I only work here

In recent decades the principal vehicle for the tolerated expression of this longing [for cooperative living] has been the mass media. Popular songs and film comedies have continually engaged in a sentimental rejection of the dominant mores, maintaining that the best things in life are free, that love is more important than success, that keeping up with the Joneses is absurd, that personal integrity should take precedence over winning, and so on. But these protestations must be understood for what they are: a safety valve for the dissatisfactions that the modal American experiences when he behaves as he thinks he should. The same man who chuckles and sentimentalizes over a happy-go-lucky hero in a film would view his real-life counterpart as frivolous and irresponsible, and suburbanites who philosophize over their back fence with complete sincerity about their "dog-eat-dog-world," and what-is-it-all-for, and you-can't-take-it-with-you, and success-doesn't-make-you-
happy-it-just-gives-you-ulcers-and-a-heart-condition--would be enraged should their children pay serious attention to such a viewpoint. Indeed, the degree of rage is, up to a point, a function of the degree of sincerity: if the individual did not feel these things he would not have to fight them so vigorously. The peculiarly exaggerated hostility that hippies tend to arouse suggests that the life they strive for is highly seductive to middle-aged Americans.

Slater, Philip. The Pursuit of Loneliness. Beacon Press, 1970.

Have you ever noticed this? It's so true. We love "Life Is Beautiful," but what would you seriously think about, for example, a captive Marine in Iraq who takes over an insurgent loudspeaker just to play a song for his girlfriend captive in another part of the camp? Most people would berate him as stupid and irresponsible. Or what about the guy who repeatedly pursues his dreamgirl in a romantic comedy, even though she's not interested. (Well, first of all, her response is always quite unrealistic.) But as for the pursuit, we'd say--Dude, give up already!! And isn't it so much better to read missionary biographies about people who sold everything they had and moved to a remote jungle than to actually do it? And what if your kid wants to go to a Muslim country. O, my Lord, no! That's too dangerous! But the STORIES are great! We love to hear the stories, so long as we don't have to live them.

The above passage by Slater focuses on our dissatisfactions with this modern life as expressed in the mass media. I was intrigued by the author's specific examples. Each one decidedly represents a Christian ideal. And by mentioning them in such a discussion, he reveals that these are each Biblical ideals that we have lost. Choosing God over mammon, the primacy of love, rejecting materialism, being faithful to your word, being humble, being kind, living for God's purposes, living for eternity, and pursuing true joy are just a few of the concepts which the author effectively declares have been rejected by Americans--even though we still know we ought to believe them.

The life we long for, in other words, is the normal Christian life. We long to live under God's commands. We long to obey His precepts, for we know they are good--but we don't.

Admittedly, more Christians are discovering, developing, and trying to do something about the loneliness of our culture--to pursue Christian community purposefully. To live and love with transparency and partnership and sacrifice and hope. But this is a reaction to the extremes of loneliness to which we have sunk, and much of the mainstream church is still bothered by these new movements.

Or rather, these old movements. After all, what they seek is not some radical experiment, but a reactionary return to early Christian community as revealed in the Acts and the Epistles. It is part of the Church's continual renewal, which happens in century after century after the generation before goes astray. And the fact is, we did go astray, but praising these idealists doesn't change a thing if we are not willing to change ourselves.

Sovereignty

Check out this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1775561,00.html

It's about our government's reaction to the Bolivian takeover of its nation's gas and oil fields. You may not realize this, but there are many poor nations that are rich in natural resources. Sometimes this is due to a corrupt government, as in present-day Chad and Algeria '62-'92. But unfortunately, when these nations opt for privitization, capitalism does NOT work magic to release the nation from poverty. It can't, so long as the private companies that take over are owned by foreigners who care not about the people of the resource-rich nation. For example, Exxon, Chevron, and Halliburton (to name a few, but not to single them out) are American companies. When they do well (ie, they make big profits by exploiting foreign workers and plundering their resources without just compensation) our stockmarket does well. Every American, whether they realize it or not, has a vested interest in the stock market doing well. If it were to fail (as older generations still remember) it would bring devastation to nearly every household. Importantly, almost every White House cabinet person, and every CIA director in history has had extremely close ties to Wall Street. The truth is, what happens there is MUCH more important to our government than freedom, justice, democracy, or any of that banter.
Back to what I was saying... When these companies take over oil drilling in poor nations, those nations have no clout to resist or limit or to demand more of the profit be directed to the nation's benefit.

In Bolivia, the government takeover follows a campaign promise that the people of Bolivia strongly supported. In their democratic elections, they chose the man who said he would do this. In fact, as the above article points out, "the privatisation of Bolivia's gas and oil in the 1990s was almost certainly illegal, as it took place without the consent of congress." But Rice and Blair berate the Bolivian president, as do newspapers owned by wealthy American corporations.

Now, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (never a man to mince words) accuses Washington of trying to buy off soldiers in Bolivia, to encourage a military coup.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060528/wl_nm/venezuela_usa_bolivia_dc_1

Whether or not this accusation is proved true, we have to admit that it is perfectly in line with America's tactics in S. America for several decades, especially since Reagan. It is also what we did in Iraq and are now doing in Iran. Propaganda. Propaganda to try and influence the ruling of a nation other than your own. So it's normal. We accept it. We've been openly doing it for years. The problem is, this type of thing is the very antithesis of democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are meaningless where there is no sovereignty. And where a foreign power seeks to influence the democratic elections of another, democracy has entirely failed. In other words, in every case where America has, is, and will attempt to influence the outcome of an election or help bring about a coup and/or regime change--in every case--sovereignty and freedom have been destroyed. The only way they can be restored is through the people, unaffected by foreign militaries, foreign corporations, and foreign propagandists, taking back their nations, taking back their resources, and choosing what is in the interests of the people, rather than the corporations. Have not corporate donations to candidates here even led to scandal?? Especially when the corporations suddenly have legislation introduced to congress in their favor. It happens every day, of course, but sometimes people actually see it for what it is: the creation and continuation of a bureaucracy run by and for the rich, rather than a representative body for the people. And they are outraged. How long will our generation sit silent? To judge oneself as the promoter of freedom and democracy around the world, while your very tactics destroy them altogether, is not simply hypocrisy, but prideful self-deceit. O when will we humble ourselves before the Lord God, who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Sovereign over all creation, our Creator and Redeemer, deserving of all glory and honor and praise. His alone is the power. We need not fear this corrupt government. But we must fear God, and submit to His will in everything. No matter what it means, or how much we "lose," or how much we suffer as a result. God will bring about justice. He opposes the proud, and Scripture declares that the proud nation will be brought low. And that the humble will be lifted from their poverty and affliction. Be among the humble. No matter what happens around us--be among the humble. Do not think you are safe, or that your sins will not find you out. Repent. Confess your sins. Submit to your Creator and to His Christ. Then, no matter what judgment befalls us, you will find yourself safe in your heavenly reward.

reflection from The City of God

Where can we readily find a man who holds in fit and just estimation those persons on account of whose revolting pride, luxury, and avarice, and cursed iniquities and impiety, God now smites the earth as His predictions threatened? Where is the man who lives with them in the style in which it becomes us to live with them? For often we wickedly blind ourselves to the occasions of teaching and admonishing them, sometimes even of reprimanding and chiding them, either because we shrink from the labour or are ashamed to offend them, or because we fear to lose good friendships, lest this should stand in the way of our advancement, or injure us in some worldly matter, which either our covetous disposition deasires to obtain, or our weakness shrinks from losing. So that, although the conduct of wicked men is distasteful to the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into that damnation which in the next life awaits such persons, yet, because they spare their damnable sins through fear, therefore, even though their own sins be slight and venial, they are justly scourged with the wicked in this world, though in eternity they quite escape punishment. Justly, when God afflicts them in common with the wicked, do they find this life bitter, through love of whose sweetness they declined to be bitter to these sinners.

...

They abstain from interference, because they fear that, if it fail of good effect, their own safety or reputation may be damaged or destroyed; not because they see that their preservation and good name are needful, that they may be able to influence those who need their instruction, but rather because they weakly relish the flattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of the people, and the pain or death of the body; that is to say, their non-intervention is the result of selfishness and not of love.
Accordingly, this seems to me to be one priciple reason why the good are chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community. They are punished together, not because they have spent an equally corrupt life, but because the good as well as the wicked, though not equally with them, love this present life; while they ought to hold it cheap, that the wicked, being admonished and reformed by their example, might lay hold of life eternal.

St. Augustine. The City of God. Book I, Chapter 9.

The evangelical church is about as "UNevangelical" as any church in history, in terms of its members participating in personal evangelism amongst their neighbors, friends and family. Perhaps it is spoken of fondly, but most of us are just too busy to worry about lost people. Most of what does happen is by the providence of God alone, and not by any effort of obedience and love by the Christian community. Leaving the task to professionals precludes justifying the naming of a movement as "evangelical," and leaving the task to programmed events in which sinners are stupidly invited through a worldly advertizing campaign hardly counts for anything.

But not only do we fail to announce the Good News properly, we fail entirely when it comes to announcing the bad news. And why? Is it because the churches no longer believe in judgment or hell? Most are not confessionally heretical. No. It is because we love the world, and the things that are in the world, and we would rather escort the world to its hell as a friend than to stand in the way of hell and risk being knocked to the ground by the onrushing world.

Meanwhile, our nation fast approaches judgment. Never has a nation with so many believers permitted such wickedness to reign, as it does today in America. We have turned morality into a political stance, rather than the eternal law of God. We seek to legislate righteousness, to forbid acts of sin as in the days of Moses, rather than announcing the need of a clean heart. We admit not our own sins, nor the sins of our close friends, but lash out against those in authority over us, decrying those weaknesses which we would overlook in our own children. How rebellious we are! Apt for a nation born in rebellion and bloodshed.

How ought we respond then, to the wickedness around us? Are our leaders justly to blame, whom we have democratically elected from amongst ourselves? Ought we not look first to ourselves? To our own selfish ambition, and pride, and greed? And as we humble ourselves before our Creator, we ought to call to account those over whom we have any influence, whether friend, neighbor, family, or foe--but especially those who claim to be in the household of God. Our plea ought not to be to legislators to forbid sodomy and the murder of innocents, but to the sodomizers, the murderers of infants, and to those who openly approve of them. We are made as watchmen to our people, as representatives of God and His Messiah, and if we fail to warn them of the wrath to come, their blood will rightly be on our own heads. And God would be right to pour out his wrath on both the good and the wicked in America, for He desires to cleanse us who have for so long been silent before sinners. It is only right that God should do so, for he always has our best in mind, and will not let us lie forever in our worldliness and fear.

Do not think that God will spare us as He did Lot, if we fail to be like him of whom it is said, "That righteous man, living among them day by day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard" (2 Peter 2:8). But even though he was rescued from a temporal wrath for his faith, he yet failed to teach his own family, who all will suffer the wrath to come. For his wife, in love with the present world, looked back and became a pillar of salt. And his daughters, infected by the wickedness in which they were raised, got their father drunk and had relations with him. For our generation is more like Lot's wife and daughters than Lot himself, though an older generation may have been like Lot. Do we long after the world, even as angels are rescuing us from it? This world is perishing, and we are but strangers here. We are sent to rescue as many as we can before God's judgment comes, but we hardly flee that wrath ourselves! No wonder our children love the world, and fall prey to so many of its deceptions. We seek a comfortable life for ourselves, and "praise God" for the freedom to be lazy, fat, and living in excess. Rather, we ought to praise God for our labors, and hunger, and our lack, for it is these which teach us the freedom of Spirit found in obedience to and dependence on our Lord Jesus Christ.

This'll keep those sheep in line.

These outfits came from the Sahara. They are worn by shepherds there--and Star Wars nerds here...

...aw, come on, ya gotta still think it's cool!

Work rants

Okay, so I admit that I don't work well under bad leadership. I know this is a weakness of mine. I just have a hard time following non-leaders. Shouldn't that make perfect sense? You can't, can you? And doesn't the Bible say that if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a pit? Well, blindness may not be the problem, but if you aren't being led well, should you just walk into a pit when you do see it? Is that what is meant by submitting to those in authority?

If someone tells you (when faced with a problem on the job) to "figure it out," I assume that means to assess the situation, hypothesize about solutions, look around, be creative, and do something that works. But apparently, that's not what it means. What it really means is: know intuitively how I do things, and always figure out what I would do, even if it's not the best way, or is just one of several possible ways to solve a problem--bottom line, "my way or the highway," is a fair linguistic equivalent. So far, "figuring it out" has been thwarted and discouraged at every turn, and finding solutions on my own (rather than sitting around doing nothing until the boss returns) has been patronizingly corrected and put down as the wrong way of doing things.

So, yesterday, I was given a diagram and instructions and asked to cut some things. I did one cut wrong, but we figured out another way to get our pieces. But I was told the wrong thing, so, because I followed instructions, we had to do some pieces over. I was lectured about making mistakes and how costly they are, which seemed a good time to point out a mistake he'd made and make a suggestion of how to fix it. We did, but today he realized he'd done ALL of his pieces wrong yesterday, so he had to redo them all, and then I had to redo another of his that he did upside down. Another problem was that he wrote the wrong dimensions on his list. Luckily I "figured that out" and just did it right.

Now, I do feel bad about messing up his machine earlier this week. The machine holds down boards while drilling multiple holes in them. It's a very precision-oriented machine. Well, while using the right side of the machine to drill, the left side drilled right into the thing that is supposed to hold pieces down on the other side! It gouged this metal holder, bent the drill bit, gouged the table surface, and threw the whole machine out of balance by 1/64 inch--which is a lot for the precision we work with! I was almost scared when it happened. I had no idea how the boss would react, or how bad the damage was. Turns out, he took it well, and was glad that I owned up to my mistake. (I told him about it as soon as he arrived).

first post

As I sit here in the month of May
Slowly typing till the day
A squirrel outside has lost its way
And I have way too much much to say
--To fill this blog up all the way
But too few hours in the day
This sunny twenty-first of May






This is a random picture I took of Einstein crawling on Lisle (not at all staged, of course--the lizard crawled up there all the time ;) )

The lizard survived not the winter.






Check out this link for a humorous writing contest. The idea is to write a BAD opening sentence for a book, in honor of the man who began a story, "It was a dark and stormy night..." and was ever plagarized by the Schultz Beagle thereafter.

My entry next year will be:
The hundreds of flies now smeared across my dining room mirror had escaped, when I opened the trash bin, like a very fast car, driving too quickly and destined for a deadly collision, which, coincidentally, was what had happened to my sweet Suzanne, who was currently in the trash bin attracting the flies.

Of course, it's stupid and gross. That's the whole point! To win the contest you have to find that perfect blend of being perfectly awful and ridiculous, and yet somehow creative and clever at the same time. Also check out the past winners page, and the page honoring real, paid authors who were just as bad.

I'll probably get more content up before telling people about this, but if you happen to come across this and tell your friends--I guess I can't stop you.