17 Toothbrushes

A comb and two toothbrushes on a bathroom windowsill

There are 17 toothbrushes in the cupboard over my sink. I am not talking about packaged, waiting-to-be-used articles, but open, ready-in-cup toothbrushes. In my house live 7 people. One brother comes around frequently and spends the night, so he would be excused for having a toothbrush present. My parents, however, keep their dental items in the master bath, so they don't even contribute to the 17 count. One of my sisters keeps her toothbrush in her room in case of inaccessibility. Does she have any in the bathroom cabinet? "Maybe one... an electric one from four years ago" that she never uses... I have two in there, one for regular use and a backup for travel. So that takes care of three, leaving 14 toothbrushes belonging to 3 people. Is it odd that I'm concerned?

To God be all glory.

Health Insurance, Competition, and Socialization

I am no fan of government involvement in commerce, even when the industry is health care. As with most government programs, the three arguments are simple: First, it is quite illogical to think that we can funnel money through a string of middlemen, each of which receives their cut, and come out ahead. Second, the more the government controls the money, the more they control everything else. We see this in the recent bailouts of banks, where CEO’s were deprived of their prearranged bonuses by force, and also in the car manufacturing fiasco where the government first handed the money and second forced a government-arranged bankruptcy. The fear is that when the government is funding health care, the government will tell doctors and patients their options. Finally, every other experiment the government has made in taking over an industry, however charitable, has been a money-draining disaster with worse results. For example, consider social security or the public education system.

Obviously there are other concerns with a socialized, or even a partially socialized health care system. If things go as they have in Europe and Canada, lines will be long, doctors scarce, and treatments almost rationed (or chosen for their cost efficiency rather than effectiveness). Private health insurance companies (which insure no such thing) may be put out of business. Perhaps they ought to be put out of business, but the government is hardly an improvement. We might worry about fraud, or about people taking advantage of services that cost them nothing.

The Problem with Health Insurance

There are two reasons why the people want the government involved in health care: Many individuals are not insured and cannot afford the high costs of treatment or even of preventative checks. As an act of charitable compassion, some people argue, the government should take responsibility for these “underprivileged.” Others, many of whom work in the industry, agree that the present health insurance system is not as good as it ought to be, and think that the government should fix it. Not surprisingly, these two groups of constituents are looking for very different things from their government. But they each voted for the same man as president because he at least sounded concerned about the issue.

Status Quo

I realize the relatively-free-market health insurance system is not meeting needs, though I believe a free market solution would be better. Let me describe the problem. An insurance company takes money monthly to insure you and your family. They put that money into a pot, part of which goes to pay their employees. The rest is a bet they make that you will not need the full amount of your premium. Sometimes they lose the bet, but as long as they don’t lose too often, they can apply the extra money they charged you to the bills for other people. To keep their costs down, insurance companies tend to be selective and difficult about accepting claims. They use different ploys, like keeping the most expensive treatments out of formularies; claiming that the treatments are experimental or cosmetic; restricting the doctors you see to those in a pre-approved network; or by prohibitive referral processes. Insurance companies sign contracts with in-network doctors agreeing to pay a certain amount for specific services – usually an amount less than that which the doctor would usually bill. This though it actually costs a doctor more to bill an insurance company, due to the amount and hassle of paperwork required. On top of this, the insurance company usually requires you to pay a copay or percentage of your bill. Or another old-fashioned, lower-priced option is to have a deductible. In this system, the patient pays for routine care and emergency expenses up to a certain amount (which they may or may not exceed in a year, and would probably do better not to exceed), at which point the insurance kicks in with a discount or normal coverage. More on this later.

To compensate for the arbitrary reductions that insurance companies make to the amount of a doctor’s fee, doctors are almost forced to raise their prices to fool insurance companies into paying them what they need to make a living. Competitively low prices have been eliminated by an across-the-board amount insurance will pay. What is to be gained by a doctor charging the insurance less than they have agreed to pay?

The Corporation Aspect

Insurance companies, except for Medicaid and Medicare, have been private enterprises, required to compete for customers. To gain a competitive edge, there are several options. The most obvious is advertising. Name recognition is important. Companies can advertise having a large pool of doctors in their networks, easy paperwork, comprehensive coverage, low premiums, small deductibles or copays, perks like inexpensive prescription drugs, or customized get-only-what-you-need plans. The problem is, insurance companies as a rule have become accustomed to advertising to corporations or businesses, not to individuals.

Enter Government Interference

I have not studied how the benefits became a normal offering from a corporation to its slaves, but I suspect taxes (translate: government interference and manipulation) have something to do with it. This is what I know. Businesses are taxed on the amount of money they pay their employees. Employees are taxed on their income. Some things on which people spend their money are tax-exempt (food and medical expenses in most cases). Perhaps businesses sought to increase the incentive to work for them by offering the untaxed add-on’s?

(excerpt from an article at http://www.ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0302fact: “In 1910, Montgomery Ward entered into one of the earliest group insurance contracts. Prior to World War II, few Americans had health insurance, and most policies covered only hospital room, board, and ancillary services. During World War II, the number of persons with employment-based health insurance coverage started to increase for several reasons. When wages were frozen by the National War Labor Board and a shortage of workers occurred, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and offering health insurance was one option. Health insurance was an attractive means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: Unions supported employment-based health insurance, and workers' health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes, as were cash wages.

“Under the current tax code, health insurance premiums paid by employers are deductible for employers as a business expense, and are excluded, without limit, from workers' taxable income.”)

Why is this adverse? As long as the employees of the company are not complaining – or in worse cases, not threatening strike or resignation – the corporations are under no pressure to do what is best for the patients. They will buy insurance plans that cost them the least money. Even if two plans cost the same low price, how is a corporation to know which health insurance provider will offer better service?

Starbucks and Competition

Let’s compare this to something simple and familiar: Starbucks. On every corner, there is a Starbucks. One might be on your way out of your neighborhood when you’re headed to work. Your grocery store might have one in the corner. Or there may be that chic spot where you always have coffee with your girlfriends. Which Starbucks do you patronize? There might be a friendly Starbucks, a convenient Starbucks, the one with the drive-thru or the excellent customer service. You might prefer a clean Starbucks or a less busy coffee location. A few Starbucks offer different selections for their bakery, or later hours. If you ever have a bad experience at one franchise, you can switch loyalties and frequent the Starbucks across the street.

Now what if the company you work for, as part of your compensation package, had agreed to fund your Starbucks addiction? Yet for their convenience they bought a package with a single Starbucks site for all of their employees. To use your benefits, which your company already paid for, you must go to the Starbucks they chose. The person who selected the corporate Starbucks didn’t even like coffee, has no idea where you live or whether you like bakery items or drive-thrus. But now you’re stuck. To take advantage, you have to drive clear out of your way, get out of your car and walk in, only to find they don’t have the muffins you like and the barrista is grumpy every day. If you get ambitious, you may complain to your human resources department in hopes that they would change coffee shops for you. But then someone else is unhappy, because they don’t like the busy, cramped feeling of a drive-thru when they’re reading their novel in the corner, hugging a cardboard-ringed cup of coffee.

What’s more, as this trend catches on, more and more businesses start choosing a Starbucks for their employee benefits. Starbucks realizes that they can earn as much by pleasing one corporation as they could by catering to a thousand individual customers. Once the contract is landed, there’s almost no possibility the business would pull out. Service wanes, options are reduced, prices inflated, and soon no one who is not part of a corporate plan can afford to buy Starbucks. Opting for your old favorite Starbucks near your house with the drive-thru and muffins costs you an arm and a leg – and they don’t even have muffins anymore, because that isn’t part of the plan the corporation who chose them wanted. Your neighbor has to give up his Starbucks addiction because he is self-employed and can’t afford it.

And the economics get worse, because your wife and kids used to love Starbucks. The corporate plan includes them (and the trend has made it impossible to afford mocha frappachinos anywhere else), only at that one Starbucks. To reduce corporate costs, though, they start to restrict the family plan. Wives and kids under 18 can be included for now for a monthly fee. After 18, if they enroll in college, the company will still fund their Starbucks life – who knows why the company cares. Then all of a sudden, at 25, no matter what your family values or circumstances, your kids are no longer covered. “So get over it,” my reader says, “It’s only coffee.”

Dire Consequences

But I’m not talking about coffee. I’m talking about health care, without which you will live with chronic pain or illness. When you break a bone and can’t afford the X-rays and doctor’s visits, you forever cripple yourself, limiting your employment possibilities. Or you may die, after exposing your community to sickness. And remember, the reason an average uninsured person cannot afford basic health care is because the prices are inflated due to insurance policies and corporate-appealing non-competition.

Every Man for Himself

In the Starbucks illustration, I even skipped a step, eliminated the middle man. That middle man not only harms you, the patient, but also the doctor. And the less lucrative it becomes to be a doctor, the less people want to be doctors. When there are not enough doctors for immediate care, you wait. The service gets worse, more and more limited because all these unnecessary people are skimming off their share, and there isn’t enough money to pay for what is needed at the inflated prices. But everyone is out for themselves, including the patient. They’re going to get the most they can out of their coverage, too, taking advantage of any free or fully covered procedure, necessary or not. These procedures have their place, and their price, but are not for everyone. Someone is paying for them, even if it is not the patient, and no one is benefiting.

How the Government Makes Things Worse

An astute observer may already have realized that if the government takes over the Starbucks plan system, the problem is only going to get worse. There will be even less competition; more cost-cutting standardization of inventory; and less incentive for providers leading to less providers and longer waiting and higher costs. This is not even to mention the regulation that will accompany the government plan, or the government-funded coverage for those who could not afford health insurance under the old system.

Creation Rather than Creativity

Nevertheless, the Obama administration presses on towards a government option for health insurance. A nation already so much in debt that it cannot hope to get out of it, threatened with economic collapse, high unemployment, and runaway inflation is going to invent more money (and possibly also increase your taxes) with which to provide health care to its poor. The US may be able to create dollars ex nihilo, but it cannot create doctors, and we are going to run low.

Government Advantage

What’s more, this government plan will have the unmatchable advantage of an endless supply of money for which they will have to give little account, as opposed to the private competitors who have to make do with what they can collect by way of premiums. Analysts fear that private insurance companies will be shouldered out of business by the government “option.” Corporations will not choose to carry the expense of health insurance when their employees could get coverage from the government.

Rationing

Others who risk prophesying anticipate a responsible government (don’t know where they got that idea), which will limit the amount of imaginary money they’re spending, and be forced to ration care. Even aside from the money, as I said, fewer providers in business may demand rationing, too. The most fearful consequences of this potentiality are the way decisions will be made. Would a rationing system choose a younger person for care over an elderly person? If your condition is the most expensive to treat, would you be left untreated? Or perhaps your chances of survival are small, so there will be no attempt made to save your life. An extreme government might choose by party loyalty or by race. When choices like that have to be made, motives become suspect.

Forecasting Good Things

Now for the bright side. Barring a law prohibiting paying for your own care or health insurance, the private half of the system might be improved by this sudden competition. If under a national health care system you cannot get treatment or if you doubt the quality of the treatment, you may take your savings and pay dearly for health care yourself. It will be interesting to see if all doctors will be required to accept the government health plan, or if they will have the option of demanding private pay.

Free Markets Fight Back

When corporations start dropping benefits from their compensation packages, employees worried about the level of health care they might receive under a government-run plan will have the competitive option of buying health care for themselves and their families outside of the corporate insurance model. I believe the best option for reforming the health care industry is to make just this shift, to competing for the business of the individual rather than the company. Already I see insurance companies marketing to that class of consumers. Such policies would be most efficient as catastrophic coverage, for medical expenses exceeding tens of thousands of dollars. Patients would pay out of pocket for routine medical visits and simple treatments like antibiotics, but in case of surgery, hospital stays, or a disease like cancer, those high costs would be covered.

The Answer for the Poor

In either case the solution requires that you have enough money of your own to pay for health care. Most people do not. So in the end we may survive this government takeover only by prevention and caring for each other in community. Eat healthy. Wash your hands. Get enough sleep. Join a community of people who are going to watch your back – maybe even an insurance community where you all save your money together, agreeing to help each other if any of you incurs a major medical expense.

To God be all glory.

Good & Expectations

Dad says Denver is a tenth of an inch away from tying the rainfall record for June. In the 16 years I have lived in Colorado, this is the most rain I can remember. A few weeks ago, there were many days in a row with reports of tornadoes. Last Friday I looked out the window and all of a sudden there was rain. No sooner did I say so than the tornado sirens went off, sounding warning that a possible tornado had been noted on the radar. My three sisters and I ran out the front door, looked quickly, then turned back around to grab cameras and come back, hoping the bit of swirling cloud above us would produce the elusive funnel cloud that haunts my dreams but has never made an appearance in my real life. No luck. After blowing rain hard into my jeans, the storm fizzled. Thus ended a string of days fulfilling the pattern of sunny mornings and stormy afternoons.

For on Saturday, there were no clouds in the sky. I spent most of the day baking for a Pigfest the next evening, but when I looked out the kitchen window, the green of the “grass” seemed to be glowing, and a more-than-a-color blue from the sky dipped into my very presence. During sunset I was out, rejoicing in the light on the clouds and the projecting pink of flowers in bushes along the road. “Everything looks so bright today,” I commented. Mom said it was the first day in a while that the sun had shown in the afternoon. How strange that I would notice the difference.

Yet I love the rain, and didn’t miss the brightness. Just the life-color struck me when the sun highlighted them.

Sometimes I go for good, even if it isn’t my favorite. I’m trying to hearken daily to the voice of gratitude.

Am I ever disappointed when a party doesn’t go like I imagine? Not usually. My way isn’t the only good way. I like to watch in awe as people dazzle me with difference, defying expectation. Let alone God. Don’t I like to watch God’s work surprise me, spinning me like a dancer in His trusted arms?

When life isn’t as I expected, but is still good, the call is to rejoice in that. On those days when the light seems to be birthed in each flower and cloud and blade of grass, how grand the festival! Golden days when friends surround me, laughing and talking and playing and praying – praise my Father in Heaven, how blessed I am!

For the LORD God is a sun and shield;

the LORD will give grace and glory;

no good thing will He withhold

from those who walk uprightly.

– Psalm 84:11

To God be all glory.

The Chosen by Chaim Potok

This story of a friendship between two young Jewish men in mid-twentieth century New York tells history from the heart of one who was there. Through layers of progression the novel delves from the senses we ignore to the delight of noticing what we see and hear to the mental realm, the subconscious realm, and on into the sphere of emotion, where compassion sits. There is sound and there is silence, sight and blindness, confusion and understanding. And following all of these around is the emotional reaction and the questions of why.

Reuven, the main character, is the son of a Talmud professor and columnist, a conservative practicing Jew, who is pioneering the field of higher criticism into Jewish studies. This high school student, who spends half his day studying Talmud (commentaries on the Jewish Scripture), another few hours with regular schoolwork, and the rest playing baseball, meets Danny, a boy his age from the neighborhood over who is also a practicing Jew, whose father is a Tzaddik rabbi in the Hassidic sect. One of the non-fiction highlights of the book is the glimpse at the origin and history of that denomination with its distinctive customs, dress, and attitude.

Philosophically speaking, my favorite part was the contrast between the two fathers as they respond to the Holocaust and to the Zionist push for a Jewish homeland. The columnist says the death of millions of his people will be meaningless if the survivors don’t learn, change, and act. He is tired of waiting for the Messiah, and so says that Jews must take matters into their own hands, to build a Jewish homeland now! But the Hassidic rabbi believes that the sacrifice of millions of Jews, faithfully waiting for their Messiah, will be in vain if the remnant gives up now and tries to do things without God.

I see more biblical backing in the position of the Hassid. Israel was continually rebuked for growing impatient and doing things their own way (Abraham and Saul come to mind). But this relies on promises, on clearly revealed truth from a proven God. Which brings me to the question of dogma. The Hassidic congregation believes whatever their rabbi tells them, as if he were god to them. They believe in fate, that because Danny is the son of the rabbi, he will take his place. But they also put a huge emphasis on personal responsibility. In any case, their beliefs are dogmatic, unquestioned submission to tradition and the rule of the rabbi. The son has been trained to accept things rather uncritically, with a stubborn loyalty. So when he begins to read Freud, there is no filter of context or criticism like his friend would have. Reuven’s higher criticism relies heavily on logic, but it can breed doubt as skepticism rules the interpretation of every book, idea, or even every person. It almost elbows out faith, and elevates the individual.

In the end, The Chosen shows how relationship transcends these conflicts. The rabbi’s moving care for his people and his son takes a huge personal toll on him. Two boys survive high school and college through their improbable friendship. Despite their differences they show mutual respect and interest. They learn to be grateful for what they have, and to learn from others. As the professor father predicted, they experienced how hard it can be to invest in the lives of others.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Morality in Music

I once heard a refutation of the idea that music isn’t important; only lyrics are. A pianist sat on his bench and told us to close our eyes, picturing Cinderella in her ball gown. He played a gentle waltz while he kept describing her meeting the prince, taking his hand, and beginning to dance. But while he talked, the music changed into the eerie, dark whine of a scary movie soundtrack. Then all of a sudden, the music went choppy and light, high little notes running like ballerina steps across my imagination, erasing all attempts to keep Cinderella there in my mind’s eye. Like a dream where rationality leaves you to the whim of memory’s slideshow on random, shaped into a story, the music carried me beyond any intention of feeling or thought.

When discussing the pro’s and con’s of speaking in tongues, Paul offered this interesting illustration: “And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” Sounds matter. We interpret sounds. For the music to have any purpose, it has to do something to us.

And music does affect us. There is soothing music, rousing music, happy music, sad music, romantic music, even angry music. The music and its effects are amoral. There is nothing good or evil about a certain tune. However, there are several ways to affect the morality of a song. Most obvious is adding lyrics with a moral content. If a tune is associated with a certain immoral practice or belief, its impact on people familiar with it cannot be edifying. Also, if the volume or other special effects cause physical pain (headaches, heart palpitations, or difficulty breathing), that music is immoral. Finally, when a style of music is brought into an inappropriate circumstance, it can be wrong. Take Cinderella. To play the full moon music while she is dancing is not helpful. Or the situation could be worse. Times exist for everything under heaven, including anger, but when one has no right to be angry, listening to angry music encourages a mood of violence rather than forgiveness or peace.

To believe that music is powerless, that a song is ok as long as its lyrics are not wicked, is dangerous. I have known unsuspecting young people who begin to listen to a style of music that is heavy and dark, depressed and angry. They do not expect to be affected by the music, but gradually they settle into a mood that mirrors their music, until the music is the creator and true expression of their identity. I invite you to imagine what happens when a teenager becomes constantly depressed and angry. Relationships are ruined. Schoolwork fails. They are tempted into further association with the dark and the violent.

Why the obsession with loud music? I don’t necessarily mean the music so loud and disorderly that the cacophony directs the listener to insanity. I’m talking about simple volume. God calls us to be sober, to do everything heartily. Passive entertainment, I contend, is not godly. I believe we should interact with our music, not have it attack us. If ears are in pain, why not turn it down? And whether there is pain at individual notes, if the over all tension of the music gives headaches, why endure such torment? When the bass is so strong that it seems to have gotten way beyond modesty and penetrated your skin, pounding against your organs, why pursue that style of music? Is it that we have become numb, our relational experience leaving us unable to feel without stimulation – even painful stimulation?

Music can be employed to direct moods. David played his harp for Saul and cured his fits of temper. A romantic dinner is that much more romantic if the violins play sweetly in the background. Carnivals play fast, fun music to heighten the sense of wonder. Who doesn’t appreciate a good movie soundtrack?

One common use of music is in “worship,” the part of a traditional church service in which praises, testimonials, or encouragements are offered in the form of songs. Worship is in vogue right now, the subject of dozens of books, conferences, and contemporary Christian music CD’s. Churches are trying hard to create worship experiences. Bands practice during the week and present their “worship” concerts complete with strobe lights, smoke, bass guitars, drums, and exciting videos with the words scrolling across for the audience to sing along. Some churches light candles. All this to get people in the mood to worship. A more energetic band will get the audience to jump up and down and to clap its praise. The contemplative environment with little altars for worshiping through pottery-making or painting or eating crackers and drinking juice, lit by soft scented candles is more likely to evoke tears. Either way the people walk away with an experience, feeling that they have been through something important that touched their heart.

Is that what worship should look like? Is that even worship? What is the purpose of worship, and what styles of music and other arts are aligned with those objectives? What about worship together? Isn’t the point to be with each other, rather than isolated by volume and darkness? When creating an “environment conducive to worship,” should churches manipulate people into energies and emotions not already inspired by meeting, knowing, and walking with Almighty God? If we as people are not willing to lift up our voices in thanksgiving and praise, lament and victory to our God – without being drowned out by the drums and the pervading bass – are we not merely flattering God?

How dangerous is it to do worship our way, in a way we enjoy and in which we are gifted? What if those ways detract from the purposes on which worship is built? Is the focus on God or on the band or on the audience? I have heard worship described as therapy. Should we participate for healing and comfort, for strengthening? What sorts? We know that offering worship their own way caused the death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron the priest. Did God give any sort of specific instruction, example, or definition which we might be profaning through our creative expressions? Should we sing in church? Are those melodies to be directed as praises, or as encouragement to those around us?

I am concerned at how many gifted musicians use the gathering of Christians to springboard into a musical career. If the band is supposed to be leading worship – an endeavor doubtful in its biblical foundations already – what are they doing with microphones and amps that power over the congregation’s voices? Why sell CD’s and t-shirts boasting the band’s name? Is this about people bringing the sacrifice of praise, or about people having a good time and enjoying a concert? Can bad or inappropriate music prevent an atmosphere conducive to worship?

The Psalms direct the whole earth to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. How can we reject anyone’s joyful offering? Is everything we “enjoy” joyful? Perhaps the screaming and growling sometimes passed off as singing is fun for those doing it. So might be roller coaster rides or even the thrill of stealing candy at the grocery store register, but those things are not considered to be worship.

Music is powerful. God is mighty. Worship is meaningful. God is worthy.

To God be all glory.

The Happiness of Captain Kirk

I was watching the very old Star Trek last night, just because it was on. Always the shows frustrate me, and I'm not even talking about plaster acting and cardboard sets. The worldview even the heroes in the series live by is so sad.

In this episode, Captain Kirk somehow got stranded on a planet being threatened by an asteroid, except that was a few months out, and he got amnesia and thought he was what the people called him, a god. Or at least he played along. He didn't even tell the woman he met (there are always women wherever Kirk goes) that he had doubts about being a god. The two fell in love, I suppose is what they would call it, and actually got married (this is quite rare in Star Trek, but obviously dooms the mere guest star character to death). There was never another woman in his life, swore the amnesiac Captain. And the audience rolls their eyes. Are you kidding?

In a pre-wedding fight to win his bride, the hero of the Enterprise is cut and bleeds. His opponent recites a TV myth, that gods don't bleed. Whose idea was that, anyway, and what was their agenda? Because the true God did bleed. He planned to be slain from the foundation of the world. And almost immediately after the sin that caused the bloodshed of God, the Creator prophesied that the Serpent would bruise the heel of the Seed of the Woman. All along man ought to have known that God would bleed.

Moving on, during the months of marriage on the alien planet, Kirk keeps saying in a dreamy voice, "I'm so happy." And almost all of these confessions are followed by kisses of his bride. Really? Happiness consists of kisses and shallow romance? For there didn't seem to be anything else to their relationship. Love and marriage were much cheapened by the episode, in which the writers and director could find no other way to express affection than the physical and erotic. Happiness, too, was cheapened, but it proved short-lived, having no foundation. I'm sure that as originally aired, the very next episode showed a confident-as-ever Captain Kirk, zooming about the universe looking for more beautiful girls with whom to be temporarily happy in an imaginary life lasting minutes, days, or months. He always seems to have amnesia.

To God be all glory.

Ad Mominem

An interesting question came up when I was with friends the other day. We were demonstrating unfair arguments to use when fighting. Most people, at least the married ones, I guess, have heard the rule not to bring up old fights when you’re talking about a present conflict. But this is even more important. Don’t bring mothers into it.

As if in-law relations are not already touchy enough, and as though a wife does not already feel the contrast she makes to the mother of her husband, why go and use these sainted women as part of your argument? Example: Your mother is crazy! You’re just like her. Or the slightly better: Your mother is crazy; at least you aren’t as bad as her!

Can’t you just sense the bristling tempers when you provoke an opponent by insulting their mother? I have a sense of indignation and no one has even directed these comments at me or my mother.

There are – you’ll learn something here, I promise – Latin phrases describing invalid arguments and logical fallacies, commonly used in debate. Latin used to be used a lot more when the French were more popular (they introduced most of the Latin roots to English), and old books and the intelligentsia still boast the incomprehensible (literally) attribute of italicized foreign phrases and words that no one in the world uses any more. They may have presented important concepts concisely and memorably, but not memorable enough, since I do not know them.

One phrase still in use is ad hominem. This is, as I understand it, when you attack the person and not their argument. If I am speaking to a dunce and he is arguing that two plus two is four, I cannot point to him and criticize his intelligence to win the argument. Two plus two will still be four. Truth is not relative to the deliverer. Anyway, the official definition for ad hominem is: “asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.” Wikipedia says so. Now, you cannot fairly argue that simply because Wikipedia has an in-credible reputation, we must reject its definition. Nor can you say that I am ugly, and thus it is impossible for me to correctly communicate the definition.

The mother-attack reminded me of this fallacy, ad hominem, so I looked up at my friend, who is a genius, and, assuming he knew Latin, being a genius, asked him to alter the phrase to represent source attack mother variety. However, he is also a computer genius, and did the highly intelligent thing: Google. (You’ve no idea how entertained I am that all these urban-knowledge websites are occurring in this article!) Apparently, we are not the first to desire a name for this ridiculous habit of insulting mothers in an attempt to win an argument. Suggestions for the Latin fallacy are:

"ad mominem" codified at the (content advisory) Urban Dictionary.

"ad urmomum” You might want to read this whole article.

I don’t know why we use italics for foreign phrases. Google reveals merely that it is conventional and thus stylistically correct, but nothing more. Latin and Italics, I am interested to note, both claim Italy as their home country.

This is mostly irrelevant, but came up as I followed my friend’s research. What are those P’s and Q’s we’re supposed to mind?

Didn’t you learn something?

To God be all glory.

Window on My Life

I recently acquired two lap harps. So far I have gotten them relatively tuned, with the help of my more musical brother. One I tuned while driving home from work today. The only thing I can play, besides Hugh Hewitt's theme music, is that exciting sound effect in strange low-budget movies: dlu-n-h-n-hg! Like that.

My room is clean and my house is getting that way. Even my office got a taste of my motivation to clean today.

There are bright happy plants growing in my garden, but I don't think I sowed them. Except I don't know what the things I did plant are supposed to look like, so I'm catching onto Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares. Except I know what wheat looks like. In fact, I hope to witness a bit of wheat harvest this year. Anyone know a farmer?

In the world of sports, I am rather discouraged at the shoving matches that purport to be basketball finals. I don't like the Lakers, and I don't like the Nuggets even though I live in Colorado. For as long as I can remember, my friends have joked that any of us are "so good we could play for the Nuggets." And now that isn't true, so I don't know what to say when watching amateur basketball antics. I don't know anything about the Cleveland and Orlando basketball teams except that the games have been close and the buzzer shot in over time tonight did not go in to win the game. Colorado Rockies continue to lose. I heard something about being second worst in the league.

The snippets of information I have heard about the nomination to the Supreme Court have me concerned. She's young. I don't understand what makes her qualified. Since when does it become a point in your favor that you were not raised well? (I am not sure anyone was saying she wasn't, but I did hear this mentioned lately, and decided to raise the question: poverty, divorced parents, an indifferent education are a lot better for Cinderella than world leaders.) Speaking of being raised well, what is up with the government deciding that it knows more about a child's welfare and healthcare than its parents? And even if it did know better, who is going to pay for this mandated treatment? And what if the treatment actually makes the boy worse? What if something else would work better? It isn't as though an adult with legal custody of a dependent were depriving the sick person of food and water, as was done with the complicity of the Florida courts several years ago.

Complicity is a word that makes me think of Ann Coulter, who is harsh, but oh so witty. And she is a real political conservative. Why do we let people call themselves liberal - a happy, generous title and moderate (as though most are not intolerant whiners) while we get called conservative, a misnomer if I ever heard one. If we're supposed to be conserving something, we are certainly failing.

Words make me happy. I have lately acquired the following list:

Aver – to positively declare
See very, veritas, etc.

Asseverate – to declare earnestly or solemnly
See severe

Triumvirate – a government of three officers or magistrates functioning jointly; a coalition of three magistrates or rulers for joint administration; any association of three in office or authority

extirpate – to pluck up by the stem, pull out the roots, completely exterminate

fungible – something that is exchangeable or substitutable

embarrass – to cause confusion or shame

polemic - apologetics focused more on offense (attacking another position or belief) than defense

trow - to know, trust, or believe

serial comma - (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma) is the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items.

I am still trying to sort out whether trothplighting refers to engagement or marriage. I am particularly interested in the use Tolkien made of the word in Return of the King. For much of my life I thought it synonymous with marriage vows. Then I heard that it was the official betrothal ceremony (in the old days weddings were apparently three step processes). And just the other night, in between episodes of Monster Quest on the history channel, I heard "plight my troth" in wedding vows on a movie.

A few weeks ago I picked up a Rich Mullins album at the thrift store, and have been delighting to rouse myself with his songs, including The Color Green, which has this line: "the wrens have returned, and they're nesting..." I have been curious about wrens for a long time, and ptarmigans, partridges, grouse, and pheasants. My other favorite birds are chickadees, eagles, and definitely at the top of the list: Mourning Doves.

Look what I made:

And I simply cannot call it quits before 1 AM. Silly me.

To God be all glory.

Review of The Chronology of the Old Testament

The Chronology of the Old Testament, by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, is a history of the ancient world relying primarily on the most complete, detailed, consistent, and verifiable text known to man, the record of the Hebrew peoples as found in their Scriptures. Beginning with a commitment to the sufficiency and perfect reliability of the Old Testament, the chonologer establishes a timeline of history comparable to Ussher’s famous work.

The first section establishes periods of history whose lengths are defined by specific verses in the Old Testament, including the genealogies leading up to the flood, and from the flood to Abraham; the duration of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt; the period of the Judges; and then the dates of the kings of Judah and Israel. This last comprises the majority of the work, as Dr. Jones treats the various accounts of the kings’ ascensions, reigns, ages, and associations with each other particularly as found in the books of Kings and Chronicles. He refutes the compromise position of Dr. Thiele, whose dates for that era have been considered standard in conservative evangelical study.

To close the principal manuscript, a study is done of the kings of Assyria, Babylon, and Media-Persia particularly as they compare to the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9, predicting the exact year at which Messiah was to be expected. I was especially interested in the identification of the kings Darius, Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes (of Ezra-Nehemiah).

Though necessarily long, The Chronology of the Old Testament is one of the smoothest narratives of history that I have ever read. Showing care, comprehensive understanding, and a desire to communicate to an audience ranging from the novice to the studied skeptic, each technique of chronology and every theory of dates and history is presented in a way that is easy to understand and, from the perspective of this novice, unquestionable. Along the way like an enthusiastic tour guide the author revealed the little discoveries he had made, unsuspecting, and the significance we miss when we do not appreciate the precise chronology and its implications. For example, we learn that Jonathan son of Saul was actually decades older than David, yet they were dear friends.

Dr. Jones is honest about the limitations of his science, confident in His God (who preserved the record for us), and firm in his stand against giving historical precedence to the Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, or Greek histories since, even from a secular viewpoint, they are less complete, immediate, obvious, and consistent than the Hebrew Bible. They are acknowledged, however, as useful tools in corroborating the testimony of the Scripture and of placing the internal timeline of the Bible into its place in our modern calendar system. Some space is given to discrediting the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament proceeding from Alexandria and containing multiple errors and contradictions. Also discussed are worldviews, and the King James translation of the Bible into English. The author is avidly loyal to this translation, and occasionally vehement in his criticism of those whose opinion differs.

A CD-ROM is included with the book containing most of the charts and timelines discussed (the rest of the charts are alongside the narrative).

The Chronology of the Old Testament is an impressive, helpful book that I would even consider employing as a history book for homeschool children. I enjoyed the book, learned things, and was corrected in some points which I had believed. (One point that comes to mind is the arrival of the magi to visit Jesus. Formerly I had been convinced that they arrived months or even years after Jesus’ birth, while the family was residing in Bethlehem. However, the account of Jesus’ presentation at the temple in Luke precludes this possibility.) The detailed harmony of the various Old Testament books was brought forth in a broad way I had never before envisioned. My only concerns are these: the strength of his personal criticisms in some places for weakness in understanding or imagination (resulting, I grant, in slighting the authority and accuracy of the Bible); and the incomplete understanding that remains about the events and timeline of Esther. Without reservation, however, I would recommend this book.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

About Time

This is an exercising post. I want you to stand up and try the following:
Look at your clock.
Jump. You probably moved up and down.
Slide left. Slide back to the right.
Slide forward. Slide backward.
Stand still.
Step left. Step right. You probably moved both up-and-down and left, up-and-down and right.
Look at the clock. How much time has passed?

Refer back to your exercises to help you answer the following questions.
Can you move in one dimension?
Can you move in two dimensions?
Can you move in three dimensions?
Can you do any of those without moving through time?

In science today, there are four accepted dimensions. We tend to call these space-time. There are three spatial dimensions (sideways, forward, vertical), and one dimension for time. These four dimensions are connected, sometimes in mysterious ways allowing for the concepts of wormholes and time travel. More practically, these connections are used in Einstein’s famous Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity, which are applied all over physics today with some very helpful results.

I don’t know if this is Einstein’s own illustration, or some textbook writer’s, but the principle belongs to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: Time is relative. This is proven, supposedly, by the fact that if you were to throw a clock at the speed of light (something no one has done), the hands would shorten, and thus they would travel the dial at a different speed. Since we use a clock to measure time, obviously time is relative to the speed at which one is traveling. That is what a physics book once taught me. What nonsense! The measurement of time does not equal time. Time is not contained in the length of the hands on a clock; it is described by them. So while I’m not arguing necessarily that time is not relative, I am saying that the reasons we think it is are less than persuasive.

In the very least, we ought not classify time in the exact category as the spatial dimensions, because, as shown, we can move in any one of those dimensions without moving in another one. We can also move in two or even three of those dimensions, but the choice is ours. Human experience has not produced a circumstance in which anything has moved in a spatial dimension without moving in time. In fact, we cannot even fail to move spatially and keep ourselves still in the “dimension” of time. Hypothetically we could stand still in time, moving outside of time or existing without time. But there is no observational evidence of this phenomenon.

So I remain a little skeptical of the description of our universe as four-dimensional (let alone boasting more dimensions, as some theoretical physicists like to suggest). How tied is our matter and energy reality to time? What is time? Is it linear? Does perception define time? What is the meaning of action, thought, or existence outside of time? Can time really accelerate? Can it change direction? Some physicists are suggesting, based on observations, that space is actually stretching. Can time stretch?

To God be all glory.