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.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
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?
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?
Saturday, May 13, 2006
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.
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?
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?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, May 08, 2006
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!
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!
Friday, May 05, 2006
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!
"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!
Thursday, May 04, 2006
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".
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".
Monday, May 01, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)