It was nice to go out and take the car for a run tonight. North 271 to 90, and back again. I'm glad my car is minimally highway-worthy now. It just seems like a good idea to get the car up to speed and run it out for awhile. Like taking the dog for a run in the park. I spent the first half cruising at seventy and the last half cruising at 60. Managed to get 33.7 mpg burning 93 octane fuel. Not tremendous, but not bad.
Listening to Communipaw right now. They played the ARMfest, which I unfortunately could not make. Good stuff. Also, their self-titled album is 12 songs. I think 12 songs ought to be the minimum for CD albums. It's just a good quality length and sort of necessitates good writing and good variety.
There's still a few things to do on the car before I can really feel okay to leave it go. Spark plugs and wires, sway bar bushings, new tires, and new steering knuckles (at least, that's what i think they're called; the inner opposite to the tie rod ends). Actually, I'll probably just change out the tie-rod ends at the same time. No really good reason not to. But that may make me want to change out the ball joints, which may make me want to just change out the whole control arm. Or at least see if it's possible to change out the control arm connects. Ah, it just never stops.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Oncoming death
I was on my way to Walmart after work to get soap (gots to stay clean!), and I saw a car sitting in the middle of the road at an intersection, perpendicular to oncoming traffic. My immediate thought was, "that's not good.", followed by "what the heck?" followed by "that's a very dangerous place for a car." Cars were just turning around it and going on their way. It turned out to be a girl who had her battery die on her, killing the car in the intersection, according to what she told me. I had her throw it into neutral and pushed the car onto the shoulder of the road. She got it started and I suggested that it might be the alternator, not the battery. After thinking upon it all night, I think it's more likely that her car simply stalled out. When the engine was running it sounded like it was going to quit about any time. She said she'd paid $400 dollars to have the battery replaced (!!) (with gold bricks!?!? I hope there's more that went into that repair or there's some seriously shady shop around these parts.). I regret not taking a little more time to try and help diagnosis the problem. I was anxious about my car being on the shoulder in the flow of traffic.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why one would just go around a car in that situation. I suppose if you don't know anything about cars, you might not want to get involved, but this is such an obviously dangerous situation that I would think it would be obvious to try and do something, anything, considering that oncoming death is a realistic possibility with every car that approaches. I just don't get it. Pushing a car onto the shoulder of the road is the most basic of emergency car skills. Anyone and everyone can do it and has probably seen it done or participated in such an event if they have made it to the age of 18. How is it that I was the first person to stop and enact this most basic of skills??
Anyway, I sure hope she works it out with her car without spending oodles and gobs of money chasing false solutions.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why one would just go around a car in that situation. I suppose if you don't know anything about cars, you might not want to get involved, but this is such an obviously dangerous situation that I would think it would be obvious to try and do something, anything, considering that oncoming death is a realistic possibility with every car that approaches. I just don't get it. Pushing a car onto the shoulder of the road is the most basic of emergency car skills. Anyone and everyone can do it and has probably seen it done or participated in such an event if they have made it to the age of 18. How is it that I was the first person to stop and enact this most basic of skills??
Anyway, I sure hope she works it out with her car without spending oodles and gobs of money chasing false solutions.
Monday, July 26, 2010
I got the sadness really heavy right now.
I've had a thousand things to say, mostly rants about this and that.
Right now, Sheryl Crow's Lullaby for Wyatt is hitting the right chords right now.
She's actually a pretty damn good songwriter, though she never gets the credit. Maybe not a stellar lyricist, but she's got the changes.
Here's something to think on:
McDonald's - automation
Wendy's - homestyle/gourmet
Coca-Cola - a classic system
Pepsi - still kinda hasn't figured it out.
Employee training videos are one of the best things you can do for your new employee even though every new employee thinks they're a gigantic waste of time.
I've had a thousand things to say, mostly rants about this and that.
Right now, Sheryl Crow's Lullaby for Wyatt is hitting the right chords right now.
She's actually a pretty damn good songwriter, though she never gets the credit. Maybe not a stellar lyricist, but she's got the changes.
Here's something to think on:
McDonald's - automation
Wendy's - homestyle/gourmet
Coca-Cola - a classic system
Pepsi - still kinda hasn't figured it out.
Employee training videos are one of the best things you can do for your new employee even though every new employee thinks they're a gigantic waste of time.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Detox the Tar
So, I've been a bit miffed about something recently, but now I'm not feeling so steamed, which means it's probably a good time to write about it.
"Love your Enemy".
I feel like a lot of Christians don't seem to have this on their radar, in their philosophy, on their mind. It's distressing to me. Now, I realize that if you looked at my life on a day to day basis, you could say this is the pot calling the kettle black. Certainly in my graciousness to drivers who may be "in my way" by virtue of their law abiding vehicular habits. And as far as even loving my neighbor, I've got a long, long way to go. But it really does concern me that this doesn't seem to be in the Christian zeitgeist.
Now, I'm not talking about those who practice the Christian religion, and even less am I concerned about those who don't claim any association to Christianity, but to those who claim to be Christian by relationship to Christ and God, I'm a bit surprised. "Love your neighbor" is a popular Christian idea and slogan. That's good. It is what Jesus claimed to be the second greatest commandment. But people have a tendency to give the "neighbor" part of that a short leash. Which I think is why Jesus a bit later identifies one's neighbor as those whom we most despise in his parable of the good Samaritan.
I am not in any shape or form, thought or deed, signing up for this with gusto. Those I despise most are the kind of people for whom we make gallows and prison cells. I find the thought of loving these people to be emotionally and mentally distasteful. Thinking about the pragmatics of it makes my stomach churn and my inner being blanch. But when Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.", I don't think he was being metaphoric or setting out a hyperbole to make a point. I think he was making a plain and simple command. I can't really ignore that, can I? Distasteful or not, there it is, as plain and simple as it could be. Not only am I to love those who love me (a difficult task) and love my neighbor (a truly problematic task), even more, I must love my enemy (an impossible task). Not at all meaning to have affection for my enemy, that would be unlikely, if not psychological suicide. Affection is mostly an emotion, but love is a movement of will.
One of the things that brought this frustration out in me is the number of disparaging remarks I hear Christians say about Christians who don't think like they do. The ones with different ideals, different ideologies, different doctrines. I understand people are going to disagree. I understand that some viewpoints are going to be closer to the perceived truth or real Truth than others. That's all well and good. There is nothing in any of that reality that constitutes an excuse for failing to love. I don't think disparagement is love, neither Gentle Love nor Tough Love.
As a challenge to myself and to others, I'm going to wrap up my thoughts with this: Many Christians want to know how to love God, how to love others, what they can do to change the world for Christ, what they can do so that people can see and meet Jesus and come to know Christ. Love your enemy, actively. That's just not something anyone does. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the the outcasts and the people no one looks after, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, do good to those who hate you, love your enemy. It will have a profound effect.
"Love your Enemy".
I feel like a lot of Christians don't seem to have this on their radar, in their philosophy, on their mind. It's distressing to me. Now, I realize that if you looked at my life on a day to day basis, you could say this is the pot calling the kettle black. Certainly in my graciousness to drivers who may be "in my way" by virtue of their law abiding vehicular habits. And as far as even loving my neighbor, I've got a long, long way to go. But it really does concern me that this doesn't seem to be in the Christian zeitgeist.
Now, I'm not talking about those who practice the Christian religion, and even less am I concerned about those who don't claim any association to Christianity, but to those who claim to be Christian by relationship to Christ and God, I'm a bit surprised. "Love your neighbor" is a popular Christian idea and slogan. That's good. It is what Jesus claimed to be the second greatest commandment. But people have a tendency to give the "neighbor" part of that a short leash. Which I think is why Jesus a bit later identifies one's neighbor as those whom we most despise in his parable of the good Samaritan.
I am not in any shape or form, thought or deed, signing up for this with gusto. Those I despise most are the kind of people for whom we make gallows and prison cells. I find the thought of loving these people to be emotionally and mentally distasteful. Thinking about the pragmatics of it makes my stomach churn and my inner being blanch. But when Jesus said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.", I don't think he was being metaphoric or setting out a hyperbole to make a point. I think he was making a plain and simple command. I can't really ignore that, can I? Distasteful or not, there it is, as plain and simple as it could be. Not only am I to love those who love me (a difficult task) and love my neighbor (a truly problematic task), even more, I must love my enemy (an impossible task). Not at all meaning to have affection for my enemy, that would be unlikely, if not psychological suicide. Affection is mostly an emotion, but love is a movement of will.
One of the things that brought this frustration out in me is the number of disparaging remarks I hear Christians say about Christians who don't think like they do. The ones with different ideals, different ideologies, different doctrines. I understand people are going to disagree. I understand that some viewpoints are going to be closer to the perceived truth or real Truth than others. That's all well and good. There is nothing in any of that reality that constitutes an excuse for failing to love. I don't think disparagement is love, neither Gentle Love nor Tough Love.
As a challenge to myself and to others, I'm going to wrap up my thoughts with this: Many Christians want to know how to love God, how to love others, what they can do to change the world for Christ, what they can do so that people can see and meet Jesus and come to know Christ. Love your enemy, actively. That's just not something anyone does. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the the outcasts and the people no one looks after, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, do good to those who hate you, love your enemy. It will have a profound effect.
To be a Hermit...
So, I googled an old flame today. That was...an interesting mistake?
(By the way, Google, you own blogspot, yet your dictionary doesn't register google, either as a noun or a verb? uh??)
Turns out she's a pediatrician. She's a got a kid now, or two; I didn't delve too deep. Her husband is going to be a lawyer. I'm certain she'll be a great pediatrician. They'll do great things.
It made me think about the direction of my life. I feel a little sheepish, a tad embarrassed. I'm living in a basement room, working a entry-level job, trying to dodge the credit agents until I can move up enough to pay them. I've written a few songs that nobody's heard. I'm not on the fast track to doing "great things". I haven't studied anything with any intent, haven't produced anything of caliber, and aside for helping a few folks now and again, haven't been particularly useful. I've learned a lot, a little about everything. By no means a jack of all trades, though. It's been an odds and ends life for me.
The flip-side is that I never had a goal of accomplishing anything. I've never been ambitious. I used to daydream about being a hermit in the woods when I was growing up. Ha, maybe I've accomplished that; I only see a few friends every now and again, by habit, if not choice. In many ways, I think my goal has been to Understand. I suppose I'm slowly accomplishing that, but not in the standard way. I never cared for studies. I consider them a necessary evil. Books and academia will jade you and warp you. Any path, in fact, will do that. I'm not sure I want to be warped by academia, studies, or books.
Anyway, it's embarrassing to have your formers and your peers accomplishing where you are not. I'd like to take some little victory away by making a "this vs. that" case, but frankly, I don't think I can. I've not particularly had any goals, and I've not particularly had any accomplishments. I think I could make the case that in some way I've dumbed down the bar so that I could stand to live with myself.
But I think I've also come to the point where I can see that the value of a goal is not in its accomplishment. It's somewhere else, whether that's the journey or a future enabled by that goal or that accomplishments allow you to be useful to people and to the world. They keep you moving. Maybe the importance of goals is in simply helping yourself to mirror a dynamic world. It *is* a dynamic world, and rather than being static, we, too, should be dynamic.
I'm reassessing...
(By the way, Google, you own blogspot, yet your dictionary doesn't register google, either as a noun or a verb? uh??)
Turns out she's a pediatrician. She's a got a kid now, or two; I didn't delve too deep. Her husband is going to be a lawyer. I'm certain she'll be a great pediatrician. They'll do great things.
It made me think about the direction of my life. I feel a little sheepish, a tad embarrassed. I'm living in a basement room, working a entry-level job, trying to dodge the credit agents until I can move up enough to pay them. I've written a few songs that nobody's heard. I'm not on the fast track to doing "great things". I haven't studied anything with any intent, haven't produced anything of caliber, and aside for helping a few folks now and again, haven't been particularly useful. I've learned a lot, a little about everything. By no means a jack of all trades, though. It's been an odds and ends life for me.
The flip-side is that I never had a goal of accomplishing anything. I've never been ambitious. I used to daydream about being a hermit in the woods when I was growing up. Ha, maybe I've accomplished that; I only see a few friends every now and again, by habit, if not choice. In many ways, I think my goal has been to Understand. I suppose I'm slowly accomplishing that, but not in the standard way. I never cared for studies. I consider them a necessary evil. Books and academia will jade you and warp you. Any path, in fact, will do that. I'm not sure I want to be warped by academia, studies, or books.
Anyway, it's embarrassing to have your formers and your peers accomplishing where you are not. I'd like to take some little victory away by making a "this vs. that" case, but frankly, I don't think I can. I've not particularly had any goals, and I've not particularly had any accomplishments. I think I could make the case that in some way I've dumbed down the bar so that I could stand to live with myself.
But I think I've also come to the point where I can see that the value of a goal is not in its accomplishment. It's somewhere else, whether that's the journey or a future enabled by that goal or that accomplishments allow you to be useful to people and to the world. They keep you moving. Maybe the importance of goals is in simply helping yourself to mirror a dynamic world. It *is* a dynamic world, and rather than being static, we, too, should be dynamic.
I'm reassessing...
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Doctrine, or, The Fallen Nature of Systematics
So, I was thinking after church today about doctrine. Actually, about doctrine and evangelism and biblical interpretation and living a 'Christian' life (an idea that distresses me enough to be a set of essays, but not to be written today).
I believe that doctrine is not to be the First Thing, as in, that which is Priority #1. In fact, it may not even show up in my Top Five. And here's why: Doctrine cannot circumscribe God. It is a part of man's attempt to understand, and true, complete understanding is not something that the limitations of human nature allows for. I think that's a safe statement to make regardless of whether you believe humans were created by God or whether God doesn't exist and therefore didn't create humans, or some other viewpoint. The simple reality is that the human mind, soul, and body cannot completely, truly understand. Anything. In part, yes. Good enough for forward motion, yes. Completely and truly, no. And if it can't circumscribe God, it cannot convey reality.
God comes first.
The thing is, I think that's easily recognizable. And I think most Christians can recognize that. But when you then ask, "Well, what do we do with that?", nobody really knows. Because God's un-understandable. Yes, he comes first, but I can't grasp him, so what do I do? So people set about making it simpler (another topic that could easily warrant it's own set of essays). They don't necessarily do so intentionally, they do so out of a perceived necessity. And it is necessary. Humans need something to follow, whether instructions or people or vibes or zeitgeist. So where's the problem?
Doctrine is all about systems. Whether the system is rational and logical, or intuitive and mystical, doctrine revolves around ordering things so that they can be understood and, thus, followed or adhered to. Making them static. God, however is not static. He is dynamic. And reality is dynamic. Certain things stay the same, just as God himself is characterized by his unchangingness, yet there is no staticness. The foundation is set, but the connections move.
This dynamicism is something doctrine can't convey. You can make a "dynamic" doctrine, but it won't convey what is unchanging.
Doctrines, like ideologies (they are brothers), are insufficient.
So, I think the point here is, you have to keep looking beyond the doctrine to what it is trying to talk about. Where is the real thing?
God is the real thing. And following him is interacting. The doctrine can serve as a marker or a signpost, but God is the one to interact with. And that requires real work, both intuitive and learned. It requires actual interaction, true relationship, honest communication, quality time spent.
Not that I'm any good at it...
I believe that doctrine is not to be the First Thing, as in, that which is Priority #1. In fact, it may not even show up in my Top Five. And here's why: Doctrine cannot circumscribe God. It is a part of man's attempt to understand, and true, complete understanding is not something that the limitations of human nature allows for. I think that's a safe statement to make regardless of whether you believe humans were created by God or whether God doesn't exist and therefore didn't create humans, or some other viewpoint. The simple reality is that the human mind, soul, and body cannot completely, truly understand. Anything. In part, yes. Good enough for forward motion, yes. Completely and truly, no. And if it can't circumscribe God, it cannot convey reality.
God comes first.
The thing is, I think that's easily recognizable. And I think most Christians can recognize that. But when you then ask, "Well, what do we do with that?", nobody really knows. Because God's un-understandable. Yes, he comes first, but I can't grasp him, so what do I do? So people set about making it simpler (another topic that could easily warrant it's own set of essays). They don't necessarily do so intentionally, they do so out of a perceived necessity. And it is necessary. Humans need something to follow, whether instructions or people or vibes or zeitgeist. So where's the problem?
Doctrine is all about systems. Whether the system is rational and logical, or intuitive and mystical, doctrine revolves around ordering things so that they can be understood and, thus, followed or adhered to. Making them static. God, however is not static. He is dynamic. And reality is dynamic. Certain things stay the same, just as God himself is characterized by his unchangingness, yet there is no staticness. The foundation is set, but the connections move.
This dynamicism is something doctrine can't convey. You can make a "dynamic" doctrine, but it won't convey what is unchanging.
Doctrines, like ideologies (they are brothers), are insufficient.
So, I think the point here is, you have to keep looking beyond the doctrine to what it is trying to talk about. Where is the real thing?
God is the real thing. And following him is interacting. The doctrine can serve as a marker or a signpost, but God is the one to interact with. And that requires real work, both intuitive and learned. It requires actual interaction, true relationship, honest communication, quality time spent.
Not that I'm any good at it...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hung My Head
I love the song "I Hung My Head" by Sting from his Mercury Falling album.
It's a sad song, but a beautiful one and I've always loved the rhythm in the both the verse and chorus. I think initially what hooked me about the song was the guitar sound. At the time I first heard it, around winter of 1996, I had pulled it out of the library along with a Sarah McLachlan album that had this one really interesting track with a great overdriven gritty guitar sound (maybe "Ice" from The Freedom Sessions) (yeah, overdriven guitar and Sarah McLachlan don't go together, part of what made it so interesting) and Peter Gabriel's Us and So albums. I loved Us and So, the way those records sound is amazing.
Somehow, these sounds remain tied together in my mind, in some kind of sympathetic sound.
All of this is set on a backdrop of some of the other guitar sounds I was drawn to at the time like "One of Us" by Joan Osborne and "Wonder" and "Carnival" by Natalie Merchant, "Counting Blue Cars" by Dishwalla (which owned the radio at the time), and everything by The Gin Blossoms. There was just a lot of really overdriven guitar music on the radio at the time. Not really heavily distorted in my mind, just good, pleasantly-overdriven to gritty guitar sounds in the pop world at the time.
"I Hung my Head" is another instance, and perhaps my favorite of those mentioned here, of that overdriven quality. Here it's much sweeter and with the added effects it's really stirring and gorgeous to me. In fact, the duo of albums coming from Sting at the time, Ten Summoner's Tales" and "Mercury Falling" had some really wonderful guitar sounds to my ear, both then and now.
At any rate, I haven't heard this song in a few years and it was nice to have it pop in my brain and be able to hear it again through the magic that is The Internet.
It's a sad song, but a beautiful one and I've always loved the rhythm in the both the verse and chorus. I think initially what hooked me about the song was the guitar sound. At the time I first heard it, around winter of 1996, I had pulled it out of the library along with a Sarah McLachlan album that had this one really interesting track with a great overdriven gritty guitar sound (maybe "Ice" from The Freedom Sessions) (yeah, overdriven guitar and Sarah McLachlan don't go together, part of what made it so interesting) and Peter Gabriel's Us and So albums. I loved Us and So, the way those records sound is amazing.
Somehow, these sounds remain tied together in my mind, in some kind of sympathetic sound.
All of this is set on a backdrop of some of the other guitar sounds I was drawn to at the time like "One of Us" by Joan Osborne and "Wonder" and "Carnival" by Natalie Merchant, "Counting Blue Cars" by Dishwalla (which owned the radio at the time), and everything by The Gin Blossoms. There was just a lot of really overdriven guitar music on the radio at the time. Not really heavily distorted in my mind, just good, pleasantly-overdriven to gritty guitar sounds in the pop world at the time.
"I Hung my Head" is another instance, and perhaps my favorite of those mentioned here, of that overdriven quality. Here it's much sweeter and with the added effects it's really stirring and gorgeous to me. In fact, the duo of albums coming from Sting at the time, Ten Summoner's Tales" and "Mercury Falling" had some really wonderful guitar sounds to my ear, both then and now.
At any rate, I haven't heard this song in a few years and it was nice to have it pop in my brain and be able to hear it again through the magic that is The Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
