What my Christmas was like

Or, maybe, what I wish it had been like...



Hat tip to Just Jen.
Rabbert blathers on....

From the only reliable news source on the web

Most Children Are Unrepentant Sociopaths

My friends who are parents can confirm the truth of this important study.
Rabbert blathers on....

Catching up...

Just some links to interesting stuff. Mostly, I've been trying to catch up on all sorts of things that need finishing before Christmas. Till soon....!

Good news from India about Catholic and Orthodox Christians working together!

Is there a "God Spot" in our brains? Just Jen says, "Whoa!" ... and more!

Remember Terri Shiavo? Here's an Indian in a similar spot, who has a "social activist" acting "on her behalf." It scares the crap out of me that the news service speaks of a "hope" for death and this death-eating activist being "on her behalf" -- all without batting an eye.

Finally, more good news regarding cancer: they're cracking the genetic code! The headline's a little overly optimistic, but they have decoded skin- and lung-cancer. Go Science Go!
Rabbert blathers on....

When agenda overcomes science

I'm not too worried about whether or not global warming climate change is "true" or "false". I think the worst thing that could come from paying attention to environmental impact and striving for maximum efficiency is a cleaner and more efficient world to live in.

But then there are those who step beyond the pale of rationality. For example, Diane Francis, who suggests that the only way to save the earth is to impose a global one-child policy (following China's example) and to enforce it as ruthlessly as China has.

Or the Optimum Population Trust, which wants to sell contraception in developing nations as a carbon offset.

World population is estimated to reach 7 billion by the end of 2011, having increased by 1 billion in just 12 years - all but 4% percent of this increase will be in the less developed countries (LDCs). [... snip...] In short, one less birth into poverty is not only one less person to suffer poverty and the expected severe impacts of climate change, but also one less to produce more greenhouse gases in (hopefully) escaping poverty. (from OPT's FAQ page)

Or the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which, in this year's "State of World Population" report, links population growth to climate change in ways that even they themselves admit are less than direct or immediate.

Although population data are generally regarded as among the success stories of social science, their integration with the developing science of climate change and its human dimensions remains poor. This applies ... to the influence of population growth on greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change adaptation....

In other words, the disastrous "influence of population growth on ... climate change" is an assumption for which they have no solid evidence. But they're certain enough to push population control measures on the non-pink and non-rich peoples of the world.

The real solution to our environmental problems - to say nothing of our economic and political problems - is to recognize that we Americans, along with much of the "developed" world, have been taking much more than is just or fair in an insatiable quest for greater comfort and convenience.

We need to curb our "standard of living". Landfills will not grow so fast if we are not basing our egos and economics and desires on the newest or latest or most disposable items. CO2 will not build up so quickly if we don't insist on the cheapest gas and food and electricity on the planet so that we can use it as much as we like without realizing the full cost.

To claim that reducing the population is the solution to our woes is simply to place the blame and burden on those not yet conceived. As a good friend of mine says, "Just enough of me, way too many of you."
Rabbert blathers on....

Buffy v. Edward

What can I say? Buffy's my kind of girl!

H/T to John C. Wright.
Rabbert blathers on....

Monk finale

Just reprinting my semi-review, semi-reflection on the Monk finale from Virtue Quest:

I’ve been watching “Monk” with my family for some time, and we all gathered around the tele last night for the series finale.

For those who don’t watch much TV, the show follows Adrian Monk (played by Tony Shalhoub), a former detective for the San Francisco Police whose OCD went into overdrive when he lost his wife twelve years ago. He’s been consulting with the department, because he has an uncanny insight into what “doesn’t fit” at a crime scene. Mostly, it’s a comedy hung loosely on a detective show with the running gag of how to set off Monk’s phobias or obsessions. Sort of an anti-Columbo.

The one case he’s never solved is his own wife’s murder. So, of course, the series had to end with the solution to this cold case. As with most episodes, the actual clues and mystery-solving aspect of the story are mostly incidental. The resolution is quick and neatly resolved. It’s all about the character quirks. But it surprised me by showing a dark side of Monk’s character that I did not at all expect from a normally light entertainment.

* * * Spoilers to follow! * * *

Monk has always been haunted by his inability to solve his wife’s murder, but when he discovers the killer’s identity, he has two very dark reactions: he grows vengeful, and he implies that his OCD derives from an inability to “breathe the same air” as Trudy’s killer.

Vengeance and Justice

You knew this had to get back to virtue at some point, didn’t you?

Justice is the act of giving to each person their due. This is obviously the principle behind civil justice: I sue someone who refuses to give me what they owe me. But it’s also the case in criminal justice. In committing a crime, the criminal owes the victim what belongs to them; and, a little less obviously but just as truly, the criminal “is due” the consequences and punishment that belong to the crime.

Vengeance, on the other hand, is the simple desire to harm someone who has harmed me. It belongs to the “misery loves company” class of motivations. Vengeance says, “I have suffered, and I want that person to suffer at least as much – maybe even more!” It’s not interested in restoring order or right; just in causing hurt.

Monk’s vengeful turn

Now, throughout the series, Monk has consistently sided with justice over vengeance. But then, he’s also consistently made an exception to all reason and logic wherever his wife was concerned. Even so, in a previous episode he was not willing to kill the person who planted the bomb that killed Trudy.

So I was surprised to see him, not only asking Stottlemeyer (Ted Levine) to kill the suspect without a trial, but actually stealing a gun and apparently threatening to kill the suspect himself. I was also surprised that he had no reaction other than “emptiness” that the suspect committed suicide.

If the show was willing to go into that area of wrath and revenge, I would have hoped that they would, well, do the topic justice. Show Monk struggle with his desire for revenge, his regret that he didn’t pull the trigger himself, and so on.

I also had hoped that, having set up that Monk didn’t want to “breathe the same air” that Trudy’s killer breathed, they might have resolved that with some idea of the world being “cleaner” now. But maybe there I’m reading more into the statement than it warrants.

Character welcome

Now, I know all too well that Monk is just a fun diversion, and is not intended to be high art or profound literature. Even so, I do wish it would reach a little higher – especially in episodes where it delves into some deeper aspect of a character. Frankly, I think any show is more entertaining – more funny, more exciting, more romantic, what have you – when it reflects the fullness of human life and motivation.

Monk’s series finale left me, unfortunately, with a rather flat character whom I just didn’t believe in anymore, much less care about or identify with.

Ah well. That leaves more time for my own writing.

Rabbert blathers on....

Difficulties of modern language

Aren't names these days just getting downright unpronounceable? To say nothing of trying to spell them. For example:


And yes, Mr. Laurie is actually a brit. He puts on an American accent for House.

H/T to Just Jen.
Rabbert blathers on....

Contaminating the ether...

This is fascinating, and strange, and perhaps the reason that we have not been contacted by extraterrestrials since the 1950's:


From Abstruse Goose, via Strange Maps.
Rabbert blathers on....

Virtue can be fun!

The trick to living virtuously is to see the good in every virtuous act, even something as simple as climbing the stairs.


Crossposted at my other blog.
Rabbert blathers on....

Sheer genius

The Lord of the Rings as a 1940's Bogey vehicle:


Why is it that this nine-minute wonder captures more of Tolkien's mythopoesy than Peter Jackson's twelve-hour monstrosity?

Tip o' the hat to Donald McClarey.
Rabbert blathers on....

Random stuff - or is it?

So, I'm sort of obsessed with the motion of fluids (including liquids and gasses), and the motion of objects in fluids. I could watch a rolling stream, or milk swirling in coffee, for hours.

This is a visual of how Einstein explained this apparently random motion, known as Brownian motion:






I found this on a physics site at the University of Virginia. If you don't think this is cool, then maybe I think you're boring, too. Nyah!

And don't nobody ask why I have time to hunt down stuff like this. Just. Don't. Ask.

Rabbert blathers on....

Status update

As I mentioned on my other blog, I got in an argument on-line over the past week, and the truth is I've been taking it too much to heart. It's crazy how it just eats away at you, hurt and resentment and fear of being wrong.

But then today I had a job interview, during which the interviewer told me that I basically had the job. It's not a great job, and I'll wait till I actually sign the papers before I throw a party, but it's something. It's better than nothing. Whew!

The good thing is, the job won't necessarily interfere with my writing ambitions. All I need is a little self-discipline!

Heh, pray for me!
Rabbert blathers on....

Behold the true Jedi masters

I've been told that there are some who hate the movie, "The Men who Stare at Goats". I'd like to meet them. I'd like to know what there is to hate about this movie.

Now, I'll grant you that it's no "Casablanca". It's no "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". But it's a movie that I certainly wish George Lucas had made instead of "The Phandom Menace" and "Attack of the Clowns".

It is a journey, if not into a larger world, at least into a stranger one. "Inspired by" rather than "based on" the book of the same title by Jon Ronson, the film follows the misadventures of Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor), a small town journalist trying to prove his manliness both to his wife and to himself by attempting to cover the lead-up to war in Iraq in the early 2000s. He runs into Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a putative salesman but secretly a former member of the New Earth Army.

Now, the New Earth Army was the brainchild of Lt. Col. Bill Django, who thought that the New Age movement would provide the solutions to war and conflict in the world. He sought to create a special forces unit within the U.S. Army that would be in tune with Earth and Nature and would fight battles with psychic powers rather than conventional weapons. They called themselves Jedi Warriors.

At first, Wilton is skeptical. And so was I. But the film presents everything with a perfectly straight face, leaving the viewers to follow where they will. As both the journey through Iraq and the journey through the development of the New Earth Army progresses, the lines between reality and delusion, between belief and insanity begin to blur - yet the lines between good and evil emerge with stark clarity.

I have not read the book, and I have no idea how much of the film is rooted in actual persons or events. I saw it with my dad, who served in Vietnam, and who told me, "That's the kind of [stuff] that really happened." Well, at least with regard to the availability and use of LSD and other drugs.

In short, belly-laughs were frequent, usually occasioned by questions of historical and metaphysical nature. It's the kind of humor I like best: the kind that sends you to a library to learn some more.
Rabbert blathers on....

Movie: Blood Money

A friend sends along this link to the film Blood Money. There's also a trailer on YouTube. It's an exposee on the abortion industry in general and on Planned Parenthood in particular. Well worth a look.

Rabbert blathers on....

I'm not so sure about this...

Breaking News: Catholic Deacon publishes "The Order by which People Get Into Heaven"!!

The part that makes me skeptical?

To be admitted only after review by the Screening Board (Catherine of Siena, chairwoman), the Board of Appeals (Meher Baba, chairman) and the Last Gasp Committee (Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, chairman): poets, novelists, buskers, spies, New York Yankees fans.

Yankees fans I understand, and poets. But come on, cut novelists a little slack!

Maybe my girl Kate will help me get through...
Rabbert blathers on....

Dilbert on moral relativism

Hat tip to Mike Flynn.


Heh heh heh. Witnesses. Heh heh heh.
Rabbert blathers on....

Profits not satanic?

Um, strictly speaking, true.

But there is such a thing as usury:

an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

And one who makes his wealth by usury ought not defend himself in this manner.

I mean, if justifying your lies and theft in a church isn't also a violation of the Second Commandment, I don't know what is!

Now, seriously, lest I be mistaken for a commie pinko, I have no problem with a profit motive in business. There's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with making money.

But what is wrong is profit as the primary motive, or the only motive.

The role of a business, it seems to me, is to provide some good or service to society. The role of a bank in particular is to provide ordinary people with easy storage and transport of their wealth. This is a good and noble and necessary service. And there is nothing wrong with making profit from such a service.

So long as the service comes first.

What these banks have done is pursue profit at the expense of the service they were committed to provide for their customers. And that is wrong. It is immoral, and if it isn't criminal (which I think it is) it should be.

This is one reason I'm more a fan of non-profit credit unions than of banks. Credit unions generally do keep the service of society at the forefront. And if they don't there are more immediate consequences.

Would that many other sectors of society were run on such a basis!


Rabbert blathers on....

New blog up and running!

So here it is!

Virtue Quest

The focus is, as the title (I hope) indicates, an exploration of ways to develop virtue and grow as a human being. Based mainly on the negative examples of my own life.

I.e., if you want to grow in virtue, don't act like me.

I apologize for my neglect of this blog. That hasn't been my intention. But now that it's up and running, I should be able to post regularly here again ... at least until it's time to get my second "professional" blog up.
Rabbert blathers on....

New bloggy goodness!

I mentioned a little while back that I'm trying to make a go as a freelance writer. To that end, I'm starting up a couple "professional" blogs, that I hope will garner an audience beyond just my friends.

I was planning to launch them Nov. 1, that is, tomorrow. And it looks like I'll actually have one of them up and running. The other should be up a little later this week.

What can I say but, Woo Hoo!

I'll post the links as soon as they're good to go.
Rabbert blathers on....

I'm so proud to be a sad paranoid schizoid!

Hat tip to Mike Flynn.
Rabbert blathers on....

Apologies...

Sorry I've been off-line for the past couple weeks. At first, I was off in the boonies of North Carolina without any internets access; then I was in the not-so-boonies of North Carolina, where internets access cost $5/hour; then I was back home, recovering from travel; and then ... um, I was just a little lazy.

Sorry!

I'll bring you up to date a little later. In the meantime, go ahead and occupy yourselves with...

Rabbert blathers on....

Movie dream casts...

So the other day, a friend and I were grabbing some breakfast together, and we started thinking of dream casts that Hollywood really ought to put together.

Our first thought was:

• Christopher Walken
• Alan Rickman
• Meryl Streep
• supporting role for William Shatner

Plot? With a cast like this, who needs plot?

Okay, plot is important -- but secondary, I think. So, a road movie, probably three siblings running from the cops. Let's say, a chase across Canada, with Brendan Fraser leading the RCMP.

You know you want to see it. Just remember, you heard it here first.

Another idea was for a re-make of An Affair to Remember. There were three suggestions for casting:

• George Clooney
• this was tough -- we sort of settled on either Catherine Zeta-Jones or Julia Roberts, but we didn't think either was perfect; and besides, both have co-starred with Clooney before

or, for a slightly younger crowd ...

• Ewan MacGregor
• Amy Adams

or, to go more for fireworks than for flames, maybe ...

• Will Smith
• Cameron Diaz
  

And I'd like to add a runner-up pair of personal favorites:

• John Cusack
• Catherine Keener
  

So, what think you? Any other fun casting ideas? Any suggestions or disputations with my friends' and my brainstorms?
Rabbert blathers on....

On gambling

My dad loves the casino. He loves the slot machines, which I simply do not understand. For myself, I prefer something more active, something that involves skill and tactics. So, many gambling games just are not interesting to me. Among card games, Pinochle is my favorite.

I do, however, enjoy the occasional game of poker. I like the bluffing aspect. I like the choices involved in building a hand. My favorite poker game, which you'll never find in a casino, is called Chicago: it's basic seven-card stud, but the high spade in the hold splits the pot. It encourages more players to stay in, and throws a wrench in the works of reading other players' bets. Good clean fun -- as long as it's penny-nickel poker among friends.

Some of my friends oppose gambling on principle. And I'll admit that it's an easily addictive activity. I've been in games where I caught myself thinking, If only I put a little more money on the table, I could make back what I lost. But I've also been in control enough to recognize that impulse as a danger sign, a temptation. And I've been able to walk away. Most of the time.

My dad's philosophy, and it's a good one as far as it goes, is to consider gambling an entertainment activity on which you spend some money. First, determine how much you're going to spend on entertainment at the game. That becomes the only money available. You consider the money you bet to belong to the house already; it's spent money. If you win anything at all, that's gravy. If you break even, that's as good as a win.

If someone doesn't bring in more money than they can afford, and doesn't bet more than they bring in, then this system works to make an enjoyable time at betting games. If not, then gambling becomes a real problem and, at that point according to Catholic tradition, a sin.

The truth is, this kind of rule applies to any kind of entertainment activity. Sometimes it's money you're spending, sometimes it's time, sometimes it's physical energy -- usually it's some combination of the three, as for those who love to ski. If you don't overspend to begin with, and you don't let the entertainment overrun its limits, it makes for a good time. If the entertainment gets in the way of the rest of life, then it's a problem, and probably a sin.

For myself, I find the temptation strongest when there's some part of reality that I want to escape from. I use anything from TV to eating to hanging out with friends as ways to escape from difficult tasks or situations. That's a bad habit. That's a vice.

The only way to overcome it is to face reality. Do my duty. Get the job done. And, when it's time to play, play deliberately in a truly enjoyable way.

In other words, let work be work. And when I play poker, play with friends rather than to try to make money; play for the joy of the game, and joy will come whether the money stays or goes.

Rabbert blathers on....

She's always a woman to me...

I was raised in a fairly prejudice-free environment -- as much as any environment can be, I suppose. It never occurred to me that different skin color or physical features had anything to do with personality or intelligence or integrity; and it never occurred to me that women and men should be treated differently with regard to authority or dignity. I had to learn about these things in history class.

However, it has always been my instinct, and it remains my reasoned conclusion, that men and women are distinct manifestations of humanity, and therefore should act and be treated differently in respecting those differences. The question is, just what differences are essential to masculinity or femininity, and which are "social constructs" that exalt or oppress or set one sex against the other?

G.K. Chesterton, whom I am currently reading, posits that women and men occupy two distinct spheres of society: the men are specialists whose work and life is based on adherence to rules and whose relationships tend toward the egalitarianism he calls "camaraderie"; meanwhile, women are universalists, adept at everything, whose work and lives is based on the wisdom of an absolute ruler who has influence over every aspect of life within her realm.

That is to say, the sphere of men is narrow, but is free within the whole of public life; the sphere of women is broad, but is free within the limits of the home.

It's an interesting approach. He claims that it respects the freedom and value appropriate to each sex, and I have to say that I approve heartily of his goal. I'm not entirely convinced that his suggested means are the best way to get there. For example, regarding the Suffragettes, he says:

The question is not whether women are good enough for votes: it is whether votes are good enough for women.

And he answers that voting takes away the particular dignity of women by imposing on them a public responsibility that (at best) distracts them and (at worst) denegrates them.

Based on his assumptions about the nature of men and women, his conclusion makes some sense. It is exactly those assumptions that I question.

Unfortunately, I don't have an answer of my own ... yet.

I am convinced that one distinctive feature of the sexes is their sexual difference. That is, it is clearly an essential feature of women -- the defining feature, even -- that they are able to bear and nurture children. (Indeed, if it weren't for recombinant DNA, it would be difficult to figure what the defining feature of men could be!)

I'm also convinced that the sexual difference is not the only essential difference between men and women. And this is where things get very muddy very quickly. Some social differences clearly support the sexual differences, such as the tendency in virtually every culture for women to have primary care of rearing children at least until adolescence. Other social differences seem to have little relation to the sexual difference, such as the custom in many places for men to have short hair and women to have long hair.

I suppose my current approach is similar to that of St. Augustine regarding Christian doctrine and practice: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
Rabbert blathers on....

Getting organized

At the advice of several of my friends, I'm taking two new steps to add a little order to my life: making a to-do list, and using a timer.

The to-do list is, of course, an ancient concept which I have resisted mainly because of my laziness. After all, making a to-do list is a thing that one has to do. So I'm going to put "make tomorrow's to-do list" as the last item on today's to-do list. Let's hope this will elongate, if not perpetuate, the habit.

The timer I purchased is a mid-level kitchen timer. It has buttons for the numbers zero through nine, so that I can input the exact minutes and seconds I wish to time. It counts up as well as counting down. I'll use it to make sure I'm spending a certain amount of time on each form of writing I have to do.

Tools are only as good as the person using them, so please pray for me that I'll use them well!
Rabbert blathers on....

Postscript

By the way, if you feel like contributing to my professional career immediately, I've set up a PayPal donation button on the sidebar, just below the "Share it" item. In case you were wondering what to do with all your extra cash, you know.

Many thanks, in advance.
Rabbert blathers on....

Return to normal ... whatever that is

Back home in Seattle. It's a strange thing: I find beauty everywhere I go, but nowhere is home in the same way as Seattle is. Even the Bay Area, where I spent nearly a decade of my life and which I know better (in some ways), doesn't have the same quality of at-home-ness as here.

So I'm back to my unemployed meanderings.

No, that's not quite true. I've been accepted by an agency that connects freelance writers to companies in need of web content. So I have become a freelance writer. That's my new job title.

And I realize, I've never really thought of myself as a writer. I've always thought of myself as an aspiring writer. A wannabe.

The fact is, I'm a writer exactly as much as I write and put my work out for others to read. And maybe even pay for. Once in a while.

So, I have a new goal: to fulfill my duties and job description as a writer. To that end, I'll be making a couple changes in my life:

• I'll be scheduling writing into my day as an appointment, as if it was a job -- because it is
• I'll be focusing my writing on areas that I think I can sell my work and make something like a living off of it
• As part of that, I'll be starting a couple new blogs, that I hope will fill a gap in the blogosphere today; here's what I'm thinking of calling them:
  • Virtue Quest - on growing toward happiness by developing virtue
  • Everyday Aquinas - on how the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas applies to everyday life in the 21st century
• devoting some of my writing time to long-term projects, meaning novels and non-fiction books

So I guess it's not really "back" to normal, as much as it's trying to implement a new normal. If I can make this kind of life "normal", then I should be able to make a living as a writer.

I don't plan to let go of this blog, for those of you who have become utterly dependent on my ruminations for giving meaning and purpose to your lives. But this will be my "personal" blog, rather than my "professional" blog. I'd love to have your feedback on my work, both personal and professional. I'd also like to know if any of you are trying similar disciplines to make your way through this vale of tears.

So keep reading, and I'll let you know what kind of progress I'm making. And thanks for your support (especially you, Amy!)
Rabbert blathers on....

Albuquirky

I'm currently in a hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico, awaiting tomorrow morning's flight back to home sweet home. I must admit, I have an outrageous prejudice against this town. I think right turns should be outlawed.

Need I say any more?
Rabbert blathers on....

Absurd v. Uncanny

Just Jen makes a great distinction that the NY Times -- or at least the study they describe -- misses.

On the other hand, how is a scientist to make a distinction that is, perhaps, beyond the ken of science?

What the scientist can study is how the brain acts in certain circumstances. The Times gives the following example:

When ... patterns break down — as when a hiker stumbles across an easy chair sitting deep in the woods, as if dropped from the sky — the brain gropes for something, anything that makes sense. It may retreat to a familiar ritual, like checking equipment. But it may also turn its attention outward, the researchers argue, and notice, say, a pattern in animal tracks that was previously hidden. The urge to find a coherent pattern makes it more likely that the brain will find one.

This sort of thing is empirically verifiable. Moreover, various forms of prayer and/or meditation have been shown to correspond to certain brain states. But what is not clear is whether there is an empirical difference between a mystical vision and an experience of absurdity.

In short, can the brain tell the difference between an angelic vision in the woods and a vision of a La-Z-Boy?

The mind certainly can tell the difference. Had Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, claimed to see a talking rocking chair, they would have been laughed out of town. Had Paul told the Athenians that their "unknown god" had raised the Pythagorean theorem from the dead, they would have told him to go study logic.

But these people claimed an experience, not contrary to reason, but beyond reason. They described an event that, if true, would broaden the scope of the world and human experience. This is as true of ghost hunters as it is of prophets. Their experience is uncanny.

The merely absurd, on the other hand, actually attempts to destroy the world and, in particular, human experience. It posits something that disorients, that undermines the trust we put in out senses and intellect. Our minds seek order and rationality in the world; absurdity denies that there is order or rationality to seek.

To which I reply, where did the human mind get the idea to seek order?

In any case, the answer to the question of whether brain states empirically show a difference between an experience of the absurd and an experience of the uncanny would show more about the scope of science than it would about the nature of the universe.
Rabbert blathers on....

Ecumenism

One of the reasons for the lack of posts recently is that I've traveled to my cousin's wedding. The liturgy was truly beautiful, combining both reverence for God and the solemnity of marriage, and the earthy irreverence that so characterizes my cousin (and most of my family).

Now, I'm a Catholic. My cousin was raised at least nominally Catholic. I don't know what kind of religious background her husband has. The ceremony was Episcopalian. And this caused me a deep ache, as if the very marrow of my bones was both compacted and stretched out at the same time.

I have nothing personal against Episcopalians, or the Anglican Communion. I have, of course, theological disagreements; but those are not the cause of my pain. My pain comes from the division between the members of Christ's Body.

I realize that I place an importance on religion and theology that is, well, statistically abnormal. I see religion as something foundational to every aspect of life, and therefore one of the least negotiable parts of one's life. Most people I talk to seem to take religion as a means of connecting with their spirituality and/or their community, and therefore as something fairly, even essentially, changeable. So I'm not sure quite how to approach people without coming off as a zealot or a "Stepford" Catholic.

At the same time, I really don't understand how so many Christians can simply tolerate -- or even celebrate! -- the ongoing divisions between the "denominations" of Christianity. As I say, it causes me a pain that has physical manifestations. I hate that I was unable to share Communion with my cousin at her wedding. I hate that I am unable to share Communion with many of my close friends.

I just don't quite know what to do to encourage a resolution to this situation.
Rabbert blathers on....

If your hand causes you to sin...

Fr. Daniel, pastor of my parish, made a profound remark in this morning's homily. In the gospel reading from Mark, Jesus admonishes his followers, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Too often I've read commentators or heard preachers attempt to soften the extremity of this advice. After all, we wouldn't want anyone actually maiming or blinding themselves; God couldn't possibly want that! Jesus must have been speaking hyperbolically.

Well, perhaps. But Fr. Daniel pointed out a literal interpretation that brings sharp clarity to our Lord's admonition. "How hard would you fight to keep your hand? Then fight that hard against sin! How firmly would you hold onto your eye? Then cling that firmly to Christ!"

For myself, I too often find myself slipping into sin -- not because I am compelled or coerced, but because it just seems easier or more pleasant. To stay in bed when I need to be awake, to play a game when I have bills to pay, and so on. But if I recognize that it is myself -- my hand, my eye, my very life -- that is at stake, then the path of vice is revealed as in fact harder and more painful, with its destination in death.

And that can be rather motivating.
Rabbert blathers on....

Just plain cool: water on the Moon!

Yep, you heard it. Confirmed by three different spacecraft. I'm getting my spacesuit and rubber raft ready for a wild ride down--

Wait, you say it's only trace amounts? Maybe a Big Gulp's worth for every ton of lunar soil?

Oh, bother.
Rabbert blathers on....

Writing sample: Tips for the Twitter-Challenged

Here's another writing sample. Comments and critiques on any of my writing is most welcome! The assignment for this was a 250-300 word blog-style post on Twitter tips:

Tips for the Twitter Challenged

Don't you hate being the last one to figure stuff out? Twitter is a great example: a powerful and dynamic resource that favors the resourceful. Here are a few tips on getting the most out of Twitter.

Bone up on your txt. You'll need to understand the abbreviations people use, and you'll be able to say more if you can use txt effectively. Do a web search for "txt dictionary".

Use widgets and apps. Twitterers have built widgets and applications to add power to Twitter, whether you want to keep track of followers, connect to content on other sites, or include images or video. A widget connects your website to Twitter; an application allows you to use Twitter more powerfully. The "Goodies" link at the bottom of your Twitter home page will get you started.

Hashtag your tweets. Hashtagging makes it easier for people to find your tweets and join in the conversation. It's easy: just add a pound-sign (#) in front of key words. For example, to hashtag this post, it might start or end with "#tips".

Search, search, search! Use the search feature on words you use in your tweets, (especially key words that you hashtag,) to see who else is tweeting about the same topics. Then you can start conversations with those Twitterers and build new relationships.

Twitter has more possibilities, and new applications are popping up every day. But these basics will help you start strong on Twitter, and build a solid base. And if there's one last tip to remember, it's this: don't be afraid to ask questions. After all, everyone on Twitter loves to talk!

Rabbert blathers on....

Writing sample: My Child Has Diabetes?

I'm applying for some freelance writing gigs, so I'll post the writing sample assignments that they give me. Here's the first, a 400 word article on childhood diabetes:

My Child Has Diabetes?

Perhaps the most frightening event in a parent's life is discovering that a child has, or may have, a life-threatening disease, such as diabetes. A thousand questions collide in your head. It is easy to swing from uncontrollable fears of worst-case tragedy to irrational hopes for instant cures. But children with diabetes usually can learn to manage their condition and live long, active, healthy lives.

Only about 0.2% of Americans under the age of 20 are diagnosed with diabetes. Diagnoses fall into two categories: Type 1 and Type 2.

Most children diagnosed have Type 1 diabetes, which used to be known as child-onset or juvenile diabetes. No one knows for sure what causes the onset of Type 1 diabetes, but the result is that the child's pancreas is unable to produce sufficient insulin to move glucose from the blood to the other cells of the body. Treatment is simple: injecting insulin into the body to supply what is lacking. In some cases, rather than periodic injections, a pump can provide a steady supply of insulin. In either case, both the child and caregiver must learn to recognize warning signs, and develop habits of regularly checking blood glucose levels and supplying appropriate amounts of insulin. With treatment and good self-care, a child with Type 1 diabetes can lead a normal and active life.

Although children with Type 2 diabetes make up less than a quarter of diagnosed cases, the incidence of Type 2 diagnoses are rising. Type 2 diabetes occurs when the cells in the body lose the ability to use insulin efficiently. This puts a strain on the pancreas, which can then lose its ability to produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes is associated with inactive or sedentary lifestyles and obesity, among other factors. Treatment may include insulin or other medications, but certainly involves habits of self-care, such as healthy eating patterns, increased physical activity, and disciplined monitoring of blood glucose levels. All these steps help the body to use insulin and glucose more efficiently.

Although diabetes has no definitive cure, there are various promising avenues of research. In the meantime, diabetes has become a treatable condition through a combination of healthy diet and exercise, self-monitoring, and medication. Diabetes is a serious condition, but only becomes life-threatening if it remains unmanaged. As a parent, instilling regular habits of self-care is the most important step you can take to keep your child healthy, both now and throughout his or her life.

Rabbert blathers on....

Commitments

I find it's difficult to keep a commitment that is too general. For example, it's hard to say, "I'm going to write more" or "I'm going to exercise more". It's easier to keep a concrete, measurable commitment. So, I'm setting a goal of writing at least 500 words every day. (Yes, this blog counts!) It's a small goal, but I know when I've reached it, and it doesn't stop me from doing more; it just keeps me from doing less.

This is part of a larger trend for me. Yesterday, a friend asked me whether I were an optimist or a pessimist. After some thought, I replied that I was an idealist. I tend to think in terms of what should be rather than what actually is. This means that I think and act in ways that sometimes look optimistic (because of the height of my hopes) and sometimes pessimistic (because of the depth of my disappointment). It also means that I tend to pay too little attention to the real world that I in fact live in. I tend to think of goals in terms of "I should write a perfect story or article" rather than "I should write five hundred readable words". Keeping the goals concrete helps keep my feet on the ground. Which is exactly what an idealist like me most needs.

On the other hand, I'm still working on that exercise goal. Right now, I'm thinking a 15-minute walk every day should be do-able. What do you think?
Rabbert blathers on....

Gallup-ing through the church?

It's a commonplace today for people to be "spiritual" without being "religious". By that, most people seem to mean that they are interested in matters of faith and spirituality, but not interested in membership in an institution. My guess is that institutional membership feels like a burden, an obligation. In any case, the result is a steady downward trend in church membership and participation over the past several decades. Even if there are new members entering a community every year, there also are members dropping out.

A program offered by the Gallup Organization -- source of all those Gallup Polls -- promises to reverse those trends, to make the local churches places where people will really connect with the institution and deepen their faith. The program is outlined in the book, Growing an Engaged Church, by Albert L. Winseman. His main thesis is that, contrary to the old wisdom that belonging follows belief, deep belief and growth in faith actually follows as a result of belonging to a living and lively community.

This makes a certain instinctive sense to a Catholic. Unlike many of the Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Emergant approaches to Christianity of recent years, institutional memberships really matters theologically to Catholics: we are baptized into the Body of Christ, not into an individual relationship. But Winseman notes that engagement means much more than mere membership. He proposes four areas in which congregational engagement can be measured:

• What do I get?
• What do I give?
• Do I belong?
• How can we grow?

These areas, of course, become the basis for a poll which can give statistical measurements of the "health" of a particular congregation. As he puts it,

Measuring engagement, and implementing strategies to improve it, is just like preparing the soil to produce an abundant crop. It is no secret that there are some churches that produce abundant fruit of the Spirit; and there are others that seem as dry as a withered fig tree, bearing no fruit. Increasing engagement in your church is simply employing the latest research and discoveries -- preparing the soil -- so God can produce a bumper crop; it's creating a receptive climate for the work of the Holy Spirit, so God can do great things in your midst.

I have no argument with any of this. Even my parish, which is known in the Archdiocese for being particularly fruitful and lively, recognizes that it is far from being the "good soil" described by our Lord's parable. And I think that the Gallup system does one very good thing that it sets out to do: it tests the soil to see if anything will grow.

Moreover, Winseman suggests three concrete tactics for increasing engagement:

• Clarify the expectations of membership
• Help members discover what they do best
• Create small groups

Again, taking these steps cannot help but improve the relationship between the individual and the institution. The first step alone could solve any number of problems in my parish, where misunderstandings are as rife as anywhere else on the planet.

But what Winseman misses is that it takes more than "good soil" to bear good fruit. In the Gospel parable, as in life, a seed must be sown for a plant to grow. All that the Gallup system really promotes is an atmosphere of strong membership in an institution. It doesn't really provide faith.

Now, as Winseman points out early in his book, faith involves membership in the Church; but membership alone is not a sufficient condition for the growth of faith or of the charity which is faith come to full fruit.

Perhaps this is because faith is not something that can be programmed institutionally. All an institution can do is provide an opportunity for faith, an opportunity for the encounter with Jesus which is the seed of faith. Winseman admits this, but says nothing more about it. He seems to see "preparing the soil" as the only work that we can do, and that everything else is entirely up to God. In short, this approach is entirely about how a particular congregation engages its members, and not at all about why a church seeks to engage anyone.

This is exactly where the seams show. This entire approach to churches is based on a model (called "The Gallup Path") originally designed with business in mind, where the ultimate goal is to increase profit for the company. But a church -- of any faith -- does not exist for the purpose of profit, and its members do not relate to leadership as employees to employer. The goal cannot be assumed, since the content of the goal varies dramatically from one faith to another. Rather, the content of the goal is exactly what divides churches and religions and cultures.

In short, what people are engaged in -- or better, whom they are engaged with -- is at least as important as how they are being engaged, when it comes to religion. And this is something Winseman studiously ignores and even dismisses as not significant.

Now, as I mentioned above, a church can certainly gain from the methods outlined in Growing an Engaged Church. I would simply warn that this book and the Gallup Path is not sufficient in and of itself to bring people to the fullness of life in Christ.
Rabbert blathers on....

Mark Shea on evil

After all, if there's anyone who would know evil inside-out, it's Mark Shea!

In this case, he makes the point with exceptional clarity:

The Church does not see evil as the "opposite" of good precisely. That's because we are not Manichaeans. We do not believe that evil is a power equal and opposed to good. Rather, we believe that evil is a parasite on the good, a perversion and (mark this) a thing that must always depend on the good in some way for its very existence, while the good exists without needing evil. Because of this, we can always say of any evil that there is *something* of the good about it. Even Satan still retains the good gifts of existence, power, and intellect that his Maker gave him (perverted though they are). To deny this is to deny that God is the absolute Creator of All.

This is in the midst of a post on his own attempts to think with Christ and the Church. Worth a read, like most everything he writes.
Rabbert blathers on....

Shameless self-promotion

As I've mentioned before, I'm between jobs at the moment. So I thought I'd post my resume here, for two reasons:

1. To see if anyone has comments or suggestions for me
2. Just in case anyone reading this happens to be hiring

Anyway, since Blogger only allows graphics to be uploaded, here is my resume as a .png (click on the image for full resolution):
Next, I'm available for speaking engagements large and small, on a variety of topics. Drop me a line at king[dot]rabbert[at]gmail[dot]com. Some topics:

• Developing virtue in your life
• The process of discernment
• A Catholic View of the World: what, why, and how Catholics think

Also, I'm getting a group blog started called "The Good, the True, the Just". The idea is to promote virtue in both personal and public life. My own perspective is that of Catholic morality and social teaching, but I hope it's interesting and accessible to non-Catholics and even non-Christians. Do let me know what you think!
Rabbert blathers on....

Historical perspective

In 1943, this was cheering on an ally:

In hindsight, it's rather creepy. To paraphrase the wisdom of others, we should never call someone great before their life is completed.
Rabbert blathers on....

Mmm... walnuts

Trust me. You'll want to devote a half hour to this episode of the Dick Van Dyke show.
Rabbert blathers on....

Larry asks...

In a comment on my recent health care post, Larry asks:

But what is "society"? In America today, that means tax money. And that's not just politics; it's our culture.

Now, I would say that "society" is a somewhat fluid category. I guess I would define society as the subject of solidarity and subsidiarity together.

I trust I make myself obscure.

Really, this discussion brings us back to the whole "common good" question. (Sorry, Amy. But at least I won't quote G.K. Chesterton this time.) It brings us back to the common good because

Solidarity is the recognition that each of us shares much in common with others. It's perhaps something like empathy, but in philosophical terms rather than psychological. (Yes, Larry, I know about the Personalist use of empathy... but bear with me a bit.) So the subject of solidarity is everyone with whom I share something in common. At its broadest, this includes the entire human race: we all share human nature in common. But it can be applied more narrowly as well: I have a particular solidarity with other Catholics, or with other Seattleites, for example, that I don't share with Buddhists or Utahns. I have a very particular solidarity with members of my family, because we share so very much in common.

Subsidiarity is the recognition that each and every individual, and group to whom that individual belongs, has something valuable to contribute to the community. So, the subject of subsidiarity is everyone who makes a contribution to a given community -- that is to say, everyone who is in solidarity with a given community. Again, this can be taken more or less broadly, but the implication is that communities based on a broader solidarity provide broad and foundational support to communities based on a more focused solidarity. Issues that affect the entire nation must be dealt with on a national level, while issues that affect the neighborhood must be dealt with on a neighborhood level.

So, any individual person is a member of multiple communities, multiple societies, ranging from one's nuclear family to the entire human race, with various forms of local, economic, recreational, and political ties in between. And each society has a certain responsibility for its members, based on the kind of solidarity they share.

Now, I'm talking in pretty abstract terms. But I do think it's important to recognize that the "Government" itself has various levels and forms, and these do not entirely encompass the organization of all "society".

In other words, yes Larry, society involves all of culture; no Larry, society does not just mean tax money. But, yes Larry, we Americans tend to think that social responsibilities are carried out through government agencies, so tax money is the first place we think to look. But this need not be the only way to work. After all, various entities of the Church provided medical services for anyone, regardless of creed or ability to pay, for generations -- because they recognized their solidarity with all humanity and took responsibility in whatever concrete way they were able.

Now the Catholic hospitals and clinics are dying, for reasons too complex for a Rodent of Very Little Brain like myself to understand. I don't think that attempting to re-create that network of hospitals is likely to succeed. But I do think that, even if a public health care option is passed through Congress, we need to take direct responsibility for the health of those in our community.

Some of us will take more direct and hands-on responsibility than others, since we all have different gifts and callings; but we all must take responsibility for our own.

Easy to say; hard to do. Let us pray for one another.
Rabbert blathers on....

Self confidence?

So I've had rather a tumultuous couple of days. As I've said before, I'm unemployed at the moment. I'm a little afraid I'm unemployable. Or maybe just too lazy to find a real job. And the last couple days my own lack of discipline and drive has become viscerally real to me.

The thing I love most in the world is writing. Really, it's telling stories, and I love film as a way to tell stories; but it takes a cast and crew to make a film, while all I need to write is my word processor and a little privacy. So I write. And when I write, frankly, that is the only time I feel entirely at home in the world.

Now, all my life I've avoided anything that could lead to a professional writing career. I didn't study English or Journalism in college; didn't pursue internships or submit articles to the school paper or to local papers. I didn't know if I was good enough. I was afraid I wouldn't be, and then what would happen to my hope for happiness?

I was told I had low self esteem, that I needed more self confidence. I think the problem was the opposite: I had/have outrageously high self esteem, and I'm very careful to guard against anything that could threaten my self image as the most brilliant writer and thinker in the world. It's like a hot air balloon: very high and lovely to look at, but ultimately empty, and if it's at all damaged it will come crashing down to the ground.

What I've always lacked was trust. I've never trusted other people to see or understand the things I'm so passionate about. I've never trusted my parents or my teachers or my bosses with my hopes or desires, and never trusted them to help me pursue them. I've never trusted God, who promises to provide all that is necessary and never to test us beyond our ability. In short, it's not self confidence I lack; it's other confidence. It's God confidence, friend confidence, family confidence.

So, today I am making a decision to trust. I am going to put my work out for others to see, if only in small ways. I am going to devote myself to pursuing my goal of publishing and producing the stories I feel compelled to tell. Perhaps like Jonah, I will face the task that both calls me and terrifies me.

After all, running away from it hasn't worked out so well for me.
Rabbert blathers on....

Catholic criteria for health care reform

The Catholic Bishops in the U.S. have, both individually and collectively, sought reform of our health care system for many years. It was part of their support of labor unions, part of their preferential option for the poor, part of the greater ideals to which they have called the sheep of their flocks, and particularly our political leaders.

However, they have always held that health care reform should be true reform: that is, it is currently deformed, and needs to return to its true form. Health care must truly care for the health of all people.

In a letter to Congress [.pdf], the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops set out four main criteria for authentic health care reform.

1. A truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity
2. Access for all with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of legal immigrants
3. Pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
4. Restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers

This is very similar to a list which they articulated back in 1993, when another president was attempting to push through major health care reform. In fact, they also have re-issued this message, because its argument remains valid.

Note that the Bishops are not supporting or opposing any legislation. Rather, they are giving principles based on human nature, and which can be understood and accepted without any other relation to Christ or Christianity. They simply are voicing the concerns that arise from a Christian worldview.
Rabbert blathers on....

Approach the truth with reverence

I'm reading a book by Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR which, to be frank, doesn't do a whole lot for me. Mostly a matter of taste. I prefer arguments to allegories, and syllogisms to sentiment. De gustibus non disputandem.

However, in the midst of it he cited this passage from Ven. John Henry Newman:

For is not this the error, the common and fatal error, of the world, to think itself a judge of Religious Truth without preparation of heart? "I am the good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine." "He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice." "The pure in heart shall see God:" "to the meek mysteries are revealed; " "he that is spiritual judgeth all things." "The darkness comprehendeth it not." Gross eyes see not; heavy ears hear not. But in the schools of the world the ways towards Truth are considered high roads open to all men, however disposed, at all times. Truth is to be approached without homage. Every one is considered on a level with his neighbour; or rather the powers of the intellect, acuteness, sagacity, subtlety, and depth, are thought the guides into Truth. Men consider that they have as full a right to discuss religious subjects, as if they were themselves religious. They will enter upon the most sacred points of Faith at the moment, at their pleasure,—if it so happen, in a careless frame of mind, in their hours of recreation, over the wine cup. Is it wonderful that they so frequently end in becoming indifferentists, and conclude that Religious Truth is but a name, that all men are right and all wrong, from witnessing externally the multitude of sects and parties, and from the clear consciousness they possess within, that their own inquiries end in darkness? (University Sermons 10.43)

And it struck me just how much I take for granted -- no, really I consider myself entitled to -- understanding the truth about the world and other people and God. Which reminded me of something that Pope Benedict XVI noted in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate (34):

Truth — which is itself gift, in the same way as charity — is greater than we are, as Saint Augustine teaches. Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is first of all given to us. In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received. Truth, like love, “is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings”

In other words, truth is not something that belongs to me, that I can possess or control, that I can require of the world or of other people. My first attitude toward the truth -- the truth of anything, whether it be science or history or other people -- my first attitude should be humility; and my attitude upon learning anything -- again, anything at all -- should be gratitude.

Moreover, when I have been given a truth, even the truth about my own experience, that is a treasure that I am responsible to use wisely, as a steward. It is a gift that I can and should give to others who need it. I may give different gifts to my close friends (e.g., the truth of my deep experiences) than I give to strangers on the street (e.g., the truth of the time of day) or to partners in a discussion (e.g., the truth of some knowledge or of my perspective), but in every case, I only give what I have received as a gift.

This is rather a new way of looking at things for me. As I mentioned, I have an overly-developed sense of entitlement, and a woefully under-developed sense of gratitude. But, thank God, I do seem to have some capacity to learn.

Indeed, thank you, all of you friends and strangers who have given me the gift of truth throughout my lifetime. I will endeavor to use your gifts well.
Rabbert blathers on....

On professionalism

Screenwriter John August posts a guest lecture he gave at Trinity University in San Antonio. The main point: be professional, all the time.

I happen to agree with him. It's a matter of treating other people with respect.
Rabbert blathers on....

History and heros

Maybe it's because my family name is "King" that I've always had a fascination with great monarchs. My top three favorites are David (of Judah and Israel), Lear (of Britain), and Arthur (of Britain). What I love is the mythos, the wonder of how a single person can change the shape and direction of a whole people, even of the world. It's also no coincidence that all my favorites are tragic kings, who ultimately failed in their quests. After all, perfect victory over evil and injustice does not lie in this life, but in the next. Christ, the King of kings, died -- not to save us from the cross -- but to save us through it.

It's also no coincidence, then, that my favorite kings are all accused of being legendary rather than historical. I happen to, respectfully, disagree; and I've just finished reading a book which has helped me to articulate why. The book is The Discovery of King Arthur, by Geoffrey Ashe. In it, he notes that historians have tended to ask the wrong question in searching for the "historical" King Arthur:

The historical line of inquiry, pursued with a strict regard for fact, leads to a near-nullity. Yet that is paradoxical. The Arthurian legend is far from being a near-nullity. In its various versions it is a fact itself, a very great fact, one that has survived through the centuries with extraordinary richness and vitality in most of the languages of Europe and America. Far from being pruned away, it needs to be drawn back into the investigation. The Arthur question is literary rather than historical. The proper question is to ask, not 'Did Arthur exist?' but 'How did the legend originate, what realities is it rooted in, what was its starting point?'

In other words, the historians have neglected to regard as sufficiently historical evidence the very documents which occasioned their question in the first place. (I could note that a similar fallacy seems to pervade Biblical studies, especially of the New Testament; but, not being a Biblical scholar myself, I shall refrain.)

Yet, whatever its virtues and arguments in historiography, that is, the theory of doing history, Ashe's book points out another theme in the development of Arthurian legend: the longing for a hero.

As Ashe presents it, the character of Arthur originated as a restitutor, or restorer, figure -- a kind of messiah. In the Roman Empire of the fourth century A.D., of which much of Great Britain was a part, the emperors attempted to reclaim the empire's former glory in the face of growing threats from barbarians and in the aftermath of massive internal crises. Needless to say, none truly succeeded, and Rome itself was sacked in 410 -- the first of many such victories by various barbarian peoples. The citizens of the empire asked how and why this happened, and how their honor could be restored. St. Augustine wrote one of his most famous treatises, The City of God, to answer this very question. His answer was that Jesus was the longed-for restorer, and that his kingdom was not of this world. But that failed to satisfy the longing for victory and honor now.

In the first "complete" biography of King Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, portrays him as first a defender of the Britons against the invading Saxons, Angles, and Jutes; then as a campaigner in what today is France against the Roman Empire. In other words, Arthur is a sort of British restitutor. Ashe's argument is founded on finding a historical basis for such a British figure, whether attached directly to the name "Arthur" or not.

But perhaps a greater theme is the persistence of the messianic longing which Ashe points out. England (ironically named for the Angles that Arthur fought) awaits a hero, Arthur returned, to save them in their time of need; and several English monarchs have adopted the Arthurian aura to legitimate their rule. Nor is America immune from such a longing. After all, we have legends surrounding General and President George Washington, President Abraham Lincoln, and even President Theodore Roosevelt -- not to mention the explicit Arthurian metaphors applied to President Kennedy. And witness the fervor of expectation surrounding President Obama's election, and the disappointment in many that the world did not change suddenly upon his inauguration.

In my own life, I find that I tend to waffle between fantasies of becoming just such a world-restoring hero, (especially after watching an action movie or some such thing,) and fantasies of having all my troubles solved by such a hero, (even if the hero who saves me is also the damsel in distress whom I rescue!) As one of my therapists challenged me, I have yet to learn to be a "mere mortal."

Now, I think there really is something to the first fantasy: life is full of challenges and adventures which, to the outsider, may appear mundane but in fact are calls for courage and heroism. Not all of us will have epic poems composed in our honor, but all of us have opportunities -- perhaps more than we would like -- to demonstrate heroic virtue. The danger is to pursue the honor more than the virtue.

It is the second fantasy that, for myself at least, I am most wary. The persistent desire for someone else to take care of my problems, to make everything perfect, with no effort expended on my own part -- in short, the vice of sloth -- remains my primary temptation. As I said before, perfect victory over evil is not for this life. I have no ground to condemn the imperfection of anyone else's achievement, much less to refrain from myself attempting some good, simply because it will not be perfect. This life is not for perfect. This life is for tragedy -- but tragedy which leads to perfect joy in the one true restitutor: Christ.
Rabbert blathers on....

Perfect for a Saturday morning

Jesus died on the cross so that we could eat bacon.

Oh yeah, and our eternal salvation and stuff, too.
Rabbert blathers on....

Why does anyone get married anymore?

I am extraordinarily fortunate that my parents are still married to each other. It wasn't easy for them. They both have had second thoughts, and even separated for a time to figure things out. But they realized that divorce would not actually solve any of their problems, and that their best chance at happiness was to work at loving each other better.

On a larger scale, I've noted before that so-called "no-fault" divorce is at the root of many of our social problems with marriage. It seems to me that "no-fault" divorce cheapens marriage to the point of worthlessness. I mean, why take vows "till death" if it really only means "till divorce"?

It seems that at least one other person out there agrees with me. And science bears it out: no-fault divorce does not, in fact, lead to better or happier marriages, or even to happier individuals. At the same time, the National Catholic Register reports on a study showing significant correlation between divorce and certain health issues. (Full article is only available to subscribers.)

This is good for me to see, because I'm always afraid that my idealism is out of touch with reality.

But here's where I get into trouble: I don't see a practical, sure-fire means of correcting this problem. I mean, I can say that what we need is a cultural return to understanding marriage as a lifelong bond. I can talk about the philosophical teleology of man and woman, or about the public and social nature of the marriage covenant. But the fact is that divorce is one of the basic assumptions of our society, almost at the level of being considered a human right. We watch "Kramer vs. Kramer" and wonder what all the controversy was about. And I don't know how to change things on the level of our culture or our society.

But I guess I can offer some suggestions for small changes that might make things better for individual marriages.

1- Remember that a spouse does not exist to make you happy. And vice versa. Marriage is not a toy and is not entertainment. It is a way of giving love, not merely of receiving love.

2- Make your marriage about more than just you two. If marriage is a way of giving love, it's a way of giving love to everyone. Your spouse is the conduit for your love to reach anyone and everyone else around you. Children are the most obvious and natural example of this; but even one's friendships change and shift when one gets married -- because you are not a friend alone, anymore. Friendship includes the spouse.

3- Take time to argue. Seriously. If you are always 100% in full agreement on everything, then something's wrong. Stepford wrong. It's only by discovering where you differ from each other that you'll be open to learning from each other and truly growing closer. It's only by facing conflict that you're able to resolve it.

I'm sure that other people probably have more and better ideas than these, and I know it's horribly dangerous to give unsolicited advice. So please forgive me -- and also correct me! -- if I overstep my bounds.

On the other hand, why should advice columnists have all the fun?
Rabbert blathers on....

Because sometimes we need to laugh

Rabbert blathers on....

Proper respect

There's lots of indignation for Rep. Joe Wilson, the Congressman who shouted "You lie!" during President Obama's speech last night. Rep. Wilson himself has apologized to the President. The word I've heard most to describe his behavior is "disrespectful".

I guess I'd like to ask, disrespectful in what way? Disrespectful for interrupting the President's speech? Well, what about all those standing ovations? They stopped Obama in his tracks several times -- often in the middle of a sentence. Disrespectful for showing open disagreement or disdain for the President's proposal? What about all the others who held up signs, or competing bills, or who simply refused to clap?

I can understand "stupid" or "unfounded", but politics is an open forum for argument, and if you take the applause you have to take the heckles as well. I, for one, would gladly let go of the veneer of "respect" if it would promote more direct and honest dialogue.
Rabbert blathers on....

Once in a lifetime event

Okay, twice in a lifetime if you count AM and PM.

9:09:09 on 09/09/09

I'm sure it means something significant.
Rabbert blathers on....

More Chestertonian stuff

I'm reading Chesterton's 1910 classic, What's Wrong with the World. So far, it is (as one expects from Chesterton) a very witty retort to common misconceptions of his age, often turning platitudes on their heads. But also, (as one expects from Chesterton,) many of his points remain just as sharp today as they were a century ago. For example:

But the difference between the two mental methods [of dogma and prejudice] is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic. So it is with our existing divisions. They keep out of each other's way; the Tory paper and the Radical paper do not answer each other; they ignore each other. Genuine controversy, fair cut and thrust before a common audience, has become in our special epoch very rare. For the sincere controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy's arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy's arrangements. But if you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slanging or silence. A modern editor must not have that eager ear that goes with the honest tongue. He may be deaf and silent; and that is called dignity. Or he may be deaf and noisy; and that is called slashing journalism. In neither case is there any controversy; for the whole object of modern party combatants is to charge out of earshot.

In our current culture, it is almost impossible to avoid the Scylla of relativism without falling into the Charybdis of prejudice. That is, either one denies any real difference between one's opponents and oneself, or one judges them to be irrational and arguing in bad faith.

For example, I pointed out to a friend that, while health care of some sort is presented as a basic human right in Catholic social teaching, there is no requirement or expectation that the government will in any direct way provide such care. Rather, the role of the government is to ensure that health care is not denied to any who need it. His immediate response was to call me insane. No reasonable person, he said, could call for universal health care without at the same time making it a government department. In short, he was unable to actually make an argument in favor of government-run health care exactly because he could not accept any argument against it.

I don't know what it would take for our society to discover some other mode of debate besides shouting as loudly as possible, but until we do we will drown in our own increasing irrational prejudices.

Rabbert blathers on....

My recent absence

I know how much you all depend on my posting to give meaning and purpose to your lives, and I have felt the increasing weight of responsibility each day that I have not been able to post recently. *sigh* Here is my explanation.

On Friday last, I was part of a team making a major presentation to the staff of my parish. We're doing great things there, and trying to do even greater. Anyway, the prep took most of my time and energy leading up to it, and then I spent the entire weekend recovering.

Oh, and yesterday I was babysitting Mr. Tooth all day.

Note that this is not an apology. My dad has enforced one of Gibbs' rules: Never say you're sorry; it's a sign of weakness.
Rabbert blathers on....

Health care myths

An interesting article from the WaPo of a couple weeks back: 5 Myths about Health Care around the World. Here's a quote that caught my eye:

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

The main problem with the article's proposals is that it would require a complete overhaul of our current medical insurance system. That's something the current administration is dead-set against doing. Strange: you'd think an administration that ran on the slogan of "CHANGE" would be interested in, well, change.
Rabbert blathers on....

Morals! Virtue! Patriotism!

I'm ever so proud to be an American!

Rabbert blathers on....

Subsidiarity

One of the political principles that has become very important to me in my recent researches is Subsidiarity, which is essentially the principle of dealing with problems at the level of society affected by them. In short, deal with local issues locally, and personal issues personally.

Here are a couple good articles on why this doesn't necessarily mean a "least common denominator" approach.
Rabbert blathers on....