Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

Now I don’t want to get off on a rant here…

If you don’t want me to insult you, please stop reading here because there is a pretty good chance I will. I do apologize for this, but I just have to get this off my chest!

I commute around 30 miles every day. I hit both I-5 through downtown and I-90 over Lake Washington (and occasionally SR520 but really, that’s a nightmare). I see a lot of drivers. Most of them I do not like. Sorry Seattle, but you just don’t know how to drive. For some it is because they are jerks and just enjoy pissing people off but for most it is general obliviousness to what is going on around them. Regardless, it is selfishness.

Here is Washington State law:

RCW 46.61.100
Keep right except when passing, etc.
(2) Upon all roadways having two or more lanes for traffic moving in the same direction, all vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, except (a) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, (b) when traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow, (c) when moving left to allow traffic to merge, or (d) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection, exit, or into a private road or driveway when such left turn is legally permitted. On any such roadway, a vehicle or combination over ten thousand pounds shall be driven only in the right-hand lane except under the conditions enumerated in (a) through (d) of this subsection.

Got that? For ANY road (and I would say especially for a highway) that has two lanes in the same direction, you drive in the right-hand lane. I would estimate that there are at least 5 times in my weekly commute where it is faster for me to drive in the right-hand lane because slow people are in the left-hand lane. That isn’t right.

I understand that with the sheer volume of cars on our roads, traffic is inevitable. Fine, I can handle that. What I cannot handle is the fact that so much traffic is caused because of slow people driving in the left-hand lane and blocking traffic behind them. If I can see where the wall of traffic starts, there shouldn’t be traffic: It is being caused by YOU (you know who you are… well you should anyway). I am consistently amazed when I see someone get on the freeway below speed and instantly move to the left lane; there is no reason to do that, at all. If there isn’t anyone in front of you for a decent distance, move over. If you see multiple cars (actually, even if it is just one car) behind you, regardless of your speed, you need to move right. The amount of traffic we have is completely avoidable.

Figure it out Seattle! You are driving a large hunk of metal down the road; you should not be oblivious to anything. Pay attention to your surroundings. Let traffic flow.

Ready for the rule of thumb that we ALL need to follow? Move to the right!

All that being said, Seattle? At least you aren’t Oregon drivers.

I thought I would mention a few posts from Power Line relating to the House reading the Constitution since they have some good stuff to say: Read it Again, John.

I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

Read the full post here. And Disowning the Constitution:

[S]ome Democrats, rather than fighting over who owns the Constitution, were publicly disowning it — in some cases symbolically and in others substantively.

The NY Times Explains the Constitution:

I’ve never understood what liberals mean when they say the Constitution “evolves.” They clearly don’t mean that it can be changed by amendment. Nor do they seem to be referring to, for example, the application of the First Amendment to the internet, even though the web is not a “press.” When liberals talk about “evolution,” it generally seems to mean making stuff up–but only liberal stuff, of course.

Read it all here. And finally: Are Liberals Coming Out of the Closet on the Constitution?:

Today’s New York Times editorializes on the Republican takeover of the House. You could paraphrase the editorial as “wah-wah-wah;” the paper basically cries over its party’s November defeat. But in the course of doing so, the editorialists are surprisingly open about their contempt for the Constitution:

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber.

Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.

What? Yes, how dare bills be founded in the Constitution? How dare our guiding document be read aloud in the chambers of those that purport to legislate based on that guiding document? Read that full article here.

Now I have no doubt that this whole thing might be blown out of proportion. The folks at Powerline might just be too sensitive(?). I don’t want to offend anyone; I’m sure most democrats and liberals are strong supporters of the Constitution. I just think it is somewhat strange that many are making a big deal of this over on the Democrat side. Why do they have a problem with the Constitution being read? How is it a “presumptuous and self-righteous act”? They are writing laws and passing legislation based on this foundational document, I think they should be reading it all the time.

I’ve finally had the chance to start reading Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, N.T. Wright‘s response to critics of The New Perspective on Paul with specific discussion of Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. I’m sure I will have comments about the book at a later time (I do definitely fall into Wright’s camp when it comes to placing Paul and his theology firmly rooted in 1st century exilic Judaism), but right now I wanted to share what he had to say in the book’s introduction about blogging. His comments are both insightful and important reminders to those of us who interact in the blogosphere and call ourselves Christians.

It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging. Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage. And as for the practice of saying mean and untrue things while hiding behind a pseudonym – well, if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin. But the cyberspace equivalents of road rage doesn’t happen by accident. People who type vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack. Yes, I have pastoral concern for such people. (And, for that matter, a pastoral concern for anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day taking part in blogsite discussion, especially when they all use code names: was it for this that the creator God made human beings?) But sometimes worldviews have to be shaken. They may become idolatrous and self-serving. And I fear that the has happened, and continues to happen, even in well-regulated, shiny Christian contexts – including, of course, my own.

I hope you aren’t offended by the mouse hover/caption to the xkcd comic, but I found it particularly appropriate for Wright’s comments. In any discussion we have with people we run the risk of our hubris taking over. Humility is crucial and necessary. We should always presume positive intent of those in discussion and we should always write and speak with positive intent. It’s a good rule of thumb.

This business with Comedy Central, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and censorship is completely ridiculous. I won’t discuss the whole thing, Powerline has up a post, Bleeping Muhammad, that has some great things to read. I want to comment on two things: 1) how cowardly Comedy Central is, and 2) the Muslim double standard.

In an age where people over use “Freedom of speech” to mean they can say whatever they want, it is surprising how quickly Comedy Central folded. I am glad that in the US we do have freedom to say what we want (while I do think many take that freedom too far), and usually media giants love to tout their freedoms. But under a little pressure Comedy Central couldn’t uphold that freedom any more. What is the most sickening is not even that they would censor parts poking fun at Muhammad, but that they censored a speech about standing up to intimidation and fear. What is that crap? That speech is exactly the thing that I would want my students (many of whom I KNOW watch South Park) to hear. The irony is ripe: Comedy Central is intimidated so they censor a speech about fighting against intimidation? Lovely.

The reason Comedy Central caved is because of a glaring double standard. Mock Christians and Jesus all you want, but Muhammad and Islam are off limits. What bunk. Imagine a Christian objecting (even threatening life) to someone mocking Jesus. They wouldn’t be taken seriously at all; no one would care. Could you ever imagine Comedy Central censoring jokes about Jesus of Christians? I wouldn’t think so because they don’t and they mock all the time. Why is this double standard allowed to persist? Christians have to just deal with mockery (which I am fine with, God can handle it), but Muslims can just cry “You’re being mean!” and suggest someone might go the way of Theo Van Gogh and Muhammad becomes untouchable. Ridiculous.

Go read Powerline’s post as well as Newsbuster’s “Jon Stewart Notes Blatant Double Standard on ‘South Park’ Mohammed Censorship” and Mark Steyn’s “Not Too ‘Hip’ and ‘Edgy’ for Censorship”. And if you were so inclined, you could take part in the Everybody Draw Mohammad Day on May 20th.

Jesus called Peter the rock on which he will build his church. Well I am pretty sure that Jesus would have been on board with this rock as well: A Rocha (which means “the rock” in Portuguese).

The first A Rocha project began in Portugal in 1983. A field study centre and bird observatory was established near the Alvor estuary and it has now been visited by thousands of people from many parts of the world.

All over the world Christians are realising that important habitats and their wildlife urgently need protection and so, since 1994, new A Rocha projects have started in other parts of Europe, the Middle East, Africa and North America. The international cross-cultural strength of the Christian community has been making a unique contribution, not least as communities struggle to reconcile the need to protect biodiversity with their hopes for sustainable development.

A Rocha projects have a community emphasis, bringing together people from widely differing backgrounds to work towards common goals.

Two of my favorite people are back living in Canada: Andy is back at Regent preparing to join the Anglican ranks and Katie is working for A Rocha Canada.

Based in British Columbia’s lower mainland, A Rocha Canada is a national conservation organization working to show God’s love for all of creation. We work out our commitment to environmental action through community-based conservation projects, with a focus on science and research, practical conservation, and environmental education.

Andy has been very impressed by how A Rocha is trying to make a real impact in God’s creation. Not only that, but they are trying to find a realistic balance between living green and being aware of economic concerns. Katie is looking to raise support for this year and if any of you out there think A Rocha is a worthy cause (and it is), I invite you over to find out more about Katie’s role at A Rocha and ask her about supporting her. Christians need to be making an impact in the World that God has given us and this is a great, practical way that this can happen. Check it out! And here is a brief video introducing A Rocha:

The so called “energy crisis” may in fact be solved by simple math; specifically the math of money. The idealist in me would rather people live environmentally sound lives and be good stewards of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do. I am sure there are a number of people who wish I was “greener” (and I am sure I could be); I haven’t placed too much importance in some of the doomsday theories, but that doesn’t mean I don’ think we should do what we can to take care of our planet. That being said, it seems the reality of the global warming “problem” and the peak oil “crisis” is going to work itself out, not because of nutty environmentalists, but because it makes economic sense.

The world keeps spinning because of money it seems. I don’t have a problem with businesses, even big businesses; I think they are needed and necessary. I don’t even have a problem with them using the Earth’s resources (both space and energies). It makes sense that they will be influenced by the almighty dollar. Bottom line is crucial: they need to pay their employees, stock holders, decrease costs, etc. What is surprising is that this model of business will actually help the environment… if they let it.

Popular Mechanics recently came out with their 2007 Breakthrough Awards (all of which are extremely interesting). The reason for this post is one of the winners: Amory Lovins: The Prophet of Efficiency. Lovins and his “Think and do tank” Rocky Mountain Institute have been helping businesses move to soft energy technologies.

He is a pragmatic, pliers-in-hand visionary with a penchant for physics who spends his time engineering a future in which Americans stop burning fossil fuels, yet improve their standard of living. Getting there, he’s certain, is mainly a matter of tapping a nearly limitless resource—corporate pressure to cut costs and improve the bottom line.

The Daily Green has a good article on Lovins and the Breakthrough Award that you should also read: Why Global Warming and Peak Oil are Irrelevant: A Quick Look Inside the Very Full Brain of Amory Lovins (H/t to Sal).

Lovins and the team at the Rocky Mountain Institute have applied radical efficiency to help redesign more than $30 billion worth of facilities in 29 sectors.

If oil runs out next year, or in the next decade, that will matter less than the rise of competitive sources of energy in the marketplace. Petroleum will go the way of whale oil, which in 1850 was the world’s fifth largest industry, Lovins said. That powerful industry lasted precisely until coal-based oils provided a cheaper alternative to the common lighting fuel. You don’t hear much about whale oil anymore.

“Whalers were astounded,” Lovins said, “when they ran out of customers before they ran out of whales.”

Read the whole thing. And also check out Lovins’ PM Breakthrough Award article and video, PM’s guide to sustainability, and PM’s 3 Big Ideas for Efficient Big Business from Amory Lovins. Interesting stuff. I guess it just show you can be green in a variety of ways.

Oh, and also be sure to check out this brilliant idea: Shawn Frayne: The Nonturbine Wind Alternative: Windbelt, Cheap Generator Alternative, Set to Power Third World. This is genius. How has someone not come up with this yet? Simply amazing. And I like that his idea came from watching the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse.

Fairly recently The Stranger put out a piece titled A Month of Sundays wherein 31 reporters (and I do use the term somewhat loosely) took to the streets of the Seattle metro area to attend 31 different churches of various flavors.

Seattle is godless.

We are, rather famously, one of the least churched cities in North America. It seems that most of us have better things to do on a Sunday morning than go to church. Seattleites would rather take a hike. Or nurse a hangover. Or fire up the bong.

We’re just not that into Him.

It’s true. I don’t contest that at all. It seems like this could have been an extremely interesting and insightful piece. But it wasn’t. Those of a skeptical nature may say that I feel that way because I am of a religious sort and happen to disagree with the large majority of the authors and what they reported. Well, that may be the case, I don’t deny that I have a bias. That being said, after reading the article I didn’t feel that the churches were necessarily doing anything wrong, but that Seattleites aren’t as open to spirituality (or any of the things of God) as they let on to be.

Liberal Seattle: open to beliefs of all kinds… unless you have to actually pick one and live by it. After reading each entry I was left with the distinct impression that the majority of the writers went in with this: “I am going to find this absurd, irrational, mockable, and a waste of my time.” You will be shocked by their conclusions: “This was absurd, irrational, mockable, and a waste of my time.” Now I am being somewhat harsh as some did have some decent insights and humorous moments, but by and large, they went in with some preconceptions and, low and behold, they were confirmed.

I was hoping for more. The premise was sound. But where was the open mind that people claim to have? Let me share the entry on Mars Hill because I think it exemplifies the article as a whole.

I have only been at Mars Hill for 30 seconds and already I’m laughing. The house band has just started playing, signaling to everyone mingling in the lobby to come find a seat, and the opening bass part to the song sounds almost exactly like Bush’s mid-’90s hit “Comedown.” I haven’t heard that song since Endfest 1995. Hi-larious.

Pastor Tim gets on the mic—wait, Pastor Tim!? What the fuck!? Where’s Mark Driscoll? Where’s that round-faced dude who blames infidelity on fat wives? Where’s the Jesus-loving blogger who once compared homosexuality to cancer? That’s the dude I wanna see! If I’m gonna mock anyone, it ain’t gonna be some half-assed Pastor Tim who’s too busy pimping his band’s upcoming CD to lead the crowd in prayer!

Lucky for me, Tim was just doing the morning’s introduction. Phew. After a few more shitty worship songs, they beamed Driscoll in from West Seattle via live video feed. He was flashing across five large projection screens.

Driscoll wasn’t as insulting as I thought he would be—he basically said men are the backbone of America and men need more God in their lives in order to lead, teach, and love their families. Because, you know, women (who are more likely to be Christian, he says) aren’t capable of that shit. “It’s good to be a man,” Driscoll preached to all the young, single dudes in his congregation. “To get married and make babies.”

At that point, Pastor Tim’s worship band got back onstage and they started the whole booze and crackers thing—but I bolted. I could see all the single guys scanning the room for single ladies—and the last thing I need is some sissy Christian boy trying to knock me up.

So where to begin? Personally I don’t have a big problem with them mocking Driscoll, I am not a fan, to say the least, but the writers have a few hundred words to enlighten people about the church. How was this reporting? How was this going into the church with an open mind? Shouldn’t the goal have been to try and understand what the church was about? The last part made me laugh (because I know how true it can be), but was it really helpful?

I know I shouldn’t expect more from The Stranger, it isn’t like it is a high quality news source, but I was hoping for more. Essentially the article confirmed its initial statements and said that “those crazy Christians [or other various religious folks] are still doing their crazy religion thing, since we suffered through the services, now you don’t have to.” Not that I would suggest ever using The Stranger as a positive source of information on any topic, but what if someone was actually curious what the religious life was like for those that did attend church on Sunday mornings? Is this representation anything like reality?

Well yes, I suppose it is. If someone is completely opposed to religion, of course they will have a negative opinion of a religious service the went to. The fundamental nature of religious services (even liberal ones) is that statements are made about the nature of truth and reality. By definition, religions are exclusive. The problem is that non-religious don’t seem to understand that, while exclusive, Christianity is also completely inclusive. But I suppose that is a discussion for another time.

Until someone is willing to actually seek for answers (and not just giving lip service to that pursuit), they will never feel anything close to comfortable at a church of any kind. And honestly, I don’t know if there is anything a church can do to be “relevant” to folks of that ilk. It is one thing for a church to be “seeker sensitive,” but someone has to actually be seeking before we can even talk about how to reach out to them. This article was not a representation of those seeking at all. What I would like to see is an article written with the same premise but by 31 people who are actually actively seeking answers to the fundamental questions of life and hear about their experiences.

There were a few authors that seemed to get something out of the experience. They weren’t profoundly changed by any means, but there did appear to be hope. From one author’s experience at Bethany Presbyterian:

The magnitude of devotion in the hymns was daunting. But when the time came to get up and sing, I stood. My voice emerged from its lair and blended with the other voices. Everyone was singing—I mean everyone. The Presbyterians were emphatic about participation. The prompting was warm and welcoming but impossible to ignore. Earlier in the program, everyone was urged to get up and greet the people sitting nearby. The sense of community was acute. The detachment I had brought with me, and was so carefully trying to preserve, detached, and hung around my ankles as I arose to sing “Open the eyes of my heart.”

I feel like that person at least was trying. They were at least trying to see what the church was actually all about.

I would say that you should read the article, but take breaks if you need to get away from the Seattle godlessness. There are insights there to be sure, I am just not impressed by the “reports” from around the city.

I think I had more to say about the article, but it is nearly 2 here so I will leave it at that. Does anyone else want to chime in here? Are you a seeker? What have your experiences been? Are you an atheist that went to a church just the see what it was all about? What did you think? How did the experience compare to your preconceptions?

Maybe I could challenge a few people to go to a church service this Sunday and report back about your experience! Any takers?

Bill Whittle is an amazing essayist. If you have never read him before, go read everything you can, perhaps even buy his book (a compilation of his essays), over at Eject! Eject! Eject! You will be well served to read and ponder what he has to say.

I write this post in response to his essay You Are Not Alone Part 1 and Part 2. He has a bold vision; the title of his essay eludes to it, technology now allows us to communicate and share ideas in a way that was never possible before, people working together with shared values and virtues can truly change the world. It starts with the individual, not just any individual, but yourself. If we actually aspire to be virtuous, what will happen?

The essay introduces a working ideology for a strong and prosperous society, it is one that he calls a tit for tat society:

Tit-for-Tat combines generosity and toughness. And look at the terms used to describe the most successful strategic version of Tit-for-Tat: Nice. Retaliating. Forgiving. Non-envious.

He then provides examples of why this ideology works, I quote one here:

Everything the West has achieved – all the science, prosperity, security and freedom – is based upon the free exchange of ideas. We tolerate offensive ideas so that this free exchange of information may continue. Disagreement is the crucible of wisdom. The price we pay for this cooperation is the daily offense we suffer at the exposure to ideas we find distasteful.

However, when radical Muslims living in the West demand that their religion not undergo these same stresses and trials and turns violent – burning buildings or killing those who disagree with them – well, we as a society have a choice. We can be “always cooperating,” which rewards that behavior, or we can retaliate, which punishes it.

Which do you think – reward, or punishment – is likely to produce more of this savagery, and which less?

And frankly, which behavior is more worthy of contempt: slapping someone repeatedly in the face, or watching someone thank his assailant for doing it to them? That is not moral superiority. That is the neurosis of the masochist.

Read the rest of Part 1.

Part 2 then delves into how to best make a culture that functions in this way happen. The crux of the plan is the focus on values and virtues and the dedication of the individual to such aspirations.

Today, when we think of virtues, we tend to think of things like prudence, chastity, modesty…pretty cold porridge. But to the Greek, the Virtues were dynamic and bold. More, Aristotle and others believed they were harmonized – that is related, interconnected, so that to not know one was to imperfectly know the rest.

They were dionethic, he said, built by rationality – the virtues of understanding of substance, science, wisdom, the practical crafts and the practical mind.

And there were ethnic virtues, built by by custom – courage and temperance; the property-based virtues of generosity and goodwill; honor-based virtues like pride, assertivity and control of anger; the social virtues of wittiness, honesty and friendliness; and the political virtue of justice.

What kind of society would a citizenry so educated and versed produce?

Good question. I think we should try and find out.

I want to make a quick interjection here. Bill is proposing something here that does not require religion (including Christianity). That is perfectly fine because not everyone in America is Christian or religious. But I do want to suggest that all the things he suggests should be things that are actively sought and striven for by Christians. Try going to church and reading your Bible; it will be impossible to get away from the same call that Bill is making. The difference is that for Christians, acting in such a way is not the end all of things.

One of the things that I am very excited about locally that relates directly to Bill’s call is a new non-prof whose board I will be serving on once it starts up more fully: Ivy Roads: Northwest Student Mentoring. Ivy Roads is the brain child of Ron Jacobson, a doctoral candidate in education at the University of Washington. From their vision statement:

We are focused upon purposeful investment in tomorrow’s leaders. It is our contention that our world is in need of leaders with integrity, compassion and wisdom. Most centers of higher learning (public and private) do an excellent job of training graduates in areas of job skills and knowledge, but are not equipped to carry out effective programs of character development. In the current makeup of the college and university structure character development has been left to sporadic residence hall programs, outside religious institutions, and the family. Ivy Roads is filling this gap in diverse and creative ways. Specifically, Ivy Roads is focused upon mentoring post-high school students in issues of integrity, leadership, and service.

So if you are in the Northwest, and you want to know more, let me know and I will try to get you in contact with the people that can get you the information you need. On a more global scale, Bill is starting up a community projected called Ejectia! (yes, he knows it is a silly name and no, that link does not work yet) where

We, together, can build a virtual community where people can go to be refreshed, encouraged, educated, entertained and improved. Such a place will invariably produce better citizens and better citizens make a better society.

Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

One of the things I would like to see in an online discussion/forum is not the standard “fight for your side of the argument till you collapse” method, but a place where the arguments are not just stated and defended, but where they are always related back to the virtues we are trying to aspire to. I don’t just want to know your argument, I want to know how it fits in, I want to know how it will make things better. If things are done this way I think those virtues could become a reality in a more concrete way. Arguments (especially arguments online) never seem to really change anything, but it we can show how our ideas work and why they should be implemented, we could actually cause change.

What are YOUR thoughts on this? What would society look like with these virtues? How can you help make that happen? Oh, and go introduce yourself to everyone at Eject! Eject! Eject! and let them know what you can do!

If you are a Technorati user, you should vote for this “Where’s the Fire?”: Bill Whittle has big plans backed by big virtues.