Good Quote

“Don't be envious when the grass is greener on the other side because you don't know how much crap it took to fertilize that ground.”
Sy Rogers

Courtroom Justice

  Last week I had the chance to experience something that, I'm sure, many disgruntled ex-spouses would give at least a small toe or two to see.  At a post-divorce court hearing, I saw my ex-wife arrested for an outstanding probation violation warrant.  And I had a front row seat.
  Here's a little background...
As far as ugly divorces go, I've been told that mine was among the most extreme ever seen.  Well, if a lawyer from Portland's most prestigious family law firm has any legitimate opinion, then there ya go.
Here's the backstory:  In a nutshell, I had a period of time after my first wife died where I made some fairly poor decisions.  One of those decisions was when I decided it was a good idea to marry a (supposedly) former heroin user.
(You don't think I can hear those groans!??!;)
My well-analyzed mindset at that time is a topic for another book.  For today, we'll just continue with this story.
Anyone who has personal experience with addiction can relate to my story.  As a matter of fact, they can probably write a lot of it; for, as we learn in co-dependent recovery, addiction is progressive and always ends up in one of the same places if left untreated: jail, death or insanity.
In my case, I got together with a woman who (unbeknownst to me) had fled a drug charge in another state.  The charge?  Prescription drug fraud for pain killers.  Why flee?  Because she violated her parole by "accidentally" getting into heroin.  Mmm-Hmmm.
Fast forward to a couple years later and you'd find this woman having gotten pregnant on purpose in order to have me marry her.  It worked.
During that time period her addiction was never honestly treated.  She "played" at recovery with NA (Narcotics Anonymous) meetings here and there, but also with a continued litany of "problems" that always allowed to her to be prescribed something or another.
There were anti-depressants for depression that was alternatively denied and then used as legitimate reasoning by her.  There were benzodiazepines for a new "anxiety problem."  There were hidden dentist pain prescriptions for tooth pain from cavities that were left untreated (in order to continue to have "legitimate" pain claims).
There were more, I just get tired of listing them.
Then there came the Meth.
Again, once you introduce Meth into the mix, things go from worse to exponentially catastrophically horrendous.
With Meth use you get to experience things like mom disappearing from the kids for hours when Dad is away on a business trip.  You find the kids new Christmas toys slowly "disappearing" one by one.  You see a once full piggy bank completely empty except for a few pennies.  You can't seem to find your chainsaw, salmon pole, or first wife's pearl jewelry purchased in Hong Kong that you were going to give to your daughter on her 16th birthday.  Not to mention the continual nonsensical fighting & lack of peace in the home.
Situations like this were commonplace and led to the inevitable divorce.
** Now I must pause here and say that there is SO MUCH more to the story, but in the interest of time I am only telling the Reader's Digest version.**
The divorce was kicked off like a 4th of July fireworks display in reverse-- where the grand finale came first and the rest was a long, slow trickle of anti-climacticism where you weren't sure when the end was truly coming.
In my case, I had to file a restraining order when my Meth-induced wife tried to kidnap my kiddo after I had simply taken her to her grandfather's house.  When you factor in a mother-in-law who is also an addict and who tried to help her Meth-daughter kidnap the child AGAIN, then you can start to see what I was dealing with.  But again, this is not the HALF of it (and that is exactly why I am writing a book).
The divorce case settled on the eve of a scheduled THREE DAY trial.  Let it be said that my lawyer wanted to go to trial SO BADLY... but alas, she saved me thousands and we got basically everything we wanted by settling anyway.  Yes, including custody.  :)
So that brings me back to why I am writing this.  That is a result of a Facebook post describing my mood the day I had box seats to seeing the most evil person I know put in cuffs.  It was not due to any "set up" of any kind on my part.  It was strictly the result of consequences of her own actions.  Since our separation, she had at least two arrests for shoplifting and false statements to a police officer.  This latest arrest was for probation violation stemming from the conviction of one of those other offenses.  Our day in court was to finally settle the monetary issues regarding the house I bought before we were even married (it's still not settled).  So she showed up (late) to court with an outstanding warrant and-- BOOM: Book 'em Dan-o!
Some people may think I am gloating or classless for "bragging"about watching my ex get arrested.
If that is you, consider this...
I am not gleefully pointing my finger doing a happy dance here.  I even left the scene before it was over in order not to heap on 'humiliations galore.'  I simply had a degree of satisfaction that, I'm sure, many people never get to experience in their lifetime.  I write for all those who think justice will never come to them.
Based on sworn deposition, I had first-hand knowledge of things the ex was going to attempt to testify to.  The partial list includes physical abuse, child porn, child abuse, animal abuse, contributing to her addiction, and more.  This is the same person who the law required I pay between $60,000 - $80,000 for less than two years of marriage!
When one considers how low a person can go... where truth is only a distant memory and ruining a person's reputation is an afterthought...  then perhaps you can begin to understand why I had a minor sense of satisfaction to watch the Princess of Lies bound in front of me and my sweet, current wife.
I mourn for my ex's two teen girls whom she has taught to hate me.  But perhaps this is part of her "rock bottom" where she can gain some clarity and start making life saving choices.
But based on my experience with her, she just learned to hate more and blame someone else.

Shack Ambiguity

This past Saturday morning-- a little earlier than I like to rise on the weekend-- I had the pleasure to sit in a small gathering of about 30 fathers and chat with William Paul Young, author of the multi-million fictional best seller "The Shack."
For those who have not read it, do yourself a favor and click the blog title and buy it as soon as you're done reading this entry.  You will NOT regret it one iota.  I promise.
If you've never heard of the book-- besides me asking where you've been hiding-- I would like to state a couple tidbits just to put things in perspective:
- Selling 7,500 books means it's a "best seller."
- Selling 100,000 books means Hollywood will talk to you.
- John Grisham sold 15 million books in his writing career.
- In only a couple years, "The Shack" has 12.5 million copies in print in over 30 languages.
So, suffice it to say that there is something going on with this book and I would strongly encourage you to check it out.

So, in this intimate gathering of fathers from my child's elementary school, we got to have a Q&A session with Paul (as he is known to his friends).
For those not familiar with the book, let me quote the synopsis from the recent publisher's website:

Mackenzie Allen Philips’ youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, ostensibly from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.

Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever and quite possibly your own.

In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant The Shack wrestles with the timeless question, “Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?” The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him. You’ll want everyone you know to read this book!

Pretty heavy, eh?  Well, evidently a LOT of people think so too are being changed by what they read in the pages.

One of the results of the book's release is, of course,  a certain level of controversy.  Can any discussion of religion or God-- ESPECIALLY when literally MILLIONS of people are involved-- be bereft of controversy?   Well, this book jumps into it straight away in how it challenges commonly held conceptions of God, sin, salvation, the Trinity and other issues.

Oh, ok.  I'll give one example:  What author would dare present the character of God (The Father) as a large, African-American woman who LOVES to cook?  The main character, Mack, asks the same question and seems to become quite satisfied with the biblically consistent answer.  God is, after all, the One who created mankind in His own image- male and female, he created them both- did (S)He not?  And He represents the fullness of all His creation.  And how many biblical terms describing God are of the female gender (a hen guarding her chicks, the Spirit travailing as in labor...)?  I think you get the idea.

So the idea that the book is controversial is out there.  Just like Jesus was in His day.  Hmmm...

There was one thing Paul said in our time together that really struck me.  He was addressing something having to do with the controversies in answering a question by a man sitting next to me who happened to be a pastor.  His question-- along with some of the controversial issues-- had to do with one of the christian doctrinal ideas brought up in the book.  I can't remember the question or even the doctrinal issue   brought up, but the two men had to agree to disagree.  And then Paul went on a short time later to make a wonderful observation about biblical ambiguities.

(As an aside, I am terribly interested in the whole idea of biblical ambiguity right now; especially since I have been having an ongoing Facebook tete-a-tete with an atheist who believes in nothing than cannot be "proven."  Funny how he believes evolution though.  ANYway...)

So Paul Young is discussing ambiguities and the question of "If God wanted us to know the truth and follow it, then why is so much of it ambiguous at times?  Why didn't He put in a FAQ's at the end of the Bible and let us all have definitive answers to the big questions of doctrine, faith, creation, etc?"

Paul's answer (which stuck a chord in me) went something like this...

I think that one reason for the ambiguity is that-- in the example of two people discussing an apparent difference of biblical interpretation-- ambiguity highlights one's heart.

Think about that.

Out of the overflow of one's heart comes the words of the mouth.

In two people vehemently discussing their conviction of the correct interpretation of some doctrinal key point, how do they express themselves?  Are they opinionated, angry, forceful, defensive, pushy, arrogant, haughty or rude?  Or are they gracious, respectful, humble, open-minded, peaceful, easy-going and other-oriented?  Are the fruits of the Spirit manifested when the going gets heated?

It's quite an eye-opening way to think about such things, no?

How often are we reminded of sign carrying, church going masses who hurl intentionally inflammatory slurs at those they should hope to reach with their message of hope?

I, for one, greatly appreciated the expressed thought that God's ambiguity has a purpose.  If for no other reason than to grow our faith, which is how we are counted righteous after all.

The satanic cellist

I saw something that a person pretty much never sees this past weekend at church.
While sitting a few rows back and just settling into the worship band's opening songs, I noticed the cello player who customarily sits right up front, stage right.
He was there as usual and the rest of the band was in their normal places (drums, piano, keyboard, 2 guitars and electric bass).  But I was struck by what he was wearing.
It's not that he was wearing a T-shirt because our church is very casual and somewhat non-traditional, so that was very par for the course.  But it's what was on his T-shirt that struck me.
Yes, he was wearing an ACDC rock T-shirt!  Up front, at church, playing cello!!

For those unfamiliar with ACDC, they are a hard rock band from Australia who have been around since I was a kid.  And they scared me then!  Just to put things in perspective, here is a partial list of some of their biggest hits:  Highway to Hell, Hells Bells, Back in Black, Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap...  Anyway, get the idea?
So, the whole thing just seemed ODD.  Some questions running through my mind were: "Why would the worship leader let him wear that?"  "Don't the church leaders know who ACDC is?"  "Why would a cellist like ACDC anyway??"
But then I began to think another way...
You know, when all is said and done, it's a T-SHIRT.  Perhaps the leadership cares more about other, more important things than just clothing.
Yes, one could make an argument that advertising something that purports to diametrically oppose one's own purposes is self defeating and unwise; but on the other hand, perhaps making a big to-do of judging an un-offensive T-shirt would be more self-defeating and unwise.
As I thought more about it, I realized that I liked belonging to a church that didn't make a big deal out of a T-shirt.  Think of how many other people-- perhaps new to the church scene-- noticed that too and thought, "Wow, that's cool.  Maybe I CAN be myself here."
After all, isn't that what the whole point of church/religion is supposed to be: reaching people where they are and being REAL?  I think so.
I just hope I don't see a Slayer shirt anytime soon.

Boeuf Bourguinon

Today marks the 47th anniversary of the premier of Julia Childs' "The French Chef."  I point it out because we had a curious little coincidence last night.
As one can tell by my blog, besides offering a different viewpoint on various topics, I also like to share the results of some recipes I attempt.  In this endeavor, my mother has been coming over about once a week and we have determined to cook the "most complex thing" we can think of.  This is where my christmas present, "Mastering the Art of French Cooking," comes in.
Last night, as Julia's recipe for Beef Bourguinon was in the oven, my mother read me something from a magazine I've recently been receiving free on my front porch about once a month.  The magazine is MIX & it is about "Portland's food and drink scene."  Anyway, she just happened to pick up the mag and just happened to read that TODAY (Feb 11) is the anniversary of Julia's revered program; and to celebrate, they encouraged everyone to make Julia's famous beef recipe (as popularized in the movie "Julie and Julia")!
We found it quite odd, coincidental and entertaining that we JUST HAPPENED to have already had that dish cooking on the eve of the show's anniversary.  Cool.
And as for the dish itself?  Besides being a savory sensory experience, it was fun and educational too. Oh, and of course it tasted fabulous!
The smells wafting through the house were utterly amazing.  To sniff the air as each procedure's result released its own wonderful aroma, co-mingled with the previous and following step... it was an odiferous orgasm of the finer things.  I only wish words could convey smells.
We also learned some very cool things (once again) by following Julia's book.
-- We have been "crowding our mushrooms" all our lives.  Anyone who likes sauteed shrooms might benefit from this tidbit.  If one puts too many mushrooms in the pan, they end up sitting in their own liquid and they end up boiling or steaming each other.  Cook less mushrooms at one time or use a bigger pan.  (For example, it took me 3 batches to do 1 lb of quartered mushrooms with a 10-inch skillet-- although I probably could've done it in 2).
--Also, combine 1Tb oil to 2 Tb butter over high heat and add the shrooms when the butter "just stops foaming."  It is then hot enough to cook them properly.
--  The shrooms will immediately soak up the fat (butter/oil) as you keep tossing them.  Soon they will release the fat again and start to brown.  This is what you never see if you sautee too many shrooms at once or don't use the correct heat.
-- Don't salt shrooms until just before being served.  I assume it's because, like a slug, they will shrivel and release their moisture in the cooking process.
(For my little secret of sauteed mushroom seasoning: make the oil garlic infused oil-- that's how I store my garlic cloves in the fridge.  Peel 'em, put 'em in a jar- usually a smaller empty olive jar- and fill with canola or vegetable oil.  It keeps the garlic & infuses oil for ready use.  Just add more oil whenever you use some.  Back to seasoning shrooms: you can add a few finely sliced shallots (or onion) just before the shrooms in the pan, and just before the shrooms are browned & done add a couple splashes of red wine vinegar + a dash of Tabasco.  Salt and pepper just before serving. YUM!)

Anway, the whole thing turned out perfectly.  I wish the above photo could ooze odor. Oh-- you have no idea!

Comment Comments

There was a comment from my last posting on Intelligent Design (ID) & the movie "Expelled" that I thought deserved a reply.  I'm not sure how many people actually read the comments, but they can add flavor to the main course sometimes... as in this case.
Too bad I can't actually reach "flippertie" to reply since the hyperlink she left leads me to the blog she already suggested I check out-- which I did.
I also have to say, even though we apparently disagree, that I really appreciate her even, respectful tone-- which is something I don't tend to see in most atheistic darwinists.
Anyway, here is her comment and my reply:

flippertie said...

dont believe everything you see in the movies - especially propoganda pieces like this. Dawkins does not believe aliens (or god) started life on earth. He was responding to a very specific 'science fiction' type scenario put to him by Ben Stein. The movie producers then cut and edited the interview to make it seem like those were his views. For Dawkins side of the story, and the way he and others were lied to and tricked into taking part in the movie you could google "Dawkins Expelled Crossroads Ben Stein" or look up the website ExpelledExposed.com

Troy said...

Dear flippertie: In having productive discourse, there must be give and take. As such, I will concede a few unarguable things, hoping you are willing to do the same (rather than staunchly entrenching oneself in a position that cannot be reasonably or rationally defended-- thereby losing all credibility). That said, & having visited your suggested sites, I concede:
-- Although there are two sides to every story, there may have been "false pretenses" by the film-makers in setting up interviews with scientists they KNEW would disagree with them. However, have you considered that had the producers laid claim to who they were and what they were doing, they would NEVER have been granted ANY interview with the opposing personalities? ...and THUS, would actually have ADDED EVIDENCE to the point that there is a stonewalling & ignoring of voices who would discuss ID? And IF the producers had been granted interviews as "adversaries", would the darwinist scientists have been as CANDID as they were? They would not have been at all! And they are proving it by their offended reactions.
Trying to claim moral high ground here while basically admitting that their answers might have been different if they knew who they were talking to (ie, their OWN duplicity) is ludicrous.
-- Editing does happen in any movie. I read Dawkins' blog recall of the interview & his quote. The point of his UNCUT quote-- which is rife with "I suppose", "probably", "perhaps", "possibly", "possibility", "might" & "could" (in other words, clearly stating personal detachment from the theory yet ALLOWING FOR IT)-- is that he believes aliens seeding life on earth is POSSIBLE (however 'improbable', as his blog later claims he meant)... "an INTRIGUING possibility" no less! Yet the idea of God is IMPOSSIBLE as he clearly states over and over and over again. No matter how Dawkins spins it, his logic allows for aliens & disallows for God. Period. No one can rationally argue that point based on his own quotes.
-- Whether "Expelled" had another working (or 'sinisterly veiled, false') title when pitched to the interviewees or not is pointless. Articles, books, movies, documentaries, taste tests, blind studies, etc. do it ALL THE TIME. Foreknowledge skews the results. Scientists especially know this.
And actually, with all Dawkins et al's whining, it frankly strengthens one of the movie's points that said scientists say quite different things about their theories when caught off guard!!!

Intelligent Design

Last night my wife and I watched the Ben Stein documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It has been out for a couple years now, but we finally just got around to watching it and and it was fascinating!
In the video, Ben (the actor/comedian made famous by his 80's role as a teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" saying: "Bueller? Anyone? Anyone??") investigates the topic of "Intelligent Design" (which may not be defined as you think it is) and how the scientific community is basically showing itself closed to opposing theories of Darwinism-- contrary to what science is supposed to be! In interview after interview, Stein illuminates well-known (to scientists) unbridgeable gaps in Darwinian theory (which is nonetheless still propagated as hard fact), how there is a concerted effort to rid the scientific community of all credible dissent, and how such a disservice to the very INTENT & definition of science (ie, advancement of an ideal with intentional disregard of counter-evidence) has very dark and historically dangerous eventualities (Yes, I said "eventualities" and not "possibilities").
I suppose I have garnered an interest in the topic since an atheist friend of mine on Facebook has been (seemingly) baiting me and other God-believers with his dogmatic & pompously denigrating status updates every so often. I appreciate a give and take exchange of ideas immensely; and it bothers me to the extreme to experience someone who demonstrates such an obvious degree of closed-mindedness... ESPECIALLY when they purportedly pride themselves on being SO open-minded & intelligent! So I take up the gauntlet whenever it is thrown down.
One of my fiend's (Freudian slip? I meant, "fRiend's") gurus-- and the neo-atheist/darwinists do have the dogmatic fervor equal to or surpassing any religious leader-- is the current poster child for the advancement of atheism, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has all the bluster and arrogance that make him a perfect fit in today's sound-bite media forum. He refers to religious people as "psychotic" and portrays anyone who dares challenge the veracity of strict darwinism as "stupid & uneducated."
To Mr. Dawkins I would like to introduce David Berlinski. Berlinski-- who orates in English & French & reads in German-- is a post-doctorate in mathematics, molecular biology and philosophy, as well as having taught at many prestigious universities & written numerous books on analytical topics that would numb the mind. It is amazing to watch an interview with him as Ben Stein asks him to compare Darwin's understanding of the complexity of the single cell life form that had to spontaneously burst into life ("if that were a Buick") to how molecular biologists understand single cell mechanisms today (it would be "a universe").
In other words, Darwin did not understand how incredibly, minutely complex even ONE SINGLE CELL is. Not even remotely.
What has happened since Darwin's time is that science has advanced enough to discover that a single cell is not the "smallest/simplest" form of life as Darwin & his contemporaries thought. They understood "one cell" to be just that: ONE cell. Simple. But now we know about DNA, RNA, the double helix, genes, ribosomes, chromosomes, mitochondria, proteins, amino acids, etc, etc. All these things exist WITHIN a single cell. It is these things that have necessary prerequisites to exist: over 250 different proteins, for one example. So, certain amino acids (which came from somewhere themselves) had to spontaneously order themselves EXACTLY CORRECTLY in order to form ONE protein... and then it had to happen 250 times over again to complete each OTHER required protein... & each preceding protein had to somehow stay viable until the other 250 were completed... & they had to happen in the same primordial puddle or find each other in the earth's pre-continental ocean.... all to simply have the BASICS for the POSSIBILITY of life! What you get is the mathematical equivalent of ZERO percent chance of science's best explanation of being true.
An opposing theory is of course "Intelligent Design" whereby the things required for even the simplest life cell are SO complex and specified, that even on a molecular level these things have the indicators of an "intelligent blueprint." But only idiots believe that, right? Stein spends no little time documenting many who have lost their jobs or been ostracized from the scientific community for even MENTIONING "I.D."
The BEST, best, BEEESSSSTTTT part of the movie was when Stein sat down with Dawkins and had an eye-opening discussion, a part of it which I will quote here:

Stein: "[What is] the possibility there that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian Evolution?"

Dawkins: "Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility; and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry/molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."

Stein (as narrator): "WAIT A SECOND! *Richard Dawkins* thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit?"

Dawkins: "And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe; but that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable-- or ultimately explicable-- process. It couldn't have just 'jumped' into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

That tete-a-tete was worth the price of rental alone for me. The world's premier atheist spokesman basically says that intelligent design IS an "intriguing possibility" (in scientific terms, a "theory"). BUT-- and it's a BIG but-- his 'intelligence' is ALIEN intelligence?!? REALLY?!?!?
This guy who ruthlessly mocks anyone espousing faith in God thinks that ALIENS "seeding" life on earth is a viable and "intriguing possibility"?? And he dares call me "nuts"??!
OH!  And let's not forget to mention that Dawkins also says that something cannot just spontaneously jump into existence.  What?  Like a single celled organism in a pool of amino/protein ooze for instance?

But thanks to Dawkins for also making my other point: atheists/darwinists HAVE to have ANY other theory besides God. God CAN'T be the answer (because you can't "prove" him). There HAS to be SOME OTHER 'natural explanation'-- no matter how illogical. "NOT God!!!! But possibly aliens."
And the part that Dawkins and others of his ilk do not understand: the SUPERNATURAL defies natural explanation! OF COURSE you don't get it, man!  It is BEYOND you!! But that doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate, theorize, research, and strive to understand to learn more about this amazing place created for us!
There is so much more to say on this topic with all its implications... But I think that's enough for our minds to munch on right now. I know I'm jello.
Suffice it to say: Watch this video!

I now have the ability to blog from my iPhone. Look out!!

Tom Ka Gai Recipe

A high school friend from Facebook asked me to give her a recipe for a WONDERFUL Thai soup we love. It's a coconut milk based, spicy soup with lots of yummy stuff.
Read on and see if your taste buds start to water!
OK, so the cheating easy way to make it is to go to an Asian food market and buy a packet of Tom Ka (or Tom Kha) mix. It's a pouch-type thing with a kind of paste in a sealed pouch inside. Just ask the clerk, they will know. Also, buy a 2 cup can of coconut cream (not milk-- the richer the better).
When you get home, just follow the directions. What it will say is basically to boil some chicken in the coconut cream, then add the flavor packet and perhaps water or chicken stock. Mine also says to add lime juice and fish sauce "to taste," so you might want to grab some fish sauce while at the market (I know, sounds gross, but things like that are often the "secret" taste that is definitely missed when excluded).
We always add the "chunks" we like from how we see it served in restaurants. There are SO many variations, but what we like and usually see are onions, button mushrooms (sometimes shiitake too), cilantro and Thai chilies (or serrano).
If you REALLY want to go native, you gotta buy some more things while at the market: ginger, lemongrass, galanga root & Kaffir lime leaves (GOTTA have those). But this is really duplicating what the paste offers. The soup just looks better & more like they serve at Thai places.
I suppose if you had time to let all those things simmer together it would duplicate the paste, but I just add them cuz the paste's directions don't seem to make as much as we like-- so I can either add all that extra "native" stuff & some chicken broth to increase volume, or just do two packets of paste at once (+ the chicken, onions & shrooms).
Oh, and we like to put a scoop or 2 of rice in the bottom of our bowls before ladling the soup. It makes it more like a meal.
OK-- so I cook just "adding a little of this and that..." If you need amounts, write me back and I'll give you my "Troy-quivalents." :)
Enjoy!

Blurbs

I've been thinking....
The world has had some big news lately. Lots of events have been unfolding in rapid order.
I just came from Facebook where I never cease to be entertained how people seem to be so jazzed about every little this and that.
I think it's funny how people get so wrapped around the axle about some issues only to have them COMPLETELY turn around in a relatively short time. If only people could chill out a bit more!
And then there are such fickle people!!
I just have to make some comments...

Haiti Shaken and Stirred-- "Help! We can't deal with the magnitude of the destruction and the amount of help needed!" (Enter USA) "WHOA! Are you TAKING OVER?!?!!! Wait a minute!"

Air America-- The left-wing liberal radio experiment is DONE! I guess the liberals with money only want to take more from others instead of giving of themselves to keep it running. Headline: "Liberalism exposed and filed Chapter 7!"

Tiger's Woody-- (OK, that may be a little indelicate) Although I am proud of him for going to sex rehab & ashamed of any tabloid that would dare to publish "his tearful therapy secrets," I can't help but see his situation as a statement on "having it all" and it not being enough. Too bad he didn't heed Solomon's life advice who had the Nth degree of EVERYTHING and discovered that, indeed, life apart from God is meaningless; that too much is never enough.

Kennedy's Seat-- The Massachusetts election to replace Kennedy in the US Senate delivered not simply a Republican, but a wake up call? Holy cow!!!

Health sCare-- Now that Obama's congressional "supermajority" is gone, is socialized medicine gone with it? It's just so amazing how it seemed a "done deal"-- against all dissenting (majority?) voices-- and now it seems a slim hope of success. What will the end result be??

Global Schwarming-- Old news: "Anyone this side of neanderthals knows it is FACT." New news: "Too bad we got busted fudging the numbers in order to 'prove it.' " Latest news: "ANYTHING THAT NEEDS LIES (OR "FUDGING") IS **NOT TRUE**! An important/true case will make itself and stand up to all scrutiny!" HELLOOO!?!?!?!?!!!!!!

Bon appetite!

Tonight I used one of my christmas presents & cooked my second recipe from "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" by Julia Child. My first recipe was a cheese souffle & tonight was Filets de Poisson Gratinés, à la Parisienne (Poached Fish Filets in White Wine, Cream & Egg Yolk Sauce).
I can already hear the moans: "Oh boy. ANOTHER 'Julie and Julia' copycat."
Although I cannot claim that I have never seen the movie (I could say that I was forced to watch it on a flight home from Mexico, but I enjoyed it too much to say that), I can claim that I have been cooking for years. What the movie did for me was to encourage me to truly begin following my passions which also happen to be cooking and writing. Although not necessarily writing ABOUT cooking... except now. Or when things turn out REALLY good. Like tonight.
It turns out I should've written about cheese souffle night too, but I was too busy eating.
I guess if a picture is worth 1000 words then I am just about done writing.
What I want to say about cooking french food a la Julia Child is this:
1) She really does make it easy. You simply follow her directions (exactly) and you have perfectly completed french delicacies.
2) I believe you can save thousands of dollars by cooking according to a book like this instead of going to culinary school. Yes, one has to have some skills & a certain appreciation and understanding for cooking already, but her book casually explains certain "secrets" & clearly details what you are looking for in various steps of the cooking process.
3) You'd be surprised how easy some of the most impressive dishes can be. I can already see myself recreating certain aspects of a dish by memory! Cooking french food can be THAT easy!
4) A person HAS to be working out if they are going to cook this way because, the butter.... OH! THE BUTTER!!!! And the delicious, velvety, subtle richness of roux with cream... Let's just say that you never would've seen Julia on "America's Biggest Loser." Ever.
5) Just because I enjoy it so much and am so proud of a great result, I will be posting pics of my dishes as I progress. As always, comments and questions are welcomed and WILL be replied to (if desired)!

Faithful atheists

I have been having an on again/off again "debate" with a old military chum via Facebook comments. And I'll tell you what, it is FRUSTRATING!
My old buddy is very similar to me in age, personality, and even skills-- we both went through Naval Aviation jet training together, both flew for airlines & are even both drummers (although it appears he is earning money at thumping the skins-- which I could only dream of). That is where the similarities end however.
This guy-- I'll call him "Junior" since, well, that's what callsigns are for-- is one of those "preaching" atheists. He can't help but post snide, arrogant, condescending posts that take snips at anyone "foolish enough" to believe in God.
I've seen that kind of thing over and over again through the years. Haughty atheists just love to broadcast their apparent intellectual superiority by "humorously" belittling "gullible, overly-simplistic christians."
The thing is, I've had my crisis of faith and I went from trashing it back to validating it all over again. I have deeply weighed and intellectually examined the things I purport to believe; and my faith has been powerfully verified as based on Truth in very personal and powerful ways in my life-- ways I cannot deny.
Now here's the thing that Junior cannot seem to understand: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is-- at its core-- deeply personal and must be explored & worked out on one's own, inside one's soul. My personally powerful experience was meant to impact ME & not necessarily anyone else, much less Junior (evidently).
Junior cannot get past a mental block that demands PROOF for anything he claims to believe. Although, as I am attempting to illuminate to him, his blind belief in science's explanation of the Origins of Life (the very essence of the explanation) come down to a faith position similar to believing in God or Creationism. Let me see if I can explain easily...
The Big Bang (which is the current best explanation for the creation of everything) was an explosion of an infinitesimally dense & small mass (the "dot") which accounts for EVERYthing in the universe today. But... where did that dot come from? Was it "always there"? As christians believe God always was? Or was it created out of nothing-- thus violating science's own Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter? So as a scientific atheist he can scoff at someone idiotic enough to illogically believe in God, but he can believe an equally ludicrous option & still consider himself so intellectually superior??
The frustrating thing is that he is so arrogant yet so obviously NOT well-thought out in his position. He's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!
I suppose I should be humored by his hubris & parroting of illogical quotes that were meant to strengthen his position as a member of the atheist elite. But from the standpoint of loving TRUTH and the search thereof, I think my frustration lies in seeing someone who espouses the same desire, but won't make the full jump to the logical end of his own arguments.
Here's what I think I've come to understand: Atheists cannot make certain logical next steps within their own belief structures because of their PRESUPPOSITION that "there cannot be/is not/no such thing as god." My simple explanation of the logical basis of the Big Bang theory (ie, where did that dot come from?) will NOT be answered by an atheist-- they simply will not do it-- because the answer shows that they have to have as much (similar) faith to believe in a godless creation of everything as a person does to believe in God & Him creating everything.
Atheists ridicule faith; so how can one ever admit to having some?
Perhaps a brave atheist will admit to having faith in science or man's ability to explain all eventually. But they will likely never be intellectually honest enough to look at science's ultimate end at it's virtual statement of faith: "Something HAD to come from nothing because... there CANNOT be a god! We cannot prove this, but... it HAS to be true." Belief in something unprovable sounds EXACTLY like faith to me!
In the meantime, I essentially told Junior that as long as he keeps posting his vitriolic tripe that I am up to the task of refuting it.
If he wants to preach, yes, he should have as much right as the next Jesus-lovin' Christian. But at LEAST have the cajones to answer the deeper/further questions that your own belief system brings you to and deal with THAT! I did.

What a start!

What a wonderful holiday season and what a start to the new year! I truly hope you had a great season too.
I just wanted to post a picture postcard my wife took of our two daughters one evening. Doesn't it look better than a Norman Rockwell? I need to brag on my wife and girls for a moment :D It wasn't posed... just a moment caught of a big sister reading to a little sister by the fireplace one evening near Christmas (or "Pxmas":). This shot warms my heart.
Another reason for the great start to 2010 is that I started writing my book! I can already tell that my attention will be severely torn between writing here or on my book project. But now that I think about it, I believe I can use my blog to help get ideas flowing and maybe even get feedback from anyone who reads this. Stay tuned for more!!
Speaking of which: PLEASE feel free to leave a comment on here whenever you can. Anyone who blogs can probably tell you how thrilling it is to actually have someone care enough to jot a note... ANY note telling how the blogger's words affected the reader. Better yet, become a "Follower"! It encourages me to blog more and give more thought to possible topics.
OK, well... I think I hear my future novel calling!!
See you in the blogosphere :)