I just saw my monthly bill for the time I was in Egypt and Israel. I'm paying AT&T nearly FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS for data service! I'll get over a hundred of it back, but they're a huge corporation. One can only assume their resources are greater than mine. Why in the world should I have to carry $100+ for a month? Well, of course the answer is because that's how they get to be a huge corporation.
But I'm annoyed. I'm extremely annoyed, because I told them when I'd come back and they said I was all set for the charge to drop off. Then they had to change my data plan and they were supposed to backdate the change. Apparently that didn't happen.
I happen to dislike Verizon even more than AT&T -- they may have great service now, but I'm still stuck on the Verizon wireless router that wouldn't carry the signal through the sheetrock and metal walls in my house. I had to buy a real router to get the signal all the way through my apt.
Four hundred dollars for ten days worth of internet access. I am SOOOO hacking my phone before my next trip so I can buy a foreign sim card. If these guys would pay half as much attention to their technical infrastructure as they do to screwing the little guy out of every possible penny, then we might actually have an unrestricted flow of information and people might be able to get work done on their wireless devices instead of walking around in crappy moods because the little pieces of garbage don't work.
After I don't know how many years with the iPhone, I may be ready to go to 'droid...
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Sugar Overload
Tonite on the way back from picking up some gifts for kids, I stopped in a place called Garrett's. It's a specialty popcorn shop. I got some pecan caramel popcorn mixed with almond caramel popcorn. Got a small bag for $4.50 or so. Before I got downstairs to the subway, I turned around, went up the stairs, and bought a medium, this time including cashew caramel in the mix.
As I stood on the train eating it, a big guy beside me mentioned how good it smelled. (This popcorn, in different flavors, made Oprah's "O" list. A couple of things I like are on her list: The red velvet cake from Rockland bakeries and the now-defunct Harlem Tea Room). I offered him some, but he declined. Before I got home, I could literally feel the sugar coursing through my veins. It felt like electricity coursing through my body.
And I'm still munching on it. It is delicious.
Watching the news now. President Obama's hair has whitened noticeably, as has the hair of all our recent presidents, except the shrub. I made some not-so-flattering comments about that, but deleted them.
So these people are called "sex workers." They're prostitutes. While I feel for them and the fact that they are often victimized as a result of the work they do, are we now so PC that we're acting like "sex workers" are just like, for instance, "steel workers?" Is it not a choice to break the law and enter into sex work? Of course the answer to that is, more often than not, no. So perhaps the current trend to a kinder gentler label is the realization that pejorative labels simply serve to re-victimize an already victimized worker.
OK, I suppose I can get with that....
Before I hit the popcorn shop, I stopped at a camera store on 5th avenue and 31st street. I wanted to pick up a UV filter for my new lens. I'd looked online and seen a filter kit for about 30 bucks, so figured I'd go ahead and purchase that. I meant to get a capkeeper as well. So I go to the store and tell the guy about the lens filter kit I want. He tells me it'll be $129.00 -- which is about 4 times what I expected. When I tell him about the price online, he says "oh, that's our online special." So I told him I'd go to a competitor. I didn't, of course. But I did stop into one of those touristy places where they tried to sell me a single UV filter for $40.00, insisting that it was "Made in Japan" and was pure crystal. Um, yeah, Mr. Dude. I was born on a Thursday, but not yesterday. There is no doubt that filter quality can vary, but there is also no doubt that prices are jacked up in tourist traps. If he wanted $40.00 for one filter, then I should be paying about $40.00 for the set. So I came home and ordered a set from J&R. Just shy of $40.00 for the set, and I can pick it up tomorrow after I get out of the gym. B&H is closed on Saturdays (and they don't allow online ordering on Saturdays), and it does seem that north of $100.00 seems to be the price. I only paid $210 for the entire lens; I'm not paying more than 50% of that for a filter. At least not yet. Perhaps if my picture quality could be drastically improved, but I'd have to see that first.
The bus to the train from my South Bronx office didn't come for nearly half an hour, and when one finally came, it was so packed that people were standing on the steps. There was literally no room to get on the bus. So I tried hailing a cab. Just like the guy in front of me. A cabbie stopped for the guy first, and I said something to them that I won't repeat here. Later on a cabbie picked me up. When I got out of the cab, I thanked and blessed the driver and wished him a Feliz Navidad. Why was my response to the two cabbies different? Whether you please me or not, aren't all people worthy of the same blessings? Aren't we all covered by God's grace, which is not a function of our behavior or qualities, but of God's quality? There's a lesson there for me...
I see on the news where the Magnolia bakery has just signed a 10 year lease here in Harlem. It will be as a distribution point, but I wonder: 1) how come it's a freaking cupcake industry that's coming to Harlem. Which is not a fair criticism, because we have lots of businesses here. There is actually less and less reason for me to go below 86th Street these days. But the most important question I have is 2) How will Magnolia's move uptown affect Tonnies? Though the answer may be found in the fact that I neither know nor care if I've ever eaten a Magnolia bakery cupcake. It's Tonnie's that I take to parties.
Looking at Vada Vasquez, a 15 year old kid who survived being shot in the head. IT happened right outside one of our buildings. Kudos to the kids from PS 22 in Staten Island, whose videos have gone viral on You Tube and who have just been invited to the Oscars by Anne Hathaway.
If neither of us spaces out, Amit and I will go to see Tron tomorrow night. I kinda missed the Corporate world when he shared the amount of his bonus with me. A bonus for my current job will be keeping the doors open... Although the other night I got up and had some Almond Roca. There were only two pieces in the gift basked I got, and I wanted some more. Imagine how surprised I was the next day when someone delivered a gift tin of Almond Roca from a vendor!!! Reminds me that if God can give me the desires of my heart (and abundance) with something as small as a piece of candy, God will certainly direct my way with every other area of my life. I just need to make sure my life is lived in accordance with God's will. And stop getting annoyed with cabbies.
Missed my 10 pm bedtime, but need to crash soon. Lessons and blessings in everything.
As I stood on the train eating it, a big guy beside me mentioned how good it smelled. (This popcorn, in different flavors, made Oprah's "O" list. A couple of things I like are on her list: The red velvet cake from Rockland bakeries and the now-defunct Harlem Tea Room). I offered him some, but he declined. Before I got home, I could literally feel the sugar coursing through my veins. It felt like electricity coursing through my body.
And I'm still munching on it. It is delicious.
Watching the news now. President Obama's hair has whitened noticeably, as has the hair of all our recent presidents, except the shrub. I made some not-so-flattering comments about that, but deleted them.
So these people are called "sex workers." They're prostitutes. While I feel for them and the fact that they are often victimized as a result of the work they do, are we now so PC that we're acting like "sex workers" are just like, for instance, "steel workers?" Is it not a choice to break the law and enter into sex work? Of course the answer to that is, more often than not, no. So perhaps the current trend to a kinder gentler label is the realization that pejorative labels simply serve to re-victimize an already victimized worker.
OK, I suppose I can get with that....
Before I hit the popcorn shop, I stopped at a camera store on 5th avenue and 31st street. I wanted to pick up a UV filter for my new lens. I'd looked online and seen a filter kit for about 30 bucks, so figured I'd go ahead and purchase that. I meant to get a capkeeper as well. So I go to the store and tell the guy about the lens filter kit I want. He tells me it'll be $129.00 -- which is about 4 times what I expected. When I tell him about the price online, he says "oh, that's our online special." So I told him I'd go to a competitor. I didn't, of course. But I did stop into one of those touristy places where they tried to sell me a single UV filter for $40.00, insisting that it was "Made in Japan" and was pure crystal. Um, yeah, Mr. Dude. I was born on a Thursday, but not yesterday. There is no doubt that filter quality can vary, but there is also no doubt that prices are jacked up in tourist traps. If he wanted $40.00 for one filter, then I should be paying about $40.00 for the set. So I came home and ordered a set from J&R. Just shy of $40.00 for the set, and I can pick it up tomorrow after I get out of the gym. B&H is closed on Saturdays (and they don't allow online ordering on Saturdays), and it does seem that north of $100.00 seems to be the price. I only paid $210 for the entire lens; I'm not paying more than 50% of that for a filter. At least not yet. Perhaps if my picture quality could be drastically improved, but I'd have to see that first.
The bus to the train from my South Bronx office didn't come for nearly half an hour, and when one finally came, it was so packed that people were standing on the steps. There was literally no room to get on the bus. So I tried hailing a cab. Just like the guy in front of me. A cabbie stopped for the guy first, and I said something to them that I won't repeat here. Later on a cabbie picked me up. When I got out of the cab, I thanked and blessed the driver and wished him a Feliz Navidad. Why was my response to the two cabbies different? Whether you please me or not, aren't all people worthy of the same blessings? Aren't we all covered by God's grace, which is not a function of our behavior or qualities, but of God's quality? There's a lesson there for me...
I see on the news where the Magnolia bakery has just signed a 10 year lease here in Harlem. It will be as a distribution point, but I wonder: 1) how come it's a freaking cupcake industry that's coming to Harlem. Which is not a fair criticism, because we have lots of businesses here. There is actually less and less reason for me to go below 86th Street these days. But the most important question I have is 2) How will Magnolia's move uptown affect Tonnies? Though the answer may be found in the fact that I neither know nor care if I've ever eaten a Magnolia bakery cupcake. It's Tonnie's that I take to parties.
Looking at Vada Vasquez, a 15 year old kid who survived being shot in the head. IT happened right outside one of our buildings. Kudos to the kids from PS 22 in Staten Island, whose videos have gone viral on You Tube and who have just been invited to the Oscars by Anne Hathaway.
If neither of us spaces out, Amit and I will go to see Tron tomorrow night. I kinda missed the Corporate world when he shared the amount of his bonus with me. A bonus for my current job will be keeping the doors open... Although the other night I got up and had some Almond Roca. There were only two pieces in the gift basked I got, and I wanted some more. Imagine how surprised I was the next day when someone delivered a gift tin of Almond Roca from a vendor!!! Reminds me that if God can give me the desires of my heart (and abundance) with something as small as a piece of candy, God will certainly direct my way with every other area of my life. I just need to make sure my life is lived in accordance with God's will. And stop getting annoyed with cabbies.
Missed my 10 pm bedtime, but need to crash soon. Lessons and blessings in everything.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
I'm in a really pissy mood today
This agency has sooo many challenges, and my focus has gone from trying to craft an 18-month plan to move us forward to trying to keep the doors open through the spring. It's wearing on me physically.
So I turn to Facebook, where a friend (straight, married, evangelical male) posted about gay marriage. It was something like: "Let me get this straight - Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hr marriage, Jesse James & Tiger Woods cheated on their wives several times, Tony Parker cheated w/a teammates wife & some religions favor multiple wives, yet the idea of same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage... REALLY??!! Re post this if you agree!"
So of course I posted, waiting for my more conservative friends to blow me up. I only got people agreeing with me -- either it's not an issue or people just don't pay me any mind anymore. We did get into a long, drawn out discussion with a self-described "conservative, evangelical, Latino" on the status of sex, sexuality, marriage, etc. I posted there what I've posted many times: Can someone explain to me why it is that we Christians get so hung up on sex and sexuality and stick to the Word on that, but choose to dismiss the Word when it tells us not to eat pork or shellfish (or many of the other Levitical holiness ...codes, one of which is the prohibition against homosexuality). How come we're even on the internet, since Jesus said we should sell our possessions and give them to the poor and THEN come follow Him? How come we never talk about how much Jesus' ministry was about casting off the chains of social and economic injustice, versus how much it dealt with sexuality? How come we stick to (what we understand to be) the literal Word sometimes and feel free to interpret it at other times?
Lots of people have shared their thoughts with me, but none in a way that I fully understand. This is not directed at anyone and I'm not trying to point fingers or pick specks out of any eyes, but trying to understand thought processes ...
Sorry. I realize it's a lot of questions all together; inquiring minds and all."
No one's ever explained that to me in a way that both honored the Word and made sense to me. The guy who started the thread posted this link: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian or the free pdf version. You can download the free pdf version here.
All that is background. Today the guy posted an article from Religion Dispatches about the Anti-Gay Conservatives, which leads to my comment for today.
What if, instead of cobbling together assorted Scriptures from the Old and New Testaments to make a point about how people express their love, what if instead we were to focus on a something Jesus said consistently in the Synoptic Gospels. What if we were instead to focus on how people LIVE, and to use as our basis the stories as told in Matthew 19:22-24, Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25. No matter whether you're of the school that He was talking about a literal eye of a needle or whether He was talking about a narrow gate named Eye of the Needle, Jesus pretty consistently makes the point that rich people will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So why, then, do we have so many Christians who accumulate wealth? Isn't that contrary to entering into the Kingdom?
Did not Jesus and His followers live as socialists, all contributing their earthly possessions for the common good? Wasn't it Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead when they tried to keep not all but SOME of their profits for themselves? It seems pretty clear that the Bible speaks against accumulation of wealth and materialism, yet we interpret it away -- this passage we always say is about lying to the Holy Ghost. Yes, but the lie was ABOUT materialism. The lie was to cover up a stingy materialist nature.
We never talk about those things, yet Jesus did. How are we justified in obsessing over sexuality, which He never mentioned (except to side with those who committed sexual sins) and yet we ignore His teachings on materialism, or actively engage in it? We have Christian teachings on money management, Christian teachings on creating wealth -- isn't the "prosperity Gospel" completely contrary to the Spirit of what Jesus taught? We talk about our Father's abundance, and his many mansions, but aren't those HEAVENLY mansions, and heavenly abundance, which Jesus has clearly told us we can't partake of if we cling to earthly material things?
Looking at my friend's FB page, I see he's posted another article from Religion Dispatch, titled Tax Cuts for the Super Rich Aren't Biblical. While I don't think many of us (who aren't super rich) would argue with that, what about those of us who AREN'T super rich, but who still hang in there in the rat race? Is that Biblical?
Nah, we won't have that discussion. It ain't right.
So I turn to Facebook, where a friend (straight, married, evangelical male) posted about gay marriage. It was something like: "Let me get this straight - Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hr marriage, Jesse James & Tiger Woods cheated on their wives several times, Tony Parker cheated w/a teammates wife & some religions favor multiple wives, yet the idea of same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage... REALLY??!! Re post this if you agree!"
So of course I posted, waiting for my more conservative friends to blow me up. I only got people agreeing with me -- either it's not an issue or people just don't pay me any mind anymore. We did get into a long, drawn out discussion with a self-described "conservative, evangelical, Latino" on the status of sex, sexuality, marriage, etc. I posted there what I've posted many times: Can someone explain to me why it is that we Christians get so hung up on sex and sexuality and stick to the Word on that, but choose to dismiss the Word when it tells us not to eat pork or shellfish (or many of the other Levitical holiness ...codes, one of which is the prohibition against homosexuality). How come we're even on the internet, since Jesus said we should sell our possessions and give them to the poor and THEN come follow Him? How come we never talk about how much Jesus' ministry was about casting off the chains of social and economic injustice, versus how much it dealt with sexuality? How come we stick to (what we understand to be) the literal Word sometimes and feel free to interpret it at other times?
Lots of people have shared their thoughts with me, but none in a way that I fully understand. This is not directed at anyone and I'm not trying to point fingers or pick specks out of any eyes, but trying to understand thought processes ...
Sorry. I realize it's a lot of questions all together; inquiring minds and all."
No one's ever explained that to me in a way that both honored the Word and made sense to me. The guy who started the thread posted this link: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian or the free pdf version. You can download the free pdf version here.
All that is background. Today the guy posted an article from Religion Dispatches about the Anti-Gay Conservatives, which leads to my comment for today.
What if, instead of cobbling together assorted Scriptures from the Old and New Testaments to make a point about how people express their love, what if instead we were to focus on a something Jesus said consistently in the Synoptic Gospels. What if we were instead to focus on how people LIVE, and to use as our basis the stories as told in Matthew 19:22-24, Mark 10:24-25, and Luke 18:24-25. No matter whether you're of the school that He was talking about a literal eye of a needle or whether He was talking about a narrow gate named Eye of the Needle, Jesus pretty consistently makes the point that rich people will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So why, then, do we have so many Christians who accumulate wealth? Isn't that contrary to entering into the Kingdom?
Did not Jesus and His followers live as socialists, all contributing their earthly possessions for the common good? Wasn't it Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead when they tried to keep not all but SOME of their profits for themselves? It seems pretty clear that the Bible speaks against accumulation of wealth and materialism, yet we interpret it away -- this passage we always say is about lying to the Holy Ghost. Yes, but the lie was ABOUT materialism. The lie was to cover up a stingy materialist nature.
We never talk about those things, yet Jesus did. How are we justified in obsessing over sexuality, which He never mentioned (except to side with those who committed sexual sins) and yet we ignore His teachings on materialism, or actively engage in it? We have Christian teachings on money management, Christian teachings on creating wealth -- isn't the "prosperity Gospel" completely contrary to the Spirit of what Jesus taught? We talk about our Father's abundance, and his many mansions, but aren't those HEAVENLY mansions, and heavenly abundance, which Jesus has clearly told us we can't partake of if we cling to earthly material things?
Looking at my friend's FB page, I see he's posted another article from Religion Dispatch, titled Tax Cuts for the Super Rich Aren't Biblical. While I don't think many of us (who aren't super rich) would argue with that, what about those of us who AREN'T super rich, but who still hang in there in the rat race? Is that Biblical?
Nah, we won't have that discussion. It ain't right.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Today was an interesting day
Difficult, but interesting. The majority of the day was spent terminating three employees. I hated to do it, especially since they are all males of color, but one admitting theft of over $1500 in goods; one had no measurable output in the 10 months I've been there, and was often MIA, and was observed handling drugs for clients for whom he had no formal responsibility; he had also borrowed money from clients, and the final one had borrowed money from clients. At the end of the day, I believe at least one of their superiors had a personal interest in seeing them leave our employ, but that is superfluous to the fact that each of these people gave us a reaon to terminate their employment.
Afterwards, I went to the holiday party from my former employer. It was in the sixth floor ballroom of the Marriot Marquis. It was as lavishly decorated as always. The serving stations had miniature caesar salads in shot classes, little wedge salads on square miniature saucers, the omnipresent sushi bars, some sort of jumbo shrimp concoction, crab claws, stations for carving beef, turkey, and pork; a cheese bar, some kinda spoon with quince compote and cheese, bacon-wrapped dates, an antipasta bar (a real antipasta bar, with sliced prosciutto, salami, marinated peppers and I don't know what else). There was also a station serving lobster ravioli, mac and cheese, and chilean sea bass. There were ceviche shots -- scallops in some sort of lime and cilantro mixture, served in shot glasses. The dessert bar was just as luscious. There were lychee spoons topped with pistachio, a blood orange brulee, chocolate spoons, citrus spoons, chocolate caramel shots, chocolate and vanilla boston cream pie cones, chocolate truffle pops, a sorbet station, a passionfruit something in a merengue cup, something kinda peachy; and I don't remember what else. I could only eat a few items at a time, but there was lots of protein for me to get in, and the portions were small. I interspersed eating with lots of dancing. Oh, and there was an open bar. Even though I don't drink, it's always fun to watch people who do, though I have to say that people seem to hold their liquor a lot better than at office parties in earlier years.
Note: I was so happy that I wore my tuxedo shirt with the red bow tie and cummerbund and the gold vest. When I walked into the Marriott, the coat check people had on white (not tuxedo) shirts with gold vests. I think their vests were the same shade, but mine was glossy and theirs were matte. Since mine was too big and theirs were generally ill-fitting, I looked like one of the coat check people. Even though my bow tie and cummerbund were red instead of black, with the black suit on, I could easily have passed for a waitstaff person.
So it probably wasn't the best choice in clothing, but I liked it.
And for a few hours, it was great to see everyone, and it got my mind off the day.
It appears to me that our place of work is not a place that is a professional social services organization -- it's a sort of workfare place where people look for ways to get money from the government while doing as little as possible. That's the pervasive organizational culture, and it absolutely has to change. It's like people are so stupid they think that because this is an organization it can create money to which they are automatically entitled. I honestly want to believe tht the root issue isn't people being dishonest so much as it is people just being stupid.
OH, well. We'll see where this goes.
Afterwards, I went to the holiday party from my former employer. It was in the sixth floor ballroom of the Marriot Marquis. It was as lavishly decorated as always. The serving stations had miniature caesar salads in shot classes, little wedge salads on square miniature saucers, the omnipresent sushi bars, some sort of jumbo shrimp concoction, crab claws, stations for carving beef, turkey, and pork; a cheese bar, some kinda spoon with quince compote and cheese, bacon-wrapped dates, an antipasta bar (a real antipasta bar, with sliced prosciutto, salami, marinated peppers and I don't know what else). There was also a station serving lobster ravioli, mac and cheese, and chilean sea bass. There were ceviche shots -- scallops in some sort of lime and cilantro mixture, served in shot glasses. The dessert bar was just as luscious. There were lychee spoons topped with pistachio, a blood orange brulee, chocolate spoons, citrus spoons, chocolate caramel shots, chocolate and vanilla boston cream pie cones, chocolate truffle pops, a sorbet station, a passionfruit something in a merengue cup, something kinda peachy; and I don't remember what else. I could only eat a few items at a time, but there was lots of protein for me to get in, and the portions were small. I interspersed eating with lots of dancing. Oh, and there was an open bar. Even though I don't drink, it's always fun to watch people who do, though I have to say that people seem to hold their liquor a lot better than at office parties in earlier years.
Note: I was so happy that I wore my tuxedo shirt with the red bow tie and cummerbund and the gold vest. When I walked into the Marriott, the coat check people had on white (not tuxedo) shirts with gold vests. I think their vests were the same shade, but mine was glossy and theirs were matte. Since mine was too big and theirs were generally ill-fitting, I looked like one of the coat check people. Even though my bow tie and cummerbund were red instead of black, with the black suit on, I could easily have passed for a waitstaff person.
So it probably wasn't the best choice in clothing, but I liked it.
And for a few hours, it was great to see everyone, and it got my mind off the day.
It appears to me that our place of work is not a place that is a professional social services organization -- it's a sort of workfare place where people look for ways to get money from the government while doing as little as possible. That's the pervasive organizational culture, and it absolutely has to change. It's like people are so stupid they think that because this is an organization it can create money to which they are automatically entitled. I honestly want to believe tht the root issue isn't people being dishonest so much as it is people just being stupid.
OH, well. We'll see where this goes.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The "Secularization" of Christmas
We Christians like to lament the "secularization" of Christmas. But what if we were to empower ourselves and each other and look at it from a different way? It occurs to me that Christmas is a sacred holiday and that, no matter how hard the enemy tries, it can never be secularized. That is because it remains sacred in the hearts of believers.
It has been incredibly commercialized, but I think we should look upon that as an evangelistic opportunity. When we see Santa Claus, SAINT Nicholas, Father Christmas, or the other names by which he is commonly known, instead of lamenting him as some sort of idolatrous manifestation, perhaps we could look at him as a popular iconic representation of Jesus Christ. Santa is commonly depicted as dressed in red and associated with giving gifts. Is that not a perfect opportunity to speak of Jesus Christ, whose birthday is celebrated as Christmas Day? Jesus is the ULTIMATE Giver of the Ultimate Gift, which is Eternal Life. Just as Santa's suit is red, we should remember the precious blood that Jesus shed so we might all have a right to that Eternal Life.
In a popular Christmas song, children are told that Santa will find out who's been naughty or nice, much as Christians are told there will be an ultimate judgement. Santa is often said to come to our homes through a chimney, which reminds me of the fact that our Divine Christ had to enter into a sinfilled world, taking on human form, in order to give us this Ultimate Gift.
Christmas time is filled with lights. Rather than decry the commercialism, we should be reminded that Jesus is the light of the world. Likewise, when we see the Christmas tree, it should remind us that Our Savior hung on a tree for the salvation of the world.
This re-attaching of sacred symbolism to "secularized" Christmas objects is not new. Consider the popular story of the candy cane. The story goes that the white in the candy cane symbolizes Jesus' sinless nature, the hardness of the candy symbolizes the Solid Rock, the foundation of the Church, and the firmness of the promises of God. The candy is shaped in the form of a "J," either to represent Jesus (if you speak English) or to represent a Shepherd's staff. The smaller stripes on the candy represent Jesus' stripes by which we are healed, and the large stripe represents the Blood that was shed on Calvary. Lately, there have been many variations on this story, and there are debunkers who denounce as untrue the theory that a candy maker created the candy cane and intentionally adopted the above symbolism. At the end of the day, to me, at least, it does not matter whether the candy was intentionally created with that symbolism -- it matters that the symbolism exists and can be used as a tool for sharing the message and the Good News of Jesus Christ.
I see the same opportunities with other popular Christmas images. The air of excitement and anticipation we see and feel during the Christmas season is (or should be) a direct reflection of the joy and excitement felt in the hearts of Christians as we anticipate the coming of our New Born King!
It seems we have choices. We can sit back and complain about how commercial Christmas has become, and how people focus more on Santa than on Jesus, or how "Christ", "Jesus" and "Lord" are seldom used when speaking about the holiday that celebrates His Birth -- OR we can re-co-opt the Christmas symbols and use them to continue spreading the Good News and telling the Christmas Story.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
It has been incredibly commercialized, but I think we should look upon that as an evangelistic opportunity. When we see Santa Claus, SAINT Nicholas, Father Christmas, or the other names by which he is commonly known, instead of lamenting him as some sort of idolatrous manifestation, perhaps we could look at him as a popular iconic representation of Jesus Christ. Santa is commonly depicted as dressed in red and associated with giving gifts. Is that not a perfect opportunity to speak of Jesus Christ, whose birthday is celebrated as Christmas Day? Jesus is the ULTIMATE Giver of the Ultimate Gift, which is Eternal Life. Just as Santa's suit is red, we should remember the precious blood that Jesus shed so we might all have a right to that Eternal Life.
In a popular Christmas song, children are told that Santa will find out who's been naughty or nice, much as Christians are told there will be an ultimate judgement. Santa is often said to come to our homes through a chimney, which reminds me of the fact that our Divine Christ had to enter into a sinfilled world, taking on human form, in order to give us this Ultimate Gift.
Christmas time is filled with lights. Rather than decry the commercialism, we should be reminded that Jesus is the light of the world. Likewise, when we see the Christmas tree, it should remind us that Our Savior hung on a tree for the salvation of the world.
This re-attaching of sacred symbolism to "secularized" Christmas objects is not new. Consider the popular story of the candy cane. The story goes that the white in the candy cane symbolizes Jesus' sinless nature, the hardness of the candy symbolizes the Solid Rock, the foundation of the Church, and the firmness of the promises of God. The candy is shaped in the form of a "J," either to represent Jesus (if you speak English) or to represent a Shepherd's staff. The smaller stripes on the candy represent Jesus' stripes by which we are healed, and the large stripe represents the Blood that was shed on Calvary. Lately, there have been many variations on this story, and there are debunkers who denounce as untrue the theory that a candy maker created the candy cane and intentionally adopted the above symbolism. At the end of the day, to me, at least, it does not matter whether the candy was intentionally created with that symbolism -- it matters that the symbolism exists and can be used as a tool for sharing the message and the Good News of Jesus Christ.
I see the same opportunities with other popular Christmas images. The air of excitement and anticipation we see and feel during the Christmas season is (or should be) a direct reflection of the joy and excitement felt in the hearts of Christians as we anticipate the coming of our New Born King!
It seems we have choices. We can sit back and complain about how commercial Christmas has become, and how people focus more on Santa than on Jesus, or how "Christ", "Jesus" and "Lord" are seldom used when speaking about the holiday that celebrates His Birth -- OR we can re-co-opt the Christmas symbols and use them to continue spreading the Good News and telling the Christmas Story.
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Elizabeth Edwards
May her soul rest in peace. I always liked her, when she was with John, but even more after he turned out to be a cheating scumbag and she remained a figure of grace and dignity.
But I'm really upset with the media. I can't help but thinking that, with all their power and influence, they are increasingly becoming self-fulfilling prophets. They report stories with the slant of whatever lens they're looking through, they inundate the air with their reports, and then reality starts to look like what they've said.
Being a cancer survivor, I know the importance of positive affirmations in the healing process. While I can't know anything about Ms. Edwards' last hours, I do know about my own cousin, Joanne. J also had stage 4 breast cancer but, with the help of a strong supportive family, was doing quite well. She'd been able to go on a cruise and was needing less oxygen. On a regular checkup, she was at Duke Hospital and some stupid, ignorant, insensitive "doctor" looked at her chart and said, "You know you're dying, don't you?" Within a month, Joanne did just that.
I'm not one to shy away from death, nor from unpleasant medical realities. I don't even believe in prolonged artificial end-of-life treatment simply to delay death. But I do believe in fully living one's life, I do believe in hope in the face of overwhelming odds, I do believe in the power of positive reinforcement and, yes, I do believe in miracles. While I have no use for a medical professional who is unwilling/unable to share unpleasant truths with their patient, I also have no use for medical professionals (or media pundits) who offer their spin on "truth" without compassion. As some wise people once told me, "Truth without Compassion is Brutality."
It seems that today so many people engage in unfettered brutality in the name of truth. There's that Asange idiot, who acts like a toddler who's just discovered his penis "LOOKIE!! LOOK AT WHAT I'VE GOT! WOOHOO,THAT feels good!" He's displaying the same sort of narcissistic, self-absorbed obsession with what HE can do, what HE believes is appropriate, with absolutely no regard for the established order that dictates appropriate courses of behavior for the greater good in civilized societies (which is not to say that established order is always a good thing; I'm simply saying that wholesale rejection of that order leads to chaos, which is where I believe Assange's actions lead us).
And so it is with the media. What good was there in publicizing the fact that this woman, who had been through so much, was nearing her final hours? Who had a need or right to know her prognosis? What if, in her last hours on earth, she did choose to turn on the TV -- how would it feel to be deathly ill and to have every station you turn to REPORTING on that illness? Could that have an impact or an effect on one's health? I think so.
Is there no code of ethics in journalism? It's supposed to be about the truth, I thought -- the whole deal with reporters and reporting is that Americans have a right to know the truth. But in this age of information overload, it seems one ultimately needs to define "truth." Do I really need to know the intimate details of every pseudo- or wannabe celebrity's sex life? Does it edify anyone to report on a woman's terminal cancer prognosis? Why do we have such tunnel vision about minutia here in America while overlooking huge beams such as, oh, I don't know ... our role in the International Community? The fact that we support and sustain a racist, apartheid regime?
Going way off topic here, but I have a question: We (Americans in general) are upset at Muslims because they have what we consider to be fanatical religious beliefs; namely, they believe Islam to be the True religion and everyone else to be infidels. We think they're bad people because they engage in terroristic acts to achieve goals they believe are demanded by their religious beliefs. Yet, we support other people who also have a religion that is exclusive to the point that it will not allow its adherents to even eat or drink food that is not prepared under their direction. They have set up a nation that once was a refuge for the oppressed but now has turned into a place that oppresses people who are "other." Their religious beliefs dictate this state, and their religious beliefs led them to engage in a war for freedom that, viewed from another point of view, could be seen as a terroristic thrust. It seems to me that the difference in how we Americans regard Muslims and Jews is one of perception. True, no Jewish people were masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on America, but Jewish people are the authors of systemic apartheid in Israel which ultimately attacks American credibility in the international community. How come there's no outrage there? Why do we nearly deify (or at least indemnify) one group but villify another, when their actions, viewed without an inherent bias towards or against either party, seem so similar?
How come we're focused on one woman who has run her race well, and are not looking at all the instances of people cheating and taking shortcuts? If we're so interested in fair news reporting, how come we couldn't just let her go home in peace and, in the interest of justice, take a look at something that we might have a possibility of doing something about? (sorry for that horrible sentence construction).
Wouldn't it be a wonderful tribute to Elizabeth Edwards if we could get our news media to begin fair and accurate news reporting? What if we could go back to a time when we had civility and standards in mass communication? I think that would be a wonderful tribute to a wonderful woman.
May she rest in peace, and may we live in peace.
But I'm really upset with the media. I can't help but thinking that, with all their power and influence, they are increasingly becoming self-fulfilling prophets. They report stories with the slant of whatever lens they're looking through, they inundate the air with their reports, and then reality starts to look like what they've said.
Being a cancer survivor, I know the importance of positive affirmations in the healing process. While I can't know anything about Ms. Edwards' last hours, I do know about my own cousin, Joanne. J also had stage 4 breast cancer but, with the help of a strong supportive family, was doing quite well. She'd been able to go on a cruise and was needing less oxygen. On a regular checkup, she was at Duke Hospital and some stupid, ignorant, insensitive "doctor" looked at her chart and said, "You know you're dying, don't you?" Within a month, Joanne did just that.
I'm not one to shy away from death, nor from unpleasant medical realities. I don't even believe in prolonged artificial end-of-life treatment simply to delay death. But I do believe in fully living one's life, I do believe in hope in the face of overwhelming odds, I do believe in the power of positive reinforcement and, yes, I do believe in miracles. While I have no use for a medical professional who is unwilling/unable to share unpleasant truths with their patient, I also have no use for medical professionals (or media pundits) who offer their spin on "truth" without compassion. As some wise people once told me, "Truth without Compassion is Brutality."
It seems that today so many people engage in unfettered brutality in the name of truth. There's that Asange idiot, who acts like a toddler who's just discovered his penis "LOOKIE!! LOOK AT WHAT I'VE GOT! WOOHOO,THAT feels good!" He's displaying the same sort of narcissistic, self-absorbed obsession with what HE can do, what HE believes is appropriate, with absolutely no regard for the established order that dictates appropriate courses of behavior for the greater good in civilized societies (which is not to say that established order is always a good thing; I'm simply saying that wholesale rejection of that order leads to chaos, which is where I believe Assange's actions lead us).
And so it is with the media. What good was there in publicizing the fact that this woman, who had been through so much, was nearing her final hours? Who had a need or right to know her prognosis? What if, in her last hours on earth, she did choose to turn on the TV -- how would it feel to be deathly ill and to have every station you turn to REPORTING on that illness? Could that have an impact or an effect on one's health? I think so.
Is there no code of ethics in journalism? It's supposed to be about the truth, I thought -- the whole deal with reporters and reporting is that Americans have a right to know the truth. But in this age of information overload, it seems one ultimately needs to define "truth." Do I really need to know the intimate details of every pseudo- or wannabe celebrity's sex life? Does it edify anyone to report on a woman's terminal cancer prognosis? Why do we have such tunnel vision about minutia here in America while overlooking huge beams such as, oh, I don't know ... our role in the International Community? The fact that we support and sustain a racist, apartheid regime?
Going way off topic here, but I have a question: We (Americans in general) are upset at Muslims because they have what we consider to be fanatical religious beliefs; namely, they believe Islam to be the True religion and everyone else to be infidels. We think they're bad people because they engage in terroristic acts to achieve goals they believe are demanded by their religious beliefs. Yet, we support other people who also have a religion that is exclusive to the point that it will not allow its adherents to even eat or drink food that is not prepared under their direction. They have set up a nation that once was a refuge for the oppressed but now has turned into a place that oppresses people who are "other." Their religious beliefs dictate this state, and their religious beliefs led them to engage in a war for freedom that, viewed from another point of view, could be seen as a terroristic thrust. It seems to me that the difference in how we Americans regard Muslims and Jews is one of perception. True, no Jewish people were masterminds of the 9/11 attacks on America, but Jewish people are the authors of systemic apartheid in Israel which ultimately attacks American credibility in the international community. How come there's no outrage there? Why do we nearly deify (or at least indemnify) one group but villify another, when their actions, viewed without an inherent bias towards or against either party, seem so similar?
How come we're focused on one woman who has run her race well, and are not looking at all the instances of people cheating and taking shortcuts? If we're so interested in fair news reporting, how come we couldn't just let her go home in peace and, in the interest of justice, take a look at something that we might have a possibility of doing something about? (sorry for that horrible sentence construction).
Wouldn't it be a wonderful tribute to Elizabeth Edwards if we could get our news media to begin fair and accurate news reporting? What if we could go back to a time when we had civility and standards in mass communication? I think that would be a wonderful tribute to a wonderful woman.
May she rest in peace, and may we live in peace.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Racial Profiling
Recently a livery cab driver of African descent was shot and robbed by a young Hispanic thug. Now Fernando Mateo, an Afro-Hispanic man who who is the president of the NY State Federation of Taxi Drivers, says that livery hacks should be careful of who they pick up. He says that the "God’s-honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics. So if you see suspicious activity, you know what, don’t pick the person up."
People are outraged by his statements. I don't get it. What he said is, unfortunately, true. He is, of course, using that old double standard: "we can say it about ourselves, but other folks can't." So now the (white) news media is up in arms talking about how he's racially profiling, and Al Sharpton is all in the mix....
Who DOESN'T racially profile? I'm not trying to justify it; I'm stating that we live in an incredibly racist society. We constantly make value judgements and assumptions about people based on race. Think I'm off my rocker? Get a couple of 20-somethings or a couple of 30-somethings, two white and two of color, either black or Hispanic. (Asians would likely fall into the "white" group in this experiment, just like they do with reading scores). Have them scruffed out, like they've been playing ball on a Saturday afternoon or something. Then have them go into Tiffany's or some other Fifth Avenue store. I guarantee you that the white folks will be met face-to-face by salespeople while the people of color will be followed or monitored by security guards (if they're allowed in the store).
I know from experience that the way to get customer service in the big midtown stores when it's busy is to look a little rough around the edges. When the stores are absolutely packed with people and even white folks can't get a salesperson, all I have to do is hang out and wait and look a little scruffy. With my skin color, someone WILL approach me. True, they might be security, but someone WILL approach me.
We constantly assume that people who look a certain way fall into a certain class. Part of our assumptions are based on skin color, clothing, haircuts, footwear -- it's all part of the package, and they are all part of our quick and dirty social referent system that (we think) gives us indicators about an individual's standing in society and (for those of us who evaluate such things) about the probable outcomes of our interacting with those people.
Let me know your thoughts. I have to get to work, and this is only the beginning of my thoughts. Will try to post more on this later, but would love to know what others think.
People are outraged by his statements. I don't get it. What he said is, unfortunately, true. He is, of course, using that old double standard: "we can say it about ourselves, but other folks can't." So now the (white) news media is up in arms talking about how he's racially profiling, and Al Sharpton is all in the mix....
Who DOESN'T racially profile? I'm not trying to justify it; I'm stating that we live in an incredibly racist society. We constantly make value judgements and assumptions about people based on race. Think I'm off my rocker? Get a couple of 20-somethings or a couple of 30-somethings, two white and two of color, either black or Hispanic. (Asians would likely fall into the "white" group in this experiment, just like they do with reading scores). Have them scruffed out, like they've been playing ball on a Saturday afternoon or something. Then have them go into Tiffany's or some other Fifth Avenue store. I guarantee you that the white folks will be met face-to-face by salespeople while the people of color will be followed or monitored by security guards (if they're allowed in the store).
I know from experience that the way to get customer service in the big midtown stores when it's busy is to look a little rough around the edges. When the stores are absolutely packed with people and even white folks can't get a salesperson, all I have to do is hang out and wait and look a little scruffy. With my skin color, someone WILL approach me. True, they might be security, but someone WILL approach me.
We constantly assume that people who look a certain way fall into a certain class. Part of our assumptions are based on skin color, clothing, haircuts, footwear -- it's all part of the package, and they are all part of our quick and dirty social referent system that (we think) gives us indicators about an individual's standing in society and (for those of us who evaluate such things) about the probable outcomes of our interacting with those people.
Let me know your thoughts. I have to get to work, and this is only the beginning of my thoughts. Will try to post more on this later, but would love to know what others think.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Is it me?
Granted, my perception can be a little twisted at times. Having grown up as I did, I'm not usually hypersensitive to racial issues. But I can't help but think there's some sort of conspiracy directed against men (or all people) of color in the US. There's an unspoken media conspiracy against Barack Obama -- the media appears not to recognize that, by continually emphasizing (or, rather, hyper-inflating) any less than positive aspects of his Administration -- OR simply by reporting on ANY aspects of his administration from a biased, slanted, or otherwise impartial point of view -- they seem not to recognize that when they do this they create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Granted, the US and world media did the reverse to Obama the candidate, which may have a bit to do with generating the critical mass that allowed him to win, and possibly has to do with why he won the Nobel Peace Prize. It may have been that, or it may have been a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush administration, or it may have been a collective desire to hope again, or it may simply have been that the brother was amazingly more qualified than anyone else who ran. But anyone who's not an idiot understands that the American political system is a big, lumbering, interconnected piece of machinery. There are multiple parts which simultaneously require attention and maintenance. No other American president has, in two terms, achieved what President Obama has achieved in less than one, but it looks like every malcontent in America considers our President fair game.
As I posted in another blog, I believe there's an unspoken conspiracy against men of color. It's expressed in the perverse desire to find fault with Obama, Charlie Rangel, and now Tiger Woods.
I'm not for a minute going to defend Tiger's philandering ways. I think his whole "I'm not black, but eight different ethnicities" spiel, plus his fondness for busty blondes, is probably evidence of the fact that he's simply not in touch with his inner black man. He's not the only one in that category, though, and his inner black man comes out when he's dominating the golf course. OK, he has some personal issues. Some really bad personal issues. That doesn't stop the fact that nobody watched or even cared about gold before Tiger Woods. And his personal issues don't deserve to be splashed all over the news for A YEAR, and they certainly are not appropriate fodder for commentators while he's trying to play golf.
He had a great image. He failed at something. He's human, and he's trying to make a comeback. I personally don't like Nike's shoes because the last is too narrow for my wide, bunioned feet, but going forward I will always at least check Nikes and buy whatever of their products I can, just because they didn't abandon Tiger. I don't know what products are offered by Accenture, the firm that dropped him so quickly, but their wiki says they're a global management consulting, technology consulting, and technology outsourcing company. I know a little bit about global management (MBA), technology consulting, and technology outsourcing (decades of work experience). Any company that aims for a "we don't make mistakes" image is a crock. Since I'm with a nonprofit it's unlikely I'll ever have reason to make use of Accenture's services, but if they EVER come across my path again, I'm going to remember the hypocrisy of an industry which is built upon learning from the unknown (and, by extension, learning from their mistakes) I'm going to remember the hypocrisy of their abandoning someone who made a mistake.
So I'm a bit sad that, after forcing a playoff round, Tiger failed to win the tournament that bears his name. I was so sure he was going to win that I actually called my Dad then went out instead of watching him play that playoff hole. I thought for sure he had it. And I think that perhaps his losing his four stroke lead today is indicative of the fact that he's still battling inner demons.
Which is why he shouldn't have to battle external demons as well. People need to lay off Tiger. They shouldn't idolize him when he's doing well, and they shouldn't vilify him when he's doing poorly. What's the big deal? Is the fact that he can play gold the sports-world equivalent of being "so articulate?" Is it because he breaks the mold of what's expected for black males in sports(they can excel in basketball, football, and baseball -- and maybe soccer for those who are foreign born)? Is the fact that he's a man of color who's excellent in golf the reason everyone is so fascinated with him?
I'm happy that black folks get to sit at the table. I'm just kinda sick of the fact that, once seated, we're still expected to eat hamhocks and collard greens....
On another note, I'm really excited about teaching Bible study at church. We are going through the geography of the New Testament, so I get to share my experiences with the class. I believe I'm helping facilitate the process of the Bible coming alive for them -- people say they're understanding more now than ever before. That's SUCH a privilege. I kinda regret the fact that I went into business and didn't just become a professional student, which would have led to teaching, since that's what I love and where I ended up, anyway. Although I have a whole lot of life experience, and an amazing testimony about what God can take you to and what God can take you through.
While I was walking today, I got an idea for a sermon. It has to do with mountaintop experiences. We always talk about the mountaintop experiences, but we never think about what you have to go through to get TO the mountaintop. To get up there, you have to climb, which is hard. You have to go up a steep mountain, either directly up, or through switchbacks. If you go through switchbacks, that makes your climb a little bit easier (it's not soooo steep), but it takes longer. As you go up this rough climb, the air is getting thinner, so your heart and lungs are working harder. There are deep crevices on every side, and nothing to hold onto, so there's always a danger of falling. There are stones in the path that you can stumble on, and even though there are resting spots along the way, you can't tarry too long because you've got to keep moving.
I don't really have a point yet; I've made it to the top of Mt. Nebo and looked over, but my testimony with Mt. Sinai will be that sometimes you have to try more than once to make it to the top. But after you get there, the view is glorious, and you can see forever -- you can peep into another land, you can peep into the future, you can look back in wonder at where you've come from and what you've come through -- but once you get to the top of that mountain, it changes you. You don't come down the same as you went up. But then, you have to figure out what to DO after that mountaintop experience.
OK, that's it for tonight....
Granted, the US and world media did the reverse to Obama the candidate, which may have a bit to do with generating the critical mass that allowed him to win, and possibly has to do with why he won the Nobel Peace Prize. It may have been that, or it may have been a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush administration, or it may have been a collective desire to hope again, or it may simply have been that the brother was amazingly more qualified than anyone else who ran. But anyone who's not an idiot understands that the American political system is a big, lumbering, interconnected piece of machinery. There are multiple parts which simultaneously require attention and maintenance. No other American president has, in two terms, achieved what President Obama has achieved in less than one, but it looks like every malcontent in America considers our President fair game.
As I posted in another blog, I believe there's an unspoken conspiracy against men of color. It's expressed in the perverse desire to find fault with Obama, Charlie Rangel, and now Tiger Woods.
I'm not for a minute going to defend Tiger's philandering ways. I think his whole "I'm not black, but eight different ethnicities" spiel, plus his fondness for busty blondes, is probably evidence of the fact that he's simply not in touch with his inner black man. He's not the only one in that category, though, and his inner black man comes out when he's dominating the golf course. OK, he has some personal issues. Some really bad personal issues. That doesn't stop the fact that nobody watched or even cared about gold before Tiger Woods. And his personal issues don't deserve to be splashed all over the news for A YEAR, and they certainly are not appropriate fodder for commentators while he's trying to play golf.
He had a great image. He failed at something. He's human, and he's trying to make a comeback. I personally don't like Nike's shoes because the last is too narrow for my wide, bunioned feet, but going forward I will always at least check Nikes and buy whatever of their products I can, just because they didn't abandon Tiger. I don't know what products are offered by Accenture, the firm that dropped him so quickly, but their wiki says they're a global management consulting, technology consulting, and technology outsourcing company. I know a little bit about global management (MBA), technology consulting, and technology outsourcing (decades of work experience). Any company that aims for a "we don't make mistakes" image is a crock. Since I'm with a nonprofit it's unlikely I'll ever have reason to make use of Accenture's services, but if they EVER come across my path again, I'm going to remember the hypocrisy of an industry which is built upon learning from the unknown (and, by extension, learning from their mistakes) I'm going to remember the hypocrisy of their abandoning someone who made a mistake.
So I'm a bit sad that, after forcing a playoff round, Tiger failed to win the tournament that bears his name. I was so sure he was going to win that I actually called my Dad then went out instead of watching him play that playoff hole. I thought for sure he had it. And I think that perhaps his losing his four stroke lead today is indicative of the fact that he's still battling inner demons.
Which is why he shouldn't have to battle external demons as well. People need to lay off Tiger. They shouldn't idolize him when he's doing well, and they shouldn't vilify him when he's doing poorly. What's the big deal? Is the fact that he can play gold the sports-world equivalent of being "so articulate?" Is it because he breaks the mold of what's expected for black males in sports(they can excel in basketball, football, and baseball -- and maybe soccer for those who are foreign born)? Is the fact that he's a man of color who's excellent in golf the reason everyone is so fascinated with him?
I'm happy that black folks get to sit at the table. I'm just kinda sick of the fact that, once seated, we're still expected to eat hamhocks and collard greens....
On another note, I'm really excited about teaching Bible study at church. We are going through the geography of the New Testament, so I get to share my experiences with the class. I believe I'm helping facilitate the process of the Bible coming alive for them -- people say they're understanding more now than ever before. That's SUCH a privilege. I kinda regret the fact that I went into business and didn't just become a professional student, which would have led to teaching, since that's what I love and where I ended up, anyway. Although I have a whole lot of life experience, and an amazing testimony about what God can take you to and what God can take you through.
While I was walking today, I got an idea for a sermon. It has to do with mountaintop experiences. We always talk about the mountaintop experiences, but we never think about what you have to go through to get TO the mountaintop. To get up there, you have to climb, which is hard. You have to go up a steep mountain, either directly up, or through switchbacks. If you go through switchbacks, that makes your climb a little bit easier (it's not soooo steep), but it takes longer. As you go up this rough climb, the air is getting thinner, so your heart and lungs are working harder. There are deep crevices on every side, and nothing to hold onto, so there's always a danger of falling. There are stones in the path that you can stumble on, and even though there are resting spots along the way, you can't tarry too long because you've got to keep moving.
I don't really have a point yet; I've made it to the top of Mt. Nebo and looked over, but my testimony with Mt. Sinai will be that sometimes you have to try more than once to make it to the top. But after you get there, the view is glorious, and you can see forever -- you can peep into another land, you can peep into the future, you can look back in wonder at where you've come from and what you've come through -- but once you get to the top of that mountain, it changes you. You don't come down the same as you went up. But then, you have to figure out what to DO after that mountaintop experience.
OK, that's it for tonight....
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Stuff
So I'm at home alone, sitting on the couch attempting to take the braids out of my hair. It's a long process and I attempt it in bits. An hour later, I go to start again and suddenly can't find the rat-tail comb I use to take the braids out. I'm looking all over the couch for it. No luck. I go back to the kitchen to see if I set it down while I made the last cappuccino (unlikely, since I don't take hair stuff into my kitchen, but I check). No luck. My apartment is only two bedrooms, so I walk around it looking for the comb, without success.
I'll find it at some point, of course, but it occurs to me that I just have too much stuff. I need to clear out about 75% of my belongings and give them to the Salvation Army. I was doing good for a while, making donations at least once a month, but then life starts to happen -- I'm in the gym 3 nights and one morning a week, in class one night a week, in church all day on Sunday -- yeah, I might go out for dinner on a Friday night, but today after class it took all my energy just to gather my clothes and drop them off at the laundry and the cleaners. In the half day I have to myself, I didn't choose to go through old stuff. I attempted to take the braids out of my hair so I can get it done before the party next week.
Here's an example of stuff. I want to wear a girlie tux to the party -- a skirt suit with tuxedo shirt, tie and cummerbund. My niece did it at her prom and I thought it looked lovely. Now that I'm a normal size, I can do it. I have a ladies' tuxedo shirt, and I got a pink bowtie and a kind of coral-pink cummerbund and tie. And I have a gold vest. I've decided I want to wear the gold vest, but the neither the pink tie nor the coral-colored ensemble looked festive enough. I got all this stuff in thrift shops, which was how I justified spending money on them. But I was too lazy to go thrift shopping after the class today, so I went to that men's store on 125. They of course had bow tie and rubberband sets, as they called them. So I looked at a gold one. As soon as I saw it, I knew it was a brighter shade than the gold vest I have, but I decided to buy it anyway. And because the guy could see the shopping lust in my eyes, he made me a deal on two sets, so I bought a set in red (which I will wear because it will look nice and festive with my gold vest). But I didn't need to buy two sets, and I really didn't need to buy them new -- I coulda got on the train and gone thrift shopping. If you go to the higher-end thrift shops, you'll find new stuff that gets donated, I guess after big parties or weddings or movie shoots -- I didn't need to buy two sets, because now that's just more stuff I have. It's not like I'm actually going to wear this cummerbund thing any more than once, possibly twice a year.
It's that way in every area of my life, and it needs to stop. I have waaaay more than I need of everything (with the possible exception of liquid cash) and need to begin to do as the bumper sticker says: "Live Simply so that others may Simply Live." I think that's going to be my goal. I like to travel, and that should be where my focus goes. No more of these hundred dollar rubber chicken dinners that I don't know what the money goes for anyway... No more nickel and diming and buying useless stuff like cummerbunds I'm never going to use.
I need to get rid of the clutter in every area of my life. No more Stuff -- I think the physical stuff is likely somehow related to emotional "stuff" -- it's like baggage. And I don't need more baggage. I don't need more stuff. It's time to get rid of the Stuff in my life.
Just as soon as I get these braids out....
I'll find it at some point, of course, but it occurs to me that I just have too much stuff. I need to clear out about 75% of my belongings and give them to the Salvation Army. I was doing good for a while, making donations at least once a month, but then life starts to happen -- I'm in the gym 3 nights and one morning a week, in class one night a week, in church all day on Sunday -- yeah, I might go out for dinner on a Friday night, but today after class it took all my energy just to gather my clothes and drop them off at the laundry and the cleaners. In the half day I have to myself, I didn't choose to go through old stuff. I attempted to take the braids out of my hair so I can get it done before the party next week.
Here's an example of stuff. I want to wear a girlie tux to the party -- a skirt suit with tuxedo shirt, tie and cummerbund. My niece did it at her prom and I thought it looked lovely. Now that I'm a normal size, I can do it. I have a ladies' tuxedo shirt, and I got a pink bowtie and a kind of coral-pink cummerbund and tie. And I have a gold vest. I've decided I want to wear the gold vest, but the neither the pink tie nor the coral-colored ensemble looked festive enough. I got all this stuff in thrift shops, which was how I justified spending money on them. But I was too lazy to go thrift shopping after the class today, so I went to that men's store on 125. They of course had bow tie and rubberband sets, as they called them. So I looked at a gold one. As soon as I saw it, I knew it was a brighter shade than the gold vest I have, but I decided to buy it anyway. And because the guy could see the shopping lust in my eyes, he made me a deal on two sets, so I bought a set in red (which I will wear because it will look nice and festive with my gold vest). But I didn't need to buy two sets, and I really didn't need to buy them new -- I coulda got on the train and gone thrift shopping. If you go to the higher-end thrift shops, you'll find new stuff that gets donated, I guess after big parties or weddings or movie shoots -- I didn't need to buy two sets, because now that's just more stuff I have. It's not like I'm actually going to wear this cummerbund thing any more than once, possibly twice a year.
It's that way in every area of my life, and it needs to stop. I have waaaay more than I need of everything (with the possible exception of liquid cash) and need to begin to do as the bumper sticker says: "Live Simply so that others may Simply Live." I think that's going to be my goal. I like to travel, and that should be where my focus goes. No more of these hundred dollar rubber chicken dinners that I don't know what the money goes for anyway... No more nickel and diming and buying useless stuff like cummerbunds I'm never going to use.
I need to get rid of the clutter in every area of my life. No more Stuff -- I think the physical stuff is likely somehow related to emotional "stuff" -- it's like baggage. And I don't need more baggage. I don't need more stuff. It's time to get rid of the Stuff in my life.
Just as soon as I get these braids out....
Friday, December 3, 2010
The United States
is becoming increasingly stupid. It's sad, really -- we don't read, we are not incisive in our educational process, we are preoccupied with current events, publicity, and fame, but shun basic concepts like history, mathematics, politics and logic.
The result is a public that is both unaware and forceful in its imposition of stupidity on the rest of the world. While I have used US support for the modern nation of Israel as one example of how our inability to view the world through any sort of critical lens is becoming detrimental to our national identity, there is another example. That example is our current political state.
We have a first-term president, a political newcomer, Barack Obama. He inherited a nation that was nearly at its knees after eight years of Republican era mismanagement and paranoia. He has stepped in and made a Herculean effort to turn our country around. Yet we have Republicans who, in continuation of their campaign of disinformation, are determined to put their own hysterical (as in hysteria-generating) spin on every move made by this Administration. "Joblessness is at an all-time high!" There are too many budget and regulatory policies for businesses." The reality is that when Obama took office, the stock market was in a freefall, and we'd lost nearly a million American jobs. Now the stock market is slowly correcting itself and the job rate has GROWN consistenly for six months. "Healthcare reform will result in death squads!" (and putting healthcare in the hands of people who are motivated solely by the bottom line will have what sort of impact upon our health?) Environmentalists blame Obama because there is a backlog of species that need protection under the Endangerd Species Act. The Obama Administration has protected an average of 25 species for each year it's been in office. Compare that to an average of 8 species per year for the Bush administration.
In my mind, all this Republican sniping is, whether intentional or not, another manifestation of a uniquely American blend of racism and ignorance. It's like they're all saying "OK, I proved I'm not a racist 'cuz I voted for a black guy. But he promised change, and everything hasn't changed, so get this n-word outta there and give me somebody I can really believe in." The problem with this position, given our national inability to critically examine the issues, is that we're very likely to end up with someone who looks "presidential" (like an actor we've elected before) or someone who has a suitable "presidential pedigree" (like the shrub we kept for two terms), or someone else who merely represents a REACTION to our collective ignorance and lack of critical discernment, rather than someone who actualy has the skills, abilities and represents the possibility for our country's continued viability.
As I look at the matter of Charlie Rangel, I can't help but think two things: 1) it's part of a massive campaign to discredit men of color. It may not be an intentional campaign -- it's part of our collective belief that there is something "other" about people of color. How else do you explain Washington coming together to take this extreme an action against one of its most own most powerful members? I think the fact that Pelosi's censure lasted only 22 seconds reflects her opinions on it. It's as if she were saying "I don't want to do this, but I'm forced to." Why was she forced to? Because the politicians are hanging Rangel out to dry, much as they are abandoning Obama. 2) Although they are both Republicans, I happen to agree intensely with both Peter King 's statements and with Ben Stein's statements regarding Charlie Rangel.
Yes, he made some errors in judgement or got sloppy in his recordkeeping. As the head of the Ways and Means Committee, he needed to be held accountable for that. But giving him the harshest penalty short of expulsion and ruining a career that's spanned a longer time than many people who voted against him have even been on the planet? That's just wrong.
But there are a lot of things going on, inside and outside this country, that are just plain wrong. I'm a bit horrified that we as a people are not aware enough to recognize them. I hope that anyone reading this post will get out to vote and encourage everyone you know to vote -- I'm enough of an American that I don't even care whether or not you vote the same way I would. I care that you are aware and informed and knowledgeable about what terror lies ahead for America. If you choose to doom the country to a future with someone I wouldn't have chosen, that's your choice. My prayer is that we as a country will come to a place where we are making rational, informed choices and are not simply giving in to knee-jerk, emotional reactions.
The result is a public that is both unaware and forceful in its imposition of stupidity on the rest of the world. While I have used US support for the modern nation of Israel as one example of how our inability to view the world through any sort of critical lens is becoming detrimental to our national identity, there is another example. That example is our current political state.
We have a first-term president, a political newcomer, Barack Obama. He inherited a nation that was nearly at its knees after eight years of Republican era mismanagement and paranoia. He has stepped in and made a Herculean effort to turn our country around. Yet we have Republicans who, in continuation of their campaign of disinformation, are determined to put their own hysterical (as in hysteria-generating) spin on every move made by this Administration. "Joblessness is at an all-time high!" There are too many budget and regulatory policies for businesses." The reality is that when Obama took office, the stock market was in a freefall, and we'd lost nearly a million American jobs. Now the stock market is slowly correcting itself and the job rate has GROWN consistenly for six months. "Healthcare reform will result in death squads!" (and putting healthcare in the hands of people who are motivated solely by the bottom line will have what sort of impact upon our health?) Environmentalists blame Obama because there is a backlog of species that need protection under the Endangerd Species Act. The Obama Administration has protected an average of 25 species for each year it's been in office. Compare that to an average of 8 species per year for the Bush administration.
In my mind, all this Republican sniping is, whether intentional or not, another manifestation of a uniquely American blend of racism and ignorance. It's like they're all saying "OK, I proved I'm not a racist 'cuz I voted for a black guy. But he promised change, and everything hasn't changed, so get this n-word outta there and give me somebody I can really believe in." The problem with this position, given our national inability to critically examine the issues, is that we're very likely to end up with someone who looks "presidential" (like an actor we've elected before) or someone who has a suitable "presidential pedigree" (like the shrub we kept for two terms), or someone else who merely represents a REACTION to our collective ignorance and lack of critical discernment, rather than someone who actualy has the skills, abilities and represents the possibility for our country's continued viability.
As I look at the matter of Charlie Rangel, I can't help but think two things: 1) it's part of a massive campaign to discredit men of color. It may not be an intentional campaign -- it's part of our collective belief that there is something "other" about people of color. How else do you explain Washington coming together to take this extreme an action against one of its most own most powerful members? I think the fact that Pelosi's censure lasted only 22 seconds reflects her opinions on it. It's as if she were saying "I don't want to do this, but I'm forced to." Why was she forced to? Because the politicians are hanging Rangel out to dry, much as they are abandoning Obama. 2) Although they are both Republicans, I happen to agree intensely with both Peter King 's statements and with Ben Stein's statements regarding Charlie Rangel.
Yes, he made some errors in judgement or got sloppy in his recordkeeping. As the head of the Ways and Means Committee, he needed to be held accountable for that. But giving him the harshest penalty short of expulsion and ruining a career that's spanned a longer time than many people who voted against him have even been on the planet? That's just wrong.
But there are a lot of things going on, inside and outside this country, that are just plain wrong. I'm a bit horrified that we as a people are not aware enough to recognize them. I hope that anyone reading this post will get out to vote and encourage everyone you know to vote -- I'm enough of an American that I don't even care whether or not you vote the same way I would. I care that you are aware and informed and knowledgeable about what terror lies ahead for America. If you choose to doom the country to a future with someone I wouldn't have chosen, that's your choice. My prayer is that we as a country will come to a place where we are making rational, informed choices and are not simply giving in to knee-jerk, emotional reactions.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Today
was an interesting day. I won the 28-300 mm lens, and also purchased a refurbished LCD projector. Although I've paid for both items through paypal, I don't seem them deducted from the accounts I used to pay for them.
Seems it's been a day for finances. I had our financial consultant come and sit with me in the morning. He was able to give me a wonderful structure, overview, and explanations that I'd not been able to get from our fiscal department in all the months I've been there. I'm now able to look at things from a higher-level point of view, and it allows me to look at trends. I think that's progress.
Another area in which progress is being made is staff. A couple of people handed in resignations today. I can't say more on the internet, but I do believe a period of purging and pruning is necessary before growth can continue.
Today I saw the guy preaching on the subway platform again. I think I've mentioned him before -- he used to talk to nobody in particular. Today he had a good word. He had three pieces of rope: one short to signify people who aren't so bad, one medium length to signify people who are ok, and another longer one to signify everyone else. Then he pulls up the ends of them and makes them all equal because we're all equal in Jesus Christ, and he talks about how Jesus made us all equal through His birth, death, and resurrection. Then he divides them into two groups, because there are really only two kinds of people: those who will accept Jesus and those who will not. He does some more preaching, he exhorts people not to gamble with their salvation, and then he offers tracts in Spanish, English, and Chinese. Like I said, I used to think this guy was crazy, but today I listened intently. He even said how the train might interrupt his talk, and he waited for it. But today I noticed that the first time he made the pitch, three guys took tracts, and the second time he made it, one woman did. I actually cheered when she did, and I walked up to the guy and encouraged him. It was really great to see.
It's 10:15. Time for me to go to bed. God is GOOD!!!!
Seems it's been a day for finances. I had our financial consultant come and sit with me in the morning. He was able to give me a wonderful structure, overview, and explanations that I'd not been able to get from our fiscal department in all the months I've been there. I'm now able to look at things from a higher-level point of view, and it allows me to look at trends. I think that's progress.
Another area in which progress is being made is staff. A couple of people handed in resignations today. I can't say more on the internet, but I do believe a period of purging and pruning is necessary before growth can continue.
Today I saw the guy preaching on the subway platform again. I think I've mentioned him before -- he used to talk to nobody in particular. Today he had a good word. He had three pieces of rope: one short to signify people who aren't so bad, one medium length to signify people who are ok, and another longer one to signify everyone else. Then he pulls up the ends of them and makes them all equal because we're all equal in Jesus Christ, and he talks about how Jesus made us all equal through His birth, death, and resurrection. Then he divides them into two groups, because there are really only two kinds of people: those who will accept Jesus and those who will not. He does some more preaching, he exhorts people not to gamble with their salvation, and then he offers tracts in Spanish, English, and Chinese. Like I said, I used to think this guy was crazy, but today I listened intently. He even said how the train might interrupt his talk, and he waited for it. But today I noticed that the first time he made the pitch, three guys took tracts, and the second time he made it, one woman did. I actually cheered when she did, and I walked up to the guy and encouraged him. It was really great to see.
It's 10:15. Time for me to go to bed. God is GOOD!!!!