Things I Learned While Traveling Through Western Europe

Things I learned while traveling through Western Europe:

Germans are very concerned about sustainability.

Liverwurst and pickle sandwiches are AMAZING.

If you spend 700 years building something it's gonna look pretty awesome.

The three wisemen's remains are in this jeweled box. Take that mister snobbish Bible professor:
"ACTUALLY we don't know how many wisemen there were."

 A bier museum is a place where they have 25 beers on tap.

This store is such a knock-off they even got the name wrong.

My German adopted family is the best. Don't be jealous, get your own. 

Gifts were slightly more grand back in the day, take the present from Tsar Alexander II for example. 

He gave Paris a bridge.

If you're going to steal something ancient from Egypt claim they gave it to you as a gift.

This is like the hallowed ground of most amazing writers ever. If Robert Louis Stevenson was somehow buried in the Pantheon in Paris I think it would be.

The Eiffel Tower is very cool and takes a REALLY long time to get up when only one lift is working.

Mussels are the best in Normandy, if you go there eat them.

 16th century Norman chateau's are very cool, stay in them whenever possible.

Though it looks charming, do not be deceived; these tubs are very hard to wash in.

Anyone concerned with US history should visit the DDAY beaches. At Point Du Hoc 250 men climbed these cliffs to ensure the success of the US landing on Omaha beach, only 90 survived. That's bravery and courage most of us know nothing about.

Regardless of what you think of America or it's military now, respect is due these men and their sacrifice for what they believed to be right. I hope that I will be willing to give my all for what I think matters most with a similar lack of selfishness.

TV = WASTE OF TIME

"The Dinosaurs Seemed More Real Than the People" So it turns out that on "Terra Nova," super-advanced technology of the year 2149 can build a time machine -- but bombs still have exposed colored wires that must be cut in the correct order. One small act of sabotage can still cause an enormous high-tech facility to destroy itself in seconds, as the hero runs just ahead of cascading explosions. People whose hands are tied behind their backs can still escape by rubbing the cords against nearby metal. A teenager's laptop fails, and she loses her homework, books and music. One hundred thirty-eight years into the future, people still aren't backing up their files!

On Terra Nova, 22nd-century guns look awesome. Too bad the bullets bounce off everything.

Of course "Terra Nova" is just an absurd television show. But since Fox promoted it as the most expensive program ever made, "Nova" merits an absurd level of scrutiny.

The show -- which just had its season and perhaps series finale -- once again demonstrates the contemporary Hollywood maxim: millions for special effects, skimp on writing. Ye gods, was "Terra Nova" poorly plotted and poorly written. Since there were a ridiculous 12 credited producers, the producers are more to blame than the writers. But bottom line is what matters, and bottom line is that the plotting and dialogue of "Terra Nova" were an industry low.

After a full season, viewers learned next to nothing about the world of 2149 -- that is, the science fiction part. What was America like? What direction was global society headed? No clue. Viewers were told that the adversary of the West is "Russo-China," and that a civil war just happened in Somalia -- which makes it seem hardly anything has changed in more than a century. All we really find out about the United States of 2149 is that it can build a time machine but not control air pollution -- a problem already declining rapidly -- and that no one in the year 2149 has a sense of humor. The entire season of "Terra Nova" went by without a joke. Sense of humor was essential to the success of "Star Trek" and "Stargate," sci-fi serials that, unlike "Terra Nova," were very popular and earned more money than they cost.

Adding humor and speculation about the future to "Terra Nova" would have required something today's Hollywood abhors: originality. Viewers did get chase scenes, fight scenes, people walking into obvious traps, a sinister evil corporation with unlimited power, and a cartoonish chief villain (the "Big Bad," to scriptwriters) who in the finale is shot twice in the chest at close range, in a scene in a jungle far from medical care -- and then in the cliffhanger, we learn he's alive and will strike again!
"Terra Nova" had many of the standbys of "Star Trek" and "Stargate," without the compensating humor and intelligent plots. On "Terra Nova," like on "Star Trek," the radios and power fail constantly. The "captain" character goes on "away" missions, including leaving the settlement alone on two occasions. When we see a security guy we've never seen before, he is sure to die. Small amounts of electricity are carried by super-large cables, just like in the 1966 "Star Trek" pilot. The time portal looks and functions like a Stargate: characters even refer to "unscheduled activation," a key "Stargate" phrase. A secure facility has an air shaft you can crawl out through -- and it's lighted!
It's the mid-22nd century, yet idioms have not changed. Characters say "I'm done," "a world of hurt," "ginormous," "I'm running late," "back at you" and "clicks" to mean kilometers. Think how different typical speech was in 1873, which was as far backward as "Terra Nova" goes forward. Yet the 22nd century people of "Terra Nova" talk exactly like Southern California mall customers of the present day.

The use of today's lingo not only represented a failure of imagination but a missed marketing opportunity. "Terra Nova" should have contained future slang -- made-up words the characters would use without explanation, that viewers would figure out from context. Made-up vocabulary is a factor in the ratings success of "Game of Thrones." Made-up future slang might have entered social-network culture as memes, which would have gotten young people talking about "Terra Nova" and watching so they could be first to hear and use the next bit of future slang. Instead, people from the year 2149 said "ginormous."

Plot holes were everywhere. The time portal that takes people back 85 million years into the past, where they must battle obviously fake computer-generated dinosaurs, is shown as slightly larger than a house door. Yet we see a huge armored personnel carrier minutes after it was supposed to have come through the portal. How did it fit?

In the pilot, viewers are told the peaceful Terra Nova colony has only a few small jeeps and no other vehicles. Yet in the finale, suddenly the good guys have many vehicles including a giant truck -- where did these come from? There are roads all around Terra Nova, though road-building equipment is never seen, while ditches are shown being dug with shovels. Who built the roads? In the pilot, imminent death by man-eating thunder lizard is depicted as awaiting anyone who steps outside the colony walls without weapons. By late in the season, many characters are roaming around the jungle unarmed, without the slightest inconvenience. Where did all the dinosaurs go?

Often, viewers are told that the past is "waiting" for the future to send something or someone back, or that an action by the future will "happen in three days" or some such. The future has a time machine! Supply shipments departing over a period of years from the standpoint of the future could all arrive in the past on the same day. For that matter when the mercenaries of a Generic All-Powerful Evil Corporation come back to the past to seize booty, they had no reason to materialize outside the Terra Nova colony and go to war with its noble soldiers. The mercenaries could have used the time machine to materialize before Terra Nova was built, then grabbed whatever they wanted at their leisure. Instead they traveled backward in time to the only point in millions of years when they would be opposed by force.

When the mercenaries show up, their plan is to "strip-mine this world for its resources," their sinister leader says. That also was the plan of the evil mercenaries in "Avatar," a movie that begins in the year 2148. Right now all primary resources on Earth, except for freshwater and groundwater, are in plentiful supply. Perhaps there will be some chain of events that causes resource exhaustion; it seems more likely that advances in technology will reduce resource waste, while improving access to deposits that today are out of reach. Even so, if resources are the issue, Antarctica and the moon offer a vast reserve, which ought to be attainable in cost-effective ways by the 22nd century.

Instead on "Terra Nova," society builds an immense time portal complex, said to be half the size of Chicago, and in "Avatar" society builds a fantastic fleet of interstellar spacecraft, to go far into the past or deep into the galaxy in search of stuff that's cheap. Of course Hollywood traffics in shallow thinking. But "we want to steal their resources" was what governments and crown corporations thought in the 19th century. Trends in science and technology are making intellectual property more valuable than natural resources. Hollywood doesn't seem aware of this.

What, specifically, do the mercenaries desire from 85 million years in the past? Iron. "Gentlemen, we will be rich," the mercenary leader cackles as pallets holding 90 tons of iron come through the portal to 2149. I'd love to think this was a sly joke by the producers, since iron ore is among the most plentiful substances in Earth's surface, while iron oxide is common on the surface of the Moon. Sadly, Terra Nova producers gave no hint of wit; they seem more likely to think iron is the kind of thing evil capitalists would plunder. At current prices, 90 tons of iron ore is worth about $12,000. On the TNT alien-invasion series Falling Skies, a battle fleet of enormous faster-than-light starcruisers has come to Earth and destroyed the world's militaries, in order to steal -- scrap metal, for its iron.

Then there's the fingerless gloves. The commander of the Terra Nova settlement -- whose political structure is never explained; he's just a commander everyone obeys, whereas actual colonies have been hotbeds of political debate and utopian theorizing -- always wears fingerless gloves. This is not for warmth: The Cretaceous period depicted in the show was warm. The gloves are to make him seem a tough guy. "Falling Skies," like "Terra Nova" claiming Steven Spielberg as executive producer, also has its macho protagonist wear fingerless gloves. Have you ever observed anyone wearing fingerless gloves, other than Bob Cratchit?

These days one could save time by listing the shows and movies that don't give Spielberg a vanity credit. Apparently when Spielberg sells his name to a sci-fi production, he says: "Have the macho guy wear fingerless gloves. Have good-looking teenagers be chased by obviously fake computer-animated monsters. Have a family secret in the backstory, and a plotline that makes no sense. That will be $1 million, please."

"Terra Nova" is a long shot to be renewed. If it is canceled, viewers will never find out how the mysterious 16th-century wooden sailing ship ended up 85 million years in the past. The writers will never find out, either.

THE GREAT VOICE

I WHO have heard solemnities of sound — 

The throbbing pulse of cities, the loud roar

Of ocean on sheer ledges of gaunt rock.









The chanting of innumerable winds

Around white peaks, the plunge of cataracts,

The whelm of avalanches, and, by night, 

The thunder's panic breath — have come to know

What is earth's mightiest voice — the desert's voice — 

Silence, that speaks with deafening tones of God. 

Clinton Scollard
 

Disappointed Again By Modern Fiction

You'd think by now I would have learned. Don't read anything written within the past 50 years because 9 times out of 10 you'll wish you hadn't. That's always the case, and yet again, unfortunately I was duped. I haven't felt this misled since I mustered up the money to go to see Pirates of the Caribbean 3 in theaters (I haven't been back to the theater since).

This society just doesn't have the ability to produce something worth reading. True, every now and then something legitimate will arise, and I guess that's why I hold out hope, thinking I may have found that 1 out of 10 which will be worth my time.

I guess that's why I was willing to read The Hunger Games. So many people had said it was good, the movie trailer peaked my interest, and the plot seemed fascinating. I was wondering how such a story would play out. So I took the plunge.

I am purposefully going to ruin the ending (though it's as simplistic and poorly written as it's end is obvious) in hopes that will keep some of you from reading it. When I said I was wondering how such a story would play out, apparently so was the author because while I enjoyed the first half of the book, it was a very interesting idea and the characters were well developed, solving the problems within the world that the author had created was well beyond her capabilities. I couldn't believe how any sane writer would have the lack of authorial decency to put forth the drivel which was the second half of the book. 

Plot holes big enough to drive a semi truck through, complete disregard for the nature and attributes of the characters, total lack of reality or semblance of realistic progression are pretty much what you'll find if you read this.

Not to mention graphic and potentially very disturbing scenes of the sadistic death and torture of children by other children, all watched by hundreds of thousands of people live on TV and then replayed over and over again as a form of entertainment. Honestly, the fact that this sort of thing is being written for young adults to read is beyond disturbing, it is gut-wrenchingly wrong. The thought of my stable and balanced younger siblings reading this is scary enough, I shudder to consider what it would do to the fragile psyche's of children already struggling with reality and morality.

Basically the story is that of 24 children (who of course are nothing at all like any children any of us have ever met) who are put in a massive arena to fight to the death for the pleasure of some rich capitalists. While that idea is in fact interesting if not grotesque, the author is entirely incapable of doing anything interesting with the plot and the last 200 or so pages is filled with uninteresting puke into a bucket romance as 22 of the combatants are killed off in uninteresting ways, and the 2 characters who obviously fall in love and are able to defy all the odds win the day in staunchly uninteresting fashion. 

I believe that nobody older than seven who has ever read a book before didn't see the plot "twists" coming. I was so annoyed by the continual use of the same content in the book I felt like I could have easily skipped half the chapters in the middle of the book and missed nothing. Same girl still not sure which of two guys she loves, who somehow even though she's 16 can hit anything in the world with an arrow even if she's dehydrated and hasn't eaten in two days, unless it's really important in which case she'll miss *please note the sarcasm*. 

At the end of the book she and her boyfriend have succeeded in killing off the other 22 trained killers with one arrow, some poisoned berry's, and some apparently very scary bee's.

Needless to say, the main characters don't die, the main characters do fall in love, and of course they win everything even though they are helplessly incompetent, incapable, outmatched, and outmaneuvered. 

Save your time and read some Robert Louis Stevenson...

Theodicy

Here's a brief essay I just finished on evil. Let me know what you think.

   

Why Does Evil Persist?

Christians and critics both deal with the question of evil and how a good and all powerful God would have allowed it to be created and then continue. While there are no cookie cutter answers to perhaps one of the biggest philosophical question of our day, I believe that we can give solutions which can satisfy those seeking answers to this quandary. At the risk of oversimplifying I would say that God has allowed for the existence of evil because it is a necessary byproduct of the free will which is a paramount characteristic of the human condition, and God has refused to eliminate evil so far because He is temporarily using it for His purposes until the day when He will remove it all together.

Lee Strobel summarizes very effectively that “Human suffering came about because people abused their free will, not because God wanted to hurt us.” God wanted to give humans the opportunity to enjoy real relationship with Him, but to do this he needed to give us the option of choosing not to experience that relationship. Without free will we could never truly love God, since by definition to love must be chosen. If God has forced us to love Him, he would have removed our free will, which would have removed our ability to choose evil, but also our opportunity to choose Him.

People need to understand that the existence of evil is an essential product of our world. We can all recognize that the planet requires oxygen and a warming sun and water in order for us to live here, but we also realize that that people can get sunburned and drown in the ocean. This doesn’t mean that God was wrong to allow for the sun and ocean to be created. It just means that we need to take a proper perspective about them, which looks beyond the potential harm that can come from them.

Here is a experiment for someone to try who thinks that God should eliminate all evil and suffering. We all seemingly have no trouble with the thought that God should eliminate all of the catastrophes, murders, rapes, etc. But what about something so simple as an evil thought. Should God eliminate those as well? To do so God would have to stop a person from thinking His own thoughts, thereby removing that person freedom of thought, and in the end their freedom of will.

A few important things to also consider are that God could have very legitimate reasons for evil that we are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge because of our finiteness. His ways are surely above our own (Isaiah 55). Also, I think it is very important to recognize that moral indignation over suffering is in itself evidence in favor i of God’s existence for it recognizes a moral standard, an absolute of what is right and what is wrong.

God is justified in allowing for a world in which suffering exists, and while it is not good, I think God has temporarily allowed it to persist because He is using it to accomplish good. It’s very important to understand that God is not sitting in Heaven worried about the existence of evil. He could scrap everything and start over if He wanted to, but because of us love for us, He wants to save as many as are willing to come to Him. As a result he uses the pain and heartache surrounding us to try and bring us back to Him. C. S. Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

Let’s not forget, God has not abandoned us in the world. We didn’t choose to rebel against Him and then he said, “Fine your own your own.” God has continued to point us toward Himself and regularly works to try and redeem us from our sin. Of course God’s greatest act was sending His son to die on the cross, (using for His own purpose all of the evil that was necessary for that to occur) in order that He might ultimately destroy evil. God is at work within the fallen world to continue to promote His purposes, to accomplish His will, to prove His sovereignty over evil, and that He is worthy of honor and glory.

For, one day, He will destroy all evil. That is the biggest prove of God’s goodness and greatness, that in the end He will do away with all the pain and suffering. “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away (Revelation 21).” God will in the end remove all evil, but at the current time it is serving His purpose of bringing people to Himself. God did not want evil to reign on earth or in the hearts of men, but the allowance of that potential was a critical component to humanities humanity. Our free will is part of what separates us from the animals, and it is not possible without the potential for evil.

One day suffering will cease and evil will be judged. You cannot read half of a book and then complain because the ending was terrible and the bad guys never got their “just deserts.” You must read the whole novel to experience the proper ending. So too is it inappropriate for those who are shackled by the bond of time to shake their fists at Him who sees beyond time, and say that He has done them wrong. Many yell at God that evil is allowed to prosper and go unpunished, but it is because we only see this half of the story. At the end God promises that a day of judgment will come.  In the meantime however, He is desiring that as many as possible would come to Him, and therefore He both delays as long as possible, and uses the evil in the World to bring as many to Him as possible.

In conclusion I find it at both shortsighted and unjust to suggest that God is somehow at fault or of questionable power or goodness for allowing evil to exist and continue. The potential for evil was necessary to allow humanity to exist in its current form, and the consistence of evil persists only for the benefit of humanity and only for a time that will one day cease, resulting in the just punishment of all evil. God is all powerful and He is good, and He WILL meet out justice in time

The Fall Of Fall

It's been quite the past month since I last posted. Much has gone on adding to my reasons for not getting around to post, but the main reason has really been that my writing juices were being utilized elsewhere. I have been working on a number of things lately which have taken a great deal of my time and energy. 

To very briefly summarize the past month I'll just say that virtually every weekend we have had a conference for work. I went to Waterville ME, Milford PA, Danbury CT, Hartford CT, and am going to Syracuse NY this weekend for the last of the fall conference season. If you don't know what I do for work check out www.ironsharpensiron.net. This insane slate of conferences, four in five weeks, has meant 65 hour work weeks almost every week in October. 

On top of this I preached two sermons at my church, and prepared a 75 minute seminar on living a life of purpose to present at one the conferences. I am giving another 75 minute seminar I need to finish writing in Syracuse this weekend, and I am preaching another sermon at another local church on December 11th I need to conclude preparing. 

We had a freak snow storm in October during which we lost power for 11 days. As a result of that time I am very adept at using an axe again, I have done A LOT of reading, I have enjoyed many roaring fires, and I also got a terrible case of poison ivy. 

This picture is from a main street in my town a few days after the storm.

after the storm...

I have been happily watching the New England Patriots continue their ascension to the top of the AFC East. My fantasy football team has risen from the ashes of drafts day doom after selecting Jamaal Charles/Reggie Wayne/Lagarette Blount/Shonne Green/Kyle Orton/Sam Bradford/Santonio Holmes and others, on the back of waiver wire pickups like Cam Newton, Demarco Murray, and Victor Cruz.

Kaydrie and I had a wonderfully successful fall feast at our house where everybody enjoyed a plethora of fallish foods including way too much pumpkin pie, a not your grandma's jackdaniels/thyme/red pepper/apple pie, stuffing, sweet potatoes, pumpkin fudge, cider, and the most amazing Nordic Ham and Potato Soup.

It has been a wonderful month. Busy, but filled with memories and joy. Laughter and good wine. Some hurdles here and there, but God has been present, Kaydrie has been at my side, and together we have overcome. 

I look forward with excitement to Thanksgiving and the excitement of the approaching holiday season. I will probably be posting again on a weekly basis, as work slows and I am not as engrossed in my sermons/seminars prep, I feel my need to emote through writing starting to build again.

Another Encouraging Trend Among Politicians

In an era plagued by what Stephen Colbert memorably called "truthiness," increasingly, public speakers quote people or sources who mysteriously lack names.

In Barack Obama's speech on the Afghan war, the president quoted at length "one soldier" who supports the White House position. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, Obama quoted a "struggling small business owner" and a "woman who said … she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession." Why did these people -- assuming they exist -- lack names?

AP Photo/Photo courtesy of Rush Limbaugh"Jack" is on line two.

The same happens on the other side of the aisle. In June, Rush Limbaugh brought onto his show "Jack," who said he was a scientist who disproved global warming. No last name, just"Jack" and no hint of what, if any, his evidence might be.

Other examples on the left: In Al Gore's Rolling Stone article about climate change, the former vice president quoted "a philosopher studying the impact of organized propaganda" and "an authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts." What philosopher? What study? Gore did not say. Lurking out there, the former vice president warned ominously, is a "consortium of the largest global-warming polluters." What seems really scary is that the "consortium" and the polluters have neither names nor any identifying details.

Other examples on the right: I watched a sermon by the fundamentalist televangelist Joel Osteen. The pastor declared he had an unnamed "friend" who was doing poorly at work until given "insider information" by God; the friend then became rich. Osteen said he had another "friend" who bought some seemingly worthless land, prayed, and then "the state" decided to locate a freeway through the property, causing the "friend" to become wealthy. Beyond the fact that the first "friend" sounds like he was participating in stock fraud and the second "friend" sounds like he was involved in a common form of government corruption, not only is neither "friend" given any identifying detail, Osteen doesn't even name the state where the second story supposedly occurred.

Sometimes in writing or speaking, there is valid reason to withhold a name. Usually, if the person would lose his or her job if identified. But that doesn't apply to any of the examples here, or to many others creeping into contemporary discourse.

Unnamed people, unidentified scientists, nameless "studies" and "friends" are very convenient -- because the anonymous cannot complain they were misquoted and nameless studies cannot be mischaracterized. Even something like "Jane, 42, a single mother of three on the north side of Chicago" contains enough information that a determined investigator could figure out if Jane actually exists. But if it's "said one woman in Chicago," then the entire reference may be fabricated. Politicians, preachers and pundits who want to quote people or studies should use real names and specifics. Otherwise, we should assume they are fibbing.

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais"As a Founding Father whom I won't name might or might not have said..."

From Obama's 2010 State of the Union address: "Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off." You can't talk to them -- they don't have names!