Matrix

Most film reviewers of Matrix: Reloaded are critical of its attempts at philosophy. They (NYTimes, Boston.com, etc) dismiss the philosophic self-consciousness of the series as brain candy for the "popcorn crowd".

Fortunately for those of us who don't feel the need to remain professionally aloof and unimpressed with any film that's supposed to, there are plenty of people willing to give it serious thought. Not only geeky bloggers, but also famous scholars. The official Matrix website has full text of a dozen scholarly philosophy articles written by well-published professors on the philosophical questions posed by the Matrix. They are, of course, much less interested in the dialogue from the films than in the alternate reality created thereby. Also, these articles were all written before the second one came out, and added much more detail (and perhaps too much for serious philosophical cohesion) than the first. Some of these articles are quite good. One by Dr. Richard Hanley discusses the failed perfect Matrix and the Christian conception of heaven. I'll quote Dr. David Chalmers, on the metaphysics of the Matrix:

Importantly, nothing about this Metaphysical Hypothesis is skeptical. The Metaphysical Hypothesis here tells us about the processes underlying our ordinary reality, but it does not entail that this reality does not exist. We still have bodies, and there are still chairs and tables: it's just that their fundamental nature is a bit different from what we may have thought. In this manner, the Metaphysical Hypothesis is analogous to a physical hypotheses, such as one involving quantum mechanics. Both the physical hypothesis and the Metaphysical Hypothesis tells us about the processes underlying chairs. They do not entail that there are no chairs. Rather, they tell us what chairs are really like... We can think of the Matrix Hypothesis as a creation myth for the information age. If it is correct, then the physical world was created, just not necessarily by gods. Underlying the physical world is a giant computation, and creators created this world by implementing this computation. And our minds lie outside this physical structure, with an independent nature that interacts with this structure.

The Great Zigzagger

Yoel Marcus has an excellent column on Ha'aretz today, explaining the newest twist of the phenomenally complex Arik Sharon. It's worth a read if you have 3 minutes, I promise. Here's an exerpt:

Sharon, who has foisted the blame on his superiors throughout his career, has finally discovered that the buck stops at his door. Or to use his words, "you see things from here that you don't see from there." But with a sly devil like Sharon, nothing is as simple as it appears. There is no question that he is very anxious not to aggravate Bush, who is having enough trouble in these preelection times after no weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq and the situation there is getting complicated. Bush is looking for a quick fix in our neighborhood. It's no coincidence that the moment we agreed to the road map, which was literally forced on us, the president rushed to set up two summits in the region. We're talking about a timetable that is meant to produce a temporary Palestinian state by the end of the year. And when Bush puts the heat on, you don't play around. But behind this visible motive, there may also be a hidden one: Sharon is going through a maturation process and beginning to digest the bitter truth that he cannot eradicate terror and improve the economic situation without a political solution. His role models among his contemporaries are Peres, Dayan, Rabin and Weizman - all of them hawks who went down in history as peacemakers. As someone who wants to join their ranks, he is preparing public opinion for giving up parts of the country and making those famous "painful concessions." What he will be judged by, of course, are the results.

I'll be so happy if Bush achieves a peaceful solution by being his blunt, unsuave self. All of Clinton's slick greasiness will be avenged.

Prom Photos

I took my sister Keziah to her prom last night. It wasn't half bad - the food was good, and her friends were outgoing and included me in their conversations. I also danced with a few of them, and Kez danced with a few of their dates, so that was cool.

We dressed... differently - so check out the photos. One before we left, in front of the house, the other with the limo.

I'll try to post one here, but it doesn't generally work.

Bush to meet Sharon and Abbas

The President will meet with five Arab leaders in Sharm al-Sheikh next week, and then with the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers across the bay at Aqaba, Jordan. While I think it's crucial that the Bush team is recognizing the importance of the Palestinian question, I have low expectations of this meeting.

My low expectations are not unique among observers, but I do think that it's worth pointing out the strength of the U.S. in this situation. Bush, not a diplomatic heavyweight compared to any president since Gerald Ford, was nonetheless able to force both the Palestinians and the Israelis to the table against their will. He singlehandedly sidelined Arafat - something Israel had been trying unsuccessfully to do for two years. He also forced Sharon, through apparent back-room arm twisting, to accept the Road Map in principle.

Unfortunately, the U.S.'s strength in forcing Palestinians and Israelis to the table has never translated into success at the table. Clinton, who presided over four such summits and spent his entire presidency working with the Oslo Peace Process, was well regarded by both sides and yet had minimal success. If the less popular Bush can pull off foundation of a Palestinian state, I will be shocked and awed.

Meanwhile, Abu Mazen (Abbas' nickname) has continued to use his office and his American backing to the best of his ability. He'll meet with Sharon in about two hours, preparing for the summit with Bush. More importantly, Hamas appears quite close to agreeing to a cease-fire. "Up to this moment we have no fixed condition," [Hamas spokesman] Mahmoud Zahar told Israel Radio. "These conditions will be agreed upon by all the Palestinian sides. If Abu Mazen succeeds in achieving our national goals, Hamas will discuss the issue of a cease-fire," Zahar said. This would be a massive development, should it materialize. Essentially, Hamas would be moving from the rejectionist camp, which they have long been the strongest part of, to the accommodationist camp, tacitly acknowledging Israeli's right (a might-made right, in their eyes) to exist. Incidentally, that would destroy a major premise of my senior paper, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

S.O.S.

President Bush signed a $15 billion, five year AIDS relief package into law yesterday. Democrats came out strong - first time they've been strong on anything for a while - in criticizing Bush's lack of commitment to the bill. For Africa's sake, I hope they're wrong, but InstantReplay applauds the Dems for using their position as opposition party correctly: to force the majority party to live up to its promises. If Bush delivers on this, it could really be one of the crowning achievements of his presidency.

Funding would go to AIDS treatment and prevention, including abstinence programs. And if you think $3 billion per year is a lot, remember the guestimated price tag on the war in Iraq: $80 billion. Funding AIDS relief is going to win the US a lot more favor in the world than removing Saddam, and could help us get a hand into Africa, where Europe has really been exerting a sphere of influence. It's also more likely to result in God blessing the US, as He does to all who use what He's given them to bless others and advance God's work - which include healing - on earth.

Superhuman Superpower

InstantReplay has had problems with the unilateralist Perle (et al) Doctrine, which says that the U.S. needs no permanent allies to secure its interests.

Here's another reason why they're wrong: hyperpowers are assumed to have superhuman powers. We shocked and awed the world in Afghanistan with our muscle - winning where the Greek, British, Russian and Soviet Empires had all failed at the height of their power. Now we've taken over the most populous country between Iran and Egypt all without losing a skirmish. Iraq of course, has been conquered by everyone and his mother, but still, we did it so easily, and against the will of 3/4 of the world. They just couldn't stop us. How scary is that? We can take over a country somewhere, and the rest of the world can't stop us even if they want to!

Do we wonder why people the world over have unrealistic expectations of our ability? One Baghdad resident puts it well, in the Washington Post: "America could solve all the problems, serve all the people in days. It knows what the country needs." The fact is we can't, at least not quickly. But if we can destroy so easily, why can't we rebuild?

If you'll pardon the pun, let's throw Perle to the swine...

Relationships, again

As if I haven't said enough on the subject in the last month. I can blame it on being at the wedding; that gave my singleness a sudden sense of mortality.

Anyway, driving down to the wedding, I got my dad to tell me my parents' full-length "story" for the first time. Strange that I'd never asked before, but I have to say they never tried to tell us either. But that began a conversation, quickly involving my sisters, about us getting into relationships. I won't try to give a play-by-play, but my father made a few somewhat profound points that deserve to be rendered in black and beige.

First, his explanation of falling in love made more sense than any I've ever heard. Perhaps it's because my mind works a lot like his. Anyway, he shocked my sisters by saying that as a young man he could have fallen in love with 80% of girls his age, and the same holds true of most people. In his conceptualization, love begins with a simple crush. And for him, more than one or two long conversations alone with a girl would be enough to escalate a crush seriously, and unless controlled quickly that would turn into "falling in love". His analogy was fire, and made the point that unless you want fire in a relationship, you shouldn't light one. Combustive behaviour would include physical contact and long, deep conversations, praying together, and spending a lot of time together. I can definitely identify a number of times in my life where that type of thing has needlessly started fires in my life. (This is where my friends are rolling on the floor laughing).

The second point my Dad made is related but I've really never heard it before. He said he wouldn't have a lot to say to a guy that wanted to marry one of my sisters. At that point, he said, "What could I do?" Love has already taken hold, and unless it's an egregiously bad choice (or if they were young), he couldn't stop it. Rather, he'd regulate things more closely when a guy firsts asks one of my sisters. (You takin' notes, boys?) He wouldn't let a guy date one of them whom he wouldn't want to be his son in law, and really the equivalent goes for me - perhaps doubly so. This philosophy is firmly grounded in the idea that you can fall in love with anyone, and empirically it seems that anyone can end up marrying anyone. So make sure that the basic elements of a marriage would work before giving your heart out.

Make sense?

Furthball

It started as soccer, but that really doesn't give it justice.

There were 12 or 13 people on each team. Ages ranged from 7 to 49 years. Those with dark shirts played against those with light shirts, and the teams were evened out pretty well. All players were connected to the Furth family some way or other, but almost all of us were Furth by blood. To a few of you readers, that means something.

The second ingredient was the natural conditions. As anybody on the East Coast knows, it's been rainy for weeks. The soccer field behind my uncle's house was a quagmire. It was all very squishy and slick. And perhaps a fifth of the field total was under one to three inches of water. This mudpit made ball movement very erratic, and people overran the ball countless times as it came to rest in a puddle.

The last ingredient to this royal mudslide was our equipment. We wore anything we didn't mind getting mudsoaked, and no shoes. Stopping and starting became near impossible, barefoot on the saturated grass. Slide tackles kept going for four or five feet, and body checks became spectacular splashes.

The mayhem cannot be accurately described in zeroes and ones. Fortunately a non-Furth got it on tape, and I hope to be able to see it someday. But really, it can only be duplicated by the same people under the same conditions. And that's why I love being with my family.

P.S. At the end, we all got hosed down and jumped in the pool, even though it was only 60 degrees out.

I don't

My cousin Nicole had a very well done wedding. I honestly admired it, especially since nobody involved was really "high class" or experienced in wedding planning. There are, however, a few things to which I wouldn't say "I do":
- Cliches in the sermon.
- Rubber duckies imprinted with "Michael & Nicole, May 23 2003"
- The Macarena.

More on Work

I didn't say all that I wanted to in "Work", below. To apply all that personally is much harder than to outline the theology of work. I know that God has a specific work prepared for me - and that's a really exciting thought! That work, as far as I've been told, involves bringing His good news to part of the Arab Middle East. The work, however, is in the details, which is how God works. He's led me very faithfully and nimbly to where I am now, and it always blows my mind to see how He got me here.

One of the prophecies that I've had over my life is that I will "plow in another man's field" before I reach my own. That is magnified by its resonance in my heart and mind. It really makes sense, especially knowing that my greatest sin is pride, and working for something other than my own specific calling would allow God to humble me and train me. I don't know what form that will take - it could be anywhere in the world, volunteering or working professionally, working in the church or secularly; I don't know.

In the long run, I have no idea what form my work will take. This concerns me now in my choice of graduate school path. I have major, life-altering decisions to make soon, and I'm trusting God to continue to guide me, as He prepares me for the work ahead.

Holy Matrimony!!

Doesn't that sound better than "holy cow"? I think I may start using it as an exclamation of shock and dismay, because frankly there aren't many things much scarier.

I'm driving to my cousin's wedding, near her family's home in Maryland, starting in two hours. It'll be a long drive, and my Dad will do the whole thing. I'll read and lobby for audio that doesn't bore me to tears. Maybe we'll have a fun game or two, since my sisters will be cooped up with us as well.

Nicole and I are the closest cousins each of us has. She's four months younger than me, and even though we've lived in our respective states all our lives, we're always close whenever we see each other, especially since the only other cousins our age live in Long Beach. I was really blessed to be able to spend a lot of time with Nicole when I lived in DC this past year - we saw each other five or six times, and had some good long conversations. I'm definitely going to be picking her brain about what it's like to be married!

Her fiancee is a fellow named Mike Hummel. I've only seen pictures, and he seems like a pretty normal guy (my cousin-in-laws-to-be won't be able to say the same for me). They both go to California University of Pennsylvania; he's just graduated, she's got another year. They met at a retreat with their campus ministry a year and a half ago in October (disturbingly, the same weekend and situation when I got to know Meredith. That really scared me). He totally picked her up, and they were going out within the week (she was very naive, and her friends told her she was going out before she realized it herself). They first talked about marriage that December, and he proposed to her (again, she had no clue it was coming) in June, on a moonlit night walking on the beach in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. I have to say I respect Mike for asking my uncle for my cousin's hand, because my uncle is a scary guy with a whip-like wit. He played with poor Mike... finally saying, "Oh, is that all you want? Sure."

So they've been engaged for almost a year, and known each other for less than two. I have to say it's encouraging that it can happen fast - like taking off a bandaid, I think it'd hurt less that way. Seriously, though, I'm heartened by the thought that if I haven't met the One, it doesn't mean marriage is a minimum of five years away. My parents married even quicker than that. They were acquainted for a while beforehand (through my dad's sister, who was my mom's roomie; incidentally, my dad first introduced his sister to John Trammel, her husband of twenty-some years). But I think it took them a year from the inception of their real relationship to marriage; basically they knew they were going to marry from day one. That's scary too (and if that's the way I find my bride, it means I haven't met her yet).

OK, enough angst. The amazing thing about marriage is that even stupid people can do it. In fact, there's no obviously apparent link between skill and success. Some of the most clueless folks have the happiest marriages, while brilliant folks get divorced. God's pretty cool in the way He designed it; but like I said, holy matrimony is it ever scary!

Work

I am guilty of having semi-jokingly defined work as "what you don't want to do." One dictionary definition is Physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something. Kevin says work is "Using your physical or mental abilities to accomplish something." Chris says work is "getting paid to do something you don't want to do." Dave C says "work is something I do between the hours of 8 and 5". Mark says work is "stuff you have to do but don't want to". Steve says "work is putting your hands - or brain - towards a productive goal; something that needs to be accomplished." Danielle says that it's "a task completed to accomplish some sort of outcome." John says work is "a fairly ambiguous term".

God says work is something higher. Work is what humans, especially men, were created for. God culminated His creative work with us - His workmanship, and we are to mirror our Creator in good works (Ephesians 2:10), though those good works will not save us.

Work is how we fulfill our potential. Most importantly, work gives glory to God, and that's the number one priority of humanity. We glorify God by continuing the work He began at Creation - the work of bringing order to chaos - and by continuing the work He began at the cross - reconciling mankind to Himself. We can only accomplish the latter, and more important, through His power, exerted by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The denigration of work is a cultural malady. Recreation and relaxation is, in my opinion, one of the idols that our society worships, under the general rubric of self-service - doing what makes Me feel best. It should not be a surprise to us Christians that we as humans fail to identify what is best for us, and in our limited wisdom choose a less fulfilling path than when we are divinely guided. I'm not saying that work should replace relaxation as an idol, which it undoubtedly has for some people. But work - and play - should be considered as good and joyful means of worshipping the One who is actually worthy of our time and perspiration.

God reminded me of all this today while I was not working, something I've gotten awfully good at lately. With my new location near school, I've been a little like a kid in a candy store with the school social life. I'm out late, I've made a lot of friends, and I'm really enjoying life. On the other hand, my work has suffered. Not much, but a little, and mostly in the last week or two.

But this is much more than just another example of God correcting my poor time-management skills; that happens often enough. This is about self-identification in the long run. God caused me to remember what it is He's called me to do - my specific work. That is, to be a missionary in the Middle East, in some shape and form. While work is not to be our primary identity - discipleship to Christ is - work should be in the place too often held by socialization in terms of how we identify ourselves vis-a-vis the world.

I believe our primary identity comes from and relates to God. First and foremost, we are sinners saved by grace before a holy God. Second, we are members of our family and the church, and the Bible gives ample instruction on our roles there. Lastly, we are members of the human race and the world at large, in relation to which I think we should define ourselves in terms of the God-glorifying work that we are called to. We should not let our position on earth be governed by our socialization, as much fun as social life is. God created us for good works that men might glorify Him - let us not shy away from our purpose in life!

What is a 'limited truce'?

I'm not quite sure. But it sounds better than whatever you call the situation in Israel/Palestine now.

The "limitation" seems to be that Hamas will limit its attacks to non-civilians (ie. only settlers and soldiers) in return for Israel not targeting their leaders. In other words, Hamas has been reading InstantReplay, and realized that they've been going about this all wrong. Unfortunately, Arik Sharon's internet connection doesn't seem to be working, and Israel refuses to accept any truce with Hamas, "as it would allow the organizations to regroup. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has insisted that Abu Mazen crack down on militant groups, disarm cells and imprison leaders." Sharon makes me so mad.

"It's beyond the formative stage"

A baseball world cup Ja! Si! Oui! Um, I don't speak Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, but "Yes" there too!

Hypocrisy with a stiff upper lip

Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins showed his true colours. After lecturing troops about treating Iraqi P.O.W.'s and civilians with respect, he seems to have broken his own code on numerous occasions. The Colonel is a seasoned old Brit, leading a unit of elite special forces, the kind of troops that actually do something these days.

"If you harm the regiment or its history by overenthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family that will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest, for your deeds will follow you down through history." - Lt. Col. T. Collins.

Appreciation

Tickets on the black market to Northeastern's FleetCenter commencement just appreciated. Now that our keynote speaker, Christie Todd Whitman, has resigned as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Her speech will be more interesting now that she has the freedom to be publically critical of the administration, and her words will be valued more by NU's liberal community, who weren't particularly psyched about being commenced by a member of the Bush team.

Mad cow, eh

In what could potentially become an economic disaster of historical magnitude, mad cow disease has been diagnosed in North America for the first time in ten years. Despite herculean efforts to prevent the spread of the disease to the massive herds of Canadian and American cattle, it's here. The case was just one cow out in Alberta, and it's not known whether the cow was imported or not. The rest of its herd has been impounded and will be slaughtered and examined. If more cases of the disease start springing up, this could wreak havoc on the Canadian and potentially the American economy.

Advice Column

If you all like this idea, tell me, and I'll make it a regular feature. If not, tell me. Feedback, y'know?

Dear Dr. Replay,
I am a senior member of the Hamas decision-making council. We've been engaging in suicide bombings regularly for seven years, and while it's very effective at preventing peace agreements, we've worked out that if we kill 200 Israelis a year (assuming zero population growth), it'll take 25,000 years to kill them off. Granted that's a little pessimistic, but we were hoping to cause massive emigration due to fear, and it hasn't happened. Any way we could get this done before the end of the world, and ideally before Sharon kills us all one by one?
- Frustrated and Bloody in Gaza

Dear Frustrated and Bloody,
I agree that 25,000 years is a long time. And while I don't agree with your goals, I'm just paid to give advice, not make value judgments. I'd say that you'd do best for now to stop the suicide bombings. The current Israeli government would collapse without you as a foil. No terror would force them to negotiate with the PLO, and those two would both bring each other down in negotiations because neither is prepared to give much up, so they'd collapse under the weight of international expectations. As soon as Labor got in place, you could reevaluate. Also, keep an eye on the Russians. They should be having a sale on nukes soon, and if you all put your piggybanks together you might get one big enough to level Petah Tikvah or something. Not that you would, but you could. And that's what you need to do - use threats, not violence. Having a reputation of disregard for human life helps you in that respect. Anyway, I don't support y'all, but I have to say I'm somewhat sympathetic. What's a suicide bomber to do when the enemy can hit back harder without having to even give his own life up??
- Dr. Replay

Israel gets bombed, acts stoned

I dunno which is worse. The five suicide bombings in 24 hours or Ariel Sharon's using it as an excuse to get out of negotiations? The bombings were more violent, but Sharon's stance is going to cost more lives in the long run.

NYTimes reports that the militant group Hamas, which opposes any negotiations with Israel, said its members carried out the previous four bombings, but no one immediately claimed responsibility for the latest attack in Afula, 75 miles north of Jerusalem. Meanwhile, an earlier article reports that Sharon's office "implicitly repudiated the new international peace plan." So on one side we have the U.S., E.U., UN, PLO and moderate Arab states supporting negotiations. On the other side are Sharon's government, Hamas, al-Qaeda, and extremist Arab states against negotiations. Is it just me, or is Sharon on the wrong side of this debate? Clearly, his party is an obstacle to the U.S. master plan for the region, and should be removed immediately.

Introducing: Danielle

A friend of mine from my campus ministry has an excellent LiveJournal which she has agreed to share with my readers. I can't stress how much respect I have for Danielle. She grew up Catholic, and sought God her whole life, and came to salvation through our mutual friend Meredith a year ago.

Her journal is something of a chronicle of God's interventions in her daily life, and never ceases to encourage me... So sometimes in the midst of trying to figure things out...in the midst of getting what you want...stopping and analyzing why you feel the way you do can truly help in assessing that something that you will for your life may just NEVER be right. This clarity gives your heart a break...and allows you to take a step back and see exactly why it didn't work out the way you hoped...and that break sometimes is the most exhilirating feeling that you could receive because all that control you try to posses no longer belongs to you but to the will of something much higher and greater that has so much more in store for you...

Danielle'll be on the left navbar - hope you enjoy her shared days as much as I do.

Black & white and read all over

Peter Furth, InstantReplay reader and progenitor, was quoted in the Boston Globe today, saying that the Big Dig is "perfectly safe at 45 or 50 miles per hour." That's comforting. "The problem is getting people to obey the limit."

To keep more accidents (like one by a speeding, unlicensed illegal immigrant in a commercial tractor trailer that cost $500,000 to repair) from occuring, the staties are going to close off an exit ramp to use as a speed trap on random nights. I think they should charge hefty fees for speeders. Basically, take their vehicle and resell it. The proceeds will pay for the cops on duty and maybe cover the occassional accident that costs the taxpayers half a mil'. Confiscation of someone's car would be a pretty good incentive not to speed, if you think about it. Just making the punishment suit the crime...

Does this mean Kerry's through?

The collapse of the Old Man of the Mountain could mean curtains for presidential hopeful John Kerry. We knew New Hampshire was crucial to his chances, but we didn't know it was quite so symbolic.

Via Dave Copeland, who has also posted a paper by a Northeastern student on blogging after she interviewed both he and I. I'm cited as a "source" in the same paper as A-List blogger Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit.

Israeli Economics

The Israeli government is going to kick 100,000 foreign workers out of the small Mediterranean country, as well as cut 30% of the guaranteed allowance (a form of welfare) to 100,000 Israelis, who economists theorize are remaining unemployed because it's better for them than working. This doesn't surprise me, in a socialist country like Israel, and given their tanking economy they need the cash. So if they can find a few economists to say that they need to cut welfare, they'll be only too glad to.

The wrong reasons

One of the main points highlighted in the "Guarding Your Heart" series at Agape Christian Fellowship over the last month has been checking your motives. Don't just analyze your actions for rightness or wrongness, look at your own heart - that's where God looks. Are you getting into this relationship because it will help you grow as a person or because you have emotional needs that you're expecting someone to meet?

Clearly, Nisha Sharma's fiancee did not attend any of our discussions.

Nisha, a 21-year-old Indian, called police to report that her fiancee was attacking her father and demanding a $25,000 dowry. It's been made illegal to give or accept dowries in India, just as the caste system has been abolished. However, as you might expect, the practice continues clandestinely. What's more interesting is that NIsha Sharma has become a media star. Not only has she received numerous proposals from young men who admire her courage, she's also been asked to run for state legislature by a political party! She's on radio talk shows and TV news, and is touted as a hero by Indian feminists. InstantReplay gives official props to Nisha for realizing what men are really after..... money.

You're bluffing

I am the Prince... I had kind of hoped I would be the Sicilian, but I answered honestly. They say the truth hurts.

Which Princess Bride Character are You?

Battle Lines

Al-Qaeda or another of its ilk has drawn battle lines in Riyadh. By attacking civilian housing during a visit by Colin Powell to the Saudi capital, they've upped the stakes in this war. Their reasoning is sound if it's war they want. By attacking when Powell is in town, they make his visits more of a potential liability to other Muslim countries (virtually all of which are less equipped to stop terror than Saudi Arabia). They also clearly align Powell with the princes, since Powell is going to be with or right after them on Saudi (state-controlled) TV, by necessity, and this will further polarize Arab society, which is a goal of terrorists, who want to see revolutions occur in pro-Western, oil-rich states.

For the U.S.'s part this is not a strategic loss. This will reinforce the administration's rhetoric, helping them identify us with Saudi Arabia and Israel as cosufferers fighting a global war against unified terror. This is of course a fallacy, since the suicide bombings in Israel are entirely separate from the al-Qaeda type, but that can't be explained in a clear way to most Americans. It's also not clear to this American, at least, that us being more involved in the Middle East is a good thing. Unlike many who lambasted Bush's uninvolvement in the Palestinian-Israeli and other Middle Eastern conflicts for his first two years, I'm agnostic about it - it may have been for the best. I don't think, for instance, that Clinton's years of heavy meddling accomplished a whole lot. On the other hand, I'm glad to see the Road Map and the involvement of the Quartet, and if the U.S. is committed to bringing peace and a two-state solution, then I'm glad that Bush is involved. But that doesn't mean I'm glad he's involved in the rest of the region, for which he keeps hinting at having some master plan. And master plans for the Middle East scare me. (The people who come to mind are Saddam Hussein, Ariel Sharon, Muammar Qaddafi, Gamal Abdel Nasser).

Caesar in danger

Those of you who know your Gallic Wars will know that Caesar has placed himself in grave danger by besieging the city of Alesia. InstantReplay prays that Caesar will have the fortitude and foresight to avert disaster.

Gandhi had questions

So he asked me... don't all the great ones?

Anyway, he raised two good points that deserve some detail. One was the question, "is it ever not healthy to pursue brother-sister relationships?" The categorical answer has to be yes. There are exceptions to every rule in relationships. But in a general case? I think if you rule out past involvement and other strange connections, the answer is no, it's almost always healthy to pursue brother-sister relationships. The question is one of degrees, and specifically if my pursuit of a more purposeful than normal brother-sister relationship was in fact diverging from the definition of fraternal relationships and becoming de facto romantic, and therefore unkind and unhealthy in my context, as well as in violation of the DTR rule. But in general, I would say if you meet a girl who seems worth getting to know, it's a good thing to pursue a Biblical, fraternal friendship.

As far as the more-than-friends-but-not-yet-formally-courting that Gandhi mentions, that shouldn't happen, except in exceptional cases. Where I come from it's called "dating", and it exists in that ethereal mist between fraternity and formal courtship. As I stated before, dating is a highly flawed system, and should only be used where necessary. At this point, I don't know if I would support my decision to date Dalia.

Gandhi also writes: We both agree that relationships are about symantecs and not syntax. But as guys, it's important to identify when a relationship has moved beyond (or should move beyond) the brother-sister thing and into courtship. We don't want to leave a girl guessing as to the direction of a relationship. This is clearly poorly thought-out mumbo-jumbo, which he sort of admitted personally, at least the part about symantecs. Anyway, what he wanted to say is that it's about the content, not the jargon. I would agree to a point, but I think the jargon used to define the relationship is vital in determining its content. The title given to a relationship has great bearing on expectations of both parties plus bystanders. Getting beyond titles, I agree with the Mahatma that it's vital for guys to lead the relationship into courtship at the appropriate juncture. That's not an issue I expect to face anytime soon, but when I do, be assured you'll hear about it.

Celtics Lose

Sorry they lost. But glad there are no distractions now from the national pastime.

Introducing: NU Shuffle

Thanks to Karen for referring me to NU Shuffle, the new online humor publication featuring lampoonage of all things NU.

For those of you who aren't in the minimum security facility known as Northeastern University, the NU Shuffle (or the Northeastern Two-Step) is our school dance. It involves carrying multicolored carbon-paper forms from one office to another, obtaining signatures and documents, standing in the wrong line, and getting the look that says "I'm not paid enough to care" at least twice. When you're done, you may or may not have added a class, changed your division, or waived your sports pass. Go NU!

Please welcome {NU Shuffle}, InstantReplay's newest link.

More on girls

The first time in my life that I considered dating an option was last year. I said, "my whole life, I've said I'm not going to date until it's reasonable to think that we could be married in a few years". At age 19, that began to enter the realm of possibility. Now, I didn't date anyone, but my mentality did begin to change. After being somewhat frustrated in trying to codify what I thought, I finally got it into zeroes and ones in August. That post was reposted here last week, with some notes, especially on the exceptionalism of dating, as I corrected flaws in my behavior, and filled in some holes in the rhetoric behind my policy.

In getting to know another pleasant young lady over the past few weeks, I've naturally applied my policy to the situation, and the situation to my policy. This particular lady is firmly committed to the courtship model, and the reality bears out my prediction in the recent post that a commitment to courtship, despite its flaws, is better for the communal good, since it removes most of the competitive aspect of dating. In this case, that's played out in much lower tension; we can hang out without feeling like somebody in Vegas is resetting the odds with every comment or laugh.

What I've been realizing is that fraternal male-female relationships bear the same potential for depth and personal growth as dating relationships. What I had felt like I was very much missing in my relationships with girls was the ability to use more advanced interpersonal skills. For instance, leading in a relationship. That's a crucial part of marriage, and isn't practiced in most dating relationships, but can and should be. However, it can (and should) be practiced in fraternal relationships as well, where it's appropriate. Obviously at a very different level than in marriage, but guys should get used to taking the initiative, especially in spiritual matters. The fraternal dynamic allows this, where the pre-dating dynamic doesn't. The latter forces shallowness, because depth is supposed to be followed (or preceded) by romance.

Anway, I sound like I have this down. I don't. But after a day or two of wondering whether it was healthy to pursue a brother-sister relationship in any depth, I've been encouraged by Ali and Dubya, and I think (if you couch it in the right terms) that a fraternal relationship of depth "x" is always going to be safer and more mutually beneficial emotionally and physically than a dating relationship of the same depth.

Death of an icon

I can't believe I didn't learn of this earlier... I guess this is what comes of not watching TV or reading a paper. I didn't know for a week and a half after it happened that the Old Man of New Hampshire - symbol of all that is good in New England - fell. I haven't been to Franconia Notch enough to feel a religious connection with the Old Man, but he's definitely a symbol of the everlastingness of the mountains and the steadfastness of good old New England virtues. Anyway, maybe I'm making more of this than there is, but I think it sorta says something about permanence and our lack thereof.

It may seem obvious to us

But it's equally obvious that plenty of people just don't get it. Ali Baba asked me today why the Palestinians haven't used Gandhi-style tactics of nonviolent resistance to attain their goal of independence. Good question.

The answer is that some Palestinians are just dumb. In technical terms, they're acting out of their enlightened self-interest and they're following an irrational strategy. Not all Palestinians of course, but if you give a few idiots bombs, it's amazing what they can do.

But indulge me for a moment... just imagine that starting in 1988, a mass movement of strikes and peaceful protests had begun in Palestine. Many Israeli Arabs would have taken part, and plenty of Europeans who had nothing better to strike against. The Peace Process would have been started by 1990, most likely, and with much more unified international pressure on the side of the Palestinians. The process might have been stalled by a few loose cannon suicide bombers (as it was in real life in 1996), but the success of the nonviolent movement would keep most Palestinians from deserting it. Imagine... you could encourage Westerners to boycott Israel, and pressure citizens and government alike. Also, Israelis wouldn't feel as threatened by having a Palestinian state next door if the foundation of that state was a successful non-violent movement. So why didn't this happen?

For a number of reasons. The principle reason was the lack of a charismatic, unifying leader championing nonviolence, and with an aura of righteous indefeatability, such as Gandhi and Mandela had. Instead they had Arafat; eminently defeatable, sleazy, and exiled in luxury. The only thing he has in common with Gandhi is the Yoda look. Another important reason is the demography of Israel-Palestine. Palestinians, with a few exceptions, live separate from Israelis. They could have pulled off mass urban demonstrations in the late 80's, but since then it's been very hard for Palestinians to get into Israel, and to participate in a protest of any kind is to risk your work and/or travel permit. By putting the Palestinians in Bantustans and making their economic survival dependent on Israel, the latter has made it very hard for the former to do anything. A pity for both, though the Palestinians have suffered far more since 1988 than have the Israelis.

Could a nonviolent movement work now? I think so. It wouldn't work immediately, but it would definitely work better than the continued guerrilla resistance. Funny how it works... peace brings peace. War brings war. So when one group attacks another group in the name of peace, I find it really, really hard to believe.

Note to self:
http://www.papp.undp.org/sustainable/gender.htm
http://www.batshalom.org/
http://www.pcbs.org/
http://www.palestinercs.org/
http://www.wameed.org/about-en.html
http://www.robincmiller.com/melinkfr.htm
Thanks to Valerie for the links. They're for a paper on the politics of women in Palestinian liberation movements.

Draft Resolution

I always enjoy reading UN resolutions, because they look so much like the ones we write for Model UN. I suppose that should be obvious, but it's really encouraging to see we're not far off track. The U.S. is about to introduce the below draft resolution. Thanks to NYTimes.com for the text.

The Security Council, Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq; Reaffirming the importance of disarmament of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in accordance with its previous relevant resolutions; Stressing the right of the Iraqi people to freely determine their own political future, welcoming the commitment of concerned parties to support the creation of an environment in which they may do so as soon as possible, and expressing resolve that the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly; Encouraging efforts by the people of Iraq to take the first step toward forming a representative government based on the rule of law that affords equal rights and justice to tall Iraqi citizens without regard to ethnicity, religion, or gender; Welcoming the April 15 Nasiriyah statement and the April 28 Baghdad statement; Resolved that the U.N. should play a vital role in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi interim authority; Noting the statement by the Group of Seven Industrialized Nations in which the members recognized the need for a multilateral effort to help rebuild and develop Iraq and for the need for assistance from the I.M.F. and the World Bank in these efforts; Welcoming the resumption of humanitarian assistance and the continuing efforts of the Secretary-General and the specialized agencies to provide food and medicine to the people of Iraq; Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Advisor on Iraq; Reaffirming the need for accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime; Stressing the need for respect for the archaeological, historical, cultural, and religious heritage of Iraq, and for the continued protection of archaeological, historical, cultural, and religious sites, museums, libraries and monuments; Noting the letters of [DATE] from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America and the United Kingdom to the President of the Security Council and recognizing the specific authorities, responsibilities, and obligations under applicable international law of these states as occupying powers and the responsibilities of others working now or in the future with them under unified command (the ``Authority''); Concerned that many Kuwaitis and Third-State Nationals are still not accounted for since 2 August 1990; Determining that the situation in Iraq, although improved, continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security; Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; 1. Appeals to Member States and interested organizations to assist the people of Iraq in their efforts to reform and rebuild their society and return to the international community as a member in good standing; 2. Calls upon all Member States to respond immediately to the humanitarian appeals of the United Nations and other international organizations for Iraq and to help meet the humanitarian needs of the necessary for reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq's economic infrastructure; 3. Calls upon all Member States to deny safe haven to those members of the previous Iraqi regime responsible for crimes and atrocities; 4. Encourages efforts to locate, identify and repatriate all Kuwaitis and third-State nationals or their remains present in Iraq on or after 2 August 1990, which the previous Iraqi regime failed to carry out; 5. Decides that all Member States shall take appropriate steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum, the National library and other locations in Iraq since the adoption of resolution 661 (1990), including by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion exists that they have been illegally removed; 6. Calls upon the Authority to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people through the effective administration of the territory, including in particular working towards the restoration of conditions of security and stability and the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi people may freely determine their own political future; 7. Calls upon all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907; 8. Requests the Secretary General to appoint a Special Coordinator for Iraq whose responsibilities will involve coordinating the U.N.'s activities in post-conflict processes in Iraq, coordinating among U.N. and international agencies engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction activities in Iraq, coordinating with the Authority, and assisting the people of Iraq through: (a) support for and coordination of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance by U.N. agencies and nongovernmental organizations; (b) support for the orderly and voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons; (c) working with the Authority and the people of Iraq with respect to the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance; (d) facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure, in cooperation with other international organizations; (e) promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development, including through coordination with national and regional organizations, as appropriate, civil society, donors and the international financial institutions; (f) encouraging international efforts to contribute to basic civilian administration functions; (g) promoting human rights; (h) encouraging international efforts to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force; (i) supporting international efforts to promote legal and judicial reform; 9. Calls upon Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute to the implementation of this resolution; 10. Supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Coordinator, of an Iraqi interim authority as a transitional administration run by Iraqis until a permanent government is established by the people of Iraq; 11. Decides that, with the exception of prohibitions related to the sale or supply to Iraq of arms and related materiel other than those arms and related material required by the Coalition to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions, all prohibitions related to trade with Iraq and the provision of financial or economic resources to Iraq established by Resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions, including Resolution 778, shall no longer apply; 12. Notes the establishment of an Iraqi Assistance Fund, with an international advisory board including duly qualified representatives of the Secretary General, the I.M.F., [appropriate regional institution(s)] and the World Bank, to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq, and to be audited by independent public accountants chosen by the international advisory board; 13. Decides further that the funds in the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall be disbursed at the direction of the Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim authority, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 below; 14. Underlines that the Iraqi Assistance Fund should be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of indigenous civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq; 15. Decides that the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall enjoy the privileges and immunities of the United Nations; 16. Welcomes the readiness of international financial institutions to assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy and to facilitate assistance by the broader donor community; 17. Requests the Secretary General, in consultation with the Authority, to continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council resolution 1472 and 1476, for a period of four months following the adoption of this resolution, as necessary to ensure the delivery of priority civilian goods under contracts approved by the 661 Committee pursuant to paragraphs 8(a) and (b) of resolution 986 (1995), to the extent not modified or terminated, or as necessary to fulfill other commitments made pursuant to those resolutions; 18. Decides that all funds remaining in the escrow account established pursuant to resolution 986 (1995) that have not been allocated as of the date of the adoption of this resolution to finance the export of goods to Iraq under paragraph 8(a) or (b) of that resolution, and that have not been committed by the Secretary General pursuant to his authorities under Security Council resolution 1472, shall be transferred promptly to the Iraqi Assistance Fund in order to provide for the urgent needs of the Iraqi people; 19. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with prevailing international market practices, to be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the international advisory board referred to in paragraph 12 above, and decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 20 below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into the Iraqi Assistance Fund, until such time as a new Iraqi government is properly constituted and capable of discharging its responsibilities; 20. Decides further that [X] percent of the proceeds referred to in paragraph 19 above shall be deposited into the Compensation Fund established in accordance with resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions; 21. Further decides that petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas originated in Iraq, and proceeds of sales thereof, shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings (including any prejudgment or postjudgment attachment, garnishment, or execution or other action to satisfy a judgment) arising in relation to claims, of whatever kind and whenever accrued, against Iraq or any instrumentality or agents thereof (or the Authority, or its participating states or their instrumentalities or agents), and that all Member States shall take any steps under their respective domestic legal systems necessary to give full effect to this paragraph; 22. Decides that all Member States in which there are: (1) funds or other financial assets or economic resources of the Government of Iraq or its state bodies, corporations, or agencies, located outside Iraq as of the date of this resolution, or (2) funds or other financial assets or economic resources that have been removed from Iraq, or acquired, by Saddam Hussein or other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime and their immediate family members, including entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them or by persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, shall freeze without delay and immediately cause the transfer of those funds or other financial assets or economic resources to the Iraqi Assistance Fund; and further decides that all such funds or other financial assets or economic resources shall enjoy the same immunities and protections as provided under paragraph 21; 23. Endorses the exercise of the responsibilities stated in this resolution by the Authority for an initial period of 12 months from the date of the adoption of this resolution, to continue thereafter as necessary unless the Security Council decides otherwise; 24. Requests the Special Coordinator to report to the Council at regular intervals on his work with respect to the implementation of this resolution, the first report to be submitted within [] days of the adoption of this resolution.

Stateys and the Big Black Dog

I scored in the 93rd percentile on the "How Masshole Are You?" quizzie. I coulda scored higher if I'd been a little less honest, but I know I'm not as Masshole as some, so I won't pretend to be. Check it out, report your scores in the comments.

I'm also 100% Boston, which is a bit easier to be.

Three Weeks

I didn't count how many times I refilled it, but suffice it to say I got my $1.15 worth out of the red cup from the food court. You're allowed to refill as long as the cup lasts. With good care, this one has lasted me three weeks, I believe, and perhaps 20 uses. I didn't count, but there were a lot, and I'm quite sure this one eclipses my previous record of 12. I might be able to get one more refill out of it, but it's beginning to leak through the bottom, so it's prolly better just to buy a new one next Monday.

Vive le free refill!

Heaven on Earth

John Piper writes in Let The Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions:

How many Christians set their sights on a "Sabbath evening" of life - resting, playing, travelling, etc. - the world's substitute for heaven since they do not believe there will be one beyond the grave. The mindset is that we must reward outselves in this life for the long years of labor. Eternal rest and joy after death is an irrelevant consideration. What a strange reward for a Christian to set his sights on! Twenty years of leisure while living in the midst of the last days of infinite consequence for millions of unreached people. What a tragic way to finish the last lap before entering the presence of the king who finished his so differently!

Available used on Amazon from $4; I definitely recommend this (so far - I'm halfway done) for anyone who wants simply-worded theology on being used by God during their life on earth.

More free speech

Wal-Mart pulled Maxim, FHM and Stuff from its shelves. Plenty will criticize the store for various reasons, but Instant Replay firmly defends their decision.

Political perspective: as a private entity, Wal-Mart has the right to sell what it wants. Even the ACLU agrees with that, forced to defend freedom over its true love, licentiousness. Basically, as long as competitors are allowed to carry the magazine and consumers can choose where to shop, Wal-Mart can cater to whomever it wants. Pretty clear cut. What if every store in a city decided to pull the magazines? As long as subscriptions are available, that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Here the ACLU and I differ, but as long as there are no cartel or monopoly conditions, no seller can be coerced to offer a product they don't wish to - any more than government could force a strip club to open in a place where there was none available!

Economic perspective: this is a victory of the market, in part, though it wouldn't have occurred for solely market reasons. But look at the pressure put on Wal-Mart as economic demand for smut-free shopping centers. Wal-Mart is simply responding to demand, supplying a demanded service. If there is now a serious decrease in supply for the low-brow mags, it'll be filled by subscriptions and other suppliers. If all suppliers in a market cut the mags, again it's perfectly fine as long as there is no cartel or monopoly. If there is, it's the government's responsibility to open the market.

Theological perspective: it's important to remember when talking about sinful products and services that we're not called to form a theocracy, we're called to separate ourselves from a sinful world. On the other hand, all criminal legislation is morally based, so you can't say that the government doesn't legislate morality. Where do we draw the line? It's a gray area that should be constantly discussed. Child pornography is and should be banned because to create it involves abusing children, and to disseminate it encourages sexual acts with children, who are not mature enough to make sexual decisions or strong enough to resist violence. I would make the same argument against pornography - it should be banned because it exploits women and men and encourages readers to consider others as bodies to be used, not fellow citizens and humans. However, I don't think the government can outlaw fornication. Since it's a personal act, not mass-produced, not offered publically, and consensually engaged in, it's outside the scope of government regulation.

Secondly, Instant Replay applauds those who have applied pressure to Wal-Mart and others. The concept of communal responsibility has largely been lost in the U.S. While Christianity is not like Islam - where it's the woman's responsibility to dress modestly, not the man's to control his thoughts - we are commanded to act in ways that will help our brothers and sisters and not cause them to stumble. It is ultimately a man's decision to buy or not to buy Maxim, but his neighbors can help protect a man weak in that area by not making it readily available every time he goes to buy a light bulb or Cheetos.

Things looking down for Gucci

The jailing of 4,500 Serbian mafiosi means hard times for Belgrade's high fashion shops. The jet set of Serbia were cracked down on after a March assassination, and the difference is tangible, especially in Belgrades nightlife. In fact, Mr. Stajkic said, he has already laid off half the bouncers who used to guard his bar. "People were openly terrorized in Belgrade by Legija and the others," said Jovan Dulovic, chief crime reporter for the weekly magazine Vreme. "He would walk into a cafe and force everyone to do push-ups. They would close whole streets when he went out."

Thanks to the New York Times.

Borrowed Boots

Played my first rugby match today, against Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. A wicked long drive for a short game, but it was great trip and worth the drive. Got to know some of my teammates better, and didn't embaress myself, so a victory all around.

Dartmouth disrespected us by double booking, then denying the full games A & B that they had promised us. Our A-Side had to play half a match against the Mystic River Mens Rugby Club (B-Side), and then the other half against a mixed A & B crew from Dartmouth. We won both halves (this is after Mystic's A's beat Dartmouth's A's).

Then Northeastern's B-Side came on to play another mixed crew of Dartmouth B's and C's. We came out flat, lost ground and fell behind pretty badly. Dartmouth wanted to call it a day, but we weren't gonna let them pull that on us after making the drive to western New Hampshire, so we made them finish the game. And then we finished them.

The four B-Side subs (yours truly included) came in to open the second half, and we controlled the ball for about 25 of the next 30 minutes. We pounded the ball in on forward carries, and we were so dominant in scrums (where Dartmouth was just falling apart) that the Dartmouth coach/referee had to institute unopposed scrums so people wouldn't get crushed by our 1-ton pack (they added us up!). After pounding the ball into their side of the field for a good 10 minutes, we scored. We repeated those tactics, winning most rucks and advancing with lot of forward carries, and denying them more than a few yards on the few occasions that they were able to steal the ball. With just a few minutes left to play, somebody yelled out that we'd pulled to within three points (a "try" is similar to a touchdown in football and is worth 5 points). We made one more drive, pushing the ball into their try zone with some fast rucking and hard hitting. The game ended a minute or two later, and it was very rewarding to run through the tunnel without hanging my head after my first game.

I'm sure I'll embaress myself later, against a team that can actually play, but for now it's time to sit back and enjoy the weather.

And you can quote me on this

Tim Wakefield will have at least 15 non-start appearances this season. The way the bullpen has been - consistently inconsistent - it's just screaming poor Timmy's name. I really want to see him stay a starter... but I also want the Sox to be able to win a game without beating up the other team's bullpen. Tonight, we looked like we had another come-from-behind, late inning win. But no; our pen outdid theirs in coughing up runs.

I don't know who or what the solution is. I just know that his first name is more likely to be "Tim" than "Ramiro". Three of the relievers who pitched tonight - including last year's star Alan Embree - have double-digit ERA's. Jason Shiell pitched an inning and two thirds and gave up two hits, allowed some inherited runners to score, but lowered his own ERA to 2.08. Him and Brandon Lyon are great, but unless they're amazing, I don't think we've found the solution to the bullpen problem. One thing Grady Little could do would be ask 8 innings of his good starters (especially Lowe and the rubber-armed Wakefield). That would allow the good relievers to pitch a greater percentage of the time. But since there haven't been any really good relievers besides the kids, that probably wouldn't do a whole lot, and could hurt the rotation.

I don't know what to do, so I'll do what all well-trained Red Sox fans do in this situation. PANIC AND JUMP OFF THE BANDWAGON!!!!!!!

The Right to Paid Speech

A federal court took a constructivist tack today by striking down most of the McCain-Feingold Act. This will undoubtedly be decided by the Supreme Court quickly, since it has great bearing on the slowly building Presidential campaign.

Instant Replay comes down on both sides of the decision. On the one hand, the law is unconstitutional. The Constitution pretty clearly allows freedom of individuals to fund whomever they want. On the other hand, soft money is totally out of control. This is not an old problem either - it's one that developed since reform laws instituted in the 70's or 80's created limits on campaign contributions and the concept of "hard money." The current system is pathetic and corrupt, since it clearly abuses a loophole in Federal law on a massive scale.

If the system is corrupt but constitutionally protected, we must amend the constitution to better protect American democracy. It's not a right or left issue - this has the NRA and the ACLU both suing to have McCain-Feingold overturned. Rather it's between the big voices and the little voices on both sides. As a conservative, I don't want to see conservative policymakers controlled by the NRA and other big contributors. I want conservative individuals to determine their representation in Washington, and I want a system that forces campaigns to work at the grassroots level.

An amendment to the constitution will take another four or eight years. That's fine. It's the constitution, so it should be well thought-out, detailed, and without little gimmicks and compromises - such as the ban on contributions from minors that the court struck down as unconstitutional. The amendment should basically say that any paid speech is subject to limits more than free speech. Thus, if you want to open a newspaper that supports Libertarian candidates openly, and a donor gives you $100,000 to start up, that's legal. But if you want to take out $100,000 of advertising asking people to support Carla Howell, that's illegal. I don't think it's a loss to free speech for us to put limits on political uses of commercial speech. As precedent, I cite the truth-in-advertising laws. Clearly, you can't just say whatever you want. By contrast, if you publish a book on a product, you can say whatever you want about it; as far as I know truth-in-advertising wouldn't apply.

Let's preserve free speech's voice. Because, if paid speech gets louder and louder, how many of us are still going to hear the still, small voice of free speech?

Policy Reformation

Things change. And that's a good thing. In prayer yesterday, God showed me where my "girl philosophy" was definitely off-line. So I went back tonight and read my six-page policy paper written in response to my friend Zach challenging my dating a lovely young Lebanese named Dalia when I lived in Beirut last summer. Since my archives are down, I'll repost it for your enjoyment, and then write my responses to what I thought then, how that's been changed by six months in Josh Harris' church and my recent experiences.

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you in like a week - internet access is limited, and I wanted to do a comprehensive job answering the questions you asked, and some that you didn't ask. I'm going to write this as a post for my blog (http://instantreplay.blogspot.com), since defining my "dating policy" or whatever has been something I've wanted to do - but found daunting - for 9 or 10 months now. For the record, your questions: 1 - Have you read Josh Harris' books? 2 - Where does flirting stop? 3 - Is purity possible in this relationship? 4 - Is this relationship helping you spiritually? 5 - Is she aware that you're leaving? 6 - Are pastors and parents involved? ...and advice: - Cut it off if she's not a potential spouse. - Look out for lust. (this is being written for a public audience, so bear with the impersonality) My Answers: 1 - Yes, both of them. I agree with both on most points, and I found "Boy Meets Girl" an extremely helpful book. Up till now I've been single and I'm still a proponent of singleness. 2 - To me, flirting stops where the relationship begins. To answer the spirit of the question, our relationship is not "playful" or "giggly". 3 - I believe that purity is quite possible, especially in this cultural context. For purity of thought, I'm more on guard in the relationship than usual. 4 - I wouldn't say that the relationship is being a detriment or help to my spiritual development. However, I do believe that it's doing a lot for me as a person, and that these are valuable experiences. 5 - Yes, of course she's aware that I'm leaving! 6 - My parents are out of touch in Europe, and I certainly wouldn't consider this serious enough to involve a pastor 5,000 miles away. ***** My Principles. To go into generalities, these are the three biggest principles that I could think of that are guiding me in this and future relationships: 1 - Permission and Accountability. "He who seperates himself seeks his own desire, he acts against all wise counsel" - Solomon. By keeping everything I do accountable to her, to others, and to God I can keep myself from acting foolishly, and with God's help live with no regrets. 2 - Profitability. "All things are permissable to me, but not all things are profitable" - Paul. I will not enter a relationship that I do not believe both she and I will profit from in the present and, more importantly, the long run. 3 - "DTR". The relationship must be defined and kept to the agreed level. My relationship with Dalia is a "get to know you", not a "should we marry?" ***** My Reasoning. I met Dalia at my cousins', and by the second time we'd met we were both attracted to each other, but had talked little. I spent a week mulling over the question, felt at peace with God about asking her out, and checked with my cousin to make sure it was culturally appropriate. The reasons I asked her out are diverse. First of all, I was attracted to her, and wanted to get to know her better. However, in a group context where most everything is in local Arabic, I can only follow ~20%, so getting to know her without speaking one-on-one was pretty much impossible over 6 weekends. In the same situation in the U.S., I would have followed my normal course: make friends with her. I make a point at home to get to know girls, and generally I can do that pretty easily, without flirting, and in much the same way I'd befriend a guy. Here, because of our remoteness, and a culture in which guys and girls rarely befriend each other outside of "romantic" relationships, it was either (a) ask her out or (b) not get to know her. A second reason I asked her out was to clarify the relationship. I talked with her quite a bit on the day I asked her out before popping the question, and our friends (I later learned) "knew" we were going out before we knew it! I prefer having a low-key, public dating relationship to having to deal with rumors in a community where gossip travels at the speed of sound. I felt that if I didn't ask her out, it would still be obvious to at least one person in the group that we liked each other, and it was best to put my emotional cards on the table. A major personal reason that I even considered a relationship - something I wouldn't have done a year and a half ago - was because of my own experiences in the last year. I went on one date with a girl last summer (she had an extra ticket to a Sox game - I'll go see the Sox with Ariel Sharon if he has a ticket for me!), and my own reactions and actions scared me a bit (we didn't even get to the point of holding hands, but it was way too flirty and touchy nonetheless). I was very glad that I went, because I feel I've been a lot wiser to my own weaknesses since. I had a few other, non-romantic, experiences with girls in the year since then, and in all of them I noticed that there's a whole different set of actions and emotions that I'm unfamiliar with. You and I may differ on this point, but I believe that it is wise to get to know - and to take control of - my own emotional structure. More on this in the next section. The main reason that I went ahead with asking her out was that the relationship is safe and manageable. It's safe physically - in the mountains, especially for a priest's daughter, physical purity is absolutely expected. PDA's aren't kosher, and most of the time that we're together we're with cousins et al. The times we've had alone have been outside her house with her parents at home and in the busy town square. It's much safer than a similar relationship in the U.S. It's also safe emotionally. Because we're entering this relationship with the expectation of amicably parting on August 18 neither of us is building up high hopes or investing emotionally in the other. I'm also committed to preventing emotional escalation - I won't go to her with my problems, and I'll encourage her not to come to me with hers if they come up. Not that I don't care or don't want to help, but I don't want dependancy developing at all. The distance between us also makes it safer emotionally - we're not going to see a lot of each other real fast. Lastly, it's safe timewise and friendwise. At home, I'd shy away from most potential relationships for fear of straining a friendship and because any relationship there is open-ended. Here, while I cherish the thought of seeing her again, and I'll almost definitely make it back here sometime in the next few years, our friendship is pretty much confined to letters post-8/18. Ultimately, I felt that I could go ahead with this as long as I obeyed the Biblical precept to treat every young woman as a sister. No, I wouldn't date my sister, but I do enjoy talking to her and hanging out with her. By announcing my intention to develop a relationship with Dalia, I can be an affectionate friend without starting rumors or sending her mixed messages. ***** My Policy In case this isn't long enough, I'd like to generalize on the principles above and finally form a clear policy, since I've been needing one. Again the guiding principles: 1 - Accountability. 2 - Profitability. 3 - DTR. And a more detailed (but probably incomplete) list of applications: 1 - Singleness is my default. I will not go out, date, or court for its own sake. I wholeheartedly agree with Harris' exhortation to making ones' single years count. 2 - I will not let physical relationships develop at the same rate or to the same level as fraternal or emotional relationships. Along with the DTR comes a definition of what's OK and what's not OK physically. More importantly, this isn't like a wrestling league where certain "holds" are barred; it's about self-control and avoiding physical contact for its own sake. 3 - Stay emotionally grounded as best I can. I'll allow myself to fly high when I'm browsing engagement rings years from now; no girl is worth losing your head for if she's not worth losing your singleness for. 4 - Ration time. In my experience, the biggest factor in the strength of my emotions is amount of time spent together. The strongest crushes I've ever had have been on missions trips and the like, where I see the girl every day for hours, albeit in a group. With Dalia it's easy to ration time; at home it'll be a much more conscious decision. 5 - Avoid exclusivity. There's nothing more obnoxious than a couple who starts dating and immediately owns each other. I will do my best to remain better friends with my "brothers" and family than I am with this girl. If you're not ready to join your lives, don't join your lives. 6 - (I know you're all saying, "Does this guy do anything that's not a numerical list?" It's easier to read this way, trust me). 7 - Christians only. I'm not going to date someone who doesn't share my worldview or my understanding of the important things in life. No offense to non-Christian readers, but that's a label I and those like me apply to ourselves, and I'm sure you wouldn't date someone who's fundamental view of life differed sharply from your own whether you put a label on yourself or not. Also, legitimate options only - the goal of dating is to find a spouse, though I don't agree with Harris that every relationship has to lead up to a specific decision on that matter with that girl. 8 - Avoid the "appearance of evil". This is somewhere in scripture, but I learned it from my Mom. She can be a bit fanatical about it at times, but there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Basically, if you don't give people anything to talk about, you won't get blamed for things you didn't do. Americans tend to dislike this notion - we're a "guilt culture" as opposed to a "shame culture" (which the Middle East is), and we strongly believe that we shouldn't be punished for anything we didn't do. While I believe that, living here helps me understand the shame culture - if people think you did something, you'll suffer for it, so make sure they don't have any reason to be suspicious (the dark side of that is "Do bad stuff and make sure nobody finds out", but I'm not all about that). And now for apologetics. I promise I won't numeral this section. Note that this is primarily written to explain why I'm dating as opposed to not; if you had heard me talking with my friends at an excellent restaurant last night, explaining why I haven't dated until now, and explaining my (in their words) "very conservative" approach to relationships you would have found that I agree with almost everything Harris writes and Zach recommends. There are two big reasons that after reading Harris' books I decided to take exception. Both of these arguments have been made by more experienced and intelligent minds than my own, so please bear with my flattery-by-imitation. First of all, in my experience and in that of my friends who date (the majority), dating teaches one a lot. In particular, it teaches one a lot about oneself. A former youth pastor of mine answered my then-challenge to the idea of dating by saying that you find out a lot about what different girls are like when you really get to know them, and you find out what different girls bring out in you. To me the latter is more important - I'm hopelessly behind if my goal is to know-by-dating as many girls as I can. Besides, I feel that I've gotten to know many girls very well as a single. However, I've had glimpses of very different sides of myself from what I'm used to, and I would rather know and tame them than enter a serious courtship relationship without knowing at least how I'm going to act. Again, this doesn't mean I have to date everyone in the world, or that I'm dating for the sake of dating. It means that dating has benefits (yes, I get the double-entendre, haha) and can be a profitable course to take. One could say that you have a relationship with everyone you know. Moving that relationship to "dating" or "going out" or "friends plus" or whatever you want to tag it is, in my longwinded opinion, a better way to go about developing a relationship where mutual affectionate emotions are present than staying friends without defined parameters. Now, that doesn't mean start dating every time you and her like each other. That means that if you both like each other AND see the friendship/relationship as one that you would like to develop, than it's better to clearly define that - however you both decide to - than to act as if nothing's going on underneath. That's not to say that sometimes you don't have to swallow emotions - there are more reasons floating around out there not to date than there are to date. I expect to be single in the foreseeable future in the U.S., but if the factors line up to make dating a permissable and profitable course, I'll prayerfully consider it. But there will definitely be times I'll have to swallow my emotions. I've honed that skill so much over the years, I'd hate to see it go to waste... One of the arguments that I've both heard and used against dating is that, especially for teenagers, dating tends to be emotionally destabilizing and results in a lot of pain. However, looking back over my teenagehood (I'm 3 months from 20!) I have to say that I was pretty emotionally affected by girls I never asked out, and while I wouldn't recommend dating to anyone under 17, I don't think that argument holds as much validity as I once did. Two things that will definitely hurt you emotionally are dating addictions (I know a LOT of people who are co-dependent on dating) and haphazard, American style dating. But my guess and my very, very limited experience is that you're gonna have an emotional roller coaster anyway, and dating isn't going to have as radical an effect on you as it seems like - you'd be agonizing about her even if you didn't ask her out. In Harris' second book (which I strongly recommend), "Boy Meets Girl", he makes some good arguments that what's been called "courtship" is the way to go. Not that the name is important, but he lays down a lot of excellent principles, and by use of many (often hilarious) stories demonstrates the attitude which ideally goes along with this form of mate-seeking. In the second half of the book, which is even better, he discusses the development of courtship relationships as they move towards the question of engagement (which is the undisputed end of a courtship relationship; either you get engaged, or you decide against it and the relationship ends cordially). That's the ideal. And it's a nice ideal. And it's an ideal I'll strive to reach when I'm ready to start a relationship with the goal of finding out if a girl is the One for me. However (you knew this was coming), I definitely buy in to the criticisms of courtship leveled by...um...critics. Last fall my Mom was reading some articles by a group that rejects both courtship AND dating, and goes straight to engagement. I reject them because I don't think that's culturally appropriate where I live; it works in some places, and I would be open to it if I took permanent residence in Syria or something. However, in Boston following that path would effectively limit your marital options to 7 girls, 9 if you include non-English-speakers. Nonetheless, the argument they make against courtship is an effective and (a bit surprisingly) sensible one. The argument is that courtship essentially puts a couple in a situation where they are very seriously thinking about marriage, long before the question comes up. Harris discourages too much of this, but considering it's the point of the relationship, I think it's unavoidable. So what often happens is that a couple ends up devastated when their courtship doesn't work out. The parents had agreed to let them marry (otherwise they wouldn't have allowed the courtship), and they had really set their hopes on one another. And then it didn't work out. To me, that violates the "stay emotionally grounded" thing. You're asking, "Well, how is dating before you court going to help? Isn't that like pre-drinking before you go to a club?" Well, maybe it is, and I'm totally wrong here. However, I obviously think that I am right, and I've come to these conclusions after a long period of thought, and after being single all my life and enjoying it. My answer to the pre-drinking question would be that I think dating can help me avoid painful breakups by (a) not setting my hopes on a "system" that is supposed to take in a bunch of inputs and spit out a marriage (that's not how it's intended, but I think it ends up at that a lot of times), and (b) getting to know her in romantic circumstances before we turn the heat on the relationship. If we've dated for 3 months after knowing each other for 3 years, we're less likely to find out that while we were great friends we're terrible lovers. A relationship with the stated goal of getting to know someone can weed out the worst ones, and can prepare us mentally and emotionally for courtship relationships with each other or with someone else. Am I making any sense? Well, I've spent close to three hours writing this, and I'm as glad that it's over as I am that I did it! I hope it makes as much sense in 0's and 1's as it does in my head, and I hope you don't mind my taking exception to some of your opinions. I think that we agree on the main points, however, and there's no reason you can't continue to act as an accountability partner and sounding board despite our difference of opinion. No, I'm not going to marry Dalia, as lucky as the man is who does. However, I believe we can leave both of us better off after the relationship, and to me that's the bottom line.

So now that you've got carpal tunnel syndrom from scrolling, here goes the new content. Again, all of the above was an email to Zach that I posted here in July or August of last year.

So anyway, praying yesterday (and girls came up as they do in all my serious conversations, those dastardly subversives) God showed me all of a sudden how much my attitude has changed. I have to operate under the assumption that when I wrote the above, I agreed with it, and it reflected not only my intellect but my attitude - which is far more important in determining action and thought patterns. Re-reading it today, I found I still agree with it, and it was actually a breath of fresh air to my increasingly confounded mind. It has some weaknesses (particularly the humor, which I'm sure is still the same in my current writing), but the theory, logic, and overriding principles really ring true as what I want to be my attitude and lifestyle.

So how has my attitude changed? Briefly, I've become more pro-dating. It went from being an exception in Dalia's case, which was necessary to get to know her, to now being something I'm looking for passively, if not actively. The courtship option and other options just diminished in my consciousness, and I was really working under the assumption that the next relationship I'm in would be dating.

So I'm revising my attitude, and my actions. This is partly precipitated by events some of you are away of surrounding an exceedingly pleasant Southern belle, partly by being helping prepare an Agape lesson on heart-guarding in relationships, and partly by meeting a few new (and very nice) girls on retreats recently, and noticing my heart attitude toward them.

I'm not going to make this Official Chops Policy at this time, but I do have a few new ideas I wanted to express in writing. I'll use logical progression, as opposed to a list, to hit my points this time.

The exceptionalism of dating. Not that it's exceptional; rather, that it should be the exception. I'll develop this point from the very foundations of Biblical relationships. Man and woman were created to part from their families and cleave to one another. This is an echo of our relationship with Christ, for which we are also called to cut all ties (Matthew 10:37-39 & Luke 14:25-27). However, this is only with one woman; with all others we are called to live as brother and sister in the context of the family-headship of Christ. Naturally, within Christ's family we abide by His rules: love one another sacrificially, do nothing out of selfishness, do nothing to cause another to stumble. It is worth noting that your wife is still your sister, and equally a child of God, jealously protected by her Father.

How does this relate to dating? It doesn't. And that's precisely my point: there is no allowance made for dating scripturaly. In our culture, of course, "blind" marriage is not normal or accepted, and as Christians we must strive to find ways to go about the cultural process of marriage without abandoning our familial principles. The most endangered principle is the exclusivity of marriage. In Christ's family, there is a clear rule of only one spouse per person. Dating dilutes that exclusivity, because a long-term relationship will tend to take on some aspects of a marriage. Thus, dating should be used only when really necessary and only where well-defined and guarded.

Courtship differs from dating primarily in purpose. This is not (or should not be) a relationship to fill needs or have fun. The purpose is to better prepare both parties for the decision of whether to marry. By clearly defining parameters, courtship - for all its weaknesses - can be the most effective and least damaging way for Christians to move from singleness to engagement. The other way is sort of what my parents did - they felt God leading them to marry. But even they had a six-month period of developing their relationship before engagement.

Where then is dating? I think it's appropriate for exceptions, where normal friendship would not suffice and courtship is inappropriate. Relationships over distance are one example - where two people need to make an effort to keep a relationship with a purpose going. My strange cultural situation with Dalia was another example. For "normal" relationships, where you see each other in the course of life, and can do things together without extraordinary effort, dating is superfluous.

Unfortunately, game theory comes into this. If you're not going to ask your heart-throb out, what if somebody else does?! It really hurts to see a girl you like (but never asked out) go out with another guy. Even if she's better friends with you, if dating is the "norm" and you're the only non-dater, you're going to find yourself shut out sometimes. And even if it's not someone you're interested in, the dating culture makes developing multiple friendships within a group difficult.

Being in Josh Harris' church really turned me against courtship. Not because of anything specific that I saw, just because (and I'm not kidding) I like being confrontational. Talking with pro-daters I sound like I'm pro-courtship; the opposite is true when I talk to proponents of courtship. It's just the way I am - I feel like conversations need balance, and I'll strive to balance whatever the other person is saying. Consensus just doesn't make me tick the way balance does... it's weird. Anyway, looking back, I really see the value of a large and largely non-dating community. Some were in courtship relationships, but most people were just friends, and were just friends with a lot of people. Meeting someone recently who believes 100% in courtship really shook me - I'd forgotten that people like that existed north of I-70! It really was a good thing to hear as well - my thought was, "Cool, I can be friends with her indefinitely and not wonder if I should ask her out if I like her or if I'm scared I'll 'lose my chance' by being friends too long."

Above, I outlined the weaknesses of the courtship system and reasons to consider dating. Now I'm balancing myself, and correcting my straying attitudes. I'm not commiting to a zero-dating stance. But I want to have the attitude of Christ, and I think part of that is not to constantly look at girls as "possibilities". By putting dating out of the realm of normalcy, I make unchristian conjecture that much less relevant. The "oh I could marry her" train of thought is relatively easy to kill; it's just idiotic the first time you meet a girl. The "oh I could date her" train of thought is much more plausible if dating is a norm, and therefore thinking of dating as the exception encourages Christlike thought.

Therefore, I am abandoning the if-you-like-her-ask-her-out position that I found myself unsettlingly close to yesterday when God convicted me of it.