Saturday, April 29, 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
The Issue of Immigration
I swear this immigration issue will turn the political tide as we know it. The issue most Californians are concerned with (albeit by a narrow margin) is the issue of illegal immigration--beating out education and gas prices! And a lot of people that were not regularly upset about that issue became increasingly aware of it with the last round of protests.
May 1st they're going to boycott everything--school, work, shopping, etc. They've produced a Spanish version of the National Anthem. They've lost their minds. The problem is, they don't want to be part of our country--they want to make it their country. Its the very unhealthy type of diversity--the type that demands the minority receive undue respect and tolerance from the majority, while the majority must accept that the minority will flaunt its non-compliance of the rules of the majority. If these protestors had even the least amount of common sense, they would be doing the opposite of everything they are doing right now. Instead of staging a boycott, that makes everyone hate them, they would tell their people to get out and spend so much money on Monday that it becomes clear just how much they contribute to our economy. Instead of making a copy of our anthem in their language, they should get the best Hispanic/Latino artists together and produce an English version. They need to send the message that they are part of us--not that we owe them the opportunity to co-exist with us. Nobody but our own can claim that right--and their very strategy puts them at odds with their goal.
2.5 million people would like to tell 300 million people what the law should be. It doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way.
Here's the political fallout--those that continue to support any form of amnesty or waiver for illegals already here will get the votes of the Democrats, and will not get votes from Republicans. The power in Washington will shift if somebody doesn't knock some heads together in the next day or so and tell every Republican that they need to unite against allowing free-sale amnesty or anything like it from being announced. They can all win their seats, and probably pick up some new ones if they stand strong on that. If they do that and call for serious reform of gas prices until whatever it is that is driving them up is stabalized or dealt with (i.e. if there are real causes for it, fix it, if its gauging penalize it) the Republicans could be the heroes of the year. But they won't...leadership is risky and they are afraid of risking anything.
But they shouldn't be. Its almost a no brainer. I honestly believe that California's governator has a real shot at re-election, thanks entirely to the question of illegal immigrants. The issue of education will be buried by this, and there isn't a California Democrat alive today that can run and be against illegal immigrants. Arnold has a chance--I think if he starts whacking at it with a big stick, he could sow up the election with months to spare...but that would require someone on his staff with a good sense for when to strike, and his special election results suggest he doesn't have many people like that.
Now, lest you think I am looking at this situation with only criticism and nothing valuable to add, here's my solution: offer a ten year work visa for all illegal immigrants currently residing within our nation. Shut the border and wall it off. Make no allowances for anyone coming in from this day forth. All newly documented workers will be eligible for full citizenship in ten years. They have as many rights as any other visitor in our country--which is to say, not much. But they can work for (nearly) full American wages, and eventually get full rights if after ten years they apply and can show a comprehensive understanding of the Constitution and the English language. Anyone that cannot get their act together in ten years becomes an unwelcome guest--they must leave of face criminal charges and jail time, followed by being booted out.
I'm not for throwing everyone out this instant. Nor am I for setting up snipers on the border. But we need to act. If a Republican would stand up and say, "There IS a middle-ground, and as the compassionate nation we have always been and always strive to be, we must reach for an appropriate compromise which makes meaningful changes while maintaining our humanity," I think he would be the next President of the United States.
This is the hot button issue. Don't look for it to go away--it touches more lives than Iraq. It IS the War on Terror, it IS national security, it IS the economy, it IS education, healthcare, resource management, etc. Its all of the juiciest issues and then some. And the games are only getting started.
May 1st they're going to boycott everything--school, work, shopping, etc. They've produced a Spanish version of the National Anthem. They've lost their minds. The problem is, they don't want to be part of our country--they want to make it their country. Its the very unhealthy type of diversity--the type that demands the minority receive undue respect and tolerance from the majority, while the majority must accept that the minority will flaunt its non-compliance of the rules of the majority. If these protestors had even the least amount of common sense, they would be doing the opposite of everything they are doing right now. Instead of staging a boycott, that makes everyone hate them, they would tell their people to get out and spend so much money on Monday that it becomes clear just how much they contribute to our economy. Instead of making a copy of our anthem in their language, they should get the best Hispanic/Latino artists together and produce an English version. They need to send the message that they are part of us--not that we owe them the opportunity to co-exist with us. Nobody but our own can claim that right--and their very strategy puts them at odds with their goal.
2.5 million people would like to tell 300 million people what the law should be. It doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way.
Here's the political fallout--those that continue to support any form of amnesty or waiver for illegals already here will get the votes of the Democrats, and will not get votes from Republicans. The power in Washington will shift if somebody doesn't knock some heads together in the next day or so and tell every Republican that they need to unite against allowing free-sale amnesty or anything like it from being announced. They can all win their seats, and probably pick up some new ones if they stand strong on that. If they do that and call for serious reform of gas prices until whatever it is that is driving them up is stabalized or dealt with (i.e. if there are real causes for it, fix it, if its gauging penalize it) the Republicans could be the heroes of the year. But they won't...leadership is risky and they are afraid of risking anything.
But they shouldn't be. Its almost a no brainer. I honestly believe that California's governator has a real shot at re-election, thanks entirely to the question of illegal immigrants. The issue of education will be buried by this, and there isn't a California Democrat alive today that can run and be against illegal immigrants. Arnold has a chance--I think if he starts whacking at it with a big stick, he could sow up the election with months to spare...but that would require someone on his staff with a good sense for when to strike, and his special election results suggest he doesn't have many people like that.
Now, lest you think I am looking at this situation with only criticism and nothing valuable to add, here's my solution: offer a ten year work visa for all illegal immigrants currently residing within our nation. Shut the border and wall it off. Make no allowances for anyone coming in from this day forth. All newly documented workers will be eligible for full citizenship in ten years. They have as many rights as any other visitor in our country--which is to say, not much. But they can work for (nearly) full American wages, and eventually get full rights if after ten years they apply and can show a comprehensive understanding of the Constitution and the English language. Anyone that cannot get their act together in ten years becomes an unwelcome guest--they must leave of face criminal charges and jail time, followed by being booted out.
I'm not for throwing everyone out this instant. Nor am I for setting up snipers on the border. But we need to act. If a Republican would stand up and say, "There IS a middle-ground, and as the compassionate nation we have always been and always strive to be, we must reach for an appropriate compromise which makes meaningful changes while maintaining our humanity," I think he would be the next President of the United States.
This is the hot button issue. Don't look for it to go away--it touches more lives than Iraq. It IS the War on Terror, it IS national security, it IS the economy, it IS education, healthcare, resource management, etc. Its all of the juiciest issues and then some. And the games are only getting started.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Thoughts on Starbucks
I have been meaning for sometime to give a long post on my experiences and insights concerning Starbucks. Hopefully, you will learn something--either about a potential work place, or at least about the typical coffee house you visit on a regular/semi-regular basis.
Well, today is the day--fortunate are you who get to read all about...the Starbucks.
First, I want to say that I think that of all the jobs I could have gotten working in the food industry, with the amount of experience I had and what not, Starbucks is probably one of the better options around. They're not so demanding as a real upscale restuarant like a Steak House or fine dining like the Summit House. Neither are they the cold, florescent palor of, say, McDonalds. No--they are the happy medium. Nice enough that we are fairly comfortable working, casual enough that, at least at my store, we need not work ourselves to death every minute of every shift. You customers should appreciate it. Potential workers should consider it. It makes a difference!
Speaking of customers, I have long desired to relate some often ignored points of polite protocal. With regards to tipping, specifically. My approach to tipping has changed drastically since working at Starbucks--anyone that waits on my family when we go out, if they pay us even a reasonable amount of attention, will get a tip worth their while. I like to think I always tipped decently, but since working at Starbucks, I have become intimately acquainted with those special little things that make some customers worthy of being banned from the store--something that could be avoided entirely if only they'd TIP. Here are some tipping tips:
Its not necessary to tip if you come in, get a simple drink and leave. Neither is it necessary to tip if you simply sit but don't make a mess, put your chairs back where you found them and generally leave the place looking as good or better than when you came in. In those rare instances, the customer is not making more work for us, so why should he tip? I mean--we'll love you for it, but you needn't feel compelled.
However, tipping should be automatic if you do any of the following...
1. Come in with a large group. These people almost never tip, and they are much more trouble than they are worth.
2. Have a complex drink order that you repeat three or four times. You are making the process slower, you are the reason your drink isn't out in less than sixty seconds. Your barista's are doing their best to serve you--show them the appreciation you should naturally feel by dropping something in the jar.
3. If you sit down and leave a mess, you better have left a tip. This should hardly be worth mentioning...only children expect their messes to be cleaned up for nothing.
4. If you're a regular, tip at least once a week. We usually take the trouble to memorize your order and get it done that much faster and better for you. Where's the love?
Special mention goes out to large church groups that come to have after service coffee--they are terrible. The Korean church down the street from my store has the worst testimony around--everyone in the store hates it when we see them coming.
More special mention for those few regulars that come in late every night, about two minutes before we close. They come every night. They know our hours. I don't mind making the drink for them--I still make it the best I can...but if they're going to do that on a regular basis, and especially when their drink is not only late, but complicated...TIP!
An important note; tips need not be huge. You don't even need to drop a single paper dollar. Empty your change. Fifty cents, Seventy-five cents--these are acceptable and make your barista's happy. And a happy barista is a good barista. Your coffee should always be good, but I know for a fact that if you are nice to us we'll be generous (beyond what you paid for) to you.
Alright, needed to get that off of my chest. As for the drinks themselves (because what post on Starbucks would be complete without a discussion of a few drinks?) let me say that my favorite hot drink is now out of season. When it gets cold once again, make sure to ask for a White Mocha Cinnamon Dolce Latte. The best drink in the house. As far as teas go, though I am not the biggest tea fan Wild Sweet Orange has my vote as the best hot tea on our menu. And, coming soon to a Starbucks near you, we have new flavors for Summer! Though the Banana has apparently made an appearance before, this year we are adding Coconut to the mix. My reccomendation: either order a Strawberry Creme with Banana and Coconut Frappe, which is truly fantastic, or order a Double Chocolate Chip with Coconut Frappe. In both cases you will be sure to enjoy the result. The flavors are great!
So, that's my Starbucks post.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Disturbing Social Commentary Pt. 2
I missed the response to my original post under this title. As a result, by the time I caught it, any discussion would have been lost under the weight of my own wordy-ness. Here was my good friend, Becka Carroll, suggesting that my opinions of the episode of Sesame Street that I critiqued were in fact a mis-representation.
Okay... big problem. The problem with the illegal immigrants is not Goldilocks coming in and stealing food. The issue of illegal immigrants is closer to this: Baby bear doesn't want to clean his room, so he let's Goldilocks sneak in to clean it. Momma bear doesn't like standing over the stove stirring the porridge, so she lets Goldilocks work in her kitchen. Papa bear really hates fixing broken chairs and mowing the lawn so he pays Goldilocks pitiful wages to do that stuff for him. And then they get upset when she sits on the chair she fixed, eats some of the porridge she prepared, and sleeps in the bed she made.
THAT is how the story would go.
The gauntlet having been thrown, I rise in a belated fashion to try and answer it.
This imagined scenario only works if first we know the backstory: Goldilocks' parents used to own the Bear's home, but had to move and sold to the Bears a long time ago. Unfortunately, Goldilocks isn't happy in her own home, and returns to her old home uninvited. She moves into her former home and the Bear are properly bewildered. "We bought a home, not a home and Goldilocks" one can easily imagine them saying to themselves. Well, they figure that since they have a new resident they might as well give her chores--she's eating things and breaking things routinely, this seems only fair. Of course, Goldilocks claims she came because she wants the opportunity to appreciate the nice family life that the Bears clearly have...but almost from the very start her presence had little enough to do with appreciating the family and more to do with giving Goldilocks the family's food, bed's chairs, etc. So the Bears try to institute rules for this unasked for addition to their family.
Goldilocks doesn't obey the rules though, and frequently gets into trouble. She sends the things she makes at the Bear's home back to her parent's house, instead of using them with the Bears. If Papa or Mama get upset with her for something serious, she just runs home and her parents tell the Bears that they are behaving like animals, trying to discipline someone else's daughter. In fact, Goldilock's parents tell the Bear children that if they ever get into trouble to come with Goldilocks back to her home, and that they'll keep them safe until Papa and Mama promise not to punish them. The hypocrisy from Goldilocks' own family doesn't end there...Jack and Jill frequently try to do the same thing to them that Goldilocks does to the Bears, but Goldilock's parents won't hear of it--their door is locked. Unfortunately, this policy of helping the Bear children avoid punishment doesn't mean that Goldilocks and Baby Bear are on good terms. Goldilocks frequently costs Baby Bear things he is clearly entitled too because Papa and Mama Bear, unable to come up with a better solution, figure it is their responsibility to provide for Goldilocks from their own resources.
Meanwhile, Goldilocks actually thinks she's being abused. She calls the Bears' bad names, gets into fights with Baby Bear and Curly Bear whenever she wants something she thinks she should have. Occasionally she does nice things for the Bears, but one has to wonder...does any of this matter, because she imposed herself on a home that's not her own? Why haven't Goldilocks' parents taken responsibility for her? Why should the Bears?
Who knew the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears was so complicated?
Okay... big problem. The problem with the illegal immigrants is not Goldilocks coming in and stealing food. The issue of illegal immigrants is closer to this: Baby bear doesn't want to clean his room, so he let's Goldilocks sneak in to clean it. Momma bear doesn't like standing over the stove stirring the porridge, so she lets Goldilocks work in her kitchen. Papa bear really hates fixing broken chairs and mowing the lawn so he pays Goldilocks pitiful wages to do that stuff for him. And then they get upset when she sits on the chair she fixed, eats some of the porridge she prepared, and sleeps in the bed she made.
THAT is how the story would go.
The gauntlet having been thrown, I rise in a belated fashion to try and answer it.
This imagined scenario only works if first we know the backstory: Goldilocks' parents used to own the Bear's home, but had to move and sold to the Bears a long time ago. Unfortunately, Goldilocks isn't happy in her own home, and returns to her old home uninvited. She moves into her former home and the Bear are properly bewildered. "We bought a home, not a home and Goldilocks" one can easily imagine them saying to themselves. Well, they figure that since they have a new resident they might as well give her chores--she's eating things and breaking things routinely, this seems only fair. Of course, Goldilocks claims she came because she wants the opportunity to appreciate the nice family life that the Bears clearly have...but almost from the very start her presence had little enough to do with appreciating the family and more to do with giving Goldilocks the family's food, bed's chairs, etc. So the Bears try to institute rules for this unasked for addition to their family.
Goldilocks doesn't obey the rules though, and frequently gets into trouble. She sends the things she makes at the Bear's home back to her parent's house, instead of using them with the Bears. If Papa or Mama get upset with her for something serious, she just runs home and her parents tell the Bears that they are behaving like animals, trying to discipline someone else's daughter. In fact, Goldilock's parents tell the Bear children that if they ever get into trouble to come with Goldilocks back to her home, and that they'll keep them safe until Papa and Mama promise not to punish them. The hypocrisy from Goldilocks' own family doesn't end there...Jack and Jill frequently try to do the same thing to them that Goldilocks does to the Bears, but Goldilock's parents won't hear of it--their door is locked. Unfortunately, this policy of helping the Bear children avoid punishment doesn't mean that Goldilocks and Baby Bear are on good terms. Goldilocks frequently costs Baby Bear things he is clearly entitled too because Papa and Mama Bear, unable to come up with a better solution, figure it is their responsibility to provide for Goldilocks from their own resources.
Meanwhile, Goldilocks actually thinks she's being abused. She calls the Bears' bad names, gets into fights with Baby Bear and Curly Bear whenever she wants something she thinks she should have. Occasionally she does nice things for the Bears, but one has to wonder...does any of this matter, because she imposed herself on a home that's not her own? Why haven't Goldilocks' parents taken responsibility for her? Why should the Bears?
Who knew the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears was so complicated?
Monday, April 24, 2006
Of All Things, an Answer!
I love to read. Always have. And, being perfectly honest, I like two types of books more than just about anything else: I love history/biography books and I love rich fantasy books of the LOTR, Space Trilogy, Narnia, even Harry Potter genre. There are actually few fantasy series that I will get myself involved in because they have to have a certain special something to make me really attach to them. I remember when I finished reading Tolkien the first time, and I had even mined the goodness of the histories of Middle Earth, reading like mad through Lost Tales, Unfinished Tales, and finally the Silmarillion. When I was done, I felt empty, as if I had lost a living breathing part of me. I tried to find something to start reading, to make a new connection. I picked up, at friend's recommendation, the Shannara series, but could never get involved. The writer, Terry Brooks, was dealing with a subject on which the master (JRRT) had already closed the book. At least, there wasn't enough of a difference between the two worlds, and Shannara seemed more like Middle Earth-lite, and why would anyone want that when they had so recently enjoyed the full joy of the real thing?
Well, I was depressed and so my friend, who was also a Tolkien fan and understood (though perhaps not entirely) how I felt, made a new suggestion: try Stephen R Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. Its a take on, among other things, the Arthurian legend and the legend of Atlantis. Lawhead mixes his myths well (I think) and also knows his history, so in general his books are enjoyable, if his writing is not the best. I give this critique now, nearly 10 years since I first read his books and thought they were fantastic. Today, I would say that his Song of Albion cycle is slightly better than the Pendragon cycle, but that's a matter of general indifference with regard to this post.
What this post is about is an answer. An obvious answer to a question which, as I have asked it, has grown to such a degree that I thought I could never fully and capably answer it. Isn't that always the way? The question sprung from reading Homer and Plato in Torrey: why does Plato relate his ideas to us through myth? For that matter, why did the Christ speak in parables? The answer, which I discovered of all places in the middle of Stephen R Lawhead's fantasy book, Merlin, actually makes me cringe a little--it really is so obvious I worry that perhaps all my "education" is a myth in its entirety and I really should give Biola back their degree cause I'm clearly too dense to actually be finished with the basics of undergrad studies. Sigh.
The answer, as Merlin reflected while listening to a bard and comparing the response of the people to their response when listening to a priest's homily, is that myth moves men's hearts better than any brilliant logical argument ever can or ever will. We have myth and use myth because without it, even though we might know the right thing to do, our hearts could not be spurred into action without the fantasy of a good myth showing our wicked hearts the way.
This is why the preservation of "story" is good...everytime a new, healthy, good myth is told, new imaginations engage and hearts are opened to messages they could never hear if they sat through a thousand Sunday sermons. This is why my friend, Paul, who is desperately trying to finish the prep for his production of Romeo & Juliet is actually fighting the good fight, not merely having a good time acting and directing.
This is also why art matters. A thought occurs to me as I write this...perhaps, since it is new, it is unreasonable, but I'll write it down and flesh it out as I go...perhaps this is actually the argument for why there should be certain limits for what "art" gets to do publicly. I am not condoning censure outright...but surely there is a real and obvious problem with artists that don't take their power seriously, or recklessly chose to use their medium to routinely attack values of the community simply because they feel its not "progressive" enough. For all the flack that politicians get, its the artists that move the soul of the nation, not the masters of simple rhetoric. And my critique, I think, should not be countered by the simple tactic of "if you don't like it, don't look" as if the problem is solely with me, not the art that inspires a problem. Art makes its presence known and felt on the culture that permits it to exist. I am not, at this point, limiting my criticism to merely the typical "individuals" that compose the artistic community of colleges--I am at this point aiming my gun at anyone involved in entertainment, from art galleries to movies, to the commericials on TV to the music playing in Starbucks.
Perhaps there was something truly good about the fact that art used to be more unique, and you had to be good, and acknowledged to be so, before you were allowed to present your product to the world. I know that there are details I am skipping over, and surely an artist or an art historian could lay me out for certain assumptions I have...but I just wonder...if we took art as seriously as we claim to take politics (or any other "serious" issue that impacts society for that matter), what would our society be like?
Anyways...I found an answer. It was obvious...I think I may have known it (though I couldn't have articulated it properly). This Summer, whatever else you do, make sure you have the time to listen to good music, in some wild place. Make sure you get to sitting over the embers of a dying fire, and make sure that you hear a good myth. The soul yearns to soar, and on the wings of the right myth it might fly high enough to catch a glimpse of heaven.
Well, I was depressed and so my friend, who was also a Tolkien fan and understood (though perhaps not entirely) how I felt, made a new suggestion: try Stephen R Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. Its a take on, among other things, the Arthurian legend and the legend of Atlantis. Lawhead mixes his myths well (I think) and also knows his history, so in general his books are enjoyable, if his writing is not the best. I give this critique now, nearly 10 years since I first read his books and thought they were fantastic. Today, I would say that his Song of Albion cycle is slightly better than the Pendragon cycle, but that's a matter of general indifference with regard to this post.
What this post is about is an answer. An obvious answer to a question which, as I have asked it, has grown to such a degree that I thought I could never fully and capably answer it. Isn't that always the way? The question sprung from reading Homer and Plato in Torrey: why does Plato relate his ideas to us through myth? For that matter, why did the Christ speak in parables? The answer, which I discovered of all places in the middle of Stephen R Lawhead's fantasy book, Merlin, actually makes me cringe a little--it really is so obvious I worry that perhaps all my "education" is a myth in its entirety and I really should give Biola back their degree cause I'm clearly too dense to actually be finished with the basics of undergrad studies. Sigh.
The answer, as Merlin reflected while listening to a bard and comparing the response of the people to their response when listening to a priest's homily, is that myth moves men's hearts better than any brilliant logical argument ever can or ever will. We have myth and use myth because without it, even though we might know the right thing to do, our hearts could not be spurred into action without the fantasy of a good myth showing our wicked hearts the way.
This is why the preservation of "story" is good...everytime a new, healthy, good myth is told, new imaginations engage and hearts are opened to messages they could never hear if they sat through a thousand Sunday sermons. This is why my friend, Paul, who is desperately trying to finish the prep for his production of Romeo & Juliet is actually fighting the good fight, not merely having a good time acting and directing.
This is also why art matters. A thought occurs to me as I write this...perhaps, since it is new, it is unreasonable, but I'll write it down and flesh it out as I go...perhaps this is actually the argument for why there should be certain limits for what "art" gets to do publicly. I am not condoning censure outright...but surely there is a real and obvious problem with artists that don't take their power seriously, or recklessly chose to use their medium to routinely attack values of the community simply because they feel its not "progressive" enough. For all the flack that politicians get, its the artists that move the soul of the nation, not the masters of simple rhetoric. And my critique, I think, should not be countered by the simple tactic of "if you don't like it, don't look" as if the problem is solely with me, not the art that inspires a problem. Art makes its presence known and felt on the culture that permits it to exist. I am not, at this point, limiting my criticism to merely the typical "individuals" that compose the artistic community of colleges--I am at this point aiming my gun at anyone involved in entertainment, from art galleries to movies, to the commericials on TV to the music playing in Starbucks.
Perhaps there was something truly good about the fact that art used to be more unique, and you had to be good, and acknowledged to be so, before you were allowed to present your product to the world. I know that there are details I am skipping over, and surely an artist or an art historian could lay me out for certain assumptions I have...but I just wonder...if we took art as seriously as we claim to take politics (or any other "serious" issue that impacts society for that matter), what would our society be like?
Anyways...I found an answer. It was obvious...I think I may have known it (though I couldn't have articulated it properly). This Summer, whatever else you do, make sure you have the time to listen to good music, in some wild place. Make sure you get to sitting over the embers of a dying fire, and make sure that you hear a good myth. The soul yearns to soar, and on the wings of the right myth it might fly high enough to catch a glimpse of heaven.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
How Simple It Is
For a couple of years I cared deeply about the discussion on gender. I actually had the folder to a Feminist group on my BUBBS desktop for easy access to the online "discussions" that went on there. I argued better and worse at times.
I have almost zero interest in the discussion any longer. Coincidentally, I now know much more about women, having been married for nearly three years. Which makes me wonder...is the giant gender discussion the result of too many angst filled single people?
I don't mean single people = angst filled. I have plenty of single friends that never understood my zeal towards that discussion. I have plenty of single friends that, though they care, never cared as much as I did about "figuring out" the "answer" to the question of genders and roles. What I am saying is that...I think, at least generally, one could postulate that those that engage in some of the ridiculous arguments that take place concerning the nature of the genders are working out not the larger question of meaning and roles for men and women, but rather the personal issues of relationships. Which supports a theory I had once considered...if most of the adamant militant feminists got married to chauvinists there would be a lot less fighting in the world today.
Sheri and I still talk about the differences between us. We still fight, we still don't always understand the other, and there is still mystery which I don't have answers for. But I have found, all the angst of the gender question dissolved with the arrival of matrimony. How simple it is...we were made for each other and its a beautiful thing to reflect upon.
I have almost zero interest in the discussion any longer. Coincidentally, I now know much more about women, having been married for nearly three years. Which makes me wonder...is the giant gender discussion the result of too many angst filled single people?
I don't mean single people = angst filled. I have plenty of single friends that never understood my zeal towards that discussion. I have plenty of single friends that, though they care, never cared as much as I did about "figuring out" the "answer" to the question of genders and roles. What I am saying is that...I think, at least generally, one could postulate that those that engage in some of the ridiculous arguments that take place concerning the nature of the genders are working out not the larger question of meaning and roles for men and women, but rather the personal issues of relationships. Which supports a theory I had once considered...if most of the adamant militant feminists got married to chauvinists there would be a lot less fighting in the world today.
Sheri and I still talk about the differences between us. We still fight, we still don't always understand the other, and there is still mystery which I don't have answers for. But I have found, all the angst of the gender question dissolved with the arrival of matrimony. How simple it is...we were made for each other and its a beautiful thing to reflect upon.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Little Wrestler
My son is going to be a wrestler. Not that fake stuff--oh no, the real deal. Gross singlets, nasty diets, sprints and head-locks, half-nelsons and double-legged takedowns. Freestyle, Folkstyle, Greco-Roman. Well, maybe not Greco-Roman. He's going to be wrestling in America (most likely)...
He has the strength. His grip has literally amazed anyone caught in it since the day of his birth (I would know...I held his tiny hand in those first hours, and was amazed). He actually makes it difficult to take something away from him--I could knock him over without thinking about it, but if he's holding onto something he wants, I have to actually fight to get it away from him. He's 1 and a half!
He has the flexibility. Also one of the things he's done nearly all of his life--when mad he shows his frustration by arching his back--there were guys on my team that couldn't arch as well as this kid when he's upset.
And most importantly, he has a ferocity and a natural sense of his body that only naturals have. Recently he has taken to rough-housing with Dad. He'll run full-steam into me, even though its my legs he's attacking, and he'll actually be growling as he bear-hugs my calves. When I pick him up to tussle, he growls even more, grunting as he head-butts my face or shoulder, wiggling like crazy all the time holding me around my neck or trying so hard to escape that I have to throw him in the bed so I don't drop him to the floor. If he does get tossed to the bed, he rolls over and charges straight off the edge, jumping into my arms once again.
My son is gonna be a wrestler, and every kid that tries to take his spot on the team is going to regret it the next day.
Its cool being a dad.
He has the strength. His grip has literally amazed anyone caught in it since the day of his birth (I would know...I held his tiny hand in those first hours, and was amazed). He actually makes it difficult to take something away from him--I could knock him over without thinking about it, but if he's holding onto something he wants, I have to actually fight to get it away from him. He's 1 and a half!
He has the flexibility. Also one of the things he's done nearly all of his life--when mad he shows his frustration by arching his back--there were guys on my team that couldn't arch as well as this kid when he's upset.
And most importantly, he has a ferocity and a natural sense of his body that only naturals have. Recently he has taken to rough-housing with Dad. He'll run full-steam into me, even though its my legs he's attacking, and he'll actually be growling as he bear-hugs my calves. When I pick him up to tussle, he growls even more, grunting as he head-butts my face or shoulder, wiggling like crazy all the time holding me around my neck or trying so hard to escape that I have to throw him in the bed so I don't drop him to the floor. If he does get tossed to the bed, he rolls over and charges straight off the edge, jumping into my arms once again.
My son is gonna be a wrestler, and every kid that tries to take his spot on the team is going to regret it the next day.
Its cool being a dad.
Disturbing Social Commentary
I am watching Sesame Street with my 1 1/2 year old son. Today's episode involves Goldilocks and the four bears. The formerly youngest of the bears, Baby Bear, has a baby sister named Curly Bear. Anyways, they are all sitting down to eat at Hooper's store, when who should show up but Goldilocks, who proceeds to turn down her own bowl of porridge, and takes for herself food from Baby Bear's bowl. Well, Baby Bear says, "That's enough! I'm writing a new story, one in which you don't get to eat my porridge!" So off he goes, and starts reworking the story. Everytime his family sits down to eat, they find the porridge is too hot, and so they leave for a while to let it cool, and while they're gone, Goldilocks sneeks in and takes advantage of their absence, helping herself to the unattended food. Baby Bear tries a variety of options until he finds his solution; he will take food from the family's pot and make Goldilocks her own special bowl so that when she breaks into their home and comes to steal their food, she has her own waiting for her. The family returns to find this plan working perfectly, and Goldilocks sits on one of their chairs as the story ends, which promptly shatters underneath her. But Baby Bear just laughs and says, "That's alright--this time it was her chair! Ha ha ha!"
Needless to say...I am a little disturbed by the social message of this story. What are we telling our children? Because you have porridge, when somebody comes to steal your food, you should avoid making that a problem by making sure you have designated some just for the thief. And should the thief break something of yours, that's alright too, so long as you decided that that possession would be designated for use by the thief. I'm beginning to really like the Simpson's Halloween Special's take on Goldilocks' story--where she gets locked inside with three ravenous bears...
I wonder how we got the illegal immigration problem we're presently enjoying? All they want is some of our food, and to sit on our chairs, without an invite to do so. If only we'd decide to designate some of our vast resources for their personal use, we could avoid this whole conflict...
Sigh.
Needless to say...I am a little disturbed by the social message of this story. What are we telling our children? Because you have porridge, when somebody comes to steal your food, you should avoid making that a problem by making sure you have designated some just for the thief. And should the thief break something of yours, that's alright too, so long as you decided that that possession would be designated for use by the thief. I'm beginning to really like the Simpson's Halloween Special's take on Goldilocks' story--where she gets locked inside with three ravenous bears...
I wonder how we got the illegal immigration problem we're presently enjoying? All they want is some of our food, and to sit on our chairs, without an invite to do so. If only we'd decide to designate some of our vast resources for their personal use, we could avoid this whole conflict...
Sigh.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Pet Peeve
Kinda random...but I hate when people are asked how a thing ranked on a scale of "1-10"...everyone, almost without exception, makes the scale completely worthless because they ALWAYS say "Oh, that was a 17!" or "That was a -12!" The parameters of the scale were clearly set out in the question--adhere to the parameters or don't answer!
Had to get that off of my chest...on a scale of 1-10 my level of irritation with people that do that sort of thing is easily a 15.
Had to get that off of my chest...on a scale of 1-10 my level of irritation with people that do that sort of thing is easily a 15.
A Genuine Catch 22
I am stuck.
Next year Sheri returns to full-time classes at Biola. Which means that while presently we share the responsibility of making the money off of which we subsist, next year I get that job to myself. Unfortunately, there's a problematic factor; we have a son. More to the point, presently I spend a lot of time watching him. Next year, that's not going to be a possibility.
So, here's the problem: I need to work. To work enough to carry us through to the end of Sheri's education, I'll need to work at least two jobs, possibly three simultaneously (stupid, stupid, STUPID for not getting my credential while I was in school...but that's water under a bridge somewhere as they say...) But, in order for me to work that much, we'll need to put Aiden into daycare in one form or another. Daycare costs money...even if its the cheapest available, it costs money. And if I am working like crazy, and Sheri's fulltime in school...we'll be missing a lot of time with our son.
So, what do you do? Worst case scenario, the cost to take care of Aiden could almost cancel out one of my incomes (which we couldn't afford). Staying home and accruing debt doesn't seem like a good option, even if we might need to get more debt despite the fact that I'll be working like crazy...
Sigh.
I hate money. I hate this "in between" period. I'm looking at other Christian schools, but honestly I don't know how good the prospects are. I have an offer for part-time this year, and full-time next year, though even at full-time I'll be getting a salary in the low $20,000's, and that's a year from now. At part time, its a lot less than that (almost 1/2 less)...I love the school, but I am not sure how it can work. I told Sheri that it might work if I pick up another part-time job for the afternoons and extend my Starbucks hours for every night of the week...which allows me almost no time for grading papers, to say nothing of family time or even sleep. A voice in my head is screaming, "Didn't I go to college (and spend/borrow a lot of money I might add) to get something better than this?!?!?!?"
Of course, this wasn't the plan. I needn't mention the plans in college that failed...even in this past year plans haven't worked out the way they were supposed too...I should have guessed--it seemed so possible to make it work out that I should have been clued in. My plans DON'T work out. I worry about money and lose a job I should have had without trying--a job I earned with two years of exemplary work! I work to get licensed to sell insurance and work at becoming a financial advisor...and nobody will meet with me. I know there's a point to all of this...its just hard to accept sometimes.
The neat thing in the midst of a fairly dismal outlook is this recurring fact...God hasn't abandoned us. We were in church yesterday, and were reading John, the 18th chapter...the betrayal and trial and scourging of the Christ. Two thoughts kept coming into my head throughout the service...first, that a faithful God calls for our obedience regardless of the cost because He is faithful and so should we be. Secondly...sometimes that obedience will not result in relief from the trial. We have been growing a lot in the past months. Sheri and I have decided to deliberately change the way we live and to honor God first whether we can "afford it" or not. Generally, this has brought on changes of only good--we feel greater peace in our lives, even though we should have less than before. I keep believing that our faith will not be unanswered, and have not been disappointed...and I suppose I secretly harbor the hope that a miracle will happen and we'll wake up one day and find that we have been given the gift of comfort and security.
But yesterday a possibility that I have considered once or twice made a strong impression on me as I listened to the word of God...what if we are faithful and give and that is good...and God allows us not to survive? What if the storm comes and we cannot weather the waves? Surely God is still good...surely He hasn't forgotten us...but what then? What happens when I cannot take care of my family? It is, unfortunately, a reality I know we are not unique in facing...and I also know all too well how easy it would be to lose all our presumed security. We often assume that faithfulness from God means that we will ride out the waves that come our way...but that's obviously a misperception--even Jesus died in the end. Yes, good triumphs and God is always a good God, and I cannot be convinced that my loss somehow changes the very nature of God. God is good...for that truth I would die without a thought. But sometimes that good God allows us to really, honestly lose, without the hope of ever rising again in this life. That's a difficult truth to process for some reason.
Anyways, things will work out. We'll have to work hard, and life may not always resemble the goal that we have for it, but that doesn't mean its over. Aiden will grow up fine and Sheri and I will, God willing, love each other for decades. That's a success, especially in today's world. I want to leave a mark on the world, other than being one of those that worked three mostly unimportant jobs to make ends meet...but I can leave that fight for another day. Today, I just take another step on this road and trust that the God I have commited to serve with my life will always be the one guiding my road, wherever it leads.
Next year Sheri returns to full-time classes at Biola. Which means that while presently we share the responsibility of making the money off of which we subsist, next year I get that job to myself. Unfortunately, there's a problematic factor; we have a son. More to the point, presently I spend a lot of time watching him. Next year, that's not going to be a possibility.
So, here's the problem: I need to work. To work enough to carry us through to the end of Sheri's education, I'll need to work at least two jobs, possibly three simultaneously (stupid, stupid, STUPID for not getting my credential while I was in school...but that's water under a bridge somewhere as they say...) But, in order for me to work that much, we'll need to put Aiden into daycare in one form or another. Daycare costs money...even if its the cheapest available, it costs money. And if I am working like crazy, and Sheri's fulltime in school...we'll be missing a lot of time with our son.
So, what do you do? Worst case scenario, the cost to take care of Aiden could almost cancel out one of my incomes (which we couldn't afford). Staying home and accruing debt doesn't seem like a good option, even if we might need to get more debt despite the fact that I'll be working like crazy...
Sigh.
I hate money. I hate this "in between" period. I'm looking at other Christian schools, but honestly I don't know how good the prospects are. I have an offer for part-time this year, and full-time next year, though even at full-time I'll be getting a salary in the low $20,000's, and that's a year from now. At part time, its a lot less than that (almost 1/2 less)...I love the school, but I am not sure how it can work. I told Sheri that it might work if I pick up another part-time job for the afternoons and extend my Starbucks hours for every night of the week...which allows me almost no time for grading papers, to say nothing of family time or even sleep. A voice in my head is screaming, "Didn't I go to college (and spend/borrow a lot of money I might add) to get something better than this?!?!?!?"
Of course, this wasn't the plan. I needn't mention the plans in college that failed...even in this past year plans haven't worked out the way they were supposed too...I should have guessed--it seemed so possible to make it work out that I should have been clued in. My plans DON'T work out. I worry about money and lose a job I should have had without trying--a job I earned with two years of exemplary work! I work to get licensed to sell insurance and work at becoming a financial advisor...and nobody will meet with me. I know there's a point to all of this...its just hard to accept sometimes.
The neat thing in the midst of a fairly dismal outlook is this recurring fact...God hasn't abandoned us. We were in church yesterday, and were reading John, the 18th chapter...the betrayal and trial and scourging of the Christ. Two thoughts kept coming into my head throughout the service...first, that a faithful God calls for our obedience regardless of the cost because He is faithful and so should we be. Secondly...sometimes that obedience will not result in relief from the trial. We have been growing a lot in the past months. Sheri and I have decided to deliberately change the way we live and to honor God first whether we can "afford it" or not. Generally, this has brought on changes of only good--we feel greater peace in our lives, even though we should have less than before. I keep believing that our faith will not be unanswered, and have not been disappointed...and I suppose I secretly harbor the hope that a miracle will happen and we'll wake up one day and find that we have been given the gift of comfort and security.
But yesterday a possibility that I have considered once or twice made a strong impression on me as I listened to the word of God...what if we are faithful and give and that is good...and God allows us not to survive? What if the storm comes and we cannot weather the waves? Surely God is still good...surely He hasn't forgotten us...but what then? What happens when I cannot take care of my family? It is, unfortunately, a reality I know we are not unique in facing...and I also know all too well how easy it would be to lose all our presumed security. We often assume that faithfulness from God means that we will ride out the waves that come our way...but that's obviously a misperception--even Jesus died in the end. Yes, good triumphs and God is always a good God, and I cannot be convinced that my loss somehow changes the very nature of God. God is good...for that truth I would die without a thought. But sometimes that good God allows us to really, honestly lose, without the hope of ever rising again in this life. That's a difficult truth to process for some reason.
Anyways, things will work out. We'll have to work hard, and life may not always resemble the goal that we have for it, but that doesn't mean its over. Aiden will grow up fine and Sheri and I will, God willing, love each other for decades. That's a success, especially in today's world. I want to leave a mark on the world, other than being one of those that worked three mostly unimportant jobs to make ends meet...but I can leave that fight for another day. Today, I just take another step on this road and trust that the God I have commited to serve with my life will always be the one guiding my road, wherever it leads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
