Haiku

Sitting in my tree
I call out to passing friends
Nobody comes up

Tumblr for a day: Get the hell off my desktop!

Photodump 2: from the Bahamas. Click to enlarge.

A fire pit that we dug on the beach.

Sperm whales! There's a calf in here somewhere.

Some sperm whale chomped off half of this squid. We found the other half floating on the surface. To wit: we fished it out, documented it, took it home, fried it up and tried to eat it. (I say 'tried' 'cause it didn't work. Apparently there's a right and a wrong kind of squid to eat, and this kind was unfathomably salty.)

That is the ship they used in the filming of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. That's the Flying Dutchman. Disney owns a few islands in the Bahamas, and they brought the Dutchman there as a tourist attraction. Worked for me.

This disturbing creature is the conch that lives inside the famous conch shells that come out of the Bahamas. They're pretty good when fried.

I've never been sure what this is, but I think it's a tiger shark.

Pretty sure this one's a nurse shark, based on the tail.

Hypothetical Situation: God, Wishes, And The Ability to Know Anything in the Universe

Suppose that when you die, you get sent to heaven or hell or wherever, but as a sort of parting gift from God, you get one request.

You can’t wish to be brought back to life, or have anyone else brought back to life. In fact, your wish can’t affect the physical world at all. Nor can you wish to have God’s powers or anything close. Your request can’t (and won't) change your designation to go to heaven or hell or wherever.

The only thing you can ask for is information. Specifically, thus:

You can go anywhere on Earth or anywhere in the universe and watch whatever you please. You can get any piece of knowledge you want. If you want to watch the Big Bang, you can do that. If you want to find out the mysteries of the universe, you can do that as well. God will make it possible.

Or, you can stay closer to home. You can go back and relive an experience from your past, sit in on something you didn’t witness, find out an answer to the question you’ve always wanted to have answered. You can literally know any one thing in the universe, or have any experience in the universe.   

However, you can't make something up that didn't happen in the real world. You can't relive dating someone you never dated in reality, or experience a fantasy world that doesn't actually exist. You're stuck with what happened in the universe you grew up in (no multiverse cheating!) 

And there are a few Really Important Rules here.

What you see is what you get. God will not sugarcoat anything for you. If you ask for a montage of the worst moments in your life, you will get the worst moments in your life.

You will get what you ask for. If you ask to watch the entire life of the universe in real time, starting at the Big Bang and ending whenever, you will watch the entire life of the universe, or however many billions or trillions of years that is. You will undoubtedly go insane. And if you lose your mind, you don't get pulled out of your wish early. You wished for it, you're stuck with it.

You won't just watch whatever you choose. You'll live it. Obviously you can choose how you want to experience your choice, but God will allow you to live it. You can be inside your own body as a spirit, or you can float in space and watch supernovae from close up, or do whatever it is you please. But you will get the full experience of whatever you choose. As with all of the Rules, this could be very, very good... or horrifically bad, depending on the choices you make. All of this is up to you to decide.

So....

What would you choose?

Assume that you're the person you are now, or that you're the person you'll be when you get to heaven, or anything you like. It's up to you. This is a humanistic question; God won't help you decide or stand in your way. He will simply grant... whatever you want. 

I don't have an answer. I have a few dozen. The point of this question isn't to settle on one answer, it's to figure out what are the few things nearest to your heart and upmost in your desires. It's an opportunity to chase otherwise unattainable hopes and dreams, or to absolutely screw yourself over, depending on how you use it. So purely in the spirit of inquiry...

what would you choose?

Also, insert your own concept of "God" here. :-)

Dear Teachers: Stupid Questions

Dear Every Teacher and Professor Everywhere,

You lied to us.

There are stupid questions. And when you say "There are no stupid questions", you are lying.

Now, there is some truth to that statement. The act of asking a question, the impulse to seek more information or get a better explanation of the information you have, that is never stupid. But there are plenty of idiotic questions. You know it and we know it, so how about we all just acknowledge it.

Sincerely,

Every Exasperated Student Ever

Packers Who Won't Be Back Next Year (And How We'll Replace Them)

 The Super Bowl champions nearly always lose a lot of people in the year or two after the game takes place. Free agents get huge deals elsewhere, veterans retire or move on and fat gets trimmed from the roster. With a deep roster, fifteen players returning from injured reserve and lucrative deals waiting once free agency resumes, a lot of Packers will likely be playing elsewhere next year. Here are some of the most likely candidates to move on.

We'll Miss You!!

Brandon Jackson

The Packers' 2007 second-round pick saw his rookie contract expire after the 2010 season. Despite a mediocre season as the starter after Ryan Grant went down in Week 1, Jackson still wants to start somewhere, and will likely be given an opportunity in free agency. He's a top-notch pass-blocker and by far the Packers' best man on screen passes, but whatever team picks him up will have to deal with his limitations running the football and in overall speed. James Starks will likely take over as the third-down back, as well as splitting time as the starter with Ryan Grant, and I expect the Packers to spend a mid- to late-round pick on another back.

Korey Hall

 The Packers' nominal No. 1 fullback, another 2007 draftee, also has his contract expiring and probably won't be back. He's the best blocker among the three-man corps, but Quinn Johnson is still around and John Kuhn will certainly be resigned, and since Hall has been injured for large parts of the last three years, it's likely he won't be back. The Packers will have a job replacing Hall on special teams, however.

                                 James Jones

The second most talented receiver on the roster after Greg Jennings, Jones is also the most inconsistent. Packers fans will remember his spectacular touchdown catches against Atlanta in the playoffs (left) and the one-hander against Minnesota, but Jones can't be relied on on deep passes. The 2007 third-rounder dropped deep balls against the Giants, Eagles and Steelers late in the season that all could have been long touchdowns.
 Despite his drops, Jones has a ton of talent and the ability to be a starter and star, and teams will give him a chance come free agency. My prediction is the Jacksonville Jaguars, who are always looking for receivers.
With Donald Driver's career in Green Bay nearing its end, look for the Packers to spend a high pick on Jonathan Baldwin or another tall receiver to fill out the corps behind Jennings and presumptive 2011 starter Jordy Nelson.

Daryn Colledge

 One of the only true starters on this list, Colledge has been pretty darn consistent for the last five years. He's started 78 games at left guard and occasionally at left tackle, and was thought to be the Packers' long-term plan at LT until several disastrous stints there in relief of Chad Clifton in '09. Journal Sentinel beat writer Bob McGinn said "there's no question he ranks fifth-best on a five-man unit" after the season. Colledge spent part of the offseason speaking out about a long-term contract, and between that and his subpar play, it's not hard to imagine the Packers letting him go. Third-year lineman T.J. Lang or sophomore Nick Macdonald will probably replace him in '11.

 Jason Spitz

Once a key starter along the interior of the line, Spitz has been merely a reserve for the last two seasons, since the emergence of Josh Sitton at RG put him out of a job there. The Packers were getting trade offers from him at the end of the 2010 training camp, and he might be attractive to teams looking for a low-priced center or guard. I could easily see him resigning with the Packers, though. Spitz had back issues in '09 and before, and his regress to backup status might be a turn-off for suitors.

Mark Tauscher

The savior of the right tackle position in 2009 after Allen Barbre imploded, Tauscher had a mediocre four-game stint in '10 before going on injured reserve with a shoulder injury. There's no reason to bring him back, with Bryan Bulaga seemingly locked-in at RT for another year, and he'd earn $4.1 million in base salary next year for a team that'll be looking to cut spending. Don't expect to see him on the opening-day roster.

Brett Swain

Swain's been on the roster for two years, plays hard and has been a special-teams constant. He just doesn't have the speed to ever be dangerous on the field, and if Thompson keeps to his mantra of drafting plenty of receivers, Swain will likely lose out in training camp to a speedy kick-returner type.






Cullen Jenkins

I couldn't resist using this photo.

I've already covered in this space how the Packers' best defensive end has likely seen the end of his time in GB. If the lockout drags on into training camp, Jenkins might consider returning on a one-year deal, but by all reports there wasn't much contact between his agent and Ted Thompson even before the lockout began. Mike Neal will be tasked with filling Jenkins' formidable sack production in 2011, if he can stay healthy...

 Justin Harrell

Like the rest of the 2007 draft class, his contract is up. And... yeaaaaah.... the Packers would be crazy to give him a tender or any kind of second contract.

Brady Poppinga

 One of only three draftees remaining from the 2005 class (Pro Bowlers Aaron Rodgers and Nick Collins are the others), Poppinga's time might have come. He's coming off a blown knee, is 31 and plays a position where the Packers have a glut of players. Will be remembered for his stint as a Mormon missionary and his memorable quotes.

Nick Barnett

The Packers' starting MLB since 2003 and part-time nightclub owner has long been one of Green Bay's top defensive players. But with his base salary over $6 million in 2011, at a position where starters A.J. Hawk and Desmond Bishop are both sitting on long-term deals, Barnett will either take a pay cut or a trade to some other team. He's just 29 and hasn't played much due to season-ending injuries in '08 and '10, and could be a real find for a 4-3 team. Has two years remaining on his contract. Barnett will likely be one of the Packers' top priorities once the lockout ends.

Atari Bigby

The one-time mighty hitter in the secondary has been injured basically since 2007. With an expiring contract and Morgan Burnett slated to start next year, and Charlie Peprah around for depth's sake, Bigby might not even make it to training camp. Plus, apparently he's spending his time out of the country instead of working out, which will help exactly none.

"Filled Full of Everything We Need": Empowering or Needlessly Self-Deprecating?

One problem I’ve always had with Christian philosophy is that, to me, it implies that humans just aren’t good enough on our own. People talk about feeling fulfilled, or whole, or complete as if some part of them was missing before they allowed Christ to maraud into their thoughts. It’s always seemed oddly self-deprecating to me, as if you need some outside fulfillment—from God, from Jesus, from your peers—just to be yourself.

Take this blog post, for example. It quotes and then explains a passage from the Bible that tells us not to rely on “philosophy… based on human tradition” or “based on the elemental forces of the world”, which is taken to be the struggle for self-improvement. The passage urges readers not to “attain goodness by performance, exercising self-effort… to achieve ‘a good life’”. Apparently, everything that we call the temporal world is useless without Christ in it. We shouldn’t waste our faith on people, or the credo of self-improvement; Christ is the only thing that matters and the only thing we need.

I have a problem with that. I feel that a philosophy like the one I’ve described above is flawed. While it pays tribute to an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, it also seems to say that everything under the sun simply isn’t good enough when God is out there. “Don’t let the world cheat you by trying to make you think you lack,” the blogger says, but I posit that this philosophy is what’s telling me I'm lacking. It says that this world is simply not good enough, that Christ is the best and the only thing we should rely on.

I have more faith in people than that. I have more faith in the infinite diversity and goodness of the people around me than in a God I’ve never met in person. I’m not a Christian, and thus it’s a fair charge that I simply don’t grok the principles at work here, but I really don’t understand how someone can rely on an entity they’ve never met for support and guidance.

But then, I suppose that’s not really it either; the blog emphasizes that “all you need to do is to appropriate by faith this fullness that lives in you” (bolding mine). The author repeats the phrase several times, emphasizing that you should rely not on an abstract ideal of God, but of the power of Christ in yourself. “We are ships completely outfitted with everything we need”, says another Biblical passage, but apparently we can’t be relied on until Christ is captaining the ship.

So you yourself do have potential, but only through Christ can you realize it. It sounds like a continual self-affirmation to me, like you need Christ to tell you that you can perform any task you wish. It seems like faith in Christ almost replaces faith in yourself in this philosophy.

And speaking personally, I don’t need an external validation from Christ or anybody. I can accomplish whatever I damn well choose to accomplish. I don’t begrudge Christians their sources of solace, but it doesn’t seem to me that I need a spiritual therapist to help me at every turn, and I find the idea that you do—not just that I need one, but that everyone needs one, and that it’s absolutely essential that we all get the same one—more than merely disquieting.

(Disclaimer: My religious opinions are my own and are intended to apply to myself alone. This blog is not intended to proselytize, offend or be used as medical advice.)

Enjolras and Valjean are Kinda Jackasses

Whooo! Hello again, blogosphere, I survived the weekend. Among the many highlights of my Friday and Saturday was an epic production of Les Miserables in Cleveland's Playhouse Square theater. For a lot of the show, I was scribbling down random notes on paper I happened to have, and here's a couple things I came up with during the course of the show.

-I've always been fascinated by Enjolras. I've always been fascinated by characters that are one-dimensional just in general. I suppose that's because they're so patently unrealistic, but when you try to imagine meeting them in real life, it makes you wonder: what the hell happened in Enjolras's past that he so detests the regime? What exactly is it that drives him? We don't know, and that makes him kind of fascinating.

-Be that as it may, Enjolras is a jackass. So, to an extent, is Jean Valjean, and so is Javert. All of them seem to be engaged in a discussion of abstract moral ideals, and all of them seem forget about the people they're supposed to be fighting for or protecting. It's easy to see with Javert; he's committed to upholding the law, but not to protecting the people the law is meant to serve. But in the production I saw, Valjean is guilty of this as well. When a broken Fantine reveals her story after being beaten by Javert, instead of comforting her, Valjean's reaction is that he screwed up again. By ejecting Fantine from his factory, Valjean ruined her life, and he defaults to the thought "I have a duty to make up for this sin". He sort of forgets that Cosette is a person who needs rescuing, instead of just an animate way for him to redeem himself.

Meanwhile, Enjolras funnels everything that happens in the play into the revolution. When Lamarque's death is announced, there's no mourning or tears, for his death doesn't affect the upper-class revolutionaries. "Lamarque is dead/His death is the hour of fate", announces Enjolras, and the ABC Café boils. Eponine is even worse; shot by a police sniper, she was on a mission from Marius that had nothing to do with the revolution, but Enjolras turns her name into a battle cry. They never spoke while she was alive, but after her death, now she's important.

 
There's a rather obvious disconnect between the revolutionaries and the poor people that they claim to represent, and Enjolras is right in the middle of it. Marius speaks more truth than he knows when he says "Only one man, and that's Lamarque/Speaks for the people here below". The revolutionaries, privileged college students who have never known poverty, certainly don't speak for the poor. Instead of backing reforms, aid for the ill and sick, soup kitchens and the like, the denizens of the ABC Café turn to revolution and ultimately end up helping no one. There was a striking scene in this production during "Look Down", where several of the beggars gather around Enjolras. They're on their knees, looking up at him and waiting for some hope, and he's blathering on about "anger in the land" and "cut[ting] the fat ones down to size". You look at the beggars and it's perfectly obvious; they couldn't care less about his message, they want to eat!

It's telling that "Look Down" begins with the beggars' cry for someone to notice them--"Look down and see the beggars at your feet... Look down, look down, upon your fellow man", but ends the exact same way, even after the students have shown up and been duly appalled at the injustice. It just goes to show how little impact the students actually had on the 'squalid streets of Paris'. Taken in this context, it's hardly surprising that Enjolras's hoped-for revolution never came. The people never arose; the authorities were correct ("No one is coming to help you to fight/You're on your own"). Disconnected from the people they claimed to be fighting for, the students died alone on the barricade. Enjolras cries "Do you hear the people sing/Singing the song of angry men?", but the only people singing are the revolutionaries. "Finale" is where the true desire of the downtrodden-hope, and freedom, and spiritual salvation-finally comes through.