I'm Back

I don't know where to begin.

I guess an explanation would be a good place. I'd like to say that I just didn't have the time, or that I lost interest, or that I forgot how to type. After too much introspection, I realized I lost my voice. I went through a very dark turn in my journey where I felt that nothing I did had much merit. More specifically, I felt like what I said didn't matter. Not that long ago, I read something that shook me to my core. St. Thomas Aquinas received a vision of heaven. When confronted with the wonder and immensity of the divine, he said, "I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw." All of his work suddenly seemed unimportant. Even though his contributions to theology and philosophy were so profound, they paled in comparison to this vision. I think I got to this point after spending time reading wonderful blogs and articles and books. So many people had such a much more articulate way of saying things. So many people saw the world for what it is, and were able to express it so eloquently. I felt like I was just a small, noisy voice, busying myself with very insignificant insights and petty observations. I was in a place where I was questioning the very worth of what I was contributing. There are many factors, now that I look back, that were lowering my opinion of myself. I won't bore you with the details, but a lot of it had to do with my situation. I see that now. That I let the outside affect my inside. 

So what has changed? Earlier this year, I had a very profound experience where I encountered the Holy Spirit. I wish I could put into words what it was like. The best I can say is that I was overcome with a feeling that I have never had before. It was like every molecule of my being was energized, like a surge of supernatural electricity. It opened my eyes to the fact that practicing my faith isn't something I do with the intent of receiving some reward after this life is over. God's love and happiness is present to me right now. It was total and instant gratification. I suddenly heard the Gospel in a new way. I found myself seeking Jesus in my every moment, knowing that I would be rewarded with happiness not in the afterlife, but now. Right now. Religion is not the promise of reward in the distant future. Jesus message was about how to be fully satisfied in this life. Heaven is just the ultimate realization of this happiness. We need to find God now and the reward at the end of this life will be to continue this discovery unfettered by the constraints of our physical self.

So what does this have to do with my return to the internet? The more I prayed and reflected, the more I could hear God speaking to me. I do have a voice. I have a mission. If only everyone could have my experience! If only everyone I came in contact with could hear my story and be changed by it! It sounds silly outside of the context of my experience, but God told me that I was supposed to start blogging again. I want to tell anyone reading this, that he or she can... no, needs to have an intimate relationship with God. All else is straw.

As I reread this, I hope it doesn't turn you off. I hope you don't see this as some fanatical rant. I want it to sound as practical and straightforward as I experienced it. I'm not sure what this blog with transform into. I'm sure I will still have quirky asides. I will still reflect on the things of this world that make me scratch my head. Bear with me, I think the journey will be a rewarding one. I am blessed that you have decided to come back too, that we have found each other again, dear reader.


If you have interest, I am also blogging specifically for my parish, dealing much more directly with spirituality akin to Catholic life. You can click here: http://qufaith.blogspot.com/

Snowden and Liberty

I find it a little bit eerie that the Edward Snowden story broke as I was writing something completely unrelated, but having everything to do with each other. I ended with a statement imploring people to recognize that everything they do is important. We all have to make decisions, some more momentous than others. I read a managerial-type book called Crucial Conversations not that long ago. In it, the authors derive that there are a specific set of criteria that make a conversation "crucial". Essentially, it's the fact that the decision one has to make is forced, immediate and irreversible. I keep thinking about Mr. Snowden and what drove him to release that information. Did he have an "it's now or never" moment? Was his character such that he immediately reacted when he found out that our government was tracking private citizens' information; or did it gnaw at him over the months he was contracted with the NSA and finally he chose to answer his conscience? I guess what I'm getting at is when does a momentous decision become a crucial one? I think it has a lot to do with our perception. I think this really gets to the heart of the disparity to people's reactions to this.

Hero of freedom, or security threat with a savior-complex?

- If you believe that there is a certain altruism to the government, that the government is us, then I imagine that you are pretty pissed at Snowden. You're the one commenting on the news articles that he just made America a little less safe, or who is he to decide what we should know?
- If you think we should have a limited government, because by nature all systems that are powerful are inherently dangerous, then I'm assuming you are the personal ringing the church bells and hailing Snowden as a hero.
- Then there's the third person, who see this as a small glimpse into the shadowy world that exists apart from our daily lives and what we are allowed to see. The "security" side of government that has placed itself above the laws and Constitution of the United States. This is the person who wouldn't be commenting on a news piece because he's too busy fortifying their underground bunker.

All joking aside, I think we should have a little of all these people inside of us. In fact, I was reading an article where a gentleman said he was glad for Libertarians, even though he doesn't support their ideology of how a government can be run. He likes that there are liberty watchdogs, ready to raise the warning siren when someone tries to impinge on that freedom.

Last night, I was watching the deeply philosophical work Kung-Fu Panda. The school master and master emeritus (?) were having a discussion under a peach tree about control. How true control is an illusion, that there are rules to the universe and that we exist within this setting of which we have no control over. While that particular discussion was very "Eastern", the same problem is addressed in Western philosophy as the free will vs. determinism argument. This argument finds it's way back to Scholastic Philosophy, that if God is all knowing and all powerful how can we pretend that we have any choice in things, but at the same time, it is centrally held in Christianity, that God gave us free will. This argument is still alive and well today, even if academic philosophy has moved out of the realm of priests and theologians. We can look at an ordered and predetermined universe and ask the same question. Short story long, is what we have in this country freedom, or the illusion of it? My answer is yes we do, as long as it fits within a prescribed, agreed upon, notion of liberty. It's as if someone is telling you, "You can do whatever you want, as long as you choose it from this menu." I think that choice and the menu has always been there. I think that the angst that Americans are feeling is that the menu is getting smaller, and the prices are getting larger. Worse, there are others who still know how to order off-menu items and for the right price. I think if we stick with the restaurant analogy, most of us would be happy every day, going to the same sandwich shop, getting our ham and swiss on rye with a side of chips for what we consider a reasonable price for a sandwich. We only become indignant the day that someone walks in and gets a prime sirloin on a sourdough roll with a side of steak fries. "They have steak fries?" "Wait, they have a fryer?!!" "Why wasn't I told about the delicious sliced sirloin?" And the last question is what gets us every time: Why wasn't I told...

 Why was the Patriot Act necessary? Why was the Affordable Healthcare Act 9,000 pages long and congressman were essentially being told they had to vote for it to find out what was in it? Why do we need a prison in Guantanamo Bay? I find that it's usually when people have something to hide that they become secretive. I think most of our bullshit meters go off when the government's response to something that was secret is uncovered and their response is, "We weren't doing anything illegal or immoral, and we definitely weren't infringing on your rights. Trust us, it was in your best interest." I think our response will always instinctively be 1) If you weren't doing something shady, why were you hiding it from me? and 2) Why don't you let me be the judge of what's in my best interest.

Remember, Remember...

Agriculture

There is a bill about to be passed by congress that subsidizes big growers to make huge swaths of the stuff we've heard others complaining about for the past decade or so: high fructose corn syrup, soy additives, and doing so using pesticides and genetically engineered crops. It's creatively called the Farm Bill. I assume that it was originally created with good purpose to keep farmers from going belly up in bad seasons and ensure an ample amount of sustenance for the American population. It gets renewed every 5 years or so and has, over the years, mutated into something that has been tailor made to benefit big agro and those that can afford lobbyists and friends in Washington. This kind of subsidy is, first, a huge waste of taxpayers' money and, more importantly, all but removes the ability of the small farmer to remain competitive and self-sustaining due to the government's artificial steering of the market. I hope you had two reactions to that, "Damn, that makes me mad!" and "I wish I could do something about that!"

        You can. Here's what I did. It's not overly political. I didn't write my congressman. He wouldn't care anyway, since this is such a minor issue that he knows that he'll never get elected or unelected on farm subsidies. He might if I lived in, say, Nebraska. But I live in a Philadelphia suburb, so I doubt it's a big ticket issue. Not when we have things like gay marriage and illegal immigration to distract us. Sorry... here's what I did.

       I'm telling you about it. I am sharing my concern in the hopes that you will read this and agree and tell somebody else. The next thing is that I joined a CSA. That's Community Supported Agriculture. Yup, right here in Lower Bucks County, mere minutes from Levittown, there is a farm that is supported by members who get to reap the benefits of locally grown, pesticide free food. The CSA is mostly vegetables, they have a small assortment of fruits that do well in our growing zone (apples, strawberries, blackberries), they also sell eggs and have a pig share too. The first pick up is today and I will have fresh vegetables available every week until November. If you want to check it out in more detail, click here: Snipes Farm

      It's a small thing I know, but it's a start. We have to start believing that what we do makes a difference. Even the really small things. Buying things locally made supports your community and reduces the amount of fossil fuels used in transporting it. We have local breweries here too!! Neshaminy Creek Brewing There are wineries, and other local farms where you can buy direct, and don't have to join a CSA. I haven't done my research as to how environmentally friendly they are, but again, buying local is already a benefit, even if not organic.

      To come back to a final thought. I hate government involvement in almost everything. Protect my life, liberty and property, and I'll take care of the rest. I believe that we can truly use the free market to build the world we want, but we have to put our money where it will make a difference. We have to be moral consumers. I'm not saying you have to buy everything made in America, but let's stop buying from countries that are human rights violators. I'm thinking gasoline might be one of those things, when you consider where a lot of it comes from. Obviously, anything made in China would fit the bill. I don't think that we can legislate morality. Laws will never make men good. Ultimately, humanity will get the world that it deserves, by the choices its individuals make. You can change reality, by changing the world in your immediate grasp, you'll never change it by forcing people you don't know to obey statutes. The first part of that statement is the most important though. Never stop believing that what you do is important, and that it will have a positive or negative impact.

Shenanigans

I tripped over this article in my Google feed today. This is one of the most misinformed and rhetoric lined pieces of nonsense I have ever read. I don't claim to be an expert on European politics or the Irish economy, but I thought I smelled something funny the minute I started reading the article. I sped my rate of reading, growing more and more flabbergasted, to quickly get to the comments. Thanks to the good citizens of Fermanagh, I learned that there isn't one piece of factual information in the article. I would go so far to call it yellow journalism. Here is a person who is so hell-bent on demonizing austerity that he will grab any small fact and expound on it and twist until it fits hits socialist agenda. One small example of his jingoism, he used a photo from Disney World as the leading illustration! Last I checked, there was no Disney in Northern Ireland. He even conflates the Celtic Tiger phenomenon with this town (or county, that seems to be something else he can't keep straight), which is in Northern Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland. At first, I wrote this off as the fact that this guy is just a jackass and decided to write an article without any fact checking. The more I started to think about it, the more I felt that he is culpable of much more. I can't help but suspect that he purposefully misconstrued the facts in order to rally the more left-leaning troops or confuse the fence sitters to lean a little more left. I can't prove that though. Let's assume that he did just make some honest geographical mistakes and he didn't realize that Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different countries with two different economies. Even though this is a completely embarrassing article if he is in fact a real journalist, I guess I can see someone making a mistake. But it is certainly not an honest mistake. This is the mistake of the believer, so wrapped up in his own world view that he believes that his story must be the true one, facts be damned! This is an extreme example of what happens in journalism when one tweaks the facts and spins the story to give a desired outcomes. It's articles like this that reminds those of us that are conscious of the attempts to skew our paradigm, that we must remain ever vigilant. You aren't always given a "gift" article like this that shows its true colors. The dangerous ones are those that look and smell authentic.

Giant Sequoia

Not the Levittown redwoods, but this is taken in Pennsylvania

I love a good urban legend. I was just recently informed that there are rumored redwood trees growing in Levittown. My best lead so far is that they are the Snowball Gate section right off rte 413. I drove through there over the holiday weekend, with my intrepid wife, and we swore we saw them. According to my source though, the exact location we reported them from is not where the sequoia are located. These are very elusive trees! Which you wouldn't think would be an adjective you'd use to describe a giant redwood. Part of the story that fuels the urban legend is that the owners of the properties which the trees inhabit do not want people to know that there are redwoods growing on the property. I have been able to hunt down several explanations as to why, the most plausible is that they do not want their yard to become a tourist attraction.

The back story to the legend maintains that the houses in Levittown were all built using redwood trees forested from the same area in northern California. As a gift to William Levitt upon the completion of Levittown, PA, the owners of the lumber company presented him with three Giant Sequoias and they were placed on what was originally one of the Levitt Estates sites. The site was eventually converted into more homes, but the sequoias remained.

Luckily, I live within walking distance of Snowball Gate. I am waiting for my dog to fully recover from his "procedure", and then we will be off to find visual evidence of the existence of these elusive Levittown redwoods. I have received what I believe to be a more exact location. The problem with smaller redwoods is that they look a heck of a lot like cedars. I have my suspicions that this may be origin of the legend. I may have to enlist the services of a botanist to determine the proper genus and species of the tree in question. This may also involve collecting physical specimens from the tree and not just photo evidence. From what I've been told, two of the three are located in back yards, which may make the specimen collecting tricky, perhaps illegal; particularly if the stories are true that the home owners are very shy about sharing their awesome flora. I'm willing to risk it. Science!

The Ethics of Fairness

A little girl with cystic fibrosis is waiting for a donor so she can have a life-saving lung transplant. Her parents are upset for what they perceive as an unfairness in the wait-listing system for people who receive these donor lungs. I find these cases infinitely interesting. While, yes, it is sad that it is a small child and it pulls at our heart strings; this is one of those things that ethicists, particular biomedical ethicists deal with all the time. The crux of the argument is that children and adults are on different wait lists. Each list ranks patients on a "severity scale" and according to the points, they're ranked in order. Children have much different cardiopulmonary needs than adults, so it was decided when the point system was created that being under or over the age of 12 would put you on different lists. For children, only after all adults have been offered an adult lung would they be considered. The parents, understandably desperate for their child to live, are shouting from the rooftops that this practice is unfair. Let's dissect the ethical issues at play.

The first thing that sticks out is that people are calling for an "exception to the rule". I put that in quotes since it's not really what we're talking about. This isn't an exception to a rule, but a blatant disregard for a system put into place to ensure fairness. The whole point of an external decision-making system is to remove the onus from the decision maker on an individual basis. The decision was previously made that candidates awaiting lung transplants would be ranked according to a certain set of criteria. To make an exception is to set a precedent to that rule. One would then have to make a set of rules that govern when someone can circumvent the process. Agreed upon rules or processes are a covenant signed by our society that ensure that equality exists no matter the situation. If you allow for exceptions, why have a rule in the first place? We should then just make the rule that we'll decide on a case-by-case basis.

Alright, so an exception doesn't seem ethically feasible. Another suggestion was that the rule needs to be changed due to its "unfairness". It does at first blush seem unfair that a little girl should die waiting for available lungs. But we have to be careful how we use this word. I think that sentiment expresses a meaning emoted in the phrase, "The world is unfair." The world obviously cannot be fair or unfair, since it is not a rational agent. The world just is. In that case, I think we need to substitute the word and say, "Things that happen in the world make us sad." It is then sad that a little girl might die because she has a horrible disease that can only be treated with an organ transplant that is hard to come by. It is not, however, unfair or unjust just because it makes us feel sad. Fairness and justice are concepts reflecting a very cold and calculated outcome. There's a reason that the statue representing justice has its eyes covered. Justice should be blind to the plight of the individual, if that means special privileges based on something other than the criteria put forth to judge that situation.

The toughest thing in ethics is to be the person to say, "I'm sorry, but the answer is no." I'm sure everyone feels for this girl and feels for the parents and feels for the physicians who want to help. The biggest problem with rules is that people like them until they're the ones who are negatively effected by the rules. I'm perfectly OK that the Navy has a cut-off for height for submariners and fighter pilots. I am, however, not in the Navy. Is it unfair that since I am over 6 feet tall that I can never serve in one of those capacities? I don't really care, as I don't desire to fly in an F-22 or be 20,000 leagues under the sea. Most would even think it was silly for anyone to even fight that regulation, since you cannot physically fit in either of those roles if you are over 5'10" (full disclosure: I have no idea any of that is true, but it sounds reasonable enough to use as my example). This goes all the way back to the foundations of philosophy. I won't go into the Trial and Death of Socrates, but he essentially supports the same thing. Even though it sucked that he was sentenced to death by a kangaroo court, that was the system he lived under and enjoyed the society it supported, so if that system decided he should die then he had to abide by the rules.

Finally, the list is built on medical feasibility. They could use adult lungs on this little girl, but the chance of her body accepting them is much less than if they were given to an adult. That's the reason the rule exists. If I were to be the next person in line to get a set of lungs and someone got to butt in front of me because of public outcry, let's just say I'd be a little upset. I'd be a lot upset if I found out they gave it to a candidate that had a much less better chance of surviving than I did. In sum, rules are rules, ethics is hard, I feel bad for everyone in the situation, but I don't agree with them. 

Neckties

I have sometimes referred to the necktie as the yoke my masters have placed around my neck to remind me of my voluntary servitude. It truly is one of the last vestiges left over from the Victorian era. I guess technically, cuff links apply too, but no one expects you to wear cuff links to work. Particularly since the invention of the button. I bring this up because there has been, over the last couple years, a sort of revolt against the tie. I suppose in different sectors of our society, people have tried to find the alternative to the neck tie: the ascot, bow tie, bolo tie, that really big tuxedo button. We have never been able to truly move away from the old Windsor knot hanging from your neck style though. There are many reasons I can think for eliminating the tie from men's wardrobe. They're silly. Every other piece of men's clothing is functional, the tie serves no purpose and therefore stands out as something completely out of step in a person's wardrobe. Did someone decide that it's inappropriate to show your buttons? Because that's the only thing i can think of, it's a button cover. It's hazardous. I work in a hospital. I am issued a badge holder with a break away loop. If they are worried about a crazed patient choking me to death with my badge, why am I even allowed to wear a tie to work, let alone expected? I know that in other professions that require ties as part of their uniform (police, security) they have fake ties only held on by velcro. Why don't you just get rid of the ties, instead of MAKING SAFETY TIES?!!!!

I know some of you might be thinking, "But Bob, it's a standard for business dress, and a conventional part of the wardrobe, like women wearing earrings." Fine, I'll accept that, but I think conventions are changing rather quickly. In the brave new world of internet companies and small entrepreneurial businesses, people are questioning what the appropriate level of expectation is in the work place, this not only applies to wardrobe, but to interior design, location, work hours. I also work in a setting where people are wearing the uniform equivalent of pajamas. That's right, scrubs. I miss scrubs. Ask anyone who works in a medical setting. They LOVE scrubs. Scrubs are awesome. I used to get to wear scrubs and work 3 days (ok, nights) a week. Suddenly, I'm in charge of something and my wardrobe is restrictive. Shouldn't this be the other way around? The other thing about hospitals being one of the most casual work-clothing environments in the world (particularly for how serious the actual work is. next time you're having a bad day, ask yourself if anybody died at your workplace today), is that women who have ascended above the rank of scrub-wearer are almost always business casual. I rarely see a female leader in a suit, and if they are, they certainly are not expected to wear some find of neck-decoration. Don't say jewelry. If I wore a chain, it would certainly not be accepted as a tie-substitute. And why are women allowed to be less and less formal every year? Remember pantyhose? Yeah, nobody has to wear that anymore! Which makes sense, because they would look weird with your dressy flip-flops. This is clearly reverse sexism. How in the hell can fashion have devolved enough that flip flops are perfectly acceptable as formal wear, yet men still have to wear ties? And a very specific type of tie at that. It's not like I'm attending a coronation or president's ball. I understand specific costuming for particular events. I even appreciate it.

Some brave souls here have taken to appearing sans tie a couple of times since it got warmer. I can't believe how uncomfortably comfortable they look. The attention for a man not wearing a tie is the woman equivalent of getting a new haircut, "Oh my God, you're not wearing a tie! Good for you, man! Did you give your two weeks notice?"
"What? Bobby wasn't wearing a tie last week!"
"Whoa, that was on Friday. No tie-day Friday is a given. Don't drag me into this. You're sporting tweed and chinos on a Tuesday, bro."
"Well, it was nice working with you all. I'm going to wander out into the traffic on 413 and pray someone hits me."

"Shame about Bill, I really liked him."
"Yeah, he had a lot of promise, but seriously, no tie, midweek, and it's not even after Memorial Day? What did he think was going to happen?"