The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Part 4

This is my final post for the time being on Sarah Palin. In the last post I gave my reasons why she should probably not be elected president. In this post, I will give my reasons why I think she has no chance of getting elected president.

1. Unless the economy never turns around, Barack Obama will be re-elected over any Republican candidate. This is the Bill Clinton philosophy: It's the economy, stupid. If the economy turns around in any appreciable way by early 2012, then Obama is a shoo-in. I don't care how fervently the religious right works against him, mainstream voters will vote him back in if they feel their pocketbooks are safe. You don't have to like this, but it's true.

There were a lot of reasons that Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, but this is a big one: 21% annualized rate of inflation for the first 3 months of 1980. George H. W. Bush was likewise a single-term president because voters perceived the economy as weak (ironically, it had been turning around in the several months prior to the election, but people catch on slowly).

Obama will not get voted out because he doesn't end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan soon enough. Liberals will be unhappy if troops are still in those countries in 2012, but they won't abandon him. neither will he lose his job over health-care reform. The only thing that could sink him is the economy. Given its cyclical nature, I have trouble believing that it will not be significantly better two years from now.

2. She sounds too conservative for the average voter. Her followers love her positions, but these are not the positions of the majority of voters in this country. Reagan had a way of communicating extremely conservative positions that resonated at a particular time. George W. Bush sounded less conservative than he was. With Palin, anyone who listens at all knows this is a conservative in the Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/Alan Keyes mold. And the majority of voters think these guys are nuts. You would be mistaken for confusing the intensity of her followers with numbers of followers.

One of the reasons that John McCain picked her was a belief that she could help him with the so-called "soccer moms." That was a good strategy until she started expressing her extreme conservatism. "Soccer moms" are not raving liberals, but as a whole they are not evangelical Christians either. Unless Palin can find a way to expand her base, her candidacy will be doomed to a landslide defeat.

3. She has little support among the Republican party machinery. If you think this is unimportant, you are not paying attention. John McCain was not the favorite of most of the party bigwigs, but he had built enough support among them in his years in the Senate. Most of the party leaders seem to have taken a wait-and-see attitude with Palin. Although, with her leaving office so soon before 2012, it is hard to see how she is going to use her power of being an elected official to gain support with that group.

I think this makes it hard to see her even get the nomination. She will have some early strong showings in the primaries and will possibly be a force with which to be reckoned, but I seriously doubt that she could gain enough delegate votes.

If she did somehow get nominated, I could see the party leaders give her only token support while they concentrated their efforts on trying to gain or defend congressional seats. This will help her be on the wrong side of the landslide.

4. The fatigue factor. There is a danger in peaking too early. People get tired of you and of hearing about you. Obama was so over-hyped that he suffered a little bit for it in late-summer and early-fall. She is running the risk of being very old news come 2012, and some of the freshness that made her initially appealing will be gone. Will she have enough substance to overcome that? I doubt it.

To sum up, I have very serious doubts that Sarah Palin could come close to gaining the Republican nomination for president in 2012. If I am wrong, I still fail to see her gaining enough votes outside of her present constituency to capture the presidency.

Too Soon

I received news that someone I knew died in a car accident. Her name was Summer and seh was (I think) only 29 years old.

I didn't know Summer well. She sang on a worship team that I belonged to for two years. She was still in college. She had impossibly long blonde hair and was quite pretty. She had a lot of personality and--though she was very smart--played a bit of the dumb blonde routine at times.

After I made contact with some old friends from Springfield, I noticed that she was on some of their friends lists. I did not add her as a friend, though. I am not in the habit of adding young, pretty girls whom I don't know well. Summer, however, must have seen my name pop up on one of the lists of our mutual friends and added me. I was touched at her desire to touch base with so many people.

When Tina was at Fashion Bug, it was her job to recruit women for a fashion show. The participants got discounts on clothes. Summer helped her every time. She would wear several outfits and go out as many times as they wanted her to. She had fun and made it fun for Tina.

It's not fair. When I say that, I don't mean to criticize God. We have no claim on this life. But in the randomness of this sin-infested world, a young girl who was teaching school dies before she can raise a family of her own, while many, many others who do so much less keep on living. Though I know God redeems death and turns it into eternal life, I can still be sad that she is not around and be angry at this world.

I know she rests in the arms of Jesus and is better off for not being here. God is good and will bring comfort to me and to those who knew her so much better.

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Part 3

Before I get to the subject about Sarah Palin's presidential chances, I wanted to first discuss whether I think she is qualified to be president. Simply put, I do not think she is. Here are my reasons why.

1. Her standard-issue conservatism. I am more politically conservative that the average voter, but less so than most of my Christian friends. The fact that she is extremely conservative does not disqualify her (though i may not support her positions). What disqualifies her in my mind is that I cannot distinguish that she is thinking at all. She knows how to repeat the standard conservative mantras, but without any depth. I want a president who shows the ability to think and be a little creative.

2. Her lack of political experience. Two years of governor of Alaska and a couple of terms as a small-town mayor is hardly an impressive resume. You don't have to like it, but a successful president needs to be able to work with other elected officials and the bureaucracy. Her tendency to fire people who disagree with her and her resignation in protest from the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission may indicate that she "does not play well with others." While some may view this as a good trait, I see the potential for government gridlock.

3. Her lack of leadership. Where are Palin's followers? I don't mean the people who eagerly line up to buy her book. I mean the people who have given themselves to a life of government service. As diverse individuals as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had loyal government-types who believed in his vision. I don't see that for Palin.

In short, Sarah Palin, despite her enthusiastic following among a relatively small percentage of the population, has not exhibited the traits that I think make her a good choice for the top office in this country.

When I next speak about Sarah Palin, I will finally list my reasons why she will not be elected.

My Love-Hate Relationship with Christmas Music

From childhood, I have always loved Christmas music. I looked forward to singing those songs in school and church, enjoyed playing them at home, and loved playing Christmas records at home. Over the years, however, certain types of Christmas music have really turned me off. So while I still love Christmas songs, there is quite a bit of it that I detest.

This is not the religious vs. secular debate. I tolerate songs about snow and Santa. Conversely, there are religious songs (or particular performances of those songs) that I hate. Actually, my split-personality over Christmas music reflects my taste in music generally: Give me authentic performances of good songs over schmaltzy or overblown music any day.

Here is what I hate about bad Christmas music: 1. Sleigh bells. 2. Bombastic arrangements of simple songs. 3. Overly-sentimental productions. Here is what I like: 1. Good solid lyrics and melodies. 2. Arrangements that let the song shine through rather than showcase the performers. 3. Performances that well match the song.

For example, yesterday in the mall, I heard a slow, lush, overproduced version of Up on the Housetop. It served as a wonderful showcase for the singer's voice, but completely missed the lighthearted mood of the song. It made me wonder if the singer spoke English. If she did, she wasn't paying attention to the words.

My all-time favorite Christmas album is by Bruce Cockburn. This 1993 release--simply title Christmas--contains 15 songs. All are religious. Some are familiar (God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen), others very obscure (Early on One Christmas Morn), and a couple of surprises (Angels We Have Heard on High in its original French version). In the liner notes, he states his goal was to capture the "songness" of each piece. And he does this in a masterful way.

If you, too, are tired of artificial music, try to find a copy of this album. You will again remember why you originally liked Christmas music.

No One Said Tigers Were Smart

For the most part I don't care about Tiger Woods' sexual escapades. I feel bad for his wife and kids, but I never idolized the man. He is the greatest golfer I have ever watched play, but that's it.

I'm not particularly surprised that he has been unfaithful to his wife. Nothing that he has ever said or done has led me to believe that he had a particularly strong moral compass. He has a bad temper, cusses like a sailor, is overly competitive, and only seems interested in his own interests. It is about performance, not character.

I'm sure that some of the women who have claimed to slept with him are just seeking attention and could be lying. However, the count is up to at least 13. They're not all making it up. There is strong evidence that he had more than one long-term sexual relationship, many one-night-stands, and possibly encounters with prostitutes.

What interests me the most about Tiger is this: How did he think he would ever get away with this? I suppose there are people in his position who have managed to have some groupie sex on the road without their wife finding out. Perhaps it is even possible to have one mistress on the side if she is discreet. But Tiger threw all caution to the wind. In the day of TMZ and skanks looking to get on television, he should have known that this indiscriminate sleeping around was going to get out.

I can't decide if he was stupid or arrogant. Either way, Tiger is living proof of Jesus' warning: There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. (Luke 12:2-3)

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Part 2

The acceptance by the religious right to Sarah Palin is not a surprise. What is a bit surprising is the reaction of the left, especially the left-leaning news media. In short, they seem scared of her.

I really do not view her as a threat in 2012 (a post for another day), but perhaps they know more than I do. When reporting every campaign stop (=book-signing), there is always some talking head taking a shot at her record or family life or her lack of acceptance by mainstream Republicans. This is the treatment given to someone you fear.

In an incredible irony, the news media is actually giving more attention and credibility to Palin by attacking her. Her book tour is not particularly newsworthy. They could have ignored it or at least given it subdued coverage. But by taking shots at her, they just keep putting her smiling face on the TV screen again and again. It seems counterproductive to me.

Democratic party mailings have gone out with warnings about Sarah Palin in an attempt to raise money. They are trying to energize the left by trading on their fears of a Palin presidency. It reminds me of what the Republicans did with Hilary Clinton in 2006-7. She was the bogey of the right. Palin has become the bogey of the left.

Can she win? Should she win? Next time.

Another Celebrity Wanna-Be

Now it has come out that the woman who somehow talked her way into a White House dinner to which she had not been invited is in the running for a reality show. I guess we should not have been surprised after she bragged about it on her Facebook page. Had she not tipped off the world to her feat, the entire incident would have passed unnoticed--which must be a bit scary as far as the White House is concerned. But passing unnoticed is not what this woman--and the scores of others like her--is about.

What is it going to take to end society's fascination with reality shows? The shows have to get more daring to keep ratings. Will someone eventually die? Get pregnant from a dating show? Jon and Kate have shown that we will watch a show that helps break up a marriage. What is wrong with us?

I feel so old or at least old-fashioned. I don't watch any of these shows. This puts me out of touch with the average person I guess, but I don't care. I have no idea who wins Survivor or the Bachelor (they are still going, right?). I can't name you any of the people on the Real World. My life has enough difficulties that I am not interested in their problems--especially as most of their problems are apparently caused by their own narcissism.

Get used to seeing more like the balloon-boy's parents or the gate crashing D.C. housewife. As long as people watch these shows, there will be people vying to get on them looking for celebrity and the easy payday. And when something really bad happens, we will have to look at our own cuplability.

Turkey Taco Recipe

I have never understood it when people complain about leftover turkey on Thanksgiving. With our size family, we never have enough for my taste anyway. And besides, turkey tastes great and we don't eat it the rest of the year.

My favorite leftover meal is turkey tacos. It is more than just substituting turkey for chicken or beef. How it is prepared is what make them good. This is my own recipe. If anyone else makes them like this, I have never eaten them.

First, you need a mixture of white and dark meat. Ordinarily I prefer white, but when you shred the turkey, it is a little less important. However a mixture gives you a little stronger flavor and helps use up the dark meat.

Shred the turkey in a food processor. You need enough to fill about 1/2 inch of a large frying pan. Heat some oil in the pan first. You need more than a mere coating to protect the pan, you want enough oil to cook the meat. Then add the turkey. Add as much onion (fresh or powder) and chili (crushed or powder) as those eating will like. Cook the turkey, stirring frequently, until it is thoroughly toasted.

Cooking the turkey like this will make it tasty, but dry it out. At this point add a cup or two of liquid. You can use turkey soup if you made some from the carcass. Otherwise make some chicken bullion. This will put the moisture back in the turkey while preserving the flavor of the frying. Turn down the heat and let the turkey absorb the liquid.

Put on tortillas with whatever else you like to put on tacos. I don't add a lot of extras so as to not overwhelm the wonderful flavor of the turkey. If you use cheese, let it be mild. If you properly seasoned and moistened the turkey, you won't need any taco sauce either.

Try it out. They are a big hit around our house and is a wonderful way to use those turkey leftovers.

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon

I am intrigued at the buzz surrounding Sarah Palin. A previously-unknown governor of a small state was elevated to VP candidate and suddenly she is the new darling of the right (especially the religious right). Why the attraction?

First, we cannot put aside the fact that she is pretty. I'm not being sexist here. Taller, more attractive men have always had some advantages in running for president. Though they will never admit it, people want to like what they see when they cast their vote. I can't help but believe that if Palin looked like, oh say, Rosie O'Donnell, her support might be a little less.

Second, she is simply well-known from her VP run. I believe that it would not take me long to round up two dozen Republicans who have more and better political experience and who support the same positions that she does. But they are only known locally and she has been in the national spotlight. This gives her a significant advantage.

Third, she is a conservative woman. When most of the women in politics range from center to the extreme left, this uniqueness attracts interest. I believe this was a major factor in John McCain's selection of her.

Fourth, she espouses all the "right" positions that energize conservatives. There is no ambiguity as to whether she is conservative enough.

Fifth, she belongs to the evangelical wing of Christianity. For those in the religious right, she is the proper kind of Christian. No more having to wonder if they should support Mitt Romney--a man with the "right" positions, but a Mormon.

Will this translate into the presidency or even the nomination for that office? I doubt it, which will be the focus of a later post. But she will not go away quietly and her supporters will have to be contended with.

The Lure of Celebrity

Now it seems clear that the whole "Balloon boy" story was a hoax. I originally saw the story while the balloon was still in the air and was concerned. When I heard later, however, that the family had been on reality TV, I (along with many others) was immediately suspicious. This is just the kind of coincidence that just doesn't happen.

Andy Warhol's famous saying is that one day everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. I wonder if he could have envisioned the world of reality television. Not only are people becoming famous for essentially doing nothing, there are a bunch of them actively seeking this life. While some appear on a single show and then go home, others have been on several reality series and try to be part of more.

I think this is a kind of sickness. If the media would cooperate with us, the best punishment for the family in Colorado would be to pack up the cameras, go home, and promise to never mention these people ever again. Don't embarrass them, ignore them. Sadly, it won't happen, but I can dream.

Health Care Debate

Lost in all the shrillness of the health care debate is one unmistakable fact: The current system is broken. Too many people have poor access to affordable health care. Even those who have good coverage are being charged a higher percentage of the premium costs. In the meantime, health insurance companies are making very large amounts of money.

President Obama said in a speech this week that we cannot afford the status quo. I agree completely. I have personally lived in that nether world between having health care and being eligible for Medicaid. It is a scary place to be.

In their hatred of all things Obama, conservatives have forgotten that there is a real problem. Or maybe they all have cushy middle class jobs and don't know there are a lot of others who cannot get insurance. A government-run medical insurance would have all the problems of any government-run program, but it might be better than the obscenely profitable system in place now.

Regardless, conservatives need to look beyond the rhetoric and see the need. Relying on an unregulated private sector is not working. So now is the time to come up with a solution. That is, if you are really interested in governing and not posturing.

Obfuscating the Real Issues

The silver lining in the whole Joe Wilson debacle is highlighting an important issue. Unfortunately, I think that everybody gets it wrong. When the congressman called out You lie, it was at the point where President Obama asserted that his health plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

Technically, Obama was right and Wilson wrong. However, I do understand Wilson's point. Given the history of court decisions, it is entirely possible that a judge somewhere could decide that it is unconstitutional to exclude illegals from the government health care option. Critics ascertain that Obama is being coy by claiming he is not including them while knowing that eventually they will be.

This is not impossible, but it does go against all of the president's previous rhetoric regarding the rights of illegals. So, while it is possible that they would end up being included by court decree, Obama was not necessarily being cynically untruthful.

Actually this debate misses two points:

1. The anti-immigrant forces continually contend that illegals use government services but don't pay taxes. I haven't seen recent numbers, but I remember a study from the 1980s (when this debate was at one of its cyclical high points) that showed that many illegals overpaid taxes. This was because they had taxes withheld from their checks, but because they didn't file tax returns, they didn't receive refunds to which they might have been entitled. Further, they had Social Security taxes withheld for which they would never receive a benefit. If this still holds true, then even if illegal immigrants became eligible for the government health plan, they might well be paying for it--at least at the same pace others in their economic class would. People may still object on principle, which I respect, but the cost to citizens might not be as significant as one might think.

2. In essence, most illegal immigrants already receive government health care, directly or indirectly. The vast majority of illegals are working poor. So if they have phony documents, some may qualify for Medicaid. Who pays for that programs? Taxpayers. In this case, the immigrants that some worry about getting government-paid health care are already getting it. So it's really a wash. Not all have the documentation to get Medicaid. But hospitals who accept any government insurance (nearly all of them) cannot turn anyone away from receiving treatment. If they can't pay, then the hospital either eats the cost or (more often) taps into a state fund that pays for indigent patients. Again, where does this money come from? Taxpayers. In short, I don't think that covering illegal immigrants in a government health play would change the amount of money that taxpayers pay for their health care. The difference would only be which account it comes from.

I am not trivializing the debate over immigration. This is a serious subject that needs better resolution than we have now. My point is that it is a distraction to the real debate about if health care should be reformed, if so how, and whether there should be a government-run plan as part of it. To focus on illegal immigrants is to ignore the real issues and is a shame. Next time, I want to talk a little about it.

This is a hero?

Apologies for not posting recently (at least to my one fan, Jeff). My new job left me needing to make a new schedule. Hopefully, I will post more regularly.

You have heard by now about Congressman Joe Wilson's You lie outburst during President Barak Obama's speech to Congress about the Democrat's health care bill. Under normal circumstances, it would be discussed for a couple of days and Wilson would go back to obscurity.

But we don't live in normal times. The Democrats will probably use their power to censure the congressman in some way. And the conservative wing of the Republican party are turning him into a hero.

What Joe Wilson did was rude and completely out of line (in my next post, I will discuss the actual issue). He did apologize, which should end the issue. Censure is probably unwarranted. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I would quietly send out a message to all congressmen reminding them that the US Congress is not like the British Parliament (those guys are nuts) and that any future actions by anyone would result in some clearly defined penalty.

The Republicans, likewise, should just move on. Their guy apologized and they should move the focus to the issues that they have with the president's plan.

Amazingly, though, there are conservatives who are lionizing Wilson for his brave stand against the evil Obama. A guy who once attended our church now lives in DC and works for the congressman. His wife posted on her facebook page how proud she was and other conservative Christians chimed in with their approval.

Are you kidding me? Tell me what would have happened had a Democrat done something similar to President Bush. You know that Rush Limbaugh would have demonized him and Bill O'Reilly would have lamented the decline of respect for the presidency. Tell me I'm wrong.

This, of course, is just the continuation of the hatred of all things Obama. It has nothing to do anymore with what is right or logical. It has only to do with attacking what they view as the enemy of all things right and holy. And it grieves me to see Christians leading the way with torches and pitchforks.

There are important issues to discuss. The health bill may be the worst thing to ever be proposed. But let's discuss the issues, not make a hero out of a hothead who doesn't have the self-control (isn't that what the Bible promotes) to know when to keep his mouth shut. Conservatives need an articulate voice (I heard Wilson Sunday on Fox News--not articulate at all) not a guy who is famous for being rude.

Contributing to Society

I am struck by the contrast between a couple of famous deaths. Today it was announced that Senator Ted Kennedy died. The last of a political dynasty, he was way too liberal for my taste but there is no denying that he dedicated his adult life to public service. Though there are arch-conservatives who possibly are delighted that he is gone, there is a sense in which society is poorer for having lost him.

Then there is the model who was killed by her reality-show ex-husband. Now her death and his suicide are quite sad for them and those who knew them. However, can it be said that society is any worse off because of their departure?

I think the answer is No. It seems that the only concern of these two is how to gain fame and fortune from their good looks. They didn't have real jobs or careers that would make a difference in the life of another human being. They lived for themselves alone.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that society is better off without them or that I am in any way glad they are dead. But I just think that the contrast between how they chose to live their lives and how Ted Kennedy chose to live his is striking. Years from now, Kennedy will be remembered in some fashion for his contributions and the others will be completely forgotten. Why? Their real level of contribution to others.

Line of the Day

John Smoltz pitched decently and got the win over the Padres yesterday. The Boston castoff just might have enough left to hold down a starter spot in the Cardinals rotation the rest of the season.

The best line of the TV broadcast yesterday came from Rick Horton. Noting that both Julio Lugo and Smoltz were considered worthless enough by Boston to give them away, he said, "If I were John Mozeliak, I would be calling their general manager to see if they had any more players they didn't like."

He's baaaaaack

Amazing. Brett Favre actually signed a contract to play for the Vikings this year. I don't really care except to be amazed at how he can't seem to make up his mind. Or else he just enjoys stringing people along. Either way it's a bit odd.

I don't know how much he has left in the tank. Last year he was good early and not so good late. If Minnesota fans really think he is going to be the ticket to the Super Bowl, I think they are delusional. He might be better than their other quarterbacks (this is far from certain), but how much can he improve last year's 10-6 record?

I don't know what the final result will be, but I suspect that in the end, this story will be much ado about very little.

When Is It Time to Quit?

How old does a rocker have to be to hang it up? I guess as long as they can reasonably perform and there are still people who want to attend a concert, let them keep going. I saw 80+ year old BB King a couple of years ago and though he was far past his prime, it was still a good show. Good tight band and his playing is a good as ever. He never was a great singer, so that didn't matter.

However, the other day, I listened to a couple of tracks from the Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young album taken from their concert tour of 2006. Their harmonies were never as clean in concert as on record, so I understood the occasional raggedness there.

What did surprise me was how bad Stephen Stills sounded. His solo voice was never smooth, but at 61 it was just awful. Apparently he knows it. On Wooden Ships, the opening back-and-forth dialogue vocals are done by Crosby and Nash, rather than Stills and Crosby. When Stephen comes in on the chorus, he sounds ragged, but is largely hidden behind the harmonies.

The worst, however, is For What It's Worth. Here his vocal is out there for everyone to hear and he just can't hit clean notes any more. It's sad.

So what should he do? Quit? He still plays an outstanding guitar. People still want to hear CSN perform. Though Crosby and Nash still sound decent (especially considering their ages), I don't know how a concertgoer can ignore Stephen's voice.

Still, it is not my place to tell him to stop. I just don't know if I want to pay to hear.

Stop the Insanity

Recently, I blogged about being one of the few in my circles to admit to actually having voted for Barack Obama. Since most of those with whom I attend church or seminary are conservatives of the Bill O'Reiley/Sarah Palin variety, nothing that the president does will ever meet with their approval.

I don't think they are always fair or open-minded, but I can live with that. What amazes me is the lengths to which some people will go to smear Obama. Someone made this video that should sicken you, but will actually fire up some non-thinking Christians.

The contention is that when Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," the phrase "lightning from heaven" would have sounded in Aramaic (or Hebrew) like Barack Obama. The anonymous poster's points are these: (1) The Hebrew word for lightning is Barak. (2) The Hebrew word for heaven (or heights) is Bamah. (3) The conjunction waw which unites words is sometimes pronounced "O". Therefore, when Jesus said Satan was like lightning from heaven it sounded like Barack Obama.

First, if this were true, it is simply ludicrous to think that Jesus was leaving us a hint as to the identity of the future anti-Christ. This is like the Bible Code nonsense.

Second, several of his contentions are just wrong. (1) The Hebrew consonants for lightning is BRQ. The president's name is derived from the Arabic BRK, which means the same in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic: to bless. (2) In the other 105 uses of BMH in the OT, it never refers to heaven. In Isa 14:14, BMH does not mean heaven either; rather, Satan declares he will ascend above the BMH of the clouds to get to heaven (Shamayim). (3) The conjunction waw when added to a word beginning with "B" will become a "U" sound. Despite his claims, no one who understands Hebrew pronounces it "O". Regardless, why would there be a conjunction here? That would make the translation "like lightning and heaven." It would never mean "from heaven." For that we would need the proposition "min".

The Aramaic (which Jesus probably spoke) words are pretty much the same as in Hebrew. To say "lightning from heaven" would be something like baraq min shamaya or baraq meshamaya. Since "lightning" is almost always plural in Hebrew and Aramaic, it would probably be more like baraqin meshamaya (Aramaic) or baraqim meheshamayim (Hebrew).

Don't you agree that it's a long way from baraqin meshamaya to Barak Obama?

Why a PhD?

When I started on my late-in-life educational journey, it was not with the goal of getting a PhD. Titles and letters after my name mean little to me; my goal was to teach. Twenty years ago, I probably could have been hired in one of our schools after getting a masters degree. Today, a PhD is required, if not officially, at least on a practical basis.

So for the last six years, though my long-term goal was still to teach, my short-range goal was finishing the PhD. Now that I'm done, I have the degree but no teaching job. A bit ironic, huh?

Since it is theoretically possible to teach undergrads with just a masters degree (and a friend of mine with only a masters got a job last year), then did the time I spent in a PhD program make me a better teacher? I have thought about this a while and the answer is, Yes.

I didn't learn any thing about how to teach. I learned more content, to be sure, but what the program really did for me is teach me how to read more effectively and evaluate what I read. I am much better at doing original research, rather than relying on what others tell me.

So though I spent these last six years getting more education when I possibly could have been teaching, I think that I, and my future students, will be better in the long run.

Now I just need a job.

It's Not Just a Job

Now that I have finished my doctoral program, I am just two days away from being unemployed. My only job the past five years has been as a student worker in the library at school. Since I am no longer a student, that comes to an end.

I am finishing in what has to be the worst year to be graduating with a PhD in my memory. Almost all colleges and grad schools have been hammered by reduced giving and shrinking endowment funds. There are very, very few jobs out there and too many of us chasing them.

So what do I do in the meantime. I have been asked several times if I might seek a church to pastor. Obviously, I could do that and could probably even find a church to take me. But it wouldn't be right.

I was a decent pastor. Some churches did well under my leadership. I started one that eventually closed. One church fired me. Quite a mixed bag.

But I really believed in 2000 that God was calling me away from pastoral ministry to teaching. Though I love the church and believe in the role of the pastor, I do not personally have the fire necessary to be one. That would not be fair to a church to try to fill the job when I wasn't wholly committed to it. (It also wouldn't be fair to my family who would have to go through the difficult moments of being the pastor's family if it were just a job.)

Because being a pastor is not just like any other job. It is not merely one of many vocations. To be a good, faithful pastor (notice I didn't say successful) is a life-consuming calling. Oh sure, when I was in the pastorate I took time for myself and my family. But I had no real hobbies or time-consuming interests. The church that I served was my life, as it should have been.

Since I do not have that burning in me at this time, I cannot take a church in good conscience. I suppose I could fill in during a vacancy, but that typically doesn't pay well enough. So I will probably do some accounting work while searching for that teaching position or next step that I haven't even considered.

But I won't pastor. That's more than a job.

Baseball Is Still the Greatest Sport

Football has probably supplanted baseball as this country's premier sport. More people watch it, talk about it, and gamble on it than any other. I don't understand it, but everyone has their own preference.

Baseball is hardly dying, however. Except for a few cities where their team is run poorly, baseball attendance is strong (for 81 games, not just 8 like in football). Though I am a Dodger fan, it has been fun to live in St. Louis the past few years. The fans here support the Cardinals, know something about the game, and wear their colors year-round. In this town at least, football comes in second (and as bad as the Rams are right now, you could make a case that hockey is #2).

Those who want to say that professional basketball has overtaken baseball are kidding themselves (see, Bill Simmons). The Lakers just won the championship, but ask the average person in LA his/her favorite sports team and the Dodgers will come out on top.

I said all that to say this: Football training camps have opened and the sports news is now led by reports from the teams. Really? The average fan is really more interested in the fact that a fourth-string wide receiver really impressed the coaches rather than the score of last night's baseball game? Somehow I doubt it. About the only thing that is interesting about football this time of year is to find out which player has already had a season-ending injury (which happens too often). I think the reason for all the reports is not the demands of the fans, but only to justify the amount of people on the payroll covering the sport.

So follow, if you wish, the news from camp about this player or that (you might need it for your fantasy team). In the meantime, I will sit back on a nice summer evening and enjoy a baseball game.

Don't Even

I went to the Cardinals-Dodgers game last night. The right team finally won!!! All week STL fans have been booing Manny Ramirez for being a cheater. Yesterday's report that he was on the steroid list from 2003 probably made the boos even more intense last night.

I'm sorry, but of all people, Cardinal fans have no right to boo a guy for steroids. Not when they still cheer for Mark McGuire. Not when they cheer for Troy Glaus and Ryan Franklin. On this score, you fans have no credibility.

From the Top to the Bottom

One of the quirks of my personality is that I tend to suffer from Post-Big-Event-Blues. When the end comes to something that I have pointed my life toward, I get a bit depressed. I think there are two aspects to this feeling. The first is physical. When you need it, the adrenaline flows. When you don't, it stops. So it's actually sort of like drug withdrawal. (This potential physical aspect leads my ADHD coach to suggest that this tendency is possibly more common among ADHD people.)

The second is psychological. No matter how well an event goes, when it is done I think, Is that it? Is there no way to keep this going? Perhaps it's a bit of selfishness--an inability to have something good without wanting more. But it's a real feeling.

Last Tuesday was my big Dissertation Forum. It was the last step in becoming a Ph.D. (it's now DOCTOR Bob to you--joke.) I got to present my findings to an audience of peers (both other grad students and faculty) along with family and friends. For 45 minutes, all the attention was fixed on the presentation of my work.

And it was a lot of work to put it together. Besides the obvious work to write the dissertation, I had to boil it down to a 30 minute presentation. What's more, I dedicated myself to communicating it to people who don't understand the technical field. I had a power point presentation that walked everyone through it that took quite a few hours to prepare.

It went well. I presented the material simply and passionately. Everyone understood it and complimented me on it. Afterward my advisor took Tina and me out to dinner.

And then it was over. There have been times in my life when I would spiral down into a dark mood. But since I recognize my tendency, I was determined not to go down that path this time. I don't know how anyone else faces this, but what works the best for me is forcing myself to get busy on the next task. I had to work early the next morning, but the first thing I did when I had some time to myself was to make a list of what I want to do now. And then I got started on them.

So for me the secret to coming down from the completion of one big challenge is to have the next new challenge to face. So far, it's working.

It's Over

I've posted about Brett Favre's on-again, off-again retirement saga. Now comes word that he is not coming back. Really. For good. We hope.

It reminds me of what the late Gerald Ford said after Richard Nixon's resignation, "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."

Christians and Guns

I have a few gun-owning friends who are Christians. Some actually brag about it while others are more discreet. I wonder about how appropriate this is. So I have questions. True, the questions I ask and the way I ask them betray which way I'm leaning, but I am sincere at hearing some answers.

Disclaimer: I have never owned a gun. I have fired a few (I'm a horrible shot because of my poor vision and poor hand-eye coordination), but the closest I came was a CO2 pellet gun, which was a gift and I only had for a short time.

I can think of basically three reasons to own guns: (1) Hunting. (2) Recreation. Target practice, shooting tin cans, etc. (3) Self-defense.

I have no problem with the first two items on the list. Although neither appeal to me, I know many guys who really enjoy to hunt or just shoot. As long as you store the guns safely and keep them away from kids, fine.

It's the third item that bothers me. And here are my questions. If an intruder came into your home, what are you going to do with the gun? Shoot first? Only shoot if necessary? Just use it to scare them away?

(The last option is dangerous, because if you are not prepared to shoot, you might find the gun being used against you. If you are going to pull it out, I think you have to be prepared to use it.)

If you are prepared to shoot, are you concerned about potentially taking another person's life? Even if he/she is a criminal? Is there a difference between shooting someone to keep them from taking your stuff vs. shooting to keep them from harming you or your family?

And how does this reconcile with Jesus' words?

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (Matthew 5:38-46)

I am not entirely comfortable with any of the answers I come up with. I know that i don't own a gun so I will probably never face the issue. But still I wonder. How do you answer these questions?

Should I Be Alarmed?

Walking around campus Wednesday, it was impossible to notice the signs posted everywhere: Fire Alarm Testing Today. How considerate of them. You wouldn't want a bunch of panicked people every time an alarm went off.

There's only one problem with this: The alarms never went off!!! Not once!

Am I the only one who thinks: Hmm. No alarms. Does that mean they don't work?

Since this has happened before, I surmise that they have a way of testing the alarms without bells and sirens sounding. And the reason for the warning signs is in case they make a mistake and set off the audible alarms.

However, what if every part of the system worked correctly on their scopes and meters but the bells were broken. How would they know? If we ever have a fire, might everything work perfectly except that one part that actually informs people there is a problem?

Years ago I worked for a company that did the annual fire alarm test by opening the relief valve on the sprinkler system. When water started flowing the alarm bells went off and the maintenance guys walked through every part of the plant to make sure each bell worked. I knew that system worked.

If they are going to go to all the trouble of posting signs warning about testing, perhaps there should be some kind of notification (like in the Daily Announcements) that the system tested out fine.

Otherwise, I will always wonder.

More Fun with Stereo

I have been trying to post each weekday, but that's become a little difficult, so I'm cutting back to three days a week for now. I want to be able to keep it interesting.

I mentioned in my last post how odd the Lovin' Spoonful "phony" stereo recordings sound in headphones. Though it would sound fine at home or in the car because the sound would fill the room and each channel would be heard by both ears, with headphones each ear hears a single track.

There is one album from the 60s that sounds terrific in stereo headphones: The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds. Brian Wilson had left the road and concentrated on writing and producing records. He had been trying to create new sounds, including his own version of the "Wall of Sound" (think "Be True to Your School"). When the Beatles' Rubber Soul came out in December 1965, Brian was inspired to try to match it.

He wrote many of the songs not with Mike Love, as he normally did, but with an outsider name Tony Asher (Mike was on the road with the band at the time). Before they even returned, Brian had recorded a number of tracks with studio musicians. When the others returned home, they finished the album and released it in April 1966.

Though Brian Wilson eventually mixed the album in mono (for reasons discussed in the last post), there was a stereo mix as well. This mix is actually quite good and is especially interesting in headphones. I can hear instruments that get buried in the mono mix over the radio (listen for the bass harmonica). If you get the chance give it a listen with headphones--I think you'll like it.

Fun with Stereo

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember mono records. At one time all recorded music was produced in a single track. Since the output of your record player (for you youngsters out there--a turntable with speakers) and radio were in mono, there was no problem.


The technology for stereo in recordings and radio actually go back as far as the late 1920s but was slow to catch on commercially. There is obviously additional expense (how much I can't say) and when you consider how primitive the recording and playback equipment of the day was, stereo would not have improved the sound greatly. (The motion picture industry took to stereo earlier since movie theaters could more easily be converted to stereo playback.)


FM stations began broadcasting in stereo in the early 1960s. FM radios were not common in most homes, however, an non-existent in cars. Further, these stations tended more to classical music and jazz.


Rock and pop music was the province of AM radio. Stereo came slowly to this band as competing broadcast systems vied for attention. Even today, AM stereo sounds flat to me, probably due to the difference between the ways that AM and FM broadcast.


Records of the early- to mid-1960s were mostly made in mono. They often recorded on two-track machines, but mostly put the instruments on one track and vocals on the other. Then they were blended together in a mono mix that came through fine on your car radio.


As home stereos became more affordable and popular (I got my first in 1964!), record companies took their two-track masters and issued them in "stereo." I remember having to decide whether to buy the Monkees' second album on mono for $2.99 or in stereo for $3.99. When the Beatles catalog was mastered for CDs in the 1980s, George Martin successfully convinced Apple to release the earlier material in mono (Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, and Past Masters 1).

I thought of this the other day as I was listening o some old Lovin' Spoonful tracks on my MP3 player. The tracks were released on CD in the faux-stereo that resulted from using two tracks in recording. Using earphones, it sounds quite odd. Not so much the instruments, but the vocals. On You Didn't Have to Be So Nice, John Sebastian records counter-melody vocals on a different track from his lead vocal. So you get one in the left ear and the other in the right. On Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind and Nashville Cats, the lead vocal is in one ear and the harmony vocal the other.

This sounds fine in the car or at home because the sound blends in the room, but in earphones, it comes off a bit weird.

Blame It on the Yankees

Though I am a National League fan, even I have to recognize that the American League is more talented overall. 12 years of All Star Game wins, though impressive, is not as meaningful as the fact that the AL consistently outperforms the NL in interleague play.

I blame it on the Yankees. Beginning in the 1990s, the George Steinbrenner-owned team really began to ramp up its changing of the face of baseball. Always big spenders, the increased revenue from their cable network really upped the amount they had to spend. So they did. If there was a free agent they wanted, they were never outbid. If they could make a trade for a player, they could then afford to give him a new contract.

Other people have pointed this out. Overlooked, however, was the improvement in the Yankee farm system. Many of the key players in their World Series run came from that system. And when they wanted a player on another team, they had the prospects to get him in a trade.

The formula worked. The Yankees made the playoffs every year fro 1995 until 2008 except for 1997. They won six AL pennants and four World Series.

When John Henry became owner of the Boston Red Sox, he called the Yankees "the evil empire," but quickly went over to the dark side himself. Boston now has two WS titles this decade and they did by pretty much the same formula used by the Yankees.

In my opinion, these two teams have forced the rest of the teams in the AL to work harder and spend more money. Obviously Tampa Bay spent only a fraction of what the Yankees did to win the pennant last year, so it's not only money. But when the big dogs are as good as they are, you must do something to compete. Therefore, I think that AL teams in general have been more aggressive in pursuing players than the NL teams. Eventually, the entire league has better talent.

Why don't the teams in the big NL markets do what the Yankees have done? Well, the Mets have tried, but I think their organization--from the owner on down--is basically incompetent. The Cubs have been owned by a media corporation who looked at the team as a money-maker, not something to invest in (and they are still the Cubs). The Dodgers changed ownership twice and has just recently reached a level of stability, which is paying off in having the best record in the NL.

I hope the playing field eventually levels, but for now, the AL has better talent and we have the Yankees to blame for that.

Not Again

The American League beat the National League in baseball's All Star Game last night. Again. That makes 13 in a row. This game was close and could have easily gone either way, but the same cannot be said of every year and a 13 game winning streak is more than coincidence.

President Obama visited the broadcast booth after throwing out the first pitch and asked the announcers about this disparity between the leagues.

(By the way, I felt sorry for the Prez. His position gets him into the locker rooms before the game, on the mound to throw the first pitch, and into the broadcast booth. But he doesn't get to do what he wants. Joe Buck asked if he could stay for another half-inning, and Obama had to check with someone off camera who said it was time to go. I'll bet he would have liked nothing more than to chat with the announcers and then go down to the locker room after the game to talk baseball and drink a beer. But when you're leader of the free world, someone else makes your schedule.)

Joe Buck rightly answered that the American League is better than the National League right now and cited the best evidence--the consistently superior record of AL teams over NL teams in inter-league play. As to why the AL is better, Tim McCarver chimed in with, "It's because of the designated hitter," and then went on with an illogical and incomprehensible reason why it makes a difference.

Tim McCarver is normally an idiot. He either throws out stuff like this or else belabors a point that even a third-grader can understand. (The pitcher has to be careful here with a 3-2 count on the batter. If he throws another ball, he'll walk him and because the bases are loaded a run will score and since we're in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game, the other tema will win. I exagerate only slightly.)

The designated hitter came into the American League in 1973. From 1960 to 1985 the National League beat them 26 out of 29 times. The DH sure didn't seem to help then.

His argument that the DH means better hitters in the AL (who don't have to play thge field) misses the point that there are designated-hitter type players in the NL as well. However, the teams just play them in the field and hold their breaths. Though his defense has improved, if Prince Fielder came up in the AL, he wouldn't even own a glove. The same for Ryan Braun, Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, etc.

The presence of the DH will not in itself account for the difference in talent level between the leagues. There must be something else and I will explain tomorrow what I think it is.

Talking in Code

Why do some businesses insists in using their internal code when they talk to the public? Recently I saw a commercial for the local electric utility saying that there were different types of CFL out their for my use. Since he was turning a lamp on and off, I figured he must be talking about light bulbs. So after wracking my brain, I decided that CFL must stand for Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb. A quick google search confirmed this.

Now I know what these bulbs are. We have several in our house and intend to buy more. But I never knew them by an acronym. I didn't just crawl out from under a rock and I am pretty aware of what's going on. If you mention that you just bought some new CFLs to your friends, how many will understand what you are referring to?

The St. Louis Metro (commuter train/bus system) spans both Missouri and Illinois. For some reason there are duplicate bus route numbers between the two state. There is a #1 route in Missouri and a #1 in Illinois. This confuses no one as they run nowhere near each other.

I am guessing that within Metro they account for the difference by making the Illinois routes 3-digit numbers starting with 5. So route 1 becomes 501, 12 becomes 512, etc. Nowhere, however, is this information communicated to the public (rightly so as it is not necessary). The timetables, signs at the bus stops, and sign on the buses say 1 or 12 or 16, not 501, 512, or 516.

So when the train operators announce their stops, do they insist on announcing that the particular stop services route 501, etc.? I understand that this is probably the "official" designation within Metro, but no one else understands it.

I doubt that the average person is actually confused by this (although I have seen some really stupid people on my commute), so maybe no harm is done. But why? Every passenger knows that 16 is the St. Clair bus. What possible purpose is served by the train operator calling it 516? Just another stupid business speaking internal code to the outside world.

The Rise and Fall of the Electric Sitar

You are probably aware of the instrument that is the foundation of much Indian music--the sitar. It's unique sound dominates the music that those of us in the West think of when we consider music from India.

Because of the large Indian population in London, the British were the first to become aware of this instrument. It was often heard on the soundtrack of films from England. The average pop music fan was introduced to the instrument by the Beatles when George Harrison played it on Norwegian Wood. It's distinctive sound blended nicely with John Lennon's acoustic guitar to make a dynamite single.

George used it on two other songs, Love You To and Within You Without You. These were not pop songs, per se, but were Harrison's interpretation of Indian music. It also appeared on Across the Universe and Tomorrow Never Knows.

Following the trend-setting mop-tops, many pop bands of the 60s included the sitar on a song or two. The most prominent was The Rolling Stone's song Paint It Black, where it was played by Brian Jones (the picture at left is of Ron Wood playing the sitar part for the Stones sometime more recently).

But then someone invented the electric sitar. As best as I can tell, there were two versions, one with extra drone strings and one tuned like a guitar (see the pictures below). Now you didn't have to sit on a rug to balance the huge instrument.

After quite a bit of use in the 60s and early 70s, the instrument seemingly disappeared from pop music (although it pops up once in a while, like in Tom Petty's Don't Come Around Here No More). But for a while, it provided a fun texture.

I am compiling a list of 60's/70's songs that used the sitar or electric sitar. Here is what I've come up with so far:

Box Tops--Cry Like a Baby
B.J. Thomas--Hooked on a Feeling
Stevie Wonder--Signed Sealed Delivered
The Animals--Monterey
Frieda Payne--Band of Gold
The Spiners--It's a Shame
The Lemon Pipers--My Green Tambourine
Scott McKenzie--San Francisco
John Fried--Judy in Disguise with Glasses
Steely Dan--Do It Again
The Cyrkle--Turn Down Day

There were plenty of songs on albums that were not hits that used the sitar, but I'm interested in the hits. Can you think of any more for my list?

Join My Crusade

I have had enough. It is time to end this. We must take up arms, if need be, to stop this once and for all. What is this menace to which I refer? The children's choirs singing the National Anthem and Take Me Out to the Ballgame at baseball games.

I know, I know. Why don't I torture puppies or say that Mom couldn't cook? But hear me out.

Everyone adores their kids. At certain ages, anything the little ones do is precious and fills a parent's heart with joy. But that's your kids. You don't necessarily feel that way about other people's children, do you? Every time we are in a doctor's waiting room and a little tyke is making lots of noise that seems to thrill the parent, I remind my own kids, "When you have children, remember that other people will not think they are as cute as you do."

So why should I, a paying customer who came to watch a baseball game, be forced to sit through a children's choir murder a song? Let's face it, kids can't sing well. If parents get thrilled by their children trying, save it for the school or church program. Let's not subject 40,000 strangers to it.

And besides, isn't the purpose of the National Anthem and Take Me Out to the Ballgame for the spectators to sing them? That's the tradition that I remember. Just give me an organ playing the songs and I'll sing along. Just spare me the "performance."

How We Are Measured

Let's continue to talk about how we refer to the recently departed. Last week, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair and a female companion were found shot to death in an apartment he and a friend owned. As it turns out, the woman was his girlfriend (he is married with four kids) and it appears that she killed him and then shot herself. I have two reactions to this story and to the reaction to the story:

1. Paul wrote: Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life (Galatians 6:7-8, NIV). This does not mean there is a direct event-by-event correlation of my sinful event to a bad thing that happens to me. It means that when you indulge in sin, somehow, someway, the results of sinfulness will come back on you. In McNair's case, it came back direct and hard. The latest news is that she was distraught that he might be seeing another girl (after all, why would she trust him--he is already a liar and cheater).

2. Several sportswriters have taken great pains to say that McNair's life should not only be measured by how he died or what he was doing that may have caused his death. Fair enough to a point--his life was more than the end of it. However, these same sportswriters seem to want to just sweep it under the rug, as in, let's just remember his football success, charity work, and how his teammates loved him. But you can't just ignore the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife and died as a result. His children will not have their daddy for the rest of their lives because he couldn't keep his pants zipped up. Harsh, but tell me I'm wrong.

So how should we remember him? As a very good football player, wonderful teammate, and questionable family man who brought on his own death by his adultery. If he was a mixture (by society's standards) of good and bad, then let's say he was a mixture.

Speaking of the Dead

Never speak ill of the dead. That old saying has never been more true than during the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. People all around the country keep making comments about how they will miss Michael, about how much he and his music meant to them.

Baloney. For the last 10-15 years, most of the comments made about him were about Wacko Jacko (as the tabloids used to call him). Whether or not he was actually guilty of molesting any kids, at minimum we know that he behaved inappropriately. Even fans of his music (do not count me among them) loved to make fun of his weirdness.

Now that he's dead? That all changes. Now all the strange behavior is pushed aside so we can talk about the Michael who touches lives.

Now if Michael Jackson truly made a difference in your life, fine. For consistency, though, I hope you weren't one of the one making jokes about him. If he didn't really touch your life, then shut up. Don't say that he did just because he is dead.

Need I Say More?

The memorial service for Michael Jackson is being held this morning at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Tomorrow, the Staples Center will be presenting the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus.

Patriotism and the Church

Last Friday, Tina and I are going to an Independence Day concert and fireworks show (they had one on the official day as well). An article in our denominational magazine last week got me to thinking about the concept of Christians and patriotism.

I am glad to be a citizen of the USA. I think, for a lot of reasons, that this is not only the greatest country on the planet right now, but perhaps ever.

But what is patriotism and how is that different than nationalism? A lot of Christians in Nazi Germany supported Hitler's evil regime because of their patriotism (thankfully, many did not).

American Evangelicals have no trouble criticizing our government's policy on abortion, but if a Christian speaks out against the war in Iraq, the same people will accuse him or her of a lack of patriotism. This is obviously inconsistent, but points to a deeper problem.

I think that many in our churches are Americans first and Christians second. Or maybe it's 1 and 1A. Oh, they would vehemently deny this, but their words and actions betray them.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Rather than encouraging people to be patriotic, perhaps we should spend more effort making sure they are fully-functioning members of the Kingdom of God.

Loving your country is fine, but let's not mix it with our love for God. They are not the same thing.

Evangelical Christians and Barack Obama

I am the only American Evangelical that I personally know who admits to voting for Barack Obama for president. While most of my friends use every opportunity to rip his administration, I remain cautiously optimistic that he will turn out to do some good for our country. Before you log off, at least listen to why I voted for him.

1. I have believed from the day that it started that the war in Iraq was a mistake. It does not meet what I understand to be the standard of a "just war." It was sold to Congress and the American people with lies. It has resulted in the deaths of thousands of our soldiers as well as multiple times that of Iraqi civilians. If we are ever able to establish a lasting government in Iraq (a big if), it is still questionable as to whether it was worth the cost. Therefore, I voted for Obama because I believed he would end the war long before John McCain would.

2. I believe that George Bush failed in so many ways as a leader. I don't doubt for a minute his dedication to Christ, but it takes more than that to run a country. While I believe that McCain would lead better than Bush, I thought that too many of their policies (tax cuts for the rich; shoot first, negotiate later) were similar.

3. I think it is time for Christians to stop being single-issue voters. That issue, of course, is abortion. Make no mistake, I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to this heinous practice. However, 30+ years of history has clearly demonstrated that the number of abortions is not going to be increased or decreased because of the occupant of the White House. (This is a discussion that deserves its own post one day.)

Does this mean I am unconcerned? By no means. The amount of money that the Obama administration is throwing at the economic crisis is frightening (of course, Bush was doing the same thing). I sincerely hope that Republicans can take control of at least one house of Congress in 2010 to provide some balance to the Democrat's agenda.

Rather than just bashing our president and his policies, I think we would do better to be supportive of that which we can support and gain listening ears in Washington.

Restoring What the Thief Takes Away

Recently, I bragged about my incredible Martin J-40. Today I want to tell you the story of how I came to acquire it. Though I learned to play guitar when I was about 12, I played junk guitars my whole life. In my early thirties I realized that this was not just a teen phase and that I needed a real guitar. So I saved money that I got from my dad for birthdays, honorariums that were given for weddings and funerals (I did a surprising amount of the latter over a couple of years), and other odd funds that would come my way for my dream instrument. Doing no research (my bad), I decided on the ubiquitous Martin D-28.

I bought it at a Guitar Center (good people if you want an electric, acoustics not so much). I was thoroughly happy with it and played it for about three years. I was given a subscription to Acoustic Guitar magazine and began understanding more about these instruments. Though I was in no way unhappy with my D-28, I decided that if I ever needed to replace it, I would look for something like an HD-28 (scalloped braces).

We planned a special worship service on a Friday night. We used all the musician and many of the singers in the church and even brought in an outside keyboard player for it. Our Thursday night rehearsal went great and we were excited for the next evening.

Everything was left set up as we exited the church that night. To my utter dismay, however, when the church custodians came in to clean the next morning, the church had been burglarized. Among the missing items was, of course, my Martin D-28!

I was bummed. Even worse than not having it was the realization that some kid was sitting in his room not knowing what a quality instrument he had and playing "Stairway to Heaven" on it. Badly.

I borrowed an instrument and the worship service went great. Next came dealing with the insurance company. Actually, they were great. All of my missing items (which included a bass and some speakers) were covered, so the adjuster told me to go shopping.

This time I was prepared and ended up at a wonderful guitar shop that sadly doesn't exist any longer. This establishment had forty Martin guitars for sale. It was a guitar geek's candy store. After playing several HD-28s, the proprietor suggested I look at the J-40. He quoted the Chris Martin "dreadnought of the nineties" line and pointed out the different shape and tonal qualities. I was hooked. I played a half-dozen of this model. The tone of one was a bit muffled, but the others were bright and booming. One instrument in particular stood out, however. Others who happened to be in the store agreed that this was "the pick of the litter."

I have played this guitar for fifteen years, mostly in worship-leading. The devil--a thief and a liar--tried to silence praise by stealing my instrument, but God restored it to his glory. And the irony is that I ended up with a better instrument to give praise to God.

Gay Marriage Suggestion

As a Christian who believes in what the Bible clearly teaches, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. For that matter so is gay sex. Not to mention any sexual relations outside of one man-one woman marriage, whether hetero- or homosexual.

The current trend in this country is toward acceptance of gay marriage. As the percentage of born-again Christians decreases, I think it may be inevitable that one day gay marriage will be legalized across the country. We can sign petitions, elect the right people, and vote on ballot initiatives, but without a true revival that sweeps the nation, I think we are only delaying it.

Interestingly, at the same time that homosexuals are fighting for the right to legally marry, heterosexual couples are living together without being married at increasing rates. It is ironic that the only people who want to get married anymore are conservative Christians and homosexuals.

I would love to hear how others react to this idea. How does it make you feel? Let me know.

So here is my two-pronged radical solution: (1) Allow gays to legally marry. (2) Have churches get out of the marriage business. When a Christian couple decides to get married, they go down to the courthouse like everyone else and get it done simply--that gets the legalities covered. At some later point, the church can solemnize the relationship in a much simpler manner than we do now. It could be done after service or even as part of the Sunday service as many of us do baby dedications.

In this way, we would truly separate the civil and religious aspects of marriage rather than mixing them as we do now. Gays could get legally married with all the legal, property, and taxation rights that go with it. Since they are already living in their sinful state, why do we care which legal rights are attached? However, only heterosexual Christians could have this legal union made holy by their Bible-believing church.

Think about it. Our traditional church weddings did not come down to us through the Bible or apostolic tradition. They are more indebted to high society and liturgical churches. I personally think that way too much money and time are invested in wedding ceremonies anyway. That kind of money could be better spent as a down payment on a house or something.

I realize I am dreaming. Wedding traditions are so ingrained in our culture (especially American church culture--notice I didn't say it was Christian) that the vast majority of churches would never accept a proposal like this. On the other hand, maybe I'm just ahead of my time. If the day comes that gay marriage is not only allowed, but clergy are required to not discriminate against them, perhaps we would want to consider such a step.

Understand that I am not denigrating Biblical marriage at all. Rather, my proposal separates the civil from the religious and solves a host of problems that are coming upon us, whether we like it or not. I know I have not considered all the ramifications of this, so I invite comments. We're going to have to something different someday, so why not discuss it now?

Generation Gap

Within an hour of the news of Michael Jackson's death, my wife picked up my 16-year old daughter and her friends from the mall. They had heard the news, but it was clear that it had not fazed them in the least. Tina was surprised. Wasn't he the biggest pop superstar of recent memory?

I reminded her that Michael's biggest hits were long before Katie was born and that he had not been relevant in quite a while. While Katie knew the big hits, they were oldies to her. She never watched MTV when they played music videos or saw the famous Motown special. She had no frame of reference in which to place Michael Jackson as a musical artist that she would care about.

Katie is the same age as Tina was when Elvis Presley died. To Tina, he was an old guy that her older cousins listened to. He had not had a hit in the time that she listened to music. When I reminded her of this, she understood why Katie and her friends were unaffected.

One generation's newest and freshest star is the next generation's relic. The Preacher was right, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Music and the Movies Continued

Actor-writer-director Christopher Guest has made several "mockumentaries," that is, fictional documentaries. With much help from Rob Reiner, Michael McKeen, Harry Shearer, and Eugene Levy, he has created a very funny body of work.

The two musical endeavors are This Is Spinal Tap, chronicling an eighties metal band, and A Mighty Wind, about a reunion of sixties folk artists. I find both hilarious, not only for the comedy itself, but also for the musical scenes that are portrayed.

But what is especially great about them is the music. While many of the songs contain humor that mocks the genre (think Big Bottom or Never Did No Wanderin'), the fact remains that most of the songs are really very well written. For example, though the lyrics are stupid both Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight and The Majesty of Rock by Spinal Tap are killer tunes and arrangements. Likewise A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow from A Mighty Wind is a song that could have easily been a hit.

But the quirkiest music movie of them all is O Brother Where Art Thou. A re-telling of the Odyssey set in the 1930s, the story is a typical Cohen Brothers oddity. What makes it interesting for this subject, however, is its use of old-timey music, most of it actually old and a couple of modern tunes written like old songs.

Though a couple of old recordings are used, most songs are performed by more modern artists like Alison Krauss and the members of her band, EmmyLou Harris, and John Hartford. T-Bone Burnett did a marvelous job of selecting good strong songs and good performers. Some of the songs have no particular relationship to the plot, but others fit in interesting ways. One of my favorites is the sirens singing Didn't Leave Nothing But the Baby.

The movie has been on CMT recently and I have rewatched it several times. If somehow you never saw it, you really need to give it a try.

Music and the Movies

Music has been an important part of movies since they added sound. The film The Jazz Singer(the first full-length film with both music and spoken dialogue) contained six songs and music was instrumental to the plot. There were movies in the thirties that were nothing more than filmed records of elaborate musical stage shows.

Then came my least favorite type of movie, the musical. A story told with standard dialogue for the most part, then interrupted by someone breaking out in a song that relates to the moment somehow. I can accept unreality in movies, but I just find the the idea that a person or group of people will spontaneously break into song (and maybe dance) so ridiculous as to not appreciate the art form. Further, music from these types of shows are normally of a character so different from that of the particular era that I don't enjoy much of the music either.

(Of course, there are exceptions. Fiddler on the Roof has such a strong story and good songs. On the whole, however, I don't like them.)

There are a host of movies, however, that feature music in a way that makes sense. I wrote last week about That Thing You Do. A movie about a (fictional) rock band ought to have a lot of music in it and this one does. A Hard Day's Night was terrific and Help was okay.

One of my favorite movies from the seventies is Phantom of the Paradise. A truly quirky and campy movie, it contains quite a few songs, mostly parodies of certain styles. Parodies without quality is easy. SNL does it all the time and the results are quite forgettable. The parodies in Phantom, however, are really quite good and listenable. Fox Movie Channel has been playing it quite a bit recently, but I have not been able to find the music online.

Tomorrow: Mockumentaries and the quirkiest music movie of them all.

Jon & Kate

Was anyone really surprised that Jon and Kate are "separating" (code word for divorce--there is no chance that either one of them are going to do what is necessary to put this marriage back together)? I don't even watch the show and I knew it was inevitable.

Flashback to the early seventies when PBS broadcast a show called "An American Family" which chronicled the daily life of the Loud family of Santa Barbara. During the filming, the wife and mother Pat Loud told her husband Bill that she wanted a divorce. I don't know how long filming went on (the show itself was edited down to 12 weeks) so it's hard to say just how much the intrusiveness of filming contributed to their break-up. But it obviously didn't help.

I haven't seen but a couple of minutes of the show (most of my info comes from my wife) so I am not taking sides between Jon and Kate in this mess. Neither do I think that it is the scrutiny of the gossip magazines (though they are vile) that caused the breakup. All they did was chronicle a marriage that was on the rocks already.

According to a clip I heard, the couple absolved the TV show of an blame in their problems. Of course they said that!!! What else could they say about the people who have been responsible for making them rich, if unhappy, these past five years?

There is no guarantee that this marriage would have survived anyway; the divorce rate is quite high. But consider these factors: (1) Though each of them has their faults and quirks, how does being on TV affect that? For example, would she be so annoyingly controlling (as I am told) if she didn't feel the need to present the family in such a good light for TV? (2) The pressures of constantly filming a TV show in your house must be immense. Pressure often breaks relationships. (3) With the TV show buying them whatever they want, they have obviously lost touch with real life. (4) Can someone tell me if Jon has a job or not? How can he afford to spend so much time away from the family with other women if he is working? Idle hands etc...

So if the show is at fault, how do families like the Osbornes or Kardashians or Simmonses survive? Easy. They are not ordinary people. They are already comfortable in the public eye. They have some experience in manipulating their image. And those shows are much more scripted than they want you to know. I stopped on the Gene Simmons show for a moment the other day and as they were sitting in the kitchen someone said, "We should ask (whoever) about that." Two seconds later the person in question enters the kitchen door. Tell me that was a coincidence.

I feel bad for this couple. Even if she is a shrew and even if he is an adulterer, divorce is a painful thing to go through. And they can point fingers at all the people or circumstances they want. But I will always be convinced that the seed for the end of their marriage were sown the day they invited the cameras into their house.

Think about your family. Could your marriage or relationships with your children survive the ever-present camera? As committed as I am to my family, I don't know that I could.

It's Not the Heat...

I used to love the heat. When I was much younger, I remember playing softball for hours under the warm southern California sun. When I lived in New Mexico, I had no trouble with the repeated 90-plus degree days that occupied my summer.


Then I moved to the Midwest and learned the meaning of hot. Low 90s coupled with stifling humidity is awful. The air should not feel solid like this. Walking outside from an air-conditioned building is like slamming into a wall. A hot one.

We live in a 100 year-old house. It has air conditioning, but with the antiquated duct-work it doesn't get upstairs where the bedrooms are. So we turn it off and open the windows. After six nights of sleeping poorly, I'm tired.

The 10-day forecast is for daytime temps in the 90s and nighttime in the 70s. I think we are going to have to set up the air mattress downstairs and sleep there.

The World Needs Nerds

In an earlier post, I confessed to being a nerd. As I said then, I am not ashamed or proud; it's just what I am. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Let's set some definitions.

To me, the biggest difference between a nerd and a geek is, where both are extremely interested in things that are not cool, the geek also has no social skills. These are the guys (and gals) who can't get a date, annoy everyone about their particular subject, and just have trouble acting normal. The characters on The Big Bang Theory are a bit over-the-top, but people like them do exist.

A nerd, however, is still normal. He or she can talk about sports or politics or the latest movies. He still obsesses over books or fantasy baseball or science. It's just that he can talk to people and have normal relationships with others. This might be simplistic, but it's my definition.

Both nerds and geeks also have above average intelligence. Let's face it, a gold ol' boy who is really into NASCAR as well as beer and fishing is not what most people think of when they think of a nerd. He might be just as fixated and annoying about his subject, but society considers NASCAR mainstream. Besides, how much intelligence does it take to watch cars go around and around and around.

I bring this up because, as I write this, the American Theological Library Association is meeting on our campus and I am manning the library as they roam around. I think that being a bit of a nerd is a prerequisite for being a librarian. You have to either be overly interested in books or a particular subject or both.

The stereotypical librarian is also a geek. Somewhat anal-retentive about policies and being quiet. And while I have met a couple of geeks here today, most are friendly and normal. They are just really into being good theological librarians. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Without nerds, you wouldn't have a computer, or access to good books, or professors to teach in college. So before you make fun of them, learn to appreciate them.

Mortality Stinks

Yesterday I had an appointment with my cardiologist. The visit went fine; my medications are keeping my cholesterol and triglyceride levels at good levels. The conversation was positive and upbeat. Still I had a miserable time.

If everything went so well, why was it so bad? Because I was at the cardiologist!!! Since I had a heart-attack four years ago (mostly due to bad dietary habits), I will have to continue to see a cardiologist for the rest of my life.

Getting older is no fun. My body doesn't work the way it used to, what's left of my hair is turning gray, and I have to get stronger reading glasses. I guess I'm wiser than when I was younger, but I still don't like the way I feel physically.

I used to tell myself on my birthday every year that I am only in my forties; that's still young. Then I hit fifty. No getting around it; I am now middle-aged.

I know all the sayings: Getting older beats the alternatives, etc. However, I have decided that this cannot be God's original plan. The wearing out of our bodies must be a result of the fall.

Obviously I will press on; I'm just cranky today because I have a cardiologist.

The Music of the Movie

Yesterday I wrote about That Thing You Do. Among the many reasons for enjoying the movie, I really love the music. I am a sucker for 60s-styled pop/rock performed with modern recording equipment and techniques (see Phil Keaggy's Sunday's Child album from 1988).

The song, That Thing You Do, is performed--at least in part--ten times : in the garage (just the ending, original slow version), at the talent show, at the restaurant (partial), recording in the church (partial), on the radio, in Pittsburgh (partial), Columbus fair segueing into radio studio (partial), Wisconsin fair (partial), KMPC radio studio (partial), and the Hollywood Television Showcase. If you don't like the song, it's probably too many times, but since eight of the ten are just snippets, it works for me.

In the story, Jimmy originally writes the song as a ballad--a forlorn guy lamenting the love that he never had with a girl who is not even aware of his feelings. Done slowly, the words and mood of the song match. When sped up by Guy (who was clearly bored with the original version), the song becomes a dance-along party number. It's funny to see the girls in the audience at the television taping smiling as they dance and sing along to the song. This is not happy music!

This is one of the things that the movie-makers get right about 60s pop hits. The music to the Beatles' I'm a Loser is much to cheery for the lyrics. Strawberry Fields Forever was changed from a wistful song about childhood into a psychedelic ditty. The success of That Thing You Do (both in the movie and in 1996) is that--in the words of Mr. White--it's snappy. If you are not familiar with this song, here is a snippet:

The movie contains three other songs that the Wonders perform. A running gag consists of Jimmy's constant worries about the song that was the flip side of That Thing You Do--All My Only Dreams. This is another ballad (Jimmy's preferred style) along the lines of All I Have to Do Is Dream. He is worried that it didn't get the attention it needed during recording, while everyone else thinks it was fine, the implication being that no one else liked it that much. A partial performance is shown in the restaurant they perform in for a while. It is a fairly predictable song, but nice. Here is a snippet:

Also heard in the restaurant is a short bit of Little Wild One. This is oddest track. Not written by the team that created the other songs for The Wonders, it was written by the members of a band called Gigolo Aunts. It seems to have been written for the movie as the band's discography does not list them as ever having recorded it. The leader of Gigolo Aunts also wrote the music for Josie and the Pussycats and has written for other movies and TV shows.

Musically, it is a nice bouncy tune. Lyrically, it seems to me to be a bit of a spoof of 60's songs. It extols the virtues of a girl who is, shall we say, easy. Other girls tease, she pleases. In the chorus, the protagonist declares his feelings for his girl, but when he wants to get wild, he knows who to go see. Pop songs of that era never praised the girl who "puts out", though they might forgive her if she comes back. An odd choice for the movie. Here is a snippet:

The final song that we see the Wonders perform--and in its entirety--is Dance With Me Tonight. In the movie, Lenny is the lead singer and The Bass Player is quite animated in his on-stage performance. It captures the typical party song of the day. Here is a snippet:

There are two other songs that appear in the closing credits and soundtrack worth noting. First is a song credited to The Wonders called I Need You (That Thing You Do). With that parenthetical title, it makes me wonder if they had the movie title first and that this was an early attempt at a song to match. Though I love this song (it's probably my favorite of them all), it would not have been a good choice to be the title track. The electric twelve-string always works for me. Another snippet:

Last is She Knows it, credited to The Heardsmen. According to the story arc told in the final credits, this is a band that Jimmy formed after The Wonders that made three gold albums for Play-Tone Records. This was the original pun-name that Jimmy came up with for The Wonders before Faye came up with The One-ders. This song captures some the non-sequitors that existed in 60s pop music where in one breath the guy has the girl but in the next he still has to win her. There is a nice phasing effect in the bridge (probably too early for 1964, but cool nonetheless). Here is a snippet:

All of these songs are eminently listenable. Rather than buy the entire album (which contains stuff I'm not interested in), I just bought the six songs from Wal-Mart.com (I assume iTunes and others have it as well). If you like these snippets and this style of music, you might get these tunes for yourself.