Tidbit to remember...

"You don't rise to the level of your expectations. You fall to the level of your training."
-Some military saying I want to remember for later.

I'm single, and I love Valentine's Day

It's the eve of Valentine's Day, and I'm supposed to be shagging someone senseless or lazily necking under the moonlight. But, I'm not. I'm single, and dateless, and I had to work anyway. A lot of people would use these things as an excuse to hate Valentine's Day. I hear it a lot. "Single-Awareness Day," they call for. There's so much bitterness that you could almost choke on it. Aesop's fable of sour grapes seems quite apropos.

Even so, I've tasted those grapes before and they are quite sweet. Love is a fantastic experience, and I'd be positively hypocritical to sneer at it simply because I'm not currently in the throes of passionate bliss. I am no longer a prisoner of that youthful naivete that once informed me that Love was The Greatest Thing in The World. Life is too full of rich experiences to catalog and classify just one of them to be "The Greatest." That said, Love is still quite incredible. I, for one, enjoy at least a single day formally dedicated to the celebration of it.

I have been single for a good while now, and I don't think I'll ever know Love like I used to. It was so overwhelming, and so all-encompassing. Everything else in my life took a back seat to it, and hinged on it. That's too big a burden for any one idea to bear, even one so grandiose as Love. Honestly, my last Love left me so worse for wear that I'm not sure I even want to go through all that turmoil again. I like drama as much as the next person (perhaps a little more), but life is a little too delicate to take that kind of Sturm und Drang very often. I'm convinced there's a middle-ground.

I've met so many people that loathe the fallout of Love, and yet long for it anyway. I'll celebrate Love with those people. There are people that want occasional companionship, but not to be smothered. People that crave passion, but cringe at insanity. People that desire the giving and receiving of pleasure, but also have other things to do. Love is strong stuff, but one can take even the strongest drink in moderation. It doesn't have to be teetotaling or total drunken abandon. That's the Love that I'll celebrate this Valentine's Day. It might be mere illusion, but who can say that Love isn't an illusion altogether?

So, happy Valentine's Day everyone. Daedalus knew what he was about. One can soar on wings of the softest down, and bask in the warm sunshine. Just don't fly too high!

I did it!

It took me a month, which was pretty much what I had planned for, but I found a decent job at a great hotel! I'm now the newest member of the Hilton family! Not only that, but so far they appear to be the best company I've ever worked for. They are offering me a fair wage, respectful treatment, and a definite possibility for advancement. I think I've really struck paydirt with this place.

There isn't much more to say at this point. I've only worked 2 days, and that's been mostly training manuals (snore). Even so, I'm hopeful for the future. I almost can't believe it. I actually did it. I started over again.

Return to The Holy City

I haven't blogged in about a month, but the past month has been incredibly busy. Much has happened, so I'll catch anyone not in the loop up to speed.

A couple of months ago I got absolutely fed up with life in Reevesville, and I decided to do something about it. After the incredibly fortuitous offer of a FROG from a friend of a friend, I realized that I had no more excuses and put in a month's notice at my place of employment. I would be out of Reevesville by year's end! That was November 23.

The following month was a nerve-wracking experience in limbo. Neither working or unemployed. Preparing for a move, yet not able to enact it. It felt as though I were at the edge of a ledge, with one foot dangling out over an inky-black chasm, preparing for a leap of faith. On New Year's Eve I jumped.

Stacy and I drove Michael's (the new roommate) truck to Reevesville and picked up the bulk of my furniture. Before midnight I had moved, but even today I'm in freefall. The question of work rears it's ugly head. In times past I would have been reluctant to bother with it. I would have hoped for things to just work out on their own, or simply avoided the topic entirely through reality denying hobbies. I'm so happy to have learned at least a little.

I've since had a few days to get settled in, and can now begin the real work of finding work. It's frightening stuff, but I'm confident I can find something quickly. My former boss has promised to write me a letter of recommendation, and I'd like to stick with the hotel industry. The contradictory nature of inns appeals to me. They are neither home or destination. Both incredibly public and incredibly private. The tenants are at once secured by their own anonymity, and rendered vulnerable by it. I find the limbo-like nature of the business interesting in the extreme.

Despite my interest, I'm not dead-set on it. I'm not stubborn enough to insist on hotels or bust. That is folly. There will be time to get back to what I want. Now is a time to take care of necessity. Speed is of the essence. Better an ill-fit today than a perfect fit far too late.

Until next time,
Douglas.

Romney's lack of faith in America

This entry is a reaction to Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, given earlier today. It can be found here: http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America

First off, if you haven't read the speech then I highly suggest you do so. It is very well-written and I hope to hear Romney's presentation of it soon. The man is an excellent orator. That being said, I have a few of problems with what he actually says in the speech. I think these problems reflect on larger issues and as such am talking about them here.

In the middle of the speech, Romney says, "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

This, perhaps deliberately, misses the point.

Beyond being a cultural oddity, most Americans don't seem to really care about Mormonism that much. They don't care that the Mormon church used to be racist, but now is less so. They don't care that the Mormon church used to be sexist, but now is less so. They don't even really care that the Mormon church used to endorse polygamy, but now does so less vehemently. Nobody really cares about these things, beyond their just being interesting or wierd.

What people care about is what Mitt Romney thinks and believes. Americans want to know if Mitt Romney is a racist. They want to know if Mitt Romney is a sexist. They want to know if Mitt Romney will discriminate against blacks, women, or gays. They'd like to know if Mitt will discriminate economically. But Mitt's political positions have "evolved," and that inconsistency creates doubt. As such, people will look to the place where it is unusual to change one's mind lightly...religion.

Romney says, "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

One must wonder if he was being true to his faith when he supported Roe v. Wade in 1994. If so, is he being true to his faith now by rescinding his support? He says his views on this issue have evolved, but I'd like a good answer as to how and why. It has been 13 years, and I'd accept that he changed his mind if he'd tell me why. The same criticism can be brought to bear on his support of civil unions for homosexuals in 2005, and his lack of support in 2006. Why the change? I can accept a change of mind if there is a good reason, especially if one posits a sound religious reason for that change. But, no matter the reason I'd like to know what it is. Otherwise, I'm just left to assume that Romney holds whatever opinion will garner him political power.

I don't deny that Romney would probably be a capable president. He has been successful in business, and successful as Governor of Massachusetts. He strikes me as a shrewd and energetic man with a sound moral framework to guide his actions. I disagree with most of his positions, but I have no evidence to claim that his positions are not moral from his perspective. That is why I think it is vital that the public know what that moral framework is. Saying you "believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind" will simply not pass muster. Until you explain to me what your moral compass is in very precise language, I must assume that you have no moral compass.

Every politician must give me a good reason to assume that they want political power to do good, and that they can precisely define what that good is. Romney wants presidential power to cut taxes for they hyper-wealthy (such as himself), deny gays the right to have their marriages recognized by the state, rescind the right of women to have whatever medical procedure they wish and can afford, and continue occupying a foreign country despite the objections of most of his countrymen. How are these things good? How are these things informed by his faith? He hasn't answered these questions. For that matter, no GOP candidate has answered these questions all that well.

I know religion is a hot topic, and morality is a wooly topic. Moral issues are tough to talk about, and don't fit well into a 30 second debate response. That's fine, Mitt. We can handle it. If you want to have faith in America, perhaps you should have faith in Americans.

The History of Western Philosophy in Under 5 Minutes

A wolf amidst the sheep?

If flying is throwing yourself at the ground and missing, and luck is throwing yourself at a Ford LTD and missing, then God must be the result of throwing yourself at an explanation of the universe and missing.

I went to church this morning for the first time in many years. I was invited by my aunt, and normally I would decline this sort of invitation. This time, however, a cousin of mine was giving a revival sermon. I have a lot of respect for this man, and I didn't want to miss this opportunity to hear him speak. I love a good oration, and I was curious to see how good he was. The promise of post-church dinner also played a minor role in my acceptance of this invitation, but mostly it was the cousin.

It was a bit of a shock going back to Reevesville Baptist. When I got there it seemed so small, and I commented that I remembered everything being much bigger the last time I was there. This should give a clue to how long I'd gone without attending. The scale of everything was just wrong, and what had seemed such an enormous edifice to God's glory in my childhood now struck me as a rather timid, austere chapel. Barely a closet of Christ compared to the majestic cathedrals in other parts of the country (or even the state). The walls are bare white, and undecorated in a manner that only Protestants can get right. There are three stained-glass windows, each bearing a scene from the Gospels, on either side of the pews. They struck me as rather gaudy today, as though affronting a bare pretense to the beauty that Catholics have long since brought to bare on worship.

The service was odd for me. There were a few jaw-dropping moments that made it difficult for me to retain my composure. At one point all of the children were brought to the front of the room and given a mini-sermon by a Sunday school teacher. The theme of this sermon was, "All of you are special, as long as you love God." My stomach turned a bit as this woman held a bowl of candy and asked these kids, "Raise your hand if you love God," and then gave all the eager youngsters a piece of candy to reward them for their naive public pledge. The Chinese once used a very similar method of brainwashing on American POWs to sway them toward accepting Communism.

There were a few songs, all of which I found difficult to follow. Lots of talk about clean blood, lambs of God, and taking up a cross. It's odd how I had sung these hymns as a child, and never took the time to read the words. I just sang along with everyone else, and never bothered to think that these lyrics might actually mean something. As an adult I can safely say that most hymns are badly written bad music. Dull, nonsensical, poorly timed, irritating to the ear, and difficult to sing.

Eventually my cousin got up to give his sermon. I was surprised to find him a very sober speaker. I was expecting fiery passion and hellish admonishion. I was expecting sweating and shouting. I was expecting people to scream, "Amen" and fall unconsious. He calmly laid my suspicions aside in the first few seconds of his speech by saying simply that he isn't "that kind of speaker." He, as it turns out, is a very structured speaker. He lays out his points, and then sets out his supporting points. He uses repetive rhetorical devices to create a sense of calm rhythm. He instills in his audience a confidence that he knows what he's talking about, and a feeling that he is compassionatly delivering a message that he thinks is important.

The message, on the other hand, was rather difficult for me to follow. It was something to the effect of, "We need revival because those who are full of God's love will be prosperous in life." It sounded good, I guess, but then he started referencing the book of Joshua. Now, I'm not fond of most of the bible. That said, I'm least fond of the Old Testament. How anyone can twist the stories of the Old Testament around to make a morally instructive lesson for a modern person without breaking his own spine is beyond me. The story of Joshua is no exception. It is a continuation of the lovely story of the Jewish invasion of "The Promised Land." This sounds very sweet as long as you keep glossing over the fact that other people were living on this promised land before the Jews got there, and these Jews butchered most of these people like cattle. These people committed no real crime save living on the wrong stretch of dirt, and for that crime these Isrealites slaughtered, robbed, raped, and enslaved them (and that was if they were in a good mood). The pinnacle of morality, these people were not.

After the sermon we were invited to the front to get saved, I can only assume from bands of marauding Isrealites that might lop our heads off and take our land at any second. I politely declined the offer, though those near me may have mistaken my shaking for some attack of zealous fervor. I was merely aghast at having been encouraged to act like Bronze-Age land-snatching hoodlums in such an even-toned manner. I saw numerous people that I hadn't seen in years, which was nice, and adjourned to my aunt's for a delicious chicken dinner.

In closing, I'd simply like to comment that if you're trying to teach people how to be successful and moral and you have to resort to using the story of Moses and Joshua to do that, then you've missed the mark by a wide margin. If you're trying to teach children to be moral and successful, and have to resort to brainwashing techniques that would turn most people's stomachs in any other setting you've missed the mark by an extremely wide margin. This experience has gone far to revive my atheistic fervor, however. Because if brainwashing and barbarism is the best Christianity has to offer then I want none of it.