I consider myself fairly well-educated and informed on matters of both science and orthodox Christian theology. I grew up in a smallish Oklahoma town (college town, in fact, which likely matters here), and paid attention in classes like chemistry, physics, calculus, history, and literature (I did skip out on biology somehow, though). I also attended a Baptist church through high school and college. I identify myself as an evangelical, born-again Christian, even though I hate most of the ways those terms are defined these days and certainly don't agree with many other people who would claim the same.
I have attended public primary and secondary schools, a public university in the reddest state in the nation, a private law school that throws a keg party for the students and professors every Friday afternoon, and a seminary of the Presbyterian Church in America, an evangelical Christian denomination that holds to the inerrancy of the Bible, traditional views of sexuality and marriage, and a complementarian view of women's roles in the church.
With this background, I have no trouble at all accepting the scientific view of the origins of our universe and the evolution of life within it. I recognize the current state of scientific knowledge on these topics to be the most widely accepted conclusions reached after hundreds of years of empirical observation of the world around us.* I embrace the scientific ideal of seeking to learn as much as we can about our world, both to find new ways of improving our position within it and to simply answer the age-old question: Why?
I do not believe that my view of science conflicts with my faith in the existence of God, God's role as the sole creator and sustainer of the universe and all life within it, or God's continued daily involvement in the lives of the people he created. I do not believe that the Bible must be interpreted as a fable to justify my view of science. I do not believe that religious faith and scientific curiosity are antithetical.
So here's my honest question: am I delusional? Am I missing something in my knowledge of either the implications of current scientific understanding or of the bases of Biblical religion that clearly negates the other? Was there something in that high school biology class that I never took, or in that sermon I slept through, that would make it clear to me that I cannot believe in both evolution and creation? Did I not pay close enough attention to Inherit the Wind?
________________________________
* Then I read stuff like this, and I know that we're still working from a very, very small sample size.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
**POLITICS WARNING** - The G.F. Voting Guide
I'm going to be on a business trip next week, so I'm voting absentee for the first time ever. It's a very easy process here in Payne County, as I dropped a form off at the Election Board office and they mailed me a ballot. The only small hassle is the requirement of a notary on the ballot return envelope, but I work two desks away from one of these selfless public servants, so it's no big deal.
In looking over the ballot, I thought you faithful readers out there might be interested to know how I vote. The notarized affidavit I just swore says I didn't show the marked ballot to any other person (pay-for-votes didn't end with Tammany Hall, people), so I'm posting here pictures of the unmarked ballot (just like you can find on the county's website), and giving you a bit of commentary on each. Before you fire off an angry comment, remember, this post is for entertainment purposes only (unless I happen to convince you of my position).
Starting at the top:
This should be illegal. Please don't check one of these boxes.
It may be naive, but I view the President as chiefly a decision maker rather than a policy maker. The office is designed to be more reactive than proactive, so I see the ideal candidate as someone with the wisdom and character to weigh complex circumstances, make difficult judgment calls, and explain to the public why his decision was the best possible one. A Presidential candidate's position on public policy issues should be low on the list of voting criteria. It rarely matters what a candidate's personal position is on a hot button issue because Presidents (generally) don't have the power to unilaterally make new policy. I'm not really interested in voting for a candidate based on these kinds of issues, and I don't like candidates that spend a lot of time talking about them. I care about general philosophy of government, experience, and character.
Based on this analysis, I'll probably skip this part of the ballot entirely.
These guys make policy, and Lucas is a strong advocate for the ag industry in Oklahoma. Good enough for me.
I don't really know what the County Clerk does, or why it's necessary to declare a party to run for the office. I read a story in the NewsPress on both of these candidates, and they both seem competent and experienced, and they both know a lot more than I do about what the clerk does. In the case of equal candidates in local offices, I usually vote against the incumbent. (Though they don't indicate who that is on the ballot for some reason.)
This is what taxes are for. I'm a much bigger fan of dedicated local taxes than those that go into the general Federal budget.
VOTE YES! VOTE YES! VOTE YES!
I can't say that I'm a fan of the premise behind affirmative action programs. But I also can't say there's never a time or place for such a program, and neither can the drafters of this state question, seeing as how they had to include exceptions. My favorite exception is the federal funding one. "You can't discriminate against white people! ... unless the feds stop giving us money."
I've read a little on this one and I'm still not sure what to think about it. And I guarantee the 95% of voters won't understand the details or implications of the amendment.
This doesn't seem like a very good topic for public referendum, and I generally don't go for constitutional amendments when I have no idea about their purpose.
This is another one I don't get. We're abolishing DHS why? I can only imagine that this is the idea of someone who doesn't like certain parts of DHS (welfare programs, I expect), but if this isn't the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don't know what it.
Yawn. The point here seems to be further limiting how much my property taxes can go up on a yearly basis. The current cap is 5%, the new one would be 3%. This seems to me one of those deals that allows its drafters to crow about lowering taxes, but without much actual effect.
Also, if my property value goes up 25%, why shouldn't the assessed value also increase?
I'd like the parole powers to remain in the hands of an elected official, accountable to voters, thank you very much.
I saw an ad in the paper this week supporting this measure, claiming it eliminates double taxation. I suppose the argument is that if you own a patent on a widget, and you make money selling the widgets, you pay income tax on that profit. An ad valorem tax on the value of the patent itself would be a double tax.
But that doesn't make sense. If I own a taxi, and make income off the fares, I'll pay income tax. The car itself is also subject to property tax based on its value. That's because the asset has value on its own, whether it's currently throwing off income or not.
When a business buys another business that owns patents, the valuation of the purchased company will take into account the income generated and the independent value of the patents. The income and the underlying value are separate, and should each be subject to taxation.
In looking over the ballot, I thought you faithful readers out there might be interested to know how I vote. The notarized affidavit I just swore says I didn't show the marked ballot to any other person (pay-for-votes didn't end with Tammany Hall, people), so I'm posting here pictures of the unmarked ballot (just like you can find on the county's website), and giving you a bit of commentary on each. Before you fire off an angry comment, remember, this post is for entertainment purposes only (unless I happen to convince you of my position).
Starting at the top:
This should be illegal. Please don't check one of these boxes.
It may be naive, but I view the President as chiefly a decision maker rather than a policy maker. The office is designed to be more reactive than proactive, so I see the ideal candidate as someone with the wisdom and character to weigh complex circumstances, make difficult judgment calls, and explain to the public why his decision was the best possible one. A Presidential candidate's position on public policy issues should be low on the list of voting criteria. It rarely matters what a candidate's personal position is on a hot button issue because Presidents (generally) don't have the power to unilaterally make new policy. I'm not really interested in voting for a candidate based on these kinds of issues, and I don't like candidates that spend a lot of time talking about them. I care about general philosophy of government, experience, and character.
Based on this analysis, I'll probably skip this part of the ballot entirely.
This is what taxes are for. I'm a much bigger fan of dedicated local taxes than those that go into the general Federal budget.
VOTE YES! VOTE YES! VOTE YES!
VOTE YES! VOTE YES! VOTE YES!
I'm not going to list all 12 state, county, and municipal judges up for retention votes. I don't know anything about any of them, but my general rule is to vote against retention. Judges at this level should not have life-time appointments.
I can't say that I'm a fan of the premise behind affirmative action programs. But I also can't say there's never a time or place for such a program, and neither can the drafters of this state question, seeing as how they had to include exceptions. My favorite exception is the federal funding one. "You can't discriminate against white people! ... unless the feds stop giving us money."
I've read a little on this one and I'm still not sure what to think about it. And I guarantee the 95% of voters won't understand the details or implications of the amendment.
This doesn't seem like a very good topic for public referendum, and I generally don't go for constitutional amendments when I have no idea about their purpose.
This is another one I don't get. We're abolishing DHS why? I can only imagine that this is the idea of someone who doesn't like certain parts of DHS (welfare programs, I expect), but if this isn't the proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I don't know what it.
Also, if my property value goes up 25%, why shouldn't the assessed value also increase?
I saw an ad in the paper this week supporting this measure, claiming it eliminates double taxation. I suppose the argument is that if you own a patent on a widget, and you make money selling the widgets, you pay income tax on that profit. An ad valorem tax on the value of the patent itself would be a double tax.
But that doesn't make sense. If I own a taxi, and make income off the fares, I'll pay income tax. The car itself is also subject to property tax based on its value. That's because the asset has value on its own, whether it's currently throwing off income or not.
When a business buys another business that owns patents, the valuation of the purchased company will take into account the income generated and the independent value of the patents. The income and the underlying value are separate, and should each be subject to taxation.
Friday, October 5, 2012
**Politics** - PBS Funding
** Warning - Politically Tinged Rant **
I love PBS. I grew up with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow, 3-2-1 Contact, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, reruns of great BBC stuff -- All Creatures Great and Small, Fawlty Towers, Keeping Up Appearances, and lots more. My first blog post was on the OETA Movie Club, with BJ Wexler. We never had cable in my house and my dad refused to watch just about anything that wasn't on PBS.
All that said, the idea of cutting federal funding of PBS is such a non-issue in the Presidential election that it makes me crazy. Romney is an idiot for suggesting it, and everyone else is an idiot for taking the bait and reacting to his statement.
I'm especially disgusted by the Sesame Workshop's indignant response, and use of Big Bird as a scare tactic. The SW makes millions and millions of dollars licensing its trademarks to sell Tickle Me Elmo and Big Bird pajamas. They don't need federal money to keep Sesame Street on the air.
Federal money makes up a very small portion of PBS's budget and of the budgets of local public TV stations. Not a single one would go off the air in the absence of Federal funding. Not a single one.
At the same time, the amount of money the Feds spend on PBS is so insignificant in the larger budgets picture that to suggest cutting it will somehow help the gagillion dollar deficit is asinine. Romney is pandering to those yahoos who think PBS is the poster child of liberal media bias.
Here's my suggestion: give it a rest. Romney and his supporters need to find a better example of how he'll fix the financial problem in this country. PBS lovers need ignore petty political antagonism and worry about larger philosophical differences.
The state of political discourse in this country is absolutely appalling, at every level.
** End of Rant **
I love PBS. I grew up with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow, 3-2-1 Contact, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, reruns of great BBC stuff -- All Creatures Great and Small, Fawlty Towers, Keeping Up Appearances, and lots more. My first blog post was on the OETA Movie Club, with BJ Wexler. We never had cable in my house and my dad refused to watch just about anything that wasn't on PBS.
All that said, the idea of cutting federal funding of PBS is such a non-issue in the Presidential election that it makes me crazy. Romney is an idiot for suggesting it, and everyone else is an idiot for taking the bait and reacting to his statement.
I'm especially disgusted by the Sesame Workshop's indignant response, and use of Big Bird as a scare tactic. The SW makes millions and millions of dollars licensing its trademarks to sell Tickle Me Elmo and Big Bird pajamas. They don't need federal money to keep Sesame Street on the air.
Federal money makes up a very small portion of PBS's budget and of the budgets of local public TV stations. Not a single one would go off the air in the absence of Federal funding. Not a single one.
At the same time, the amount of money the Feds spend on PBS is so insignificant in the larger budgets picture that to suggest cutting it will somehow help the gagillion dollar deficit is asinine. Romney is pandering to those yahoos who think PBS is the poster child of liberal media bias.
Here's my suggestion: give it a rest. Romney and his supporters need to find a better example of how he'll fix the financial problem in this country. PBS lovers need ignore petty political antagonism and worry about larger philosophical differences.
The state of political discourse in this country is absolutely appalling, at every level.
** End of Rant **
Friday, June 8, 2012
To Thunder Up or Not to Thunder Up
I'm fairly certain I've written about my life as a sports fan before, but I'm too lazy to search the extensive archive of this blog to be sure. All I know right now is that the entire foundation of my identity as a sports fan has been threatened by a seismic (meteorologic?) shift. The Oklahoma City Thunder, the one and only major sports franchise of my beloved home state, have reached the NBA Finals. The Boston Celtics, the team that I grew up rooting for based on my mom's stories of trips to the Garden and my extended family's New England roots (and the lack of any local NBA presence), are facing a Game 7 in the Eastern Conference Finals. In the however unlikely event that the Big Three, or - more realistically - Ragin' Rajon, can take down the Heat in Miami, I will be forced to choose. Honestly, even if the Heat win tomorrow, I've got to make a decision on the long-term nature of my NBA fandom. Can I abandon the Celtics and embrace the hometown Thunder? Time for a pro-con list, Rory Gilmore-style.
Rooting for the Thunder - Pro:
- They're based in OKC. I was born and raised in Oklahoma, and a decade in St. Louis aside, I consider myself as proud an Oklahoman as anyone. I like when good things happen for my state.
- They're good. Everyone likes rooting for a winner.
- The players are likable. The roster is currently stocked with young, hard-working players who don't see to cause a bunch of trouble. They play hard on defense, too.
- The team is a client of my employer.
- Most of my friends are Thunder fans. Two interesting stories here:
(1) My older brother, who I don't think could name more than 3 other current NBA teams, regularly says things like "Thunder Up", and "James Harden is a the best sixth man in the League." Now, I'm not convinced he hasn't just memorized these terms, kind of like how I passed high school French without actually learning to comprehending a conversation, but it's still kind of cool to have another sports fan in the family.
(2) I have a friend--let's call him "Ray"--with whom I've battled on fan issues since 6th grade. He's a "fan" of the Yankees, Lakers, and Redskins. I've told him for years that his fan logic clearly falls in the province of "bandwagon jumper". To be fair, he's generally stuck with these teams since his youth, but there's no escaping the fact that he obviously chose his teams based only on their success.*
In any event, Ray is now a big Thunder supporter. I find this admirable in that he's given up a long term roting interest in the Lakers to support Oklahoma's team. (This is easier for him than for me, of course, because his initial interest in the Lakers had no basis other than Bandwagoneering.)
- My kids will likely develop as Thunder fans. And as much as it pains me to say, they probably should. Admittedly, I am that kind of warped individual who will force his children to root his teams exclusively. My kids are still too young to really get fandom, but I have made it clear so far that WE ALL root for the Red Sox, Patriots, Cetlics and OSU Cowboys. Deviation will not be tolerated. My sons and I will end up in one of those long-term estrangements if their teenage rebellion leads them to pledge loyalty to the Texas Rangers, KC Chiefs, Dallas Cowboys, or other semi-local teams. Much more serious consequences will result if I ever see a Yankees hat, a Sooners shirt or an attempted defense of Payton Manning's legacy. But there's no escaping the fact that they will grow up in Oklahoma with a local NBA franchise. It would be a clear violation of my own sense of fandom for them to not root for the Thunder. If the Thunder were here when I was a kid, this whole discussion would be moot.
- Desmond Mason is a Thunder fan. I love Desmond Mason.
- Great home crowd at games.
That's a lot of pros, and some pretty compelling ones. But now let's look at the cons:
- The "Oklahoma City Thunder"? Come on. That's a U12 girls softball team.
- The Thunder has united fans from across the state. That may sound like a pro to you, but I don't want to be united with OU fans. I really don't like most people who root for OU. Seriously. I don't have any desire to find a common sporting interest with these people.
- Seattle. Tradition is one of the greatest aspects of sports. Teams represent a legacy; a long term connection to a city and its people. I don't buy into the whole "OKC stole the Sonics" thing, but I just don't like it when teams move. I would be much more comfortable if the Thunder were an expansion franchise.
- I root for New England teams because of family. My dad's not much of a sports fan, so most of my influence came through my mom and her family. They live in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and we didn't see them a whole lot, so sports was a good way for me to feel connected to them living hundreds of miles away. My grandfather tried to convince me to be a Cardinals fan because they were good and closer to Oklahoma and hadn't tortured their fans for a generation like his beloved Red Sox. He'd send me a full set of Cardinals baseball cards every year. But I stuck with the Sox, Pats, and Celts because that's who he, and Uncle Charlie, and Uncle Leo and all six of Mom's sisters, and all the cousins rooted for. To abandon the Celtics now would be like abandoning my family.
- As a Sox/Pats/Celts/Pokes fan, my formative years were spent agonizing over not just losing seasons, but gut-wrenching losses. My childhood sports memories include the 1986 World Series (Sox/Mets), the 1986-87 Super Bowl (Pats/Bears), the 1988 Bedlam game (Brent Parker), the Pitino Celtics, Black Saturdays, and the post-Clemens but pre-Pedro Sox. My only bright spots as a fan were the mid-80s Celtics, Barry Sanders, and Eddie's Cowboys. I stuck it out. I endured the disappointments and the failures. It sucked as a kid**, but that just made the rewards that much sweeter. Watching the Pats beat the Rams at a watch party in St. Louis as the only non-Rams fan there was delightful. Being in St. Louis for the 2004 World Series was indescribable. I went to Game 4. I watched the Sox win the Championship that my grandpa and aunts and uncles waited their whole lives for. I was the family chronicler of that moment, and I took hunderds of pictures and spent an hour on the phone with Uncle Leo and Cousin Greg while walking out of Busch Stadium after midnight. I have way too much invested in these teams to just toss them aside for a new kid on the block.
- I hate bandwagon fans. I spent too much of my life suffering for my teams to not care about the kid at school who wore a Bulls hat for years, then shows up in a Lakers shift after MJ is gone. The Thunder phenomenon in Oklahoma feels too much like that.
- I doubt the Thunder lasts in Oklahoma. I stand by my original evaluation of the NBA's viability in OKC - two or three losing season in a row, and the fans are gone. Fans here do not show up for losers. Look at Gallagher Iba the last few years, or Lloyd Noble forever. These people aren't in it for the love of basketball. They want to be part of an excited crowd watching their team win. The NBA is notoriously hard on small market teams, and I'm not sold on this thing being the beginning of the next NBA dynasty. I'm not dropping the Celtics only to have the Thunder stolen back by some Seattle billionaire in 6 or 7 years.
I'm leaning con at this point, but I welcome your guidance....
_____________________________________
*As Bill Simmons so eloquently expressed:
"If you're between the ages of 20-40, you're a fan of the Yankees, Cowboys, Braves, Raiders, Steelers, Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Canadiens and/or Oilers, and you're not actually from those one of those cities ... well, you better have a reason that goes beyond "When I was picking a favorite team as a kid, they were the best team, so I picked them." At least give me a reason like "Reggie Jackson was my favorite player growing up," or "I always liked the red Bulls uniforms," or even "Everyone in my gang wore Raiders colors." Do you really want to be known as a bona fide Bandwagon Jumper?"
** Perfect microcosm: In fourth grade (I think), I wore my Hutch replica Patriots uniform to school. Mitch Watkins threw up egg salad on it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Reading Rant
I recently received an iPad from my lovely wife, and probably the coolest thing about it so far has been my discovery of the local library's eBook collection. Free books to download to my Kindle app. This is simultaneously awesome and tragic.
I am a compulsive reader. I will go two months without reading anything longer than a tweet, then consume three novels in a week. I don't sleep while on a reading binge. I ignore my family. My hygiene suffers. I eventually have to wean myself with Sports Illustrated and People magazine.
My recent reading list is causing more problems than just lost sleep, though. To wit: Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential, Little House in the Big Woods, Little House on the Prairie (in process, one chapter a night), and Steinbeck's Travels with Charley (also in process). Lots of open spaces. Adventures. Building things with bare hands. Making one's own way in a new land. Traveling. Trusting fate and a gun. Rugged individualism.
I'm not one of those people who see literature as an escape. Reading about these things does not make sitting in an office staring at a computer more bearable. It makes me want to hit the road. See America. Live off the land and the kindness of strangers.
Perhaps the upcoming trek to Colorado will appease my wanderlust, but I'm not sure that four kids in a minivan for 12 hours is really going to make me feel like Pa Ingalls. Maybe I need to stick to Jim Collins books instead.
I am a compulsive reader. I will go two months without reading anything longer than a tweet, then consume three novels in a week. I don't sleep while on a reading binge. I ignore my family. My hygiene suffers. I eventually have to wean myself with Sports Illustrated and People magazine.
My recent reading list is causing more problems than just lost sleep, though. To wit: Cormac McCarthy's The Crossing, Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential, Little House in the Big Woods, Little House on the Prairie (in process, one chapter a night), and Steinbeck's Travels with Charley (also in process). Lots of open spaces. Adventures. Building things with bare hands. Making one's own way in a new land. Traveling. Trusting fate and a gun. Rugged individualism.
I'm not one of those people who see literature as an escape. Reading about these things does not make sitting in an office staring at a computer more bearable. It makes me want to hit the road. See America. Live off the land and the kindness of strangers.
Perhaps the upcoming trek to Colorado will appease my wanderlust, but I'm not sure that four kids in a minivan for 12 hours is really going to make me feel like Pa Ingalls. Maybe I need to stick to Jim Collins books instead.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
TV Rant
As we were going to bed a few nights back, Rachelle asked me to put on some mindless TV. I searched Netflix for a minute before coming across The Wonder Years. Awesome. A crowd favorite. Rachelle was asleep before the credits finished rolling.
I watched two episodes. It it struck me that the last show I'd been catching up with on Netflix was another look back at the nostalgia of the 60s: Mad Men. And it popped into my head that I need to tweet, "TV shows about the 60s: Wonder Years > Mad Men." You know why? Its sweet. Hokey. Sentimental. But also real. It's not Leave it to Beaver. Whinnie's brother dies in Vietnam in the pilot episode. Paul and Kevin get caught with a sex manual in episode two, but don't get in trouble because Kevin's mom mistakenly assumes they stole it from her room, then is too embarrassed to admit her mistake.
Mad Men on the other hand is not sentimental or endearing or sweet. There is no love in it. It is compelling drama, but compelling in the same way the videos of Dan Wheldon's fatal Indy car wreck are compelling. We watch to see what will blow up next.
Why is so much of our entertainment these days like this? Mad Men is the latest in the Sopranos family tree. Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Wire, CSI Toledo. These shows are praised as "realistic". They don't shy away from the way life really is. Broken. Painful. Morally ambiguous. Futile. All true.
Even the comedies are nihilistic and depressing. The fact that Two and a Half men has been the most watched show on television says less about the crass sense of humor in this society and more about the depressing view of family and relationships we have.
Life is full of pain and loss and death. But it's also full of love and joy and beauty. Life is hokey and nostalgic and silly too. Why do we gorge ourselves on the negative and throw out the stuff that's seemingly too nice or rose colored? Is pain the only thing that's real?
Does it hurt too much to see love and joy on screen because it reminds us of not having as much as we wish we did? Is it easier to watch Don Draper screw up his kids emotionally because it makes us fell better about our own parenting? Do we need to see corpses to remind ourselves that we're still alive?
It seems to me that connecting to beauty in entertainment makes us better at finding it in real life. Immerse yourself in loving images and it's easier to see love in the world. But maybe it's just The Wonder Years talking.
I watched two episodes. It it struck me that the last show I'd been catching up with on Netflix was another look back at the nostalgia of the 60s: Mad Men. And it popped into my head that I need to tweet, "TV shows about the 60s: Wonder Years > Mad Men." You know why? Its sweet. Hokey. Sentimental. But also real. It's not Leave it to Beaver. Whinnie's brother dies in Vietnam in the pilot episode. Paul and Kevin get caught with a sex manual in episode two, but don't get in trouble because Kevin's mom mistakenly assumes they stole it from her room, then is too embarrassed to admit her mistake.
Mad Men on the other hand is not sentimental or endearing or sweet. There is no love in it. It is compelling drama, but compelling in the same way the videos of Dan Wheldon's fatal Indy car wreck are compelling. We watch to see what will blow up next.
Why is so much of our entertainment these days like this? Mad Men is the latest in the Sopranos family tree. Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Wire, CSI Toledo. These shows are praised as "realistic". They don't shy away from the way life really is. Broken. Painful. Morally ambiguous. Futile. All true.
Even the comedies are nihilistic and depressing. The fact that Two and a Half men has been the most watched show on television says less about the crass sense of humor in this society and more about the depressing view of family and relationships we have.
Life is full of pain and loss and death. But it's also full of love and joy and beauty. Life is hokey and nostalgic and silly too. Why do we gorge ourselves on the negative and throw out the stuff that's seemingly too nice or rose colored? Is pain the only thing that's real?
Does it hurt too much to see love and joy on screen because it reminds us of not having as much as we wish we did? Is it easier to watch Don Draper screw up his kids emotionally because it makes us fell better about our own parenting? Do we need to see corpses to remind ourselves that we're still alive?
It seems to me that connecting to beauty in entertainment makes us better at finding it in real life. Immerse yourself in loving images and it's easier to see love in the world. But maybe it's just The Wonder Years talking.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Diatomic Foods?
I haven't posted anything here in many, many weeks, mostly because not much has been going on this summer. No, that's not right. My lack of blogging probably has more to do with the fact that in the three months since my last post we have: decided to move back to Oklahoma, started a new job in Oklahoma, prepared a house to be sold, sold a house, searched for a house, bought a house, made 10 trips back and forth between St. Louis and Stillwater, had a new baby (#4), and begun packing to actually complete the move. So get off my back about the lack of blogging, OK?
Given the circumstances, what could possibly motivate me to blog again? Dinner, that's what. Tonight, the family enjoyed a very nice little corned beef brisket that the wife prepared in the slow-cooker (an excellent tool for those times that you have four children under 6, including a three-week old). The corned beef, of course, was accompanied by rye bread, horseradish*, and mustard.
This got me thinking: I never eat rye bread unless it has corned beef on it. And I'm pretty much not interested in corned beef unless it's on rye bread with mustard and horseradish.** (Unless, of course, it's in corned beef hash, but that's a whole different story.) These foods do not occur individually in my universe. Other foods? I don't need corned beef to eat sourdough, or whole wheat, or brioche. And I certainly don't need rye to eat a ribeye steak.
Naturally, this raises two important questions. First: what other foods match this description? What else is out there that I only eat in combination with another specific food? At this point, I can't think of another one. But, believe me, I'm not giving up the search.
Second, and the real subject of this post: what should we call this phenomenon? I chose the title above in reference to "diatomic" elements like oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, which don't naturally occur as single atoms. But that's not a very precise analogy, since I'm not talking about only being able to eat rye two pieces at a time. Perhaps a better name would be "Q" foods, since the letter "Q" usually only occurs with a "U" following it. Clearly, though, given the common practice of referring to barbeque as "Q", the risk of confusion is high.
As you can see, I'm in for a long night of tossing and turning.
_______________________
* For mom and dad only. Boy #3 tried a bit but then attempted to scrape the taste buds off his tongue.
** Perfectly illustrated by the fact that I made a special trip to the grocery store before dinner tonight to buy rye bread and horseradish.
Given the circumstances, what could possibly motivate me to blog again? Dinner, that's what. Tonight, the family enjoyed a very nice little corned beef brisket that the wife prepared in the slow-cooker (an excellent tool for those times that you have four children under 6, including a three-week old). The corned beef, of course, was accompanied by rye bread, horseradish*, and mustard.
This got me thinking: I never eat rye bread unless it has corned beef on it. And I'm pretty much not interested in corned beef unless it's on rye bread with mustard and horseradish.** (Unless, of course, it's in corned beef hash, but that's a whole different story.) These foods do not occur individually in my universe. Other foods? I don't need corned beef to eat sourdough, or whole wheat, or brioche. And I certainly don't need rye to eat a ribeye steak.
Naturally, this raises two important questions. First: what other foods match this description? What else is out there that I only eat in combination with another specific food? At this point, I can't think of another one. But, believe me, I'm not giving up the search.
Second, and the real subject of this post: what should we call this phenomenon? I chose the title above in reference to "diatomic" elements like oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, which don't naturally occur as single atoms. But that's not a very precise analogy, since I'm not talking about only being able to eat rye two pieces at a time. Perhaps a better name would be "Q" foods, since the letter "Q" usually only occurs with a "U" following it. Clearly, though, given the common practice of referring to barbeque as "Q", the risk of confusion is high.
As you can see, I'm in for a long night of tossing and turning.
_______________________
* For mom and dad only. Boy #3 tried a bit but then attempted to scrape the taste buds off his tongue.
** Perfectly illustrated by the fact that I made a special trip to the grocery store before dinner tonight to buy rye bread and horseradish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)