You know, I walk in the library and subconsciously try so hard to avoid getting static shocks...I touch the wood paneling on my way to the evelator after I've passed the security barriers.
But just now, after a three-minute jaunt through the book stacks as I take a telephone call, I stopped briefly at the water fountain and got zapped. You know what? I enjoyed the throw-back. It wasn't one of those painful shocks, either, the one where you SEE the electricity jump, blue and white, from the metal to your hand.
Memories!
Friday, 4 December 2009
Monday, 30 November 2009
Îa Mauna Kea
Do struggling artists get a bad case of the "I told you so"s after they hit the big time?
I was thinking that if you get to the point where people tell you you're great and born to do X and talented, etc. etc., is there something in the back of your mind that, a little frustrated, murmurs, "Yes, I know that...I've been trying to tell you."
I wonder how many greats have given up before they got a chance. It's same as my wondering whether there's a faster runner in the world who lives in a country that can't send them to world or Olympic competitions. What if someone can do 100m in 8 seconds and we never hear from them? I guess it's not that important to know who runs the fastest hundred metres, and neither is it so important that all stellar performers are discovered. I still wonder.
I'm thinking of the scene in I, Robot (2004) when the main character, Spooner, finally gets proven correct which I will ruin if I quote it or re-create it further.
It's the moment when something you've been sure of but only had your testimony and your word to back it finally gets a slew of overwhelming indisputable proof. Yep. Like if the person you're accused of murdering walks into the courtroom during your trial (and you live in an age of DNA testing).
I feel frustrated on behalf of these others.
I was thinking that if you get to the point where people tell you you're great and born to do X and talented, etc. etc., is there something in the back of your mind that, a little frustrated, murmurs, "Yes, I know that...I've been trying to tell you."
I wonder how many greats have given up before they got a chance. It's same as my wondering whether there's a faster runner in the world who lives in a country that can't send them to world or Olympic competitions. What if someone can do 100m in 8 seconds and we never hear from them? I guess it's not that important to know who runs the fastest hundred metres, and neither is it so important that all stellar performers are discovered. I still wonder.
I'm thinking of the scene in I, Robot (2004) when the main character, Spooner, finally gets proven correct which I will ruin if I quote it or re-create it further.
It's the moment when something you've been sure of but only had your testimony and your word to back it finally gets a slew of overwhelming indisputable proof. Yep. Like if the person you're accused of murdering walks into the courtroom during your trial (and you live in an age of DNA testing).
I feel frustrated on behalf of these others.
Monday, 23 November 2009
didn't realize til just this moment that the "trek" in Star Trek is....just a regular noun referring to something like a journey or a hike.
WOW. The things you learn when you pay attention.
I feel myself loosening up a bit, in some encouraging ways. My tongue is a little looser (not unbridled) and I'm relaxed. It's good.
I had my first can of Red Bull on Saturday. I would have been glad to go my entire life without having ever touched the stuff. When it first hit the market, I was quick to pronounce it a crutch of the weak. Either you can stay awake or you can't.
Saturday was Day Two in a row of not enough sleep (2 1/2 hours at night and one 4-hour nap, which I guess makes an average of 4.5 hours per night) and Sunday needed to be early and Saturday had to be late, mostly for a course assignment. I didn't trust myself to go home and I didn't dare fathom a nap. So...I went to Shopper Drug Mart and paid $2.49 for the little blue & silver can.
Thank the Lord it didn't taste as terrible as I'd assumed it would have to - like cough syrup or anything else medicinal/important that works. In fact, it was fine. I was really expecting to go sproinngg! quite quickly but it took about a quarter of the can for me to at least think I was feeling something. I drank the whole think fast because I had become immediately skeptical that it would work at all and wanted to get it over with.
It was.. a slight elevation but it was enough to get me through. There were a few moments where my legs were upset that my brain was pretending they were less tired than they were and I did this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR1BCfG3PY
I was listening to the radio and someone (in an ad or maybe just a DJ) said something about a caffeine crash and I said out loud, "I'm gonna crash??" I immediately laughed at myself because the tone was QUITE earnest, almost like the "Is it gonna be like this forever?" from David after Dentist.
I'm not a caffeine person. Yeees, I like me some soda pop but the caff never gets me me and I don't drink coffee so...I would not have expecting the powerful headache that befell me in the few hours before I went to bed.
All in all, an interesting experience and one I envision repeating every blue moon.
I feel myself loosening up a bit, in some encouraging ways. My tongue is a little looser (not unbridled) and I'm relaxed. It's good.
I had my first can of Red Bull on Saturday. I would have been glad to go my entire life without having ever touched the stuff. When it first hit the market, I was quick to pronounce it a crutch of the weak. Either you can stay awake or you can't.
Saturday was Day Two in a row of not enough sleep (2 1/2 hours at night and one 4-hour nap, which I guess makes an average of 4.5 hours per night) and Sunday needed to be early and Saturday had to be late, mostly for a course assignment. I didn't trust myself to go home and I didn't dare fathom a nap. So...I went to Shopper Drug Mart and paid $2.49 for the little blue & silver can.
Thank the Lord it didn't taste as terrible as I'd assumed it would have to - like cough syrup or anything else medicinal/important that works. In fact, it was fine. I was really expecting to go sproinngg! quite quickly but it took about a quarter of the can for me to at least think I was feeling something. I drank the whole think fast because I had become immediately skeptical that it would work at all and wanted to get it over with.
It was.. a slight elevation but it was enough to get me through. There were a few moments where my legs were upset that my brain was pretending they were less tired than they were and I did this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR1BCfG3PY
I was listening to the radio and someone (in an ad or maybe just a DJ) said something about a caffeine crash and I said out loud, "I'm gonna crash??" I immediately laughed at myself because the tone was QUITE earnest, almost like the "Is it gonna be like this forever?" from David after Dentist.
I'm not a caffeine person. Yeees, I like me some soda pop but the caff never gets me me and I don't drink coffee so...I would not have expecting the powerful headache that befell me in the few hours before I went to bed.
All in all, an interesting experience and one I envision repeating every blue moon.
Friday, 13 November 2009
torn, in a way
Two powerful influences/two powerful pictures relating to American culture:
1) On The Colbert Report this evening, Colbert asked his guest, Woody Harrelson, if he could shave his head to show support for the troops. When Harrelson said yes, Colbert flashed this priceless, I-can't-believe-I-get-to-do-this look at the camera, before breaking character and reaching across the table to verify, "Are you serious?"
He ends up shaving the bit in the middle of Harrelson's head which has already started thinning which I assume was Colbert's way of cutting him a break. He stopped, and sat back down..laughed a bit and told Harrelson who he now resembled. (I really wish I remember who that was.)
Colbert spent much of the interview harping on Harrelson for being against the war and for starring in a new film that showed war to be so horrible that people at home would start realizing how bad it is and maybe want less to declare war on this thing and that.
So...it was much to my utter DELIGHT and SURPRIZE when, after the commercial break when Colbert usually says something obscure and finishes with, "G'night everybody!", we see him behind Harrelson's chair again, finishing the job.
Not only do I love that they're going the whole nine but they're singing the American National Anthem while doing it. This is the part where the cultural impact ends and but my personal entertainment continues and is amped up. They're singing in harmony -well, Colbert's singing a harmony, a really interesting one that I am guessing he learned as a boy - and Harrelson is a fine singer! As in, he holds that melody down TITE, son.
I'm amazed that he looks so calm (and proud!) while Colbert is actually doing a good job of buzzing and singing fine. I suppose the fact that they're both performers means they might not find things like this as difficult as say, those who don't perform for a living. OOf. I enjoyed it.
I'm forced to note how this scene makes perfect sense. One man calls another out, bravado on the line and the second accepts the challenge. They show solidarity with their soldiers in the armed forces and they show pride in the glory of their nation by singing its rousing praises.
Would ANY other country (culture) in the world do this? (Would we?)
Even if they did do it, would it mean the same? Would it be lofty and commonplace in the same moment? Would it be a statement and a laugh rolled up in one?
2) I was watching a PBS documentary called The Man Who Studies Murder and at one point the narrator mentions that the US is an "especially provincial kind of country and [it] tend[s] to know almost nothing about the rest of the world so most American people in Crime are shocked to even be told that their homicide rates are completely out of wak with the rest of the world."
He makes his point very effectively but possibly sneakily (in the same way Rick Mercer sometimes makes his points). He's at a firing range, a sort of training grounds for civilians who want to learn to handle firearms properly, and he shows a few clips of people talking about how violence in the US compares to violence in other countries around the world, and talking about why they decided to get the training that they're on the range for. They sound provincial, yes and they sound ridiculous -- maybe even deluded.
(I make the comparison to the Rick Mercer Report implying that great editing and selection of spokespeople can make a much tighter case than perhaps what reality and proper sampling would render.)
So I'm sitting there thinking, "Yep, I see the world reputation is entirely backed up by these people speaking for themselves. Do they not realize that the people they're talking about defending their property, family and selves against are...fellow Americans?" Why do they talk about their theoretical assailant as if they're not a real person or like this is a problem that's been externally imposed? A paper bag of poop left on your doorstep? Man, they aint even sound like they want violence or crime to decrease because they're happy to wield a gun.
Anyhow, this was the piece de resistance:
It's a monologue given by Dr. Ignatius A. Piazza II from the Training Institute at Front Sight Firearms (that's the "firing range" I was talking about before) to a room of maybe 20 to 30 people, some of which are young boys, maybe 13 at the oldest and very few (if not none - I didn't notice) of which were women.
[narrating]"'He reaches into his pocket and he takes out some shotgun shells [one guy raises his hand; about 8 others raise their hand, seeing his] and he starts putting them into the magazine tube. [a few more raise their hands] He racks the action and he's looking around and he says, "There you are, you S.O.--[the final hands go up] BOOM-shh-ch, BOOM-shh-ch, BOOM-shh-ch..."' OK, all your hands are up. ...That's good."
For the record, his tone was pretty even, unexcited; not seeming like he was being manipulative. This would be the first time in my life I would correctly identify propaganda without the help of anyone else. I was disgusted and still am.
("shh-ch" is how I write the sound of racking the action...or...I don't know terminology.)
So now I have these two contrasting excerpts (almost opposing) and I don't even know what to do.
1) On The Colbert Report this evening, Colbert asked his guest, Woody Harrelson, if he could shave his head to show support for the troops. When Harrelson said yes, Colbert flashed this priceless, I-can't-believe-I-get-to-do-this look at the camera, before breaking character and reaching across the table to verify, "Are you serious?"
He ends up shaving the bit in the middle of Harrelson's head which has already started thinning which I assume was Colbert's way of cutting him a break. He stopped, and sat back down..laughed a bit and told Harrelson who he now resembled. (I really wish I remember who that was.)
Colbert spent much of the interview harping on Harrelson for being against the war and for starring in a new film that showed war to be so horrible that people at home would start realizing how bad it is and maybe want less to declare war on this thing and that.
So...it was much to my utter DELIGHT and SURPRIZE when, after the commercial break when Colbert usually says something obscure and finishes with, "G'night everybody!", we see him behind Harrelson's chair again, finishing the job.
Not only do I love that they're going the whole nine but they're singing the American National Anthem while doing it. This is the part where the cultural impact ends and but my personal entertainment continues and is amped up. They're singing in harmony -well, Colbert's singing a harmony, a really interesting one that I am guessing he learned as a boy - and Harrelson is a fine singer! As in, he holds that melody down TITE, son.
I'm amazed that he looks so calm (and proud!) while Colbert is actually doing a good job of buzzing and singing fine. I suppose the fact that they're both performers means they might not find things like this as difficult as say, those who don't perform for a living. OOf. I enjoyed it.
I'm forced to note how this scene makes perfect sense. One man calls another out, bravado on the line and the second accepts the challenge. They show solidarity with their soldiers in the armed forces and they show pride in the glory of their nation by singing its rousing praises.
Would ANY other country (culture) in the world do this? (Would we?)
Even if they did do it, would it mean the same? Would it be lofty and commonplace in the same moment? Would it be a statement and a laugh rolled up in one?
2) I was watching a PBS documentary called The Man Who Studies Murder and at one point the narrator mentions that the US is an "especially provincial kind of country and [it] tend[s] to know almost nothing about the rest of the world so most American people in Crime are shocked to even be told that their homicide rates are completely out of wak with the rest of the world."
He makes his point very effectively but possibly sneakily (in the same way Rick Mercer sometimes makes his points). He's at a firing range, a sort of training grounds for civilians who want to learn to handle firearms properly, and he shows a few clips of people talking about how violence in the US compares to violence in other countries around the world, and talking about why they decided to get the training that they're on the range for. They sound provincial, yes and they sound ridiculous -- maybe even deluded.
(I make the comparison to the Rick Mercer Report implying that great editing and selection of spokespeople can make a much tighter case than perhaps what reality and proper sampling would render.)
So I'm sitting there thinking, "Yep, I see the world reputation is entirely backed up by these people speaking for themselves. Do they not realize that the people they're talking about defending their property, family and selves against are...fellow Americans?" Why do they talk about their theoretical assailant as if they're not a real person or like this is a problem that's been externally imposed? A paper bag of poop left on your doorstep? Man, they aint even sound like they want violence or crime to decrease because they're happy to wield a gun.
Anyhow, this was the piece de resistance:
It's a monologue given by Dr. Ignatius A. Piazza II from the Training Institute at Front Sight Firearms (that's the "firing range" I was talking about before) to a room of maybe 20 to 30 people, some of which are young boys, maybe 13 at the oldest and very few (if not none - I didn't notice) of which were women.
"Now, we do not live in a violent society here in the United States. When's the last time you heard of a family being pulled from their home in broad daylight? The woman and daughter raped in the street; the man shot in the head. You ever hear of that happening in the United States? I never have.
"Does it happen in other parts of the world? All the time. But because we don't live in that kind of society, because MOST of you will die in your beds, fat and happy at a ripe old age, never having experienced someone trying to take your life.
"Now, when violence does occur, how much physical damage or humiliation are you willing to accept or to witness occur to another before you'll step up and stop it, using lethal force if necessary?
"What I want you to do is raise your hand up when you've made the decision to shoot - not talk - shoot.
[narrating]"'He reaches into his pocket and he takes out some shotgun shells [one guy raises his hand; about 8 others raise their hand, seeing his] and he starts putting them into the magazine tube. [a few more raise their hands] He racks the action and he's looking around and he says, "There you are, you S.O.--[the final hands go up] BOOM-shh-ch, BOOM-shh-ch, BOOM-shh-ch..."' OK, all your hands are up. ...That's good."
For the record, his tone was pretty even, unexcited; not seeming like he was being manipulative. This would be the first time in my life I would correctly identify propaganda without the help of anyone else. I was disgusted and still am.
("shh-ch" is how I write the sound of racking the action...or...I don't know terminology.)
So now I have these two contrasting excerpts (almost opposing) and I don't even know what to do.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
post #654
I realized today that this month marks ten years that I've been playing the accordion. I later adjusted it to say that I have probably played for the equivalent of three years and then really just known how to play since November of 1999. How strange to think. It would be nice if I played like a ten-year veteran but it's simply not the case and I can't expect those results without putting in the effort.
I might say the same for piano where I've known how for nine years in September but I prolls have played for the equivalent of about 4 or 5 years. I am ashamed of this.
I'm also ashamed of the way I act in situations that involve discussing/making/performing/arranging/etc.-ing music. It's not right and it's not God-honoring. I'm terrible at this. I need help....and today must be the first day I really meant that. I've noticed before but, with no lash-back, it's hard to fully grasp the ugliness of what I'm doing.
I'm grasping it now. I'm not adding anything!
Pff.
I just need to stay away from microphones and stages and performing until I can play with my brother nicely.
Seriously...I think a time-out might be in order.
In the back of my mind, I'm lamenting all the things I have neglected to do for weeks or months on end. I think that I just don't have enough time. I think that no one knows how far behind I am in my reading, where else I've dropped the ball, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
But then, I'm writing a blog post right now.
that's not a priority.
not.....it is, to me. it really is. but it can't be prioritized above these other things if I'm going to also lament neglecting them. I can't have both.
What a wretched man I am!
Who will rescue me from this body of death?
I might say the same for piano where I've known how for nine years in September but I prolls have played for the equivalent of about 4 or 5 years. I am ashamed of this.
I'm also ashamed of the way I act in situations that involve discussing/making/performing/arranging/etc.-ing music. It's not right and it's not God-honoring. I'm terrible at this. I need help....and today must be the first day I really meant that. I've noticed before but, with no lash-back, it's hard to fully grasp the ugliness of what I'm doing.
I'm grasping it now. I'm not adding anything!
Pff.
I just need to stay away from microphones and stages and performing until I can play with my brother nicely.
Seriously...I think a time-out might be in order.
In the back of my mind, I'm lamenting all the things I have neglected to do for weeks or months on end. I think that I just don't have enough time. I think that no one knows how far behind I am in my reading, where else I've dropped the ball, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
But then, I'm writing a blog post right now.
that's not a priority.
not.....it is, to me. it really is. but it can't be prioritized above these other things if I'm going to also lament neglecting them. I can't have both.
What a wretched man I am!
Who will rescue me from this body of death?
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
"If the conduct of the men had been alarming in the boat, it became truly threatening when they had come aboard. They lay about the deck growling together in talk. The slightest order was received with a black look, and grudgingly and carelessly obeyed. Even the honest hands must have caught the infection, for there was not one man aboard to mend another. Mutiny, it was plain, hung over us like a thunder-cloud." (99-0)
Stevenson, Robert Louis. _Treasure Island_. London: The Aldine Press, 1957.
I donno; I just liked it. I'm starting to see why Stevenson is upheld and is in our canon. I mean, I appreciate that the book is good and that I like him but now I'm starting to see where he gets acclaim from the literary and lay world.
I remember having that moment with Shakespeare and I think it was in a third-year English course called Shakespearean Receptions. THAT was a good one with an excellent prof and a T.A. who looked like Jim Carrey.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. _Treasure Island_. London: The Aldine Press, 1957.
I donno; I just liked it. I'm starting to see why Stevenson is upheld and is in our canon. I mean, I appreciate that the book is good and that I like him but now I'm starting to see where he gets acclaim from the literary and lay world.
I remember having that moment with Shakespeare and I think it was in a third-year English course called Shakespearean Receptions. THAT was a good one with an excellent prof and a T.A. who looked like Jim Carrey.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
"Couples Retreat" (2009)
One thing I can say about this film which I found intriguing is that it seemed to have in mind - or be directed at - a demographic that doesn't exist and this truth is actually mirrored in the pairings of actors who played the couples.
I'm still not sure what to make of it but I'm going to take some time to observe the trend first.
6.9/10
I'm still not sure what to make of it but I'm going to take some time to observe the trend first.
6.9/10
Monday, 26 October 2009
great.
Great - a close friend of mine very recently became engaged to be married. This is hugely exciting. I'm pumped.
Great - last night my three-year-old cousin infomed his mom that the spot between your nose and upper lip is called your "fuddle bone".
Great - today at Starbucks a man asked me, as he was leaving the table we'd shared, "¿habla español?" and I looked up apologetically and said, "no." And then in the next moments, as he confirms ("You don't speak...?") and says he's almost never wrong about this, noting that I have a Spanish face, I think, It would have been more convincing if I didn't understand a Spanish phrase asking whether I spoke the language. I found it fascinating that my brain just translated and delivered an answer without noticing the irony or whatever else.
Great - I was asked to stand up, during church today, welcomed home. It's....always nice to be remembered and enjoyed and corporately befriended.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
et moi, Bruté?
I feel like I've betrayed myself in actually truly liking that song about Fireflies. (I don't feel like looking up the info.)
Minor betrayal: In the last few days I've gotten really into The Moffats (just through their debut album). Wow...I don't think I saw this day coming.
I was watching a video called "The Man who Studies Murder" today as part of the course I'm taking and a lot of it has stuck with me. I kinda don't want to write about it because that is like saying I know where to begin with processing stuff like this.
I don't.
I know that I found the dramatic explanation of the first murder by Jack the Ripper riveting and it made me miss living in Edinburgh a bit. I also know that it's the first time I've had his crimes/story explained to me. It's one of those things that "everybody" "already" knows. We don't explain...so I'm grateful. I think it's also one of those things that gets brutally abbreviated (it's been about 120 years, hasn't it?) which would explain why the people listening to the man speaking also looked like they were having it explained for the first time. Ah. I'm fascinated. (I hope not too much.)
Are we all doing the same thing when we're looking at the grainy, black-and-white photographs of convicted killers (particularly with multiple murders)? Are we all looking for that something which would make us conclude, "Yep, you can see it in their face - born killer." I think we can see that something in someone's eyes or facial muscles which tells us they have killed before. And then I'm sure we profile subconsciously in our everyday life. I can't...I can't agree that this is legit. I think that our photographs have been displayed in the same way long enough that we've been trained to see something that isn't there. I donno.
I gotta pray more when I'm dealing with this material because there is a lot of evil in it, I must say. I was getting really heavy, especially when I came across the story of Mary Bell.
I never realized until just now that it makes sense to take drugs or to drink to obliterate pain you're in. I had never thought through it or entered in until just now, hearing Theoren Fleury on The Hour talking about his experiences. He says that coke and booze will take care of "any kind of pain" And then I tried to unravel what he was saying, from a kind of logical point of view. It seems that if your pain is emotional (i.e. not physical), a psychologist or biologist or other -ist would tell you that resides in your brain (I don't know technical jargon). We all know the needle and the bottle mess with your head. It makes total sense. I had this moment where I thought (for example), "What would happen if I found a narcotic to take away my pain?" My very next throught was, "well I wouldn't want to STOP taking that narcotic." How could you ever go back to regular life with a regular brain and regular cognition and lucidity? How to you ever come down and say, "OK now I can deal with my life and my issues without help"? I see how the addiction begins.
I feel like I understand it all so much better now. I have often wondered how generation after generation has started taking drugs after generation after generation have died or led otherwise horrible lives because of drugs. How do we not learn? (I have the same question for cigarettes but far less insight.) Well...I guess there's more to it than I realized. I guess it's more than something to do, more than an aspect of the way your circle of friends interacts, more than what's taboo, more than what got cut into your weed and now you're hooked without realizing it...I don't know. I don't know anything. My point is only that I am now seeing a facet I'd never seen before.
Minor betrayal: In the last few days I've gotten really into The Moffats (just through their debut album). Wow...I don't think I saw this day coming.
I was watching a video called "The Man who Studies Murder" today as part of the course I'm taking and a lot of it has stuck with me. I kinda don't want to write about it because that is like saying I know where to begin with processing stuff like this.
I don't.
I know that I found the dramatic explanation of the first murder by Jack the Ripper riveting and it made me miss living in Edinburgh a bit. I also know that it's the first time I've had his crimes/story explained to me. It's one of those things that "everybody" "already" knows. We don't explain...so I'm grateful. I think it's also one of those things that gets brutally abbreviated (it's been about 120 years, hasn't it?) which would explain why the people listening to the man speaking also looked like they were having it explained for the first time. Ah. I'm fascinated. (I hope not too much.)
Are we all doing the same thing when we're looking at the grainy, black-and-white photographs of convicted killers (particularly with multiple murders)? Are we all looking for that something which would make us conclude, "Yep, you can see it in their face - born killer." I think we can see that something in someone's eyes or facial muscles which tells us they have killed before. And then I'm sure we profile subconsciously in our everyday life. I can't...I can't agree that this is legit. I think that our photographs have been displayed in the same way long enough that we've been trained to see something that isn't there. I donno.
I gotta pray more when I'm dealing with this material because there is a lot of evil in it, I must say. I was getting really heavy, especially when I came across the story of Mary Bell.
I never realized until just now that it makes sense to take drugs or to drink to obliterate pain you're in. I had never thought through it or entered in until just now, hearing Theoren Fleury on The Hour talking about his experiences. He says that coke and booze will take care of "any kind of pain" And then I tried to unravel what he was saying, from a kind of logical point of view. It seems that if your pain is emotional (i.e. not physical), a psychologist or biologist or other -ist would tell you that resides in your brain (I don't know technical jargon). We all know the needle and the bottle mess with your head. It makes total sense. I had this moment where I thought (for example), "What would happen if I found a narcotic to take away my pain?" My very next throught was, "well I wouldn't want to STOP taking that narcotic." How could you ever go back to regular life with a regular brain and regular cognition and lucidity? How to you ever come down and say, "OK now I can deal with my life and my issues without help"? I see how the addiction begins.
I feel like I understand it all so much better now. I have often wondered how generation after generation has started taking drugs after generation after generation have died or led otherwise horrible lives because of drugs. How do we not learn? (I have the same question for cigarettes but far less insight.) Well...I guess there's more to it than I realized. I guess it's more than something to do, more than an aspect of the way your circle of friends interacts, more than what's taboo, more than what got cut into your weed and now you're hooked without realizing it...I don't know. I don't know anything. My point is only that I am now seeing a facet I'd never seen before.
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Offshoots of the Wonderful Counselor
Galtians 5
- It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. (1a)
- don't make the Sacrifice and the new life a waste (1b, 2)
- you will be hung by the covenant you choose to live under (3); we cannot have our hands in two cookie jars (4)
- But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope." (5)
Look at me being all selfish & lazy thinking that the pursuit of righteousness is my choice - something optional even. Look at me forgetting that my unrighteousness takes away from Christ's glory. Oh... that I would change. I am so tired and this is really hard. It's a never ending battle. Test me and know.
- the covenant (either one) does not save you and has no value (6a); however there is value in faith and accompanying deeds (6b)
- You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? (7)
This one pegged me mercilessly and I don't have many words for it.
- That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. (8)
This directly speaks to my previous confession, "I feel like You've abandoned me to this stage." Who moved?
- It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. (1a)
- don't make the Sacrifice and the new life a waste (1b, 2)
- you will be hung by the covenant you choose to live under (3); we cannot have our hands in two cookie jars (4)
- But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope." (5)
Look at me being all selfish & lazy thinking that the pursuit of righteousness is my choice - something optional even. Look at me forgetting that my unrighteousness takes away from Christ's glory. Oh... that I would change. I am so tired and this is really hard. It's a never ending battle. Test me and know.
- the covenant (either one) does not save you and has no value (6a); however there is value in faith and accompanying deeds (6b)
- You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? (7)
This one pegged me mercilessly and I don't have many words for it.
- That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. (8)
This directly speaks to my previous confession, "I feel like You've abandoned me to this stage." Who moved?
Thursday, 8 October 2009
new.
I have been hoping to start this series for the better part of two years and only now do I feel equipped to do it. I enjoyed the last completed series (Mosaic Tablets from October of 2007) so much that I wanted to start another immediately on the heels of the first but experience has shown me that a rushed or forced writing assignment is a poorly done writing assignment.
I wanted to do a series based on the fruit of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5 but my initial thought on that (like two years ago) was not very good. There was a general distaste for the Sunday-school taint that's on it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people snobbily rattle off the list because it's important to memorize these things. I accidentally memorized it because of a song I heard with an unfortunately catchy melody in the summer of 2004.
Once I decided I could ignore the churchiness, the other problem was not knowing what the words meant. In general I thought the because I've never really heard an expository teaching down the roster, I'm not very well equipped to do a commentary. And then when I dismissed this, insisting that I was able enough, I got hung up on the idea that kindness, goodness and gentleness (particularly kindness and gentleness) overlapped too much. [This secretly made me doubt/dislike the translation and wonder if the author was gettin' rhetorical.] But at some point, not too long ago, the three untangled themselves and I grasped the nuances as the final barrier.
All of this transpired over months and months, in the back of my mind, in the I Wish I Could Write box. A few days ago I decided to jump into the passage and see what I could make of it and - imagine my surprize - I got my face rebuked off. It was nice to connect with the Bible after weeks of being unable to. Because I had read Exodus (and Genesis) twice before and because certain OT things have marinated in my head for a few years anyways, I felt like I had more than adequate context in which to tackle the ten commandments.
Looking at verses 22 and 23 only, I didn't have enough context to do what I wanted to do. I looked back and back and decided that yeah, including 24 and 25 would have to be the bare minimum. Then I thought it would be fine to include 19 through 21 to provide a kind of contrasting context. Then I figured going from verse 16 where the section "Life by the Spirit" begins would be prime. But, even though I was in the middle of a moment where everything in me was childish temper-tantrum-y screaming to STOP and close the book - to cut as many corners as possible -, I thought I should study all of Galatians 5. It would be ideal to take those two verses in the context of those four I just listed plus in the context of other Pauline letters, the New Testament and the entire Bible.
I look forward to the day when I have a good enough handle on OT, NT and the complete Scriptures that I CAN do close readings/writing assignments in the context on allodat.
The desire in me to write under challenge overpowered the desire to go back to whatever else was doing. Haha - ironically I think I was actually writing at the time but it was stream-of-conscious which doesn't count cos I do it constantly....and I happened to be in the middle of some very self-centred "prayers".
I dug in. The plan was to paraphrase point-by-point to basically get the cheap man's version of a sturdy framework. Despite my large detour on account of the things the Holy Spirit was throwing in my face, I made great headway. I finished it up yesterday which was also a treat and now I am just rearin' to go. I'm excited.
My final note: it was a bit disheartening, to realize how many boxes I could check in terms of traits manifesting in my life these days. I was beginning the smally stages of what I would ACTUALLY write about; lookin' for fertile ground and tuned the abstract/conceptual part of my brain to listen: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Nothing. I got nothing. I could write some very negative posts about where I've fallen short but I'd rather not. I'd rather take this opportunity to look long and hard in the mirror and change something BEFORE I walk away. (This is the part where I lean over to wink at and nudge James. "Finally got it, bro.")
I wanted to do a series based on the fruit of the Spirit as listed in Galatians 5 but my initial thought on that (like two years ago) was not very good. There was a general distaste for the Sunday-school taint that's on it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people snobbily rattle off the list because it's important to memorize these things. I accidentally memorized it because of a song I heard with an unfortunately catchy melody in the summer of 2004.
Once I decided I could ignore the churchiness, the other problem was not knowing what the words meant. In general I thought the because I've never really heard an expository teaching down the roster, I'm not very well equipped to do a commentary. And then when I dismissed this, insisting that I was able enough, I got hung up on the idea that kindness, goodness and gentleness (particularly kindness and gentleness) overlapped too much. [This secretly made me doubt/dislike the translation and wonder if the author was gettin' rhetorical.] But at some point, not too long ago, the three untangled themselves and I grasped the nuances as the final barrier.
All of this transpired over months and months, in the back of my mind, in the I Wish I Could Write box. A few days ago I decided to jump into the passage and see what I could make of it and - imagine my surprize - I got my face rebuked off. It was nice to connect with the Bible after weeks of being unable to. Because I had read Exodus (and Genesis) twice before and because certain OT things have marinated in my head for a few years anyways, I felt like I had more than adequate context in which to tackle the ten commandments.
Looking at verses 22 and 23 only, I didn't have enough context to do what I wanted to do. I looked back and back and decided that yeah, including 24 and 25 would have to be the bare minimum. Then I thought it would be fine to include 19 through 21 to provide a kind of contrasting context. Then I figured going from verse 16 where the section "Life by the Spirit" begins would be prime. But, even though I was in the middle of a moment where everything in me was childish temper-tantrum-y screaming to STOP and close the book - to cut as many corners as possible -, I thought I should study all of Galatians 5. It would be ideal to take those two verses in the context of those four I just listed plus in the context of other Pauline letters, the New Testament and the entire Bible.
I look forward to the day when I have a good enough handle on OT, NT and the complete Scriptures that I CAN do close readings/writing assignments in the context on allodat.
The desire in me to write under challenge overpowered the desire to go back to whatever else was doing. Haha - ironically I think I was actually writing at the time but it was stream-of-conscious which doesn't count cos I do it constantly....and I happened to be in the middle of some very self-centred "prayers".
I dug in. The plan was to paraphrase point-by-point to basically get the cheap man's version of a sturdy framework. Despite my large detour on account of the things the Holy Spirit was throwing in my face, I made great headway. I finished it up yesterday which was also a treat and now I am just rearin' to go. I'm excited.
My final note: it was a bit disheartening, to realize how many boxes I could check in terms of traits manifesting in my life these days. I was beginning the smally stages of what I would ACTUALLY write about; lookin' for fertile ground and tuned the abstract/conceptual part of my brain to listen: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Nothing. I got nothing. I could write some very negative posts about where I've fallen short but I'd rather not. I'd rather take this opportunity to look long and hard in the mirror and change something BEFORE I walk away. (This is the part where I lean over to wink at and nudge James. "Finally got it, bro.")
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
only in Guelph
"Hi,
I am currently looking for someone who is interested in subletting my room ASAP to April 30th/2010. It is a completely furnished room, with desk, bed, dresser, armoire. Currently living there also are a student couple who are quite neat and very friendly. They also have 2 parrots and a dog, so it is important that you are animal friendly. Also please ensure that you are 420 friendly before replying to this ad ;)."
Monday, 5 October 2009
sheesh.
I watched bits and pieces of the TOR @ WSH game on Saturday and it was weird. Not even just that but watching the Sportsnet updates after the baseball game (last televised Jays one of 2009...) I felt something familiar coursing through me. I remembered why I liked hockey (that's been suppressed for a while) and I'm ascared that it's coming back. Man if you could see the amounts of literature I have in a box and facts, names and numbers I have in my head... it can really take over. That's why I liked it at first.
Then there was that period where I realized it's not as much HOCKEY for the sport that it is, it's a lot of things surrounding it. First off, I don't have the cajones to play it and I think this makes me a poser on a very distinct level. Secondly, I CAN play baseball (...I don't mean softball). I don't know.
The point is, I kinda enjoyed the feeling because at least it means my enjoyment is not completely dead. I'll stay around the water cooler.
In other news, as I was trying to go to sleep (I made the mistake of getting up to go to my bed from the couch after I'd had an hour of pre-sleep because I was WICKED tired but found myself rudely awake again) I was determining what sleeping activity I'd take up. I can't sleep less'n there's nothing left in me. So I read or write or watch something or puzzle or sometimes I can just deal with things in my head that I put on hold from earlier in the day (brainstorming, problem solving, pondering, reliving). Lately I just want to watch. Unfortunately, my friends here have MANY DVDs and many of them are from syndicated television programs that I like. :(
I demanded a frank answer: why do you always prefer TV over reading these days? (I love reading and I'm very behind in some of it.) The answer came quicker and more honest than expected: Because reading doesn't take me far enough or soon enough away. Next thought (from the interrogator's side - the surprised part of me): I'm an escapist...!
Never wanted to be that person. Escapism is lame. It's weak and dumb and ...well... I'm guilty of it now. I never thought it was taking the same form. I was pretty sure I was different. But no. Turns out that in this season (these seasons) of my life, I'm more likely to throw on something that will block out a certain portion of brain activity, which I think I was previously calling a desire to focus more. Sheesh. I think I will have to continue on this subject later.
Then there was that period where I realized it's not as much HOCKEY for the sport that it is, it's a lot of things surrounding it. First off, I don't have the cajones to play it and I think this makes me a poser on a very distinct level. Secondly, I CAN play baseball (...I don't mean softball). I don't know.
The point is, I kinda enjoyed the feeling because at least it means my enjoyment is not completely dead. I'll stay around the water cooler.
In other news, as I was trying to go to sleep (I made the mistake of getting up to go to my bed from the couch after I'd had an hour of pre-sleep because I was WICKED tired but found myself rudely awake again) I was determining what sleeping activity I'd take up. I can't sleep less'n there's nothing left in me. So I read or write or watch something or puzzle or sometimes I can just deal with things in my head that I put on hold from earlier in the day (brainstorming, problem solving, pondering, reliving). Lately I just want to watch. Unfortunately, my friends here have MANY DVDs and many of them are from syndicated television programs that I like. :(
I demanded a frank answer: why do you always prefer TV over reading these days? (I love reading and I'm very behind in some of it.) The answer came quicker and more honest than expected: Because reading doesn't take me far enough or soon enough away. Next thought (from the interrogator's side - the surprised part of me): I'm an escapist...!
Never wanted to be that person. Escapism is lame. It's weak and dumb and ...well... I'm guilty of it now. I never thought it was taking the same form. I was pretty sure I was different. But no. Turns out that in this season (these seasons) of my life, I'm more likely to throw on something that will block out a certain portion of brain activity, which I think I was previously calling a desire to focus more. Sheesh. I think I will have to continue on this subject later.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
preach it!
I missed the introduction to the mini pre-game interview some Sportsnet commentators were having with Cito Gaston. I could only guess that some mild scandal was afoot. And then even after the game and during the rain delay there were more interviews and uncannily I missed critical information due to other sound interference.
Then after the game I finally got as close to the full story as I could. (I knew right away that I had caught it too late to be allowed the privilege of hearing the story from the top because now "everybody knows". Kinda like...when people talk about, "that think with Kanye." If you don't already know, you are DEFINITELY not going to ask.)
Anyways, around the third time that a Sportsnet anchor used the word "mutiny" quite unfairly making this into a bigger deal than is helpful -- especially when then admittedly don't know much and haven't spoken to more than a handful of involved parties -- I concluded, "why didn't they just talk about this stuff in-house?"
Of course, being a certified counselor, professional coach and all-around experienced person, my opinion is pretty educated and important.
I don't know the half of it and I don't need to. It's really their business. I would be....sad if something terrible befell a team that I happen to like but at the end of the day, that's OK. However, if I were allowed to give an opinion, I would say that this [whatever] issue should have been dealt with head-on and promptly by parties who are directly involved. It shouldn't have spread further because of intimidation or gossip (and yes, I know this is easy to say when you're not in the midst of it).
Listening to Gaston after I understood the gist of everything, I unfortunately thought I would end up siding with the players if push came to shove. The way he talks - I know that way. I've heard those people - I've had conflict with those people. When they talk like they "don't understand what the big deal is" and give you the impression that a) they know exactly what the surface problem is and b) they have no clue what the actual problem is or how deeply it runs... then you know it will be a long and dirty fight to even get to the point of seeing eye-to-eye, nevermind the point of resolution.
It's the talk of a bully... a sort of demanding person who is very aware of their position above yours and how little they have to do to keep you happy.
Well...I say this in the wake of one interview. And, I admit that it is opposite to all my previous observations about him. So I will just say now that I'm fully prepared to eat my words.
The following, however, is the reason I posted. From an article quoting the Jays' catcher, Rod Barajas.
"You can't sit there and let problems linger," Barajas said. "A small problem starts growing into a bigger problem, and all of a sudden, if you let this go for another four months, who knows what could happen? So if there are some issues, then absolutely you'd want to be able to talk to whoever you need to talk to to try to resolve them.
Bastian, Jordan. "Barajas hoping to return to Jays in 2010." _MLB.com_. 2001-2009. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.. 03 October, 2009. [http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091002&content_id=7295626&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor]
Then after the game I finally got as close to the full story as I could. (I knew right away that I had caught it too late to be allowed the privilege of hearing the story from the top because now "everybody knows". Kinda like...when people talk about, "that think with Kanye." If you don't already know, you are DEFINITELY not going to ask.)
Anyways, around the third time that a Sportsnet anchor used the word "mutiny" quite unfairly making this into a bigger deal than is helpful -- especially when then admittedly don't know much and haven't spoken to more than a handful of involved parties -- I concluded, "why didn't they just talk about this stuff in-house?"
Of course, being a certified counselor, professional coach and all-around experienced person, my opinion is pretty educated and important.
I don't know the half of it and I don't need to. It's really their business. I would be....sad if something terrible befell a team that I happen to like but at the end of the day, that's OK. However, if I were allowed to give an opinion, I would say that this [whatever] issue should have been dealt with head-on and promptly by parties who are directly involved. It shouldn't have spread further because of intimidation or gossip (and yes, I know this is easy to say when you're not in the midst of it).
Listening to Gaston after I understood the gist of everything, I unfortunately thought I would end up siding with the players if push came to shove. The way he talks - I know that way. I've heard those people - I've had conflict with those people. When they talk like they "don't understand what the big deal is" and give you the impression that a) they know exactly what the surface problem is and b) they have no clue what the actual problem is or how deeply it runs... then you know it will be a long and dirty fight to even get to the point of seeing eye-to-eye, nevermind the point of resolution.
It's the talk of a bully... a sort of demanding person who is very aware of their position above yours and how little they have to do to keep you happy.
Well...I say this in the wake of one interview. And, I admit that it is opposite to all my previous observations about him. So I will just say now that I'm fully prepared to eat my words.
The following, however, is the reason I posted. From an article quoting the Jays' catcher, Rod Barajas.
"You can't sit there and let problems linger," Barajas said. "A small problem starts growing into a bigger problem, and all of a sudden, if you let this go for another four months, who knows what could happen? So if there are some issues, then absolutely you'd want to be able to talk to whoever you need to talk to to try to resolve them.
"You don't want to go into a brand new season with a whole set of issues. It's going to make for an unhappy season."
Bastian, Jordan. "Barajas hoping to return to Jays in 2010." _MLB.com_. 2001-2009. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.. 03 October, 2009. [http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091002&content_id=7295626&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
