So which is it?

Spicer's first press conference in which he appears combative, angry, and downright belligerent. He is not interested in answering questions nor informing the American people of the goings on of the Administration's first day. No, in fact he has one goal - push a false narrative, a lie.  

Within five minutes he has contradicted himself. At 1:43:

"No one had numbers."

Followed just moments later, at ~2:30, by:

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."

Not only is he contradicting himself, but he's standing in fronting of the press corps lying through his teeth. In person, while yes, many attended, no one doubts that in person attendees were less than Obama's. A quick image search can turn up many photos of empty bleachers along the parade route.

This isn't entirely unexpected: DC isn't known as a conservative bastion and many of Trump's core constituents would have to travel a great deal to attend the happenings. Plus, as so many conservatives are quick to point out, they have to actually work for a living unlike the welfare queen liberals. Well, except for the disenfranchised rust belt voting block that lost their jobs to foreign competition. I guess they aren't working right now, contrary to the conservative talking point.

Regarding the 'around the globe' bit, a very, very quick google search will reveal Nielsen ratings showing that Trump's estimated ~30 million viewers for his 2017 inaugural address pales in comparison to Reagan's ~41 million viewers in 1981.Even Obama's first inauguration in 2009 had an estimated ~37 million viewers.

Nielsen doesn't factor in live streaming, which of course wouldn't be in play during the Reagan administration, but it certainly played a factor in President Obama's inaugurations. To pretend that Trumps inauguration was either the most attended, or the most viewed, is naive. Further, it's a petty talking point to be arguing about in front of the press.

The Real Problem

No, the real disturbing aspect of this first press conference is that the administration is already showing an extremely real disdain for the Free Press, at least a disdain for those outside of Faux News and friends. We're a hop, skip, and a jump away from losing press access to the executive branch of government, something that would have been an unthinkable consideration until recently.

The Free Press is the safeguard of our democratic republic. Once the Free Press is no more, all bets are off. Exposure, transparency, an informed electorate, these things keep us free of fascist and dictatorial aspirations in our government. The press is already under attack - anything disliked by the administration is deemed "Fake News" in an attempt to gaslight viewers into ignoring facts and believing false narratives. And these false narratives are believed.

Instead of trusting reporters and journalists who have dedicated their lives to covering 'the story', whatever that may be, people are putting their trust in unvetted and unattributed websites shared on social media that happen to align with the preconceived story that their itching ears want to hear. Facts do not matter. Truth does not matter. It's all about reinforcing one's own beliefs without any reflection or research. If the news doesn't align with your desires, just keep scrolling - eventually you'll find a website that does.

We're living in a disturbing time.

Build that wall?

The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2017

It won't be backed by Mexico. He'll pull some doublespeak about imposing tariffs on Mexican trade and saying he made them pay for it that way. Meanwhile, he will have hurt international trade and made the cost of any wall that gets built the burden of the American tax payer. Not the 1% mind you, the average working Joe. The middle class like you and me.

Mexico won't pay a dime.

Ugh

Because this is what I want my president to be worried about...

Wow, the ratings are in and Arnold Schwarzenegger got "swamped" (or destroyed) by comparison to the ratings machine, DJT. So much for....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2017

being a movie star-and that was season 1 compared to season 14. Now compare him to my season 1. But who cares, he supported Kasich & Hillary

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2017

Salt and Light

From 1 John (ESV): 

19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. 

I think we, as Christians, often forget to love. And unfortunately for us it's one of the most important things we ought to be doing.

 And while yes, 1 John is addressing Christians in the early church, I don't think the writer of the epistle is using 'brother' in strictly the Christian sense in this passage. Lest we forget:

Matthew 22:36-40 (ESV):

 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Love your neighbor as yourself. Not the other people in your congregation. Not the other people in your denomination. Your neighbor, whoever that may be.

I don't know how to convince every man, woman, and child to join the church. But in my life I'm around many who are 'unchurched,' and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that many of them won't step foot in a church building because they view Christians as judgemental hypocrites lacking in compassion and love.

If the church has this reputation, then I daresay we've earned it.

We were called to be the 'salt of the earth.' Matthew 5:13-16:

13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Just as Christ said in the sermon on the mount, we have a particular calling, to let our light shine before others that we might give glory to God.

Unfortunately, many non Christians don't see our light shining, only our judgement and hypocrisy.

We can't change others hearts, others minds, nor others perceptions. We have no control over others. However, what we do control is our own behaviors and actions towards others in the world throughout our daily lives. So if Christians are to combat the perception that we are hypocritical, judgmental people lacking in compassion, the impetus is on us, Christians,  to truly live up to the name 'salt of the Earth.'

If we're not accomplishing that task, then what does Christ say? We are 'no longer good for anything except to be thrown down and trodden upon.' Harsh words for a harsh reality. Christ didn't mince words. We cannot love God if we don't love his people. If the 'world' doesn't know that Christ called us to do this, then we've failed somewhere along the line as a church.

One more before bed...

Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 19, 2013

Yes, he really typed that three years ago.

Not a puppet.

How Soon We Forget

CLINTON’S CLOSE TIES TO PUTIN DESERVE SCRUTINY:https://t.co/wPYm5vQoyt #VPDebate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2016

But hey, he's very smart, they're both very smart, tremendous.

Foundation

With a penchant for both science fiction and the classics, I decided to begin Asimov's Foundation series this summer. This is the first Asimov I've ever read, so I honestly didn't really know what to expect. Further, I've only read the first book of the multiple book series, so to say I have an incomplete picture of this work is an understatement.

Spoilers below!


The novel consists five distinct parts, each separated by several decades, advancing the timeline far enough for a new set of protagonists to deal with the historical consequences of the prior characters' actions.

Setting in a collapsing Romanesque galactic empire spanning millions of worlds, the premise is that a very gifted man, Harry Seldon, has devised a method (with the name 'Psychohistory') to scientifically with astonishing accuracy predict the future, up to thousands of years in advance, with, you know, math and stuff. Yeah, math. That's it.

Ok. The book's central conceit is psychohistory. If you have a hard time swallowing psychohistory, the underlying thread of this work begins to ravel. I love science fiction. I love fantasy. But for some reason I can divine, I had an impossible time suspending my disbelief regarding psychohistory. And that, along with numerous other issues, prevented me from truly appreciated Asimov's work.

A Very Dated Telling

Probably the biggest shock to me from the get go was the extremity to which this series dates itself. It was embarrassing, in a way, that such a revered novel could be so horribly dated through it's descriptions of technology. Perhaps some might consider this some of it's charm, but I found it extremely jarring.

The ultimate level of technology in this universe nuclear power. Ok, fine. We didn't want to invent some sort of fantastic science fiction power source that seemed contrived. (More on contrivance later...) Furthermore, nuclear power is the in the zeitgeist of this series' conception, so it makes sense that it might be a theme within the book.

All that said, however, one of the paradigms of the greats of science fiction across any medium is their ability to be prescient, to imagine a technology, culture, etc that may be magical at the point pen is put to paper, yet pans out in fact years later. Asimov himself may even be accused of this prescience in his Robot novels.

Well, whatever qualities he had in that regard seem sorely absent here. Nuclear technology, which perhaps seemed the wave of the future in the 1940's, doesn't age well. It doesn't have any magical properties described in the book, and further, radiation is quite deadly, despite the many characters tendency to bathe themselves in the stuff.

And this nuclear power is an extremely central theme. Entire civilizations lose knowledge of nuclear power, and the Foundation's knowledge of nuclear power becomes their prime means of shaping their destiny. They use this knowledge of nuclear power as a bargaining tool to ensure their continued survival, and even at times absolute control of other cultures.

All this begs the question, in my mind, how are their ships powered? These civilizations that have lost power - are we seriously suggesting that they're traveling interstellar distances with what.... coal and oil?

I suppose I shouldn't get hung up on this point, especially as I have the benefit of technological hindsight, but this point completely destroyed immersion for me as a reader. The best novels, of any genre, are timeless. The best science fiction novels are often, technologically, ambiguous. By hinging so much of this world on the use of something so specific and known (nuclear power), the novel has dated itself in the worst way possible.

Well. Maybe not the worst way.

Surprisingly Passive Sexism

There are no female characters worth mentioning in the book. In fact, I can only think of one female character in the first book. And she was greedy, spoiled, and cared only for her own vanity.

Look, I get it, it was written in a different time by a male author in a very different culture than that in which we currently live. But that aforementioned prescience many science fiction greats have been imbued with? Rarely is it confined to technology. Often they have dashes of it in their societies, norms which have evolved beyond our current culture, many of which we have later caught up and met.

Well, that is not the case here. Not only are the only primary characters male, but the only secondary characters are also male. Women just aren't worth mentioning in the narrative. I hear this changes in the later books. I hope this changes in the later books. But were I to someday have a daughter, this is not a book which I would recommend to her.

Contrivance. Contrivance Contrivance Contrivance. 

A Classic?

I'm genuinely puzzled. Why is this a classic? I can only hope the later novels offer some redemption, as I found myself forcing my way through this book, struggling to suspend disbelief (something I'm generally quite adept at) to choke down one more forced "Seldon crisis" and to hope for something of interest to happen at some point, any point, in the narrative.

The Russians have retweeted this clown.

The official Russian Embassy Twitter account:

Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2016

But he's not a puppet, not a puppet.

You've got to be kidding me.

Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2016

It's like a crappy amateur movie script. Except it's real. And we elected him.

Amphipolis Tomb Excavation

.

Sometimes, for various reasons, I find the internet depressing.

And boy, I wish I knew what the 'next step' is.

Better Late Than Never

Those evil deregulation Republicans that led to the housing crisis...

Disconnected

"I remember you when you were young and strong in your summer dress and your legs so long, my memories are only for me, I prefer them to reality."

That verse has lodged itself in my mind since I first heard it five years ago. 

Stargate Model

How long till it hits ThinkGeek?

Social Media

Some people are so full of anger. And they must advertise it to the world.

Bit on Jimmy Kimmel

This is beyond depressing to watch. I want these to be staged so badly...

The Myth of Perfection

I don't often talk about my relationship with my wife, as it's something very personal that I don't often share with friends, much less with the anonymous world of the internet. But there is one thing I don't think I want to share, as I think it has become so essential that culture at large hear it today. It's something that is counter to mainstream culture, and what the television set and 'conventional wisdom' are selling you. And it's something that the world at large generally just doesn't want to hear because it doesn't give them warm fuzzies on the inside. What is this truth?

You will never find the perfect person.

But wait, isn't that settling?

Maybe? I don't think so. I think there is a difference. A bit of explanation.

Everyone should have a set of goals, ideas, standards, ethics, values, etc, that they wish to share with their future spouse. This isn't unreasonable. But what is unreasonable, I think, is expecting to find someone that meets each and every one of those bullet points. The only way you're going to find that is by dating yourself. In the real world you have to compromise.

Don't misunderstand, settling is a real thing, and I'm not denying that people do it. But in spectrum
with settling-for-someone-whom-you-have-nothing-in-common-with on one side, and waiting-forever-for that-perfect-someone on the other, in the middle is a vast zone that I would label 'real relationships.' The middle is occupied by happily married couples who stay the course. The closer you get towards "Perfect," the more the divorce/break up rate rises as people lump unreasonable expectations on their partner/spouse. The closer you get towards "Settling," the more dysfunctional and unhappy the relationship is, quite probably with an equal rise in the divorce/breakup rate.

And right in the middle? Commitment.

Waiting for Superman and/or Superwoman

We're bombard with sitcoms like How I Met Your Mother and Scrubs that, while amusing, accentuate the failure of the current system. Characters in said shows bounce from relationship to relationship, constantly on the cusp of commitment, but always at the very last minute finding a justifiable reason (in their mind) that the relationship could never work, so they in turn break it off only to jump right in to the next similar fiasco.

Now to the rational person, I think it's fairly obvious why this occurs. It's a television program, and if Ted Mosby met the love of his life in the first episode we would know how he met his children's mother and the television show would be over. Not much chance for syndication or future profits.

Unfortunately, though, I see this scenario playing out in the lives of those around me. Reality is being treated in the same manner as fantasy entertainment. Peers and acquaintances can't seem to find the person that is 'just right,' with whom they'll enjoy their happily ever after.

The problem is, they're searching for the wrong thing. They should be looking for someone whom they love despite their flaws, someone with whom they're willing to work through life's trials and hardships.

They're searching for the perfect person, forgetting that no one is perfect.

Get Your Ducks in a Row

My wife and I dated for four and a half years before marrying, making our relationship already statistically longer than the majority of marriages. Of those four and a half years, we were a long distance relationship for almost three and a half years. In that time we had disagreements, we both made mistakes. She's not 'perfect' for me, I think, by conventional wisdom. We don't have any overlapping hobbies, and our tastes in books and movies is often sharply different. Our taste in music is definitely in contrast, despite the fact that music brought us together.

But what we do have? Shared religious beliefs. Shared plans and values for our future family and life together. Shared financial opinions. (This one is important, and often skipped over by couples.) Shared commitment to each other. And we have a lot of fun together, no matter what we're doing. We each found someone that hits the major bullet points for what we want in a partner. The little ones? Eh. So what. She may not be able to name the seven original Dwarf Houses of Middle Earth, but I think we can work through that detail.

(I forgive her.)

For Your (Spider) Viewing Pleasure

I generally feel all spiders are evil, but I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Parrot Buggy

Allow my to break my update dry spell with a parrot buggy!



You're welcome.

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Personally, I'm all for sustainable living because we only have one planet, and regardless of whether or not human made climate change is real, a healthy and clean Earth is better for all of us. As a Christian I believe that we should be good stewards of the earth, and destroying it through neglect and irresponsibility is downright sinful.

Saw this video today. It's an older one, and it simplifies arguments a good deal, but it uses good old fashioned economics to make a point. It's all about opportunity cost, and the opportunity cost is simply too high given what is at stake.

Now, all that said, I'm not suddenly a bleeding heart big government liberal. I believe that people needed to be educated about the subject, and should make the right choice on their own. When things are put in perspective regarding the consequences of our actions and the burdens our children, possibly we, and certainly the rest of the human race will have to bear, I don't see how there really is a choice at all.

Be a good steward of God's creation.When it's put in those terms, no rational believer could disagree.