Love the Beast

Recently, I watched Eric Bana's documentary, Love the Beast.  It chronicles his history with a 1974 Ford Falcon xB Coupe that he acquired as a teenager.  As he grew up, got married and became a movie star, he kept this beloved car with him.  He rebuilt it twice with his friends, and, after his film success, had a professional turn it into an unabashed race car.  Thousands of dollars and thousands of hours were spent in this complete transformation.

The highlight of this history is the Targa Tasmania Rally.  It's a 5 day event of flat-out racing across over a dozen stages.  In 1996, he ran the rally with the car before its transformation.  He finished third in his class, when his goal was to simply finish.  Ten years later, with a totally transformed car, he returned to the Targa Tasmania.  It now sported over 500 horsepower and was aptly called The Beast.  The first three days passed without incident.  Day four, however, turned out differently.  A sharp turn suddenly came up, and Eric and his codriver careened off the road.  Both were uninjured, but The Beast had quite a bit of damage.  The Targa was over for Eric and the Beast.

A month after the rally, Eric got the postmortem.  It was not good.  The Beast would have to be totally rebuilt to be drivable again.  There were so many custom parts that he would essentially be starting the restoration over from scratch again. Crushed by the news, Eric struggled with the decision of what to do with this car that he had possessed since he was a teenager.  He talked with Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, Jay Leno, and even Dr. Phil about it.  They were unanimous.  That car has been with him longer than his wife.  Although other things matter far more, they realized that a car that he had kept for over twenty years and brought through three restorations was worth saving.  And they told him to build it again.

The documentary really struck a chord with me.  Five years ago, I saved money on the side for over a year and paid off debt early primarily to afford a 350Z.  On October 31, 2007, I drove away in my brand new 350Z in San Marino Blue.  I had worked for it.  I had dreamed about owning it.  I drive a 350Z in Gran Turismo and Forza Motorsport.  When I moved to Michigan, I got a winter car, just to avoid getting it rusty.  It sits in my garage in the winter, and I wipe snow off a 13 year old car that sits in the cold.

Recently, I began one of my dreams in earnest.  I actually got to compete in my 350Z in real life.  My first five or six events, I was just happy to be pushing my car to its limits.  I was happy to be doing something that other people only dream of doing.  I was happy to learn how 10/10ths is different than 8/10ths.  I felt the butterflies of the rear end sliding, only to catch it gracefully.

By the end of the year, however, I faced a dilemma.  I kept hearing the phrase from experienced autocrossers: "The 350Z is not competitive in your class."  Thanks to an accident in early 2008, I no longer had the original wheels that came with the car.  So I was in the "Street Prepared" class.  And I was beaten regularly by three to four seconds on a 60 second course.  That is no trivial amount.  Better driving would only have reduced my times by a second at most.  The siren call kept whispering, "Sell the Z.  Get something competitive..."

I knew that the Z could do much better within the class, but it would be outshined, so long as it faced cars that weighed significantly less and had more horsepower and torque.  Unfortunately, the 370Z, weighing 200 fewer pounds and 30 more horsepower, stock, is classed exactly the same.  So, the odds are not in the 350Z's favor.  It also faces off against the Mitsubishi Evolution and Subaru STI wunderkids.  If I put race tires on it, it would suddenly be facing a certain Corvette that has repeatedly set the fastest times of the day at autocrosses.  This Corvette likely has 500 horsepower and certainly has gigantic race tires.  It is definitely a beast. Ideally, the Z would top out at 350HP in either class.

Yet, another question lingered in my mind.  "Should I even be contemplating spending $10,000 or more to make a fast car even faster? Shouldn't I be a good husband/Catholic/homeowner/financial planner and save money for things that matter?"  Now, I knew that money would be spent over the course of a number of years, but the expenses of home ownership and the prospects of a family may even make owning a 350Z prohibitively expensive.  I have to have a winter car, and as the sports car slowly transforms into race car, that winter car becomes the "daily driver."  Selling the Z is an even worse prospect, fiscally, unless the other car does double-duty.  Financially, I could sell the Z and the BMW, and get a new sub-compact that has room for babies, and have plenty left over to make it competitive for a stock class.  All 100 HP of it.  But, it would do well in its class.

Yet, I think in the end, Love the Beast provided the answer.  I'd been told "You'd regret selling the Z."  When I saw the pain of loss on Eric's face as he gazed over the wreckage of his beloved Beast, I knew that the Z was MY car.  It may or may not wind up being competitive, but I'll have a blast trying.

On the Need for Authority

One thing that always strikes me about protestants is that they claim to believe in Sola Scriptura.  They say that the Bible is the sole source of revelation.

Unfortunately, that presents problems.  First, it is all roughly two thousand years old or older.  Things were written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, about events that happened in a culture that is vastly different than our culture today.  To even begin to study the Bible in a true "Sola Scriptura" fashion, you need to know biblical Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.  You also need a vast understanding of the ancient Near East culture, history, geography, etc.  Thus, to even BEGIN to rely solely upon Scripture, you need vast amounts of contextual information for the words to even make sense.

Why do you need to know all of this?  Translation is, to some degree, always interpreting from the source language to the target language.  To eliminate bias from translators, one must go to the source language.  Then, a mere mechanical translation sometimes makes little sense to the reader.  How long is a cubit?  How much is a shekel worth?  How can you stuff a camel through the eye of a needle?  As much as is possible, any student of Scripture needs to be aware of these things.  Many translations, despite attempting to be unbiased, still do not immediately make sense without the context, anyway.  Furthermore, one has to consider the type of literature that the passage comes from.  It could be poetry, history, proverbial, legal; it could be a letter, or apocalyptic literature.  There is thought that certain books of the Old Testament are fables, stories used to illustrate certain eternal truths.

All of this effort is simply to get the literal meaning of Scripture.  Above and beyond that are the many varied spiritual interpretations, foreshadowing, typography, cross references, numerology, etc.

Ultimately, if you say that scripture alone is the sole source of revelation, you are spending an awful lot of time and effort reinventing the wheel.  You will also get things wrong, so it'll likely be a lopsided, inefficient wheel at that.

Let's get down to the brass tacks.  People disagree on everything even when it is specific.  When something is vague or open to interpretation, multiply that by a thousand.

We even see disagreement on doctrine among the early Christian peoples.  In Acts 15, the so-called Judaisers were insisting that Pagan converts follow the Judaic law in its entirety.  Others disagreed.  It was such a serious disagreement that it threatened in the Church's infancy to split the Church even then.

How did they handle the dispute?  Did they say to each other, "You know, this doesn't really matter.  Can we just agree to disagree, as long as we follow Christ?"  No, they did not.  Instead, here's what DID happen.  The apostles and presbyters assembled together from the whole Church, discussed the matter, prayed, and came to a definitive decision.  Note that the Holy Spirit worked through this seemingly prosaic and human form of resolution (Acts 15:28).  All were to abide by the decision.  The Judaisers did not go off and start their own splinter group, but submitted to the authority of this council.

This event provided the prototype for all further disputes within the Church, whether they be moral or theological.  The fruits were greater understanding of God's Revelation and a chance to practice humility and compassion.  The greatest fruit, however, was that a signpost was planted, guiding men on the narrow and difficult road, and helping them avoid the wide and easy road to perdition.  Each new council, each new proclamation, guides the weary traveller higher up, borne by the strength of the Lord, so that he might avoid pitfalls on his journey.  In a very practical way, these decisions make straight the paths of the Lord so that we might run swiftly into His loving arms as a good and faithful servant.

Upon this Rock

Text Mt 16:13-19:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Translation Notes:

1. In verse 18, in Aramaic, the language commonly spoken among the Jews at the time of Jesus, Kephas means both Peter and rock. There is no difference in spelling, gender, pronunciation, etc. It is simply the same word. Petros and petra are the translations for this Kephas into Greek. In Greek, we still see the relation between Peter and rock, but due to gender issues, it is not the exact same word.
2. In verse 19, the Greek has distinction between you (singular) and you (plural). In proper English, there is no such distinction. In informal usage, southerners have the advantage of using y'all for distinction. Use of "y'all" here would be a mistranslation.

Wild Thoughts and Ruminations:

Here, we see one of the most famous exchanges between Jesus and Simon Peter. First, he asks who others say he is. There are many answers. What follows is a question that we must all face in our lives. "Who do you say that I am?"

The answer each man gives is his alone to give. The answer he gives defines that man. It is THE question. Our answer, ultimately, is given by the way we live. Even if a man outwardly says, "Lord, Lord!", it is empty if he does not pick up his cross and follow Christ. If a man at first denies Christ, but then repents, he is borne out by his actions. Others may say he is a good man or a prophet or a teacher. Some may say he is a madman with delusions of grandeur. Some even deny his very existence.

Simon, however, answers correctly, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God." It is a bold statement. We, sitting in our chairs or pews, having read this and been preached this all of our lives, will say, "of course! Who else would he be?" His statement was earth-shattering. The Father revealed this to him, but he faced the same fears and doubts that we all face in this life. Was this idea truly from God? Is it from Satan, trying to give me false hope? Does it come from my own hopes and desires? This struggle is just as difficult as it was to step out of the boat and onto the water. He was stepping out where he was only supported by faith. At that moment, his soul stood before Christ, without support or crutch, borne only by this conviction.

And Jesus, reading Simon's very soul, chose him. Jesus knew that Simon would fall in a moment of weakness. Jesus also knew that, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Simon could guide the Church when He has risen. Thus, he gives Simon a new name.

Throughout the Old Testament and the New, we find that names are of deep spiritual importance. The first to receive a name is Adam. It quite simply means man. He is the father of all mankind. No human is human without being a son or daughter of Adam. (Hence, CS Lewis' usage.) We see that Abram, the father of many nations, the father of Judaism, was called by God and named Abraham. We see that Jacob, the father of the Twelve Tribes, is renamed Israel. We see that Samson was given his name by the angel of the Lord, and he sacrificed himself for the budding nation of Israel. We see that John the Baptist was given the name John, rather than his father's name Zechariah, to indicate that he had a special mission. We see even Jesus Himself was given a name by the angel Gabriel.

We see here, that Christ gave Simon the name Peter. In Greek, Petros. In Aramaic, Kephas. The Rock. (See translation note above.) In being renamed, Christ gives Simon, now Peter, a new mission. And the new mission follows directly: "upon this rock I shall build my Church." Again, fully, with the Aramaic names in place: "You are Kephas, and upon this kephas I will build my Church." He also continues, "I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." English is one of the few languages that obscures the translation. There is no such difficulty in Spanish, for instance.

With this name and mission, it is clear that Christ was appointing Peter as his successor in mission and authority. Peter shall lead the fledgling Church and exercise Christ's authority in His apparent absence.

This Sums up so well what I feel about Catholicism

"...The more complicated seems the coincidence, the less it can be a coincidence. If snowflakes fell in the shape, say, of the heart of Midlothian, it might be an accident. But if snowflakes fell in the exact shape of the maze at Hampton Court, I think one might call it a miracle. It is exactly as of such a miracle that I have since come to feel of the philosophy of Christianity. The complication of our modern world proves the truth of the creed more perfectly than any of the plain problems of the ages of faith. It was in Notting Hill and Battersea that I began to see that Christianity was true. This is why the faith has that elaboration of doctrines and details which so much distresses those who admire Christianity without believing in it. When once one believes in a creed, one is proud of its complexity, as scientists are proud of the complexity of science. It shows how rich it is in discoveries. If it is right at all, it is a compliment to say that it’s elaborately right. A stick might fit a hole or a stone a hollow by accident. But a key and a lock are both complex. And if a key fits a lock, you know it is the right key.

But this involved accuracy of the thing makes it very difficult to do what I now have to do, to describe this accumulation of truth. It is very hard for a man to defend anything of which he is entirely convinced. It is comparatively easy when he is only partially convinced. He is partially convinced because he has found this or that proof of the thing, and he can expound it. But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it. He is only really convinced when he finds that everything proves it. And the more converging reasons he finds pointing to this conviction, the more bewildered he is if asked suddenly to sum them up. Thus, if one asked an ordinary intelligent man, on the spur of the moment, “Why do you prefer civilization to savagery?” he would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, “Why, there is that bookcase . . . and the coals in the coal-scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and policemen.” The whole case for civilization is that the case for it is complex. It has done so many things. But that very multiplicity of proof which ought to make reply overwhelming makes reply impossible." GK Chesterton in Orthodoxy

The Quotesmith continues

"The Christian optimism is based on the fact that we do not fit in to the world. I had tried to be happy by telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought its meat from God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man is a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself was at once worse and better than all things. The optimist’s pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; the Christian pleasure was poetic, for it dwelt on the unnaturalness of everything in the light of the supernatural. The modern philosopher had told me again and again that I was in the right place, and I had still felt depressed even in acquiescence. But I had heard that I was in the wrong place, and my soul sang for joy, like a bird in spring. The knowledge found out and illuminated forgotten chambers in the dark house of infancy. I knew now why grass had always seemed to me as queer as the green beard of a giant, and why I could feel homesick at home."

~GK Chesterton in Orthodoxy

For the love of GK Chesterton, I can't help myself!

It was as if I had been blundering about since my birth with two huge and unmanageable machines, of different shapes and without apparent connection -- the world and the Christian tradition. I had found this hole in the world: the fact that one must somehow find a way of loving the world without trusting it; somehow one must love the word without being worldly. I found this projecting feature of Christian theology, like a sort of hard spike, the dogmatic insistence that God was personal, and had made a world separate from Himself. The spike of dogma fitted exactly into the hole in the world -- it had evidently been meant to go there -- and then the strange thing began to happen. When once these two parts of the two machines had come together, one after another, all the other parts fitted and fell in with an eerie exactitude. I could hear bolt after bolt over all the machinery falling into its place with a kind of click of relief. Having got one part right, all the other parts were repeating that rectitude, as clock after dock strikes noon. Instinct after instinct was answered by doctrine after doctrine. Or, to vary the metaphor, I was like one who had advanced into a hostile country to take one high fortress. And when that fort had fallen the whole country surrendered and turned solid behind me. The whole land was lit up, as it were, back to the first fields of my childhood. All those blind fancies of boyhood which in the fourth chapter I have tried in vain to trace on the darkness, became suddenly transparent and sane. I was right when I felt that roses were red by some sort of choice: it was the divine choice. I was right when I felt that I would almost rather say that grass was the wrong colour than say it must by necessity have been that colour: it might verily have been any other. My sense that happiness hung on the crazy thread of a condition did mean something when all was said: it meant the whole doctrine of the Fall. Even those dim and shapeless monsters of notions which I have not been able to describe, much less defend, stepped quietly into their places like colossal caryatides of the creed. The fancy that the cosmos was not vast and void, but small and cosy, had a fulfilled significance now, for anything that is a work of art must be small in the sight of the artist; to God the stars might be only small and dear, like diamonds. And my haunting instinct that somehow good was not merely a tool to be used, but a relic to be guarded, like the goods from Crusoe’s ship -- even that had been the wild whisper of something originally wise, for, according to Christianity, we were indeed the survivors of a wreck, the crew of a golden ship that had gone down before the beginning of the world.

~ GK Chesterton in Orthodoxy

Salavation History, Part 2

I lied. This is actually going to be more about Christ's life than post Cross.

The life of Christ is the central event in human history. Gregorian monks rightly reckoned all of history to be judged whether it be Before Christ or Anno Domini (in the year of Our Lord). The common era stuff is for those who wish to deny Christ in history.

First of all, we must tackle the issue of God the Son becoming Man. God could have waved a magic wand and said, "Poof! It's all good!" Jesus' life, death and resurrection is the ultimate revelation of who God is and who Man is. It is the ultimate death-blow to those who would reject the physical world and those who would reject the spiritual world.

God made man in His Image. God then made Himself in man's image in the person of Jesus Christ. His desire for unity was so great that He became united to his Creation.

Jesus was never solely concerned with the spiritual, and never solely concerned with the physical. The two were always bound together. "Your sins are forgiven...Pick up your mat and walk." Jesus taught the crowds, and fed them. He turned water into wine at a wedding. That wine would have been enough to keep my wedding reception guests, all 250 of them, liquored up for a week straight. Literally.

Jesus makes some strange proclamations along the way, though. "You must pick up your cross and follow me." "Can you drink from the cup that I will drink?" "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life within you." He holds up bread and says, "This is my body." And likewise, the cup of wine, "This is my blood." The very next day, He is crucified. We claim, then, that this physical crucifixion has spiritual consequences. This spilling of blood of the spotless Lamb of God is the sacrifice which reconciles Man to God.

How does this sacrifice unite us to God? How are we incorporated into this shedding of blood? Those two events, the Last Supper and His death on the Cross are intimately linked. In the Jewish understanding of a day, "night came and morning followed...", these two events were at the beginning and the end of the SAME DAY. They are, in fact, the same event, mystically united. They are literally united by the Word of God. The Last Supper began with a washing. It ended with this proclamation that "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" and he shared those with his disciples.

The blood that dropped from His side is the same blood that He gave his disciples to drink. The body that hung from the cross is the same body that He gave his disciples to eat. The Word spoke and it was (read Genesis 1 and John 1).

"Do this in memory of me."

On Salvation History, Part 1

The Cross reaches out in four directions into infinity. Its arms reach out and embrace the whole world. Its post goes from the depths of the earth to the highest of heavens. It is the signpost around which all of history, indeed, all of creation itself, revolves. All that came before it prepares the way for it. All that comes after looks back upon it. All of history revolves around the Incarnation, Life, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Adam and Eve were made in the Image and Likeness of God. They were made with bodies and souls. Even at the fall of man, God promises a savior. At the time of Moses, God gave man the law, foreseeing the time when the law is written upon men's hearts through the Cross. The priests offered sacrifice, foreshadowing the sacrifice of the Cross. The prophets drew the people of God into relationship with Him. They admonished their sins and foretold of a savior. The kings ruled over them, foreshadowing their heavenly King.

Jesus was priest, prophet and king. He, the God made man, ruler of all, will come again to judge the living and the dead. He offered Himself in sacrifice as the new high priest, upon which all priesthood is based. This Living Word drew man into union with himself, reading men's hearts, healing their bodies, their minds and their souls.

In all of the Old Testament, and all of the New, we see this strange intermixing of body and soul, of the physical world with the spiritual. We see this in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were made "very good." They were made in "the Image and Likeness of God." Yet, we see that this very good image and likeness of God is both physical and spiritual. One of the most poignant lines before the fall is this: "They were naked without shame." After the fall, we see that they realize their nakedness and cover it. When they sin, they open their bodies to death and decay. Even at the beginning, man is this strange creature with both physical and spiritual natures. Even at the beginning, we see the created union of these natures. Even at the beginning, we see that they affect one another, and that man is incomplete without both body and soul. This understanding of man is essential for any authentic understanding of Christianity.

Salvation History makes no sense without this understanding of man. When Moses meets God in the burning bush, we see God instructing Moses to remove his sandals, because where he is standing is holy ground. We see here that this physical action is united to a spiritual reality. When Elijah confronts the prophets of Baal, he creates an altar, which God Himself consumes with fire. When Samson is born, he is told not to cut his hair, nor drink wine, nor strong drink, as an offering to the Lord. When David sins, his son dies. God takes pains to offer up precise instructions on the tent where His presence is to dwell. He specifies the robes and undergarments that the priests are to wear when offering sacrifice. If God goes through the trouble to specify undergarments, you can see that the physical worlds and spiritual worlds are intimately linked, particularly when it comes to worship.

The ultimate expression of this is in Jesus Christ, the God who became Man. This invisible God willed to become fully man, while remaining fully God. Thus, the person of Jesus ONLY makes sense if the physical world and spiritual world are intimately bound up with one another.

Part 2 will cover salvation history after the Cross.

Chesterton on Marriage and Monogamy

More GK Chesterton:

"I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself. To be allowed, like Endymion, to make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me (bred on fairy tales like Endymion’s) a vulgar anti-climax. Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in mere absence of mind."
~ GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Chesterton on tradition

All people should know, understand and appreciate this, particularly Catholics and Americans:

"But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record... Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross."
~ GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

GK Chesterton - the Quotesmith

Oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.

~ GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Think about it.

Vocare

Vocare (to call) -> Vocation is fundamentally a call from God. It is, in essence, a lifelong mission that you are given that you never truly retire from. It fundamentally affects who you are rather than what you do. Essential to this understanding is that God equips those whom he calls. When lived out, a vocation encompasses an irrevocable gift of self. It is giving your life to this calling.

The current understanding of a vocation as a line of work is a flawed idea that your identity and dignity are rooted in what you do. (This is one of the great mistakes of modern feminism.) With it comes the devaluation of those who cannot perform, whether physically (including sexually), mentally, etc. It stems from a utilitarian understanding of the human person. If he cannot contribute to society, if he cannot support himself and/or others, then that person is useless. If you really stop and think about that, it’s a really horrific and self-centered understanding of life.

Instead, a profession should flow naturally from the identity and vocation of the person, rather than vice versa as above. Ultimately, vocation is a calling to which a man gives himself. For husbands and fathers, the income from this profession becomes part of his “gift of self” to his spouse and to his children. Sometimes that unfortunately means that a man must take employment where it is available to keep himself and his family off the street. For those in the religious life, it often means a rigorous life of prayer and preaching or service to fellow man.

It is only the single person, committed to such, that can really begin to call a profession also a vocation. An example might be a researcher who dedicates his whole life to finding a cure for a disease, or a philosopher who eschews conventional life to dedicate it all to the pursuit of wisdom.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- Declaration of Independence

If one statement could sum up what ideals the United States of America has been founded upon, it is the statement above. This is what the American Dream is all about: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The house with the yard and the white picket fence is simply a concrete image of these in action. The house contains a family with children, made safe by the laws of the white picket fence, where the family can dwell in peace and happiness.

Mr. Jefferson was genius in penning that statement. Not only were those virtues chosen properly, but they are inherently interlinked and ordered. Life is the fundamental right. Without the right to life, there can be no liberty nor pursuit of happiness. Without a right to life, he is a slave, and liberty cannot exist. Without a right to life, man can be snuffed out by another. Without a right to life, man's life is lived in fear. Liberty safeguards life and and the pursuit of Happiness. When a man is free, he is his own master. He is not a slave to another. He is not a slave to his debts. He is not a slave to his passions. He is not a slave to an employer, and he is not a slave to the state. This freedom allows him to pursue happiness. Without life and liberty, there can be no happiness.

However, what comes along with those rights are responsibilities. In order to respect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I cannot violate those rights in others. I cannot kill another, I cannot make another my slave, I cannot will the misery of another. Furthermore, because my life is my own, I have the responsibility to work for sustaining myself. I have the responsibility to pursue happiness on my own. I can certainly work with others, but must do so in ways that respect those fundamental rights that we each possess.

Unfortunately, this is something many in our great country have forgotten. These ideals can only exist together, and when you remove one, the others shall surely fall. The most fundamental breach of these ideals is that of abortion. It masquerades as pursuing happiness, but, in doing so, violates the life and liberty and pursuit of happiness of the most innocent and defenseless among us. This is not meant to be a tirade against the horrors of abortion, so I shall go on. There are many among us who have no desire to work for themselves, and many who have enabled them to do just that. Under the guise of protecting life, these people perpetually take money from those who responsibly work for themselves and give that money to those who do not. I am not speaking here of those who are truly unable to work because of physical or mental impairment, but those who are lazy, or, worse yet, dishonest.

The worst part is that many have been intentionally twisting the law away from these ideals. Instead of seeing the law as a practical application of a set of ideals, a practical application of a philosophy of life that is represented in our founding fathers, these people see the law as a tool to further their own ends, philosophy or ideals be damned. They will sell their vote or argue untruth or rule dishonestly if it benefits themselves. Many times, it is the very people that we entrust with our liberty and our tax money that are taking these things for themselves.

What are we to do?

If my dog were ...

... an architect, she'd be Pup-minster Fuller.
... a musician, she'd be a pup star.
... on Sesame Street, she'd be Pup-pleupagus.
... in politics, she'd be a re-pup-lican.
... food, she'd be pup-ernickle bread.
... in a Halloween costume, she'd be a pup-kin.
... in a movie, it would be Pup Fiction.
... an 80's odd stuffed animal, she'd be a Pup-ple.
... camping gear, she'd be a pup tent.
... a snack, she'd be pup-corn.

Something Lost, Something Gained

When you lose something dear to you, it makes an impact on your life. This past week, my wedding ring went missing. It encircled my finger, and my finger feels naked without it. Its loss brought into sharp relief what it symbolized. My loving wife is still here, and we are still very much in love. I miss that constant reminder of our love.

However, that loss sparked a gain. My parents happened to be flying in this weekend. My father and I rented a metal detector, in futile hope of finding the ring. However, in that working together, we gained something that we had lost. On Saturday, after our scan of the yard turned sour, we wound up building a pregnant snow-woman together. On Sunday, we returned and renewed our efforts, bolstered by the warm weather. Our search still fruitless, we wound up in a snowball fight. It's the most fun I've had with my father in a long time.

I am truly thankful and blessed for this weekend.

Memento Mori

Today, the Catholic world is plunged into that season of fasting and prayer that is called Lent. It begins with Ash Wednesday, where faithful Catholics have ashes smeared on their foreheads with the invocation "From dust you came; to dust you shall return."

For some, this is in stark contrast to the days preceding. Those were days filled with food and revelry. For them, Lent is the end of the party. It is an icy cold shower the morning after a good party.

For all, it serves as a stark reminder that man does not live by bread alone. Whether arriving like the shock of an icy shower or gradually like the onset of winter, we are prodded to examine our own mortality in a world that refuses to acknowledge death. In this death, this silence, we are freed from the distractions of this world to ponder the next.

Memento Mori. Remember your death.

It. Is. Alive!

Victim:
1998 Volkswagen Jetta Mk III
2.0L 8v ABA Engine - Stock 115HP

Because the Jetta had come in an unknown state and 150k on the odometer, some mechanical refreshing was in order. My first order of business when I got the car was taking care of the brakes. When simply changing the brake pads did not help, I entrusted it to a garage for speed and peace of mind.

The new subject of inquiry was the ignition system. Nothing had likely been changed for over fifty thousand miles, and it was quite probably on the same spark plugs from 1998. I picked up spark plugs, plug wires, a distributor cap and rotor. An adventure was about to ensue.

The VW 2.0 engine has a rather unusual trait: its intake and manifold snake out the front of the engine, over the top, and around the left side of the engine bay. In the process, it makes getting to the spark plugs and wires an interesting and somewhat difficult affair. Also, the distributor cap has little spacing between it and the engine block. It seems like a really cramped design for a relatively roomy engine bay.

I had to acquire two new tools just to get going: a spark plug puller and a wobble ratchet-shaft. The first thing I found was that the valleys that the spark plugs were stuffed into did not give enough room for the spark plug tool to fit around the wire boot. After shaving down the rubber grips, I was able to pull out the plug wire and get at the first spark plug. (Yay! 1.5 hours down!) The replacement spark plug went in fairly easily.

According to the Chilton's manual, I should not need to remove the intake manifold to get at the middle plugs. Don't buy that line for a second. At the very least, it has to be loosened to allow for maneuvering room. However, some creative maneuvering got the other three plugs replaced and the wires removed from the rat's nest that is in under the intake manifold. (Yay! 2.5 hours down!)

My one bit of excellent forethought was in keeping the plug wires attached to the distributor cap. I popped off the clips and pulled off the old cap. I replaced the rotor, no sweat. I thought to myself, "I'm pretty much home free!", but I was about to learn that I was mistaken. I was flat out WRONG!

I put the new distributor cap on, sans clips, and it jiggled around a bit. After fumbling with it to make sure it was aligned properly, I was ready to clip it back on. I pulled on the clip, but it was about 2 mm from cresting the ridge on the cap. I pushed on it. I pulled out pliers. I pulled out more tools. I tried bending the clips. After about an hour, I gave up for the night.

Sunday, I came back with renewed vigor. More pushing. More prying. I tried bending the clips again. No luck. I tried the old cap, but its ridge was in the same position. No luck. More Pushing. More prying. No luck. After a couple hours of wrestling with it, I gave in for the night. After all, the Super Bowl was coming on.

Monday evening, after posting pictures of my problem, I got a little piece of advice. Use a flathead screwdriver or two, and hook it under the clip, and put the tip on the ridge. Use the leverage to guide the clips onto the ledge. After 15 minutes, the distributor cap was in place! Hoorah! I spent some time getting the new plug wires in and got everything buttoned down.

After a prayer, I turned the key. And it fired right up. AMEN!

Saints win Superbowl over Colts: 31-17

The Saint's just won the Superbowl over the Colts last night, 31-17.

For the first time in its forty-plus year history, the Saints not only went to the Superbowl, but won it outright. It was not a game that depended solely on trick plays, penalties and injuries. Instead, it was a great effort by the Saints that landed them solidly on top of the Colts.

The first quarter seemed to be dominated by the Colts, but the Saints gained steam in the second quarter. The second half was kick-started by a daring on-side kick that was recovered by the Saints. Any superior edge that the Colts had seemed to be deflated from that point on. It was no cakewalk, but the Saints had gained the momentum they needed to overcome the Colts.

The final nails in the Colts' coffin were an interception that was returned for a Saints touchdown, and the Saints' stopping the Colts on fourth down near the endzone.

Google Chrome - Meh...

After about a week of trying out Google Chrome, it went to the great trash bin in the sky.

I'd been using Firefox as my primary browser for about 3-4 years. I'd heard that Chrome was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It turns out that it's not.

The good:

• Fast
• Clean design
• Now with plugins

The bad:

• Status bar showing the URL of a link is too short. Almost invariably cut off part of the URL, despite having plenty of screen width to do so.
  
• Could not find an adblock plugin that I liked (I tried two.) I had trouble finding the blockable items to wipe out intellitxt type issues.
  
• Regularly timed out on pictures that would not timeout on FF or IE. I would regularly see the broken picture icon.
• I'm already perfectly happy with FF.

Conclusion:
I'm still waiting for something to beat Firefox with its combination of speed, reliability, customization and great plugins.

Welcome to the new iPad

Apple has just revealed a new tablet computer, the iPad.

http://www.apple.com/iPad

It slots between an iPod Touch/iPhone and a full-fledged laptop. I get the impression that it is basically a super-sized, hi-res iPod Touch. The larger form factor allows for a larger on-screen keyboard, which reduces the criticisms of the tiny keyboard.

It stands to compete with full-fledged Windows tablet computers, the Amazon Kindle and other eBook-type devices, and even traditional laptops.

Pros:

Can run 10 hours of HD video on a single charge

Slick touch-based UI

Syncs with Mac computers

Can run iPhone/iPod Touch apps

Cons:

Does not run normal Mac applications

All apps come through app store; apps must be approved by Apple, presumably.

Does not have flexibility of a "normal" computer

Does not have the portability of an iPhone

2010 NFC Championship, an Amazing Game

Normally, I'm no big sports fan, but last night's NFC Championship had me on the edge of my seat the entire game. The Saints finally triumphed in overtime, 31-28, over the Vikings in what may have been one of the toughest games of highs and lows in my memory.

For four quarters of regulation time, neither team had more than a touchdown over the other. It was truly a back and forth slugging match. Neither team seemed to be at the top of their game, but the setbacks seemed to offset each other. For every fortuitous gain by the Vikings, the Saints seemed to have their own. On the other hand, for every setback for the Vikings, the Saints seemed to have their own as well. Fumbles and penalties made for an oft frustrating, even maddening game.

In overtime, the Saints won the toss, and that was what mattered. They got it into field goal range, and a perfect field goal sealed the win for the Saints. It was truly a momentous occasion for the Saints.

They are now going to the Super Bowl for the first time.

HDTV display technologies, short and sweet

LCD, Plasma, LED-backlit LCD, what's the difference?

The short answer is picture quality and energy use. I'll refrain from the descriptions of how it works, because, unlike myself, few people actually care about it.

Plasma:

• Picture quality - Plasma seems to do color and contrast very well. Blacks are very black, colors are very colorful. However, like a CRT, the pixels seem to blend together. They are not very distinct. Can have burn-in effects like a CRT.
  
• Power - These are the relative power hogs of the bunch. They'll use more power (on the order of $10-20 worth per year) than either of the LCD solutions
• Quick conclusion - good for movies or TV, not as a display for a computer. Standard def TV probably looks best on this.
  

"plain" LCD

• Picture quality - LCDs have very sharp pixels. Color quality is not as good as plasma. Has a smaller viewing angle than plasma.
• Power - these use less power than plasmas, but more than the LED backlit LCDs
• Quick conclusion - Good for double-duty as TV and computer monitor. It's comparable cost to Plasma would make it my number 2 pick.

LED backlit LCD

• Picture quality - It seems to have all the sharpness of the plain LCDs, but much better color reproduction. It still has the smaller viewing angle as plain LCDs. IMO, it has the best overall picture of the three.
• Power - uses the least amount of power. You're not going to save (in power costs) the difference in cost between this and a plasma or standard LCD at this time, unless you run it for ~ 15+ years or would usually have the TV on ALL DAY LONG.
• Quick conclusion - Number 1 pick. It does double duty with a computer well, has great color reproduction, and uses the least power. I think the extra cost is well justified.

Tater Tot Recipe (I don't like Cream of Mushroom Soup!)

Ingredients:

• 1 Bag of tater tots
• 1 lb tub of french onion dip
• 1 lb of Jimmy Dean sausage, crumbled
• shredded cheddar cheese (extra sharp, please!)

Recipe:

1. Spread the tater tots on a casserole dish (1 deep)
2. Bake at 450 (f) for 15 minutes
3. While that's baking, brown the Jimmy Dean sausage (1lb) like ground beef (make sure to crumble it well). It's better to leave it a little pink than to overcook here.
4. Spread about half of the french onion dip onto the tops of the tater tots, so it is just covering them, and put the browned and crumbled sausage on top.
5. Bake for 10 more minutes
   
6. Spread the rest of the french onion dip and sprinkle shredded cheese over the top of the casserole.
7. Bake for ~3-5 minutes until cheese is melted.

Eat and enjoy the lump in your stomach!

It should feed 8-12 depending on how much people want to eat.