Is Less Red Really Green?

WalMart has received a great deal of positive press and support recently having announced plans to improve the energy efficiency of their retail locations and reducing their carbon footprint through improved fuel efficiency in their shipping fleet. Everyone seems pretty pumped to have WalMart onboard in the emerging Green economy. Everyone, that is, except Stacy Mitchell.

Check out this article posted on Grist for Stacy's view. Really an interesting point. Are WalMart and other Big-box retailers responsible for carbon emissions caused by consumers having to drive further to get to their stores? Even if they're not responsible for the emission, can their business model ever been applauded for "green" thinking, when the big picture still puts them in the red? Afterall, is a desire to cut costs of energy and fuel really a green notion, or is it just another way for WalMart to cut costs and continue to grow? Check out the del.icio.us links on US Driving, Big-Box Retail, WalMart and Stacy Mitchel for more information from both sides about WalMart Sustainability and US fuel consumption.

Just call him Twinkle Toes

Shaq is at it again. The guy who is, in my opinion, probably the most amiable sports personalities in history, has given himself a new nickname and moved past my boy, Reggie Miller, for 12th all-time in scoring.

After a backward somersault he called himself "The Big Baryshnikov"

Add it to the list: Shaq Diesel, Big Daddy, MDE (Most Dominant Ever), Doctor Shaq, Superman, LCL (Last Center Left), and my personal favorite, The Big Aristotle.

Phelps continues the assault

One of the things I really hope to accomplish here is to share some of my excitement for several sports that I believe don't get the credit that they deserve from the general population. Of course, if you know me, you'll know that I'm referring to cycling, triathlon, and (as with this post) swimming.

In case you missed it--and most people probably did--Michael Phelps broke yet another World Record yesterday at the FINA World Championships in Melbourne, Australia. He won the 200 Free in a time of 1:43.86, making him the first person ever to swim the event in under 1:44, a pretty remarkable barrier.

What makes this worth mentioning is that Phelps is once again targeting Mark Spitz's all-time record of 7 gold medals for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. If you recall, at the 2004 Games, Phelps' lost his bid for the record by finishing third in what has been called the "Race of The Century" between Ian Thorpe, Pieter van den Hoogenband, and Phelps. This race was a "rematch" of that event, without Thorpe who has retired (at 24 it must be nice). This puts Phelps in position to claim 8 golds at the World Championships. (He's already won one gold as a member of the 4x100 Free Relay).

His remaining events are the 100 and 200 Fly, 200 and 400 IM, 4x200 Free Relay, and 4x100 Medley Relay. Keep posted on FINA's website

The Bark is Back

New look. New format. New concept.

Here's the idea. I'm going to try to use Life in the Doghouse to bring together stories, ideas, sports, sub-cultures, and people that I find interesting. Posts will typically be shorter than in the past, and more link-heavy. It's a melting pot for my life...the things that intrigue me and get me out of bed in the morning.

If you check out the bottom right corner in the Del.icio.us section of my page, you'll find a series of keyword tags. Clicking on a tag will take you to my Del.icio.us page, and will show you the links that I've marked with a certain keyword. The links might take you to other entries from the Doghouse, to other blogs, to news articles, or anywhere else that I manage to find out in the wide webbed world.

At the end of my blogs, the "Labels" section will tell you what I've tagged this blog as. If you wont more info, click on the corresponding MMmMmm Good tags and see where they take you

Nau is the time

It's finally here. I don't know if anyone even reads this anymore, but if you do, go check it out.

www.nau.com

If you don't know what it is, just read my last entry.

Soon, Sooner, NAU

"TEACHER SEEKS PUPIL

Must have an earnest desire to save the world."
-Ishmael

It seems like a lofty goal: save the world. Yet, every now and then, someone sets out to do just that. I wanted to write about a new company that I'm personally really excited about. They're called Nau (pronounced like "now") and they're based in Portland, OR.

If you haven't heard of them already, you certainly will in the very near future. Their first clothing line is set for release sometime in late January (any day now). For a sneak peak check out this link with images posted from their initial spring offering:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nau_photos/

I'd imagine that by now you're really confused--I start by writing about trying to save the world, and then I tell you about a brand spanking new performance apparel company--so where's the connection?

You're answer: NAU is a company that eats, sleeps, breathes, and basically lives sustainability and social awareness/responsibility. The company is built from the ground up around the ideal of sustainable business development. From the products, to the stores, to the way products are shipped, the bottom line is "minimum impact". It's not just one of many corporate values, thrown together on a sheet of paper with the title "This is how we make money"--"Sustainability" is the title of the page.

Want more? How about 5% of every purchase is donated to a customer specified non-profit organization doing environmental or humanitarian work. So you buy a product, you pick a non-profit (from a list of a dozen or so that Nau partner's with) and they make the donation. You choose what causes your purchases support. You help decide how to save the world.

Not bad huh? But that's enough of an introduction, now let's dig a little deeper into who this company is.

NAU was originally formulated under the acronym UTW for Under The Wire (or as some close to the company supposedly called it "Unfuck The World"). The two in charge of creating the concept were Eric Reynolds, a long time outdoor industry guru and one of the original founders of Marmot, and Chris Van Dyke, who was the brain behind the development of Nike's All Conditions Gear line.

Add to that dynamic duo Ian Yolles (from Nike and Patagonia) Mark Galbraith (lead designer), Jill Zilligen (who ran the One Percent for the Planet non-profit at Patagonia), and a hand full of other folks from Patagonia, Adidas Group, The North Face, and The Limited, and what you have is a group of people who not only know what they're doing, but have a pretty strong belief that there's a better way than the current model for achieving success.

Just how much do they believe in what they're doing? Well if it's any indication, the top managers have taken average paycuts of 40-70% to join up with Nau. If that's not putting your money where your sustainable ass is, I don't know what else to tell you.

The long and the short of it is that this company wants no less than to change the landscape of the outdoor industry and beyond, on their way to changing the world.

Out of 40ish fabrics being used in their initial spring offering, only 2 previously existed. The remaining 38 or so fabrics were specifically designed and developed for their use according to their guidelines and restricted substance list. Oh, and it's not about licensing rights or patented technologies. They're more than willing to share their ideas and manufacturing practices with anyone who asks. After all, you can't change the world if you limit the change to your company. In fact, they've reportedly already started idea sharing with several other companies who are interested in what they're doing, and their first product line isn't even out yet.

I haven't even started to talk about the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification that their headquarters and retail locations will have. They're partnering to make their "webfront" retail stores as green as possible based on the demands of the location.

The list goes on, and there has already been a slew of positive chatter about this company, some of which is posted on their website and the rest of which is fairly easy to find with my good friend Google. Check them out and decide for yourself at www.nau.com

I, for one, can't wait to see what kind of impact they can have on the market.

We missed the bus...

With all the talk about Floyd Landis (much of which has been incredibly poorly distilled through the various media outlets attempting to cover the story) I think we as a sports/cycling community missed an opportunity to discuss what I think will prove to be a more difficult issue in the long run regarding the treatment of doping in the realm of professional athletics. For those tired of hearing me rant about cycling, I assure you that, while cycling provides the story for this entry, any sports fan will be able to relate to the subject matter.

What we all missed was that, while Floyd was being drawn and quartered (an aptly old-school punishment for a Mennonite) the "Astana 5" were all cleared of any and all allegations against them.

The quick back story: on the day prior to the start of the Tour de France, a list of 28 riders suspected of doping was released by the Spanish press. 9 of these riders were scheduled to start Le Tour the next day, 5 from the Astana-Wurth team. All 9 riders were pulled from their team lineups, per the Code of Ethics. Since this left the Astana squad with only 4 riders, 2 shy of the minimum 6, the team was disqualified and not able to start the race, including pre-race favorite Alexandre Vinokourov, who was not one of the riders in question.

The "Acquital" of the 5 riders involved opens two important questions related to doping in sports: first, where do we draw the line between "innocent until proven guilty" and
"reasonable suspicion" in the sports arena? (in other words, was the UCI right in eliminating the squad on the suspicion of guilt?) and second, now that the Astana team has the legal opportunity to sue for damages related to missing the Tour de France, should they?

My personal response to each of these questions runs directly counter to the collective American consensus, as I generally understand it. Both answers also relate to the general concept of what is "good for the sport."

To the first I say that the UCI was absolutely correct in their response to the allegations. Cycling is a sport that has been fighting the doping scandal since long before Barry Bonds first used the Cream and the Clear, and Jose Canseco became "famous" in tabloid tell-all circles. The Operacion Puerto investigation that the suspensions stemmed from promised to uncover the largest, and hopefully last, major doping ring in the sport. The UCI did what they had to do, for the good of the Tour and for the good of the sport. But to do that, they had to ask themselves what was worse, the possibility of suspending an innocent rider from the biggest race of the year, or allowing a guilty rider to race, and answer the questions later.

In suspending these riders, the UCI made a clear and powerful statement: "DO NOT associate with dopers." Whether actually guilty, or only guilty by association, these riders were "involved" in a scandal that threatened to rock the foundation of the sport. Cycling could no longer bear the weight of the cloud of suspicion (which had apparently itself taken performance enhancers).

To the second question-should the Astana team sue the UCI and the Tour?-I again say, in the best interest of the sport, no. If Astana sues the UCI, they would almost certainly win (at least by the standards of US courts). But what damage does one team's victory have on the sport? The UCI finds itself in a position where it can no longer afford to suspend riders on suspicion alone, no matter how strong the evidence. Next time, when a rider is truly guilty and isn't suspended, the UCI, cycling, and sports fans all lose. I don't envy the Astana riders for what they were put through, but I would beg them, for the sake of the sport, don't sue.

I'd love responses to this post and your thoughts on the questions posted here. I think it provides an interesting opportunity for dialogue both topically related to sports and doping, but also philosophically, in questioning how to govern in consideration of the "greater good" versus "individual liberties." I look forward to your responses.

Foot in mouth?...not quite

Is now the appropriate time for me to put my foot in my mouth, retract my previous post, and ride off into the night with my tail between my legs? In light of recent news that Floyd Landis has tested positive "for testosterone," the knee jerk reaction here is, yes. In a sport overwhelmed by doping scandal, we have reached the point where suspicion is sufficient to condemn.

So I'm not doing it. I'm backing Floyd. All the way. I'm saying it here in my blog, with four of you as my witness. Vive Le Floyd.

How? Why? W.T.F?

Good questions. We'll get to the answer, but first let's explain the case against Floyd (to the best of my knowledge at this point). Let's start with a myth: Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Fact: The evidence against Floyd is an "unusual" ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E ratio), both naturally produced by the body. The average T/E ratio for males is about 1:1, though a ratio of 2 or 3:1 is well within normal limits. To say that Floyd tested positive for testosterone is a complete fallacy. In fact, the actual levels of testosterone and epitestosterone in Floyd's sample were LOW compared to "normal" results. What triggered that positive was the ratio.

So what's the ratio that triggers an "Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF - in the parlance of Anti-Doping culture)? Well, until 2005, a 6:1 ratio was the trigger point for a positive result. This ratio was often challenged while it stood, and often athletes won arbitration cases over the 6:1 detection limit. One Swedish study I found tested nearly 9000 individuals. Of these, 28 (about 0.3%) triggered positive results at a 6:1 detection level. However, after further work the team "concluded that among the above 28 cases, only one can be regarded as a clear case of testosterone doping. Although the vast majority of Swedish athletes have urinary T/E ratios below six, there is a subfraction with a constant higher ratio, possibly due to genetic factors."

So what happened in 2005? Well clearly, WADA did the only thing they could do in light of such evidence that the test really doesn't work all that well...they lowered the ratio. Now, the trigger point for an AAF is a 4:1 ratio. You thought we created false negatives before, wait till you see what we do now!! Of course, WADA and sports' respective governing bodies have claimed that lowering the ratio limit has allowed them to catch more cheaters. Guess what, guys? You catch more good guys too. That's what lowering the limit does.

So we trigger a positive result, tipping the scales at just over the 4:1 limit...what now? Well, we do more testing, of course. Or we don't. Seriously. We either perform Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry (IRMS) which kinda sorta helps a little in maybe showing if the testosterone came from the body or not... or we don't. You may ask, "Well, how do you decide whether or not to do the test?" Simple really, if we're capable of doing the test, we do it. If we're not capable of doing the test, we don't. Admittedly, it's not very scientific, but it sure does make life easier.

I'll stop the explanation there, because I don't know whether IRMS was performed, nor do I know what it revealed assuming it was performed. So I'll stop.

So what now? Well, first Floyd gets his 'B' sample tested by an independent lab to either confirm or disprove the results of the original test. If the 'B' sample comes up positive, which is likely since it came from the same cup of piss, then Floyd is suspended and he gets to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS, or TAS if you're French, and I sincerely hope you're not). At this point, based on the history of appeals related to this test, he has very very good chance of his appeal being granted and the sport of cycling issuing a collective, "my bad."

So, there's my defense. We'll see how it holds up. The good news is I'm not alone. It seems that in a cycling community that lately has jumped on every accused, suspected, or rumored doper, there is a surprising amount of support for Floyd. Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the TIAA-CREF Us Pro team, on Velonews.com:

I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.

From Dirk Demol, director of Team Discovery:

I cannot truly believe that Landis positive. I never imagined anything behind his exploit (to Morzine). As an ex-pro, I know you can have a good day after a bad day and the legs can come back and succeed again. Be careful. The counter-analysis is not yet positive and we shouldn't draw too fast of a conclusion.

Of course, suspicion, surprise, frustration, and doubt rule the day. We live in a guilty until proven innocent era in sporting history, where the shadow of doubt is strong than the light of truth. But we do make mistakes. Just days ago, 5 riders from the Astana-Wurth squad who were disqualified from the Tour de France in the midst of the Operacion Puerta doping scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing. They'll never get their race back, and that's a damn shame, but a necessary product of the sporting environment in which we currently find ourselves. I don't blame the UCI for their suspensions, and even in hindsight, I support that decision. It was done for the good of the race, and for the good of the sport. But we do make mistakes. And only time will tell if Floyd is innocent or guilty. But until I have proof of guilt, I'm standing by his innocence.

Back on my 2-wheeled high horse

...or "Celebrating Landismas" for the cycling anointed.

For those who have heard my complaints/ramblings/pleas/explanations/diatribes/other- descriptive-noun-for-long-drawn-out-discourse, yes, this post is absolutely intended to serve as a plug for my favorite Euro-sport, professional cycling.

The 2006 edition of the Tour de France is over, which means 99% of Americans won't have any recollection of who Floyd Landis is, or what he has accomplished, or why we should care in about 3 weeks; which should, oddly enough, be right around the time that Floyd goes under the knife to replace his dying hip. Read that last part again.

A brief review of history for those who may not be completely up to speed. Yesterday, Floyd Landis, a Mennonite from rural Pennsylvania (think barn-raisin', goat-grazin', busted-hip-not-phasin') became the third American in history to win the world's greatest bike race. Numbers like that perpetuate the myth that cycling is not an American sport. Third ever...in the 100+ year history of Le Tour...not really our thing I guess.

Guess again. 3 is an amazing number when you consider that Greg LeMond was the first American to do it, just 20 years ago in 1986. (Note: another thing LeMond was first at was using those funny little aero-bars for time trials and doing the wind tunnel testing that Lance Armstrong made famous - because, damnit, when we do something, we damnwell do it right.) In the 21 editions of Le Tour since LeMond's breakthrough victory, the 3 American champs have totalled 11 wins. 11. In 21 years. Not too shabby.

(As an aside: believe it or not, America, there was a time when cycling was more popular than baseball, basketball, and football combined...of course, that's mainly because the three markedly American sports had not yet been invented, but what's a few hundred years of history between friends?)

Ok, back to Floyd. His performance this year has been billed as the greatest championship performance in the modern history of the sport. What Landis did on Thursday, erasing all but :30 seconds of an 8:08 deficit on a single, balls-to-the-wall, brutally calculating, and savagely dominating performance, over a sinlge day in the Alps, may in fact be the greatest performance in a generation, not just in cycling, but in all of sports.

How can I possibly make that claim? Let's break it down.

1. Landis did it alone. Nobody followed. Nobody helped. Nobody could. In professional cycling, a solo break is a suicide mission. They don't succeed. Not for 150 km. Consider this: drafting in the peloton requires the riders in the pack to expend as much as 40% less energy than a solo rider will use.

2. He did it following one of the most devestating bonks in recent memory, on a climb that once bonked no less that the great Lance himself. A quick summary of Floyd's power numbers for his attack: One the first climb of the day, he averaged 340 watts as he rode away from the entire peloton, with no one able to hold his wheel. On an average day, this is a typical number for most riders in the peloton, but after two next-to-impossible days in the Alps, it's quite the output. On the next climb, as Landis closed the 10 minute gap to the day's earlier breakaway of 11 riders, he averaged an uber-climber 370 watts. But Floyd wasn't finished. On the 3rd major climb of the day, Floyd stretched his lead on the peloton from just over 4 minutes, to more than 8 minutes. His average output for this push: an incredible-by-any-standard, 390 watts! What does that number mean? Let's make a comparison to Landis himself the day before. During his "bonk" up La Toussuire, Landis averaged a meager 260 watt average. On a flat road this translates to about 19-20 miles per hour...a ride well within even my range (albeit not at the end of the stage they had just completed). So the very next day, Floyd upped his wattage by 50%. That 390 watt value?...about what Floyd would do for a 50 km time-trial. Not so much after 100 km solo attack in brutal heat with a chasing peloton on the third consecutive alpine stage. Unreal. Period.

3. He was being chased. Floyd Landis is a dangerous rider. He is a rider no one wanted to let back into the race. All day long the teams of Oscar Periero, Carlos Sastre, and Andreas Kloden chased and chased and chased as hard as they could to pull Floyd back. And with no less than 20 riders busting-tail to bring him back, he kept gaining ground. He was not only stronger than everyone in the pack, he was stronger than the entire pack. In a sport where synergy in the name of the game, where teams rule and the pack is relentless, Floyd took them all on.

4. They all knew it was coming. Word on the pave is that the entire peloton knew Floyd was planning to attack, and they were all scared. Allegedly, a number of riders road alongside Floyd at the early part of the stage, and literally begged him not to attack. They couldn't defend and they knew it. To the beggars, Floyd only threw the barest crumb, " Go drink some Coke, cause we're leaving on the first climb if you want to come."

5. He did it without any significant support from his team. In a race that we Americans have grown used to seeing dominated by the blue-train of the Postal Service/Discovery Channel Team, Landis' Phonak team was suspect at best, and dismally unable to protect their leader at worst. Make no bones about it. This is a team sport. The riders who earned the podium alongside Landis, and the next few who just missed, all had incredibly strong teams. Floyd didn't. Period. He won this race on his own.

6. Did I mention his hip? On good days he can barely walk. On bad days, he's lucky to get out of bed. And he just won the most grueling endurance event on the planet. His hip is dying. After a crash three years ago, he had 3 pins inserted into the desimated bone that remained. The bone never recovered. One leg is an inch shorted than the other from the surgeries. THe bone in that leg has slowly worn away all the cartiledge that cushions the joint. All that's left is a jagged bone, literally pins and needles, tearing away at the bone on the other end of the socket. There's no easy days, only one's where the pain is marginally less unbearable.

He plans to have the hip replaced within a month and says he'll defend his Tour title next year. The surgery he'll have is the same one the Bo Jackson had 15 years ago. Yes, the medicine is better now, and the procedure much safer, but Bo was no slouch, and the surgery eventually spelled the end of his career. Now Floyd, well known as the toughest SOB in the professional peloton says he'll be back from the surgery, with a new hip to defend next year. You know what? I have no doubt he'll do it.

Floyd Landis isn't going anywhere, and neither is American cycling. We're here to stay. This is a beautiful sport rich in tradition, history, and honor. And for anyone who says it's not a tough sport, ask Floyd.

WOW it's been a while...

It's been so long that I've practically forgotten that this whole blogging adventure even existed. So long in fact that the thought of catching up to speed on my life since the end of Lent is more than overwhelming...it borders on impossible.

So, where do I start? Probably right where I left off. As most of you probably know, I'm living in wonderful Aiken, SC for the summer...in the middle of suburban hell, only without any "urbia" to be a suburbia of. I'm working for Milliken in Barnwell, SC - the "Gateway to the Low Country" as the town self-describes. It has been, well, interesting.

This summer has been nothing short of an awakening. At times, I've been overwhelmed by the sense of loneliness that I feel down here. I'm learning very quickly what it means to be a Marylander. I've long known that to my "Yankee" friends from the north, we are considered southerners; now I find out just how much of a Yankee I really am. If this is what it means to be "Southern" then I am riding on the roof of that bus at best. So I find myself in the middle, like Switzerland; not northern enough to be a Yankee, or Southern enough to have any desire to "rise again."

I've found that my bike is my refuge. I owe a great debt to the folks I met in Seattle a few years ago, not only for my bike itself, but for giving me my first taste of cycling culture. I have since become a fanatic. From my own personal riding and training, to following the pro peloton online (standard cable in Aiken doesn't carry OLN, so my dreams of Tour fanaticism are currently set on simmer) cycling has become an outlet for me as exercise, competitive outlet, and mental escape.

So that's life outside of work. Inside work, the story is somewhat similar. The job is proving a valuable experience, not to mention a test of my patience and personal fortitude on a daily basis. It would be a gross understatement to say it's not what I had expected, but it has given me numerous insights into my future aspirations. Primarily, I'm focused more than ever on product development and marketing, because I find that the manufacturing environment is not one that I personally thrive in. I could say more, but I'll save it for another time.

I don't mean to sound overly negative about this summer, because I don't look at it in that way. I've merely found out how possible it is to feel like a stranger in your own country; which is a truly remarkable realization. I think I'll leave it at that for now, as this entry is scattered enough in theme and mood to confuse even those who know me best. Any of the topics I've covered here could (and well may) be a topic for an entry entry of its own.

Till next time, take care and God bless.

So about this no talking thing...

Here's the update on the whole Lenten silence thing (Hopefully this will satisfy Hack). For those of you who don't know, after a few weeks of what I felt was fruitful progress, the whole thing fell apart. I struggled with it for a while and really wanted to continue in the effort, but on the whole, I really felt that the whole practice was backfiring in a lot of ways.
Sometime in the third and fourth week of Lent, I needed to consider my goals for this whole thing and evaluate what was happening in reality. I wanted to learn how to listen better...but without my response, many people had essentially stopped talking to me. I wanted to remove myself from the center of conversations...and everytime I had something valuable to say, my miming and charading put the focus on my Lenten fast, rather than the conversation. Something wasn't working.
Of course, I had to ask myself, am I just being weak and undisciplined, and of course, there's definitely a good amount of affirmative response to that question. Not talking was hard, especially for me. But my decision to start talking again wasn't so much about the fact that I wanted to talk, as the fact that not talking really wasn't proving all that fruitful.
On top of the fact that I wasn't getting what I wanted out of it, there were several other problems I was having. First, not talking is incredibly socially awkward, and rather rude, especially when people aren't aware of the situation. Second, not talking works just fine in group settings, but in one-on-one situations, it can be rather offputting, for both myself and the other person. Part of me wished that wasn't the case. It'd be nice to be able to sit with people in silence and not have it be uncomfortable, and in some cases that's very possible, but by and large, our culture demands conversation and dialogue in a number of settings.
The third prblem I was having was that I was meeting a large number of new people. I was still very new to the community at the Doggett Center (Catholic Campus Ministry here at State) and was trying to get more involved. My relation to the Catholic Church is very much based on the value of community. The Church for me is much more about the people than anything else. I was finding it very difficult to integrate myself into the Doggett community in silence.
So basically, the silence thing worked for the first few weeks and I really did get a lot out of it. Probably the most valuable thing I learned during that time was simply that a significant amount of what I say on a daily basis really doesn't need to be said. I had a pretty good understanding of that going into Lent, but I really gained an appreciation for it. Forced to mime things and put a great deal of effort into making a point, you learn just how valuable each statement you make actually is. Guess what...most of it's not worth the effort, but there are some things that you'd give pretty much anything to express. Maybe that's the greatest bit of all of this. The fact that some things bring so much joy and excitement that you can't help but share them, the fact that we as humans are a social, communal group, and that some things just don't hold much meaning until you're able to share them with those you care about.
So that's that, another Lent, and some more good stuff to learn. It didn't last the whole time, but it was still a very valuable experience, and I learned even more about how valuable community really is.

Mikey Likes It

Let me start this post by saying, "Thank you," to all the folks who have supported my fast from social speaking for Lent. It's the first Sunday of Lent which puts me officially 10% of the way there, and if the final 36 days are as fruitful as the first 4, I'm going to get a lot out of this.

I want to share one particular experience that stands out from my first day of silence. As with any conscious-effort fasting, I've had a few slips of the tongue in these first few days, but the first one was note worthy and, I think, illustrates a really cool development in the world of Craig.

My first slip up was a reflex response to say, "God bless you," when my friend Melissa sneezed. I hope that this doesn't strike anyone as a particularly upsetting slip up, if I can even consider it that. (After all, the point of this whole thing is to learn to listen, not to be rude, and in the case of saying things like "God bless you" or "Please and Thank you," I can hardly see a moral dilemma here regarding my Lenten fast.) The reason I found this particular reflex response noteworthy is because it was just that--reflexive.

So what? Well here's the back story: 4ish years ago, I was climbing with a good friend, Mikey Guarraia. We were working together through a project that he had put up in the gym that neither of us had been able to send. About 2/3 of the way through the climb, Mikey's looking really strong, and I'm convinced that he's going to send. Then Mikey sneezes. The sneeze doesn't pull Mikey off the climb, and I breathe a sigh of relief. Sweet, he's gonna finish it! Then he releases from the wall, hangs on the rope and stares down at me. "What's up?" I ask. "Um, what about 'God bless you, Mikey'?" he replies. Hhmmmm, hadn't really thought of it.

Probably doesn't sound like much of a story, but at that moment I became far more aware of how important little things like saying "God bless you" can be. Mikey was someone I had a great deal of respect for and to see him so disappointed and upset struck a chord with me. I made a conscious effort to start saying "God bless you." It was hard at first. It started by me hearing someone sneeze, and hearing someone else say "God bless you," and me thinking, "Damn, I missed it." Eventually I started to get it. And now, I'm happy to say, that my first slip in my 40 days without social speech was the say "God bless you" as a knee jerk reaction.

This is a simple illustration of personal growth--the same kind of personal growth that I hope to get out of this Lenten experience. Maybe I'll learn to be a better listener, maybe I'll learn to think more before I speak instead of just saying the first thing that comes to my mind, maybe it'll be a totally different outcome. Personal growth isn't always planned or expected; it comes from experiences, some you can predict, others come out of left field, like Mikey's stare while dangling 20 feet above me.

So that was my first realization this Lent, that in some small way, I'm a more polite person than I was 4 years ago. To me, knowing that makes this whole effort of Lent more promising and more rewarding. So thank you all for your support and kind words, and God bless you.

Lenten Fasting

February 14th would have been my grandfather's 76th birthday. It's still odd to say the words "would have been" because his passing is still so recent, and this is still a year of "firsts since..." The past week has given me plenty of time to think about my relationship with him; a relationship that I credit as being the most influential on who I have become, and who I am continuing to become. With this thought in mind, I've recently been reminded of a conversation I had with my grandfather several years ago about church, religion, and the afterlife. I was a newly confirmed Catholic, and he never had much use for church. That's not to say he lacked faith. In fact, I'd venture to say he was one of the mostly deeply spiritual people I've ever had the pleasure to know. Yet, every Sunday, as my grandmother headed off to church, he'd head for his garden. "I'd rather be in my garden experiencing and doing God's work than at church listening to some version of God's Word."

I recall asking him what he believed about the afterlife. Where do we go from here? What's next? I'll always remember his answer because I believe it illustrated beautifully how he related to God. He told me that he didn't believe that we were alone in the universe, that this planet, and our lives were not so special. He believed that there were other "earths" with life on them, and that when we passed on, we had the opportunity to review our lives, and gain an understanding of where we went right and where we went wrong. Then, we'd be re-incarnated on another planet (either in some other "dimension" or simply on the other side of the universe), and given another chance to do it right. This process would continue, eh believed, until we managed to "get it right." Then we'd have the chance to move on to heaven. I don't know if he realized at the time how Buddhist his belief sounded, but it always rang true to me with a deep sense of awe for creation, and respect for God's work, and what is expected of us as God's children. There was no hell, only second chances, third chances, and so on (after all, we have an eternity)

One thing I'll always remember about my Granddad was that he was a man of action. He'd teach by doing, not by telling. In the family, I think I'll always be remembered as the grandson who posed the question, "Well, Granddad, what are we going to do that's unusual today?" Usually the story is told to illustrate my curiosity, but I've come to think that it's truly more telling of who he was, and who he was teaching me to be. I never would've thought to ask him what story he'd tell me, or what lessons he might be able to share with me, but always what opportunity we had to do something new.

So here's the question...what on earth does all this have to do with Lenten fasting?

I'm a talker, always have been and probably always will be. Of course, if you're reading this, you probably know that already. I've been told that 75% of all communication is non-verbal, and yet, in my life I remain skeptical (maybe it's 50/50). So, in light of the famous quote from St Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words," I've decided to give up speaking for Lent. I'm hoping that this sacrifice will teach me two things: first, to become a better listener, and second to learn to express myself and my beliefs through actions. Too often I find myself thinking of the next clever thing to say rather than listening to what is being said. I love a debate more than anyone I know, and can talk circles around almost any argument (Granddad always encouraged me to be a lawyer). I think now it's time to learn more about listening, about the values, experiences, opinions, and beliefs of others. This is an opportunity for action. A time where my opinions can take the backseat and other people can share their thoughts and ideas with me freely (without interruption or correction, as I'm so prone to do).

Those who I've mentioned this to think I'm crazy. I thought I'd die when I went of a 4 day silent retreat, how will I last 40? Maybe that's the challenge. This Lent thing isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to make you a better person. Hopefully, this year it will.

I have to note a few "exceptions" since so many people also like to tell me "Craig, you can't just give up speaking, you have classes and presentations." Since giving up speaking as a graduate student is not particularly feasible, I will allow myself to speak in class and formal settings where to refrain from speaking would be both disrespectful and detrimental to my educational experience. As April said, "So, you're really just giving up fun talking." Yes.

Also, two other instances merit exception. When asked of his thoughts on fasting rituals, Jesus responded "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast." (Lk 5:34,35) Times of celebration are not times for fasting. In light of this, I think it's only appropriate that I speak during my camping trip in Asheville with Annette, as a time to be reconnected with an old friend, and to "catch up" (plus it's rude to camp with someone for 3 days and not speak to them). Also, when my mother and grandmother visit at the end of March, the same rule will apply. In each of these events, I will take care to give priority to listening, and speak only as much as is required by the circumstances. In order to balance these events out, I will carry my fast from speaking into Sundays which are traditionally "feast days" celebrating the Easter Resurrection.

Ok, so that's the plan. You can call my cell during Lent, and I will say hello and goodbye and nothing else in between (except perhaps a grunt to acknowledge that I'm following along and have not hung up the phone) so be prepared to talk. My AIM will be on. You can leave messages but don't anticipate a response. Email still works, and I will respond to those in a business appropriate way, following the same rules I've established for classes and meetings.

I'm really hoping that this proves a beneficial and growth filled period of fasting. (Don't worry, I still have a week and a half to get some talking in before this all starts)

Education in America...what does it all mean?

Most talks of education are full of buzzwords and silly ideas about how to make sure that every child receives the same education. We have congressional idiots creating things like the "No Child Left Behind Act" which has proven to be good for little besides giving teachers incentive to cheat on behalf of their students to either gain funding for their schools or avoid scores based probation (if you want to see it in writing just ask and i'll send you the article). I've grown increasingly frustrated with the grade inflation that's occurred in this country. There once was a time when intelligent people graduated high school and got good job, the truly special folks went on to college and were rewarded for it with high level jobs, and master's degrees and phd's held remarkable value. Now, everyone is expected to graduate high school, everyone who wants a job must go to college to get the jobs they used to give high school graduates, and a master's degree is pretty much the usual. It's essential the beauty of capitalism...colleges get to make more money off of more people, businesses save money because they theoretically have to train people less (read:"invest less in their people"), and students get to live off their parents longer. It's a win win win situation, right? Well sure, unless you count the truly intelligent people who actually would like to receive an education for their money and maybe graduate from college with some idea of how to function.

I'm reminded of the quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I often get accused of being arrogant or "an asshole" for saying thngs like this, but it's true. If you want to understand why American students are falling behind the rest of the world, start looking at the highest level students and how they are held back to be taught the same curriculum as everyone else, and I think you'll soon see where a large part of the problem lies.

(Disclaimer: I don't believe that the phrase "All men are created equal" was inteded to be used as liberally as it often is. I do, however believe that all men should be given the same opportunity for things such as education, and on that level are equal. This is what I'm talking about. We shouldn't reward schools that perform well and punish those that don't...we should treat all schools equally, (regardless of location, socioeconomic background of the students, minority population, etc) in terms of funding, and quality of teachers (which we certainly don't currently do). Rather, we should reward students who perform well on tests by giving them a more rigorous and challenging curriculum, challenging them to fulfill their potential, instead of draggin everyone collectively toward some governmentally defined center.)

(Disclaimer to the disclaimer: I also think that parents need to be held more accoutnable for the education of their children. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that very often dumb kids come from dumb parents, but we all seem shocked when dumb kinds come from smart parents, or smart kids pop up out of underfunded schools.)

So where is this all going...no where really. But I would like to say this: I think the biggest problem in the American education system is not with the grade schools, but with the colleges and universities. These are supposed to be "institutions of higher education," and in many cases they disappoint. If we're going to force some sort of standard curriculum on students, it should be at college, not at grade school. I say this because you should leave college with the ability to analyze a probelm and form an intelligent thought.

Here's my proposed first semester curriculum for all college students: 3 credits of discrete methods and logic (the nature of true, and false, decision making, and logical thinking), 3 credits of dimensional analysis (so that when you get out of college and some one gives you X cm/rev and Y rev/min and asks you what the speed is in cm/min, you don't need to try to remember a bunch of equations, realize you don't remember them and stare blankly at the page, but you know automatically that if you mulitply the numbers together the revs cancel out and you get the right answer...more importantly you know that adding them together makes no sense at all), 3 credits of debate (so that you can form a coherent arguement and hold a reasonably intelligent conversation), and finally, 3 credits of writing (not creative writing, or technical writing...I'm talking about sentence structure, grammar, and how to develop a paragraph, since aparently we aren;t teaching this in grade school any more.) One 3 credit elective about the real world (Possible titles: "How to find a job: Resumes and Interview Skills," "Managing your Finances" (I could've used this one honestly), or "Most People Are Idiots: How to Deal with them Effectively" (again, I needed this one).

15 credits on how to approach thought and life in an intelligent, rational, and understandable way. I don't think that's too much to expect from a college graduate. Do you?

Happy Birthday, Jesus

Let me start by saying Merry Christmas. If I had written this post last week days ago, as I originally intended, it would have been my usually critical rambling. It was going to be directed at what we've come to call Fundamental (or "Born-Again") Christians. It was going to be called "The True Miracle of Christmas," and it was going to (for the second entry in a row) discuss what we choose to believe about God. It was going to say that, for a population that believes every last word in the Bible and every last dogmatic principle that is held by the church as if it came from God (ok, so it did, but that's not the point...) and that context doesn't matter, it's amazing that we celebrate the Immaculate Conception and the Birth of Christ on consecutive weeks. If anything, that (from Mary's standpoint at least) should be considered the true miracle of Christmas. It was going to conitue from there...

It's not going to do that though. Some how, in the last few days befopre Christmas, between last minute shopping, a few late night conversations with good friends, an email debate about replacing Merry Christmas with Happy Holidays, reading Brian Oliu's Christmas diatribe, Christmas Eve Mass at Loyola, some good old fashioned soul searching, and a Christmas baby for a close family friend, I stumbled upon the Christmas Spirit (and this year saying I "stumbled upon" it is being kind to what it took to get me here).

In all of this, I suppose I still could have easily called this entry "The True Miracle of Christmas." I am, as you all know, a great critic of society and a going pundit for the application of common sense. In this role, my intial reaction to the Christmas season, especially this year, was disgust at material America (another "IT" item to purchase for children who don't appreciate what it took to get), frustration with people who care a little too much about how and why people greet them as they enter a department store (the aforementioned Happy Holidays fiasco), and a bit of self-loathing for letting all of this affect the way I felt about the whole holiday (see: my late encounter with the Christmas spirit).

So, for the past few weeks, I've been wandering around, bitter and cynical (and taking a little too much joy in making the point of saying "Merry Christmas" as much as possible to anyone who gave me the chance, just to turn the screws on society). Then it hit me. Somewhere along the line, I stopped saying "Merry Christmas" out of spite for the PC Nazis (*note ironic oxymoron) and started to actually mean it.

It's easy to write about how materialized American society has become and how the month of shopping before Christmas take the focus off of Jesus. It's easy to see how we try to "fill the holes" in our lives, in our self image, in ourselves with all this "stuff" at Christmas. What's harder to say is what this is all about--what it all really means. I mean, sure, we all put the emphasis on the gifts, on buying just the right thing for just the right person. We all want to get certain things at this time of year and maybe in the back of our minds we hope that by getting everyone else what they want, then perhaps karma will repay us and someone will give up what we truly want. Maybe it's not even that. Maybe we just give gifts out of a social obligation, out of the tradition which says that we must exchange gifts at this time of year, for this particular holiday.

But even if all this is true, what I ask this Christmas is simple: "So what?" So what if we march around that malls angry at the guy who took the last Playstation 360, or Tickle-Me-Elmo, or upside down Christmas tree that we were going to get for our kids. So what if we only give because there's a voice in the back of our heads telling us that we'll get what we want, too? So what if we only give out of obligation?

Th point is that, we're out there searching for the perfect gifts for the people we love, and sure we're angry if we think we're not going to have the opportunity to give them. Sure we hope to get something in return for all our hard work and money spent. Sure we have this obligation to give to those we love at this time of year. That's what this season is all about...

It's about Jesus' Birthday. That was God's gift. He went out of His way to give all of us (the people he loved) the greatest gift he could fathom. His Son. And did He give with the hopes of receiving something in return? Of course He did. He gave His Son so that we would all learn how to love him, to "give him thanks and praise," and so that we could all see the life he hoped we would lead, for Him and for each other. Do you think he was a bit frustrated that some of His other gifts hadn't proved effective? Sure. Don't you think He's a bit disappointed that, in many ways, the gift of His Son has also been largely unreturned, or that so many of the attempted returns are so often misguided? Absolutely. Was it a gift out of obligation? Sure it was, which is why, just before He was crucified, Jesus asked out, but was told there was no other way. But it's an obligation on our end, too. We're obligated to retrun the love that He has shown us. We're obligated to give in kind to what we have received.

That's what this season is all about. Sure, many people (myself included) think that much of what we put into this season is misplaced. But the Spirit is there, I think (if not the actions). And at this time of year, especially, that should count for something. So when we see frustrated shoppers and huge numbers of people out in droves, we should remember why they're there, and why they're frustrated. They're only trying to give the best gift possible, to the people they love. And that's what this holiday is all about.

Thoughts on Katrina

I've been postponing this entry for quite a while now, mainly because, criticism in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe like the one we experienced with Hurricane Katrina is simply not empathetic. That being said, I feel that sufficient time has passed to allow me to offer a few thoughts and comments on the matter. The second comment will be a bit more serious than the first, and is related to our relationship with God and what we expect from Him (as people, as believers, as Christians, etc.)

The first, however, is simply a story that I found flew directly in the face of common sense and made me really question the connection that some people have with reality. In the "aftermath" (a word which I despise as a mathematician, and self-appointed logistician, because it sheds a rather dark and dismal light on the practice of logical analysis) of hurricane Katrina, one new station was doing a special where they came back to New Orleans with families who had evacuated and filmed them as they took account of the devastation that Katrina had imparted on their lives.

One story aroused in me a state of "shock and awe" (in the parlance of our times). One woman returned to location where her house once existed, and was dismayed that she was unable to find her wedding ring amidst the rubble. Prior to evacuating she had, she explained, taken her ring off and placed it on top of her tallest dresser, reasoning that "the water wouldn't get it there." This amazed me...you are leaving, and yet you place your ring on top of a dresser for "safe keeping" as it were. Why not keep it on your finger? This seems like a much safer place for it, ya know, since you're leaving and all. Ok, that's all I have to say about that (you can fill in the rest).

Now for part B, our relationship with God in regards to this whole disaster. By now most people have heard the stories...Some Christians were praying that God would spare the city of New Orleans from the Hurricane, that he would help to make the dams strong. Others (Pat Robertson) were praying that the Hurricane would hit New Orleans, and rain down righteous retribution on the den of iniquity, and haven for homosexuals, prostitutes, and the dreaded French-American (the likes of which hadn't been seen since Sodom and Gomorrah). Some of those who stayed behind and refused to evacuate the city said that they were waiting for a "sign from God" that trouble was coming, or that they trusted God would save them from suffering.

My response to all of this is simple. I believe that, on the whole, God works in subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways. Let's presume for just a second that the Bible is a synopsis of the "big stuff" God has done since the beginning of human history (creation, transfiguration, incarnation, reincarnation, pillars of salt or smoke, burning bushes, sight to the blind, etc etc etc). It comes to a few thousand pages (many of which were spent on tracing David's lineage back to Adam). I don't presume for a second that for the remainder of human history God has been inactive, but perhaps more subtle. Maybe God's messengers aren't always profits with mystical powers and visions of the promised land. Maybe sometimes God sends a weatherman. And that weatherman says, "hey y'all, a big one's comin', ya might wanna leave--I know I am." Is it so hard to believe that the weatherman is speaking God's message, that the map of the enormous hurricane is a "vision from God"? Sure it's subtle, it's secular, it's obvious and blunt. But maybe that's the point.

It's not always big and obvious when God sends a message, most of the time it's subtle. The voice of God isn't always loud and booming. Sometimes (most of the time) it's your mom telling you to be careful walking home, it's a friend telling you everything will be alright after you've had your heart broken, or it's a weatherman telling you to "Get the hell out of New Orleans!!"

My Favorite Holiday

What's your favorite holiday? It's one of those questions that, if you actually manage to garner a real conversation out of it can really tell you quite a bit about a person. Seriously, you'd be surprised. It's every bit as good as a list of Top 5 Songs to hear on a Monday morning, and you only have to come up with one answer. Not 5. Super easy.

My favorite is definitely Thanksgiving. Now, I know what you're all thinking ("of course it is Craig -- you love everything about food, and that's what this is all about"). But you'd be wrong. The real reason I love Thanksgiving is because it's the only holiday that's really entirely about the people you get to spend it with.

Here's the way I see it. All holidays are about something. That's why we have them. If they weren't about something, they'd just be regular days (and we wouldn't get to yell at people at the airports because everyone else there is slowing you down and getting in your way on your trip home). Some holidays are secular. Think Fourth of July (or "Independence Day" since everyone has a 4th of July, built right into the calendar). Independence Day is supposedly about the day America claimed its independence from England and started our own country. (It's really about fireworks, barbeques, and Randy Quaid flying his crop duster into the belly of an alien spacecraft) Other holidays are spiritual. I'll go ahead and use Christmas and Easter as examples, which we all know are about presents, eggnog, candy and Jesus (but mostly presents, eggnog, and candy...sorry Jesus, just calling it like I see it -- we have $600 Christmas trees now that stand upside down so there's more room for presents under them -- http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2005-11-07-christmas-trees_x.htm). Some holidays are egocentric, like New Year's Eve (trust me, you didn't keep your resolution last year, and you're not keeping it this year -- stop patting yourself on the back acting like you'll be a better person next year, because at the end, you'll still be a shmuck) Still other holidays are fake (see valentine's day, arbor day, take your daughter to work day, and national grilled cheese awareness day).

Thanksgiving clearly falls into the secular category. But what's Thanksgiving about? If I wanted to be cynical, (and when don't I?) I'd say it's a rememberance of the day the Pilgrims gorged themselves on the Native Americans' food in order to store calories for the highly demanding systematic slaughter which they were about to undertake (for which we Americans are supposed to be thankful).

But other than that, where does Thanksgiving come from? Well, in 1789 George Washington (POTHUSA 1) declared a "National Day of Thankgiving" which Thomas Jefferson (POTUSA 2) declared was a "crappy idea." Then along came Honest Abe Lincoln (POTUSA 16) who fought a very civil war to free the slaves and then named the last Thursday in November a National day of Thanksgiving after 40 years of nagging by various women's magazine who wanted another reason to spend a long day in the kitchen. After 78 years of debating on what the date should be (in order to provide the required amount of shopping time before Christmas, which is about the presents), Congress declared that the fourth Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving. (paraphrased from http://wilstar.com/holidays/thankstr.htm)

So that's it. That's what Thanksgiving is about. It's about presidents that disagree with each other's policies, and freeing slaves, and women doign what women do best (nagging and cooking), and Congress deliberating for 80 years to make a decision, and preparing for Christmas. So mostly, it's about people. For better or for worse. These are the people we live with and deal with on a daily basis. Sometimes they may be annoying, but it's what we've got, so we may as well enjoy them and be thankful to have them. 'Cause if we didn't have all these people, then we'd be stranded on a desserted island like Tom Hanks in that movie with the volleyball, and then we'd come home and Helen Hunt would have married someone else, and that's just no good. (though the "If you and I were standed on a desserted island, would you...?" line of questioning is also a good way to get to know people -- perhaps better than the holiday question depending on your desired outcome) So be thankful for the friends and the family and the loved ones that God has blessed you with. These are some pretty awesome people, when it comes right down to it, and you should tell them that you're glad to have them around at least once a year.

And that's why I love Thanksgiving. It's a holiday all about the people in your life (and it's a chance to tell them how much they mean to you without having to spend too much money). So here's my part...if you've read this, thank you. It means a lot. I love you. Yes, you. Seriously. THANKS(giving)!

My Football Fantasy

Fantasy (n): the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need. (www.m-w.com)

Fantasy football (n): a football competition with imaginary teams which the participants own, manage, and coach and with the games based on statistics generated by actual players or teams of a professional sport (www.dictionary.com)

Professional (adj): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (www.m-w.com)

Which brings us to the topic of the week: Terrell Owens.

I find it incredible how far out of their way sports personalities have been willing to go in the past week in order to add their two cents to the recent TO drama (the verbal assault on the eagles organization and his coach and his quarterback, followed by his physical assault on a teammate, followed by his suspension, followed by his surprise that his actions warranted a suspension). Honestly folks, I'm tired of hearing about it. The only football "fantasy" I have is that we can actually talk about football, and the guys who are actually on the field playing it, instead of some idiot who's no longer on the team (but like the definition says, that's unrealistice). It disgusts me that "the media" is so wrapped up in this "story" that they can't let it rest for thirty minutes without bringing up those wretched letters. No one has anything original to say or any new information to add that will help us to understand the enigma that is Terrell Owens. We've heard the same exact remarks coming out of every single on air sports commentator that has found him or herself within shouting distance of a microphone. In case you've missed it (in which case you've either been in a coma, buried alive, or using the presidential intelligence reports as your only "reliable" news source--and for all of you out there I'm truly sorry) here's the paraphrase:

"Terrell Owens is a jerk. He was a jerk in San Francisco. He was a jerk when they tried to trade him to Baltimore. He was a jerk when he got to Philly. Being a jerk is the reason he was told to leave Philly. No one was surprised by this (no, not even his audacious agent Drew Rosenhaus-who may well have guaranteed taht no one will ever sign him, or anyone else with the initials DR, or anyone who bobs their head uncontrollably when they talk, as an agent becasue of the way he handled this mess). Terrell Owens was paid to be a professional football player. He acted un-professional-ly. TO got what he deserved. The Eagles are currently getting what they signed up for when they paid for him. Period."

There's nothing else to say, really. Nothing. So don't try. Just move on. Please. Let Terrell disappear from our collective consciousness. We as a culture want nothing to do with him. Don't spend 75% of your pre-game for the Coaches vs Cancer College Basketball Tournament talking about Terrell Owens. Don't use TO talk as your filler in golf coverage. Stop writing articles about it. Don't talk about him on College GameDay, or even on NFL Primetime. And don't don't don't, no matter what, WASTE an entire blog entry on him!

We have more important things to talk about. Let's focus on the positive...after all, it's been one whole year to the day since the last time NBA players climbed into the stands and pummeled some fans. Let's celebrate progress. (And let's wear some nice suits while we do it.)

Perspectives on Time (Part Deux)

One of my favorite riddles is posed, "You walk 100 yards due south, then turn and walk 100 yards due directly east. You then turn and walk 100 yards directly north. At this point, you find yourself standing in the exact place that you started from. Where are you?"

The answer is "At the north pole," but the riddle brings up a rather interesting point regarding our frame of reference. Typically our understanding of space and time doesn't allow the scenario described in the riddle to hold true. In a classical fram of reference, it makes no sense to be able to leave a point and, making 2 turns and traveling in the cardinal direction, return to the point that you started.

I've often wanted to undertake a study of what I have called "frame of reference physics," in which apparent anomalies such as this one are studied. The reason that I find it so interesting is that our system of measure in terms of both time and global geography are fairly arbitrary, and yet we base our entire understanding of the "laws" of physics on an arbitrary frame of refernce.

(What the hell am I talking about?) All our laws of phsyics are based on time, in terms of seconds, minutes, hours, and days, but these are all arbitrary units. We want to tell ourselves they're not. We say that one day correlates to one rotation of the earth around its axis. This is not the case however. Assuming (for simplicity) that a year consists of 365 days, the earth actually only rotates 364 times, with one full "rotation" being accounted for by the earth's trip around the sun. From this skewed system of "days" we decide to break down 24 hours, into 60 minutes and further 6o seconds. Then we base our understanding of physics and mechanics on this system. Seems arbitrary.

So what types of mysteries will frame of reference (FOR) phsyics study? Well that's simple. First I intend to return to the source of my interest (the north pole) and prove that the reason that Santa is able to deliver all the presents in a single day is that, at the North Pole, all the "time zones" converge, and time as we have created it does not effectively exist. If Santa were to stand at the norht pole, he would not experience earthly time. Further, if he were to leave the pole for a day, he could easily just walk one turn around counterclockwise and earn that day back. It also explains why Santa is able to live forever, without aging.

Off course, since we know that it's always Christmas at the north pole, a corollary to our prior FOR Law would be that at the beginning of time, the initial moment of creation, was in fact Christmas (i.e. t(0)=Christmas). We can then learn that Christmas is not only the birthday of Christ Jesus, but in fact, the birthday of the Universe, which would kinda make sense if you're Christian, and would go a long way in proving that we're right.

Other things to study would be the behavior of light at 2am of daylight savings time, when the clocks change backwards. We would also examine the relationship between the relative speed of earth's rotation (greater at the equator, essentially 0 at the poles) and centrifugal force (which we're told is an imaginary force, but in FOR physics, is very real) to explain why elves live at the pole, and tall people come from Africa. (This is also compounded due to the lesser effect of gravity at the equator dues to the ellipsoid shap of the earth, not pulling as hard on aAfrican people, which also is why white men can't jump...it's gravity's fault) Finally, we'll determine if people living at or near the equator are more likely to get sick due to the drastic temperature changes associated with constantly switching from winter to summer everytime they cross the line.

These are only the beginning, as there are many other scenarios begging to be examined. One day, I would like to examine how math would work with we only had 8 fingers rather than 10, since this is likely the basis of our system. (As a preview, couting would occur, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21...etc. 5x2=12. and 4 squared= 20.) The rules are the same, but the answers appear different. You would however find that prime numbers occur in the same order, though traditionally 7, 11, 13 becomes 7, 13, 15...these are prime in our new system, which assumes and eight fingered frame of reference (though you may note that in this system we'd still have ten fingers, but the digits 10, would equal eight in our current system and 8 wouldn't exist, just like 10 is not a single digit now)

This is intended to serve as an overview of frame of refence physics. Hopefully this will help to answer some of life's greatest mysteries.

Perspectives on Time

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to it, but I finally got around to writing the second post regarding the Afterword to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Most likely it will end up being less about the book than I had originally intended, but regardless, let's get right down to it:

This book has a lot to say about Ancient Greek perspectives and theis meaning
but there is one perspective it misses. That is their view of time. They saw the
future as something that came upon them from behind their backs with the past
receding away before their eyes.

When you think about it, that's a more
accurate metaphor than our present one. Who really can face the future?
All you can do is project from the past, even when the past shows that such
projections are often wrong. And who really can forget the past? What else is
there to know?

I've found myself spending quite a bit of time looking back at my past, essentially with the hope for taking a toll on how I've gotten to where I am and see if I can project where it may all lead. The truth is that it's a fairly pointless pursuit, attempting to forecast or predict where you're likely to find yourself in 5 days much less 5 years.

So instead of trying to forecast, I've ended up considering who I am currently. This is where the fun starts. The truth is I realize that I've been a bit depressed. It's hard to pinpoint when exactly it started, but I'm leaning toward the end of my senior year (about a year and a half ago). I've certainly had some ups and downs and quite a few drastic life changes in that time, and have had plenty to think about. The sad truth, which is why I find myself depressed, is that in my estimation I've taken a few giant steps backward in my progression in that year and a half time frame. I have come to believe that I was a better person then than I am currently, and I must admit I find that fact extremely frustrating.

Before I go any farther into this discussion let me say that I don't in any way mean to say that I'm unhappy, or at all dissatisfied with where I am or what I've done to get here. I'm having a great time, really loving the people that I've had the opportunity to get to know and befriend, and for the first time in my life, find myself pursuing an career path that I'm really excited about and that I think is a perfect opportunity for me to link some of the extremely stratified areas of my life into something productive. I think I'm really ready to make a run here, but the past few years have been leading up to all this and that's why I've been doing all the introspection.

So here we are. I'm in a good place, surrounded by good people, enjoying what I'm doing, and really feeling that I'm "in my element" (for lack of a better, less cliche term). So why do I say I'm depressed? Well the answer is really quite simple: in spite of how well I seem to be doing, I really think I could be doing much better, mainly in the way I carry myself as a person.

I've somehow managed to get away from who I am as a person (or more accurately, who I hope to be, since as Bill Parcells puts it "what you are is what you are"). In trying to recall myself 2 years ago, I remember a very different person from the one I see in the mirror now. I seem to recall someone full of life, always positive. Someone who always saw the best in people, and tried to bring that out. Someone who could look his friends in the eye and say "I love you" without hesitation or restraint. Most importantly, I remember being a person who was focused on personal growth and who really brought something positive to his community (in many senses of the word community)--someone who had a whole lot of faith in humanity and gave a lot of trust and respect to the people in his life.

Now I'm a cynic. I've become very negative towards other people, and often find myself frustrated by how "stupid" other people can be. I've become far more sarcastic and biting than I've ever been before. Sometimes now I can't even tell when I'm joking and when I'm not. Instead of seeing the good that people bring to the table, I more and more often find myself fixated on the bad or the negative that I see. Instead of trying to improve myself and the people around me, I'm more likely to make a sarcastic remark and move on.

I've also become arrogant and conceited. I fear that I'm far too proud for my own good; that my pride has become a stumbling block that is hindering my growth. (How can someone who knows everything have anything left to learn?) I'm become stubborn and set in my ways. I'm more confrontational than I used to be.

So that's why I say I'm depressed. I feel that I've really let myself down, not to mention the people who care about me and/or are forced to deal with me on a regular basis. I have to admit, that what really scares me is that, in spite of who I have allowed myself to become, I've been very "successful" to apply the materialistic understanding of the word. Life has been good, and many of the projects and ventures I've taken on have achieved their goals.

So anyway, this entry should really serve as an apology.

I want to apologize to the people who have been dealing with me as I've been going through this transformation over the past few years. I count myself extremely blessed that the vast majority of the people who have taken me into their lives recently haven't turned away, even in the moments when I've likely deserved it. If these past few years can really be deemed "successful" it's likely because of the support that I've received from all of you.

I make no excuses for the way I've handled myself recently. I can promise that I'm going to make a concerted effort to turn a corner, and be more like I remember myself being. Hopefully you'll see a new, more open, more positive, and more accepting Craig than the version of me that you've gotten to know.

Again, I'm sorry for what I've become in so many areas of my life. I've in large part lost sight of many of the Jesuit ideals that had helped me become someone who I was really and truly proud and happy to be, because of who I was, and not what I had accomplished. There is something to be said for the process of discernment. Hopefully I don't lose sight of it from here on out.

Anyone who's gotten here, thanks for reading along, and I'm sorry if my words or actions of the past few years have in anyway made you feel small, inadequate, or simply not affirmed in the way that you deserve. I owe so much to my friends, I'm sorry to those who I've let down. You will see a new Craig in the coming weeks, months, and years.