reached (a point of profound tension for the world community), the UN will customarily take out a piece of paper and write. Upon that terrible document will be affixed the phrases we have just learned, along with other, more stern warnings. Often the UN will warn the object of its wrath that if it continues or repeats a certain warned-against action, then in that case the UN will warn that party again of its need to stop. Some parties are stubborn and very belligerent, in which rare cases the UN will indeed take action on such a warning and warn the party again that it will be warned a third time if it does not cease and desist at once. We shall not go into detail about what happens when the UN finds it necessary to take such robust action a fourth, fifth, sixth, or (heavens!) a seventh time.
So next time you watch the news and encounter these phrases, you will not be intimidated by them, for you will understand them. The only thing you would have cause to be intimidated by is the severe global trial that occasioned such stern and effective rhetoric. But now that we understand what the UN means when it speaks, we can better and more fully appreciate the fact that this impressively strong world body truly does have the world’s problems firmly in hand, if not quite yet solved.
*Author’s Note: Strangely enough, this entire article, with few exceptions, could also be applied very satisfactorily to the United States State Department. This is a happy coincidence, because instead of my having to write a totally separate article, the reader, if he wishes to gain proper enlightenment, may choose to replace “United Nations” with “U.S. State Department” wherever he feels such a replacement is necessary or desired.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
What Do You Really Believe?
But be doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone be a hearer of the Word, and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror; for he looks at himself, and goes his way, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But whoever looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it (not being a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work), this man shall be blessed in what he does.
James 1:22-25
I have been thinking lately about the subtle difference between knowledge and belief. And I do not have in mind just those who know the gospel but do not believe it for themselves. I am mainly thinking about us who already know Christ. We know many things, especially if we have been around the church for long enough. We regularly read the Bible, study it, and hear others who have read and studied it talk about what it says. If someone were to mention such-and-such a teaching from the Bible, we would nod our heads and say, “Yes, I believe that.” But is that true? Might it be that we know that such-and-such is what Christians believe is taught in the Bible, but we do not really believe it? My main point is that knowledge of something need produce no effect on the knower – but true belief of or in something must. I will explain what I mean.
All of us are motivated by what we really believe, whatever that happens to be. The words, actions, and decisions of our daily lives all spring out of what we are really convinced of in our hearts. We are all believing something, and our lives prove it for all to see – what is it that we believe? Is it that which the Bible teaches us, or something else?
Let me give some examples. Do we really believe that Jesus meant it when He said “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)? Now, Jesus Himself is not walking in a human body right beside us twenty-four hours a day; but He did promise that His Holy Spirit would live inside all believers during their earthly lives. If we really believed that the Lord Himself was with us in Spirit at all times, do you suppose that would have any effect on what we did, or where we went, or what we said, or what we watched, or what we read, or what we listened to, or what we thought? Of course it would; if we regarded this as true, it would have to affect the way we live. We would live as if we knew that God was watching us at all times.
Do we really believe that Jesus was serious when He said, “Therefore be ready – for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect Him” (Matthew 24:44)? This is similar to the previous point. None of us knows when Jesus is returning to earth, but He said Himself that He is, and that it would be unexpected. Are we living our lives in such a way that we would be pleasing to Him if He were to appear visibly in the sky right now? Or would we be ashamed to face Him because of the things we are involved in? If we really believe Jesus is coming back, as we say we do, it should affect our lives.
What about this statement from John 3:36 – “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he that does not believe on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God remains on him.” How would our lives show it if we really believed that all – each and every one – of the people we see and come in contact with every single day will not go to heaven when they die, but be eternally separated from God, unless they place their faith and trust in His Son Jesus Christ? If we believed that, it would stand to reason that we would be more active in sharing the gospel. Not all of us can or will be street preachers or full-time evangelists or missionaries, but we certainly would not be silent if this is what we really believed.
Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed to man once to die, but after this the judgment.” None of us likes to think about dying, and it would not really be God’s will for us to be morbidly preoccupied with the subject. However, it would not be hard, judging from the way we often live, to think that we really believe we are going to live forever. We waste our time on so many worthless things, as if minutes were in endless supply. But if we believed, as this verse tells us to believe, that there will be an end to our earthly days, we would live more often than not as if those fleeting days were more precious to us – and we would live as if we would have to give an account of how we spent them.
The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you – for you are not under law but under grace.” Have we ever stopped struggling against something in our lives that we know we should not do, thinking that we will never be able to defeat it? If so, it may be that we don’t believe this verse. Paul is not saying that we will achieve perfection in this life. But he is saying that whatever the sin is that so easily hinders us from walking more fully with the Lord, it can be defeated. It doesn’t have to have the mastery over us. God can and will give us the grace and strength to stop. But do we really believe this, as well as many other truths, in our hearts?
These five examples are just scratching the surface, for there are hundreds if not thousands more of them within the pages of the Bible. But now let us think about other things that we could believe, things not based on the Bible but on other voices and sources we hear every day – things that will, if we believe them, powerfully affect our daily actions. What about this statement – “If I had more things and more money I would be happier.” If we really believed that, we would live as if earning money and possessing things were the most important realities of life. We would work many long hours, sacrificing family time, and we would be constantly consumed with having the latest and greatest car or house or boat or clothes or video games or computers or appliances (in short, all the stuff that the commercials and the advertisements tell us we “need”). And we all know that many people in our society believe that statement, because this is how they live.
Other voices tell us that “Such-and-such really isn’t that bad; why, it’s fun and everybody is doing it – and besides, you only live once!” But say that “such-and-such” is an activity that the Bible clearly says is wrong. If we believed the Bible, we would not do it; if we believed the other voices, we would. What we truly believe in our hearts will determine how we behave.
Many voices in our culture today tell us, “There is no such thing as absolute truth; it may be true for me or true for you, but nothing is true for everybody!” If we believed those voices, we would not be very willing to take a stand for the truth that the Bible teaches. We wouldn’t want to offend, and besides, it’s only true for us anyway. However, if we believe that what the Bible says is God’s truth and applies to everyone, we would not be afraid to share it with others, even if to some the truth is offensive.
Again, these examples only scratch the surface. The major point is that we act out of some belief – what belief is it? This is a hard subject. None of us, while we still live in our corrupt flesh, will ever be able to consistently and perfectly live out everything that is taught in the Bible. It would be acting out of a false belief if we tried to do it all in our own strength – then we would be doomed to failure because our flesh is weak and we have an enemy, Satan, who would have us believe and act on anything at all as long as it is not God’s truth. If we are to do any of these things, it must be through the grace and strength that God Himself lends us daily.
Each one of us, more than any other human being, is or should be an expert in the subject of our own selves. Only we know what we as individuals do and think twenty-four hours a day. So let’s take a look at our daily lives. What do our actions and words and thoughts say about what we really believe? They won’t lie, because we always think and act and speak out of our true beliefs. The answer may surprise us. I know in my case, the answer is mixed. In some areas I try to walk according to what I learn from the Bible. But in too many other areas I am living in direct contrast to those teachings, despite the fact that I say, less than honestly, that I believe those teachings. It turns out that I may know them, but I don’t really believe them. Consider again the verse at the beginning of this article. Those who only hear the Word, but never do it, deceive themselves. But those who take the Word to heart and do what it says will be blessed in whatever they do.
James 1:22-25
I have been thinking lately about the subtle difference between knowledge and belief. And I do not have in mind just those who know the gospel but do not believe it for themselves. I am mainly thinking about us who already know Christ. We know many things, especially if we have been around the church for long enough. We regularly read the Bible, study it, and hear others who have read and studied it talk about what it says. If someone were to mention such-and-such a teaching from the Bible, we would nod our heads and say, “Yes, I believe that.” But is that true? Might it be that we know that such-and-such is what Christians believe is taught in the Bible, but we do not really believe it? My main point is that knowledge of something need produce no effect on the knower – but true belief of or in something must. I will explain what I mean.
All of us are motivated by what we really believe, whatever that happens to be. The words, actions, and decisions of our daily lives all spring out of what we are really convinced of in our hearts. We are all believing something, and our lives prove it for all to see – what is it that we believe? Is it that which the Bible teaches us, or something else?
Let me give some examples. Do we really believe that Jesus meant it when He said “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)? Now, Jesus Himself is not walking in a human body right beside us twenty-four hours a day; but He did promise that His Holy Spirit would live inside all believers during their earthly lives. If we really believed that the Lord Himself was with us in Spirit at all times, do you suppose that would have any effect on what we did, or where we went, or what we said, or what we watched, or what we read, or what we listened to, or what we thought? Of course it would; if we regarded this as true, it would have to affect the way we live. We would live as if we knew that God was watching us at all times.
Do we really believe that Jesus was serious when He said, “Therefore be ready – for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect Him” (Matthew 24:44)? This is similar to the previous point. None of us knows when Jesus is returning to earth, but He said Himself that He is, and that it would be unexpected. Are we living our lives in such a way that we would be pleasing to Him if He were to appear visibly in the sky right now? Or would we be ashamed to face Him because of the things we are involved in? If we really believe Jesus is coming back, as we say we do, it should affect our lives.
What about this statement from John 3:36 – “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he that does not believe on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God remains on him.” How would our lives show it if we really believed that all – each and every one – of the people we see and come in contact with every single day will not go to heaven when they die, but be eternally separated from God, unless they place their faith and trust in His Son Jesus Christ? If we believed that, it would stand to reason that we would be more active in sharing the gospel. Not all of us can or will be street preachers or full-time evangelists or missionaries, but we certainly would not be silent if this is what we really believed.
Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed to man once to die, but after this the judgment.” None of us likes to think about dying, and it would not really be God’s will for us to be morbidly preoccupied with the subject. However, it would not be hard, judging from the way we often live, to think that we really believe we are going to live forever. We waste our time on so many worthless things, as if minutes were in endless supply. But if we believed, as this verse tells us to believe, that there will be an end to our earthly days, we would live more often than not as if those fleeting days were more precious to us – and we would live as if we would have to give an account of how we spent them.
The apostle Paul tells us in Romans 6:14, “For sin shall not have dominion over you – for you are not under law but under grace.” Have we ever stopped struggling against something in our lives that we know we should not do, thinking that we will never be able to defeat it? If so, it may be that we don’t believe this verse. Paul is not saying that we will achieve perfection in this life. But he is saying that whatever the sin is that so easily hinders us from walking more fully with the Lord, it can be defeated. It doesn’t have to have the mastery over us. God can and will give us the grace and strength to stop. But do we really believe this, as well as many other truths, in our hearts?
These five examples are just scratching the surface, for there are hundreds if not thousands more of them within the pages of the Bible. But now let us think about other things that we could believe, things not based on the Bible but on other voices and sources we hear every day – things that will, if we believe them, powerfully affect our daily actions. What about this statement – “If I had more things and more money I would be happier.” If we really believed that, we would live as if earning money and possessing things were the most important realities of life. We would work many long hours, sacrificing family time, and we would be constantly consumed with having the latest and greatest car or house or boat or clothes or video games or computers or appliances (in short, all the stuff that the commercials and the advertisements tell us we “need”). And we all know that many people in our society believe that statement, because this is how they live.
Other voices tell us that “Such-and-such really isn’t that bad; why, it’s fun and everybody is doing it – and besides, you only live once!” But say that “such-and-such” is an activity that the Bible clearly says is wrong. If we believed the Bible, we would not do it; if we believed the other voices, we would. What we truly believe in our hearts will determine how we behave.
Many voices in our culture today tell us, “There is no such thing as absolute truth; it may be true for me or true for you, but nothing is true for everybody!” If we believed those voices, we would not be very willing to take a stand for the truth that the Bible teaches. We wouldn’t want to offend, and besides, it’s only true for us anyway. However, if we believe that what the Bible says is God’s truth and applies to everyone, we would not be afraid to share it with others, even if to some the truth is offensive.
Again, these examples only scratch the surface. The major point is that we act out of some belief – what belief is it? This is a hard subject. None of us, while we still live in our corrupt flesh, will ever be able to consistently and perfectly live out everything that is taught in the Bible. It would be acting out of a false belief if we tried to do it all in our own strength – then we would be doomed to failure because our flesh is weak and we have an enemy, Satan, who would have us believe and act on anything at all as long as it is not God’s truth. If we are to do any of these things, it must be through the grace and strength that God Himself lends us daily.
Each one of us, more than any other human being, is or should be an expert in the subject of our own selves. Only we know what we as individuals do and think twenty-four hours a day. So let’s take a look at our daily lives. What do our actions and words and thoughts say about what we really believe? They won’t lie, because we always think and act and speak out of our true beliefs. The answer may surprise us. I know in my case, the answer is mixed. In some areas I try to walk according to what I learn from the Bible. But in too many other areas I am living in direct contrast to those teachings, despite the fact that I say, less than honestly, that I believe those teachings. It turns out that I may know them, but I don’t really believe them. Consider again the verse at the beginning of this article. Those who only hear the Word, but never do it, deceive themselves. But those who take the Word to heart and do what it says will be blessed in whatever they do.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Observations While Watching Television
Don’t believe everything you hear. For instance, they say that watching too much television will turn your mind to mush. That would all be very true if they had not omitted the most important part of that sentence, causing it to read this way – watching too much television without thinking will turn your mind to mush. I have watched a lot of television in my lifetime, and I usually do it while still engaged in thinking – thus my mind has not yet turned to mush. And thus I can write an article today to tell you not to believe everything you hear or see on television.
There are great many incongruities and things that just plain don’t make sense on television, and that is why I tell you to think and not take those things at face value, lest you too begin to not make sense. Let us begin with a very simple but very common example.
Let’s say you’re watching your favorite show, which just emerged from a commercial break. Now, it’s not particularly important what those commercials are. In my case, I usually find something else to watch in the meantime or mute the commercials for a couple minutes.* Invariably – and I do mean “invariably” – what is the phrase the people on your favorite show say when they emerge from said commercial break? Why, they say “welcome back”. This is the biggest piece of nonsense ever perpetrated over the airwaves. The people obviously mean to imply that you, the watcher, left for two minutes and now have returned. But we both know that unless you had to use the restroom or get a refill of your favorite drink or snack (we will omit the possibility that you turned the television set off, because the assumption is that this is your favorite show), you remained firmly planted on your couch. The cold hard truth should be staring them straight in the eye – they, the show, were the ones who left, and it is we who should be saying “welcome back”; or else they should say “and now we’re back”.
Now let’s say you are watching a newscast. The anchor shows a video clip of an amazingly interesting story (never mind what it is) and says, “Coming up next, we’ll tell you about (insert story here)”. Anyone who has ever watched a newscast knows perfectly well that this story is not coming up next. In fact, it will likely be a good forty-five minutes before they even get to it, and that’s assuming they do get to it (which they might not). And so, because they never tell you this but keep telling you that it really is right around the corner, you are stuck watching dozens of news stories you had no interest in just to get to the one you thought was sort of interesting.
Sportscasts take the cake when it comes to mind-numbing nonsense. It’s the pre-game show before the big game, and the sportscaster – again, invariably – lists his handy-dandy “keys to the game”. These are keys which, if the contesting teams play according to them, will assure them a victory. If they don’t, well, they’re sure to lose. However, two or three hours later, when the game is over, do they revisit the “keys to the game”? Of course not. If they did, they would have to admit that the Bulls won despite the fact that Michael Jordan did not score 45 points, or that the Patriots still won the game even though Tom Brady left in the third quarter with a stomach ache, or even that the Yankees were not able to pull it out in the ninth even though Alex Rodriguez’s three three-run homers were at the top of the list called “keys to the game”. No, we can’t expect them to be that thorough. However, whatever proved to be the real “keys” to today’s game, you can be sure that those things will be tomorrow’s “keys to the game” and have no substantial influence on the outcome.
And then there’s the fact that I am really not sure what the value of sportscasters is for television games, especially for viewers who understand the sport they are watching. They state the obvious so many times it gets nauseating. “And there’s a swing and a miss!” Yes, I know – I just saw him swing and miss. “And he’s gonna run into the endzone for a touchdown!” Yep – I looked at the set, and boom, there it was. “Three-pointer – good!” I saw the swish just as well as you did, Marv. The only value sportscasters really lend to the televised game is an occasional – and I do mean “occasional” – insightful comment. Telling me that the look on manager Tony La Russa’s face means that he is contemplating taking his star pitcher out early when in fact Tony has indigestion does not come under the heading of “insightful comment”. Watching the game with the “mute” button firmly in the “on” position does not usually cause the viewer to miss much.
But let’s return for a moment to newscasts. If you’re a news junkie like me, you get a certain thrill when those grand mal seizure-causing flashing lights erupt on the screen and a deep, important voice intones, “Breaking News!” You expect them to go directly to the Oval Office, where the President will announce that we are bombing Russia in five minutes. But no. If it’s not a car chase in Los Angeles, it’s usually a house fire in Buffalo or a round of severe weather in Kansas. Whatever the case, it’s frequently anti-climactic. But no matter how trivial or lacking in details the story actually proves to be, you can be sure they will round up their all-star panel (the one made up of the only four people in the world who know everything) at headquarters ASAP to break it down while they wait to discover details about what the story actually is.
And we have not yet left the subject of newscasts. It is a known fact that, be it national or local news, the networks synchronize their commercial breaks. They are deathly afraid that, should they go to a commercial break before the other network, you might get the same story with the same spin and the same footage on that other network; and we just can’t have that. So the average viewer is left with the frustration of having nothing to flip to during those breaks. What’s more, the local weather forecasts are a hoot. Each channel has their own “expert” meteorologist who rightly predicted nine out of the last four big hurricanes, and their own “super-duper Doppler” radar that can pick up condensation (or is it dog drool?) on that blade of grass to the left of the one nearest the sidewalk. If most people are anything like my parents, it seems we feel compelled to faithfully watch each weather forecast to see if Joe on Channel 9 will call for rain on Tuesday, or if Fred on Channel 17 really thinks that cold front is going to make it this far south, or if Mike on Channel 5 is going to break with Joe and Fred and set Monday’s high at 91 instead of 92.
As you may be able to tell, sports and news are the main areas of expertise that I have honed in my years of watching television. There are, I’m sure, many more observations that I could make, and perhaps we shall have to make this a multi-article affair. But let me quote Yogi Berra in saying that you can observe a lot by just watching. However, when you watch TV, don’t just watch. Think while you’re at it, or that screen may just suck your brain right out of your head.
*Author’s Note: I will almost always “un-mute” the commercial when the commercial happens to be a Priceline commercial starring William Shatner. Those commercials, for some reason, never fail to tickle my funny bone no matter how many times I see them.
There are great many incongruities and things that just plain don’t make sense on television, and that is why I tell you to think and not take those things at face value, lest you too begin to not make sense. Let us begin with a very simple but very common example.
Let’s say you’re watching your favorite show, which just emerged from a commercial break. Now, it’s not particularly important what those commercials are. In my case, I usually find something else to watch in the meantime or mute the commercials for a couple minutes.* Invariably – and I do mean “invariably” – what is the phrase the people on your favorite show say when they emerge from said commercial break? Why, they say “welcome back”. This is the biggest piece of nonsense ever perpetrated over the airwaves. The people obviously mean to imply that you, the watcher, left for two minutes and now have returned. But we both know that unless you had to use the restroom or get a refill of your favorite drink or snack (we will omit the possibility that you turned the television set off, because the assumption is that this is your favorite show), you remained firmly planted on your couch. The cold hard truth should be staring them straight in the eye – they, the show, were the ones who left, and it is we who should be saying “welcome back”; or else they should say “and now we’re back”.
Now let’s say you are watching a newscast. The anchor shows a video clip of an amazingly interesting story (never mind what it is) and says, “Coming up next, we’ll tell you about (insert story here)”. Anyone who has ever watched a newscast knows perfectly well that this story is not coming up next. In fact, it will likely be a good forty-five minutes before they even get to it, and that’s assuming they do get to it (which they might not). And so, because they never tell you this but keep telling you that it really is right around the corner, you are stuck watching dozens of news stories you had no interest in just to get to the one you thought was sort of interesting.
Sportscasts take the cake when it comes to mind-numbing nonsense. It’s the pre-game show before the big game, and the sportscaster – again, invariably – lists his handy-dandy “keys to the game”. These are keys which, if the contesting teams play according to them, will assure them a victory. If they don’t, well, they’re sure to lose. However, two or three hours later, when the game is over, do they revisit the “keys to the game”? Of course not. If they did, they would have to admit that the Bulls won despite the fact that Michael Jordan did not score 45 points, or that the Patriots still won the game even though Tom Brady left in the third quarter with a stomach ache, or even that the Yankees were not able to pull it out in the ninth even though Alex Rodriguez’s three three-run homers were at the top of the list called “keys to the game”. No, we can’t expect them to be that thorough. However, whatever proved to be the real “keys” to today’s game, you can be sure that those things will be tomorrow’s “keys to the game” and have no substantial influence on the outcome.
And then there’s the fact that I am really not sure what the value of sportscasters is for television games, especially for viewers who understand the sport they are watching. They state the obvious so many times it gets nauseating. “And there’s a swing and a miss!” Yes, I know – I just saw him swing and miss. “And he’s gonna run into the endzone for a touchdown!” Yep – I looked at the set, and boom, there it was. “Three-pointer – good!” I saw the swish just as well as you did, Marv. The only value sportscasters really lend to the televised game is an occasional – and I do mean “occasional” – insightful comment. Telling me that the look on manager Tony La Russa’s face means that he is contemplating taking his star pitcher out early when in fact Tony has indigestion does not come under the heading of “insightful comment”. Watching the game with the “mute” button firmly in the “on” position does not usually cause the viewer to miss much.
But let’s return for a moment to newscasts. If you’re a news junkie like me, you get a certain thrill when those grand mal seizure-causing flashing lights erupt on the screen and a deep, important voice intones, “Breaking News!” You expect them to go directly to the Oval Office, where the President will announce that we are bombing Russia in five minutes. But no. If it’s not a car chase in Los Angeles, it’s usually a house fire in Buffalo or a round of severe weather in Kansas. Whatever the case, it’s frequently anti-climactic. But no matter how trivial or lacking in details the story actually proves to be, you can be sure they will round up their all-star panel (the one made up of the only four people in the world who know everything) at headquarters ASAP to break it down while they wait to discover details about what the story actually is.
And we have not yet left the subject of newscasts. It is a known fact that, be it national or local news, the networks synchronize their commercial breaks. They are deathly afraid that, should they go to a commercial break before the other network, you might get the same story with the same spin and the same footage on that other network; and we just can’t have that. So the average viewer is left with the frustration of having nothing to flip to during those breaks. What’s more, the local weather forecasts are a hoot. Each channel has their own “expert” meteorologist who rightly predicted nine out of the last four big hurricanes, and their own “super-duper Doppler” radar that can pick up condensation (or is it dog drool?) on that blade of grass to the left of the one nearest the sidewalk. If most people are anything like my parents, it seems we feel compelled to faithfully watch each weather forecast to see if Joe on Channel 9 will call for rain on Tuesday, or if Fred on Channel 17 really thinks that cold front is going to make it this far south, or if Mike on Channel 5 is going to break with Joe and Fred and set Monday’s high at 91 instead of 92.
As you may be able to tell, sports and news are the main areas of expertise that I have honed in my years of watching television. There are, I’m sure, many more observations that I could make, and perhaps we shall have to make this a multi-article affair. But let me quote Yogi Berra in saying that you can observe a lot by just watching. However, when you watch TV, don’t just watch. Think while you’re at it, or that screen may just suck your brain right out of your head.
*Author’s Note: I will almost always “un-mute” the commercial when the commercial happens to be a Priceline commercial starring William Shatner. Those commercials, for some reason, never fail to tickle my funny bone no matter how many times I see them.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The People's Court -- Zen vs. iPod
Today I was doing a little online shopping (or should I say browsing, for I didn’t buy a thing), so you will understand if I have the urge to engage in a little product placement in today’s article. My subject does not concern anything that I was shopping for, but it does have to do with a fierce debate that my sister and I have had on the subject of MP3 players.
To me this debate is already settled, and it will seem that way as well to anyone who reads this analysis. However, my sister still sticks to her guns on the matter, and she has yet to be moved from her position. She got an MP3 player before I ever did, and it was an iPod. Some time after that, I made my choice of an MP3 player, and it was a Creative Zen. There is no doubt in my mind that the Creative Zen is worlds better than the iPod, and I will proceed with my analysis as to why.
My player has 30 gigabytes of storage capacity, and my sister’s new one has 16; but I don’t make too much of this because iPods are now available with very large capacities as well, if you are willing to pay the money. To me, one of the very biggest differences between the two (one you notice right away) is that the Zen has a built-in FM radio while the iPod has no such thing. What’s more, the Zen’s built-in FM radio has recording capability – thus, if I hear that my favorite piece of music is coming on, or if the President is making a big speech, or if there is a major news event, I can simply record it and later make my own MP3 file of it for no charge.* The iPod, of course, cannot even sniff at that.
Then there is the drawback of the way the iPod is set up. It is made to sync with the “iTunes” software, which is kept on your computer’s hard drive. If when you plug in your iPod there is something wrong with iTunes or the program is empty of files – oops, your entire iPod is erased, and all that music you paid for is gone. The Zen has none of these problems. I can plug my Zen player into my computer, and a screen will come up showing me everything that’s already on my player. It doesn’t have to “sync” with anything.
My Zen also has a calendar, a clock, and a place for a contacts list. It comes handy with a voice recorder, too. The iPod cannot match that – it just plays music, photos, and videos. In the face of these overwhelming facts, what is my sister’s response in this woefully one-sided debate?
Her only response is that my Zen is not “cool”. Whenever you feel forced to play the “coolness card”, you know that you have been defeated on the battlefield of ideas. But this is a fair-minded court of public opinion, and we shall hear the “coolness argument”.
In the first place, my sister would argue, everyone has an iPod. Why, everyone knows that if you’re going to have an MP3 player, the iPod is the people’s choice! She would say that no one has a Creative Zen unless they are a complete nerd. She would point to the variety of colors that may be chosen for one’s iPod – green, pink, black, blue, silver, etc. Why, the Zen is a dull black and white!
My sister believes that the strongest element in her “coolness argument” is that the Zen is simply too big, clumsy, and unwieldy. It is admittedly bigger than the iPod, and I will not even claim that it isn’t. But my sister protests that while you may easily fit an iPod into your pocket or some other small concealed place, the HUGE Zen might as well be on a par with computers from the 1950s or cell phones from the 1980s. The truth of the matter is that you can indeed fit your Zen into your pocket if you really wanted to, and it is quite portable should you choose to be “on the go” with it in tow.
As you can see, the “coolness argument” does not pass muster in a fair-minded court of public opinion. The question, as we all know, is not, “What does my MP3 player look and feel like?” If I wanted something to look at or feel, I would get a bobble-head doll or some kind of desktop paperweight. The real issue, as we all not only feel deeply in our hearts but also are firmly persuaded in our reasoning minds, is, “What has my MP3 player DONE for me lately?” And when it comes to pure functionality and sheer level of capability, we can all see that the Zen far outstrips the iPod, which I will not even call its rival. These, ladies and gentlemen of the court of public opinion, are the unadorned facts of the case – a case which, may I humbly insist, is open-and-shut.
*I have heard reports that the Zen is no longer made with this capability.
To me this debate is already settled, and it will seem that way as well to anyone who reads this analysis. However, my sister still sticks to her guns on the matter, and she has yet to be moved from her position. She got an MP3 player before I ever did, and it was an iPod. Some time after that, I made my choice of an MP3 player, and it was a Creative Zen. There is no doubt in my mind that the Creative Zen is worlds better than the iPod, and I will proceed with my analysis as to why.
My player has 30 gigabytes of storage capacity, and my sister’s new one has 16; but I don’t make too much of this because iPods are now available with very large capacities as well, if you are willing to pay the money. To me, one of the very biggest differences between the two (one you notice right away) is that the Zen has a built-in FM radio while the iPod has no such thing. What’s more, the Zen’s built-in FM radio has recording capability – thus, if I hear that my favorite piece of music is coming on, or if the President is making a big speech, or if there is a major news event, I can simply record it and later make my own MP3 file of it for no charge.* The iPod, of course, cannot even sniff at that.
Then there is the drawback of the way the iPod is set up. It is made to sync with the “iTunes” software, which is kept on your computer’s hard drive. If when you plug in your iPod there is something wrong with iTunes or the program is empty of files – oops, your entire iPod is erased, and all that music you paid for is gone. The Zen has none of these problems. I can plug my Zen player into my computer, and a screen will come up showing me everything that’s already on my player. It doesn’t have to “sync” with anything.
My Zen also has a calendar, a clock, and a place for a contacts list. It comes handy with a voice recorder, too. The iPod cannot match that – it just plays music, photos, and videos. In the face of these overwhelming facts, what is my sister’s response in this woefully one-sided debate?
Her only response is that my Zen is not “cool”. Whenever you feel forced to play the “coolness card”, you know that you have been defeated on the battlefield of ideas. But this is a fair-minded court of public opinion, and we shall hear the “coolness argument”.
In the first place, my sister would argue, everyone has an iPod. Why, everyone knows that if you’re going to have an MP3 player, the iPod is the people’s choice! She would say that no one has a Creative Zen unless they are a complete nerd. She would point to the variety of colors that may be chosen for one’s iPod – green, pink, black, blue, silver, etc. Why, the Zen is a dull black and white!
My sister believes that the strongest element in her “coolness argument” is that the Zen is simply too big, clumsy, and unwieldy. It is admittedly bigger than the iPod, and I will not even claim that it isn’t. But my sister protests that while you may easily fit an iPod into your pocket or some other small concealed place, the HUGE Zen might as well be on a par with computers from the 1950s or cell phones from the 1980s. The truth of the matter is that you can indeed fit your Zen into your pocket if you really wanted to, and it is quite portable should you choose to be “on the go” with it in tow.
As you can see, the “coolness argument” does not pass muster in a fair-minded court of public opinion. The question, as we all know, is not, “What does my MP3 player look and feel like?” If I wanted something to look at or feel, I would get a bobble-head doll or some kind of desktop paperweight. The real issue, as we all not only feel deeply in our hearts but also are firmly persuaded in our reasoning minds, is, “What has my MP3 player DONE for me lately?” And when it comes to pure functionality and sheer level of capability, we can all see that the Zen far outstrips the iPod, which I will not even call its rival. These, ladies and gentlemen of the court of public opinion, are the unadorned facts of the case – a case which, may I humbly insist, is open-and-shut.
*I have heard reports that the Zen is no longer made with this capability.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Nicknames
Nicknames are funny things. They replace our given names, which never really said anything descriptive about us as people to begin with, and tell the world what we are like, or at least what the people around us think we are like. Some people’s nicknames are very private, known only to themselves and whoever bestowed the nickname on them. Other people’s nicknames stick to them like super glue and become such a part of them that no one ever knew them to go by any other name.
Sports used to be the place you could go to find a rich gold mine full of colorful nicknames. In baseball, Babe Ruth, besides his nickname of a first name, was known as “The Sultan of Swat” because of the way he could swing a bat, and Ted Williams was called “The Splendid Splinter” for his skinny physique. In football, they played off O. J. Simpson’s initials and called him “The Juice”, while in the case of defensive lineman William Perry, the nickname “The Refrigerator” told fans all they needed to know about his imposing size. In basketball, Hakeem Olajuwon was “The Dream” and Clyde Drexler was “The Glide”.
Now, sports is no longer a nickname haven – not because they don’t still hand out nicknames to the players, but because the nicknames are no longer very creative. Almost every player these days gets a stock nickname made up of the first letter of his first name and the first part of his last name. Alex Rodriguez is one of baseball’s best hitters, yet all they can come up with for a nickname is “A-Rod”. When Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio led the Houston Astros, they were given the highly descriptive nicknames “Bags” and “Bidge”, respectively. In fact, the sports nickname business has hit such a dry spot that its most creative practitioner is a player himself (basketball’s Shaquille O’Neal) who gives himself his own nicknames. He has called himself “The Big Aristotle”, “Shaqtus” (when he was traded to the desert of Phoenix), “The Big Diesel”, and “Shaqovic” (playing off the fact that some of the NBA’s best shooters are Eastern Europeans with the suffix “-ovic” in their surnames), among other nicknames.
I myself have never been a nickname magnet, and I am not very talented at thinking of good ones for other people. From an early age my family called me “Bubba”, sometimes shortened to “Bub”, which still hangs on to a lessening degree today. My sister, when she was very small, called me “Bubby” because she could not say “brother”, and to this day she rarely calls me anything else. Of late I have gotten a couple new nicknames – “The Big Brick” (not because of my poor basketball-shooting skills, but because my first name, Clayton, may be divided into the phrase “clay ton”), and “The Hammer” (because I once said I was “hammering out” a new article). At least those are better than “C-Wilk” or “Wilks”. I also have a somewhat private nickname; actually, it is not as private as it is publicly unused. It is “Clay-Clay-Poo” and comes from my sister, who came up with it because she knew it sounded ridiculous. She delighted in it so much that she once entered it as my official name on the scoring computer at the bowling alley. Any use of that name in public will do nothing except cause me to ignore the user.
In our family, the best nicknames are given to our pets. When I was very little we had a dog named Satch, who was given several nicknames – “Satchmo”, “Satchel Paige”, and “Mayor McConn” (or just “The Mayor”), among others. Our German Shepherd Willie, who died in 1999, was so big that he went by “The Big Guy”, “The Great Big Guy”, or simply “Great Big”. Our current Basset Hound Droopy has many nicknames, including “Droonberg”, “Droobert”, “Droondibar”, and a very recent one, “The Sheriff”, because he thinks it is his duty to patrol the yard and bark at the top of his lungs at everything he sees. Other pets’ nicknames are not so affectionate. My parents call the little bird Julius (who is very much loved and appreciated by my sister and me) “Dumbirdo” simply because they think he is annoying.
Although the nicknames used among family and friends and pets are usually good-natured and frequently affectionate, there are realms in which they are not used in a friendly way. I can think of no better example than politics. For a president, the most desirable nicknames are the dull ones. After all, there is no greater honor for a president than to go by his initials – TR, FDR, JFK, and LBJ come quickly to mind. Some have gone by only slightly better nicknames like “Honest Abe”, “Ike”, “The Great Communicator”, and “Dubya”. But the minute a president starts going by ever-more-descriptive nicknames, he knows his popularity is sinking, at least in some quarters. Richard Nixon (“Tricky Dick”) and Bill Clinton (“Slick Willie”) got nicknames that implied they had an impaired sense of honesty. And when they start calling you “Liar-in-Chief”, or yelling “Jail to the Thief”, it’s a sure sign you need to meet with your PR department.
So ends for now this brief look into the wide world of nicknames. As for me, it doesn’t really matter what you call me, as long as it isn’t “late for dinner” or “Clay-Clay-Poo”.
Sports used to be the place you could go to find a rich gold mine full of colorful nicknames. In baseball, Babe Ruth, besides his nickname of a first name, was known as “The Sultan of Swat” because of the way he could swing a bat, and Ted Williams was called “The Splendid Splinter” for his skinny physique. In football, they played off O. J. Simpson’s initials and called him “The Juice”, while in the case of defensive lineman William Perry, the nickname “The Refrigerator” told fans all they needed to know about his imposing size. In basketball, Hakeem Olajuwon was “The Dream” and Clyde Drexler was “The Glide”.
Now, sports is no longer a nickname haven – not because they don’t still hand out nicknames to the players, but because the nicknames are no longer very creative. Almost every player these days gets a stock nickname made up of the first letter of his first name and the first part of his last name. Alex Rodriguez is one of baseball’s best hitters, yet all they can come up with for a nickname is “A-Rod”. When Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio led the Houston Astros, they were given the highly descriptive nicknames “Bags” and “Bidge”, respectively. In fact, the sports nickname business has hit such a dry spot that its most creative practitioner is a player himself (basketball’s Shaquille O’Neal) who gives himself his own nicknames. He has called himself “The Big Aristotle”, “Shaqtus” (when he was traded to the desert of Phoenix), “The Big Diesel”, and “Shaqovic” (playing off the fact that some of the NBA’s best shooters are Eastern Europeans with the suffix “-ovic” in their surnames), among other nicknames.
I myself have never been a nickname magnet, and I am not very talented at thinking of good ones for other people. From an early age my family called me “Bubba”, sometimes shortened to “Bub”, which still hangs on to a lessening degree today. My sister, when she was very small, called me “Bubby” because she could not say “brother”, and to this day she rarely calls me anything else. Of late I have gotten a couple new nicknames – “The Big Brick” (not because of my poor basketball-shooting skills, but because my first name, Clayton, may be divided into the phrase “clay ton”), and “The Hammer” (because I once said I was “hammering out” a new article). At least those are better than “C-Wilk” or “Wilks”. I also have a somewhat private nickname; actually, it is not as private as it is publicly unused. It is “Clay-Clay-Poo” and comes from my sister, who came up with it because she knew it sounded ridiculous. She delighted in it so much that she once entered it as my official name on the scoring computer at the bowling alley. Any use of that name in public will do nothing except cause me to ignore the user.
In our family, the best nicknames are given to our pets. When I was very little we had a dog named Satch, who was given several nicknames – “Satchmo”, “Satchel Paige”, and “Mayor McConn” (or just “The Mayor”), among others. Our German Shepherd Willie, who died in 1999, was so big that he went by “The Big Guy”, “The Great Big Guy”, or simply “Great Big”. Our current Basset Hound Droopy has many nicknames, including “Droonberg”, “Droobert”, “Droondibar”, and a very recent one, “The Sheriff”, because he thinks it is his duty to patrol the yard and bark at the top of his lungs at everything he sees. Other pets’ nicknames are not so affectionate. My parents call the little bird Julius (who is very much loved and appreciated by my sister and me) “Dumbirdo” simply because they think he is annoying.
Although the nicknames used among family and friends and pets are usually good-natured and frequently affectionate, there are realms in which they are not used in a friendly way. I can think of no better example than politics. For a president, the most desirable nicknames are the dull ones. After all, there is no greater honor for a president than to go by his initials – TR, FDR, JFK, and LBJ come quickly to mind. Some have gone by only slightly better nicknames like “Honest Abe”, “Ike”, “The Great Communicator”, and “Dubya”. But the minute a president starts going by ever-more-descriptive nicknames, he knows his popularity is sinking, at least in some quarters. Richard Nixon (“Tricky Dick”) and Bill Clinton (“Slick Willie”) got nicknames that implied they had an impaired sense of honesty. And when they start calling you “Liar-in-Chief”, or yelling “Jail to the Thief”, it’s a sure sign you need to meet with your PR department.
So ends for now this brief look into the wide world of nicknames. As for me, it doesn’t really matter what you call me, as long as it isn’t “late for dinner” or “Clay-Clay-Poo”.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Observations While Swimming
I have gone swimming before, and I have both pleasant and unpleasant memories of the activity. Actually, I can think of only one unpleasant memory, and that was from when our family was on vacation in New Braunfels in the very early 1990s. I was with my Dad in a pool and I fell off the cushion I was using to keep myself afloat. It was probably no big deal for Dad to scoop me out of the water, but to me it felt like I came within seconds of drowning. Around the same time period, our family went swimming occasionally at a local high school pool, which was pretty big and actually had swimming lanes. Of course, I also went to the beach a few times in my childhood, which is always fun.
All this to say that although I have gone swimming before, it has been many a year since I have done it, which made yesterday’s pool venture a notable event. I have a few observations from that event, and I will share them now – although to you experienced swimmers out there it will seem as if I am stating the obvious.
First of all, life jackets are amazing inventions. I myself cannot swim without one, and it is amazing how a simple piece of light clothing can keep you so consistently and comfortably afloat. I felt like a cork on the end of a fishing line – although there were no bites from any fish, be they “keepers” or not.
I will say nothing else about swim wear. Suffice it to say that there is a reason that this article is not illustrated.
My second observation is that one must keep one’s nose and mouth closed and stop breathing at all times if one is to be submerged. Otherwise, water goes into one’s nose and mouth and gets in the way of normal breathing.
Thirdly – sunscreen is important for swimmers on a hot and clear afternoon. I wore some and did not get sunburned. If I had not worn sunscreen, the water would have been the magnifying glass and I would have been the ant.
My fourth brilliant deduction is twofold – that everything is in slow motion while you are in the water, and that Michael Phelps is a strong individual. My sister and I had a pool race in which we tried to see who could swim all the way to opposite end first. It really wasn’t that long of a trip, and I’m not necessarily saying we were slow. But what I am saying is that the other people in the pool could have gotten out, dried off, gone to Taco Bell for a big burrito, and come back to the pool just in time to see me win that same race by a nose. That is why Michael Phelps must be a strong individual, because he can go very fast in the water.
Fifthly – and I know this will sound irrelevant at first, but bear with me – the California Raisins were not animated. They were real people that happened to have been in a pool for two hours before shooting their commercials and Christmas specials. I have no idea why water makes human skin wrinkle so badly, but I don’t like the feeling. Rubbing the palms of my hands or the bottoms of my feet in such a condition makes me make the same face as I would if I had eaten a sour grape.
My sixth observation is that swimming in a pool distorts all normal sense of weight, which is a good reason why astronauts train underwater. I may have felt perfectly lightweight and carefree while floating in a pool, but when I pulled myself up out of the water and onto the stone ground, I felt like I weighed nine tons. It’s really a strange feeling.
My last and seventh observation is that there is a way to get frostbite in summer. All you have to do is wear a normal T-shirt (not a shirt made of swimming material) and stay in a pool for a while on a somewhat breezy but very warm afternoon. Then emerge from the pool into the shade and let the breeze dry you off. You will feel as if you were just dropped off at the North Pole with no coat.
All this to say that although I have gone swimming before, it has been many a year since I have done it, which made yesterday’s pool venture a notable event. I have a few observations from that event, and I will share them now – although to you experienced swimmers out there it will seem as if I am stating the obvious.
First of all, life jackets are amazing inventions. I myself cannot swim without one, and it is amazing how a simple piece of light clothing can keep you so consistently and comfortably afloat. I felt like a cork on the end of a fishing line – although there were no bites from any fish, be they “keepers” or not.
I will say nothing else about swim wear. Suffice it to say that there is a reason that this article is not illustrated.
My second observation is that one must keep one’s nose and mouth closed and stop breathing at all times if one is to be submerged. Otherwise, water goes into one’s nose and mouth and gets in the way of normal breathing.
Thirdly – sunscreen is important for swimmers on a hot and clear afternoon. I wore some and did not get sunburned. If I had not worn sunscreen, the water would have been the magnifying glass and I would have been the ant.
My fourth brilliant deduction is twofold – that everything is in slow motion while you are in the water, and that Michael Phelps is a strong individual. My sister and I had a pool race in which we tried to see who could swim all the way to opposite end first. It really wasn’t that long of a trip, and I’m not necessarily saying we were slow. But what I am saying is that the other people in the pool could have gotten out, dried off, gone to Taco Bell for a big burrito, and come back to the pool just in time to see me win that same race by a nose. That is why Michael Phelps must be a strong individual, because he can go very fast in the water.
Fifthly – and I know this will sound irrelevant at first, but bear with me – the California Raisins were not animated. They were real people that happened to have been in a pool for two hours before shooting their commercials and Christmas specials. I have no idea why water makes human skin wrinkle so badly, but I don’t like the feeling. Rubbing the palms of my hands or the bottoms of my feet in such a condition makes me make the same face as I would if I had eaten a sour grape.
My sixth observation is that swimming in a pool distorts all normal sense of weight, which is a good reason why astronauts train underwater. I may have felt perfectly lightweight and carefree while floating in a pool, but when I pulled myself up out of the water and onto the stone ground, I felt like I weighed nine tons. It’s really a strange feeling.
My last and seventh observation is that there is a way to get frostbite in summer. All you have to do is wear a normal T-shirt (not a shirt made of swimming material) and stay in a pool for a while on a somewhat breezy but very warm afternoon. Then emerge from the pool into the shade and let the breeze dry you off. You will feel as if you were just dropped off at the North Pole with no coat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)