I love coffee. I started drinking coffee when I was 15 (black with 25 sugars). Over time I developed a somewhat more descerning pallate, however, I still like black coffee with one sugar. Cream in coffee is for the weak and more than one sugar and you might as well drink coke.
I grind my own coffee beans, I love the ritual of grinding beans, brewing coffee, and then having that first cup in the morning. I love the smell of coffee, the taste of coffee, and I love the effects of coffee. I call coffee the 'nectar of the gods' and along with beer I think I am fairly close to correct.
So, imagine my horror, shock, pain, anger, frustration (insert word here) when I discovered after two years of trial and error, medical intervention, and much denial, that coffee was the cause of a physical ailment that had afflicted me for several years. I had seen specialists and had numerous tests done all to no avail. The doctors did not know what was bothering me. They made numerous suggestions, which I implimented, and which failed to alleviate my discomfort.
Finally, in a fit of desperation, I gave in to the dark side and stopped drinking coffee. (Someone had suggested that perhaps my 12 cup a day habit might be the cause but I had scoffed at them and then instantly dropped them from my facebook friends list for even suggesting such heresy).
After three days of hell on earth (including nausea, insomnia, migranes, loss of appetite, extreme self-pity, whinning, crying, several tantrums, and two aborted attempts to lick the inside of my coffee maker) I emerged weak and shaken into the light of a new coffee-free existence.
I'm not sick anymore. I feel better than I have in years. I'm gaining weight and muscle. I don't care. I want coffee. Everytime I go to a restaurant I want coffee after my meal. Every time I wake up (so every day) I want coffee. When I go to the mall with my wife, I want coffee. Coffee is as much a social drug as it is a physical drug. I am still addicted to the social elements of coffee even though I have managed to survive coffee rehab.
(While writing this blog I realize I have salivated all over my laptop...not a pretty picture)
So, why do I write this? Well, at the risk of offending Starbucks fans everywhere, yesterday I went to Starbucks with my wife and had a cup of coffee for the first time in a very long time. Granted, it was a Pumpkin Spice Latte, skinny, decaf, but still, it was coffee. With trembling hands and racing heart I lifted the golden goblet (well, white paper goblet) to my lips and took a drink. SWILL - BITTER WATER FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE SEWER - SQUID TESTICLES GROUND UP TOGETHER WITH GRASSHOPPER EYEBALLS AND VINEGAR - LIQUID DIRT - Yes, all of that and more. A DIRTY SOCK COMBINED WITH A BRUSSELL SPROUT COVERED IN RAT TAIL SAUCE - all for $5.99.
Good-bye coffee. I still miss you............but not as much.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
At 8:30 a.m. I was accosted by two drunken natives teenagers on whyte avenue looking for cigarettes, a light, or any spare change I might have. First of all, I don't smoke so the cigarettes and the light were out. Next, I'm a student with a family and I survive on a bus pass and leftovers so spare change was out.
Through slurred speech and bleary eyes the boy told me he and his sister were living in a garage, hadn't had breakfast, that he was sixteen, and looking for anything I had that might help him.
He didn't look sixteen. His "sister" didn't look sixteen. There is a youth shelter two blocks from where we were standing that has housing and meals for disadvantaged teens yet they were obviously not taking advantage of it. They were more interested in cigarettes than in food but they mostly wanted money. They looked and smelled and talked and acted like tweekers or meth-heads. I didn't want to give them money. I should have taken them to the A&W across the street, used by debit card, and bought them both breakfast. But I didn't. Instead, I breathed a sigh of relief when they finally realized I wasn't going to give them anything and they stumbled off down the street in search of someone else to ask.
I'm not proud of myself. I'm not even O.K. with how I reacted to them, or to the initial internal response I had towards them as they walked towards me. I'm even less happy about the fact that I am having feelings of remorse now that I'm sitting in my nice warm office on campus and am blogging about this and what I should have done. Apparently, intellectually I know what the right thing to do is, but practically I am either unable or unwilling to put what I know into action.
I'm certainly not Peter. When a disabled begger asked him for money he replied "I don't have money but I'll give you what I do have" and then Peter heals the guy. I understand that the essence of the message of Christ is to help those who are less fortunate and to love the unlovable. The gospel's main message is "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "whatever you do to the least of these you do to me."
Does this mean that I would wish to be ignored if I was in a similar circumstance? Does this mean that I ignored Christ today?
Put it another way. Let's just say that in some other life our family is in Calcutta India and suddenly my wife and I get hit my a car and die, leaving my three children, ages 16, 15, and 13, without any family support or help, all alone without any money in a huge city where they don't know the language. Let's say nobody knows what has happened and they end up living on the streets, unable to return home because they have no money to eat, let alone buy plane tickets. After a month, they are starving, sick, and desperate. So one morning they approach an average guy on the street and ask him if he will give them $5 for food. Would I want him to ignore them? Obviously not. I'd want him to not only feed them, but help them find the embassy, or put them on a plane home, to just do something to help them. Not only is this the essence of Christianity, it is the essence of humanity. Helping the less fortunate.
I can pontificate all I want about how America is showing its lack of humanity by not giving everyone access to healthcare. I can write about how the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is un-Christian and has no place in a supposedly Christian nation like America. I can bash on the Christian Right because they want to cut funding to welfare and food stamp programs because they feel this is only enabling the less fortunate and people like that should just go out and get a job if they don't like the way they live. But after today, I have to ask myself if I am any different.
In the mean time, while I ponder this question, I'm going back to Whyte avenue to see if I can find those two and buy them breakfast. I may not have much, but I have more than they do and if I read my Bible correctly, Jesus asks me to share what I have with those who have less.
Through slurred speech and bleary eyes the boy told me he and his sister were living in a garage, hadn't had breakfast, that he was sixteen, and looking for anything I had that might help him.
He didn't look sixteen. His "sister" didn't look sixteen. There is a youth shelter two blocks from where we were standing that has housing and meals for disadvantaged teens yet they were obviously not taking advantage of it. They were more interested in cigarettes than in food but they mostly wanted money. They looked and smelled and talked and acted like tweekers or meth-heads. I didn't want to give them money. I should have taken them to the A&W across the street, used by debit card, and bought them both breakfast. But I didn't. Instead, I breathed a sigh of relief when they finally realized I wasn't going to give them anything and they stumbled off down the street in search of someone else to ask.
I'm not proud of myself. I'm not even O.K. with how I reacted to them, or to the initial internal response I had towards them as they walked towards me. I'm even less happy about the fact that I am having feelings of remorse now that I'm sitting in my nice warm office on campus and am blogging about this and what I should have done. Apparently, intellectually I know what the right thing to do is, but practically I am either unable or unwilling to put what I know into action.
I'm certainly not Peter. When a disabled begger asked him for money he replied "I don't have money but I'll give you what I do have" and then Peter heals the guy. I understand that the essence of the message of Christ is to help those who are less fortunate and to love the unlovable. The gospel's main message is "do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "whatever you do to the least of these you do to me."
Does this mean that I would wish to be ignored if I was in a similar circumstance? Does this mean that I ignored Christ today?
Put it another way. Let's just say that in some other life our family is in Calcutta India and suddenly my wife and I get hit my a car and die, leaving my three children, ages 16, 15, and 13, without any family support or help, all alone without any money in a huge city where they don't know the language. Let's say nobody knows what has happened and they end up living on the streets, unable to return home because they have no money to eat, let alone buy plane tickets. After a month, they are starving, sick, and desperate. So one morning they approach an average guy on the street and ask him if he will give them $5 for food. Would I want him to ignore them? Obviously not. I'd want him to not only feed them, but help them find the embassy, or put them on a plane home, to just do something to help them. Not only is this the essence of Christianity, it is the essence of humanity. Helping the less fortunate.
I can pontificate all I want about how America is showing its lack of humanity by not giving everyone access to healthcare. I can write about how the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is un-Christian and has no place in a supposedly Christian nation like America. I can bash on the Christian Right because they want to cut funding to welfare and food stamp programs because they feel this is only enabling the less fortunate and people like that should just go out and get a job if they don't like the way they live. But after today, I have to ask myself if I am any different.
In the mean time, while I ponder this question, I'm going back to Whyte avenue to see if I can find those two and buy them breakfast. I may not have much, but I have more than they do and if I read my Bible correctly, Jesus asks me to share what I have with those who have less.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
BBQ
I think the reason that I am the world's greatest BBQer (is that a word) is because I have almost always barbecued on crappy BBQs. Before moving to Vegas in 1999 I had never even seen a barbecue (note I will be using BBQ and barbecue interchangeably). I had no skill on the grill (I'm also a wannbe rapper). Whenever somebody suggested we all get together for a barbecue (which wasn't that often because I was raised SDA read: mostly vegetarian) I would gallantly allow any other man in the group to man the barbecue and I would provide the entertainment, the running commentary, be the life of the party...anything to avoid standing over the grill. At family functions I allowed my uncle or cousins to bbq. In essence I was devoid of all meaningful interactions with the grill.
When we moved to Vegas and bought our first house, we discovered that the previous owners had left a grill on the back deck (well, actually a slab of concrete heated to one million degrees every day by the sun, but I didn't realize this until I stepped onto the slab in bare feet...however I digress). Obviously the grill had seen better days and apparently either the garbage truck had refused to pick it up or the owners had stopped using it so long ago they had forgotten what this horrible metal contraption in the corner of their yard was. Anyway, for whatever reason, it was there and I was determined to learn how to use it.
There were some initial problems. I didn't know how to turn it on (sexy dancing in a G-string didn't seem to work). I deduced that a person needed a flame to somehow ignite the propane, but I was unsure of how to do this and tossing lit matches into the yawning mouth of the grill had no effect. Finally I realized that perhaps I needed to buy a propane tank and attach it to the grill.
Having done so I experimented with turning nobs and dials and throwing lit matches into the grill until it nearly exploded as it erupted in flame, and I had my first lit gril to work with. (I continued to experiment until I learned how to actually light the thing and of course my eyebrows have grown back nicely).
My first attempt at grilling was chicken. I read a grill book on how to grill it and totally burned the outside to a black char while managing to leave the inside nicely red and almost cold. Needless to say attempt one was an abject failure and we celebrated that night by bringing in pizza.
My first hamburgers ended up as hard, unedable disks. My first steak was delicious, cooked to a beautiful medium rare. Apparently I could cook a steak but nothing else.
What I soon discovered, well not actually soon but over time, was that the grill actually had "hot" spots AND that I had to actually stand by the grill when grilling and adjust the food around the grill so that it alternatively was on a hot spot and then a cooler spot. This meant that after 20 or 30 attempts I was able to actually cook chicken without the fear of giving my family samonella.
When we bought our second house we decided it was time to actually buy a good grill and so I had to once again learn to barbecue. You see, I had learned how to grill on a piece of junk and now I actually had one that had adjustable heat settings, provided even heat, had a lid that closed all the way....well you get it....a grill that actually worked.
Sunday afternoons I perfected the art of learning to grill on a good grill. Eventually I graduated to salmon, kabobs, corn on the cob, asparagus, and anything else you could want grilled. I also learned that you can't leave your food on the grill while you go inside to watch the afternoon NFL game. The food will burn and your family will be unhappy with you.
Alas, when we moved back to Canada several years ago we brough our grill with us, but it did not fare well on the trip. I lovingly stowed it on the moving truck and then apparently piled everything I could find on top of it, including 4 tires and about twenty boxes. When we unloaded the truck I thought I had packed a grill designed for midgets. It also had a curious tilt to it that makes all the food roll towards the back of the grill and it now seems to have only one temperature - hot. If I want to keep anything warm, or if I am cooking chicken, I usually have to leave the lid open and only close it for brief periods of time to bring the temp back up.
However, having learned to grill on the BBQ that I did, grilling on this one actually isn't too bad.
So, why do I mention all of this?
This summer has been absolutely the worst summer I can remember for barbecuing. It has rained almost every day and here it is in September and its already below freezing at night. I've had very little chance to BBQ and I feel as if I'm losing my skillz. So, when I turned on the TV today (sexy dancing....) and saw that the weather forcast for this weekend was going to be in the 20s (that would be 70s for all my American friends) I am determined to grill one last time.
The only question is, should I do steak, chicken, or salmon? I'm so excited I might just do all three.
When we moved to Vegas and bought our first house, we discovered that the previous owners had left a grill on the back deck (well, actually a slab of concrete heated to one million degrees every day by the sun, but I didn't realize this until I stepped onto the slab in bare feet...however I digress). Obviously the grill had seen better days and apparently either the garbage truck had refused to pick it up or the owners had stopped using it so long ago they had forgotten what this horrible metal contraption in the corner of their yard was. Anyway, for whatever reason, it was there and I was determined to learn how to use it.
There were some initial problems. I didn't know how to turn it on (sexy dancing in a G-string didn't seem to work). I deduced that a person needed a flame to somehow ignite the propane, but I was unsure of how to do this and tossing lit matches into the yawning mouth of the grill had no effect. Finally I realized that perhaps I needed to buy a propane tank and attach it to the grill.
Having done so I experimented with turning nobs and dials and throwing lit matches into the grill until it nearly exploded as it erupted in flame, and I had my first lit gril to work with. (I continued to experiment until I learned how to actually light the thing and of course my eyebrows have grown back nicely).
My first attempt at grilling was chicken. I read a grill book on how to grill it and totally burned the outside to a black char while managing to leave the inside nicely red and almost cold. Needless to say attempt one was an abject failure and we celebrated that night by bringing in pizza.
My first hamburgers ended up as hard, unedable disks. My first steak was delicious, cooked to a beautiful medium rare. Apparently I could cook a steak but nothing else.
What I soon discovered, well not actually soon but over time, was that the grill actually had "hot" spots AND that I had to actually stand by the grill when grilling and adjust the food around the grill so that it alternatively was on a hot spot and then a cooler spot. This meant that after 20 or 30 attempts I was able to actually cook chicken without the fear of giving my family samonella.
When we bought our second house we decided it was time to actually buy a good grill and so I had to once again learn to barbecue. You see, I had learned how to grill on a piece of junk and now I actually had one that had adjustable heat settings, provided even heat, had a lid that closed all the way....well you get it....a grill that actually worked.
Sunday afternoons I perfected the art of learning to grill on a good grill. Eventually I graduated to salmon, kabobs, corn on the cob, asparagus, and anything else you could want grilled. I also learned that you can't leave your food on the grill while you go inside to watch the afternoon NFL game. The food will burn and your family will be unhappy with you.
Alas, when we moved back to Canada several years ago we brough our grill with us, but it did not fare well on the trip. I lovingly stowed it on the moving truck and then apparently piled everything I could find on top of it, including 4 tires and about twenty boxes. When we unloaded the truck I thought I had packed a grill designed for midgets. It also had a curious tilt to it that makes all the food roll towards the back of the grill and it now seems to have only one temperature - hot. If I want to keep anything warm, or if I am cooking chicken, I usually have to leave the lid open and only close it for brief periods of time to bring the temp back up.
However, having learned to grill on the BBQ that I did, grilling on this one actually isn't too bad.
So, why do I mention all of this?
This summer has been absolutely the worst summer I can remember for barbecuing. It has rained almost every day and here it is in September and its already below freezing at night. I've had very little chance to BBQ and I feel as if I'm losing my skillz. So, when I turned on the TV today (sexy dancing....) and saw that the weather forcast for this weekend was going to be in the 20s (that would be 70s for all my American friends) I am determined to grill one last time.
The only question is, should I do steak, chicken, or salmon? I'm so excited I might just do all three.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
two shots of happy one shot of sad
This post is a bit unfocused. There are actually several posts in this one post but I want to say some of this stuff while it is fresh in my head and no doubt will expand on various aspects of it in later posts.
I'm not a very happy person. I know, I know, for some of you this will come as a giant surprise. For others this will confirm whatever suspicions you might have been harbouring for quite some time but were too nice to openly admit to me. Whatever. After years and years of trying to appear happy I have come to the general conclusion that I am unhappy.
I don't know if this is the result of genetics or experiences or a little bit of both. Are unhappy people born this way or do they choose to become unhappy after experimenting with happiness for a while and then realizing that they are just not into it and that they are indeed unhappy? Do we just feel more 'normal' when we embrace our unhappiness despite the overwhelming 'encouragement' we feel from society to be happy?
Unhappy people get called all sort of names, to our faces and behind our backs. We get called depressed, selfish, bitchy, mean, freaks of nature, emo. We are told that we should try to see the glass half full and that if we can't, perhaps we should start a course of anti-depressants. I'm not happy that it is half full or half empty. I'm not happy that people want me to make some sort of observation about it and then judge my outlook on life based on how I answer.
Why not judge my outlook on life based on how I feel about poverty, war, culture, temptation, lonliness, government, sports, education (or lack thereof)? What I think about a glass of water....seriously!!!
Here is what I think. Happiness tends to be fleeting whereas unhappiness lasts a lot longer and you can get a lot more mileage out of it. Imagine a world where artists created art only out of their happiness. We wouldn't have any, or at least we wouldn't have great art. Unhappiness, sadness, depression, lonliness, rejection, alienation, all of these and more tend to give birth to fantastic artistic forms from painting to music.
Have you ever read "My name is Asher Lev"? If not, I suggest you read it.
Have you ever listened to Pink Floyd? If not, you should.
How about Picasso or Da Vinci or Van Gogh?
Great art produced by unhappy people. There are many, many others....
But my observations today are mostly for Christian artists.
Unhappiness with the state of the world, with the state of our lives, with the reality of sin and temptation and unanswered prayer can just as easily create great art as can heaven and angels and forgiveness and repentence and faith, all which are supposed to make us happy. Too much of what Christians pass off for art (whether in music, art, literature, drama, movies) is a trite ode to artificial happiness. The problem isn't that they are trying to be happy about this stuff, the problem is that it doesn't address the reality of life. Nobody is happy all the time. Especially not Christians. We of all people know the reality of failure, or disappointment, of longing for something we do not yet have. Yet for some reasons, we do not allow this reality to give us creative energy. Instead, we try to focus only on the happiness and create something artificial and only half true.
I guess that is why I love the desert so much. It is barren and rocky and hard and unforgiving and in many people's minds, ugly. There are no majestic snow capped mountain vistas with beautiful lakes and grass and trees. There is only heat and dust and rocks and cactus and snakes and scorpians.
Yet, in the Bible, every great character I can think of went to the desert to find God.
I think in the desert (literal and figurative) you come face to face with unhappiness and lonliness and anger and failure and ugliness and you see the reality of life. We don't live on the mountain top very often if ever. Most of us, if we are honest, live in the desert. It is just that artificially happy people try to pretend that they actually live on the mountain all the time.
I am not one of those people and I can't force myself to become one. No matter how much I want to be on the mountain all the time, I KNOW where I live. I know the reality of my life and of this world.
When I get to heaven I will be happy all the time. I will create great works of art based on the reality of true happiness because I believe that is what I will experience in heaven. Real, true, unending happiness. Two shots of happy.
In the mean time, I live down here and for the most part, what I experience is one shot of sad.
(with all appologies to Frank Sinatra and U2 for the blatant use of their song "Two shots of happy one shot of sad").
I'm not a very happy person. I know, I know, for some of you this will come as a giant surprise. For others this will confirm whatever suspicions you might have been harbouring for quite some time but were too nice to openly admit to me. Whatever. After years and years of trying to appear happy I have come to the general conclusion that I am unhappy.
I don't know if this is the result of genetics or experiences or a little bit of both. Are unhappy people born this way or do they choose to become unhappy after experimenting with happiness for a while and then realizing that they are just not into it and that they are indeed unhappy? Do we just feel more 'normal' when we embrace our unhappiness despite the overwhelming 'encouragement' we feel from society to be happy?
Unhappy people get called all sort of names, to our faces and behind our backs. We get called depressed, selfish, bitchy, mean, freaks of nature, emo. We are told that we should try to see the glass half full and that if we can't, perhaps we should start a course of anti-depressants. I'm not happy that it is half full or half empty. I'm not happy that people want me to make some sort of observation about it and then judge my outlook on life based on how I answer.
Why not judge my outlook on life based on how I feel about poverty, war, culture, temptation, lonliness, government, sports, education (or lack thereof)? What I think about a glass of water....seriously!!!
Here is what I think. Happiness tends to be fleeting whereas unhappiness lasts a lot longer and you can get a lot more mileage out of it. Imagine a world where artists created art only out of their happiness. We wouldn't have any, or at least we wouldn't have great art. Unhappiness, sadness, depression, lonliness, rejection, alienation, all of these and more tend to give birth to fantastic artistic forms from painting to music.
Have you ever read "My name is Asher Lev"? If not, I suggest you read it.
Have you ever listened to Pink Floyd? If not, you should.
How about Picasso or Da Vinci or Van Gogh?
Great art produced by unhappy people. There are many, many others....
But my observations today are mostly for Christian artists.
Unhappiness with the state of the world, with the state of our lives, with the reality of sin and temptation and unanswered prayer can just as easily create great art as can heaven and angels and forgiveness and repentence and faith, all which are supposed to make us happy. Too much of what Christians pass off for art (whether in music, art, literature, drama, movies) is a trite ode to artificial happiness. The problem isn't that they are trying to be happy about this stuff, the problem is that it doesn't address the reality of life. Nobody is happy all the time. Especially not Christians. We of all people know the reality of failure, or disappointment, of longing for something we do not yet have. Yet for some reasons, we do not allow this reality to give us creative energy. Instead, we try to focus only on the happiness and create something artificial and only half true.
I guess that is why I love the desert so much. It is barren and rocky and hard and unforgiving and in many people's minds, ugly. There are no majestic snow capped mountain vistas with beautiful lakes and grass and trees. There is only heat and dust and rocks and cactus and snakes and scorpians.
Yet, in the Bible, every great character I can think of went to the desert to find God.
I think in the desert (literal and figurative) you come face to face with unhappiness and lonliness and anger and failure and ugliness and you see the reality of life. We don't live on the mountain top very often if ever. Most of us, if we are honest, live in the desert. It is just that artificially happy people try to pretend that they actually live on the mountain all the time.
I am not one of those people and I can't force myself to become one. No matter how much I want to be on the mountain all the time, I KNOW where I live. I know the reality of my life and of this world.
When I get to heaven I will be happy all the time. I will create great works of art based on the reality of true happiness because I believe that is what I will experience in heaven. Real, true, unending happiness. Two shots of happy.
In the mean time, I live down here and for the most part, what I experience is one shot of sad.
(with all appologies to Frank Sinatra and U2 for the blatant use of their song "Two shots of happy one shot of sad").
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
school begins
This is year 2 of the PhD and this is the year that I spend preparing for comprehensive exams and working in a specialization area. My specialization area is religion and politics, specifically Protestant religion and the relationship that it has played in the formation of the political agenda in North America. Although I am currently reading the history of this formation, I have a feeling that I will most likely write on the current situation in North America, however, I have not yet decided if I will write on the United States or Canada. Obviously, the US offers me the likes of George Bush Jr, Clinton, the Religious Right, the Moral Majority, the Tea Party, Palin, Beck, and the role of religion in the shaping of policies relating to homosexuality, abortion, private school tax credits, and a host of others. Canada, on the other hand, has a more liberal view on many social issues yet in recent years has begun to swing towards an American-style view of religion and politics, especially under current Prime Minister Steven Harper and the likes of Stockwell Day. So, there is a lot to think about while I begin the year.
In the mean time, the kids are also starting school, I am a TA (teaching assistant) once again, and am trying to figure out how to survive another school year financially.
In the mean time, the kids are also starting school, I am a TA (teaching assistant) once again, and am trying to figure out how to survive another school year financially.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Reality Television and the end of civilization
I want to write about how much I despise American Idol and all reality television in general, but somehow I am unable to put my feelings into words that I would not be ashamed of, or at least ashamed to have my children read. However, I must say a few things about reality television and I will try to do so in a calm and dispassionate manner. Just know that underneath is a much darker undercurrent! To be fair, Kelly Clarkson can sing and some of her songs were catchy, and Carrie Underwood (despite the fact I don't like country music) is talented. Who was the guy who beat the ridiculously talented Adam Lambert....exactly! In the real world Adam Lambert would have kicked the other guys butt all over the stage (which come to think of it he did, he just didn't win). But for the most part, we watched American Idol for the first three or four rounds where the really really bad, sad, desperate, inept, and hopeless got to have their dreams dashed, their egos completely crushed, and their self-delusions of grandeur made the butt of some international joke. I stopped watching after the first season and have not watched a single episode since...ever. The only reason I know who Adam Lambert or Carrie Underwood are is because their music is on MTV and the radio constantly and they have become authentic music stars. Where are the rest of the winners? How real is a reality show called American Idol where most of the winners are has-beens before they even leave the show. Hardly creating "America's next idols".
The fact that I don't watch reality television doesn't make me more perfect or holy or upstanding than anyone else. I just don't like being lied to. Lets face it and be honest, reality television is not real in any sense of the word. Putting twelve people into a house and subjecting them to stupid competitions and filming all their stupid conversations and cat fights and hook ups is not the real world. Taking a bunch of contestants to exotic locations and making them do basically the same thing is not the real world. Following a bunch of bitchy, lipo-suctioned, women around their hopelessly make-believe lives in Orange County or New York or Atlanta or wherever they will go next, is not reality television. Whenever anybody sticks twenty cameras in your face 24/7 and then edits all of it into a 1/2 hour or 1 hour program complete with the characters providing commentary is not real life. Put all these "real" scenarios together and you get three or four characters in every show yelling, screaming, saying stupid stuff, creating "drama", all in the desperate attempt to snag more airtime than their fellow "competitors". It may entertain people, a lot of people, but don't insult my intelligence by telling me this is "reality". Call it something else. Call it "television to make you feel better about your own life" or "here at the network we got tired of hiring actors so we just follow people around with cameras and pretty soon they start "acting" like what they are doing is real life and we don't pay them much and you all like it". I hear that at least one of Tiger Wood's mistresses is getting a "reality" show. Wow, we are going to follow her around the kitchen where she waitresses and wait for her to hop into bed with another married athlete? That would be a true reality show about her life. That is what she did. But no, she'll have really "deep" conversations with people about how to attract a good man and how to try and avoid all the craziness of fame and how much she hates all the attention that her "mistake" with Tiger has caused her. All with cameras in her face that she agreed to.
I fear for our planet people! I fear that soon everyone watching these shows will begin to think that what they are watching IS reality and that they need to behave like their favourite reality stars in order to have a real life. I believe that would signal the end of civilization and the need for an apocalypse.
In the mean time, I'm going to get ready to watch some REAL reality television. The NFL starts in less than a month.
The fact that I don't watch reality television doesn't make me more perfect or holy or upstanding than anyone else. I just don't like being lied to. Lets face it and be honest, reality television is not real in any sense of the word. Putting twelve people into a house and subjecting them to stupid competitions and filming all their stupid conversations and cat fights and hook ups is not the real world. Taking a bunch of contestants to exotic locations and making them do basically the same thing is not the real world. Following a bunch of bitchy, lipo-suctioned, women around their hopelessly make-believe lives in Orange County or New York or Atlanta or wherever they will go next, is not reality television. Whenever anybody sticks twenty cameras in your face 24/7 and then edits all of it into a 1/2 hour or 1 hour program complete with the characters providing commentary is not real life. Put all these "real" scenarios together and you get three or four characters in every show yelling, screaming, saying stupid stuff, creating "drama", all in the desperate attempt to snag more airtime than their fellow "competitors". It may entertain people, a lot of people, but don't insult my intelligence by telling me this is "reality". Call it something else. Call it "television to make you feel better about your own life" or "here at the network we got tired of hiring actors so we just follow people around with cameras and pretty soon they start "acting" like what they are doing is real life and we don't pay them much and you all like it". I hear that at least one of Tiger Wood's mistresses is getting a "reality" show. Wow, we are going to follow her around the kitchen where she waitresses and wait for her to hop into bed with another married athlete? That would be a true reality show about her life. That is what she did. But no, she'll have really "deep" conversations with people about how to attract a good man and how to try and avoid all the craziness of fame and how much she hates all the attention that her "mistake" with Tiger has caused her. All with cameras in her face that she agreed to.
I fear for our planet people! I fear that soon everyone watching these shows will begin to think that what they are watching IS reality and that they need to behave like their favourite reality stars in order to have a real life. I believe that would signal the end of civilization and the need for an apocalypse.
In the mean time, I'm going to get ready to watch some REAL reality television. The NFL starts in less than a month.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Going to school can make you out of shape
This is a completely non-academic post. I promise not to talk about anything academic. There is another side to academics, one which I have been fighting for several years since going back to school, the battle to stay in shape. (Quick note: I know there are 22 year old students who still run everyday and play varsity sports - be thankful you are 22 - it doesn't last).
O.K. When I moved here to go to school I wasn't in great shape, but I wasn't out of shape either. I had a job that kept me active and being on stage every week is a workout in and of itself, so I never thought to much about my weight or working out or cardio.
School involves a lot of sitting. Sitting in class, sitting on the bus, sitting in front of the computer late into the night writing papers and doing research. Sitting in lectures, sitting on airplanes...you get the picture. When not sitting, I find myself driving. Driving to the store, driving to the mall, driving to the library (so I can sit and read). The hours that academia forces one to keep do not lend themselves to healthy eating (although my wife is an awesome, awesome cook who does keep me well fed) and I tend to eat while I'm reading and writing and often it is late into the night.
Enter - a belly!!! One day I noticed that I couldn't bend over and tie up my shoes - something was in the way. Upon futher investigation I discovered that I no longer have abs. This was disturbing on two levels. First, it made me realize I am getting old and my metabolism is obviously slowing down, and second (and far more disturbing) a belly on a thin guy is VERY unattractive.
So, I started going to the gym, thinking that lifting weights would be enough of a workout to make the belly disappear. I was of course wrong. Although I have gained many pounds of muscle and finally am beginning to feel comfortable in the gym, working out 4-5 times per week made me hungry and so I ate more, and it did nothing to get rid of my stomach.
So, here is my dilmna. I realize that I have to do two things to get back into shape and get to a point where I can actually take my shirt off without having people stare at this enormous thing around my middle (get your minds out of the gutter). I have to do cardio and I have to eat less sugar and carbs.
I am addicted to sugar and carbs and my attempts at running (yes I have attempted) leave me feeling out of breath, ill, and hating people who make running look so effortless as they move with the grace of a gazelle around the track moving only ever so slightly to avoid the lumbering hulk who is attempting not to pass out in the middle lane.
How does one not eat sugar? Sugar is in everything I love. Even if I gave up donuts and candy, there is still sugar in wine and fruit. Fruit for the love of god. And carbs...no more pizza? No more bread? No more anything good?
My brother has started the p90x and apparently has lost a ton of weight and looks great. I hate him. I tried the arm and chest workout of the p90x and lasted about ten minutes. I can not print what I yelled at the stupid thing. Now it sits beside the TV mocking me as I sit down to watch a movie or the news.
I guess I must summon the willpower to at least cut down on carbs and sugar (no more donuts or beer) and begin a serious cardio regime, which may end up including the p90x.
In the mean time, Mary, pray for us sinners in the hour of our need.
O.K. When I moved here to go to school I wasn't in great shape, but I wasn't out of shape either. I had a job that kept me active and being on stage every week is a workout in and of itself, so I never thought to much about my weight or working out or cardio.
School involves a lot of sitting. Sitting in class, sitting on the bus, sitting in front of the computer late into the night writing papers and doing research. Sitting in lectures, sitting on airplanes...you get the picture. When not sitting, I find myself driving. Driving to the store, driving to the mall, driving to the library (so I can sit and read). The hours that academia forces one to keep do not lend themselves to healthy eating (although my wife is an awesome, awesome cook who does keep me well fed) and I tend to eat while I'm reading and writing and often it is late into the night.
Enter - a belly!!! One day I noticed that I couldn't bend over and tie up my shoes - something was in the way. Upon futher investigation I discovered that I no longer have abs. This was disturbing on two levels. First, it made me realize I am getting old and my metabolism is obviously slowing down, and second (and far more disturbing) a belly on a thin guy is VERY unattractive.
So, I started going to the gym, thinking that lifting weights would be enough of a workout to make the belly disappear. I was of course wrong. Although I have gained many pounds of muscle and finally am beginning to feel comfortable in the gym, working out 4-5 times per week made me hungry and so I ate more, and it did nothing to get rid of my stomach.
So, here is my dilmna. I realize that I have to do two things to get back into shape and get to a point where I can actually take my shirt off without having people stare at this enormous thing around my middle (get your minds out of the gutter). I have to do cardio and I have to eat less sugar and carbs.
I am addicted to sugar and carbs and my attempts at running (yes I have attempted) leave me feeling out of breath, ill, and hating people who make running look so effortless as they move with the grace of a gazelle around the track moving only ever so slightly to avoid the lumbering hulk who is attempting not to pass out in the middle lane.
How does one not eat sugar? Sugar is in everything I love. Even if I gave up donuts and candy, there is still sugar in wine and fruit. Fruit for the love of god. And carbs...no more pizza? No more bread? No more anything good?
My brother has started the p90x and apparently has lost a ton of weight and looks great. I hate him. I tried the arm and chest workout of the p90x and lasted about ten minutes. I can not print what I yelled at the stupid thing. Now it sits beside the TV mocking me as I sit down to watch a movie or the news.
I guess I must summon the willpower to at least cut down on carbs and sugar (no more donuts or beer) and begin a serious cardio regime, which may end up including the p90x.
In the mean time, Mary, pray for us sinners in the hour of our need.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Freedom?
All summer I have been working on a submission to the Supreme Court regarding religious freedom, the criminal code, and the practice of polygamy. This has taken up quite a bit of time but has also been a very rewarding and educational experience. I can't really talk about the content of my report for obvious reasons and because I may have to testify at the trial later this year, but I can say that it is rewarding to put my education to work in a practical application (is that a gramatically correct sentence?).
Initially I was going to write about lawyers and how I have gained a new appreciation for their work (which I have) however I think I would rather write about religious freedom. Are we free to do whatever we want in the name of our religion or does society have some control over what we believe and practice in the name of god? This same question has been the basis for the antinomian controversy that has plagued the church for most of its existence.
America's founders believed in religious freedom but they also believed in rationality and the principles of the Enlightenment. Therefore they struggled to construct a nation (and a constitution) that embodied not only the spirit of freedom, but also the spirit of rational thought and social control. They had no desire to devolve into the religious extremism and chaos of the Middle Ages, nor I think, do we. Although the United States and Canada are different countries and have some differences in their constitutions and beliefs about religion and politics (this is the topic for an upcoming paper I am co-publishing with another graduate student) I believe that in essence both countries look at religion, freedom, practice and social control in roughly the same way.
So, are we free to believe what we want? The answer in both countries is undoubtedly "yes". You can believe that the Reverand Moon is God. You can believe that L. Ron Hubbard had the keys to saving the planet. You can believe that Joseph Smith really discovered golden plates buried in a mountain. You can believe that sickness is all in your mind and medicine is bad. You can believe that Ellen White was a prophet. You can believe in a seven-headed llama from Peru who picks lottery numbers with its ass (o.k. I made that last one up, but you get my point). Are we free to do whatever we wish in the name of religion? The answer, again in both countries I believe, is "no" (this may apply more to the United States, a nation that is less tolerant of practices but more tolerant of religious belief - a point I will explore in the above mentioned paper). In some respects, society has the right to say what a person can and can not do. This forms the basis for our laws. You can't kill or steal or lie under oath or sell crack or rob banks. Those are easy ones. Whether for religious reasons or not, murder is wrong (although this becomes fuzzy when discussing the religious justifications for war, the death penalty, or the beliefs of some extremist sects). You can believe that murder in the name of religion is justifiable but society will stop you from putting that belief into practice.
The same goes for the use of mind-altering chemicals (at least in the US). You can't legally use peyote or marijuana or LDS or psychodelic mushrooms in the pursuit of ultimate truth or a connection with a higher power (despite what native Americans, Rastafarians or any other religious group may claim). You can believe that the use of these chemicals brings you closer to god, but you can't legally go and smoke dope at church (sorry, for now it is the law).
The matter currently before the Supreme Court asks the question, does freedom of religion allow a man to practice polygamy, or is the practice of polygamy so harmful (to women and children) that society must stop it? Currently, the practice of polygamy is a criminal offense in both the United States and Canada yet prosecutors have been hesitant to prosecute for fear of losing if a convicted polygamist makes a constitutional challenge to his (or her) conviction.
Are we free? Ultimately I don't think we are smart enough to be totally free. As individuals we may be, but as a whole I don't think we are. I am not advocating Big Brother or the totalitarian world of 1984. Neither am I suggesting that we allow religion to operate outside of the guidelines of rational thought and social control. I am not sure that I am comfortable saying that freedom has limits however for now I guess that is where I end up. Who decides and enforces those limits, and what forms the basis for these limits is a discussion that needs to continue and I hope that this case before the Supreme Court begins to answer some of those questions.
In the mean time, I am going camping in B.C. and hope to experience some freedom from school for a week.
Tim
Initially I was going to write about lawyers and how I have gained a new appreciation for their work (which I have) however I think I would rather write about religious freedom. Are we free to do whatever we want in the name of our religion or does society have some control over what we believe and practice in the name of god? This same question has been the basis for the antinomian controversy that has plagued the church for most of its existence.
America's founders believed in religious freedom but they also believed in rationality and the principles of the Enlightenment. Therefore they struggled to construct a nation (and a constitution) that embodied not only the spirit of freedom, but also the spirit of rational thought and social control. They had no desire to devolve into the religious extremism and chaos of the Middle Ages, nor I think, do we. Although the United States and Canada are different countries and have some differences in their constitutions and beliefs about religion and politics (this is the topic for an upcoming paper I am co-publishing with another graduate student) I believe that in essence both countries look at religion, freedom, practice and social control in roughly the same way.
So, are we free to believe what we want? The answer in both countries is undoubtedly "yes". You can believe that the Reverand Moon is God. You can believe that L. Ron Hubbard had the keys to saving the planet. You can believe that Joseph Smith really discovered golden plates buried in a mountain. You can believe that sickness is all in your mind and medicine is bad. You can believe that Ellen White was a prophet. You can believe in a seven-headed llama from Peru who picks lottery numbers with its ass (o.k. I made that last one up, but you get my point). Are we free to do whatever we wish in the name of religion? The answer, again in both countries I believe, is "no" (this may apply more to the United States, a nation that is less tolerant of practices but more tolerant of religious belief - a point I will explore in the above mentioned paper). In some respects, society has the right to say what a person can and can not do. This forms the basis for our laws. You can't kill or steal or lie under oath or sell crack or rob banks. Those are easy ones. Whether for religious reasons or not, murder is wrong (although this becomes fuzzy when discussing the religious justifications for war, the death penalty, or the beliefs of some extremist sects). You can believe that murder in the name of religion is justifiable but society will stop you from putting that belief into practice.
The same goes for the use of mind-altering chemicals (at least in the US). You can't legally use peyote or marijuana or LDS or psychodelic mushrooms in the pursuit of ultimate truth or a connection with a higher power (despite what native Americans, Rastafarians or any other religious group may claim). You can believe that the use of these chemicals brings you closer to god, but you can't legally go and smoke dope at church (sorry, for now it is the law).
The matter currently before the Supreme Court asks the question, does freedom of religion allow a man to practice polygamy, or is the practice of polygamy so harmful (to women and children) that society must stop it? Currently, the practice of polygamy is a criminal offense in both the United States and Canada yet prosecutors have been hesitant to prosecute for fear of losing if a convicted polygamist makes a constitutional challenge to his (or her) conviction.
Are we free? Ultimately I don't think we are smart enough to be totally free. As individuals we may be, but as a whole I don't think we are. I am not advocating Big Brother or the totalitarian world of 1984. Neither am I suggesting that we allow religion to operate outside of the guidelines of rational thought and social control. I am not sure that I am comfortable saying that freedom has limits however for now I guess that is where I end up. Who decides and enforces those limits, and what forms the basis for these limits is a discussion that needs to continue and I hope that this case before the Supreme Court begins to answer some of those questions.
In the mean time, I am going camping in B.C. and hope to experience some freedom from school for a week.
Tim
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
tonight I am asking questions
Midnight, and I just finished Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millennium. What strikes me immediately is the connection between so many of the millennial, heretical groups of the 12th-15th centuries in Germany, France, and Bohemia, and many of the modern sectarian groups of today. Cohn shows how these early groups influenced both Nazi and Communist ideology and I see parallels with groups such as The Garbage Eaters, Fundamentalist Mormons, the Way International, the Boston Church of Christ, and many others. While these connections interest me, the book on a whole forces me to ask other questions.
First, why is it that in times of economic hardship, ecological disaster, catastrophes, war, death, or social unrest, people turn to religion? Is it because they are truly seeking God, or is it because religious leaders know that in these times people are searching for answers and they use the opportunity afforded by these events to prey upon the needy? I know this sounds cynical in the extreme, but it is a cycle that is repeated throughout history.
Second, is the basis of Christianity really millennial, or is it social and ultimately temporal? When life returns to normal, when the economy recovers, when natural disasters fade into the distance, church attendance declines, religious fervor deteriorates, the status quo returns and churches loose their millennial passion and focus. Is the millennial focus of the Church really dictated by the social and economic trends of society?
Finally, and this is not so much a question as a reflection, I understand the French Revolution, and the resultant Enlightenment much better than I did before reading this book. The anti-religious undercurrents of the French Revolution make more sense after one realizes how much devestation religion and religious wars brought to France. I wonder if the world will undergo a similar anti-religious backlash in the near future thanks to the devestation that religious wars are causing across our globe today?
I have deeper and darker thoughts about this but I will not share them, undeveloped as they are, now. In the mean time I need to read more, to think more, the analyze more, to dialogue about this with others, and search for answers to these questions.
These are not just academic questions for me. I feel that in some respect, they will alter my worldview. Sometimes the questions are more important than the answers. Tonight I am asking questions. Thanks for listening.
Tim
First, why is it that in times of economic hardship, ecological disaster, catastrophes, war, death, or social unrest, people turn to religion? Is it because they are truly seeking God, or is it because religious leaders know that in these times people are searching for answers and they use the opportunity afforded by these events to prey upon the needy? I know this sounds cynical in the extreme, but it is a cycle that is repeated throughout history.
Second, is the basis of Christianity really millennial, or is it social and ultimately temporal? When life returns to normal, when the economy recovers, when natural disasters fade into the distance, church attendance declines, religious fervor deteriorates, the status quo returns and churches loose their millennial passion and focus. Is the millennial focus of the Church really dictated by the social and economic trends of society?
Finally, and this is not so much a question as a reflection, I understand the French Revolution, and the resultant Enlightenment much better than I did before reading this book. The anti-religious undercurrents of the French Revolution make more sense after one realizes how much devestation religion and religious wars brought to France. I wonder if the world will undergo a similar anti-religious backlash in the near future thanks to the devestation that religious wars are causing across our globe today?
I have deeper and darker thoughts about this but I will not share them, undeveloped as they are, now. In the mean time I need to read more, to think more, the analyze more, to dialogue about this with others, and search for answers to these questions.
These are not just academic questions for me. I feel that in some respect, they will alter my worldview. Sometimes the questions are more important than the answers. Tonight I am asking questions. Thanks for listening.
Tim
Monday, July 19, 2010
how a day can get away from you
The problem with Academia, as with all things, is that life gets in the way. Because I can read and write and research late into the night, I am "available" during the day. This is especially true when it comes to family. So, today started off with a trip to the passport office on Jasper Avenue. This is no quick trip - even though we found out we didn't have all the necessary documents for Kyle to get a passport, just standing in line to find that out took an hour. Then Jo had a doctor's appointment so off to the specialist we went. Over the next two hours I was able to read more of Cohn's Pursuit of the Millennium, but still, two hours in a dr's office is not comfortable nor is it condusive to study.
I was supposed to meet my Supervisor at his office this afternoon, but that too went by the wayside (he did leave me a nice message telling me--half jokingly--that I was in shit for missing the meeting).
When we got home we realized that it was already six o'clock and we hadn't even thought about making supper, so we ended up going out to eat.
All this to say, it is now 9 p.m. and I am just sitting down to start really studying.
I've been reading Cohn's book and I am not surprised that The Englightenment came out of France, although I would also not have been surprised if it had come out of Germany. More on this in another blog. For now, I must read and read and I will most likely be awake until at least midnight - but in the world of Academia, that is early.
I was supposed to meet my Supervisor at his office this afternoon, but that too went by the wayside (he did leave me a nice message telling me--half jokingly--that I was in shit for missing the meeting).
When we got home we realized that it was already six o'clock and we hadn't even thought about making supper, so we ended up going out to eat.
All this to say, it is now 9 p.m. and I am just sitting down to start really studying.
I've been reading Cohn's book and I am not surprised that The Englightenment came out of France, although I would also not have been surprised if it had come out of Germany. More on this in another blog. For now, I must read and read and I will most likely be awake until at least midnight - but in the world of Academia, that is early.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Sunday July 18 -
I am going to blog on a regular basis. Not that anyone cares except me. But I need to record my experiences in Graduate School for my own sanity. The PhD is infinately more difficult than the MA. More work, more reading, more writing, more theory, more of everything.
Currently, I am working with the one of the Intervenor's in the legal case before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Criminal Code, the Constitution, and Polygamy. This is not part of the PhD, but rather, something that will someday, perhaps, have some sort of impact on the debate. All I know is that I have spent most of this summer working on my expert witness report for this court case.
In the mean time, I was able to go to New York and present at the International Cultic Studies Association Conference. My topic: "cognitive dissonance, dissent, and early SDA dissenters in the formation of SDA identity."
Currently I have two papers out with editors and I am hoping to publish both of them this term (publishing is a long, arduous, and frustrating process since everything I publish must be peer-reviewed). How I long to publish a novel!!!
Oh well, perhaps I will have time to actually write a novel when I graduate - but by then I will be engaged full time in teaching, researching, and writing and publishing academic papers and books.
So, having said all of this, this blog will be a record of my journey in Academia. For an insight into my world, read my earlier blog entitled "Adventures in Academia."
Enjoy.
Tim
Currently, I am working with the one of the Intervenor's in the legal case before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Criminal Code, the Constitution, and Polygamy. This is not part of the PhD, but rather, something that will someday, perhaps, have some sort of impact on the debate. All I know is that I have spent most of this summer working on my expert witness report for this court case.
In the mean time, I was able to go to New York and present at the International Cultic Studies Association Conference. My topic: "cognitive dissonance, dissent, and early SDA dissenters in the formation of SDA identity."
Currently I have two papers out with editors and I am hoping to publish both of them this term (publishing is a long, arduous, and frustrating process since everything I publish must be peer-reviewed). How I long to publish a novel!!!
Oh well, perhaps I will have time to actually write a novel when I graduate - but by then I will be engaged full time in teaching, researching, and writing and publishing academic papers and books.
So, having said all of this, this blog will be a record of my journey in Academia. For an insight into my world, read my earlier blog entitled "Adventures in Academia."
Enjoy.
Tim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)