I have a keen interest in Biblical Apologetics; that is, the practice of Biblical and Scriptural defence. I am hardly a Ravi Zacharias type, but I really find that aspect of my faith life to be one which is edifying and encouraging. That, coupled with my propensity to enjoy a good debate, has gotten me in my fair share of fruitful discussions. It has also, unfortunately, pulled me in arguments which were probably not the best venue for me to participate (only because I can be pretty opinionated, as you can probably tell by reading this here blog).
I would say that the area I will discuss all the time, without exception is Biblical study and viability. Lots of Christians over the years have said that the most important question for Christians to address with non-Christians is "did the resurrection really happen", or "did Jesus rise from the dead?" They say that the whole cornerstone of Christianity rests on that. I suppose that point can be made, but I feel (and this is just my opinion) that the most important question to address to non-believers is, "Is the Bible true?" or "Is the Bible reliable?" If the answer is yes, then that takes care of a lot of the questions with which we don't have answers or some parts of the Bible are tougher to understand. If I believe that the God of creation and the universe and the same God who created me and you, and sent Jesus to die on the cross, authored the Bible, I will be more than happy to yield to what He says in His Word, even if I don't fully understand it. I think that the fallacy of using the question of "did Jesus really rise from the dead?" as the central cornerstone question of Christianity, is that you are assuming that the non-believer accepts or assumes that the Biblical account of the life of Jesus and His subsequent death and resurrection, as told by the Bible. If they don't believe the Bible is accurate, true or authored by God Himself, guess what? It will matter little how you argue the resurrection point - which is why I believe that showing the Bible to be both a historically reliable document, but also showing that it is the Word of God (latter is harder) is the starting point in presenting the gospel message to the unbeliever. I got this sense more than a decade ago when I was doing some personal study of hermeneutics and one night in my bed, it dawned on me, "what is the point of using the Bible to argue points to a non-Christian when they don't believe in the Bible?" I agree - the Bible, as God's Word, can stand up to scrutiny and doesn't need our defending it - but from a logical perspective, I want to avoid the trap of referring to something that someone does not accept as a factual or reliable reference point.
Quick example, a few years back, a colleague of mine here at work, who also happens to be a strong Christian, is very knowledgeable on the Bible and would put me to shame often, in terms of what he can pull up. Well, we had an opportunity to discuss Christianity with a highly philosophical Jewish colleague (and a friend of mine). The Christian guy started to argue the finer points of the resurrection and about Christianity's distinctives. Guess what? The Jewish guy rejected all of the Christian's arguments, saying that they are all from the Bible and he does not accept the Bible as truth. I totally saw his point. The Christian man then totally shocked me by telling my Jewish friend "it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, it's still true." I thought that this was more of a defensive manoeuvre rather than an apologetic one - and it completely re-affirmed what I have thought the past decade or so. I took the conversation into a different realm, asking him what problems he has with the Bible, and that discussion went somewhere, where My Jewish friend told me he wasn't interested in talking with the Christian guy anymore. I'm not sure if I was able to convince him of anything, but at the very least, I was able to show that some of his arguments against the Bible's reliability had, at the very least, some flaws. I mean, i'm not Grant Jeffrey, so I can't argue that kind of stuff, but it does seem to indicate that being able to show the Bible as a reliable and trusted reference point is the first step. Which is why I am so gung-ho on Bible study. We can read listen to all the sermons on CD that we want, or read all the Christian books we want or listen to Christian music and attend Christian conferences and even go to Christian retreats - the problem is, if the Christian does not spend time in their Bibles, knowing God's Word - guess what? When they come across the intelligent and philosophical non-Christian who can easily deflect the standard circular arguments and worse, if they no longer can use the Bible as their point from which to make counterarguments, the Christian will be saddled with several problems in the debate.
There are a plethora of reasons to read one's Bible - to hear what God has to say to them personally, to better understand their relation to God, to know the history of their faith, and to capture guidelines and disciplines for living a life pleasing to God. But I think one of the more paramount reasons to read one's Bible is to be able to familiarize oneself with it, in the event the Christian has a witnessing opportunity. I think I can say most Christians would rather avoid having to debate the hard issues with non-Christians and I think this is sad, since that is neither the model nor the practice Jesus did Himself or expected from His followers.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Guns Are Not The Problem with Violent Crime
Yesterday, Toronto experienced its first inside-a-school shooting fatality of a student. The initial reports are that it was caused by some fireworks that went awry and hit one of the students, and as a result, the hit student chased down the other student and shot him to death on school premises.
Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.
Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.
Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.
Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?
I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.
Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.
Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.
The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.
Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?
Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.
The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).
Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.
The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).
I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.
Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).
Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.
Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.
Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.
Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?
I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.
Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.
Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.
The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.
Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?
Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.
The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).
Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.
The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).
I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.
Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).
Monday, May 21, 2007
Food Choices, Please...
I recently authored a thread on the redflagdeals.com food forum about halal chicken, and how the Popeye's chicken chain has seemingly changed their whole selection to only offer halal chicken. I was just curious as to whether this was a corporate standard (based on the responses thus far, it sounds like it is). Well, I can say that I won't be eating at Popeye's Chicken anymore. I don't like establishments that will slowly change things to suit one group / demographic of people, essentially ostracizing the rest of the consumers. In this case, Popeye's appears to be targeting the muslim food consumers, which is fine if that is what their direction is, but in so doing, I suspect that any new customers gained will be offset with customers who will no longer buy from them as they are no longer given a choice. Based on a number of responses so far, that is in fact, what is happening.
Now, I know what you may be thinking - what is the big deal? Chicken is chicken. It doesn't taste any different, I know. This issue is addressed right in the Bible (1 Corinthians, I believe) about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Now, I realize that the Bible's stance is that food is food, but each person should go with what their conscience and convictions indicate. In my case (and this may evidence my weaker maturity in these matters), I choose not to eat kosher or halal meats as I am not comfortable with the fact that these have gone through ritualistic killing (single slash to throat, bleed out animal) and blessed by a rabbi or imam. It would be nice if establishments realized that their clientele is as different as the food they serve and offer some variety. Not everyone who goes to Popeye's wants halal chicken, no matter what the logical reasoning one can give to serve it anyway. Similarly, not everyone wants kosher meats when they go to restaurants. I know Pickel Barrel (a large, Jewish-owned chain of restaurants in Toronto) offers kosher items, but at the very least, it is distinguished from non-kosher items, which, to their credit, they still offer (the last I checked).
I guess it's no different than some computer stores like Tiger Direct only offering certain brands for sale (trust me, they don't sell all brands). I tend to avoid Tiger Direct as well. No one likes to be pushed to buy in a particular direction, whether it is a consumer electronic item, or a food product. I am neither muslim nor jewish, so I am exercising my choice not to buy products that have gone through other faith rituals with which I neither subscribe nor to which I adhere.
Now, I know what you may be thinking - what is the big deal? Chicken is chicken. It doesn't taste any different, I know. This issue is addressed right in the Bible (1 Corinthians, I believe) about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Now, I realize that the Bible's stance is that food is food, but each person should go with what their conscience and convictions indicate. In my case (and this may evidence my weaker maturity in these matters), I choose not to eat kosher or halal meats as I am not comfortable with the fact that these have gone through ritualistic killing (single slash to throat, bleed out animal) and blessed by a rabbi or imam. It would be nice if establishments realized that their clientele is as different as the food they serve and offer some variety. Not everyone who goes to Popeye's wants halal chicken, no matter what the logical reasoning one can give to serve it anyway. Similarly, not everyone wants kosher meats when they go to restaurants. I know Pickel Barrel (a large, Jewish-owned chain of restaurants in Toronto) offers kosher items, but at the very least, it is distinguished from non-kosher items, which, to their credit, they still offer (the last I checked).
I guess it's no different than some computer stores like Tiger Direct only offering certain brands for sale (trust me, they don't sell all brands). I tend to avoid Tiger Direct as well. No one likes to be pushed to buy in a particular direction, whether it is a consumer electronic item, or a food product. I am neither muslim nor jewish, so I am exercising my choice not to buy products that have gone through other faith rituals with which I neither subscribe nor to which I adhere.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Forget the Suntan - I'm Now a Burn Victim
Yesterday, my wife, son and I spent a few hours (4 1/2 to be exact) at a local park with some friends. I spent the bulk of the time in front of the large playground, where my son was playing, along with his pals. As this is Toronto, I don't trust the inherent safety of any playground (in my mind, predators lurk everywhere), so I watched my son and his friends like a hawk. Several times, I had to referree some conflict situations with what was obviously a playground bully irritating the threesome that I was watching. All I had to do was put on my "pissed off parent look" (which for me, comes quite naturally), and the bully dispersed pretty quickly. Not that I take great delight in mitigating a potential defensive encounter by my son on the aforementioned annoying kid, but I figured in a public place, and with friends, I may as well try to set the best parental example possible.
So I continued to remain in a fairly stationary position in watching the kids, and a couple of the friends with whom we went to the park came by and sat with me and we discussed a plethora of subjects. Well, as I sat there, with my baseball cap, trendy striped short-sleeved shirt, and navy shorts along with sandals, I did not notice that I was baking in the sun. Truth be told, the temperature was around 22-25 degrees celsius - hardly cause for an alarm due to extreme heat - unfortunately, I was not prepared for what would come next.
When it came time to go home, my wife noticed that my arms and knees and one side of my face was extremely red. "Oh, you got a little sunburnt", she remarked. Ah, it's just some sun, I thought, so I went home...all the while I was feeling worse and worse (physically and mentally). I actually lay down for a few hours in the afternoon, after my wife wiped some aloe vera cream on me. I started to feel as if I was on fire, so I ended up turning in earlier than usual for the night.
Throughout the night, I couldn't sleep - I was riveted in pain. Any movement where the sheets would drag on arms or legs (not to mention my clothing), would make me wince in agony. I finally fell asleep (sound asleep) at around 6AM. Still felt terrible (my wife thinks I was severely dehydrated from the day before) - did not wake up in time to go to church (my wife and son went and left me to sleep in bed). I woke up at noon and went to the washroom, and took a look at myself in the mirror. I couldn't believe how bad I had been burned. Even as I type this, my arms and neck and legs are still extremely sore - they are the colour of "hot pink". My wife said that I look like a burn victim, and that in the 15 or so years she has known me, she has never seen me burn so bad. I told her if she thinks it looks bad, it actually feels worse.
I think I'll stay out of the son for a while. Tomorrow night, I have a church golf tournament to attend. I may try to find one of those full muslim ninja suits to wear, so everything is covered up. I feel like my whole body was given one of those infamour indian snake bites.
I'm not sure if sunscreen would have helped at all - I'll have to remember to apply some next time...I doubt I'll forget to do so, after this experience...
So moral of the story for everyone - don't assume just because it's not that hot of a day, the sun can't do significant damage to you. Take some precautions, especially when you're going to be out for a while in the sun.
So I continued to remain in a fairly stationary position in watching the kids, and a couple of the friends with whom we went to the park came by and sat with me and we discussed a plethora of subjects. Well, as I sat there, with my baseball cap, trendy striped short-sleeved shirt, and navy shorts along with sandals, I did not notice that I was baking in the sun. Truth be told, the temperature was around 22-25 degrees celsius - hardly cause for an alarm due to extreme heat - unfortunately, I was not prepared for what would come next.
When it came time to go home, my wife noticed that my arms and knees and one side of my face was extremely red. "Oh, you got a little sunburnt", she remarked. Ah, it's just some sun, I thought, so I went home...all the while I was feeling worse and worse (physically and mentally). I actually lay down for a few hours in the afternoon, after my wife wiped some aloe vera cream on me. I started to feel as if I was on fire, so I ended up turning in earlier than usual for the night.
Throughout the night, I couldn't sleep - I was riveted in pain. Any movement where the sheets would drag on arms or legs (not to mention my clothing), would make me wince in agony. I finally fell asleep (sound asleep) at around 6AM. Still felt terrible (my wife thinks I was severely dehydrated from the day before) - did not wake up in time to go to church (my wife and son went and left me to sleep in bed). I woke up at noon and went to the washroom, and took a look at myself in the mirror. I couldn't believe how bad I had been burned. Even as I type this, my arms and neck and legs are still extremely sore - they are the colour of "hot pink". My wife said that I look like a burn victim, and that in the 15 or so years she has known me, she has never seen me burn so bad. I told her if she thinks it looks bad, it actually feels worse.
I think I'll stay out of the son for a while. Tomorrow night, I have a church golf tournament to attend. I may try to find one of those full muslim ninja suits to wear, so everything is covered up. I feel like my whole body was given one of those infamour indian snake bites.
I'm not sure if sunscreen would have helped at all - I'll have to remember to apply some next time...I doubt I'll forget to do so, after this experience...
So moral of the story for everyone - don't assume just because it's not that hot of a day, the sun can't do significant damage to you. Take some precautions, especially when you're going to be out for a while in the sun.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
I Will Not Turn Down my A/C and I Will Not Take Public Transit
Even with a cursory glance through your local newspaper, newstand magazine or through various television news programs, you will no doubt get the sense that environmental concerns are on the forefront of what is being reported in what you read and what you see. As I listen to ample amounts of talk radio, I can tell you first-hand that the airwaves are also innundated with discussions on how to contribute towards a more greener lifestyle. While I am not a tree-hugger, rabid David Suzuki type, I am also not a deliberate waster as well. I recycle everything (strange for a right wing conservative, I know...) and fully support my green bin program. I think those are excellent ideas. However, there are two changes that the provincial and municipal governments constantly pressure its citizens to make, that I have decided I will neither support nor participate.
The first is turning my air conditioner down in the summertime. OK, so we had the blackout in 2003, but managing the power grid and anticipating consumption is no my problem, I'm sorry. I pay enough fees in my hydro bill that the utility companies should be able to figure it out, and if they don't - well, it's their problem. I'm ticked off enough that the Ontario provincial government nonchlantly incoporates debt payment for the former Ontario Hydro as part of their bill to myself all all other hydro consumers.
In the past few years, I've heard and read a lot of material about turning down you A/C so it's at least 26 degrees celsius. Does anyone know how hot that actually is inside a residence? If you're going to turn it down to 26, you may as well just turn it off. And with homes generally having the thermostat on the main floor, 26 degrees downstairs generally means about 35 degrees upstairs (at least that's what it is in my house - the upstairs is sweltering). No thanks.
So the liberal provincial government decides last year to offer incentives to those who decided to turn off their A/C units, thereby lowering their hydro bill. One thing I said to my wife was that it was such a stupid suggestion, since if people did that, guess what would happen? The utility and hydro companies would have lower revenues and as a result, they will hike your rates later. Guess what happened earlier this year? Yup - the hydro companies announced rate increases. I tell you, if you're one of those suckers who believe what the hydro companies tell you - well, what can I say. They're companies too and need to make money. Do you really think they care about the environment? Or profits? They shouldn't go after the small potatoes residential family who wants to save money and is willing to let their kids sweat out an entire summer - they should go after the companies in office towers who leave all their lights on summer night after summer night. Until they actually go after the real usurpers of summer electricity, you can be darn sure I'll happily have my thermostat at 21 or 22 degrees all summer.
Now, the second item is more of a Toronto thing, but anywhere there is public transit, this will apply. Liberal governments and environmentalists want you to leave your car at home and take public transit. Yeah right. I will go on record right now and say that I will take public transit again when I am able to grow a full beard. Not possible. Will never happen.
Years ago, I worked downtown and took public transit, from our condo in North Scarborough (northern part of the city). Despite "express" buses, it still took me a considerable amount of time (1.5 hours) one way to get downtown. And it wasn't a pleasant ride - the buses were often snarled in traffic, I had to make several transfers (oftentimes waiting for a while as other packed buses rolled by, unable to accomodate me as well - as if I really wanted to be another sardine on that tightly packed bus). When there was an accident (car or pedestrian), I was forced to wait on the bus. If I was sick at work and had to go home, I had to endure a less-frequent non-rush-hour schedule and it took me forever to get home. I barfed on a bus twice and on the subway once. The air quality on buses and subways are very poor and in the summertime, you have to deal with nasty body odours. You can't read as the jerky bus driver stops and goes constantly. You can't sit quietly and think, as loudmouthed teenagers are all over the place, talking about their boyfriends or their latest crush on some member of a boy band.
Of course, with the increasing cost of gas, renewed calls to leave the cars at home abound once again. The gas price can be at two bucks a litre - I'm still driving to work. I can enjoy my talk radio, music, news or just sit quietly. If a road is closed or slowed due to an accident, I can take another road instead. If I have to go pee, I can just quickly stop off somewhere. Same if I need to grab a quick bite to eat or drink, or if I want to stop off on the way to or from work, to pick up something in a store. I can cart around my eBay wares so that people can pick it up from me wherever I am. I have access to the car in the event of a family emergency or illness (it has happened several times and I am glad to have that option). I don't need to put with the constant barrage of subway delays due to construction or suicides ("there is an injury at track level"). I don't need to deal with the foul, smells-like-dirty-socks mixed with diarrhea air quality on the subway system. I don't have to listen to some of the foul mouthed and inconsiderate riders on the bus and subway system, and I don't have to, once again, see (and smell) the yearly incidence of someone who happened to take a crap in his pants while on the subway, deliberate or not. In short, it is a much better ride for me to drive myself to and from work. My car is a low-emission producing car, so it's not like I'm bragging about deliberately polluting the environment with an SUV (and even those stats are suspect - volcanic eruptions over a thousand or so years have caused far more damage to the environment - negligible overall - than thousands of cars ever will).
The first is turning my air conditioner down in the summertime. OK, so we had the blackout in 2003, but managing the power grid and anticipating consumption is no my problem, I'm sorry. I pay enough fees in my hydro bill that the utility companies should be able to figure it out, and if they don't - well, it's their problem. I'm ticked off enough that the Ontario provincial government nonchlantly incoporates debt payment for the former Ontario Hydro as part of their bill to myself all all other hydro consumers.
In the past few years, I've heard and read a lot of material about turning down you A/C so it's at least 26 degrees celsius. Does anyone know how hot that actually is inside a residence? If you're going to turn it down to 26, you may as well just turn it off. And with homes generally having the thermostat on the main floor, 26 degrees downstairs generally means about 35 degrees upstairs (at least that's what it is in my house - the upstairs is sweltering). No thanks.
So the liberal provincial government decides last year to offer incentives to those who decided to turn off their A/C units, thereby lowering their hydro bill. One thing I said to my wife was that it was such a stupid suggestion, since if people did that, guess what would happen? The utility and hydro companies would have lower revenues and as a result, they will hike your rates later. Guess what happened earlier this year? Yup - the hydro companies announced rate increases. I tell you, if you're one of those suckers who believe what the hydro companies tell you - well, what can I say. They're companies too and need to make money. Do you really think they care about the environment? Or profits? They shouldn't go after the small potatoes residential family who wants to save money and is willing to let their kids sweat out an entire summer - they should go after the companies in office towers who leave all their lights on summer night after summer night. Until they actually go after the real usurpers of summer electricity, you can be darn sure I'll happily have my thermostat at 21 or 22 degrees all summer.
Now, the second item is more of a Toronto thing, but anywhere there is public transit, this will apply. Liberal governments and environmentalists want you to leave your car at home and take public transit. Yeah right. I will go on record right now and say that I will take public transit again when I am able to grow a full beard. Not possible. Will never happen.
Years ago, I worked downtown and took public transit, from our condo in North Scarborough (northern part of the city). Despite "express" buses, it still took me a considerable amount of time (1.5 hours) one way to get downtown. And it wasn't a pleasant ride - the buses were often snarled in traffic, I had to make several transfers (oftentimes waiting for a while as other packed buses rolled by, unable to accomodate me as well - as if I really wanted to be another sardine on that tightly packed bus). When there was an accident (car or pedestrian), I was forced to wait on the bus. If I was sick at work and had to go home, I had to endure a less-frequent non-rush-hour schedule and it took me forever to get home. I barfed on a bus twice and on the subway once. The air quality on buses and subways are very poor and in the summertime, you have to deal with nasty body odours. You can't read as the jerky bus driver stops and goes constantly. You can't sit quietly and think, as loudmouthed teenagers are all over the place, talking about their boyfriends or their latest crush on some member of a boy band.
Of course, with the increasing cost of gas, renewed calls to leave the cars at home abound once again. The gas price can be at two bucks a litre - I'm still driving to work. I can enjoy my talk radio, music, news or just sit quietly. If a road is closed or slowed due to an accident, I can take another road instead. If I have to go pee, I can just quickly stop off somewhere. Same if I need to grab a quick bite to eat or drink, or if I want to stop off on the way to or from work, to pick up something in a store. I can cart around my eBay wares so that people can pick it up from me wherever I am. I have access to the car in the event of a family emergency or illness (it has happened several times and I am glad to have that option). I don't need to put with the constant barrage of subway delays due to construction or suicides ("there is an injury at track level"). I don't need to deal with the foul, smells-like-dirty-socks mixed with diarrhea air quality on the subway system. I don't have to listen to some of the foul mouthed and inconsiderate riders on the bus and subway system, and I don't have to, once again, see (and smell) the yearly incidence of someone who happened to take a crap in his pants while on the subway, deliberate or not. In short, it is a much better ride for me to drive myself to and from work. My car is a low-emission producing car, so it's not like I'm bragging about deliberately polluting the environment with an SUV (and even those stats are suspect - volcanic eruptions over a thousand or so years have caused far more damage to the environment - negligible overall - than thousands of cars ever will).
Friday, May 18, 2007
Lunch With My Wife...During the Workday! :-)
Ah, what a nice day it was today...
My wife has one of her very rare days off from running the daycare today. My little boy was picked up by my Dad, with plans to go to the Bowmanville Zoo (about 1 hour away from where we live). Suprisingly, my Dad told me later this afternoon that when they arrived at the gates this morning, my son did not want to go see the animals, so back they drove... :-( ).
Anyway, in the 10 years I've worked with my company, never once have I had the opportunity to have lunch with my wife by ourselves during the workday (either she's working, or I'm off, but we're with our son). Today was an immeasurable treat, for sure. She biked here (North York) from Markham...about 1 1/2 hours of riding. She arrived much earlier than I thought, as I accidentally bumped into her on the ninth floor here, as I was showing one of our clients to the elevator after a very productive meeting. I was tickled pink that she showed up, and so I gave her the royal tour (meeting the few people who decided to come in today as it is a long weekend), followed by a trek down to my favourite restaurant around here, a dim sum place which serves more than dim sum. We ordered a seafood noodles dish, along with soup appetizers, something from the dim sum menu, as well as dessert. It was so delightful to have lunch with her - I swear, it was like we were dating again. We just chatted away, and I had an opportunity to introduce her to the owner and the staff there. Lunch was excellent, as usual.
Afterwards, when I realized that we took about an hour-and-a-half lunch, I checked in with my staff in the office, saw that it was still a rather slow day, told them (to cheers) they can all leave at 4PM, and subsequently met my wife downstairs and we headed over to Starbucks where we had expressos / hot chocolate on the outdoor patio. It was a sunny day today, around 22 degrees celsius - absolutely gorgeous weather to spend the noon hour (and beyond) hanging out with my dear wife, sipping Starbucks products outside. It was so fun - we were talking about possibly making this a regular thing, but I'm not sure how the daycare parents will like that, not to mention my Dad, who has to drive in to watch our son.
I have to say, I think North American culture has it completely wrong. Most countries in the world, except for maybe Japan, embrace a slower pace of life, and sitting around, drinking coffee in the middle of the afternoon, is considered a one of the pleasures of a typical day. In this day and age, when in the big city people seem to go from one place to the next, it is simply wonderful to be able to enjoy a beautiful, sunny afternoon outside, with my spouse. Of course, I am still on the work clock, so I had to get back to the office, but once nice thing about being in management is that no one razzes me when I take an extended lunch (particularly when it's so seldom that I do so, and I work enough unpaid overtime anyway). Of course, it doesn't hurt that I decided to let everyone out early so they enjoy their afternoons as well.
My wife has one of her very rare days off from running the daycare today. My little boy was picked up by my Dad, with plans to go to the Bowmanville Zoo (about 1 hour away from where we live). Suprisingly, my Dad told me later this afternoon that when they arrived at the gates this morning, my son did not want to go see the animals, so back they drove... :-( ).
Anyway, in the 10 years I've worked with my company, never once have I had the opportunity to have lunch with my wife by ourselves during the workday (either she's working, or I'm off, but we're with our son). Today was an immeasurable treat, for sure. She biked here (North York) from Markham...about 1 1/2 hours of riding. She arrived much earlier than I thought, as I accidentally bumped into her on the ninth floor here, as I was showing one of our clients to the elevator after a very productive meeting. I was tickled pink that she showed up, and so I gave her the royal tour (meeting the few people who decided to come in today as it is a long weekend), followed by a trek down to my favourite restaurant around here, a dim sum place which serves more than dim sum. We ordered a seafood noodles dish, along with soup appetizers, something from the dim sum menu, as well as dessert. It was so delightful to have lunch with her - I swear, it was like we were dating again. We just chatted away, and I had an opportunity to introduce her to the owner and the staff there. Lunch was excellent, as usual.
Afterwards, when I realized that we took about an hour-and-a-half lunch, I checked in with my staff in the office, saw that it was still a rather slow day, told them (to cheers) they can all leave at 4PM, and subsequently met my wife downstairs and we headed over to Starbucks where we had expressos / hot chocolate on the outdoor patio. It was a sunny day today, around 22 degrees celsius - absolutely gorgeous weather to spend the noon hour (and beyond) hanging out with my dear wife, sipping Starbucks products outside. It was so fun - we were talking about possibly making this a regular thing, but I'm not sure how the daycare parents will like that, not to mention my Dad, who has to drive in to watch our son.
I have to say, I think North American culture has it completely wrong. Most countries in the world, except for maybe Japan, embrace a slower pace of life, and sitting around, drinking coffee in the middle of the afternoon, is considered a one of the pleasures of a typical day. In this day and age, when in the big city people seem to go from one place to the next, it is simply wonderful to be able to enjoy a beautiful, sunny afternoon outside, with my spouse. Of course, I am still on the work clock, so I had to get back to the office, but once nice thing about being in management is that no one razzes me when I take an extended lunch (particularly when it's so seldom that I do so, and I work enough unpaid overtime anyway). Of course, it doesn't hurt that I decided to let everyone out early so they enjoy their afternoons as well.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Fighting in Hockey Vs. Boxing Vs. In General
My Dad and I had a recent discussion where I was telling him that I was looking forward to watching the Oscar De La Hoya fight against Floyd Mayweather (boxing, in case you didn't follow these things). He responded to me that boxing disgusts him, since he can't fathom two people beating the tar out of each other (even though they have mouthguards and boxing gloves and the fights are fully regulated and referreed). Yet, when I brought up that he is like a spectator in a Roman colosseum, when it comes to hockey fights, he retorted by telling me that they were two different animals. I pressed further, indicating to him that hockey fights are spur of the moment, (likely) fueled by anger, and these are not professional boxers, but players who drop their gloves and basically street fight their opponents. I mentioned that he's, unfortunately, been brainwashed by Don Cherry, to think that fighting is part of the game. It's not in international play, nor is it in Olympic play. Yet the excitement is still there, maybe even more so. There's no fighting in the NHL All-Star game, which gathers the sport's best and brightest skilled players. I further indicated that there is no other sport where referrees simply step back, act like idiots trying to size up at which point they will intervene, though the opportunites are plenty. In the NBA, if you fight, you are tossed, and we have seen copious amounts of instances where that has happened. In football, same thing. In baseball, they have zero tolerance for any kind of fighting. So why in hockey, is it allowable? The argument is that it curbs stickwork, but my goodness, what happens in international play? There is little dirty stickwork and no fighting. I swear, this is just a North American phenomenon.
I am a boxing fan, though I am not a HUGE boxing fan. I like the technical aspects of boxing; those fighters that use strategy to wear down their opponent, utilize defence more than offence, and do not depend on sheer power to win (that gets boring fast, and has all the scents of a one-trick pony). I suppose that people can slag me for defending boxing, yet I am against fighting in hockey, but I really don't see them as the same thing. In hockey, you can have a serious chance of suffering major head injury, particularly if you are not a trained fighter. There are more suckerpunches in hockey than boxing...and don't forget, in hockey, they fight with bare fists. As an aside, I dislike Ultimate Fighting for that very reason. That, I think is barbaric, putting two guys in a gage with bare fists, to basically beat the crap out of one another. Boxing, I see more as a controlled competition, very much like judo, karate, etc. Take the gloves off, and that's a whole different story.
Fighting in real life. In general, I abhor people using violence to solve problems - it could be said that nothing is really solved - it just creates more problems. However...last night I was listening to the radio as I groggily drove home, with my friend trailing me in his car (he had to pick up something at my house, but I'm glad he followed me home, in case I hit a tree or something). Anyhow, as I was listening to the radio, I heard about some Australian kid who is now 18, but was bullied in school ever since he was very young. Now, apparently (and I emphasize apparently) he has suffered long-lasting psychological damage, and the Australian courts agreed and awarded him the equivalent of 1.1 million dollars (Cdn.) in damages. As I was listening to this, I thought about whether or not I would ever let Isaac be subject to 10+ years of bullying. It seems like bullying these days (including the ever-laughable cyber-bullying) has received a lot of press; traditionally, the approach has been that you handle bullies in two ways: ignore them and report it to the authorities, or have your Dad or Uncle teach you to fight back. I've been on the fence on this issue for years, not sure what I'd do. I think that the Bible is very clear in that Christians need to have a non-retaliatory view of conflict - even as Jesus was beaten, he did not strike back.
However, I am wondering if there is any provision for self-defence; that is, using physical means to keep one from being hurt or killed. Are we, as Christians, to teach our kids to take it like a man if they start getting knifed? Or raped? Or is there a means to fight back without retaliating. I think there is, since retaliation tends to carry with it a sentiment or aura of anger, revenge, etc. Fighting back in defending oneself is devoid of all these negative elements, but of course, it can go overboard with self-defense turning offensive very quickly. So where do we draw the line? I'm not too sure, but one thing for sure is that I will be teaching my son how to defend himself, whether it be through martial arts classes or in my basement with a punching bag. Thankfully, he will never have to come to this point, since my wife and I heavily (and I mean heavily) encourage him not to resort to violence to get his way, and we admonish and discipline him when he does not do this. Still, I struggle with whether I will be giving him a mixed signal that fighting is OK in certain situations but is not in others. I am uncertain whether he can differentiate between offensive attacking and defensive protecting, so would I be providing a bad example to him by sending him mixed signals? Before you jump all over me like a rabbit in heat, consider the same situation for your child, if you are a parent. Would you allow your child to live an idealized existence, in order to maintain some social consistency, while your child may end up being the passive object of bullying, or attacks by others? Unfortunately, my faith level in the education system is low and schools disciplining kids is non-existent, for fear of wrecking a child's self-esteem (this whole contemporary idea of children having fragile self-esteems which must be guarded at all costs is laughable at best). So do I, as a parent, need to install in my child the necessary skills to protect him/her from bullies and predators? If so, can I do this in a way that does not make me look inconsistent? Or is this a simple black and white issue of either fighting is always OK or fighting is never OK?
I am a boxing fan, though I am not a HUGE boxing fan. I like the technical aspects of boxing; those fighters that use strategy to wear down their opponent, utilize defence more than offence, and do not depend on sheer power to win (that gets boring fast, and has all the scents of a one-trick pony). I suppose that people can slag me for defending boxing, yet I am against fighting in hockey, but I really don't see them as the same thing. In hockey, you can have a serious chance of suffering major head injury, particularly if you are not a trained fighter. There are more suckerpunches in hockey than boxing...and don't forget, in hockey, they fight with bare fists. As an aside, I dislike Ultimate Fighting for that very reason. That, I think is barbaric, putting two guys in a gage with bare fists, to basically beat the crap out of one another. Boxing, I see more as a controlled competition, very much like judo, karate, etc. Take the gloves off, and that's a whole different story.
Fighting in real life. In general, I abhor people using violence to solve problems - it could be said that nothing is really solved - it just creates more problems. However...last night I was listening to the radio as I groggily drove home, with my friend trailing me in his car (he had to pick up something at my house, but I'm glad he followed me home, in case I hit a tree or something). Anyhow, as I was listening to the radio, I heard about some Australian kid who is now 18, but was bullied in school ever since he was very young. Now, apparently (and I emphasize apparently) he has suffered long-lasting psychological damage, and the Australian courts agreed and awarded him the equivalent of 1.1 million dollars (Cdn.) in damages. As I was listening to this, I thought about whether or not I would ever let Isaac be subject to 10+ years of bullying. It seems like bullying these days (including the ever-laughable cyber-bullying) has received a lot of press; traditionally, the approach has been that you handle bullies in two ways: ignore them and report it to the authorities, or have your Dad or Uncle teach you to fight back. I've been on the fence on this issue for years, not sure what I'd do. I think that the Bible is very clear in that Christians need to have a non-retaliatory view of conflict - even as Jesus was beaten, he did not strike back.
However, I am wondering if there is any provision for self-defence; that is, using physical means to keep one from being hurt or killed. Are we, as Christians, to teach our kids to take it like a man if they start getting knifed? Or raped? Or is there a means to fight back without retaliating. I think there is, since retaliation tends to carry with it a sentiment or aura of anger, revenge, etc. Fighting back in defending oneself is devoid of all these negative elements, but of course, it can go overboard with self-defense turning offensive very quickly. So where do we draw the line? I'm not too sure, but one thing for sure is that I will be teaching my son how to defend himself, whether it be through martial arts classes or in my basement with a punching bag. Thankfully, he will never have to come to this point, since my wife and I heavily (and I mean heavily) encourage him not to resort to violence to get his way, and we admonish and discipline him when he does not do this. Still, I struggle with whether I will be giving him a mixed signal that fighting is OK in certain situations but is not in others. I am uncertain whether he can differentiate between offensive attacking and defensive protecting, so would I be providing a bad example to him by sending him mixed signals? Before you jump all over me like a rabbit in heat, consider the same situation for your child, if you are a parent. Would you allow your child to live an idealized existence, in order to maintain some social consistency, while your child may end up being the passive object of bullying, or attacks by others? Unfortunately, my faith level in the education system is low and schools disciplining kids is non-existent, for fear of wrecking a child's self-esteem (this whole contemporary idea of children having fragile self-esteems which must be guarded at all costs is laughable at best). So do I, as a parent, need to install in my child the necessary skills to protect him/her from bullies and predators? If so, can I do this in a way that does not make me look inconsistent? Or is this a simple black and white issue of either fighting is always OK or fighting is never OK?
At A Crossroads in My Life...
I just got out of another lengthy board of elders meeting at my church. It is now 12:12AM and I need to work tomorrow. I also have only had 2-3 hours of sleep last night as my son awoke me in the middle of the night to go pee (him, not me) and I just could not get back to sleep. But despite how tired I am right this very moment, I really need to put pen to paper and jot down my thoughts, as I think I have finally hit the point in my life where I need to make some major decisions. It seems as if I am finally at that crossroads, which I have conveniently delayed and put off for so long. I really feel that it is time to earnestly seek God's direction for several decisions I feel it is time to make. What led me to this was certain mixed signals I am sensing in terms of things I am doing in my life. I guess my philosophy was to simply let whatever God has in store happen, but at the same time, I think I've been too complacent to actively seek His will; rather, I have simply drifted along, thinking that something will happen eventually, not seriously considering whether He wants me to actually go one way and that I should be seeking His counsel as to what that is.
One is whether to let my name stand for re-nomination to the church's board next year, when my term expires. This may sound like a trivial thing, since it's a volunteer job and as such, I don't get paid to do it; but I really question how effective I have been. Getting into the nitty gritty of helping to run a church is very daunting, and to be perfectly honest, at times terribly depressing. I think that at the very least, I have had a very good learning experience - but at the same time, I need to do some soul searching and some serious prayer as to why God gave me this opportunity in the first place. The expectations are very high, and as I thought back in 2005 when I was first nominated, and eventually confirmed, there are better candidates to do this than myself. I also wonder whether I am able to make any difference - I am generally an oddity, with my conservative opinions and thoughts, and it does seem as if I am going against the grain many times. My goal is never to piss anyone off (not deliberately, anyway). However, with my combatative nature, I'm not sure whether I am suited for this type of ministry where tact and grace and empathy are required. However, truth be told, working with a group of people who have differing opinions, and trying to reconcile them towards some sort of a consensus that brings glory to God's name, has been a tremendous blessing. I think that I have become much more balanced as a result, to be able to see both sides of the story. But at the same time, there are times where I feel like I am fighting a losing battle. Maybe it's because I'm tired right now and can't think straight, but I never have really felt that I have "fit in" to the church leadership mold. Perhaps my perceptions of what church leadership is, should be revisited. So I really need some time to discern what my role is in a church environment - I have a lot of questions to ask of God - why did He give me a Christian education degree, but I'm working in Information Technology for the past 10 years of my life? If I were to die today, aside from the wonderful opportunity to have been a husband and a father, I am not sure why I have been put on this earth. I really don't know. What is my best usefulness in serving Him inside and outside of church? Am I realizing my giftedness potential? Do I even know what my gifts are? I am ashamed to admit that I have not been praying enough about any and all of this, but I suppose this is a good impetus to perhaps get my lines of communication with God strengthened.
Changing gears: I also was in a discussion with one of my friends, Sharon, today, who once again encouraged me to really put my writing into practice - she was surprised why I didn't write full time. As a writer herself, I am honoured that she would say such kind words. But it left an impression on me this afternoon as I was in the office, as I spent some time in thought at my desk. I have been with my company for 10 years now, most of it in a leader/manager capacity. At first it was great to have a good paying job and the ability to get new challenges and the thrill of being employed was something of which I was really proud. But again, I have never felt like I "fit" into the corporate mold, despite the fact that I get excellent reviews year after year (I have been truly blessed to have had my efforts recognized year after year with raises, bonuses, and more reponsibility). I have met many great people at work, who have encouraged me and have been an absolute pleasure to work with - I could not have asked for better people to have come across my path for the 1/3 of my daily life that I spend in an office environment.
Yet, this afternoon, I spent a considerable amount of time at my desk (and during my lunch hour) thinking, "Why am I doing this?" Again, I get the feeling that I should be doing something else, or that I am not fully doing what I should be doing. I start wondering why I was given the gift to write (one of the very few gifts I have), yet I am working in an unrelated industry, a shrinking one. I have pondered the going-back-to-school thing, though at this time, I really feel that it is not feasible. I have a family to support and while I am absolutely certain that I have the aptitude to handle and grasp more academics, and probably work towards a PhD or something, I really feel that financially, it is not feasible, and practically, it will be a challenge. Any re-education at this point would mean that I would have to take out loans to pay off schooling, something which I cannot afford to do (my wife's student loan from 15 years ago will finally be paid off next month). Not to mention, if I were to go back to school, who would work and supply for the family? My wife and I have decided long ago that her staying home with our son is the best move, and we have seen that pay dividends in our son's development. In addition to that, I will start all the way at the beginning again and work my way back up. But for what? I don't feel that my calling is to work in an office for the rest of my life, as fun as that is, has been and will likely continue to be. I just don't want to change careers for no discernable reason. Sort of like the age-old illustration/anecdote of the worker who digs the ditch, to get the money, to buy the food, to give the energy...to dig the ditch. Anyone ever stop to ask the question, "why?"
Do you ever get the feeling that you know you should be doing something else? I enjoy my job at work, but just have this gut feeling that there is more out there that I should be doing - unfortunately, I have gained much of a sense as to what that should be...yet. I have no desire to become a CEO or VP or anything like that - I was just discussing with my colleague today that my worldview is quite different than most people - I don't crave power or control. I can never step on people to advance to the next level. I can't lie to seal the deal. Yes, all this is probably career limiting, but at the same time, I have no desire to climb the corporate ladder, even though I can probably finish off my career as a senior manager / director somewhere. But that is neither my desire nor goal, so I am in this little conundrum right now. I need to figure out where this writing skill will take me. This blog may be a start, since I know that there have been other folks who have visited it and have provided kind comments. I tried to write a book several years ago, but it's weird, I don't think I was destined to be a fiction writer, since it felt forced and unnatural. I just don't want to grow into an old man and think, "I wonder whatever would have happened to that writing ability?" The Bible talks about not burying your talents (literally, figuratively and spiritually) - the problem with me is: I don't need to bury them - they are sitting in my hands right now and I just don't know how to proceed. It does feel like I've been walking with them in my hands for years, all the while, I've done other things. You know how that is, if you've ever tried doing something, while you are holding onto something else (sort of like carrying around your last will and testament in your hands, as a result of having no pockets to store it, no safety deposit box - and to be quite frank, you don't know quite what to do with it, but its personal importance cannot be overstated. You wish you can simply put it somewhere so you can go pee, grab at bite at a restaurant, etc. but you're not sure where to put it, so you simply walk around with it while you go about your business. Meanwhile, in doing all your other tasks, you're remembering that you're still carrying around that 50-page document. It's getting annoying after a while, since you don't really want to throw it away; the irritation sets in, as you have to cart it around with you everywhere, and of course, that impairs or hinders your ability to do other things.
I guess that's where I am right now. Trying to figure out what do do with that will, rather than carting it around aimlessly, thinking that I can simply do other things until I figure out what to do with it.
One is whether to let my name stand for re-nomination to the church's board next year, when my term expires. This may sound like a trivial thing, since it's a volunteer job and as such, I don't get paid to do it; but I really question how effective I have been. Getting into the nitty gritty of helping to run a church is very daunting, and to be perfectly honest, at times terribly depressing. I think that at the very least, I have had a very good learning experience - but at the same time, I need to do some soul searching and some serious prayer as to why God gave me this opportunity in the first place. The expectations are very high, and as I thought back in 2005 when I was first nominated, and eventually confirmed, there are better candidates to do this than myself. I also wonder whether I am able to make any difference - I am generally an oddity, with my conservative opinions and thoughts, and it does seem as if I am going against the grain many times. My goal is never to piss anyone off (not deliberately, anyway). However, with my combatative nature, I'm not sure whether I am suited for this type of ministry where tact and grace and empathy are required. However, truth be told, working with a group of people who have differing opinions, and trying to reconcile them towards some sort of a consensus that brings glory to God's name, has been a tremendous blessing. I think that I have become much more balanced as a result, to be able to see both sides of the story. But at the same time, there are times where I feel like I am fighting a losing battle. Maybe it's because I'm tired right now and can't think straight, but I never have really felt that I have "fit in" to the church leadership mold. Perhaps my perceptions of what church leadership is, should be revisited. So I really need some time to discern what my role is in a church environment - I have a lot of questions to ask of God - why did He give me a Christian education degree, but I'm working in Information Technology for the past 10 years of my life? If I were to die today, aside from the wonderful opportunity to have been a husband and a father, I am not sure why I have been put on this earth. I really don't know. What is my best usefulness in serving Him inside and outside of church? Am I realizing my giftedness potential? Do I even know what my gifts are? I am ashamed to admit that I have not been praying enough about any and all of this, but I suppose this is a good impetus to perhaps get my lines of communication with God strengthened.
Changing gears: I also was in a discussion with one of my friends, Sharon, today, who once again encouraged me to really put my writing into practice - she was surprised why I didn't write full time. As a writer herself, I am honoured that she would say such kind words. But it left an impression on me this afternoon as I was in the office, as I spent some time in thought at my desk. I have been with my company for 10 years now, most of it in a leader/manager capacity. At first it was great to have a good paying job and the ability to get new challenges and the thrill of being employed was something of which I was really proud. But again, I have never felt like I "fit" into the corporate mold, despite the fact that I get excellent reviews year after year (I have been truly blessed to have had my efforts recognized year after year with raises, bonuses, and more reponsibility). I have met many great people at work, who have encouraged me and have been an absolute pleasure to work with - I could not have asked for better people to have come across my path for the 1/3 of my daily life that I spend in an office environment.
Yet, this afternoon, I spent a considerable amount of time at my desk (and during my lunch hour) thinking, "Why am I doing this?" Again, I get the feeling that I should be doing something else, or that I am not fully doing what I should be doing. I start wondering why I was given the gift to write (one of the very few gifts I have), yet I am working in an unrelated industry, a shrinking one. I have pondered the going-back-to-school thing, though at this time, I really feel that it is not feasible. I have a family to support and while I am absolutely certain that I have the aptitude to handle and grasp more academics, and probably work towards a PhD or something, I really feel that financially, it is not feasible, and practically, it will be a challenge. Any re-education at this point would mean that I would have to take out loans to pay off schooling, something which I cannot afford to do (my wife's student loan from 15 years ago will finally be paid off next month). Not to mention, if I were to go back to school, who would work and supply for the family? My wife and I have decided long ago that her staying home with our son is the best move, and we have seen that pay dividends in our son's development. In addition to that, I will start all the way at the beginning again and work my way back up. But for what? I don't feel that my calling is to work in an office for the rest of my life, as fun as that is, has been and will likely continue to be. I just don't want to change careers for no discernable reason. Sort of like the age-old illustration/anecdote of the worker who digs the ditch, to get the money, to buy the food, to give the energy...to dig the ditch. Anyone ever stop to ask the question, "why?"
Do you ever get the feeling that you know you should be doing something else? I enjoy my job at work, but just have this gut feeling that there is more out there that I should be doing - unfortunately, I have gained much of a sense as to what that should be...yet. I have no desire to become a CEO or VP or anything like that - I was just discussing with my colleague today that my worldview is quite different than most people - I don't crave power or control. I can never step on people to advance to the next level. I can't lie to seal the deal. Yes, all this is probably career limiting, but at the same time, I have no desire to climb the corporate ladder, even though I can probably finish off my career as a senior manager / director somewhere. But that is neither my desire nor goal, so I am in this little conundrum right now. I need to figure out where this writing skill will take me. This blog may be a start, since I know that there have been other folks who have visited it and have provided kind comments. I tried to write a book several years ago, but it's weird, I don't think I was destined to be a fiction writer, since it felt forced and unnatural. I just don't want to grow into an old man and think, "I wonder whatever would have happened to that writing ability?" The Bible talks about not burying your talents (literally, figuratively and spiritually) - the problem with me is: I don't need to bury them - they are sitting in my hands right now and I just don't know how to proceed. It does feel like I've been walking with them in my hands for years, all the while, I've done other things. You know how that is, if you've ever tried doing something, while you are holding onto something else (sort of like carrying around your last will and testament in your hands, as a result of having no pockets to store it, no safety deposit box - and to be quite frank, you don't know quite what to do with it, but its personal importance cannot be overstated. You wish you can simply put it somewhere so you can go pee, grab at bite at a restaurant, etc. but you're not sure where to put it, so you simply walk around with it while you go about your business. Meanwhile, in doing all your other tasks, you're remembering that you're still carrying around that 50-page document. It's getting annoying after a while, since you don't really want to throw it away; the irritation sets in, as you have to cart it around with you everywhere, and of course, that impairs or hinders your ability to do other things.
I guess that's where I am right now. Trying to figure out what do do with that will, rather than carting it around aimlessly, thinking that I can simply do other things until I figure out what to do with it.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
You Reap What You Sow
I recently read several articles in various newspapers and magazines, pieces which were written in such a way (in my opinion) to elicit feelings of sympathy towards some folks who were met with a less-than-natural death. While I am generally a pretty empathetic person, I can't help by feel the total opposite towards people who make their bed in a risky situation by choice (and that's the key) and end up paying the ultimate price for their actions or decisions.
Take, for instance, the article of the teenage speeder who had about $100,000 worth of modifications / add-ons to his car, a souped-up, completely illegal street racer, complete with nitrous oxide tank. You can imagined how he died - yep, in a street race, and yep, his NO tank blew up. The article mentions, "what a tragic loss of life". I don't debate that point, but at the same time, I don't feel sorry for him (or his parents, who no doubt helped finance all these mods). Don't tell me that you put that much stuff into a car knowing it will make the car go faster, then get into a street race and end up killed as a result. Thankfully, no innocent bystanders were killed.
I find it hard to really feel any sympathy for what happened here. Most teenagers will make mistakes, but dare I say it, most teenagers know the difference between typical juvenile antics and putting yourself in a potentially life threatening situation. It's no different than the person who goes skydiving and ends up dying because their chute would not open. Should we feel sorry for them, since they knew the risks going in, and skydiving is not something you NEED to do - some have argued with me that the same risks are carried in driving a car - that is true, but many people NEED to drive a car to get to work, transport their kids, buy groceries, etc. No one NEEDS to skydive.
The second one is an article about a smoker who smoked all of their life, but quit at the tail end, but after 40 years, developed (drumroll) lung cancer. Yeah, they quit, but it's no different than the person who sleeps around before they finally get married and settled down, only to discover that they ended up getting AIDS from their previous encounters. Is it sad? Yes. Should I feel sorry for them? Absolutely not. Reminds me of another recent news article about a Major League pitcher who was found dead after a horrific car accident. The tox tests after determined that he was very drunk (more than twice the limit), his friend indicated he was talking on his cell phone, and he had weed in the glove compartment. It sux that he died, but oh well...life goes on...
The third article is a recent incident of a house party going bad, with a fight spilling out into the street. I've never understood house parties. They get crashed easily and with a lot of people who are uninvited showing up, it just asks for trouble. This guy who went to a house party ended up getting into an argument about some schoolyard issue and a fight led to a stabbing and the stabbing, to death. In looking at this guy's past, he wasn't exactly a role model for young men, so again...what do you expect?
I don't know why the media tends to romanticize these types of stories - why not focus on the people who play by the rules, who have positive contributions to society, who avoid risky behaviour, who die a "better death" after a life well lived? Why does the media tend to focus on people (ie. celebrities) who live a hedonistic lifestyle only to die by that lifestyle, at which point they try to paint them as victims. Please, save your ink and write about something else.
Take, for instance, the article of the teenage speeder who had about $100,000 worth of modifications / add-ons to his car, a souped-up, completely illegal street racer, complete with nitrous oxide tank. You can imagined how he died - yep, in a street race, and yep, his NO tank blew up. The article mentions, "what a tragic loss of life". I don't debate that point, but at the same time, I don't feel sorry for him (or his parents, who no doubt helped finance all these mods). Don't tell me that you put that much stuff into a car knowing it will make the car go faster, then get into a street race and end up killed as a result. Thankfully, no innocent bystanders were killed.
I find it hard to really feel any sympathy for what happened here. Most teenagers will make mistakes, but dare I say it, most teenagers know the difference between typical juvenile antics and putting yourself in a potentially life threatening situation. It's no different than the person who goes skydiving and ends up dying because their chute would not open. Should we feel sorry for them, since they knew the risks going in, and skydiving is not something you NEED to do - some have argued with me that the same risks are carried in driving a car - that is true, but many people NEED to drive a car to get to work, transport their kids, buy groceries, etc. No one NEEDS to skydive.
The second one is an article about a smoker who smoked all of their life, but quit at the tail end, but after 40 years, developed (drumroll) lung cancer. Yeah, they quit, but it's no different than the person who sleeps around before they finally get married and settled down, only to discover that they ended up getting AIDS from their previous encounters. Is it sad? Yes. Should I feel sorry for them? Absolutely not. Reminds me of another recent news article about a Major League pitcher who was found dead after a horrific car accident. The tox tests after determined that he was very drunk (more than twice the limit), his friend indicated he was talking on his cell phone, and he had weed in the glove compartment. It sux that he died, but oh well...life goes on...
The third article is a recent incident of a house party going bad, with a fight spilling out into the street. I've never understood house parties. They get crashed easily and with a lot of people who are uninvited showing up, it just asks for trouble. This guy who went to a house party ended up getting into an argument about some schoolyard issue and a fight led to a stabbing and the stabbing, to death. In looking at this guy's past, he wasn't exactly a role model for young men, so again...what do you expect?
I don't know why the media tends to romanticize these types of stories - why not focus on the people who play by the rules, who have positive contributions to society, who avoid risky behaviour, who die a "better death" after a life well lived? Why does the media tend to focus on people (ie. celebrities) who live a hedonistic lifestyle only to die by that lifestyle, at which point they try to paint them as victims. Please, save your ink and write about something else.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
More Proof that Liberals Like To Waste Taxpayers' Money and Time
Three things this week that floored me...
1) Two Toronto councillors, Rob Ford and Doug Holiday, have consistently shown $0 balances in their expense accounts. They both pay for all of their expenses out of their own pocket, since both of them have said there's no need to spend taxpayer money and they are well enough off that they can afford to do that. They also get re-elected every election, so obviously their constitutents want them there. Yet there are liberal politicians who are calling for a taxpayer funded investigation into why they choose not to expense stuff to the taxpayers. I heard an interview with Ford and he said that he just gets better deals on printing, etc. from companies and finds efficiencies (ie. he will call a constituent by phone rather than send out a letter). He takes advantage of any freebies he gets. Why is it that liberals need to investigate these two smart and cost-conscious politicians? I know why - because the mostly liberal Toronto council like wasting taxpayer money on frivilous expenses and these two folks make them look bad, due to Ford and Holiday's fiscal responsibility. Good for these two, I say! They are two of the good ones!
2) This whole Shane Doan thing - if you don't know what I'm talking about, Doan (captain of Team Canada at the current world hockey championships) was alleged, by a liberal MP, of course, of making an ethnic slur towards French-Canadians. The NHL did its own internal investigation into the matter a year or two ago and found Doan did not say anything negative. Doan's teammates staunchly defend him. A frustrated player in the game in question also backs Doan, that while he made a sarcastic remark, it was not ethnically insensitive or culturally offensive. The NHL officials indicate that the slur was said, but not by Doan. Even Prime Minister Harper has sided with Doan after looking at all the facts. So what's the problem here? Why is the liberal government now involved in calling a parliamentary investigation, and wasting taxpayer money...again? Doan is a born-again Christian, is considered a character player on and off the ice - his fellow hockey players insist that he would never say such a thing. I guess it's a big deal since he's Canada's captain, but my goodness, can the Liberals simply find something else that is a little bit more ridiculous into which they can poke their heads? Such as this...
3) Dalton McGuinty (Premier of Ontario) is backing this new "Flick Off" campaign, to conserve electricity (the whole premise of which totally baffles me, but more on ridiculous energy conservation demands later). If you haven't seen it, the logo for "Flick off has...um...the letter "L" and "I" very close together, and the letter L's font is quite rounded, making the "L" and the "I" look like a "U". And they are pushing this for the kids and younger people to conserve energy. Nice job, Dalton.
1) Two Toronto councillors, Rob Ford and Doug Holiday, have consistently shown $0 balances in their expense accounts. They both pay for all of their expenses out of their own pocket, since both of them have said there's no need to spend taxpayer money and they are well enough off that they can afford to do that. They also get re-elected every election, so obviously their constitutents want them there. Yet there are liberal politicians who are calling for a taxpayer funded investigation into why they choose not to expense stuff to the taxpayers. I heard an interview with Ford and he said that he just gets better deals on printing, etc. from companies and finds efficiencies (ie. he will call a constituent by phone rather than send out a letter). He takes advantage of any freebies he gets. Why is it that liberals need to investigate these two smart and cost-conscious politicians? I know why - because the mostly liberal Toronto council like wasting taxpayer money on frivilous expenses and these two folks make them look bad, due to Ford and Holiday's fiscal responsibility. Good for these two, I say! They are two of the good ones!
2) This whole Shane Doan thing - if you don't know what I'm talking about, Doan (captain of Team Canada at the current world hockey championships) was alleged, by a liberal MP, of course, of making an ethnic slur towards French-Canadians. The NHL did its own internal investigation into the matter a year or two ago and found Doan did not say anything negative. Doan's teammates staunchly defend him. A frustrated player in the game in question also backs Doan, that while he made a sarcastic remark, it was not ethnically insensitive or culturally offensive. The NHL officials indicate that the slur was said, but not by Doan. Even Prime Minister Harper has sided with Doan after looking at all the facts. So what's the problem here? Why is the liberal government now involved in calling a parliamentary investigation, and wasting taxpayer money...again? Doan is a born-again Christian, is considered a character player on and off the ice - his fellow hockey players insist that he would never say such a thing. I guess it's a big deal since he's Canada's captain, but my goodness, can the Liberals simply find something else that is a little bit more ridiculous into which they can poke their heads? Such as this...
3) Dalton McGuinty (Premier of Ontario) is backing this new "Flick Off" campaign, to conserve electricity (the whole premise of which totally baffles me, but more on ridiculous energy conservation demands later). If you haven't seen it, the logo for "Flick off has...um...the letter "L" and "I" very close together, and the letter L's font is quite rounded, making the "L" and the "I" look like a "U". And they are pushing this for the kids and younger people to conserve energy. Nice job, Dalton.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Sadness of Miscarriage and Losing a Baby
Last Sunday, I had the absolute privilege of being able to be one of the featured speakers during our church's morning service. I was quite nervous, as I normally am when I perform public speaking, and as I spoke on the topic "Overcoming Life's Challenges With God's Strength", I really felt God's presence there with me on the stage and helping alleviate some of my anxiety. I guess it went OK - people seem to be quite blessed and encouraged by the topic, though I give all the credit to God for putting the words in my mouth and helping me to stand in front of all those people. Exodus 4:10-11, which was one of the verses that I cited as proof positive that God can help us overcome our own fears and trepidations, was really seen in action that day in my own life.
While I won't re-hash the entire talk (it's on tape, if you ever want to hear it or if you want me to put it in MP3 format), I did feel led to talk about one topic which has been quite uncomfortable for me to talk about, not because I'm a guy, and guys don't generally talk about these things, but because what happened to us last October still stings. As you can guess from the title of this blog entry, my wife and I lost a baby through an unfortunate miscarriage last Fall. I guess the pain was amplified by the fact that we were trying for years to get pregnant again, and we had a large amount of people prayerfully supporting us. It was a delightful feeling for those few weeks, knowing that I will be a Dad again. But it turns out that it wasn't meant to be.
I did not want to use scientific and medical means to "create" a baby, so we just left it up to God's timing. I tell you, and I'll be happy to tell you again...I don't know why God allowed this to happen to us, particularly since He knows in our hearts how we yearned for more kids, and I believe that my wife and I are pretty good parents, but I am 100% completely confident that God does not work in a vaccuum, and that His timing is better than our timing, so I simply yield to His direction. As such, I have fully come to terms with the fact that what happened to us was not a coincidence or bad luck. I believe that like everything else, God has a purpose for allowing things to happen, even bad things. Even bad things to people who do not deserve them. For centuries, people have been trying to make sense of that question in light of tragedies: "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" That's never been a prominent question in my mind, actually, because if you believe that God is in control at all times, you just have to place your faith in the fact that He does not have tunnel vision - that there is an overall plan. Just like when Isaac gets into trouble or I know he is about to face a hardship, I let him have the experience. I can shield him from it, but he will never build character and perseverance, unless he goes through challenges. I know as a kid, when I went through challenges, I thought that was the end of the world, but that was me thinking of my own situation at that time. My parents knew that there was a larger picture in mind, and would sometimes allow me to get into trouble so that I take responsibility for my actions and learn from it. But sometimes, for no reason at all, they allowed me to go through challenges to simply become a stronger person for it. So, while I don't think there is a cut and dry answer for why God allows suffering, I do know that it may be for reasons which we may not be meant to understand either. Look at the suffering of Job - I still don't understand EXACTLY why it was allowed to happen to him. I know the end result and he was blessed many fold. At the same time, I don't think the existence of suffering should indicate that God is some proverbial sadist either. Remember, we all live in a sinful world, we are all sinful by nature (Romans 3:10, 3:23). Sometimes, the sin has a direct effect on suffering. Sometimes, the sin has a indirect (collateral) effect. Sometimes, it is a collateral domino effect (ie. as an very indirect consequence of someone's actions, past or present, something bad happened). Sometimes, we don't know the exact reason.
It has been tough to "get over" the miscarriage, and I doubt that I ever will, but we're doing OK. Several recent reminders, however, bring it all back to a degree. The first is the wonderful little dwarf lilac bush that we planted in memory of our little one. Since November, through the winter, this little lilac tree sat there by itself, in the cold, supported by wooden poles, being blown about by the wind and the elements. Just recently, with the warmer weather, it started to bloom and bud. Our baby was due next month (June 12), and I imagine that it will be a somber time in our household that day. But the dwarf lilac tree, while it will never replace the baby, is a great reminder of life and that there are always more beautiful times ahead, after winter.
The other recent event that reminded us of our experience last y ear was recently finding out that my sister's expecting again. I am tremendously happy for her and look forward to the new addition to the family. But in a sense, I am a bit sad for my wife and I, in that it seems like everyone we know is able to have a second child, so why can't we? There are so many babies in the world who are born to teenage mothers who don't want them, babies who are abandoned, and sadly, the greatest tragedy, babies who are aborted needlessly because a woman feels she has the right to terminate another life at will. Babies are also born to people who drink, smoke, do drugs, and abuse their bodies in other ways. I just don't get it sometimes.
All that being said, I can tell you that I never once questioned God's sovereignty on this. I struggle with understanding the purpose or reason why our prayers for another child are on hold right now or may never even come to fruition - as I mentioned in my talk to the church, I am not mad at God in the least - I have really been just leaning on His strength throughout this whole ordeal and know in my heart that He has shown His goodness to us in ways I cannot imagine. Even in the past, when there were times I wondered whether He knew what He was doing, along comes an incident where all the puzzle pieces fall into place and I feel so dumb and admit, "OK, God, I don't know what I was thinking doubting Your hand on our lives. He has provided for us in times where we did not know where the money will come from. He has blessed us with a wonderful little boy, He continues to guard me in an ever-increasing volatile role that is my job, and He astonishes us by putting just the right circumstances and people in the right places and situations which affirms His omnipotent nature. I know God exists - I have seen His working in our lives and comforting us when we are sad. He saved me 16 years ago from a life that would only lead to destruction. So, I have learned that it makes no sense questioning God's decisions.
What I have a hard time is trying to understand, from my very finite mind, the purposes behind such things. It was just a really weird time - we lost the baby last October and then the same day, to add insult to injury, I get a totally unnecessary parking ticket at the hospital (I thought that my parking pass had expired, so I parked (illegally) elsewhere, but I found out that it hadn't so I got that ticket for nothing). I remember after finding out what we had lost our baby, I went to the car, and was balling, only to find the parking ticket on my window, at which point I started laughing uncontrollably. That really put into perspective how sometimes we get upset and angry over trite little things like parking tickets - in the whole scheme of things, it's just a little smidgen, if that.
Almost nine months later, I have come to a much better appreciation of the frailty of life. You really never know what will happen and when. We can be gone in an instant, which is why I chuckle hysterically when I hear of women standing in line recently in the U.K., waiting all night for the Boots Drug Stores to open, so they can buy the latest anti-aging cream. As if they think they will be able to prolong their lives by putting on a cream. The experience has also strengthened my already strong position against abortion. I really, really do not understand why abortion is legal in today's day and age (in cases of incest or rape or where the mother's health is at risk, I can understand better, but still, there are options such as giving the child up for adoption if possible). How some women (and men) can make such a generally selfish decision towards killing an unborn child, who has no voice - that just floors me. After losing a child by circumstances which were not caused by us (my wife does not drink alcohol or caffeine during the short pregnancy, we were not engaged in high risk behaviour, we don't smoke, don't do drugs, etc.), I am absolutely appalled that people will willingly toss their babies aside like yesterday's stale donuts. It's just very sad.
I have also come to a greater appreciation of people who are unable to have kids (we're talking unable, not unwilling). I have thought for a while that perhaps God allowed this to happen to us so that we can minister to someone else who will experience the same loss in the future. I am 34 and not "old" by any stretch of the imagination and we still have a number of years to "get pregnant" but you know, I am also prepared for the fact that if we don't have another child, I am so happy that we were able to have our son. Oftentimes, I don't spend enough time counting the blessings that I do already have.
I have learned not to let my circumstances dictate my thinking - that way, my thoughts and views permeate through my situation, but are not governed by them. I remember us going to church 3 weeks later and just seeing babies everywhere. That was very hard for us to handle. But now I think, I cannot think this way, that "how come everyone has another baby but I don't?" We don't know what is going on in those families, or whether those babies will present health or other challenges on their own? I can't sit there and compare myself to anyone else. That's probably the worst thing anyone can do, particularly as a Christian who strives to simply trusting that God knows what He's doing, not as a Christian who strives to have God do our bidding.
I ended the talk that I gave last Sunday with Phillippians 4: 11-13. It is worth sharing with you.
"...I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength."
While I won't re-hash the entire talk (it's on tape, if you ever want to hear it or if you want me to put it in MP3 format), I did feel led to talk about one topic which has been quite uncomfortable for me to talk about, not because I'm a guy, and guys don't generally talk about these things, but because what happened to us last October still stings. As you can guess from the title of this blog entry, my wife and I lost a baby through an unfortunate miscarriage last Fall. I guess the pain was amplified by the fact that we were trying for years to get pregnant again, and we had a large amount of people prayerfully supporting us. It was a delightful feeling for those few weeks, knowing that I will be a Dad again. But it turns out that it wasn't meant to be.
I did not want to use scientific and medical means to "create" a baby, so we just left it up to God's timing. I tell you, and I'll be happy to tell you again...I don't know why God allowed this to happen to us, particularly since He knows in our hearts how we yearned for more kids, and I believe that my wife and I are pretty good parents, but I am 100% completely confident that God does not work in a vaccuum, and that His timing is better than our timing, so I simply yield to His direction. As such, I have fully come to terms with the fact that what happened to us was not a coincidence or bad luck. I believe that like everything else, God has a purpose for allowing things to happen, even bad things. Even bad things to people who do not deserve them. For centuries, people have been trying to make sense of that question in light of tragedies: "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" That's never been a prominent question in my mind, actually, because if you believe that God is in control at all times, you just have to place your faith in the fact that He does not have tunnel vision - that there is an overall plan. Just like when Isaac gets into trouble or I know he is about to face a hardship, I let him have the experience. I can shield him from it, but he will never build character and perseverance, unless he goes through challenges. I know as a kid, when I went through challenges, I thought that was the end of the world, but that was me thinking of my own situation at that time. My parents knew that there was a larger picture in mind, and would sometimes allow me to get into trouble so that I take responsibility for my actions and learn from it. But sometimes, for no reason at all, they allowed me to go through challenges to simply become a stronger person for it. So, while I don't think there is a cut and dry answer for why God allows suffering, I do know that it may be for reasons which we may not be meant to understand either. Look at the suffering of Job - I still don't understand EXACTLY why it was allowed to happen to him. I know the end result and he was blessed many fold. At the same time, I don't think the existence of suffering should indicate that God is some proverbial sadist either. Remember, we all live in a sinful world, we are all sinful by nature (Romans 3:10, 3:23). Sometimes, the sin has a direct effect on suffering. Sometimes, the sin has a indirect (collateral) effect. Sometimes, it is a collateral domino effect (ie. as an very indirect consequence of someone's actions, past or present, something bad happened). Sometimes, we don't know the exact reason.
It has been tough to "get over" the miscarriage, and I doubt that I ever will, but we're doing OK. Several recent reminders, however, bring it all back to a degree. The first is the wonderful little dwarf lilac bush that we planted in memory of our little one. Since November, through the winter, this little lilac tree sat there by itself, in the cold, supported by wooden poles, being blown about by the wind and the elements. Just recently, with the warmer weather, it started to bloom and bud. Our baby was due next month (June 12), and I imagine that it will be a somber time in our household that day. But the dwarf lilac tree, while it will never replace the baby, is a great reminder of life and that there are always more beautiful times ahead, after winter.
The other recent event that reminded us of our experience last y ear was recently finding out that my sister's expecting again. I am tremendously happy for her and look forward to the new addition to the family. But in a sense, I am a bit sad for my wife and I, in that it seems like everyone we know is able to have a second child, so why can't we? There are so many babies in the world who are born to teenage mothers who don't want them, babies who are abandoned, and sadly, the greatest tragedy, babies who are aborted needlessly because a woman feels she has the right to terminate another life at will. Babies are also born to people who drink, smoke, do drugs, and abuse their bodies in other ways. I just don't get it sometimes.
All that being said, I can tell you that I never once questioned God's sovereignty on this. I struggle with understanding the purpose or reason why our prayers for another child are on hold right now or may never even come to fruition - as I mentioned in my talk to the church, I am not mad at God in the least - I have really been just leaning on His strength throughout this whole ordeal and know in my heart that He has shown His goodness to us in ways I cannot imagine. Even in the past, when there were times I wondered whether He knew what He was doing, along comes an incident where all the puzzle pieces fall into place and I feel so dumb and admit, "OK, God, I don't know what I was thinking doubting Your hand on our lives. He has provided for us in times where we did not know where the money will come from. He has blessed us with a wonderful little boy, He continues to guard me in an ever-increasing volatile role that is my job, and He astonishes us by putting just the right circumstances and people in the right places and situations which affirms His omnipotent nature. I know God exists - I have seen His working in our lives and comforting us when we are sad. He saved me 16 years ago from a life that would only lead to destruction. So, I have learned that it makes no sense questioning God's decisions.
What I have a hard time is trying to understand, from my very finite mind, the purposes behind such things. It was just a really weird time - we lost the baby last October and then the same day, to add insult to injury, I get a totally unnecessary parking ticket at the hospital (I thought that my parking pass had expired, so I parked (illegally) elsewhere, but I found out that it hadn't so I got that ticket for nothing). I remember after finding out what we had lost our baby, I went to the car, and was balling, only to find the parking ticket on my window, at which point I started laughing uncontrollably. That really put into perspective how sometimes we get upset and angry over trite little things like parking tickets - in the whole scheme of things, it's just a little smidgen, if that.
Almost nine months later, I have come to a much better appreciation of the frailty of life. You really never know what will happen and when. We can be gone in an instant, which is why I chuckle hysterically when I hear of women standing in line recently in the U.K., waiting all night for the Boots Drug Stores to open, so they can buy the latest anti-aging cream. As if they think they will be able to prolong their lives by putting on a cream. The experience has also strengthened my already strong position against abortion. I really, really do not understand why abortion is legal in today's day and age (in cases of incest or rape or where the mother's health is at risk, I can understand better, but still, there are options such as giving the child up for adoption if possible). How some women (and men) can make such a generally selfish decision towards killing an unborn child, who has no voice - that just floors me. After losing a child by circumstances which were not caused by us (my wife does not drink alcohol or caffeine during the short pregnancy, we were not engaged in high risk behaviour, we don't smoke, don't do drugs, etc.), I am absolutely appalled that people will willingly toss their babies aside like yesterday's stale donuts. It's just very sad.
I have also come to a greater appreciation of people who are unable to have kids (we're talking unable, not unwilling). I have thought for a while that perhaps God allowed this to happen to us so that we can minister to someone else who will experience the same loss in the future. I am 34 and not "old" by any stretch of the imagination and we still have a number of years to "get pregnant" but you know, I am also prepared for the fact that if we don't have another child, I am so happy that we were able to have our son. Oftentimes, I don't spend enough time counting the blessings that I do already have.
I have learned not to let my circumstances dictate my thinking - that way, my thoughts and views permeate through my situation, but are not governed by them. I remember us going to church 3 weeks later and just seeing babies everywhere. That was very hard for us to handle. But now I think, I cannot think this way, that "how come everyone has another baby but I don't?" We don't know what is going on in those families, or whether those babies will present health or other challenges on their own? I can't sit there and compare myself to anyone else. That's probably the worst thing anyone can do, particularly as a Christian who strives to simply trusting that God knows what He's doing, not as a Christian who strives to have God do our bidding.
I ended the talk that I gave last Sunday with Phillippians 4: 11-13. It is worth sharing with you.
"...I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength."
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Hollywood Filters...If You Have Any
I need a "Hollywood filter". I am sure there is something available that would suit my needs. I mean, you can get pop-up filters, I just installed an anti-flash filter for Netscape, you can get anti-porn filters, you can get software that filters out junk emails. We have PVRs that can skip annoying and unsolicited commercials (actually, what commercial is solicited?)
Is there anything that can filter out "Hollywood" news items or celebrity articles? I am so sick and tired of being bombarded by news about such and such celebrity, and so forth. Do people not have better things to do in their free time than to read about the absolutely trite lives of celebrities? Why do people care so much - is it because they feel their lives are so uneventful that somehow they have to get the "dirt" on someone else? I wonder whether many people are simply natural voyeurs that way - look at how the reality TV shows have such an audience - is it because people seem to want to make a connection between them and some reality show contestant? I don't know - I've never been into reality shows and find that even at work, when people start talking about what celebrity X is doing in his/her life, I try to find something else to do to take me away from the area.
It's a shame that actors and singers and sports athletes and such get put on such pedastals. It's not like they did anything admirable. How often do you hear the latest gossip on the most recent Nobel prize winners? You probably don't even know their names (that's OK, I don't either, but that re-iterates the point, doesn't it? I mean, I don't know who the latest inventor or some medical cure is, yet I am familiar with the name "Lindsay Lohan" and "Justin Timberlake", yet I don't even know who these freaking people are, nor do I care. I just need to find a way to filter out any mention of them when I go to cnn or check my yahoo mail. I use Yahoo web mail and everytime I log in, I get the latest on these teeny-bopper celebrities, right in my face. It is uninvited and unfortunately, I have to train myself to just go directly to mail.
If you know of a celebrity filter, let me know (so that if you go to CNN, CBC, Globall, CTV, Fox, etc., I will never see anything on such and such celebrity - to be defined in a pre-scripted list). It also has to work to remove this junk from the Yahoo mail pages. If it works well and I am satisfied, I will give you some cash for the recommendation.
Is there anything that can filter out "Hollywood" news items or celebrity articles? I am so sick and tired of being bombarded by news about such and such celebrity, and so forth. Do people not have better things to do in their free time than to read about the absolutely trite lives of celebrities? Why do people care so much - is it because they feel their lives are so uneventful that somehow they have to get the "dirt" on someone else? I wonder whether many people are simply natural voyeurs that way - look at how the reality TV shows have such an audience - is it because people seem to want to make a connection between them and some reality show contestant? I don't know - I've never been into reality shows and find that even at work, when people start talking about what celebrity X is doing in his/her life, I try to find something else to do to take me away from the area.
It's a shame that actors and singers and sports athletes and such get put on such pedastals. It's not like they did anything admirable. How often do you hear the latest gossip on the most recent Nobel prize winners? You probably don't even know their names (that's OK, I don't either, but that re-iterates the point, doesn't it? I mean, I don't know who the latest inventor or some medical cure is, yet I am familiar with the name "Lindsay Lohan" and "Justin Timberlake", yet I don't even know who these freaking people are, nor do I care. I just need to find a way to filter out any mention of them when I go to cnn or check my yahoo mail. I use Yahoo web mail and everytime I log in, I get the latest on these teeny-bopper celebrities, right in my face. It is uninvited and unfortunately, I have to train myself to just go directly to mail.
If you know of a celebrity filter, let me know (so that if you go to CNN, CBC, Globall, CTV, Fox, etc., I will never see anything on such and such celebrity - to be defined in a pre-scripted list). It also has to work to remove this junk from the Yahoo mail pages. If it works well and I am satisfied, I will give you some cash for the recommendation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)