AllTheseThings

"6 weeks to 6 months" for 5 years

I suppose it is only fitting that as I begin this entry I have no idea what the point is going to be, yet I know I have to write it anyway. Kinda like my life lately...

You see, tomorrow is my daughter Emily's birthday.  Shortly after she was born, even before her doctors could name what exactly was wrong, they said those words that changed my life forever, "6 weeks to 6 months." 

After they detailed the massive extent of damage Emily had suffered inutero, her severe physical handicaps and "catastrophic brain malformation" I panicked.  And believe it or not my first thought, ironically, was, "who will take care of her after my wife and I die?"  So I asked them how long would she live? 

"Six weeks to six months."

The words materialized to me - right there in the air - and hung like bubbles coming out of the doctor's mouth.  Time stopped.  "I can't do this.  How will I tell her brother and sister, my parents?" 

Five minutes later I found myself in a bathroom, hands on my knees, eyes closed - reeling.  I remember openning my eyes to see a small pool of water at my feet, it startled me and I realized that I wasn't crying, water was flowing from my eyes.  And it was in this moment that I heard God's voice.  It was not audible, but it may have well been, because it shocked me.  I wasn't talking to God, I wasn't praying...yet He spoke.  He "said," "you are going to be okay" or "I'll get you through this" or something like that.  I have tried so hard to remember the exact words, I'm convinced I'll never remember - maybe the sentiment was the point.  But I stood up and I've never been the same.

I wish I could tell you that all of the small things don't bother me anymore - they do - that because of Emily I have a perspective on life that helps me to take advantage of every moment and live everyday like its my last, it hasn't. 

But I do know this.  I love Emily with everything I've got.  And it is not because of what she can do, or because of what she is good at, or her potential...I love her because she is mine.  I don't need another reason.  And, now, I do know that God loves me because I'm His, he doesn't need another reason...which is a good thing because there isn't one.

I wish that I could tell you that this realization has revolutionized my life - I can't, but I'd be lying if I tried to tell you it hasn't changed me dramatically - because it has.  I still get scared.  But everytime I pick up my small, frail, blind and helpless daughter I remember that I am loved, and she is loved by God for no other reason than - we are His.

There is something about living perpetually with this time frame of "six weeks to six months" that never lets me stray too far from, "he loves because I'm His" - I live there now, it's my new home and it leaves a mark.  I hope and pray it is a mark that helps to bring others home.  Maybe that is the point.

Tomorrow my Emily will be 5.

Be His,

Didymus

allthesedidymus@yahoo.com

Loudly Moderate, Quietly Conservative

Many visitors to this site will be familiar with MBMc, known outside the blogosphere as Michael McClellan, Esq.  He has just published a great piece about the 2008 GOP Presidential California primary.  Like many, he saw McCain as a natural fit for a conservative primary--as most GOP primaries are.  He then looked at the below-tepid response McCain is receiving in California GOP circles, and the enthusiastic support Giuliani gets--even though Giuliani, unlike McCain, is socially moderate-to-liberal.

His observations from the recent California Republican Party convention:

Giuliani was there in person delivering an address to a packed luncheon and making the rounds to various overflowing smaller venues. In contrast, the sole McCain presence I encountered was a lone table manned by a single young woman. Giuliani's presence was that of a front runner; McCain's was not.

Having a great deal of respect for John McCain, I pressed a number of people regarding their dislike of the Arizona Senator's candidacy. They conceded that McCain was strong on the issues of foreign policy and fiscal responsibility, but stated that they could not move past things like McCain-Feingold and the "Gang of 14." Others simply said that while they respect much of his record and especially his service in Vietnam, they "still don't trust him." The almost complete absence of the McCain campaign from the convention seemed to exacerbate the trust issue.

And his observations were confirmed by a recent poll on the subject:

Last week a poll conducted by San Diego based Datamar, Inc. confirmed my convention observations. Among likely primary voters in California, the poll showed 11% favoring Romney, 17% preferring McCain, and a stunning 41% supporting Giuliani.

McClellan, rightly I think, finds that Giuliani's most public actions--cracking down on the mob and porn in NYC and 9/11-- portray him as a conservative leader.  McCain's most public actions--the Gang of 14 debacle and the-biggest-attack-on-free-speech-since-the-Alien-and-Sedition-Act "McCain Feingold"--show him having no conservative foundation, and seeking the limelight for his own sake, rather than his party's or nation's.

Here's how MBMc puts it:

As Mayor of New York, Giuliani symbolized a no-nonsense approach to dealing with crime and corruption. He was the tough good guy who took on the mob as an attorney and cleaned up New York as Mayor. September 11 cemented this image and elevated Giuliani to the truly national stage. He became "America's Mayor" and a symbol of American resolve. Republicans love this image, and Giuliani's perceived toughness seems to be eclipsing his record of social liberalism.

In contrast, McCain elevated himself to the national stage as a "maverick" Senator, known for breaking with his party. For many GOP primary voters, the image of McCain the moderate eclipses McCain's conservative voting record, and even his military heroism. In two pivotal strokes, many party stalwarts believe that McCain put himself above his party, and accordingly at odds with them. The first is McCain-Feingold, which most GOP activists see as simultaneously assaulting free speech, hurting the party's financing, and empowering liberal "527" groups like MoveOn.org. The second is the "Gang of 14" ...

Given their disparate ascents to the national stage, Giuliani's enduring image is more conservative than McCain's. At the risk of oversimplifying, it is perhaps fair to say that Giuliani's image is loudly conservative and quietly moderate, whereas McCain's image is loudly moderate and quietly conservative. These disparate images have taken hold among California Republicans, and Giuliani's image is blowing McCain's out of the water.

You should read the entire piece here.

And for a take on the conservative v. moderate debate happening in and around Mitt Romney, the other serious candidate in this three-horse race, read James Bopp Jr.'s piece in the National Review.  He analyzes Romney's recent "conversion" to the pro-life position, and finds it to be legitimate.  He also discusses the impact of Romney being Mormon--which might be a serious handicap in primaries heavily influenced by evangelical Christians.  But he also notes that we are, ultimately, faced with a political/practical decision, and the other choices (McCain and Giuliani) are worse.  Essentially, it is better to have a Johnny-come-lately to conservative views, than someone who is openly against you.

Here's his take:

Many social conservatives do not share Romney’s Mormon faith, but his faith should be viewed by social conservatives as a good sign, not as a matter of concern. The Mormon religion, while having tenets that Christians do not share, is profoundly conservative in its support for life, family, and marriage. Thus, Romney’s religion reinforces, rather than conflicts with, his conversion. All people of faith believe that the best public officials are those with God, not man, at the center of their lives.

It cannot be forgotten, however, that this is also a political question, a matter of practical choices. And what are these choices? Senator John McCain and Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the other leading candidates for the Republican nomination. Barring the unlikely emergence of some conservative alternative in the next few months, the choice will be between Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. While both Giuliani and McCain would be vastly superior to any of the prospective Democrats, there are serious questions about the policy positions of both, and not just on social conservative issues.

Giuliani is simply not a social conservative. He is pro-choice, pro-partial birth abortion, and pro-special rights for homosexuals. He is also pro-gun control. Senator McCain opposes the federal marriage amendment, supports embryonic stem-cell research, and was a ringleader of the Gang-of-14 compromise that made it easier for Democrats to block President Bush’s judicial nominees. Also, he is the principal sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, which imposes severe limits on the participation of citizens groups and political parties in our representative democracy.

After finishing up MBMc's article, read Bopp's here and let us know who you support.  For reasons I will go into in another post, but largely covered already by MBMc, it is, for me, (1) Romney, (2) Giuliani, (3) take a political vacation for 2008.  Meaning, no-way, no-how, never on McCain.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Great Presidents and a Fear of Losing

When I was younger, we had two Mondays off in February, Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday.  Washington and Lincoln seem to be the consensus Top 2 Presidents in US history.   I have no problem with a day off for each--given that they forged and preserved our Union, respectively.

Lately, however, we have "President's Day" off.  What is that?  A day to dwell on Presidents?  The Executive Branch in general?  Why not "Supreme Court Day" or "Congress Day"?  The Founders saw the legislative branch as the primary branch of the three anyhow.

I think two things are in play with this change.  First, it is more convenient--and employers can get more work--to merge them into one day.  Practically, this makes sense.  But holidays are not about practicality, are they?  If we only had pragmatism to worry about, we'd have no days off, except maybe Sunday to rest up for the next work week.  Holidays are about a society's decision to honor something, or someone, beyond work.  The society is making a collective decision to become inefficient for the sake of something higher worth thinking about.

Beyond practicality, is the second--and more troubling--thing happening here.  Our society is becoming publicly afraid of greatness.  We do not want distinctions between good and bad.  Schools are avoiding grades because it creates differences between students--and that might hurt someone's self esteem.  AYSO soccer groups in some areas don't keep score, again, some team might "lose".  This ignores the fact that every dad and every player at the AYSO game knows FULL WELL WHAT THE SCORE IS!!!  Anyhow, if your soccer team gets shelled 20-1, you shouldn't feel that great about what you've done.  You should have motivation to get better, and thinking "We're a good team" is not consistent with reality.  How is that helping a child prepare for life?  If that kid wants to become a pro player, you know he is going to be facing millions of fans that all know perfectly well what team won, and how well he performed. "Grading" and "scoring" will follow us all our days in this world.

The real trick ought not to be to stick our heads in the sand as to who is great among us, because differences do exist, that's natural.  Instead, it should be to develop the ability to overcome disappointment, to train to become great, to deal with the reality of life--we are all not great at everything we try, and that is OK.

So ignoring the fact that some Presidents were great while others were not is inappropriate.  We should spend the day acknowledging what Washington and Lincoln have done for our nation.  There's no point to contemplating the glories of Millard Fillmore or Zachary Taylor.  They may very well have given it their best shot, and there's no need to denigrate their service, but they are not in the same league as the Greats.

By the way, as a form of protest, I've taken to "dedicating" each Presidents Day to a different President.  This year was William Henry Harrison--who died days after delivering his inaugural address.  Last year was James Garfield.  Who did you think about this year?  Hopefully it was someone great.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

President's Day, Three Day Weekends and the Fear of Death

I trust everyone had a wonderful President's Day weekend! 

Is it just me or do Saturday and Sunday feel totally different when you know you have Monday off?  Why?  Is it because we have no fear of Monday?  The imposing death of Monday is not there - and even though it has only been moved to Tuesday, the one day makes such a huge difference in how I live on Saturday and Sunday.

I have been struck by the power of how an uncertain future impacts how I live in the present.  If being delivered from "death" on Mondays transforms Saturdays and Sundays how much more could being delivered from death to life transform EVERYday - all of life?

Didymus

Exhale

In our modern celebrity world, Cleopatra wouldn’t have lasted very long. Physical perfection is everything. Getting old and fat are not allowed. So, I wondered this morning, as I was listening to another celebrity talk about his recent stint in rehab, why this doesn’t harm a celebrity’s image. Isn’t it embarrassing to admit in such a public way that you are less-than-perfect? Apparently not. If anything, it has the opposite effect. The celebrity becomes more endearing because they have climbed down off their pedestal and they are now “just one of us”. Actually, I think it’s a relief when someone admits their struggles. You can hear the collective sigh as the rest of the celebs enjoy the brief moment when they can drop the façade and be themselves-messed up in the head, just like the rest of us.

My community is not full of celebrities, but friends and family who for the most part seem to have it all together. But there is always a collective exhalation when, in a bible study or dinner or any small group, someone has the guts to admit they’re struggling. It might be a small struggle or a huge melt-down, but it helps everyone else at the table recognise their own struggles too. For that brief moment, we are all back on the same page-broken, messed up, hurt, needing grace.

To everyone who has voiced a struggle-thank you. You have done one of the hardest things, to climb down off your pedestal, but in doing so you also helped me climb down off mine.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Mind Over Body

So, it turns out Cleopatra was loved for her mind, not her body.  Feminism was on the march in ancient Egypt too I guess. 

Some British archaeologists--for Valentine's Day no less--published findings based on a Roman coin depicting Cleopatra.  They show that she was no physical beauty at all.

Compare:

and

Then think about the modern mind's traditional view of Cleopatra:

 

Which images are closer?  Cleopatra and Susan B. Anthony or Cleopatra and Elizabeth Taylor?

I think the artists since Cleopatra's time have altered our perception, bringing it down to the "lowest common denominator" of sorts--physical beauty.  In doing so, they have altered the reason she was probably revered from her personality to her body.  (And for those of us in the viewing audience, thank goodness for that!  As for society, well, that's another story--the audience v. societal benefits, is the perpetual battle, isn't it?)

Consider this progression of descriptions over the centuries--from closest in time (see the coin above for the physical depiction) to the most modern (see E. Taylor's picture nearby.)

From the article:

Plutarch, in the "Life of Antony" written a century after the great romance, said of Cleopatra: "her actual beauty, it is said, was not in itself so remarkable that none could be compared with her."..."But the contact of her presence, if you lived with her, was irresistible; the attraction of her person, joining with the charm of her conversation, and the character that attended all she said or did, was something bewitching. It was a pleasure merely to hear the sound of her voice ..."

Then to Chaucer:

"fair as is the rose in May."

And to Shakespeare:

Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety; other women cloy the appetites they feed, but she makes hungry where most she satisfies."

Well, it turns out that the reason age couldn't wither her was that it had already occurred!  Nevertheless, the woman's beauty was in her presence and company.  This, I imagine is something Susan B. Anthony would have applauded.  And maybe, just maybe, we have in Rome and Egypt an early example of the type of mind-over-body womanhood so much discussed in erudite circles today.

Nevertheless, I doubt the movie would have been such a hit had Susan B. had the lead!

We blog, you decide,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

A Chilling Headline

"Hearing on 'Warming of Planet' Canceled Because of Ice Storm" reads this headline on the 'Drudge Report' today.  Hilarious.

Is it an intellectual pot shot to use one cold day to try and refute a long-term-climate question?  Yes it is.  But it is ENTIRELY consistent with the way this silly debate has unfolded so far.  Global warming started as a 100-year problem.  The earth would slowly heat up and cause the ice caps to melt, affect water temperatures, and weather patterns.  This would lead to higher seas--threatening coastal cities--and more severe storms.

In reality, the sky-falling/warming side does this pot shotting worse than the doubters-of-warming.  It seems each time someone clicks a photo of a polar bear near unfrozen water, we get a "it's getting in hot in here" headline.  Actual Global-warming theory doesn't work this way.  Moreover, the scientists pushing it don't argue it is an instant, or even present, problem--it is a looming or potential problem.  To see just how looming this problem is today, you can see the 'global thermometer' at this site.  In any event, using "it is unusually hot/cold today" arguments have nothing to do with the fundamental questions.

• Is the earth warming?
• Is man causing it?
• Is the earth simply going through its historical cycle of warming and cooling?
• Is there anything man can do to stop it?
• Does it pose a long-term or short-term problem?
• If our limited resources are spent fighting it, will we be better off than if we used those same resources to fight other problems afflicting the world?

You will see I've labeled this under 'politics' rather than 'science'.  When these issues make their way into House Committee meetings, you can rest assured, the issues have nothing to do with science.  The committee chairman is grand standing--you'll see in his/her re-election material "I lead the charge to stop global warming by calling a panel of experts..."--for some constituency.

There is no better discussion on the nature of this debate than by Michael Crichton.  His essay is not necessarily about the issue itself.  It is about how the debate is developing in an intellectually dishonest way.  I think that dishonesty is consistent with the headline above, and the plethora of headlines on warming--you will remember one Congressman blamed Hurricane Katrina on Bush's 'pro' global warming stance.  By reading this article, which you should read in its entirety, you will see how, in fact, space aliens have caused global warming, and how we have wrecked the scientific method for political gain.  Keep in mind while reading the long but worthwhile article, that the author started out to write a book in favor of the Global Warming position and only after examining the evidence changed his position.

He begins his essay "Aliens Cause Global Warming" with:

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming. Charting this progression of belief will be my task today.

Let me say at once that I have no desire to discourage anyone from believing in either extraterrestrials or global warming. That would be quite impossible to do. Rather, I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science-namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.

And he concludes with these chilling concerns:

Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists? ...

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science.

We've all heard of the separation of church and state. It doesn't exist in the Constitution, but we've all come to embrace it nonetheless.  But as society has moved increasingly towards a faith in science--which is something Crichton confesses to in his essay--we ought to now introduce the idea of separation of state and science.

Weird Science,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Identity

There was very popular game show on TV recently called “Identity”. I didn’t watched more than a few minutes of it (not a big fan of game shows), but as far as I know the contestants had to guess the identity (actually the occupation) of a group of strangers standing in front of them. Of course, no-one really looked like they were in their chosen profession and I’m sure the TV networks subliminal message was probably to teach us all a lesson in stereotyping. But the idea of discovering someone’s true identity coincides with three Christian books I’m reading at the moment, which are also strangely coinciding with each other. The theme these past few weeks has been “seeing ourselves as God sees us”. This theme comes from three different angles from three different authors..

In “Velvet Elvis”, by Rob Bell, I was reminded that we are made in the image of God and seeing ourselves as sinners “first and foremost” leads only to guilt and shame and continues to separate us from God.
“This is an issue of identity. It is letting what God says about us shape what we believe about ourselves. This is why shame has no place whatsoever in the Christian experience. It is simply against all that Jesus is for.”

In “Captivating”, John and Stasi Eldredge are encouraging women to recover their God-given feminine identity.
“Shame is that feeling that haunts us….We know we are not all that we long to be, all that God longs for us to be, but instead of coming up for grace-filled air and asking God what he thinks of us, shame keeps us pinned down and gasping, believing we deserve to suffocate”.

In “What’s so Amazing About Grace”, Philip Yancey quotes Helmut Thielicke to make the point that Jesus recognised a person’s true identity as a child of God.
“When Jesus loved a guilt-laden person and helped him, he saw him as an erring child of God. He saw in him a human being whom his Father loved and grieved over because he was going wrong. He saw him as God originally designed and meant him to be, and therefore he saw through the surface layer of grime and dirt to the real man underneath. Jesus did not identify the person with his sin, but rather saw in this sin something alien, something that really didn’t belong to him and from which he would free him and bring him back to his real self.”

As a Christian I feel like I’m always striving to do the right thing and most of the time coming up short. It can be pretty depressing. I give the idea of “grace” a quick nod occasionally but it’s my identity as a sinner which seems to predominate over my identity as a child of God. Maybe other people feel the same way? How do we recover our true identity and live in that freedom?

Phiomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

H---dale-It’s-the-People Moment

Remember, ‘It’s the People’ is our town motto.

This morning I did my weekly shopping in our grocery store which is locally owned.  In the produce section, the produce lady asked me where my children were.  One minute later a check out person who was chatting to the deli guy asked me why I was all alone.  And around the corner a veteran Market employee of 40 years said nothing but looked bewildered - where were my girls?  Yes, this was a H--dale moment.  They don’t know my name, but they know I have three daughters and that if the two year old is fussing, a banana will quiet her.  The produce lady gave her one a year ago - gratis.  The baggers ask you, ‘paper or plastic’?  And the check-out clerk asks me if I would like help out when I have the little ones with me or if I am pregnant.  No tipping allowed.

Think there will be things I will miss about this place in August when we move East?

Beth

allthesethingsbeth@yahoo.com

H---dale Moment

Living in a small rural midwest town with a depressed economy, my imported friend (from New Mexico) and I (from northern California) share our ‘H---dale Moments’.  We have intended to give new arrivals a pretty notebook in which to record these highs and lows.  Here is my most recent - diamonds in the rough grow aplenty here.

I try to avoid the seedy corner liquor store.  But last week I bought bread at there at 7:30pm.  Behind me was a man I recognized by sight.  He walks around town with a hefty garbage bag collecting recycling in order to pay for his cigarettes and alcohol.  He had just come in unsteadily, two liter ‘lemonade’ in hand, for his cigarettes.  I paid.  The check out lady studiously avoided meeting his eyes.  I walked to the exit.  He caught up to me, opened the door and held it open while I walked through.  Not in four years at Stanford University did anyone open a door for me.

H---dale, It’s the People.

Beth

allthesebeth@yahoo.com