The value of one

Kyndall has been working a lot lately on her job as admissions counselor for William Jewell.
There are thousands of perfectly qualified college candidates in Colorado and they are all the responsibility of poor Kyndall to reach and convince before they decide on another school.

I remember when I was looking to go to college.

I was young. I was stupid. I was, well, young. I miss those days sometimes, and other days I spurn them.

Basically, my family tricked me into going to William Jewell.

Without the details, just trust me, I was tricked.

But it brings up a rather good topic for conversation: the benefits and the detriments of a liberal arts education.

Here's where it all starts. When a kid goes to college, he is going for an education not vocation. People who ask stupid questions like, "Well, what type of job are you going to get with that major?" are clueless, and deserve a swift kick.

It is a common misconception that you should work in the field in which you study.

I suppose doctors and lawyers are messing it up for the rest of us. For example, if you study pre-law or pre-medicine, it is pretty clear what you intend to do with your life.

For the rest of us, people try to maintain the same logic. If you study psychology, you must want to be a psychologist. If you study philosophy you must want to be a philosopher. If you study political science you must want to be a politician. If you study physics you must want to be a physicist.

Sound logical?

Well it isn't.

See, you study to learn, right? We go to school to learn. Work comes later.

Let's say I wanted to be a software developer, which I am. What would I study in college? Math? Computer Science? Something computer related?

Sure, I suppose I could study that if I didn't mind being boring.

In my last job, I was the Directory of Quality Assurance. One of my roles was to hire young snappers to pull some weight on the chain. I probably interviewed around 50 applicants.

There are three types of people.

The first is the CIS major, they studied computers in high school, played with them during the summer and studied computer science in college, and are probably certified in some specialty. We'll call these people the computer-overkills.

Computer-overkills are the last people I would ever hire. They have many common characteristics. For one, they are commonly anti-social, or if they are social they don't recognize their handicap. For another, they commonly over-engineer solutions, and live a life of recurring pessimism.

You hire one of these guys and though you might get some good work out of them, you can also count on some boring conversations. And what is work, really, if not dealing with people?

The second type of person is the guy who sees all the money in the computer industry and is trying to weasel his way in to get his piece of the pie. Naturally, they are a bad choice. They work is commonly below par, and they are always handy with an excuse. Hey weasels! Take a hike.

The third type is the natural. They didn't study computer science because they didn't have to. The rest of the world is interesting to them, and they do what they have to bring their skills up to par and then some.

The natural seems like the "natural" fit, huh?

Well, for the most part, it's true; the natural is typically the perfect person for a technical position. But not always, to be honest, you sometimes need the study of the computer-overkill, but that situation is rare.

Now, let's break out of the computer world and talk about your field.

Are you a natural, a weasel or an overkill?

There's no formula to tell you the answer to that - you just know.

Don't be fooled

Frankly, I am easy to impress.

Have you ever spoken to someone about a restaurant that they have never been to? They say things back like, "hmm, that sounds like it might be good" or something. But when you talk tot them and they have been to that restaurant - and there was not a fly in their soup or something - they say things like, "oh, that's a great place, they have great tuna sandwiches." See, they have only had their tuna sandwich.

Have you ever talked to someone about Europe, or any foreign country? Talk to them about any country to which they have never been and either they would or would not like to go someday. But talk about a country to which they have been, and presto - the country is wonderful, the people are fantastic and some random custom that they quaintly remember they have to bring up.

This Is true about movies, books, TV shows, people, speeches, types of cars - the list is endless; people promote their own experiences to others. The only requirement is that their experiences not have been negative - the requirement is NOT, however, that their experience be particularly good.

I am the same way.

I love Europe. But in a seeming more objective approach, I don't like every country in Europe. But, just like my formula suggests, I don't like Scotland because I was mugged there, I didn't like Czech because I got sick there- and so on. I did like Switzerland, though - a very scenic country. But, beyond all in landscape is Norway.

Having said all that, my favorite country remains Finland. The land of the lakes. The land of the midnight sun. The home to Santa Claus. The mother of the sauna, Lapland and reindeers. Her people are blonde, her industry strong, her architecture genius and her alcoholism rate soaring. Her women are born with the looks of Swedish women and grow up to the looks of Russian women. There's just something about Finland.

Here's the point I was getting at, I am easily impressed. And when I saw the picture here to the side (all the EU flags at half-mast in honor of the US dead), I was impressed again. I don't even care if the EU was genuine, the gesture was impressive.

Frankly, I am easy to impress.

Guess who's coming to dinner?

For the most part, I am not the same guy I used to be when I was in college. For that much, I am also not the same guy I was when I was in high school. Though I look back on those days with a sense of pleasurable remembrance, let's not fool each other - back then I was a pig.

What is a pig?

A pig is an animal with dirt on his face. His shoes are a terrible disgrace. He's got no manners when he eats his food. He's fat and lazy and extremely rude. So if you don't care a fiddle or a fig, you might grow up to be a pig.

I am still dealing with my parents coming for a visit. It's quite a deal to have visitors. For the most part, we love it. It's hotel Nixon and that's the way thing were meant to be.

In a certain way, we bridge the gap between our current home (Colorado) and our previous home (Kansas City) when people come and visit with us.

Let's be honest - we don't always get people we expect. This was especially true when in Washington. Many people traveled to Washington that clearly used us as a place to stay and not much more.

That's no so much fun.

However, it's fair to say that it's normally entertaining to entertain. But as the host or hostess, we have some rules of thumb to helps us remain sane.

1. Of course, the first one, which is not a huge benefit to our sanity, is that we never say no to someone coming and asking to visit. It's just not hospitable.

2. Another rule of thumb, and one that has proven itself is that visitors who stay longer than four days tend to stay a little too long. Parents and good friends are the exception, but for the most part, this is a tried and true number.

If we have some visitors that are planning a longer visit, we often encourage them to visit somewhere else at either end of their trip - or even in the middle to help add texture to their experience, and to help the overall atmosphere.

3. Something else that we have had to start considering is children. Right about now, Paul Cooper and I are the only couples our age I know of that don't have kids or aren't pregnant. This is a whole realm of issues.

Consider this, when a couple comes and they bring their child they are, first, apologetic. It just seems to happen - they cower as their child cries, smile as they discard used diapers, and raise their eyebrows in an awkward way when something of ours is mistakenly broken or stained.

From our point of view, we like children - so it seems a silly, eternal exercise to try and convince the awry parent to be comfortable again.

Also, Parents (especially parents) often feel that they should drive when we go places because of the child seat, but more often than not - they and we would be far better off if we take the few minutes to transfer the chair and we drive our car - as locals to the area, it makes sense who should be the driver.

However, if these issues are the practices that help visitors enjoy a visit, there are certainly characteristics that make up a great houseguest in return.

Here is a compilation of some of our better experiences.

1. Most people who come to visit are here for vacation. It kills me how thinly people run themselves when they are on vacation. I appreciate it when a visitor wants to stop, sit down, talk, play some cards and just relax for a while. Some have too little time for this luxury - but it sure aids in our enjoyment and relaxation can't hurt a vacationer.

2. Another great thing is to eat at home. If you can't stop and sit, the next best thing is to insist on some burgers on the grill for an evening meal. Even if we have to pull up a folding chair, few things are more meaningful than a meal together.

3. Some visitors get up earlier than I do - most of the world does - but it's reassuring to us as the host when a guest feels comfortable enough to start their own coffee, or rummage through our pantry for the cereal or whatever. It's a fine line between feeling at home and invading our privacy - but common sense guides this process pretty acutely.

4. Remember the token dinner. We all know that meals at home aren't free - we all know that water doesn't grow on trees, entry fees to XYZ that we have already done three times that month - it's an impact, that's why they invented the token dinner. You'll know the time when it comes. It's the absolute perfect moment for the guest to casually offer to pay and equally appropriate for the host to reluctantly concede.

5. We had a guest do something so out of the ordinary that I have not forgotten it. We had to leave early that morning because of church; they were headed home. When we got home, all of the dishes in the sink were cleaned and in the dishwasher. What a pleasant effort of care to make.

6. We have pictures on our walls, wind chimes, thermometers, and even steaks in our freezer thanks to guests buying us gifts. But, let's be clear - though an enteraing gesture - this is not something we ever anticipate.

7. Only every so often do guests overlook that we still have a household to run; giving us a chance to keep bills paid, carpets cleaned and oil changed can be a generous gift in itself.

8. Basically, if you want to be a good guest - be tidy. Some guests actually move in. It's a weird happening. For example, our kitchen counters get cluttered with personal affects, our fridge is full of foreign objects, socks linger beside the couch. It's really strange, and a little unsettling.

9. Finally, if you are nice, if you are pleasant, if you are easy going - you are probably the better sort of guests. Go with the flow - have some opinions on what you want to fill your days, hesitate to complain, make your bed and it's an easy bet you'll be welcome back next time.

Okay. So, what was my point there? To be honest my agenda was to codify my experience more than impact people's actions. Who am I fooling; no one by I read the volumes of this welcome section anyway!

Jesus has always been the answer

Okay, I have been having a few conversations with people about Jesus Christ and violence. Basically, we have two references in the life of Christ. They are the upsetting of the temple and the crucifixion.
Here's a super quick explanation of each.

The temple: Jesus goes into the temple one day to find that there are some (apparently unscrupulous) merchants selling animals for the Jews to sacrifice. He gets upset because they "have turned the house of God into a den of thieves." Jesus then proceeds to chastise these merchants, upsetting their tables and animals along the way.

The crucifixion: Jesus, because his spiritual teachings threaten the religious powers that be, is falsely accused of treason against Rome. The same leaders raises such public opposition against Jesus that local Roman political rulers refrain from intervening in his wrongful trial and execution. Jesus never protests, but suffers through unjust ridicule and punishment peacefully unto death.

Well, those are the two situations we have to reference. Both were where Jesus reacted; neither reaction was the same. Let's consider this very effective point.

How would Jesus respond to a terrorist attack on his country?

First, we know that Jesus can get angry. There was definitely the essence of rage in Jesus as he overturned tables in the temple. Paintings of the event, though not directly evidence of it, often portray Christ as in a fury.

His motivation was the dishonoring of God, right? He recognized that people had, after all, made "the house God into a den of thieves."

It would be a far stretch to say that Jesus was reacting to a sense of personal injustice or corporate injustice, but rather a sense of blasphemy before him in a manner that must have been arrogant to actually be inside the temples.

By now, you know where I am going with this.

So, how did Jesus respond to injustice? It is most peculiar.

I think we have to discount the temple event as a reference to how Jesus reacts to injustice - I think, easily, that Jesus suffered from injustice, and had an opportunity to respond, during the crucifixion. If we discount the temple, we always can go back to the cross.

Jesus suffered terrible injustice, from beatings to accusations to scorn, torture and death. How did he react? Well, He did have the entire realm of omnipotence at his disposal, he could have done anything from stopping the events to destroying the planet to removing the universe from existence.

But we all know he did not. We want to use the temple as a sense of justification to use violence against the terrorists, but it just doesn't work. We want it to. We really want it to, but it just does not work.

Jesus Christ never responded to injustice the way we want to, and so, we have to consider who we are trying to emulate. For me, it has to be Jesus.

Giving the temple another chance.

So, here's a loop hole. You may have already thought of it. What if the terrorist attack could in some way perceived blasphemy! That should give us the opportunity to return to the temple and, perhaps conveniently, overlook the somewhat extraordinary event of the cross.

Let's follow this. Let's see if we can make a terrorist attack against the United States blasphemy against God Himself. If we can, we next have to consider if Jesus acted with violence or fury against people or perpetrators in the temple - but that will come later.

Certainly we can start with: life itself is sacred. To take it, is to play the role of God. That might work - but if we go that route we have to begin considering the well played arguments of abortion and the death penalty.

You might argue that abortion is not taking a sacred life. Fine. We would not likely agree, but if I gave that to you, we would next consider capital punishment.

Stumped? How about if the sacredness of life is forfeited by the utter heinousness of the criminal act - even so as to actually preclude the sanctity of it. The argument is endlessly weak. But, let's pretend we satisfied the argument.

Now that we have concluded that we are ourselves not guilty of the sin against which we are trying to justify violence, let's consider again Jesus' response in the temple.

When he finally determined the source of the outrage, he organized the disciples and mounted a massive strike against that supporting infrastructure. He went so far to not only act as punishment to the individual, but to ensure to his generation and those following that a repeat offense would be unlikely.

Am I sounding ridiculous? Yes, I know I am. But aren't we?

As we see it, interpreting the terrorism as blasphemy, America has been turned from a "house of God to a den of thieves." It's time to start overturning tables, right?

Really, now. Was America a house of God to start with? Was it the terrorists who turned it into a den of thieves? Should we be turning over their tables or our own?

Never. I mean never. Never ever. Jesus Christ never showed us an example of responding to injustice in a violent way.

Let's rephrase that. It is not Christ-like to respond to injustice with violence.

Man, that rots, doesn't it? I wanted to dust off the ICBMs. I wanted to read tales of the Navy Seals. I wanted to see buildings imploding. I wanted to hear of carnage. I wanted children to be orphaned and see mothers weep. Teach 'em a lesson.

Well, that was a little melodramatic, but I would not be honest if I said it wasn't true. I really wanted that. And, in many ways, I still do. But I can't let my want for what is wrong win over what I know is right.

Jesus Christ had far more than the miserable United States arsenal at his disposal. Man, he had the whole universe at his disposal. His brothers were not killed - he was. His life wasn't taken, it was tortured, belittled, beaten, bled and killed as slowly and painfully as any twisted mind could imagine.

All the sin for all the people of all the world for all time before, then and after was thrown upon him at once.

That is injustice, my friend. If you think those business men, those firemen, those pilots and passengers were innocent victims, consider the truly perfect innocence of Jesus Christ. If you think American needs respond because who else could - consider the power of God almighty.

My recommendation is difficult. Could America turn the other cheek? I doubt it. I am not the President. It's a good thing. America must retaliate to appease its sense of ... pride, if nothing else.

But what is right?

If right is so hard, perhaps we could just avoid what is wrong.

les vieux sont plus anciens que jeune

I discovered today that if the equation of pi is taken to the one millionth decimal place, that my birthday, 62973, appears seven times. Is it a coincidence that seven is the number best known for being God's favorite number? It's worth considering.
Something else that is somewhat worth considering, because I have been so doing these past few days, is the computer industry. Specifically, is the complexity of the work going on and my place in it.

Technology has many niches now - a "computer guy" is no longer a valid term because it could represent so many desperately distinct facets of the industry. In my case, I am a software developer.

The time is approaching when even that description will be unclear, and I will need to say something that implies I am a developer of internet software intended for the Microsoft platform. I suppose that "Microsoft web developer" will have to do for now.

Eventually, we may have to tune our labels to the specific technology, maybe the language - perhaps eve the protocols. Until then, I, as my mother would say, am a "computer guy."

Let's get to the point, though. What I have been considering is how complex everything is. As the technologies that would eventually define the internet came to bear, so, in parallel, did my own knowledge of them.

Let me give you an example. I enjoy Star Trek. The best series so far has been The Next Generation - people who argue that point are mental dwarfs. Here's the point - if there is an average of 26 episodes per season, and it ran for 7 seasons, we can assume that there are some 182 episodes to watch.

Each episode being an hour, assuming you could watch for around 8 hours a day (and taking Sunday off) it would take you just shy of four weeks to watch every episode.

If you were a working man, as I am, and you could spare an hour a day - it would take more like 30 weeks, or 8 months to watch them all. Daunting - how would you ever have a chance to see them all? Not to mention the Original Series, Deep Space Nine and Voyager.

Because I watched each episode as it was released (once a week) during the seven years on the air, it was easy for me to watch them all. If a youth wanted to catch up to where I was with The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, it would take years.

The first advantage is that when I started getting into computers (like ten years ago) as about the time that the microcomputer was beginning to take shape.

This is important, because I learned along the way. As the industry made achievements, I could appreciate those achievements in light of the current state, and absorb those changes as a slow evolution of an exhaustive knowledge of the industry.

This speed has increased now to such a speed that his would no longer be possible. I can no longer keep up with the advances in chips and monitors and software and video cards, but the cursory knowledge I gained from being raised WITH the microcomputer industry set me up to understand today's advances at least on a surface level.

The same could be said with software development. I began developing software as the internet was coming of age. As the HTTP spec was being tweaked, I was starting to need the new features. I sat and admired as HTML became something useable and XML, even now, develops as a viable tool for the net.

The second primary advantage my generation has over the younger is the level of experience with mistakes that can be too costly today. The number of times I fried my hard drive, my mother board, my chipset, my monitor, my modem - all of it, is embarrassingly high.

Many nights, I spent more hours rebooting, reformatting and re-seating cards and chips than I did sleeping. That fix-knowledge is the source of much that I know now.

Because I know the difference between DOS version 5 and 6, HTML version 3.2 and 4, HTTP version 1 and 1.1, IE version 2 and 3.01, Windows 3 and 3.11, and MSXML 2.6 and 3 may sound trivial at first, but it has built an overall picture of the industry and technology in general that allows me to cope with the near exponential rate of change today.

Tomorrows generation will know the difference between Nintendo 64 and the X-Box, the Legend of Zelda 4 and 5, and all sorts of things with which I no longer trivial myself.

I no longer stay up late rebuilding my computer - though I still have problems; shoot, I call tech support! I don't even know the model of modem in my current computer. I am not even sure what dot pitch my monitors are. I could even admit I don't know what the latest version of Quake is out.

But since college, computers have played a different role. See, now it's a job. The time I spend with the no longer just takes away from my liberal arts education. Now, it takes away from my family, my house, my car, my friends, my church, my sleep - things that I have come to think are more important.

Now, understand, I still have a late night on the computer now and again - I still have the juice in my veins, but for the most part - nada. Nada, that is, except for work - consider this, I spend 8 hours a day (at least) in front of my monitor, picking away at code, surfing reference sites, and dissecting applications. It's not like I have gone cold turkey.

I know what I know. Now, the things in my head are: which version of ADODB is installed, which version of MSXML is installed, which Scripting Engine is installed, what service pack is applied - and so on, these are things I never meddled with before, but are vital to my profession, so I pay attention to them now.

But, I still hold the ace. I went to college while internet technologies were just being reared. Sure the internet was around before then, but all those old technologies - except ftp are mostly gone. HTTP, HTML - they have all been extended so far they bear little resemblance to their embryonic brethren.

This unexpected advantage of dealing with things on a rudimentary scale has given me an advantage that I have been able to employ and fall back to again and again. Onto what will the next generation fall back? Scary - I guess they might fall back to a historical perspective of my own experience, but to what avail, into what big picture will they be able to apply their trade?

Lately, I have been thinking. Man, I am lucky. Just the right age, in the fullness of time.

Retaliation

I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate is rooted in fear, and the only cure for fear-hate is love.

The forces that threaten to negate life must be challenged by courage, which is the power of life to affirm itself...This requires the exercise of a creative will that enables us to hew out a stone of hope from a mountain of despair. Courage is an inner resolution to go forward in spite of obstacles and frightening situations.

I still believe that standing up for the truth of God is the greatest thing in the world. This is the end of life. The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may.

Agape does not begin by discriminating between worthy and unworthy people, or any qualities people possess. It begins by loving others for their sakes. Agape is love seeking to preserve and create community.

This was written by Martin Luther King.

Bigger than big

Kyndall had me thinking yesterday. She drove me into work and we were surmising the impact of an airliner against the Denver skyline.
Have you seen the shot of the guy below the towers being interviewed, just as the second plane sinks into the second tower? Stunning, isn't it?

Consider this. An airliner massive enough to comfortably carry passengers across the country, hits the building and the wings don't break off! I mean, there was nearly room to spare. These buildings are absolutely massive.

Most of us cannot comprehend the magnitude of this tragedy because we do not have a reference point as to the size of the towers.

A plane strikes a tower and people on the floors above it still have power and phone service! Kyndall was raised in Monett, Missouri - a town of around seven thousand - it would take seven towns Monett's size to fill just one of the Trade towers!

Here's something, I have been thinking.

I am glad it was an office building that was hit. In light of Oklahoma City, the tragedy was magnified by reports of nurseries full of children engulfed in the impact and flame. Terror against adults is one thing; terror against children is another.

I am glad the plane struck the tower. The last thing we would ever want is an airliner full of fuel tumbling through Manhattan because it slightly missed its target.

I am glad the towers collapsed. Can you imagine the mortal carnage if either of those massive towers had fallen to one side or the other and not neatly fallen upon itself?

I am glad the pentagon was hit. What a horror to the American nation if the capital, the White House or a Smithsonian had been destroyed. Still dead people, but add to it the complete loss of national treasures in art, architecture and history.

No one is saying it, and I can guess why.

But, conflict is eventually good for the economy. Tragedy is repeatedly healthy for the society. Consider also, have you heard the name of God so often referenced than in the past week's time?

Dust off your Lee Greenwood CDs, my friend, grab a Kleenex and hold on as patriotism, spirituality and a renewed sense of community pride is about to unfold.

One last thing. These notes of late have had the singular topic of the terrorist attack from September 11th. I think, and I am easily guilty, that things like this can become obsessive. I recommend to you, as I attempt to practice in my own house, to turn off the news for a night. Talk about other things. Don't fixate.

Another last thing. Man, it is so hard to push off the desire for revenge. All I want is to turn some significant acreage into glass! We have the friggin' bomb; what's it for? It's hard not to think like that. It's hard to remain in control of my initial desires and check them against my beliefs of how people are to act - rather, how I am to act.

Chanting to myself again and again: A violent response to injustice is not Christ-like. A violent response to injustice is not Christ-like. A violent response to injustice is not Christ-like. A violent response to injustice is not Christ-like. A violent response to injustice is not Christ-like.

Or could it be? Just this once?

The problem with reality

Kyndall wont see R rated movies. As a result, I rarely see R rated movies. Her arguments are many, but the essence is the separation of reality from fiction.
This is the same argument you are hearing about violence and sex on television, and the entire notion behind the v-chip. We want to protect our children (and ourselves) from sex and violence that may impact them psychologically.

I think that is good and noble.

I also think that our generation and those around us have developed a keen ability to separate fiction from fact. Indeed, I would say that many of us have seen many murders, beatings and so forth - yet we have not turned to a life of crime or violence.

Moreover, I would also say that our ability to see fiction (especially violence) has been honed so finely that television networks must come up with more and more extreme programming in order to even get a nominal reaction from us.

Now, consider this in that light.

You are watching television and they are showing you the images of the first tower afire from a terrorist attack. Then, suddenly, a second airliner sinks into the second tower. It's stunning. A short time later, the towers, one after the other, collapse. It's stunning.

But, does it seem real?

To be honest, it does not. We can appreciate the magnitude of the event. We can imagine the horror of the participants. We can do all that. But in our ability to hold off the impact of fiction, have we numbed the force of fact?

Can we now watch lines of bodies around the Pentagon without flinching? Can we watch thousands be crushed inside falling buildings without a sweat? Can we watch people jump from towers, airplanes crash and still take it in stride?

I really believe that children can play fighting games and not end up gang members. I believe we can watch Terminator 2 and not start shooting people. I believe we can watch x-Files and not eat people. I believe we have overcome the impact of fiction. (There are always exceptions)

What I am not sure of is if we have lost our ability to absorb the truth.

Let's think about it in this light. It's cliche, but it's the right thing to do - what would Jesus do if he were in my position? First, would Jesus watch Terminator 2?

This is a crazy question that we cannot answer because Jesus Christ left us no record of his choices for recreation. Taken to the logical extreme, we might conclude that all Jesus did with his spare time was sit around and read the Bible (Old Testament, of course) - and we all know that as decent a selection that is, it is not the point of the question.

Jesus might have gone swimming. He might have tried throwing rocks at trees. He might have wrestled the disciples, and he might have played a little bingo. The fact is, we don't know what Jesus did for fun, and so we should not try to extrapolate his interests like that. What he did leave us is a legacy of relationships with people, and those are on what we should focus and emulate.

Well, would Jesus see Terminator 2? Who really knows, but let's ask things that are more relevant. How would Jesus react to NYC and DC? This is a ton easier to consider than if Jesus would see a movie, or for whom would Jesus vote (ever wonder that one?).

So?

Without a doubt, Jesus would (at least) flinch.

Four planes, three buildings, many many people

Well, right about now is when it stinks to be a pacifist. Some terrorists drop both trade towers and the pentagon. It's time for Clancy-type moves, this is a clear and present danger.
First, let's talk (briefly) about pacifism. It's a big statement for me to say I am a pacifist, but I need to tell you that I believe there are two levels of action, those personal and those communal, and those communal vary greatly.

You may be able to deal with the consequences of not defending yourself, but there is a level of responsibility you adopt when you are engaged in events concerning a community.

A definition of community is necessary for this to make sense. A community is a group whose quantity is greater than you alone. That's terse. If your actions impact others, you are acting in a communal sense.

This is more than just the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

Here's an example, someone wants to treat you unfairly because of a belief you hold. You may or you may not get a raise. You may or you may not get a ticket to a show. You may or you may not get a parking spot - or even a beating. You should, and I think it is right to, stand for what you believe and confront injustice. That is not a lack of pacifism.

Pacifism is the choice not to respond to injustice in a violent way.

In a communal sense, however, your choices may include individuals who may not share your willingness to suffer. Pacifism is a unilateral decision, that overlaid on the unwilling recipient stops being pacifism and begins containing traits of dictatorial tyranny.

Therefore, I find it appropriate and correct to suffer personally the injustices of the world without individual responses of violence. I do not, however, feel it is a type of justice or rightness to allow harm.

By this I mean, if you see an airplane about to crash into a mall and you have a missile at your disposal, it is better to kill the occupants on the plane than it is to allow those inside the mall to die with them - all from a sense of non-violence.

Again, if you see an angry army approaching an undefended village, and you have an opposing army at your disposal, to allow the village inhabitants to be killed due to your sense of non-violence, is an action that holds no characteristics of justice or rightness.

Finally, if the first village cannot be saved because the approaching army's arrival was too swift, but an angry courtship with that same army would discourage their forthcoming attack against the second village, logic dictates that the very act of violence would be the least violent response to choose.

What we want is to minimize violence.

Now, back to today's events. Four planes were high jacked, three reached their destination and the forth is reasonably assumed failed in its intent to cause its damage. The pentagon is nearly destroyed and both world trade centers have been completely destroyed.

Let's step into the shoes of the President of the United States. There are a few things you have to think about here. First, there could be more than ten thousand people dead. Second, the perpetrators may all be dead, or scattered throughout the world.

Consider the ramifications of those two facts.

First, because of that many dead, the mood of solemnity will prevail in our country for years. At the same time, that magnitude of loss will mandate a public cry for revenge or vindication in some way. They will look to the President as the provider of that vindication. If you are the President, you will have unbearable pressure externally and internally to deliver on those demands.

Second, in your desire to relieve the agony of the people and re-instill a sense of control and safety to the public, your search will lead you to a group of people likely spread throughout a myriad of countries - making your ensuing action either immeasurable (which will be important to relay back to the American public) or somewhat impossible without tangling the international efforts between nations started long before your term.

Finally, if you discover a small band of offenders in a single place, you will have to consider how to act against them in such a way that the psychological healing you seek from their overtaking will be relayed back to national society without offending their natural sense of conscience.

Let me tell you, terrorism stinks. First, they are stupid, because their intended results are never realized because their tactics preclude their success.

Moreover, we cannot say that the Middle East is our enemy, because it is not true. Also, we cannot say that a single country is our enemy, because more often than not these acts are grounded in a sense of religious duty which spans across national borders.

As a result, terrorism is self-defeating. Their goals are nebulous to begin with, in no small part because their motivations are foreign to the understandings of the targeted culture. Then, their efforts shadow their goals, and minimize their potential of future recognition.

Here's a fact, however. Some of the motivation of Middle East-sourced terrorism is their option that the United States has sided with any entity whose intent is to undermine Arab nations. In that same light, the African nations could also find a certain fault with the United States, but because they cannot use the zealousness of their religious foundation to unite and motivate their peoples, we rarely consider the implications of or actions in African theater of the world. The Middle East, however, gets plenty of attention.

Because the pilots of the planes were killed, I will assume their deaths were suicides. I think that is fair. If I were the President, I would be able to conclude that a motivation in their attack is beyond political tendencies, and must be religious.

So, since I am the President - or, since we are the president, let's consider how we might react. If we elect to do nothing - that may be the last election we will ever see. Not that office is the motivation, but the President has a responsibility to the people of the nation, the symbol of the nation and the international tenor of the nation. If we took a licking and just kept on ticking - it would be a dramatic show of strength in a philosophical sense, but in a practical sense it would degrade the reputation of America in the global marketplace.

At the same time, you do not want to create a sense of war in the nation and you especially do not want to ruin the delicate tension of international politics.

However, like no other time, you will have a sense of vague justification behind your actions you will never have again. If you over-react, it will be easy to forgive your response in light of the national loss.

Extreme action would be tempting, but might not be possible if you are unable to locate a significant enemy to move against. Without that action, or some significant action, the American public may not feel safe. Now, we definitely do not want to get the wrong people, and we definitely do not want to manufacture a response.

Something has to be done. We are not a great enough people to take a bruise in stride;hope) an action will be required. We might look back on this day as a pivotal moment in American society when we become militant and internationally abrasive. As the President, you want to prevent that - because you are ultimately a man of peace (I hope).

Needless to say, I would not want to be the President of the United States right now. I am not convinced I would ever want to be the President of the United States, but for sure, I know I would not want to be right now.

Then I wonder. How will China respond? How will Russia respond? Should we rebuild the towers? What happened to the 4th plane in Pittsburg? And, of course, are all the alien ships okay at the Pentagon? Then I also think, the World Trade Towers killed the most people while killing the fewest children.

What we need is an international consortium of nations to help us seek out the perpetrators and bring forth justice - that is the only way we can seek our end while maintaining the thread of politics that spans the countries.

But we want action now. We aren't a society of instant gratification for nothing. We want to see General Schwartskoff in a tank, headed to the deserts of XYZ to kick some serious tail-or the video of pilots zapping buildings from afar.

Is that really what we want? Just kill them and that will do it? Kill the rats and we're happy? And if their children are in their homes, just kill them too? They should know better? That's what they get? What did they expect? So, then we're better than they are?

Justice is something that is served, not observed. It is a necessary part of peace, and cannot be overlooked. Justice should be swift, but not so swift as to be no longer just.

Justice. As the President, that is is your goal - but with so many other things in mind. I envy you. But not today.

Star Trek is for nerds

I must admit that I am excited about the new Star Trek series. From startrek.com, "Enterprise premieres September 26 on UPN!" It's a fond farewell to Voyager. From trektoday.com, "In the course of its run, Voyager won seven Emmy awards out of a total of 35 nominations, all in technical categories." Not bad.

New Pooch on the Porch

We would like to introduce you to Dixie Nixon (Williams). She arrived just this evening. We will be dog sitting her about a year for some friends at church. Isn't she cute? She's half german shepherd and half collie - around 2 yrs. old.

For fun, check out our September snow fall!

While my parents were in town, my dad and I built our den a new book shelf. Very nice.