My Thoughts the morning after Election Day '08

- A very solid race run by the Obama team. I think it was handicapped by the media to make Obama a clear favorite, but he did want he needed to do, ran a clean campaign, and I have never denied that he can deliver a speech.

- Still "concerned" about his ideas. I am hopeful that a struggling economy forces him to abandon some of his more extreme campaign promises (i.e. universal healthcare, wealth redistribution, confiscatory capital gains taxes).

- This election was bought. Not only did Barack Obama outspend his opponent by at least 3-to-2, and I believe some reports say it's closer to 2-1, but he also bribed 95% of the American people with promises of tax cuts. Now I'm all for tax cuts, but Obama is not going to pay for these tax cuts by reducing government spending, or by stimulating growth in the economy, but by increasing the taxes on the other 5%. That's the worst form of demagoguery.

- I'm glad that we have our first black president. I wish it were someone I agreed with more. I hope this means that we can move past race in future elections.

- On that note, I congratulate Mr. Obama on not playing the "Race Card", and likewise for Mr. McCain. The only references to Mr.Obama's race came from the extremes on either side. Oh, and the fawning by the media in the hours after the election was called for Mr. Obama.

- George Bush will be demonized for years for having lost this election for Republicans across the nation. And history will have a much more sympathic veiw of Bush 43's Administration.

- Michelle Bachman for Senate in '12. 'nuff said.

- I wonder what Sarah Palin's next step is. I suspect she will run for President in 2012, and it will be intersting to see how she handles the primaries.

- Speaking of Caribou Barbie... I hope it as obvious to everyone else that the charges against her in "Troopergate" were strictly political in nature. The investigation was not started until she was already selected as McCain's running mate and she was exonerated mere hours before the election. I hope the individuals behind such blantant political slander are called to answer for what they have done.

Stupid line of the day for Election Day 2008:
Taken from MSNBC.com

In 2004, for instance, exit poll interviews found that 36 percent of
self-identified gun owners said they voted for Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry, but 63 percent of gun owners said they voted for President Bush.

This seems like a recurring trend. It is odd, but in most races with 2 major candidates, the percentage of voters voting for Candidate A plus the percentage of voters voting for Candidate B equals something close to 100%. Very strange. I think we may need to comission an 18-month research study to delve into the phenomenon a little more.

Warning: Political Content ahead. Read at your own risk.

So I just read an interesting editorial over at Washington Times by Andrew Breitbart.

I think Mr. Breitbart has some very good comments. Myself, I think it's a travesity that the current ecomonic crisis is being pinned on "Bush's economic policies". I think some democrats are exagerating the power of the President to affect a world economy, both in the past and in the future. (That thought, BTW, is why I am merely "highly concerned" and not "Katie, bar the door" freaked out at the impending doom ...er... Obama administration)

What piqued my interest, however, is this comment.

If Barack Obama is elected the next president of the United States on Tuesday, I
hope the Republican Party and conservatives take the higher road. The republic
cannot handle another four years of undeclared civil war while we have real
enemies out there to fight.

While this is true and necessary, why is it that the conservatives are the ones that need to "take the high road"? I think the answer is two-fold. First, for whatever reason, the majority of media (and by media, I mean network and cable TV news, newspapers/magizines, and TV and movie actors, writers and directors) are biased toward the Democratic wing of the government (and the left-wing of the Democratic party). For more information on that, please read this also interesting column. Because of this, the democratic party has a monopoly on framing the debate. The question isn't "Did the President's ecomonic policies contribute to this current economic crisis?" or even "Did John McCain's ecomonic initiatives attempt to prevent this crisis?". The debate has been framed as "How will the next President's policies be different from the failed, evil, silly, *Insert derogatory adjective here* Bush policies?"

Second, the conservative side is represented by Talk Radio. It could be argued that Talk Radio had flourished because of the bias in the media. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the media has turned harder left to counter Talk Radio. Talk Radio started out great, and still has a lot of good providers. There is definitely a market for conservative comments and observations. However, it's success has also led to the negatives. Some personalities have over inflated egos, probably because they see themselves as right and everyone else in the media is wrong, which has a grain of truth in it. People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have sought to create cults of personality and mutual admiration societies where those who agree are accepted and those who don't are branded idiots or worse. Their commentary has devolved to a constant hum that only serves to annoy those across the aisle. The idea that conservative ideals can stand alone intellectually if they are just explained is lost in a chorus of Ditto-Heads and fanboys.

Of course, the alternative is for the Republicans to back off and let Obama and Co work the country into a crippling decade-long depression. But I beleive the GOP has too much integrity for that. Besides, if the Dem's get their 60 seats in the Senate, it won't matter what the Republicans do, will it?

The Death of Irony

I had thought the word 'irony' would survive Alanis Morrisette's hatchet job in that song. On a meta-prose level, it is ironic that a song called "Isn't it ironic" has no irony in it.

But too many times I have seen the word used instead of the word coincidental, or sometimes, tragic. To help resurrect this excellent word and restore dignity to the english language, let me explain.

Irony is the difference, often to humorous effect, between what is expected and what actually occurs or has occurred. Case in point: One would think that the song, "Isn't it ironic" would have something to do with irony, and yet, it does not.

Coincidence is simply when two or more things happen at the same time, usually against probability. It can also refer to the same thing happening twice in a small proximity, again, against probablity. If two twins were each struck by lightning in two seperate thunderstorms, that would be a coincidence. In that case, the proximity would be their relationship.

Tragedy is closely related to coincidence. Tragedy is when two of more events occurr coincidentially, and together, they create a negative situation for the subject. Both events do not need to be negative. In fact, some of the best examples of tragedy are when the first event is a positive, and the second event makes that first event meaningless or worse. Most of the examples given in "Isn't it ironic" are actually tragic. Example: He wins the lottery, and dies the next day. Afraid to fly, and dies on his first flight.

"Now wait," you say, "A person wouldn't expect to die on their first flight, right?" Well, yes, that is true, but the chances of crashing on your first flight are the same as your 101st. So the fact that it happened would be simply coincidental. On the other hand, the fact that the Titanic sunk on it's maiden voyage is ironic, because the ship had been designed to be "unsinkable" and the owners had bragged about this fact before she left port.

Palin's closing statement - Take 2
The United States can afford to have an extremist and idealogue in the Senate, because in the Senate, extreme views are tempered by the opinions of 99 other senators and a consensus is reached that is designed to represent the country as a whole. However, the President does not have peers to temper his views. He alone directs national policy and sets the national agenda. This requires a leader who can work across party lines to get things done. Not someone who declines to call republican senators on the Ecomonic Rescue bill because he, and I'm quoting Barack Obama himself here, "isn't very persuasive with republicans."

If you want someone who will vote the democratic party line 96% of the time, then Barack is your choice. But if you want a leader who is an independant thinker, who will evaluate each decision to determine what is best for this country and the American people, not what is best for the Democratic party... or the Republican Party, for that matter... but what is best for America, then the only choice on Nov 4th is John McCain.

The collected Wit and Wisdom of Television Theme songs

It is really nice to be where everyone knows my name.

There are times that I need to remember that I am not a superman.

Sometimes a horse is just a horse. And sometimes it's not.

These happy days are yours and mine.

Living life the the only way you know how may be more than the law will allow.

It is possible for men to live together and still be all alone.

Never trust 3 hour tours.

Keep your head above water and make a wave when you can.

If you want to disappear after a bad break-up, Cinncinati is a good place to go.

There are some who beleive that life here began up there... And there are some who will beleive anything.

Your dreams can be your ticket out, but only for a while.

Sometimes there is more than meets the eye.

Love is life's sweetest reward.

You will see that life is a ball again and laughter is calling for you.

You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big.

It's a jungle out there. (editorial note: Yeah, a jungle in which one of the best opening sequences in all of television HISTORY could be replaced after one season.)

Cally-forney-a is where you oughta be.

It's such a good feeling to know you're alive.

We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

If you are ever trapped in the past, facing mirror images that are not your own, better do a good deed or two while you're there.

You can speak your own mind, but not on my time.

Repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax."

Names are sometimes changed to protect the innocent.

When you have no one else to turn to, find a band of mercenaries on the run from the military and hire them. They can help.


More will follow. Post your own "found wisdom" from TV theme songs.

My Marriage Analogy

A couple of years ago, my wife and I went through a Marriage Course. After the course, the leaders asked my wife and I to give a breif pitch, describing the course to an informational session for the next course. I really like what I said at that time and I thought I should document it before it disappears in the cobwebbed mess that is my brain.

"So many people compare marriage to a foundation. I think that analogy is horrible. My house has a foundation. I looked at it when I bought the house. I even hired someone to look at the foundation, to make sure it was sound. But since then, I maybe look at it once a year, if that. I assume that since it was strong when I bought the house, it will remain strong. Recently, I read a book that was a historical fiction. It was set in the 1700's and at one point the main character sailed across the Atlantic. He commented that the sailers on that ship were constantly working. Even when the weather was calm, they busied themselves patching sails or mending rope or cleaning and replacing parts of the ship. In fact, he said the only way to tell the age of the ship was to look at the dishes in the galley, because everything else on the ship had been replaced. The sailers did this when the weather was calm because they knew that when the weather got rough, their very lives depended on that ship being string and dependable. This is a better analogy for a marriage. Strengthen is when you can, keep it new and fresh and alive, so that when times are bad and you need something to rely on, you don't find yourself stuck in a boat with a stranger."

Why can't DirecTV and Tivo just get along?!?

Many years ago, I purchased a DirecTivo box. This marvelous device combined a DirecTV receiver with a Tivo DVR. It was a match made in Geek Heaven. You see, the function of a DirecTV receiver is to decode the satellite signal, which is compressed MPEG-4, decompress it, and send it to a TV. The purpose of a stand-alone Tivo was to take a TV signal, compress it into MPEG-4, store it, then decompress it and send it to a TV. So when you combine the two, you eliminate the local MPEG-4 compression (instead using DirecTV more efficient compression) which saves money in equipment (no local 'co' in the codec) and picture quality. And, being one box, it only needs one remote. Perfect.

Then they started to fight. DirecTV decided that the wanted to make their own DVR and kicked Tivo to the curb. Now, me? I'm legacy. My DirecTivo still works (both of them, HAHA). But, alas and alack, neither of them support HD. In the next few months I will be making the jump to HD and then I need to make a decision. A decision akin to asking a 14-year-old if he wants to live with mommy or daddy. You see, Tivo HD DVR do not support satellite. Period. Can't be done. But Tivo DVR's have all the latest DVR features, such as access to Rhapsody music, instant download of NetFlix movies, webisodes and web content, and now, YouTube videos.

On the other hand, I much prefer DirecTV to cable. Charter doesn't have NFL network, or SciFi in HD, or USA in HD, or Brave in HD. Which is 70-80% of my veiwing.

DirecTV does have a DVR, but it isn't nearly as cool as Tivo. But basic functionality (and I include SciFi, USA, and NFL network as part of 'basic functionality') is more important that cool extra features.

Obligatory warning: Political opinions ahead...

Al Franken is running for one of the Minnesota Senate seats this year. I never much cared for Al Franken as a comedian (although Stuart Smalley was pretty good), but I cannot stand the man as a politian.

Aside from the fact that he is left of liberal, his stance on workplace union elections is enough to send me scurrying the other way. The issue is this: Today, workplaces that hold elections to determine if the worker will unionize or not, or other similiar decisions, are conducting by private vote, just like political elections. There is a movement (not sure if it's a bill, yet) to make those elections public. I am not actually sure what the legitimate rational is for that, but it is easy to see why certain elements would like that. Elements that would benifit from unionization. Elements that might be willing to apply certain 'pressure' on individuals who would vote against unionization. And by pressure, of course, I mean anything from nasty looks, to veiled threats, to 'unfortunate incidents' that involcve cement overshoes.

No, to me this is a fairly indefensible position. Hence I was interested in a radio commercial that I just heard in favor of Franken and this proposed law. "Now," I thought, "I will be able to know what they are thinking." However what I heard was a perfect example of an ad hommenem arguement. The radio commercials you have heard, said this ad, against Al Franken and the public workplace elections are paid for by Washington lobbyist working for the big corporations; The same corporations that are responisible for high oil prices and the home mortgage crisis.

OK, let's disect. First, the ad says nothing to counter the charges from the other side that open workplace elections are ripe for corruption. Charges that seem quite valid to me.

Second, corporations are responsible for high oil prices and the mortgage crisis? Really? Because I thought that high oil prices were the natural result of increased demand (from the emerging markets in China and India) with decreases, or at least no increase, in supply due to the inaccessibility of domestic oilfields or domestic refining capability. "But what about the record profits from Exxon and others?" Well, I just said that there is a shift in the balance between demand and supply. Exxon is cashing in on that. Good for them. There has been no evidence of collusion or price-fixing, so more power to them. In fact, reports that I have heard indicate that the profit margin for Exxon is a very resonable 4%.

And regarding the mortgage crisis... We do not live in a truly free market economy. It is mostly free, but not entirely. The key to the system is that the Federal Reserve controls the supply of money. They decide what the interest rates will be. If those interest rates are low enough, for long enough, some people will assume that they will be that low forever. They will take out loans that they can barely afford at the low interest rate, and cannot afford at a higher interest rate. In addition, certain Fairness in Lending practices require that lenders offer loans to individuals that they might not normally, or at least to ignore certain criteria that would normally disqualify some. So is the government solely responsible for the mortgage crisis? No, it was definitely a bubble and a correct was needed. But that correction is much worse due to govenmental interference.

So, to sum up: Don't vote for Al Franken. California, it seems, can pick celebrity politicians (Reagan, Sonny Bono, Eastwood, Schwartzenagger), but Minnesota does not appear to be able to.

I am not protected from harm. I am protected for a purpose.

Recently, I have spent quite a few brain cycles thinking and discussing the idea of suffering. I think it's very easy to fall into some wrong ideas about suffering. Some people beleive that Christians should not suffer, and if you are suffering, then you must be sinning in some way. Obviously, these people have never read Job, or the crucifixtion story, for that matter. Also on that side of the fence are those that say that all suffering is inflicted (as some say) or allowed (as others say) by God in order to prepare us for some purpose. While I think that this is certainly possible, that some suffering could be used by God to prepare a person for some ministry, this does not seem to be universally true. It is very hard to see any benefit to many types of suffering.

My opinion, as I put forward in the opening line, is that suffering happens. Much of it is self-inflicted. But God has a purpose for my life. And nothing that happens to me is going to derail that. The only thing that can get in the way of that is my own disobeiance.

OK, heard this on the radio and I need to comment on it somewhere. I just heard about a couple that was charged with "aggrevated identity theft". Really? "Aggrevated"? How on earth does one steal someone's identity aggresively? Or more to the point, how does one do it passively? Does not stealing someone's identity require some action? I mean, could I use the defense in that case that, yes, I did steal someone's identity, but it's not like I tried to do it. It just sorta happened. I mean one minute I'm cruising online, and the next I had a dozen credit cards in half a dozen different names.

Sorry about the delay. Life just doesn't seem to stand still for a little side project like this. Seren and I have tried to simplify our nighttime ritual. First, for Lent, we are giving up eating after 9:00. I know for some, probably most, that is no great sacrifice, but it is for us. We are also committing to not starting to watch a TV program after 10:00 and I am promising to get off of my laptop by 10:00. We will see how this works out. But now, without further ado...

Music of My Life Project: Year 5 - 1978

I know that I've said that the previous years have been difficult, but that is typically because there are only 1 or 2 songs that even qualify. That is going to change fast, starting with this year, I think.

First, there is the Grease soundtrack. Grease is one of those movies that was on premuim cable alot in the early to mid 80's, when I was watching alot of cable. I must have seen that movie at least a dozen times. "Summer Nights", "Greased Lightning", "Hopelessly Devoted to You", "You're the One that I Want". Hey, I even liked the sequel. Of course, these all existed only as movies for me. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized that the original was a stage musical. Still never seen the stage production, as a matter of fact.

The other option here is Billy Joel. Can't beleive that I'm made it this far without hitting good ol' Billy. In 1978, the choice would be "My Life" and "Big Shot". "My Life" is definitely a possibility. (Speaking of musicals, I would really like to see 'Movin' Out' sometime in my life)

But neither of these wins the crown. Now I have stood firm on the topic that I do not listen to country music. Unfortunately, over the years, this has required that I re-define what is country and what is not. For instance, many people consider Kenny Rogers to be a country singer. This is simply not the case, due to the expedient that one of the key definitions of country music is that it is music that I do not listen to. Therefore, the song for this year is the Western hit "The Gambler". This is one of the first pop songs to which I learned all the lyrics. It is one of the songs that my high school football team would sing on the bus going to games (along with Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire")

Music of My Life Project: Year Four

This is the first year in which I have some memory. At least direct memory of the music in question for the timeframe in question. The song in this particular question is the famous John Williams score for the movie Star Wars. Star Wars, both the movies and the spin-off merchandising were a big part of my young life. I still remember that, when I was in fourth grade, my parents took me out of school early so that I could see a matinee on the day that Return of the Jedi opened.

John Williams theme is incredible, throughout all the Star Wars movies. I particularly enjoyed the way he tied/transitioned the theme from the third prequel into the empire's theme from the first movie. The tone of that theme conveyed as much of the storyline as any actor's expression or inflection.

Music of My Life: Year 3

Another tough year. I would say 'Bohemian Rhapsody', but that song did not exist for me prior to 1992's Wayne's World, despite being considered one of the top songs of last quarter of the 20th century. Another possibility would be Larry Groce's 'Junk Food Junkie', but health food has never meant anything to me.

No, for this one, I have to go back to my ballad roots and go with Gordon Lightfoot and 'The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald'. As an aside, I always love looking things up on Wikipedia; I usually find out something new and completely unexpected. For example, I found out that TD Mishke, one of my two favorite radio personalities (the other being Jim Lileks), once interviewed someone about the historical details of the ship descibed in the song live on the radio, but did so by singing the questions to the tune of the Lightfoot song. The interviewee had not been told that this would be the 'format' of the interview, but proceeded to answer the questions straight-faced.

Music of My Life: Year 2

The year is 1975. The selection of songs seems kinda thin to me. Obviously, I was only 1 year old, so I don't remember the music from the time. Looking back there are some songs that I like. 'Kung Fu Fighting', 'Some Kind of Wonderful', and 'Shining Star' are all songs that I enjoy, but none of them have a special place in my memory.

The only one that speaks to me on any level is Harry Chapin's 'Cat's in the Cradle'. I really enjoy ballads, as I imagine the rest of this list will bear out. And this one has always hit me hard. It doesn't speak to me as a one-year-old baby, but throughtout my life. Listening to that song as a young man, I promised myself that I wouldn't treat my future children that way. I'd like to think that I haven't, but it's still something I keep in mind.

Music of My Life Project: the First Year

Birth to one year old. I can't say I remember the music from this time. But looking over the song list from that year causes some titles to jump out at me. My first throught was BTO's 'You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet', because the title speaks of untapped promise, and I really like that song.

But near the end of the list I found the perfect song for this time period. It's one of my favorite songs. I've even tried to learn to play it on the piano, much to my wife's chagrin. It's a fairly simple tune, without words. Perfect for a time before I could speak. So the choice for the first song is 'The Entertainer' by Marvin Hamlisch.

Music of My Life Project

So I recently turned 34. Last year about this time, I decided to put together a soundtrack for my life. I selected 11 or 12 songs from throughout my life that meant something to me and put them in order. This year I'm going to do it a little differently. For the next 34 days, I am going to select 1 song per day taken from a year in my lifetime. I will start tomorrow with Year 0.

Sometimes, this will be a song that spoke to what I was going through at the time, or perhaps my attitude. Other times, the song selected will invoke a particular memory or a person or place. Sometimes it will be just a song that I really enjoyed. I already have some songs in mind, but I am going to leave this as a organic process and see where it goes.

Christian or christian?

So when I was growing up, I learned to differitiate the words 'Communist' and 'communist'. A 'communist' was a person who beleived in the economic philosophy of communism, i.e. all ownership, profits, and debts are communal and the responsibilty and priviledge of all members. A 'Communist' was a member of the Soviet Communist Party, which is communist only in name, and, from what I understand, was much more a political and economic oligarchy.

The reason I bring this up is because of something that Michael Gatlin said in his message last week. He quoted a person he had met years before, saying "If Jesus were alive today, would he be a Christian?" (Capitalization is mine, obviously) It made me wonder if there is a distinction between christians and Christians and what that distinction might be.

My natural inclination is to extend the Communist/communist analog further and say that one is a person that seeks to become like Christ, while the other is a member of an organization which may or may not hold to the teachings of Christ. The problem, and it is merely a sematic one, is which is which? The word 'communist' comes for the base word 'commune', so capitalizing it sets it apart from the original meaning. But 'christian' comes from 'Christ-like', so should the original term be capitalized of not?

Well, a quick look at Wikipedia, confirmed by digging out and looking up in my junior high edition of Writers Inc, tells me that adjectives that are derived from proper names should retian the capitalization. Therefore, I am a Christian man. I would assume that a noun derived from a proper name would also be capitalized. Therefore, I am a Christian.

So I think what I need to do here is the opposite of the convention that I learned regarding c/Communism. Christian will refer to a follower of Christ, while christian will refer to a member of an organization. Although I don't find this solution altogether satisfying, either. This will require more thought.

So I'm sitting in my office on a conference call. While I'm on the call, Mat and Charlie come home. Right now Charlie is in the next room, playing with Bionicles and singing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" to himself over and over again. Well actually only 2 or 3 lines of it over and over again. It is really cute.

So often I feel (and I suspect others feel this way, too) that I am missing so many opputunities to teach my children and give them the things that they need. I worry that I'm warping them or damaging them without trying to. But every now and again, and thankfully with my kids it's more often than not, they do something that makes me feel very comfortable with the parenting job I'm doing, because they are such great kids.

So I wondered into a website today. It is called Positive Atheism (www.positiveatheism.org) and it is interesting. I like to read the thoughts and reasonings of atheists and agnostics. Some are earnestly open and seeking truth. Others are as, or even more, dogmatic than any catholic monk or Bible-belt pulpit-thumper.

My first thought when I saw the name of the web site was that this was a positive look at atheism. Not positive as in happy or pleasant, but positive as in defining atheism with positive evidence, rather than simply defining itself as opposed to religious institutions and everything that they believe. This site did not live up to my hopes. But this is not suprising, as atheism is in itself a negative belief; that there is no god. I liken it to something Einstein said about this theory of relativity, "No number of experiments could prove me right, but one could prove me wrong."

For this reason, I have always found agnostism a more intellectual honest approach. And in fact, even being a "theist" myself, I think that a certain amount of agnostism is a good thing. The Jewish zealots thought that the Messiah was coming to free them from Roman oppression. The fact that Jesus came to free them from a completely different and deeper oppression, I suspect, caused a large number of them to miss out on what Jesus came to offer. If only they could have tuned into what God was doing, rather than their interpretation of what God said through the Scriptures. That's why I tend to stay away from the obsession to pour over Revelations and Daniel to peice together what God will do in the End Times. Chances are even if God put it in there, I would miss it or mis-interpret it badly.

But turning back to this website, it seems to me, from this and most past experience with atheists, that atheists attack the Church itself, and in particular, the Catholic Church, rather than the tenants of the christian faith. In this, there is, unfortunately, far too much ammunition. The Inquistion, the Crusades, subjectation of women, corruption, sexual abuse, selfish political manuevering, ectera ad infinatum. However, it is strictly an Ad Homminum attack. For those of you who did not take Logical Fallicies 101, Ad Homminum is latin for "against the man" and involves attacking a person's character rather than a person's arguements.

This site devotes a lot of space for quotes. Quotes can be fun, but typically do little or nothing to further a logical discussion. In fact, it can often reduce a reasonable debate to mindless sloganeering and fanboy one-up-mans-ship. Quotes can pose ideas. Then can even argue points to a degree, but they tend to be trimmed down to such a degree that they can only be used to state one person's opinion. What Samuel Clemens said about the Bible can only be used as evidence in an arguement about what Samuel Clemens beleived.

It does cover a little (actually a disappointly scant little) of statements from Biblical text. There is certainly a lot in the Bible (particularly in the Old Testemnt) that is offensive to our modern western mind; slavery, women's rights, corpeal and capital punishment, etc. But the arguements are strictly one-sided and do not address the vast cultural differences between then and now. The points they bring up seem to indicate a very cursory view of the Bible. By that, I only mean that there are many more shocking elements from the Old Testament than are mentioned there. So if the effort is to alienate the world of the Old Testament, there is more and better points to make.

He lives! Yes, it's been many moons since I posted here. Life happens and the blog kinda fell by the wayside. I was laid off from Onvoy and got a job with Orange Business Services. Same role, (almost) same title, but Orange is a LOT bigger than Onvoy. Onvoy was restricted to companies operating within Minnesota, for the most part. Orange only deals with companies that have an international presence. This mean fewer, bigger customers. But luckily not much travel, as I only have responsibility for companies based in Minnesota.

Anyway, what brought me out of my semi-retirement from the Blogosphere is an e-mail draft that I found from years ago. I wrote this for a friend when he got married like 6 or 7 years ago. I'm not even sure if I ever even sent it. But I like what I wrote and I think it's fairly universally true (and not confidential or even personal). So here it is for your consideration....

***, I meant to do this at your wedding, but there wasn't a good time, and I think I might do a better job if I write it down anyway. You chose me to be a groomsman at your wedding. I was very honored. I also consider it my duty to support you and Becky in your wedding bliss in anyway that I can. It's in that spirit that I'm writing this note. I don't mean to imply that this is the key to maritial happiness, but I think that Seren and I have a good marriage, and this is what has worked for us (well, me in particular).

First of all, I have the impression that you are a Christian. I don't think we have ever really discussed it, but that is just the feeling I get. If not, this next part my seem a little strange. The Bible commands us (men) to love our wives as Christ loved the church and wives should submit to their husbands. When I first heard that, I thought it was unfair. Why should men get to be in charge? However, I have come to realize that being in charge isn't all its cracked up to be. Being in charge means being responible, doing the things that need to be done, not doing the things that shouldn't be done. It means sometimes saying no when you really want to say yes. It means making sure that there is a roof over your heads and food on the table. It means sacrificing for your wife and family the way Christ sacrificed himself for the Church. Really, it's an awesome responsibility. Men are wired to do this. And when the mantle of leadership is approached this way, I think that women are wired to respond.

This does not mean that the man does everything. I'm not saying the wife shouldn't balance the checkbook, or buy things, or make money. But in important decisions, the husband decides and the husband lives with the consquences. I think that even when the husband does not make the decision, he will still take on the responibility of a mistake, which only leads to a feeling of helplessness.

Philosophically, that is how I approach my marriage. Now, Seren feels the same way I do and that may be why it works, I don't know. But I think it works pretty well.

As for solid pieces of advice:
- Look at your wife often, at least once a week. When I say look at her, I don't mean just glance in her direction and note where she is. Stop what your doing and really look at her. Remind yourself that this beautiful woman is the one you have choosen to be with for the rest of your life. Find the beauty that you saw on your wedding day. Time and circumstance might distort the veiw, so take a minute or two to look for it.
- Compliment your wife whenever you can. Even if your world is falling apart, try to lift up her. In the end, you may well need her to scrape you up off the floor.
- Remember that your wife is human, with all the wonders and terrors that come along with that. Do everything that you can to understand her.
- Realize that your wife is not always rational. I'm not saying this as a joke. Women are the slaves of their emotions. The way around this is not to fight the emotion or try to agrue with it, or even try to convince the woman that she is emotional. Just be as loving and understanding as possible. Eventually she'll realize that the emotion is driving her and that she can trust you.
- Do not betray a woman's trust. It is alot harder to build than it is to maintain.
- If you ever do have problems ( and I'm sure you will :), seek help. I know Seren and I would be more than willing to listen. Sometimes just vocalizing the problem can bring things in to focus. Anytime, anywhere, just give us a call.

May Christ live in your marriage and keep it strong,
Chris