What If

What if, and just run with me on this, what if I didn't pursue a career in theology? I was thinking of this today (and this article shows the way in which my blog is also sometimes a diary) while making noises--which I am comfortable saying is my defining practice--and came to some conclusions.

I think that since I've left home I've realized how academia is in some ways static and possibly stale. There is no doubt that the life of an academic is a good life, and not necessarily without the proper measure of labor, and certainly not immoral, and definitely not contrary to a calling in service to the Lord. But it is often unfulfilling and pedantic. It makes you smarter (much smarter) but rarely wiser.

I idolized the old academic heroes like Kant, Barth, Chomsky, Niebuhr and so on. But really all they did was write a lot and make people think differently about very specific, very hemmed-in things. There is a disconnect between the practice of academics and the utility of their time. In my job as a waiter, there is no difference between the work I put in and the result of that work. This is not to say that everything we do ought to prioritize efficiency above all, or that we always must work for tangible outcomes. But we should always work in such a way that we expect the outcomes to really benefit other people in a recognizable way.

The good side of academia is that it trades in pedagogy, or teaching. I think that life is simply a process of God teaching us, which gives life all its charming mistakes and mischief along with its breathtaking beauty of redemption and turning to the good. Redemption is pedagogical, I think. And I admire a career in which teaching is central to your daily work.

Nevertheless I am tired of reading jargon and writing papers, and I've only been in grad school for a month. I see the exhausted and simple labor of my three-job coworkers at the pub and I admire it, though I don't desire it. I don't want to want to be a professor because it's easy. Shouldn't I want to do it because I think I'm supposed to do it? You might say no. I think that's what a "calling" is.

Simplicity, diligence, fruitfulness, affinity to vocation. These are the virtues of a good job. I need to find a career where I can live simply, work diligently, bear good fruit, and fulfill my vocation (that is, calling from God). It is very possible that that job is in the academy, but it's at least as possible that it's not.

I've been thinking a lot about owning my own business--but what sort of business would it be? A down-to-earth restaurant? I think that would be great. Maybe an Internet business with a good mission; here I think of emulating TOMS shoes, giving away a pair of shoes for every pair sold.

Maybe I could become a skilled laborer, like a carpenter or mechanic or something. But this is unlikely. I don't really have the skill set for that.

Something in the out-of-doors would be great. I'd love to be the career equivalent of a park ranger or something like that. But at the moment the job that most captures my attention is starting a business of my own. How American! How noble!

Well thanks for listening, I just felt like I needed to get all that stuff down.

The Diff

So after three weeks at Notre Dame, I have discovered the essential difference between Catholics and Protestants. Mediation is the difference.

Catholics believe in an incarnational, mediated form of worship and participation in God's creation and grace. God mediates his gifts and creation in the form of a beautiful church liturgy and the necessary sacraments. Since Christ was fully incarnated as a human being, there is a great deal of honor and dignity in the human body and in the createdness of human beings.

Protestants believe in a direct, unmediated form of worship and participation in God's creation and grace. God communicates with people plainly, in the form of the Bible and our own consciences. Since God is supremely powerful and loving, he chooses to give his grace to us in a way that is immediately helpful and sanctifying. The significance of Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice and resurrection can be felt immediately, in the form of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, that's an idea. There's a lot of overlap, to be sure.

How to Play the Banjo

If you want to play the banjo, you have to love God and get fast fingers. Live right and play right. Don't think about other instruments when you play. First start plucking to get the sound, and then smile and don't stop smiling. Then put some notes together, and that's a song. Listen to Gospel songs whenever you can and memorize the words. Always pray a little more than you play to make sure you're living right. Talk less--cut out the mean things you say--and pluck a little bit faster. Don't beat the strings; they're friendly and beautiful. Remember, the banjo is a gift from God because the world was too noisy before.

Political Positions

Well I think it's time to take inventory of what I think about politics at the present moment. I've been hiding behind a comfortable facade of political apathy for a few years and it may be time to suck it up and say what I really believe at this time. I've been thinking about politics less than religion, but still thinking.

On that subject, it's really important for me to begin by saying that the separation of religion and public policy is important not only to keep faith from controlling a secular society, but (in my opinion, more importantly) to keep politics from muddying an otherwise holy Church.

That said, the only virtue left for the American nation is freedom. We ought to be free from unreasonable external hardship and free to exercise our will in a reasonable manner. And that's it! If you accept what I say here, we can only quibble with what "reasonable" and "unreasonable" mean.

TAXES

I think it is unreasonable to be taxed according to what you have accomplished in a greater degree than according to what you desire. As a matter of principle, I think sales tax and related taxes are much more fair than income taxes. Pragmatically, it's true that sales tax provides motivation to buy less while income tax does not provide incentive to earn less; however, what we've learned from this economic crisis is that it's in the national interest to provide incentive for reasonable, moderate spending by individuals and corporations. I think a sales tax does just that. I support a federal sales tax that, gradually over the course of a presidential term, rises to a level such that the income tax can be reduced by 75% or more. This may mean a federal sales tax of 7% or greater, but think about it: this also encourages reusing and reselling items we'd otherwise throw away, in order to avoid the tax! Very green. This would also save a lot of money and stress by reducing the manpower of the IRS and other related fields.

GAY MARRIAGE

I think every state should legalize gay marriage. Insofar as we ought to aspire to totally separate religion-specific values from public-interest values, we ought to drop resistance to gay marriage because almost all valid objections really boil down to religion-specific ones. I myself don't compare the battle for gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement of the mid-20th century; however, I think the freedom for gays to marry one another (in the secular use of "marriage") outweighs the freedom from public approval of perceived sin that some religious people would like to exercise.

ABORTION

I think there are effective arguments against abortion that have nothing to do with anything religious. Here's mine. Human beings have the right to freedom from undue interference with their bodies. Human beings have the right to freedom from the deprivation of their lives. Now there is a chance that fetuses are human beings. If they are not, then the two rights listed above do not contradict one another in an abortion, and so abortion ought to be legal, all else being equal. But if fetuses are human beings, then the two rights are at loggerheads and we must weigh which is more important--and, as most people would say, the right of a person to her life is of greater value than the right of a person's body from undue interference, all else being equal.

So the question is in the probability that a fetus is a baby. If it's 50/50, I say we ought not to allow abortions. If there is a one percent chance that fetuses are human, then that still ought to give us pause before we condone abortion. So on that basis, I am pro-life.

As an aside, I feel that there is very little good argument against abortion in my faith tradition (United Methodist). The Bible is fairly devoid of condemnations of abortion, as is the Book of Discipline.

ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS

I think welfare is a worthy pursuit when it frees people from unreasonable external difficulty in achieving their goals. When it is anything else, it risks becoming an infringement on taxpayers' freedom from unnecessary taxation. The key to figuring out how many people should receive government welfare money, and for what purpose, and how much, and so on, is determining how much unreasonable external difficulty the government has a duty to keep from its citizens. I think we ought to give federal money to orphans in a great degree; the same for the mentally handicapped; the same for the physically handicapped, given that their handicap came from a situation not of their choosing; the same for the recently jobless; the same for the unemployable. Healthcare should be universal for children. I hesitate to give money to corporations and to the elderly simply because they are above a certain age. If they are too old to work, that is another matter. Of course we live in an age in which most people over 65 have planned on Social Security for their retirement, and to end it could be disastrous. But I think we should phase Social Security out in such a way that people my age stop paying for it, and as a result we see no benefit from it when we're older. That just seems to make sense.

FOREIGN POLICY

I think we should open Cuba up immediately. We should never conduct policy overseas or make war on the basis of ideological difference. War should be for the defense of American lives first, then the defense of innocent lives overseas, then the defense of American interests--in that order. No military action should be allowed except by its explicit passage by both houses of Congress, and never just the President's prerogative. We should pursue the protection of American companies with very low corporate taxes, not high tariffs. Globalization helps America most of all.

ENVIRONMENT

This is of great national and global interest. I believe strongly in federal funding and political capital expenditure for ever expanded environmental programs. Most environmental damage comes from concentrated sources: suburban yards use poison to grow grass, coal plants for Purdue University, and so on. Energy should be greatly diffused such that individual needs are dealt with on an individual basis. Instead of coal or nuclear power plants, install solar panels and wind turbines in most homes. Plant different grass in your yard so you don't give it fertilizer and then mow it three times a week. And my biggest focus in environmental thinking is the preservation of wild land. The government should greatly restrict the amount of land to which logging companies are privy on federal parks. This would drive up the price of paper and lumber and, in a very real way, force our hand in developing better sources for paper and building material. The preservation of wild lands, especially wooded places, is of the utmost importance to keep endangered species from extinction, to maintain places for human recreation, and to provide limited areas for human exploitation.

So that's what I think about some big issues. It feels good to get it out there!

Europe was sweet! And refutations of common misconceptions.

Hey guys, I'm back from Europe! It was a great trip! I went with my older brother to Dublin, Ireland where we met our younger sister. She showed us around and we got to do a lot of cool stuff. Then Ben and I went to Paris, France and saw the sights. We stayed in a hostel and tried to eat on the cheap. We climbed the Eiffel Tower and saw Notre Dame. We did it all!

So the trip was really nice. Then I got back to America and started doing what I usually do. Here's the setup: in 1941 C.S. Lewis famously stated a trilemma concerning the moral status of Jesus Christ, which goes "Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, so he is either telling the truth, lying, or delusional." The point is to rule out a common modern interpretation of Christ's mission, which is that of a moral human teacher. If we can eliminate that possibility, Lewis says, then we are left with the fact that Jesus is Lord, because no one will admit that Jesus was crazy or a liar.

Now I for one believe that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord and Christ. But I don't believe this argument, nor do I believe that the argument helps Christians build their own character of faith or assist others in doing so. It is a false trilemma, false because it inappropriately presents exactly three options. Must Jesus ONLY be Lord, liar, or lunatic? No. The problematic assumption is that the Scriptural account, on which the argument rests, must be akin to a modern biography. It must be a coherent whole and every descriptive sentence must be as equally pedagogically valuable as the one before it and after it, the assumption says.

But a modern secularist, who wants to uphold her notion that the Nazarene was exclusively human and yet an inestimably valuable moral teacher, has recourse in attacking that Biblical cohesion. Couldn't the Bible be right sometimes, and wrong sometimes? She may point to the Higher Criticism and claim that passages about Jesus' divinity are actually manufactures of a later time, or are to be understood metaphorically, or vaguely spiritually. This refutation is not without ammunition from the Higher Criticism and other good scholarship. And it thoroughly destroys the Lewis Trilemma.

As an aside, I personally believe that the Bible is true. But I believe that it is pedagogically true, in that what its contents were written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach important truths, not to literally recount history. Did Creation happen in six days? Probably not, I think. Did the Flood cover the entire world? Probably not. Did Moses turn sticks into snakes? Most likely he did not. These stories serve a larger purpose in inspiring the fear and love of God in us, and the love of our neighbors, ever and ever greater. Of course, I don't dismiss miracles outright. Whether Jesus actually turned water to wine is less important, and more ambiguous, than whether he was raised from the dead. I believe that he was. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). But I believe it because Christ's resurrection is not simply a teaching tool, like the Hebrew children in the furnace, but a necessary claim for the efficacy of our faith.

Similarly, the Lordship of Christ is necessary to our faith, and therefore I have no problem with Lewis' goal of attempting to demonstrate that Lordship. What I have a problem with is his method of demonstration. We can't bully nonbelievers into believing by leading them down a dialectic trap. We can only demonstrate Christ's Lordship through our imperfect relay of the New Testament narrative and the imperfect example of our own love.

What Softball Teaches

Well we just had our first slow-pitch softball game.  It was a little frustrating, and I am largely to blame for that.  My team is all student-age players, and we faced a team mostly of middle-aged, experienced players.  I was pitcher and it was the first time I have pitched a slow-pitch game.

Our first inning was fantastic, and we went up five runs.  After that the game got frustrating.  In this version of softball, there is a small mat behind the plate which the ball must hit in order to register as a strike.  The ball also has to go 6-12 feet off the ground, a substantial amount of airtime.  These rules together mean that it is difficult to throw strikes.  So I didn't throw a lot of strikes, which was mostly OK because the amount of air I (and every other slow-pitch pitcher) put under the ball means that almost every pitch is hittable, strike or not.  Which is the point of slow-pitch softball.

However, the older ladies and gentlemen on the opposing team were very picky with their pitch selection and often ran up the count on me.  Mind, I am NOT trying to strike anyone out.  I am just trying to pitch hittable balls.  The batters watched hittable pitch after hittable pitch go by and racked up the balls.  This really got me flustered, which was the point, and I made two costly infield errors and walked one batter.  This entire time, all of my teammates were very supportive of me.  The opposing dugout, however, joshed me with "hey batter-batters" and so on.  When I finally elected to intentionally walk the final batter in their lineup, and thus end the inning safely, cries of "SPORTSMANSHIP" rose from their dugout.  So I threw to him and--wow--he hit a 2-run triple.

So I feel as though their team was less sportsmanlike than ours was.  But that does not excuse my attitude.  The language I used under my breath was unchristian and reflected my response to a stressful situation.  I'd just read earlier in the day a verse from Philippians about letting one's gentleness show.  I did not.  I threw my glove a few times in frustration and anger.  As much as I want to berate the other team for its lack of sportsmanlike conduct, I was no better.

So softball teaches us humility in defeat.  But it also teaches, by example, both how to act and how not to act.  I will choose to act like my Pauline-gentle teammates, who dealt with the stomping amicably, instead of like the opposing dugout, which was less than gentle.  And I will seek forgiveness for my anger.

So far this summer has been low stress for me and, though it is sometimes boring, that is probably a good thing.

My friend's uncle died recently in a very heroic way.  His thoughts on life are now a lot deeper and he has an interesting narrative understanding of death.  What my friend said about his uncle's passing, combined with some deep conversations with my brother Ben, are making me reconsider some assumptions with which I'd been comfortable for a while.

Though I know that we ought to be bent toward a life of service, it is difficult to come to terms with such a life at times.  I think I ought to start small.

The Summer Plan for Fitness.

So I'm making a summer plan for general health and fitness. I think this is it:

-Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I will lift weights at the CoRec.

-Mondays: Arms and abdominals
-Wednesdays: Shoulders and legs
-Fridays: Chest and abdominals

-Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays I will run 5 or so miles.

-I will eat within 30 minutes of waking up and within 30 minutes of working out (if possible).

-I'll focus on eating much more fiber than I currently do--mostly through the liberal use of fibrous breakfast cereals.

-I will eat more protein as a proportion of my daily calorie intake.

-I need to establish limits on unhealthy habits that are nevertheless inevitable, given the fact that this is freakin' summer (exception to most of these limits: the week Ben and I are in Europe):

-No more than 1 skipped workout per week.
-No more than 8 drinks per week (four nights off per week times two drinks per night).
-No more than 3 pops per week (at the movies, refills DO NOT constitute additional pops).
-No more than 3 fried dishes per week.
-No sleeping in past 10AM.
-At least 8 hours of sleep per day.
-On at least 4 mornings per week, I will do push-ups and/or sit-ups.

-I will try to walk everywhere possible, and when I get it, I will ride my bike as well.

-I will try to drink as much tea as possible: at least one per day.

On the Ordination of Women

I was reading an interesting article defending the Catholic Church's timeless tradition of ordaining only male priests.  One point caught my eye especially:

"Ordination to the ministerial priesthood is reserved to men because the Church is bound to follow the example of the Lord, who chose only men as his Apostles."

I believe this argument is a little weaker that the RCC would like it to be.  So far as this argument is concerned, the one characteristic that was both common to all the Apostles and relevant to the determination of whom the Church ought to ordain is gender.  But this is not necessarily so.  Take, for instance, the fact that every Apostle was Hebrew.  This criterion for ordination is obviously not a factor in modern discourse even though its prima facie merit is exactly the same as the Apostles' gender--namely that the Lord picked them all, so we ought to follow His example.

Of course I am being less than generous since other criteria are obviously crucial to determining who is fit for the priesthood.  Naturally all Apostles believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, and so we ought to follow the Lord's example and only ordain believers.  This makes sense right off the bat.  What does not make sense right off the bat, however, is the argument that we ought to ordain only men to the priesthood since Christ only picked men as his Apostles.  This argument needs quite a bit more fleshing out before it can suffice, it seems.  (And of course there is a great deal of additional material defending the RCC's decision through the centuries.  My issue is with this one listed reason for forbidding female ordination.)

ENGL 304 Review

Here is a review of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point I did for ENGL 304. I'm submitting it here for extra credit.

Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point is a fast-paced read. Written by a New Yorker journalist and former science reporter, the book is not short on pizzazz and rhetorical turns of phrase. It is clearly written for the general audience, as evidenced both by its position on the New York Times Bestseller List and its style and content. Not surprisingly, Gladwell seeks to scientifically explain socio-cultural phenomena for the layman. As the book unfolds, it becomes clear that the task is daunting.
Gladwell postulates that “epidemics,” or quickly spreading social and cultural phenomena, come about because of a very small number of people. These extremely influential individuals come in three flavors: connectors, mavens, and salesmen. Gladwell explains the nature and function of each of the three in detail and outlines how, in any epidemic we can imagine, those three have interacted with one another in order to create an explosion of popular interest. For example, a brand of shoes called “Hush Puppies” was a popular brand in the 1950s with the white, upper-middle-class suburban scene. As the counterculture movement of the 1960s gained ascendancy in the public eye, however, Hush Puppies began to lose their luster. By the 1980s enough social trends had come and gone that Hush Puppies were simply another brand amongst thousands, one that financially broke even simply because of a sentimental value that aging Americans placed on the shoe. But when Greenwich Village yuppies in the early 1990s began wearing Hush Puppies as a stylistic choice, Gladwell’s three types of people leapt into action and spread the Hush Puppy fad from a hip corner of New York to the whole country. This example is a compelling case study in Gladwell’s theory of social epidemics.
Beyond the three types of people, there are factors which help create epidemics. The Stickiness Factor is that which renders the specific content of an idea or product memorable. Gladwell uses an interesting example from Sesame Street in this section (but you must read the book to see what it is!). The Power of Context demonstrates the importance of the environment surrounding an epidemic to its eventual spread or collapse. For example, New York City’s government focused on reducing petty crimes in the early 1990s in order to change the environment of the city from one of disorder to one of order. As a result, major crime rates dropped dramatically. That is the Power of Context.
Gladwell adopts a definitely sociological angle in this book. Contrary to the book’s marketing and some isolated reviews, it is not a business or career piece in focus or intent. Gladwell writes for the joy of expounding on interesting pieces of our world, much like an honest sociologist. This joy shines through in his effective writing, but sometimes betrays Gladwell insofar as it removes him from a definite scientific approach. Consider this excerpt as an illustration:

We have, in our minds, a very specific, biological, notion of what contagiousness means. But if there can be epidemics of crime or epidemics of fashion, there must be all kinds of things just as contagious as viruses. Have you ever thought about yawning, for instance? Yawning is a surprisingly powerful act. Just by reading the two yawns in the previous two sentences--and the two additional yawns in this sentence--a good number of you will probably yawn within the next few minutes. Even as I'm writing this I've yawned twice. If you're reading this in a public place, and you've just yawned, chances are that a good proportion of everyone who saw you yawn is now yawning too, and a good proportion of the people watching the people who watched you yawn are now yawning as well, and on and on, in a ever-widening, yawning circle.
As we can see, Gladwell’s style and objective is sociology, but his arguments lean heavily enough on anecdotes (all of which are true and fascinating) to push the book away from serious scholarship and into fascinating popular nonfiction. This is unfortunate. The reader hopes to be swayed by his arguments but must, in the end, concede that his worldview is just as informed as the next gifted layman. This is not to say that Gladwell is wrong. He simply does not have the authority of a seasoned academic.
There is no doubt that Gladwell’s style is compelling. He writes with poise and confidence, indulging the reader’s questions as they rise and aptly leading us down the tracks of his trains of thought. He argues forcefully. Unfortunately, force does not equal truth. There is nothing in the book that immunizes it from being deconstructed by another pseudo-scientific tome later down the road. And his book is precisely that—pseudo-scientific. Gladwell’s approach is to meticulously collect interesting anecdotal evidence and apply it to his thesis. But since he hasn’t put together empirical data or interviewed dozens of sociological experts, his argument remains interesting and anecdotal, and not scientifically persuasive. It isn’t hard to imagine another gifted writer writing a book “proving” that fads are actually democratic and not epidemic, and indeed, there are no doubt books on the shelves now that deny Gladwell’s thesis in definite terms (books refuting bestsellers are often bestsellers themselves, and The Tipping Point is nine years old). As a result, I recommend businesses hesitate before using The Tipping Point as key part of their sales strategy.
This book relates to a college audience insofar as it is a matter of curiosity. I think Gladwell’s approach of pseudo-sociology appeals especially well to students, people who are just now formulating their worldviews. As to whether it relates to Purdue specifically, I would say that it does not. There is not a great deal of particular emphasis on one issue or another that relates to Purdue in any special way, so far as I could tell.

Let's Set the Record Straight

There is only ONE attractive character on Sex and the City, and that is Charlotte.  The other two human beings are ugly, and Sarah Jessica Parker is a horse, and that's the score.

I speak for EVERY MAN on the PLANET authoritatively when I say that Sarah Jessica Parker, God bless her soul, is so unattractive that children born within four miles of her automatically get jaundice.  We share this opinion universally.  It has become clear that terrorists hate this country because of our refusal to veil her face, though they have no problem with our exposure of other women.  Most of the arms buildup of the Cold War was spent finding ways to eradicate all photographic evidence of her face and neck; the Soviet Union won by passing laws against awful television, nipping in the bud the problem America had to face.  This is an isolated example of the success of communism.

One woman slightly uglier than Sarah Jessica Parker--if your imagination allows--is Uma Thurman.  Now everyone is aware that there are two kinds of aunts: there are large jovial aunt, and there are slim terrifying aunts.  Uma Thurman is of the second variety.  Her role in Pulp Fiction was so unnecessary that George Lucas based the character Jar Jar Binks on her performance.  Quentin Tarantino's attraction to Thurman has led more than a few people to atheism, since it seems that a good God could not allow such a horrible thing to happen.  (This poses no problem for me, as I hold Tarantino in low regard.)  Her eyes are so far apart that one has to take a Great Circle across her forehead to get from one eye to another.  I've run out of places to burn myself with cigarettes in an attempt to take my mind off her visage.  Even her name is ugly.  Hearing that guttural Teutonic moniker generally makes men sterile.

And that's all.  Have a nice Grand Prix weekend!

I just watched The Last Temptation of Christ last night, which I recommend.  You guys should check it out.  It's a movie about the human side of Jesus--rather than being an omniscient Person of the Trinity, he is a human sinner whom God has chosen to redeem the world.  I agree with some parts of the movie and disagree with others, which I think is the point.

I'm planning a trip to visit my sister Sarah in Ireland!  My brother Ben and I will travel to Dublin and at least one other European city to hang out and vacation.  I think this will be really neat.

If you guys haven't seen Inherit The Wind, watch it!  It's really good!

The weather was so nice today, too.  How awesome!

This English class I'm taking this semester is among my least favorite classes I've taken at Purdue. It's busywork-based. The professor isn't effective. The subject matter of the course isn't clear. The presentations around which our grades revolve have no purchase on the real world, but we carry on as if they do!

Don't take ENGL 304. Or maybe it's 307. I FORGET.

Dudes, I got an "A" on my thesis!  Also yesterday was great, since I drank all kinds of pop and ate cookies 'n 'aything.  Pretty good Easter, I'd say.  I only got to see Katie a little bit though and that sucked.  Tonight I'll see her some more.  Oh, and yesterday at church my pastor asked if I'd like to teach an evening class on theology!  I'd love to!

Did you guys know that the captain of that plane that crash-landed in the Hudson is a Purdue alumnus?  HA!

My two favorite holidays are Easter and the Fourth of July.  Easter is the most important holiday in my religion and the Fourth is the most important holiday in my country.  Also both holidays feature lots of eating in addition to unique activities, like egg painting and fireworks shooting.

Easter is really cool because it breaks the 40-day-long "fast" that I go through every year.  This year I gave up sweetened sweet things, so on Sunday I will be drinking some serious Cokes.  It also follows a cool week-long narrative of the life of Christ.  Good Friday is usually a pretty sad day.  But Maundy Thursday is the best-named holiday of all!

So anyways, have a nice Easter everybody!

My thesis defense is on Monday.  Until that time I will be cruising, and then after that time I will also be cruising.  And during.

Tonight I think I will order a pizza or something!

I got a free lottery ticket yesterday when I filled up my gas tank, so I excitedly checked the lottery winnings page.  Nothin'.

Katie came over last night!  What a good night it was.  We watched Saving Private Ryan.  It's one of my favorite movies.

Finished!  Page count: 51.  This paper was the second toughest thing I've done as a student so far, next to applying for graduate schools.  What a weight off the shoulders.  It's very satisfying to complete something difficult and look back, saying: "Look what I have done!"

I'm on duty tonight, but off all weekend.  Well overdue.

So I just discovered Pandora internet radio while writing my paper today (page count: 28) and it is awesome!  I created some bluegrass-based stations and they are really what I'm digging.  What a world we live in!

Well unfortunately Purdue just lost in the Sweet Sixteen to UConn.  They are a very big team.  But I think we played with a lot of heart, even if we didn't play with a lot of finesse.

In other news my visit to UND yesterday was so cool!  I had a lot of fun with my high school friend Kate and her boyfriend, who is going to be a comrade of mine in our program.  Everyone was very nice and the campus glowed in the more beautiful side of March weather.  While on campus, the well-meaning director of admissions at Duke called me and tried to convince me to sign up.  I may or may not get funding to go there, but either way I feel as though Notre Dame has been able to make a better offer.

The Duke director's ace in the hole, however, was to appeal to my Methodist sympathies to try and pull me to North Carolina.  I'm sympathetic to the attempt, but I don't think I can turn UND down.  It looks like I'll be in South Bend next year, hanging out with the Pope and God's mom.  They'll let me in to their school but they won't let me take Communion.  That's a joke, I think they're all right.

Also, I get to stay on the banks of the Wabash this summer, an opportunity for which I am very thankful.  It will be a financial boon and let me spend time with my Purdue friends for a little while longer before I move.  Most of all, however, it lets me stay home for just a few more months, which is precious to me.

Page Count on my thesis: 22.

Look at this!  I think it's really funny.

It's from cartoonchurch.com, a very funny website for people who think cartoons about Anglican churches are funny.

There was an article in the Toledo Blade (America's coolest-named newspaper) a week ago about the compliment guys at Purdue.  I think it's really cool that they're getting some recognition!  The article said they'll be on Oprah and everything!

You may be asking yourself, hey Sam, how do you know what's in the Toledo Blade?  Well my parents live there now.  It's actually kind of a touchy subject.  Thanks a lot for bringing it up, jagoff.

Just kidding.

Today I spent several hours just to get a page and a half of material on my big paper.  Jeez.

In other news the weather is really nice and Spring is officially here!  The weather in West Central Indiana in springtime is without comparison.  And I just bought some Wavy Lays, so we're pretty much set gang!

Camping was awesome!  The weather was pretty wet, so we were often miserable, and the going was very tough.  But the sense of accomplishment makes everything worthwhile.

I recently confirmed, in a sadder line of thinking, that my big paper is due on April first.  That gives me 13 days to write 45 pages.  Let's get to it!

Before I leave with my good friends Mike and Ian for the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, I post these words of wisdom that will change your outlook on life.

WORDS AND PHRASES YOUNG WOMEN SAY TOO MUCH:

- "Random"

- "Awkward"

- "Hi, my name is Maddie."

- "Led Zeppelin?  Yes, I love him."

- "I'm kind of a big deal."

- "Creeper"

- "I just threw up in my mouth."

Now go and sin no more.  Have a nice Spring Break too!

Pat's birthday yesterday was a lot of fun!  Six of us went to a really nice Italian restaurant in Indianapolis, which, if you know Pat, is the sort of thing very much up his alley.  Then we came back to his favorite place on Earth, O'Bryan's Nine Irish Brothers pub, for some merrymaking.  Our group about doubled and we were joking around and having a great time.  I come from a family that doesn't really stress the importance of birthdays, but after that one, I feel as though it's possible to inject some significance into birthday celebrations!

Why Shrek is a Bad Movie

There are several reasons why Shrek is a bad movie.  First, Eddie Murphy reprises his role as the quirky and cowardly dragon from Mulan line-for-line as Donkey, who is quirky and cowardly.  Second, the graphics on the movie are a little less quality than the movies Pixar puts out, which means that there's no reason to see the movie when you could just watch The Incredibles or Monsters, Inc. or Toy Story or Finding Nemo or any of the other way way better Pixar movies instead.  Third, the dialogue and gags try very hard to remind you that Shrek is PG and not G, with fart jokes and the it-got-old-quick interrupting-a-swear-word trick (like when the singing marionettes tell you to wash your.... face); the effect is that Shrek screams in your face "I'M EDGY, BUT NOT GOOD EDGY.... JEFF DUNHAM EDGY (that guy also tries too hard)."

I write this because some people my age like that movie.  It's not like enjoying Dirty Work, which was a bad movie that one can like without being embarrassed.  It's like choosing Harry Potter over Lord of the Rings.  You know, John Wayne Gacy liked Harry Potter too.

Today I got accepted to Notre Dame!  I also went to the Grad Fair to order my cap and gown and stuff like that.  Between the two, and my already significant senioritis, I feel as though I am completely checked out from school.  That's bad news for everyone eagerly waiting for my fifty-page masterpiece, Welsh Calvinistic Methodism in the Eighteenth Century, since I probably just won't write it at all now.  Or if I write it, I'll just do a bad job.

Well in life there are lots of times to take certain things up, and times to give things up.  For Lent people who choose to do so usually give something personally significant up; for example, I gave up sweetened things.  You guys, let me make it clear just how significant it is to me that I drink two glasses of root beer and eat four Snickers every morning.  

It's very important to take things up too!  I took up learning how to play the banjo last year.  I also took up eating healthier and working out more.  These "take-ups" and "give-ups" are the corpus of a person's process of character development.  We ought to take up behaviors and beliefs that contribute to the fulfillment of our duty and happiness, and give up behaviors and beliefs that do the opposite.

And what else is there to being a good person than that?  We all come across moments where we think we've gone astray and need to improve.  And I think the only ingredient to a happy life is that resolve to set out and improve--by taking up the right beliefs, and giving up the wrong ones; by doing the right thing, and not doing the wrong thing.  Some people call that "being born again."  I think that's about right.

Evangelicals, Alcoholics Anonymous members, and C.S. Lewis, don't confuse my position with Pelagianism.  Jeez.

Today I was reading some interesting articles online about Christianity, just like I do every day.  And I put off writing my senior honors history thesis, like I do every day, at least seven times a day.

In the articles about Christianity, there were some discussions about whether human beings have free will or not.  Some Christians think that there's no such thing as human free will, since God foreknows and predestines all things.  Some Christians think that God foreknows all things, but doesn't predestine them, so human beings still have free choices that God knew we'd choose ahead of time.  Some Christians think that it isn't logically possible for God to know the future with certainty or predestine things to happen, so human beings have free will in a way that's easy to see.

Well what a chestnut we have on our hands here, guys.

The First Entry

This is the first entry on my new blog! Which I have spelled wrong on purpose! Keep looking at this blog all the time, you guys.