Disneyland!

And California Adventure too.

The best Christmas present I received from a student was two complimentary tickets to the Happiest Place on Earth. Last Wednesday, Jonathan and I set out to enjoy a day there. We were actually expecting to only be able to get into CA Adventure with these tickets, but were pleasantly surprised to learn that they acted as park-hoppers. We started out at CA Adventure:


Our first stop was the Tower of Terror. And this is what it makes you feel like:


After also riding Soarin' Over California, we decided to brave the crowds over at Disneyland. Here's Jonathan on Main Street:


And here we are in front of the castle:


Since there were about a million people there, and we hadn't paid to get in, we just decided to take it easy and not stress over the crowds. So, we went on some of the smaller rides, and just enjoyed being there, not wanting to spend the whole day waiting in line. Here's a picture of us enjoying the Mark Twain after dark.


We also got to see a pretty neat fireworks show after which the streets were sprinkled with "snow." A very fun day, indeed!

Oh, the perks of being a teacher.

Big News!

Harry Potter VII's title has been announced! The release date, unfortunately, has not. However, it's still exciting to hear the title. It is...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

CNN's Article

What's it mean? Hallows brings to mind All Hallows Eve, and that brings to mind death - which isn't surprising as the title's adjective (adverb masquerading as an adjective?) is deathly. Hallowed really means "revered" or "set apart as holy" according to dictionary.com, which sounds about right, though that's a verb and this is apparently a noun. I'm assuming a hallow is a place that is hallowed. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Of course, that might make deathly an adverb after all, and hallows a verb. That's kind of awkward, since you're using an article beforehand. It can be done, though. I could, say, write a story called Bob Cratchet and the Christmas Merryings, and that would make sense, no?

How can deathly alter it in a meaningful way? Might it be speaking of the location of Harry's parents' deaths? That's a location he intended to visit at the end of the last book. Will his final encounter with Voldemort occur there? Will it refer to how people treat Harry after (if) he dies? Does it refer to how people worship Voldemort now? Perhaps it's something to do with Horcruxes - are horcruxes a deathly hallow? Do they hallow Voldemort?

Deathly sounds negative to me - the connotation is dark and morbid. Voldemort seems to be the sort of person who is hallowed in a deathly way. Of course, that's become Voldemort causes death, not because he is death (though he's that, too, in a way - though he flees it interminably he hovers at the edge of it through his evil). His chosen telos is to never die, though.

Another possibility might be that death should be revered and accepeted. Voldemort shuns it, but we know that it's not the greatest possible evil that can befall someone (see Dumbledore in Pheonix).

Oh man, this is so exciting. I'm geeking out over here! It's almost like reading a page from the book.

Sundown Towns

I've never heard of these before, but they're a real tragic element of American history. Apparently there was a collection of towns during the post-reconstruction era that prohibited people of color (any non-white, sometimes including Jews) from being in a town after dark. These were called Sundown Towns. These towns also used active or passive means to dissuade people from living in certain communities, also. Many, many towns attempted a maintain a solely white populace. It's pretty surprising.

Dr. James Leowen, a sociologist from the University of Vermont, published a book about this in which he estimates that the number of towns discriminating in their choice of residents through various social pressures may have been 10,000 or more - he thinks perhaps the majority of cities in the US. Also, these towns were mostly in the North or West - not in former slave states.

He has a website set up with a list of all the towns that are possible Sundown towns listed by state.

So, I thought, I'll check and see if Santa Ana had this kind of problem in the past. Turns out Santa Ana is listed as a definite sundown town (though it's also listed as "surely not" at the moment: unsurprising). In 1906, the city council had Chinatown burnt to the ground because they found one leper living there. Hundreds of people came to watch the show. That's very sad.

La Mirada isn't on here because it's a very young city. Buena Park is listed as possible - this is determined by the lack of Black people known to be living in the city prior to the 70s (after the Federal Government mandated fair housing). Only one Black person was listed as living in the city during the 1960s. La Habra is listed as probable because they consistently had only four or six black people living in their town from the 30s through 60s.

Very sad.

Rowleys!

HMS Rowley was an actual ship during World War II. It was an American built destroyer serving with the British navy through Lend Lease. It wasn't sunk! but it was scrapped at the war's end.

Also, I had a great great aunt who served as a missionary in China. I'm not sure her last name was Rowley, but I think it must have been because here's Grace Rowley. It's not much, but it's pretty cool to see a family member displayed in a university's Chinese study collection! Too bad the exhibit was back in 2003.

Cold!

Walking to work in the cold is an interesting proposition. Living here in Southern California, I don't really expect to have to ever do it.

When I got to work today it was 41, though. The night before last was at least a record 39 (the nearest thermometer for weather.com is in Fullerton). I remember the occasional near freeze when I was a kid, but it's still November and just the week before last it was in the 90s. The over all result is that the walk to work has become nippy! So nippy, in fact, that when I stepped into the warm office, I pulled off my wool cap and had to consciously resist the urge to stomp the snow off my feet. We probably won't have a white Christmas this year, but boy it feels like it.

Curious

The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently published an article discussing an economist's recent book claiming that religious people give more than liberal people, and thus, conservatives actually give a greater share of their income to charity than liberals. Here's the article: "Charity's Political Divide"

The general idea:

"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

This is encouraging because people who support small government need to give to the poor. After all, if it's not the government's job, someone else needs to do it. Hopefully that somebody else will be the Church. Not that this means we have done enough. No, I agree with Ralph Nader, quoted in the article above,

"Everyone should be giving more to charity."

A Good Start

All the English teachers know it. They tell their students over and over again. You've got to have a hook at the beginning of a story to keep your readers reading. This is something I've lately been appreciating about Dickens as I'm reading his Christmas Books. He's really got it down. Here are some examples:

The opening lines of A Christmas Carol:

"Marley was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it. And Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change for anything he chose to put his hand to.
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Mind! I don't mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country's done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail."

C'mon! That's a good beginning!

And then there are the opening lines of The Cricket on the Hearth:

"The kettle began it! Don't tell me what Mrs. Peerybingle said. I know better. Mrs. Peerybingle may leave it on record to the end of time that she couldn't say which of them began it; but I say the kettle did. I ought to know, I hope! The kettle began it, full five minutes by the little waxy-faced Dutch clock in the corner, before the Cricket uttered a chirp....Contradict me and I'll say ten."

Don't you just want to read that story?

One more. I just began the last Christmas Book, The Haunted Man, this morning. The opening lines:

"Everybody said so.
Far be it from me to assert that what everybody says must be true. Everybody is, often, as likely to be wrong as right. In the general experience, everybody has been wrong so often, and it has taken in most instances such a weary while to find out how wrong, that the authority is proved to be fallible. Everybody may sometimes be right; 'but that's no rule,' as the ghost of Giles Scroggins says in the balled.
The word, Ghost, recalls me.
Everybody said he looked like a haunted man. The extent of my present claim for everybody is, that they were so far right. He did."

Ok. Don't you just want to read that story? Me too. I think I'll do that right now. Good-bye.

What the Dickens?

The above phrase has been making me chuckle for a while now. Why? Because I am immersing myself in Charles Dicken's fiction - that's why. Inspired by Libby's reading of the Christmas Carol to her class, I decided to remedy my own woeful exposure to the Victorian great and pick up the Dickens books we happened to own, and then I even read them.

I must say I am pleasantly surprised. My last exposure to Dickens was David Copperfield, which I read in 9th Grade. The result was that I aced the class (I got extra credit by the page!) without even having to worry about the final. I got like 30% of the possible credit in the class from David Copperfield. That was pretty nice. The problem was the book was very long, and I remember being fairly bored with it by the end.

So, I didn't really develop a taste for Dickens that read-through, you see? This may be an argument against exposing people to great fiction before they're ready, though that's not clearly correct. It merits some thought, though.

Anyway, here at 23, I can't get enough of Oliver Twist or Great Expectations (our two tomes here at home). They are rivetting fiction, if a little wordy at times. I found you could sort of skim some of the long descriptive passages and keep the plot flowing quickly.

Oliver Twist has been made into quite a few movies. I saw Roman Polanski's version last year, and I enjoyed it very much, and I know I've seen at least one live action movie besides that in my childhood. I really liked Oliver and Company when I was a kid. I was, however, totally not prepared for the actual book. I really didn't know how it was going to end! It was really exciting.

Thematically, it is harsh. It's much harsher in the narrator's tone than Great Expectations - perhaps because it's an earlier novel. The beginning was especially vindictive toward the English system of caring for the poor, and it was so vitrolic that I found it hard to actually countenance. Never the less, as uncomfortable as such intense sentiments can be, that uncomfortableness is healthy in urging self-examination. It's remarkable to me that someone can write criticism particularly aimed at a unique system of social care, and hit home in the hearts of people completely removed from that system. That's a sign of good writing.

I especially liked Nancy's dilemma with Bill and repentance. There were powerful moments of potential redemption and doom, and while Nancy ends up alright, I imagine, you cannot but hurt for her. Her heroic work on behalf of Oliver is wonderful.

Another surprising element of the novel was Fagin's complicitness in the death of Nancy. He always struck me as a funny, happy, kind character in the movies - but in the book he is a truly evil man with happy accidents. You can and ought to pity him, but he is as guilty as sin. I also didn't know he was a Jew, which seems a little anti-semitic.

I also love how the conflict in the middle of the novel is driven by the fear of Oliver's entering into a life of crime and sin. The conflict is between good and evil, and the cost is a young boy's soul. That is a theme to benefit our culture! Morals matter, per se, and I really cared that he did not become a thief. This is only a problem of course, if being a thief is a very bad thing for Oliver to become, and I think the tension arises directly from our moral intuition. Thus, it's amazingly powerful, and great literature!

Great Expectations was very different than Oliver Twist. For one, it was written by the main character, and you can tell from the tone how he will turn out. In other words, he's reflecting as an educated gentleman on the fortunes of a young boy that begins as a blacksmith's apprentice. It turns out there are surprises in store for him on the way, but the fact that he is the one writing the book helps to retain a healthy love for the character even through his worst moments. And, it will be clear to any reader, he has some foul moments.

The most obviously wonderful themes about Great Expectations (of which I had no preconceived notions at all) was the way that the weakest give the most away. The benefactor of Pip is the most obvious (by the way, Phil, you should read the book if only for the main character's name) example, but there are others. For example, it's Oliver that helps the convict. Pip never receives assistance from his richest acquaintances, but all of his poor friends and family will give anything to him, even though he is not deserving.

It is teaching that class is indivisive to actual human nature. What I mean is that, though you can be poor, if you are a good human, you have many more riches than the richest gentleman. This is of course a romantic ideal about human nature, but the story is persuasive regarding its truth. Virtue is the best thing that can be had, and it comes at a cheap price for Joe, Biddy, and even Abel. It comes at a high price for Pip and Estella, but this price is not the weight of money, but of experience.

Humility thus arises as the highest virtue. I think that's the most important point the book might be trying to make. Look, if you think you're more than you are (a human being) you are not more or less than anyone else in th eyes of God (though unmentioned, this seems the clearest way to express what I mean - that they are equal on an eternal plane).

So, anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the books. I have more, but this is already quite long. Adios!

Thanksgiving!

It's less than a week to Thanksgiving, now. That's good because I really like Thanksgiving.

For one, there's a lot of good food. I can't get enough of turkey, gravy, mashed potatoes, green bean casserole, or stuffing. Really, I can't. That's why I generally eat too much of it for my stomach to handle.

Secondly, there's the giving thanks. I like the hymns, the harvest memorials, the happy people filled with gratitude. I like the life I lead and the gifts God's given me.

Thirdly, Thanksgiving is Christmas-season Eve. I don't go shopping the next day, but I do start the Christmas music the next day. Christmas season is a happy and glorious time of year, and I can't wait to immerse myself in it completely. That can happen this year on the 24th of November. Hurrah!

Really, the last reason is why I'm really looking forward to Thanksgiving.

Happy Anniversary to Us!

One year ago today, Jonathan and I entered into marital bliss. So, we took a little trip down to San Diego this weekend, for the purpose of celebrating this wonderful thing.

On Friday, we saw Polar Bears at the San Diego Zoo:


On Saturday, we walked around San Diego, and saw the U.S.S. Midway.

And then we went to Balboa Park. This is a fountain with a botanical thingy in the background:

There were really cool buildings, like this one:

And this is a really cool guy:

On Sunday, we stopped by Dana Point on our way home. This is the Pilgrim. Isn't she perty?

Hawk Migration

This is something I would like to see: a river of hawks so thick they look like gnats ina swarm. Apparently it's a phenomenon you can observe every year in Veracruz, Mexico.

E-bird has an article written about it that helps incite enthusiasm.

Here's a blog dedicated to the phenomenon: Veracruz Hawk Watch. It has some photos from the Spring migration that give an idea of the immensity of this thing.

Remember, Remember

We commemorated this Guy Fawkes Day the only REAL way there is: we got together with some friends and burned a "Guy" in the fire pit. You can see more pictures from the event (and a bunch of other silly park pictures) here.

Remember, remember the 5th of November
Gunpowder Treason and plot.
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot...

All We Want For Christmas:

World Peace and Puppies!

Several people have asked us for a comprehensive Christmas list. Here it is:

You can find my wish list here.

You can find Jonathan's wish list here.

If you're looking to buy something for the two of us as a couple, here are some things we like to do together:

1. We like to go to the movies.

2. We like to eat at restaurants like California Pizza Kitchen, the Old Spaghetti Factory, the Olive Garden, Mimi's Cafe, Black Angus, Claim Jumper... you get the picture.

3. We could use some stemware.

4. We like taking trips to Hawaii. We've actually never done that before, but we would like it.

Merry Christmas!

Directions:

Please look at the pictures starting at the bottom, and ending with the egg-hatching business.

We both did.

And we hatched out of eggs.

And sun bitterns...

And scarlet ibises, and white faced whistling ducks....

We saw spider monkeys...

On Holloween, Jonathan and I spent the day at the Santa Ana Zoo.

Saintly Intercession

Two posts in one lunch period? Not possible!

I want to put down in writing some of my musings on the difficult subject of whether or not it is admissable, beneficial or appropriate to ask for intercession from those who have already departed. It is an issue upon which I have, I believe, a fairly open mind. It is also an issue against which I have deeply ingrained habitual opposition.

I've already overcome much of my personal anti-Catholic instincts, however. I feel no qualms regarding veneration in general. I can genuflect in good conscience, I affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist, I can venerate the Eucharist and the Crucifix without fear of idolatry.

However... prayer to saints remains a sticking point. Here are some of the issues I feel that I'm facing:

1) Is it possible for saints to hear you?

There's obviously no clear Biblical word on the abilities of the departed to relate to those left behind. There are some principles in scripture that affirm a unity of the Church that goes past the grave (Hebrews 11, for example: a cloud of witnesses), but that doesn't entail hearing, does it? The case doesn't seem very firm.

On the pro side, Dante argues in the Commedia that the saints can hear the prayers of those on earth because, in partaking of the beautific vision, they are privy to the thoughts of God. God can see earth, and they can now see earth through Him. This is a breathtakingly beautiful image, and in some sense I am sure it's true, but an image alone may not be a sufficeint argument (though, then again, it may be!).

2) What would I benefit if a saint could hear me?

Would another Christian (whom I know by reputation and tradition to have progressed more fully into Christ than I myself) be able to help me in some way that God could not? As a Christian, I am admitted through the torn veil of the temple and into the very holy of holies itself. Though my union with God is incomplete because of my fleshly impurities, God can still hear every prayer I offer, and will work in my life for good. This question seems the most powerful to me. At worst, the practice might sell God short on his omniopotence, and at best just seems unnecessary.

The best argument against this seems to be the experiences of those who have requested intercession, and had their prayers answered. It's not totally strange to talk to another Christian and ask his help in something. They can even work miracles through the Holy Spirit. The one prayer I've ever offered to a saint was answered, but I also offered it directly to God.

3) Deutoronomy 18: 10 - 11

I've heard this passage urged as condemnatory of prayers to the dead in general. Here's the passage:

"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead."

This would hinge on what "calls up the dead" means. If it means any contact with dead people, then obviously we'd best avoid it. A point urged against that interpretation is that, in the transfiguration, there was a moment of contact between the living and the dead. Perhaps it means only necromancy, or calling the dead back from beyond the grave. Praying to saints obviously doesn't involve this, though.

This objection is obviously the most potentially damaging, but it doesn't seem effective here.

Ok, so there are my thoughts for now. Chime in if you wish.

Father David Joins Blogroll

I don't know if you noticed, but I added Father David to the sidebar a couple of weeks ago. He's only recently began blogging, but his posts are already among the best reading you can find on the internet. He's a godly, humble gentlemen, and a great example of Christ-likeness to our parish. This blog offers insights into the life of someone progressing along the path of sanctification, as well as into the nature of that path - human life.

Every post is worth reading - really, truly - but these are some of my favorites (after all, even U2 put out a greatest hit compilation):

A Little Big of Green - Great Romantic-type experience in the city.
Lord, Let Me Know My End - Involves spontaneous combustion.
Cannibalism - One sin he hasn't heard confessed.
Jawbone of an Ass - A ringing challenge to faithfulness and determination against apostasy. (Best of the best!)
Ave Maria, Gratia Plena - Mediation and apology for the Holy Virgin: worth reading even if you have trouble with the idea because of its style; it could pass for St. Augustine (I literally did a double take at one point) if not for his references to current events.

Where to Go?

Most orthodox Anglicans that live in the United States are alarmed at the spiritual state of their church (The Episcopal Church). We are worried about what is happening, and we want it to turn around in the right direction. Because of the continued obstinate adherence to heterodoxy on the part of our leaders, however, many feel that they themselves ought to leave. There are people in our parish who are considering this.

I am sympathetic to their concerns. It hurts to be involved with a body of unfaithful Christians. It rends our soul and destroys our witness to the world.

However, schism is dangerous. It is like a rock that you roll down a cliff - bouncing ever higher, fragmenting into smaller and smaller pieces until only dust remains.

Exhibit A: Those who have already attempted to solve the problem with the Episcopal Church by leaving. Whatever happened to them? A Touchstone editor, Dr. William Tighe, lets us know in this elucidatory post: Anglican Taxonomy.

Such evidence confirms me in my resolution to be schismed from, rather than to schism - let the Anglican church provide us with a new, orthodox arm for North America, and I'll be happy to join it. Until then, I don't see how it's better to be in one of these unfaithful bodies (unfaithful in their persistance in disunity).

The finished product...ta da!

I mean...LOOK at it.

Look at that knife!

That's not to say he didn't enjoy it!

Jonathan did a lot of the carving.

I took my turn at scooping out the goo!

Pumpkin fun with the Rowleys

AFTER!

Before....

Ha ha!

You may not have noticed that I posted a post about Harry Potter. I did, but it's before the Salamander post. How? I posted the salamander post first, but I wrote the Harry Potter post before it, and saved the draft. I only posted it a couple days ago.

I wish that Blogger actually would have posted it after it, but there you go. As things stand, I can totally screw with chronology on my blog. That's real power.

Real power to screw things up!

Giant Whats?

Did you know that there are giant salamanders in the world?

Now, when I think of a salamander, I think of a very small amphibian (rumored to dwell in fire). I do not think of a behemoth lizard-like slimy pebbly gargantua lying quietly in wait for its prey in a rushing Japanese stream. But this is factually the actual situation in several Japanese streams at this very moment!

That's because the largest salamander in the world - the Japanese Giant Salamander - exists. Though this may seem a cause of concern to mothers around the world, I think most are ignorant of this grave threat to their children!

Giant Salamanders are up to 6 feet long, and can weigh more than 55 pounds. That's some frog (salamander)! That's like a dog - only without hair, warm blood, or lungs. There is another species (smaller) in China, and a similar species (smaller still) in the Eastern U.S. called - get this - a hellbender. I think I know my eldest's son's name!

Anyway, any California mothers reading this blog may be heaving sighs of relief - it seems California hasn't got its share of these monsters. Breathe no more, O concerned parents of California, there are accounts of an even larger monster of the deep in Northern California! The Trinity Alps Giant Salamander is reportedly up to 9 feet long.

*shiver*

Parry Hotter

Libby just finished her first read-through of the Potter series on Sunday. I just finished my second read-through on Tuesday.

That means its time to post my thoughts on the series (as it exists thus far). And that's going to include spoilers - so don't read this post past this paragraph if you don't want all the surprises ruined.

I should start off by saying I find the books very enjoyable to read. They're quick, light, and fun. I think they exhibit a competent control of the English language, plot design, and character development. Character development is probably Rowling's highest skill. She's made millions of people care deeply about Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Lupin, Dumbledore, Sirius, etc. In reading her site and an interview with her, I've found that she's backstories for even the most minor characters in her universe. This shows - and its a proper emphasis. Most of the interesting things in this world are a result of people and their interactions with each other.

Thematically, it's pretty obvious her twin obsessions are death and love. The book is about an orphan who survived an attack by the most evil wizard alive (the only one to ever survive his killing spell) because of his mother's love-driven self-sacrifice. Throughout the book, I think that she exhibits she believes Christ's words to be true: the greatest love is to die for your friends.

Slowly, Harry's life is altered by death and love. He discovers in the third book that he does have family: a godfather. But, his godfather is cruelly taken from him. Then his mentor, Dumbledore, is taken from him. He's left more and more alone in the world.

Thematically, I think this can have two implications, depending on how the book turns out. One, because death isn't the worst evil in the world, Harry's life wasn't so bad. He continues on fairly happily because he's accomplished what he came to do. However, I think it more likely that a second implication of the theme will be applied: I think Harry will die in the seventh book. What better way to teach appropriate beliefs about death than to kill your main character? (Hint: it's to bring him back to life - see the gospels).

Anyway, I think that the book will probably end with Harry and Voldemort both dead. I'm not sure, of course, I can see it going the other way. I'm probably about 51% sure of this opinion.

What're other people's opinions of the big questions after book six?

1) Is Snape evil?

This read-through made it really seem like he was. To use the killing curse you've got to be full of hate for the person you use it on - and the book says Snape's face shows this emotion at the critical moment. I'm not sure you can occlumens your way out of a spell, can you?

Of course, I can see the point of view that Dumbledore might have told Snape to even go to the length of killing him to keep undercover, but I can't see why, really. The Order won't trust Snape now at all, and it will probably cost him his life unless he can somehow aid Harry in actually killing Voldemort. Can anyone see his character doing that?

2) Is Harry a horcrux?

There are a few reasons to think that he is. He exhibits Voldemort-like attributes throughout the books, and this would explain why. Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort only had made five when he went to kill Harry; Harry was to be the murder that was his sixth. Of course, Harry's mother's death could of screwed this plan up.

The reasons against it seem to be that Voldemort is set on killing Harry. That doesn't seem like a good idea if he's a horcrux. How can you make a horcrux on accident (as would seem to be the case here)? Also, if Voldemort can't even touch Harry after his mother's sacrifice, how can Voldemort's soul be contained in him?

A third option is that Harry was a horcrux but was already used by Voldemort when he returned to full power. Remember the "triumphant gleam" in Dumbledore's eye when he heard that Voldemort had used Harry's blood. That hasn't been accounted for. Of course, if that was the case, why didn't he tell Harry when he was teaching him about horcruxes?

I guess that's all I've got to say in this really really long post about the Harry Potter books. I'd apologize for the length - but hey - it's my (and Libby's) blog.

Till next time.

Sacred Science

Dr. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic, doesn't understand Christianity or theology. He writes in an article at the Scientific American's website that conservative Christians should accept Darwinism because of how well it meshes with our beliefs - but how can he argue that if he doesn't first understand them?

He makes this appeal (through six arguments) without once commenting on the Bible. He mentions, at one point, in an off hand way and with a condescending tone "ancient texts" as being left behind by the abilities of science. Unfortunately, one cannot know God very clearly (certainly not at all to the degree Christianity claims) without divine special revelation - and he's thrown that out the window.

Let's look at his arguments:

"1. Evolution fits well with good theology."

First, he argues in this section that God's glory isn't contingent on the age of the world - creation is creation no matter when. I'll concede this point easily - it absolutely does not matter when God created the world in respect to God's glory. It doesn't follow, though, that evolution is true. Nor does it follow that the world is that old. The issue here is what the Creator communicated regarding the world's age in his ancient text. Personally, I agree that the world is probably very old.

Second, he argues that it doesn't matter how God created the world. Au contraire, it matters very much how God created the world. Theologians have wondered for millenia about the wonders of God's ex nihilo creation of the cosmos. It is a remarkable and powerful demonstration of his power and glory (a power that only he possesses). Theologians are bound to wonder because they're bound to glory in the smallest details of their ancient texts. In those texts they find the mysteries of all reality - not just the physical realm.

"2. Creationism is bad theology."

This argument all centers around the opinion that using the analogy "Watchmaker" is a bad analogy because the transcendentness of God shouldn't be limited to this extent. This surprises me as amazingly poor thinking. No Christians that use the analogy mean that God has, as Shermer states, "a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts." A watchmaker is only a kind of artisan, but Christians believe in creation from nothing. They view the analogy as revealing an irreducible complexity to the natural world that physical causation can't explain. That's all. It doesn't extend further.

"3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature."

This is such a strange argument - it just hammers home that he doesn't understand our fixation with ancient texts. We already know how human nature came to be corrupted, we don't need a scientific explanation. To a conservative Christian, he's not arguing that we should just see how Christianity and Darwin are harmonious; he's trying to convert us.

"4. Evolution explains family values."

Christians have tried hard throughout history to understand ethics in relation to God's nature and plan. As Christians, we have to do that. It's all based on a myth that this author doesn't share - and I don't feel like my myth has room for his. Our stories just don't mesh. Check out this: "Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures." Doesn't this presuppose that the designed moral codes are incorrect?

I'll skip 5 because it's just more of the same.

"
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics."

Who cares? This isn't what Christians are concerned about at all! Besides,isn't this Social Darwinism? Didn't that get tossed a hundred years ago?

What's going on?

I can't believe this article got put up on ALDaily.

Begger for the Bottle

I'm entertaining myself at lunch today by going through Nichomachean Ethics again (which happens to be in my cubicle) and I'm puzzled by one of his arguments. I'll put it here to see if anybody else can help sort it out.

Ok... so, this is not very far into the book. I've gotten stumped quickly. He's been enquiring into the nature of the good - which is that which we desire for its own sake, in this life, as opposed to something that we desire for the sake of something else. This is at 1.441 (1), and he's attempting to dismiss the idea that the good is an Idea or Form.

In 1.441 the title is Objections to the Form as a Universal (is this Aristotle's title?).

(1) There are no universals for ordered series.

Those who introduced this view did not mean to produce an Idea for any [series] in which they spoke of prior and posterior [members]; that was why they did not mean to establish an Idea [of number] for [the series of] numbres.

Now, I take this to be setting up his argument. Things that are series don't have Forms - it is a collection of forms, and is a composite. The reason that people would argue this (at this point in time) is that simplicity is an essential element of what makes a Form a Form.

Ok, so it looks like what he's going to argue is that there's a category of things that cannot include Forms, and that the good is part of this category, and is therefore a Form. Let's see where he goes from here:

But the good is spoken of both in the [category of] what-it-is [i.e. substance], and in [the categories of] quality and relative

Now, it seems to me that at this point I'm misunderstanding something. Probably, he is not seeing the problem in the terms that I was predicting. He seems to be seeing the problem in terms of substance and relation. But, what does he mean when he says that the good is both a substance and a relation?

It seems to me that when we speak of something as a what-it-is, we're referring it to as a subject. This sentence: "the good is the end of an activity" seems to refer to the good as a substance. But, sometimes, he points out that we use "good" as an adjective. This is a good pie - it's more excellent than other pies. This is a relation, because it's comparing two pies - good pies and bad pies.

Let's continue on and see if this analysis bears out:

and what is is in itself, i.e. substance, is by nature prior to what is relative, since a relative would seem to be an appendage and coincdient of being. And so there is no common Idea over these.

What exactly is happening here? Is the first half of this quote saying that the good, but virtue of being a quality and relative, is sometimes prior to something else? And that would make it a series, of which there is no Idea.

That would follow, but I'm not sure that the relation of substance and relative is the same kind of relation that obtains between numbers in a series. I guess the way to find out if this is true might be an analysis of what a series is, but lunch is only so long.

This has been a helpful blog post for me. If you've got any ideas that I'm missing, you can go ahead and leave them here.

ITLAPD

INTERNATIONAL TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY

September 19th only comes once every year.

Make yer best of it whilst ye can, savvy?

Arr!

Something Different

Cool Stuff

This link will take you to the art of a fellow named Peter Callesen. Neat stuff, mostly about childhood, so he uses forms that really resonate. I especially like the castles (floating and cardboard), and the paper cut work. Wow!

Hat tip to Eric.

Five Years

Remembering 9/11 is something like drinking concentrated sorrow. Although the memories flicker in my mind, their effect is felt in my stomach. Its my gut, not my brain, that hurts when I recall it.

I was in my first month of college. I was still getting to know people, and though surrounded by acquaintances, had no real friends. Perhaps that's why its not really surprising that the most vivid memories are of moments spent with other people, all of us struggling in the same way to understand the terrior wreaked upon our country. I spent the whole day in company of others. My suitemates had their TV on all day. I remember attending two classes. One was at 7:30 in the morning. As I walked into class, the second World Trade Center came crashing down above the heads of its occupants and those attempting to rescue the people crashed inside. I had no idea.

I remember first hearing about it in class in vague ways. People were upset, but I don't think anybody in my class really understood what was happening. Nobody knew the tower's had collapsed. I heard that the Pentagon had also been attacked. That felt like war, not blind empty terror, but like something out of a Tom Clancy novel.

On my way back from class and breakfast, I remember hugging someone from my floor who was on his way somewhere else. I remember running to my room to find my roommate still asleep. I remember sitting for hours on a couch in the room next to mine watching news broadcasts that had absolutely no information at all, just images. Again and again I watched the towers fall and airplanes fall into them. I saw the Pentagon burning, and I looked outside where there were no airplanes heading to Los Angeles anymore. I remember the eerie sky's quiet expanses being filled once more, in a few days with planes I just couln't trust anymore.

I remember being angry, but I wasn't as angry as I was sad. I'm still sadder than angry. Someone I was watching TV with said now he understood why you kill. He understood that part in Saving Private Ryan where the soldiers wanted to kill the German for working the machine gun that ended their medic's life. There was an awful lot of hate for the people that did it swirling around even our little Christian campus. Of course, I was in a guy's dorm. I think we all felt betrayed by our own helplessness to do anything.

I remember my friends signing up for the armed forces, and I remember the day the bombs started dropping on Afghanistan. I was on my way to church.

I wonder what I will remember in 10 years, about the 5 years yet to come.

Kyrie Eleison

We Like Books

This summer has provided ample evidence of our literary love. Libby and I have always read together, though not so much this summer as before. We've also been reading a lot indvidually. Some comments on our pleasures:

1. James Herriot

Libby read all of his books for the first time this summer, and found them very enjoyable. I am pleased, as they are some of my favorite light reading from my childhood. I can never read these books too many times, and I think Libby feels the same way. He has a way of finding the good and humorous in every situation.

2. Harry Potter

Libby began this series for the first time, and I've been doing my first re-read in her wake. I bought her all the first five books for her birthday, and I already had the sixth from last July. I'm really looking forward to her finishing that one, so we can talk about it. I'm not convinced their great literature, but they sure are fun. Great, interesting characters, good plots, and a strong moral system (sometimes interesting and challenging) make these books hard to put down. I am bursting for the seventh.

3. Jane Austen

I finished up her corpus this summer. My favorite is Pride and Prejudice, with Emma runner up. The rest are very, very good. Northanger Abbey provided unique Austen entertainment. Libby and I listened to that one on our way to and from the cabin in July. She also listened to Persuasion on her way to and from work, while I read it at home. Back to Northanger Abbey: funny! Great humor, but her characters were inconsistent. There is definite development in the later novels. Persuasion was similarly a bit set apart. First, it was shorter. Second, its plot arc was totally different - perhaps more mature, but I missed some of the vitality. Mansfield will probably be dull for all but those who love Austen.

Of course, much more can be said about each work. I will re-read them many, many times.

4. Cowboys

I read a bunch of Louis L'amour and a few Zane Grey (off the internet) books. They were fun, light, and quick. They're not really very good, though.

5. Hemmingway

Libby also listened to a Hemmingway novel on tape during her commutes. I don't recall the title. Farewell to Arms? I have never read it.

Currently:

Libby is working her way through the fourth Potter. She's got a lot on her plate for awhile, so that might be delayed. You know, she has a class to prepare for and run. I'm currently working through Moby Dick and Jane Eyre. Both are entertaining - I have my reservations about Jane Eyre, but it seems very good.

Perhaps more later if the muse strikes.

For God and Country

Here is a good article for reference on secular journalist's opinions regarding religion and politics in America:

Time's Article - God or Country?

I think most Evangelicals will be surprised to hear that people expect us to put our allegiance to our country before our allegiance to our God, and I am personally surprised that it is at all surprising. Isn't it common sense? And, really, what thinker who acknowledged the existence of God would disagree? I can think of none.

Further funnies: liberal Christians (coincidentally: most mainstream Protestants - almost all liberals - said America had a higher allegiance than God) are always at Evangelicals for their high esteem of country. The fact is, at a grassroots level, we are very patriotic, but appropriately so. Allegiance is given where it is due, and enthusiastically and fully.

So, David Van Biema, you have no reason to worry. There will never be an American theocracy. There will be Christian challenges based on revealed truth in response to American follies. And perhaps that worries you just as much.

Bede



Fore then neidfaerae
naenig uiuurthit
thonc suotturra
than him tharf sie
to ymb hycggannae
aer his hin iongae
huaet his gastae
godaes aeththa yflaes
aefter deothdaege
doemid uueorthae.

Homeless Pigeons

I was walking past La Mirada Park's destruction zone yesterday, and I noticed in the parking lot there were a pair of Band-tailed Pigeons atop a light pole. I've never seen that before.

Today as I passed the park, they were sitting on the traffic signals by the fire station. I've never seen that before, either.

What's the source of their relocation?

They're refugees. They're not alone, either. I saw dozens of bluebirds today, also. The trees they nested in are all gone, leaving a bare and scarred collection of hills. Rather, the trees are all there, they've just been moved into a big pile. I think I caught a hint of sulfur and rotting, too. Saruman?

No. Just the orcs in La Mirada's city council.

Why Getting Married Is Just Plain Better Than Shacking Up

Tomorrow some good friends, Jeffrey and Wendy, are getting married. Weddings have always made me happy, but I think I like them even more after getting married myself. I remember the weeks leading up to the big day. It's exciting; it's fun. Sometimes it's hard; it seems like it'll never actually happen. But it's romantic. You're waiting together. You're counting down the evenings until you can say goodnight without saying good-bye. And the feast is so much better because of the fast that's been leading up to it.

I just can't get excited about some weddings, though. I recently heard about a girl whom I haven't seen since high school. Apparently, she's been living with her boyfriend for a while and they just got engaged. I really can't get very excited about that, for a couple of reasons. First, there's the morality issue, but I want to put that aside. There's something else: it's just not as romantic. They're really missing out! Their engagement period will not--cannot--be the same exciting time of anticipation. Afterall, what exactly is going to change after the wedding? They've already been enjoying the benefits of marriage, without the committment.

But to Jeffrey and Wendy I say: way to go. You've waited a long time, and it's worth the wait. You make me smile. I hope your marriage is full of love and laughter. And I know God will bless you as you continue to seek Him.

Flickr Updated

I put up our pictures from Mammoth onto our Flickr account. Or, at least, I put up as many as I could. Check out the Mammoth set.

We had a lot of fun on our trip. We got to see a lot of family. Bill, Becca, Grandma and Grandpa Rowley were all staying at the cabin with us. Also, we made a couple of trips over to Willow Springs to see Grandma Brown. It was good times.

Helpful

This article does a good job of casting light on the debate raging regarding homosexual marriage: it's not always about hate. It is about preserving something valued.

Richard Thompson Ford is the author of Hate and Marriage, published in Slate Magazine.

Happenings

Two weeks ago, Libby and I put up a hummingbird feeder in our backyard. It was a gracious gift from my parents, and we definitely appreciate it very much. Libby and I put it on the window by our dining room table, so that we can watch them while we eat. It took them about 24 hours to find it, but it seems that it's become a regular fixture in their life.

This weekend, things have gotten really shooken up in hummingbird land, though. A pair of Allen's hummingbirds (apparently migrating South for the winter - I've read they begin to do so slowly during the early summer)have set up a territory that includes the feeder, automatically excluding our more persistant companions of two weeks - three companionable Anna's hummingbirds.

It's fascinating because the Anna's don't have a dominant male. They were all cooperating pretty well, taking turns at the fountain (not that they ever drank simultaneously). The Allens' won't have anybody even in our backyard. They've taken up residence on the avocado tree and chase the others if they even come into our backyard at all. It's almost sad because there's more than enough for all of them.

We've also put up a thistle sack feeder to attract goldfinches, but no luck so far.

Oh, and we've got a little house sparrow chirping just outside our backdoor. It's only got a fuzzy covering of dark brown feathers and is basically a very ugly little tyke. I took a couple of pictures, and I may post them here.

It's nice to have a backyard.

If we lived in North Carolina...

...maybe we'd buy this house. And then we'd have to have a bunch of kids to fill it up; it's huge!

Happy Birthday!

Today is Libby's birthday!

Many happy returns!

Idyllwild

Last weekend Eric came out from Illinois, so a group of guys and I went up to Idyllwild for a couple of days. It was an interesting trip, involving unfortunate (and unwarranted) conflicts with law enforcment, a good hike, and some good time talking and laughing around a fire. Oh, and thank God that high elevation lowers the temperature!

I've posted some of the pictures I took on my Flickr account. You can check it out here.

Nostalgic Aches

The world's natural beauty is very powerfully effective, I believe, on a soul receptive to its influence. Such a receptiveness is generally a habitual turn towards beauty somehow achieved in childhod - not that it could not come later in life. I believe that my upbringing has been such as to produce within my own soul a certain aptitude towards the receipt of certain manners of worldly splendor perhaps surpassing other men's. In my case, the education has all been familial, and through the repitious enjoyment of the same sets of alpine beauty again and again under the guidance and from within the sphere of my family, I have come to love the Sierra Nevada with a love I think rightly in accord with its merits. It is there I am most truly at home - though I cannot express exactly in what sense I feel so strongly that I am home. It is not the sense that I feel at home with my wife, in our house. The feeling is different, and I am not sure how. I believe the Romantics are tapping into this feeling (the Lake District of England being for them my Sierras). Therefore I refer the reader to the words of William Wordsworth, who expresses so much more excellently than me, this very feeling in the opening of his Prelude.

OH there is blessing in this gentle breeze,
A visitant that while it fans my cheek
Doth seem half-conscious of the joy it brings
From the green fields, and from yon azure sky.
Whate'er its mission, the soft breeze can come
To none more grateful than to me; escaped
From the vast city, where I long had pined
A discontented sojourner: now free,
Free as a bird to settle where I will.
What dwelling shall receive me? in what vale 10
Shall be my harbour? underneath what grove
Shall I take up my home? and what clear stream
Shall with its murmur lull me into rest?
The earth is all before me.

In all of my senses of enjoyment encompassed by the Sierras, this feeling of release now is coming to predominate. But, as a child, it was of course, never the most powerful influence. I think the pleasure is the sweeter, thereby, for the splendor of the beauty of the world is the more sweetly and unknowingly enjoyed by a child because of his relative freedom of situation.

As with anything loved which is separated from us by space or time, any small reminder may bring crashing into one's mind a thousand pleasant memories and thoughts - pleasant and joyous in themselves - but pained by the coloring of nostalgia that necessarily arises (as bile at a distasteful scene) when the fact of its distance impresses itself powerfully and fully upon us. Such has been my lot today, when I found a stranger's Flickr account, completely by chance, on the internet. There are many beautiful photographs in the link I am putting below filled with pictures of places that I have been, or would visit, portrayed in all of their most spectacular glory. Therefore, I recommend them to you all.

A Stranger's Flickr Account

I spent two nights at Pioneer Basin on a backpack trip, once. Mono Lake I have seen innumerable times, and it is special because of how close it is to where I proposed, as well. I've never been over Pine Creek Pass, but the lakes he shows are typical of the kind of lake ornamenting the craggy back country of the High Sierra.

I also recommend to you this other Wordsworth poem - Daffodils. It comments on the restorative power of memory as an intercessor between us and the object of our love.

The Daffodils
By William Wordsworth

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed–and gazed–but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

I think he may overstate memory's power, personally, but he has immortalized forever a powerful truth - one that we may all use to our advantage.

Superman Movies

Are you interested in Superman?

Try Jesus.

Last Wednesday evening, Libby and I went and saw the new Superman movie. That Friday, urged to super speed by an impending power outage, we ducked into the Biola library and picked up Superman: The Movie and Superman II for our weekend enjoyment.

I liked Superman Returns and Superman II the best of the three. Superman I's plot didn't feel cohesive or compelling. It also seemed to bite off far too much for one movie. Not only does Kal-El forewarn Krypton of its coming peril, and sentence some of its citizens to eternal torment, Superman comes to earth and grows up in Smallville, he has to save California from falling off the face of the earth and fall in love with/ inspire love in Lois Lane. That would be an accomplishment for any superhero, even the mightiest, and it turns out Superman has to make the world spin backwards to do it (that makes time go backwards?).

I'm still not sure whether or not I like Superman II or Superman Returns best of the three that we viewed this weekend. Superman II was pretty exciting, and the characterization was pretty great. Superman Returns uses computer graphics to have Superman do some pretty breathtakingly awesome things. There are some goose-bump raising "Oh man!" moments in that movie, for certain. Oh yeah, I also liked the plot.

Ok, now back to my main point - how Jesus is better than Superman. Superman Returns gains interest from its compelling questioning. Superman leaves Metropolis (and earth) for five years to see his home planet of Krypton. I'm not sure how he got there, but he came back in a pointy meteorite/ Kryptonian space ship, same as before. In the meantime, Lois Lane writes a Pulitzer Prize winning piece entitled "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman." This is how she deals with the loss of the love of her life. Superman has to answer that question for all of us - why do we need a savior? Why can't we just take care of ourselves?

Throughout the movie (and the previous movies) Superman is parralleled explicitly to Jesus. He begins his ministry at the age of 30 in the first movie. His father sends him to earth to be a light in the darkness (Brando's voice is recycled in the new flick). Though Luthor's evil envelops him, the darkness does not overwhelm him. Superman Returns features Superman falling away from a meteorite - his arms spread in a cruciform pattern.

So, the question of "Why do we need a savior?" is tied into the very question that Christians are having to answer for the world all the time.

Singer, the director of the new movie, seems to answer it this way: we are all weak, and we need the help of others to overcome our own inadequacies. Where one is weak, another may be strong, and this will hold the whole system together in an ever progressing goodness. Superman himself needs help during the movie from mere mortals.

This is all a load of huey - because whatever flaw humanity has, we all seem to have our share in it (though unequal). Jesus does not. Therefore, our relationship to Jesus must be wholly and completely one sided. Whatever we bring to him he does not need, though it does not follow it would not please him.

Therefore, Jesus is more super than Superman - even though his physical body was as weak as ours.

Update

Well, life has been pretty busy for us in Rowley world.

This weekend we moved! We now share a house with Adam and Jessica Snell and their two children: Brigid and Sam. They have a blog if you're interested: adamjess.blogspot.com.

Generally those I've told of this plan thus far have expressed amazment. Here's why we would make this kind of move.

1) Apt. 92, Summerwood, was too small to live in for very long. We were there for 7 months together, and I lived there for about 10 months in all. It was slowly being crammed more and more full of things. We were always planning on moving this summer, as it was when it would stress Libby the least.

2) We preferred to live close enough to Biola to not need a car. I am now walking to work, saving on gas, insurance, and maintenance for a second vehicle - ours broke down in March and we are not replacing it, yet.

3) The house is very well suited for two families. It is split in the middle by the kitchen. The bedrooms are on opposite sides of the house. There is privacy if you want it!

4) We've thought living in a house would be nice. We like the yard and the neighborhood. We go for walks at night, now. It's amazing. House rent is too much, however, unless we share (this being Southern California).

5) Honestly, Libby and I are antisocial enough to feel that this kind of move would be a positive experience. It is going to force us into a situation where we must love our neighbors, daily. It's been a consistent prayer that we do so well, and I pray God also gives us such grace in the loving that we grow much closer to him because of it.

There are a few of the positive reasons that we reviewed before moving into the house. We are loving it so far! It's such a delight to sit out in the cool backyard as the (two) stars twinkle above and talk. It reminds us of when we were dating, and I lived in a house. We loved going for walks, reading and talking in the backyard. It's great to be able to do that, again!

The house is still full of boxes, however. We're working our way through those, slowly, and getting settled.

So far, I've seen lots of birds in the backyard, too!

Northern Mockingbird
House Sparrow
House Finch
Lesser Goldfinch (flyover)
Great-Tailed Grackle (flyover)
Accipiter species (?)
American Crow
Allen's Hummingbird
Anna's Hummingbird

That's in three short days. I expect to see band-tailed pigeons, Western Bluebirds (we saw some in the yard across the street when we visited the house), Black Pheobes, and Mourning Doves, at least. There may be orioles occasionally, too. There's a park really nearby that has lots of birds in it. Although that park is going to be turned into a water park this year. There won't be quite so many birds, then.

This Is My Father's World

"This is my Father's world,
O let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father's world:
the battle is not done,
Jesus, who died, shall be satisfied,
and earth and heaven be one."

And the Church is my Father's as well. He is not caught off-guard by recent decisions. He remains the Ruler of all. May He have mercy.

These two sites are good for keeping updated on the situation.

The End of Marriage?

Here's an article from the Weekly Standard regarding the coming polygamist controversy that will soon enter our courts (right after the gay marriage controversy is resolved).

I highly recommend it:

Polygamy Versus Democracy

Mrs. Rowley: 5th Grade Teacher

Thanks for your prayers: the job search is ended, and it wasn't even that painful. It actually all happened really quickly. My application for Calvary Christian School in Santa Ana went out in the mail on Monday, they reviewed it on Tuesday, interviewed me on Wednesday, and had me come teach a lesson on Thursday (today) so that they could observe me. And then they offered me the job! So, come September, I'll be teaching 5th grade!

*whew*

I Guess I Should Say Something

It's been an awful long time since I've posted on here. That's because I've been so busy student teaching. But not anymore! You can pray that I get a teaching job for the fall.

That's all.

Strauss Explained

My University experience was largely dominated by a program that was founded by an academic whose vocational pedigree is descended from Leo Strauss. The founder of the Torrey Honors Institute was taught by someone who was taught by Strauss. Strauss is not a mandated reading, however, in any of our standard curriculum. He is only used as a secondary source in highly specialized Plato classes. I never took one of those classes (the beauty of the medieval synthesis drawing me into other areas of study), so I have never read a book by Strauss.

Nevertheless, the description by this article - The Demonization of Strauss from the New York Sun - strikes me as likely correct. This is because my honor's program's main goal was to teach us to read and think critically: the methods described in this article as Strauss's methods were methods that I learned in that program. In short, the shoe fits.

Therefore, though I am generally skeptical when someone throws out the term "anti-semitic" within an intellectual debate, I feel that this article provides some warrant to that accusation. The accusations directed in Strauss' (and his descendant's) direction really do seem blindly hateful.

New Sidebar Link

I added a birding section and a link to Rare Birds.com over on the side bar. Rare birds is pretty neat, it integrates a whole bunch (all?) of the Rare Bird listings on the internet with Google maps. And then it organizes it on the home page in a few creative ways. It lists most common rare birds, and new rare species. I keep track of the new species just in case something really cool pops up somewhere.

Common rare birds: that's funny.

It also has a feature users can use to post their own sightings, and to pin point that sighting exactly on the map. That's neat, but it's not edited at any level (that I can tell) and so the only Southern California posting someone's made is of the quite common Townsend's warbler. Nonetheless, there's a lot of potential there.

Interesting

Did you know that the most popular de-bunking site for the Da Vinci Code is run by Sony Pictures? Read about their marketing here. I'm not sure what to make of it.

Craig Detweiler, a professor at Biola, is quoted in it. He has been published on the website, saying something fairly questionable about why Catholics are more offended than Protestants by the book's ideas (woman priesthood).

My opinion would be this: it is unfortunate that the Church is being used as an instrument against its true purpose. The Church exists to glorify God, not to make money for Sony.

I suppose the other side of the argument would be that it is the other way around, Sony is being used to bring glory to God despite itself. Ultimately, however, I think that the world would be better off without Dan Brown's book and (thus by extension) this movie. From what I've heard, the book's quality is beneath recommendation on a literary level, and its historical accuracy is certainly not well researched. What value is left?

My Hero: Josh Allan

Written May 12, 2006.

One of my good friends from high school is Josh Allan. He was in my small accountability group from Church and we spent a lot of the best times of my adolescence together. I will never forget leaving appliances on the lawns of friends and pastors, intense four player Nintendo hockey games at his home, or speeding away from the scene of a particular "crime" late at night.

After September 11, (now so long ago!) Josh went on to join the Navy. He was driven by his conviction to respond against that terrible evil.

This November, Josh was shipped out to the Middle East. He was married on the Tuesday after the day of my own nuptual bliss, and left very soon after. Today he came back after 5 and a half months away to see his wife again. His face registered an incredible tranforming happiness as he embraced her.

I couldn't help but smile myself at this reunion. This was bliss well earned; happiness fully deserved. When a man has put his nation's well being so far beyond his own domestic happiness and health, thus demonstrating such a fullness of character and principle, may his own happiness come in degrees and fulnesses heightened by a proportionate degree!

Josh is a somber reminder to me that there are many young men and women out in the deserts of Arabia fighting for our freedom against an implacable foe. Yet, he is also an inspiration to take up our cross daily, and follow Christ in our own battles against a hidden enemy. Josh, thank you for your sacrifice and love.

Josh is not the only person, however, deserving of thanks. His wife, April, has been without him for the great majority of their marriage. This sacrifice is equally moving. Not only has April given up her husband for our and our nation's sake, she demonstrated a further selfless spirit in organizing a large gathering to greet Josh as he came home for this short leave. Though undoubtedly desparate of time alone with her husband, she thought only of his happiness and honor in planning his home coming. She succeeded completely. So, thanks to you also, April. Your heroism does not go unnoticed.

You both are inspirations to us all. No words that I can write can ever express this fact fully, but how can I not try? It's the least I can do, and nowhere near what you deserve.

Emma

I've downed the last of the Jane Austen novels in our possession. I was fortunate to marry a woman with three of the novels, and I'll wait to finish the next three.

None of the novels is a copy of the others: all three has unique flavors and gifts. Emma, however, strikes me as the most peculiar. This comes from many different considerations: Emma is the most deeply flawed of the female protagonists, and Mr. Knightley is the saintliest of the male. Emma also takes up the largest portion of the spotlight of any of the protagonists. It is undoubtedly a book about her.

Also, the title is the only one of Austen's novels to contain a person's name. And this name is not their formal title, but it is her personal name. I find this to be significant on the social level of the novel. It is introducing the character to us on intimate terms, and carries through on this promise by revealing to us all of her flaws. If I were to ever meet Miss Woodhouse in person, I think that I would not be privileged to speak to her as Emma; taking such a liberty would reduce me to the simpering quality of Mrs. Elton (ugh! Though I think Mrs. Elton has some important lessons for Emma, if she should but listen). How curious that Austen introduces us at this level: what is she saying class? What about the reader and the text?

Another broad thought is that this is a book all about the self-destruction of one woman (at least in regarding certain elements of her domestic happiness) through unrestrained vice, and her salvation through the unconditional - yet entirely reasonable - love of one man. If Mr. Knightley didn't step in and marry Emma, she would have been reduced, by her own decisions, to a fairly lonely life (as she considers near the end of the novel). Is Austen preaching here? What are Emma's flaws, and what is her cure?

There's also, as in all of Austen's novels that I've thus read, consideration of epistemic difficulties. Why is Emma always (practically, anyway) wrong? She's certainly the cleverest wrong person that I've met, but her vision is clouded by her character's flaws. Why can Mr. Knightley perceive so much more clearly? Austen, I think, makes it fairly clear to the reader the actual case of Emma's deceptions long before she herself realizes her errors. This is a source of tension that drives the novel's action. I take this to mean that the questions are important.

Another question that occurred to me is this: what is the difference between Mr. Knightley's condescension to marry Emma and Emma's condescension to be friends with Miss Harriet Smith. One of these is a grave mistake: the other is a source of joy. Is this merely a consideration of class? Or does it take into account the actual accomplished characters of the actors? What sort of moral guidance can we gain from it today?

There: I've prepared the beginning of some discussion. Perhaps someone whose read it will chime in?

Pictures

Here are two pictures we took on Saturday.



What kind of bird is this? Let me know, and you'll win a valuable prize!*



Here's a Western Tanager. The pictures aren't great, but I find it somewhat fun to take them. Gives you the idea of the species, at any rate.

*There is no valuable prize.

Santiago Oaks Regional Park

Saturday morning Libby and I made our way over to Santiago Oaks Regional Park in search of the Lazuli Buntings which, rumor has it, are flooding Orange County at the moment. As this bird is particularly an attractive one, and Libby and I had both never seen it, we undertook to make the journey despite a limited time frame and some stress on the part of my beloved (her TPA being due this Monday). We were well rewarded for our troubles, having one of our best birding trips in quite a while in terms of both new and beautiful species - too good in fact, as we birded longer than planned and were late for an obligation.

Obviously, then, we did see our Lazuli Buntings. We had one pair in a field of mustard near the base of the large dam in the park. I had hoped to take a picture of them, but was distracted by an interesting mammal. When we endeavored to find them again and take the picture, they had flown off.

The interesting mammal was the rarest species of the day, however, and thus the regret was pleasingly lessened. I noticed what I thought to be a coyote at the base of an oak tree while waiting for the female bunting to fly up out of some mustard. But this coyote began climbing the oak tree, which was bizarre, and I noticed a strong black line along the base of the tale. I brought the creature to Libby's attention and we walked down the hill toward the dam in hopes of getting a better view. We were disappointed to never gain a perfect view of the animal, it was wary and shy, moving about in the tree, and finally out of it and away through some low sage brush, but it struck us as being small for a coyote. As we were arriving at the main trail, we met a man walking his dog who asked us if we had seen the fox. He remarked that he, in his five years of visiting the park, had never seen a fox. I poo-pooed the notion, knowing well the ease with which eager wildlife watchers may falsely identify one common species for a rare one. Never the less, I kept the idea in mind.

I had the idea that it could not be a red fox, for I had read that a black line running along the length of the entire fox is diagnostic. The black in this animal stopped at the beginning of the back. I had thought, however, the tail seemed quite bushy and full for a coyote, and so I decided to give another animal a google when I got home. Namely, the gray fox, our native variety. I was surprised to find that they have a strong black line running along their tail - not their back, and I was further surprised, happily I may add, that they are very well known for climbing trees (that they are the only canid to commonly do so). I therefore have concluded (I am excluding other important evidences for the sake of space) that we did, in fact, see a gray fox, and we are very fortunate to have done so!

Hi, my name is Jonathan...

...and I'm addicted to Jane Austen.

"Hi, Jonathan," murmurs a collected feminine audience.

I always thought I had sense, that my sensibilities were so decidedly masculine that my pride would never succumb to the persuasion of this decidedly feminine author; yet I find my prejudices have been overwhelmed: I am now reading Emma. Really, really, I thought that, as a man, fielding objections such as "chick book", would save me from ever lounging in a park with a paperback novel navigating the intrigues of Regency England regarding contented matrimony. Perhaps, I think this must be the case, it is possible to appreciate Jane Austen as a man, manishly. Women are not as far from men as south from north: we are all hangers on in this grand thing we call humanity. And if that's not the case, lock me up in an Abbey!

In the same way, Austen has a lot to teach us, though the rigid conventions of her time have passed. She is still valuable today, because she understands humanity to its core, and her fiction addresses truly timeless questions. I think that I can read Austen with enjoyment now because, as Libby says, I've grown up a lot since I first tried. Now I perceive these questions, and ask them along with her. My first attempt at Pride and Prejudice, in High School, got me just far enough to know that I didn't like it and it was insufferably boring. When I read it last November, I couldn't put it down! I therefore feel inclined to recommend a Classical Education as valuable to the youth of our age. Thanks, Torrey Honors!

Must Read Article

AL Daily today has an article posted that I think is of great importance. I do not think that it is perfect, it is wide ranging and broad in its focus, thus lacking a rigor of thought that will ultimately be necessary in a very critical discussion. However, it is important because I think its overview is largely accurate, and not just for Europe, but for Western Civilization as a whole.

It is, shortly, about the "Cultural Wars" of Europe (a loaded term). It proposes that the war between traditional Western culture and the ascendant post-Christian relatavistic hegemony (the article gives a good idea of how intolerant the latter is), is of the utmost importance in the second war: that of the arriving Islamic immigrants in Europe and their assertion of their culture, which is of course non-Christian and absolutists not only in morality but in government, etc. Ultimately, I think this importance is completely obvious, but it's got to be said, anyway.

The article is in Commentary, and it is by George Weigel. It is called: "Europe's Two Culture Wars".

Happy May Day

To all of those hispanic protestors around the nation today: enjoy the day that the blood, sweat and legacy of Capitalism are allowing you. Oh, and next time? Try not to choose such an offensive day to bring forward your demands.

Perhaps you would rather have lived in the Soviet Union, where May Day protests celebrated the victory of the worker annually? Or maybe not, when someone does the math on how many Stalin actually murdered. Check out this blog: Catallarchy: How Many Did Stalin Really Murder? He does that math for us, and concludes that the Soviet Union is responsible for the deaths of 62,000,000 people.

I've never heard of Catallarchy before, but they remember, yearly, May Day. Today may not be a bad day to stop and think about that evil spectre of Capitalism.

Real American Hero

When I was a boy, my favorite toy was G.I. Joe. Ok, actually perhaps my favorite particular toy was my Winnie The Pooh. Everybody's got to have their teddy bear (mine was a general).

Back to the main point, however. My favorite genre of toy was G.I. Joe. I had quite a few. My brother and I would have big G.I. Joe battles that would last for days and never ever had a resolution. But they had lots of building, climaxing action! Also, none of our GI Joes ever died. The bad guys could die, but each GI Joe was a beloved character, and thus was not allowed (being a good guy) to die. This doesn't mean they never suffered bodily harm. On the contrary, they suffered great bodily harm. Consistently. Anyway, I had a medic so they were OK.

They also had to learn to fly, as the plastic bags sometimes failed as parachutes. And they had to learn to live on their own, as sometimes they went over the wall into the hospital parking lot. I remember that one got lost that way forever. Was it Duke? Snake eyes? I have a memory, but it's vague.

Ok, so I'm posting this because I found a jewel of a website! It lists all the GI Joe's (3 3/4") that were ever made. It is a snapshot of my childhood.

Here is my first G.I. Joe ever: Shipwreck. Shipwreck had to have back surgery, and very early on he lost the ability (such an important but flawed ability in these toys) to bend at the waist.

Here is my favorite GI Joe ever: Storm Shadow. He had a cool red backpack with a sword!

Here's my medic: Lifeline. I liked how he had the oxygen mask. Got shot? What you need is an oxygen mask!

I remember that my brother had this one: Crazy Legs. He was, if you read his personal information (I am remembering this from the top of my head) a pianist. You can check to see if I'm right by clicking on the link and poking around.

There're many others in there that I had, but I think these are pretty cool and I don't want to make the post unreadably long. You can also find out how much they're worth now on that site. The good news is that most of them have appreciated. The bad news is that I played with them extensively, probably draining them of all their value. But more good news! That's what toys are for!

Joshua Tree

Ok, some of the Joshua Tree Pictures! Try this link: Flickr Joshua Tree pics.

Here's a tantalizing preview:



That is Libby walking through a cholla cactus garden.

Out and About

Libby and I spent the last three days at Joshua Tree camping. It was a nice trip. We'll post pictures when we can. Here's the short version.

Monday:
Leave Apt. around 10:30. Arrive at North Entrance (Oasis of Marra) after noon. Poke around the oasis. Camp at Jumbo Rocks campground. We checked out the campsite, and saw gnatcatchers, quail, phainopepla, verdin, cottontails and a jackrabbit. Eat. White-crowned sparrows. Wind. Check out stars.

Tuesday:
Get up just before sunrise. Walk. Eat. Drive. Walk to 49 Palms Oasis (first in parking lot at 8:00 in the morning!). 49 Palms is really amazing and beautiful, but it got crowded, so we were lucky we showed up when we did. Black throated sparrows, white winged dove, bewick's wren, cactus wren, hooded oriole, hermit thrush, costa's hummingbird, ash-throated flycatcher, gray flycatcher, other various flycatchers, etc. Walk back. Drive long time through West Entrance to Hidden Valley. Brewer's sparrow. Barker Dam. Vaux's swift, many swallows, white-throated swifts, yellow-rumped and townsend's warbler. Jumbo Rocks to nap. Eat. Walk. Five jackrabbits! Fire. Stars. Sleep!

Wednesday:
Get up after sunrise. Eat. Pack up. Walk. Rock wrens, green-tailed Towhees, chipping sparrows. Drive south towards Cottonwood. Stop at exhibits. Note scratched and illegible surfaces. Upon one was scrawled in ink something about how Christian white men ruined the land and the Indians. Mourn. Drive. Cholla Cactus garden. Ocotillos blooming! Cottonwood Springs. House finches, ravens, kingbirds, warblers, sparrows, snakes and a warbling vireo. Drive to 10, off to Libby's parents house and then home a little after 6:00.

Shower and eat Jelly bellies.

Sayers Had An Illegitimate Child

Libby and I have been reading Dorothy Sayer's murder mysteries together lately. I'm not sure how long, but we're on our third novel and have read most of the short stories.

In reading these novels, I have been surprised not to find C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, or Charles Williams. In short, the novels are not the kind of 20th century Oxfordian Christian fiction that I expected. I don't think Sayers presents a plainly Christian world-view.

My previous exposure to Sayer's is mainly in regard to Dante: her translations and some papers. I've also read parts or most of her article on women and her famous work on education (The Mind of the Maker). Most of these works are from later in her life, and I suspect she either changed considerably or has a literary philosophy very different from the Inklings.

For example, her characters reflect contemporary ethical thought: not classical ethical thought (though they are familiar with it). Much of this thought either seems anachronistically wicked - a separate Aristocratic morality - or contemporary bad thinking - consequentialist morality. The former is demonstrated in Clouds of Witness, though she does a good job of painting a difficult moral situation in respect to some adultery, ultimately I cannot find any appropriate accusations leveled toward the Duke. The latter is demonstrated in Unnatural Death, where at one point Murbles argues that the murder may not be unethical - it prevents the Crown from getting money - merely legal.

I find that here, and in some other places, she's coming down on the opposite sides of questions from Scripture, the historic witness of the Church - and from the Inklings.

Many people would say, "So?" to this argument, and I think that's fair. I don't censor my own reading so that I only read books with which I agree. It is, however, much rarer that I pick up a book I expect to find agreeable and experience a disillusioning. Sayer's early fictional writings are such an experience.

Coming Soon: Another author I'm really enjoying - pooor Sayers' pen pales by comparison - is Flannery O'Connor. She's my favorite American prose as of yet - perhaps favorite American literature ever. (Can you count Eliot as American?) I'll post about her when I've digested her stories more fully: there's an awful lot to think about.