Words Have Actual Meanings.

I found a piece in my favorite weekly column that addresses two of my big button-pushing cultural issues: excessive hyperbole and general government buffoonery. We all know the gummint do take a bite, but when we talk about it, can we please use perspective and context? Otherwise, we run the risk of running useful words into the ground, and then there will be no more words to take their places.

Barack Obama... said last week the recession may last "years and years" unless Congress votes him fantastic new spending power. The recession is unlikely to last "years and years" even if Congress does nothing: The late-1970s and early-1990s recessions ended on their own without dramatic legislation. But presidents love crises -- famously, Bill Clinton lamented that he never got to preside over a war. The economic situation is "a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime," Obama declared at George Mason University. Really! Unlike Sept. 11, unlike the 1980s crime wave, unlike the 1960s civil-rights riots and murders? To me the current recession resembles the early 1990s recession, which was also triggered partly by mortgage-based financial fraud (in that case the S&L meltdown), which also caused credit and investment markets across the United States and European Union to seize up, which also was accompanied by a stock swoon (about 30 percent, only somewhat worse than the current swoon) and which also brought about deflation in the housing market. But who remembers 1991? That's ancient history. Wasn't Augustus the Emperor in 1991?

Presidents love to proclaim things are worse than they seem, because this can be used to justify the awarding of extra presidential power. Just after George W. Bush took office, in the winter of 2001, he proclaimed an "energy crisis" and demanded sweeping new powers from Congress. Petroleum and electricity-generating capacity should have run out by now based on Dick Cheney's 2001 statements. In the spring of 2001, a U.S. military plane collided with a Chinese jet and crash-landed in China; this was declared a crisis and said to justify new White House powers. Sadly, on 9/11, an actual crisis occurred. Next, Bush declared a crisis of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and asked Congress for extraordinary powers to invade a nation that did not appear to pose any threat to the United States. Then terrorists within the country were said to be a crisis, said to justify board expansion of presidential powers including warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and the holding of prisoners without charges. When gas pump prices hit $4 a gallon in the winter of 2008, Bush called that a crisis and asked for additional powers. When financial markets froze in the autumn of 2008, Bush immediately asked for $700 billion to spend without congressional oversight. Presidents love to cry crisis and then ask for extra power and extra money outside normal channels of accountability.

Obama hasn't even been sworn in, and already seems susceptible to the desire to proclaim a crisis. "A bad situation could become dramatically worse," the president-elect said of the economy last week. This seems exactly what a president-elect should not be saying -- there's a lot of self-fulfilling prophecy in business. But such comments sync with the practice of presidents describing situations as much worse than they actually are, in order to justify more presidential authority. The moment the economy resumes ticking upward, expect President Obama to tell us there is a shocking super-ultra global warming crisis that justifies expanded presidential powers and extraordinary spending programs. (Climate change is a genuine problem, but no crisis.)

The news media like the sense of crisis, because it keeps viewers glued to TV news and nervously scanning newspapers. Part of the downward psychology of the recession is that journalists are using the most negative language possible -- "SALES PLUMMETED 2.2%" is an actual headline from last week's New York Times economic coverage -- while demonstrating no sense of history or proportion. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show 7.2 percent unemployment. That is a serious concern, yet was presented by the media as an unprecedented calamity -- in 1991, unemployment was 11 percent. Even with 2.6 million jobs lost in 2008, obviously a disturbing number, there are more people employed right now than five years ago, since overall, employment grew in that period. The civilian labor force did not even decline in December -- read the fine print. Unemployment rose because jobs did not keep pace with population growth. This kind of perspective is utterly missing from media coverage, since news organizations perceive a self-interest in making the situation sound worse.

Members of Congress of both parties like the sense of crisis, whether real or imagined: it gives them excuses to take money away from average people and hand bags of gold to favorites and interest groups, who repay the representatives and senators with campaign donations. The extent to which members of Congress have a financial incentive to tax the average and confer money on political favorites would I think shock the Framers, who did not anticipate the corrupting impact of campaign donations, because campaigning in their time entailed giving speeches in town halls.

You might think: Washington is full of somber experts and urbane talking heads, why don't they warn presidents not to declare crises? Institutional Washington loves the sense of crisis, because this makes institutional Washington feel important. Lobbyists, think tank fellows, news-channel figures, government officials and Washington pundits all become more significant when there is a sense of national peril -- plus, they get to strut around projecting gravitas. If things are basically fine, why give extra attention, to say nothing of extra money, to institutional Washington?

Look Up.

One of the many, many side benefits that comes from moving your entire family to Uganda to adopt a child (which I'm doing, if you didn't already know), is that Jinja's lack of light pollution (the entire town pretty much goes dark when the sun goes down) means I will be able to be free to pursue one of my favorite pastimes: stargazing.

I love space. In fact, I'm such a dork, I have NASA's "Astronomy Picture of the Day" website bookmarked, and I check it every day (Yes, my gmail account, CNN.com, and the APOD are my three daily stops on the internet). I don't understand a lot of the technical stuff about space, and I'm having difficulty reconciling scientific estimates of the age of the universe with my evangelical Christian upbringing, but there's just something about looking upward that causes me to look inward.

It's comforting, oddly enough, to think that all this crazy stuff is going on out there, far away from my travails and triumphs, and simultaneously realize that I'm both very, very small and very, very loved.

2009 is the International Year of Astronomy. Take some time over the next 365 nights to look up and wonder.

Black Friday Indeed.

You may have already heard of this story, about a temporary worker who died after being trampled at a Wal-Mart on so-called "Black Friday." But here's what leapt out to me:

The employee was "stepped on by hundreds of people" as other workers attempted to fight their way through the crowd, said Nassau County police Detective Lt. Michael Fleming.

"Several minutes" passed before others were able to clear space around the man and attempt to render aid. Police arrived, and "as they were giving first aid, those police officers were also jostled and pushed," he said.

"Shoppers ... were on a full-out run into the store," he said.

Yes. As they attempted to administer aid, the police were "jostled and pushed." In light of this, I recommend we all just take a deep breath, step back, collect ourselves, and read what I'm currently reading, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--And How It Can Renew America by Thomas Friedman. But before that, crack open Matthew 6:19-24.

Economic Perspective (It's Long, But Worth It).

The following is reprinted from a weekly football column I enjoy, written by the ever-intelligent Gregg Easterbrook. Yes, he writes about the NFL, but he's also a scholar at the Brookings Institute and wrote the influential-on-me book The Progress Paradox, which, if you haven't read, I encourage you to obtain immediately. Also, for the purpose of fairness, this guy is of the "(D)" political persuasion, near as I can tell.

"Financial chaos is sweeping the world," a New York Times lead story said last week. I didn't notice any chaos in my part of the world -- every business was open, ATMs were working, goods and services were plentiful. There are economic problems to be sure. But chaos? Collapse? Next Depression? Please, media and political worlds, let's stop hyperventilating and show some perspective.

What is going on is a financial panic, not an economic collapse. Financial panics are no fun, especially for anyone who needs to cash out an asset right now for retirement, college and so on. But financial panics occur cyclically and are not necessarily devastating. The most recent financial panic was 1987, when the stock market fell 23 percent in a single day. Pundits and politicians instantly began talking about another Depression, about the "end of Wall Street." The 1987 panic had zero lasting economic consequences -- no recession began, and in less than two years, stocks had recouped all losses. (See John Gordon's excellent 2004 book on the history of financial panics, "An Empire of Wealth.") Perhaps a recession will be triggered by the current financial panic, but it may not necessarily be severe.

Politicians and pundits are competing to see who can act most panicked and use the most exaggerated claims about economic crisis -- yet the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are, in fact, strong. Productivity is high; innovation is high; the workforce is robust and well-educated; unemployment is troubling at 6.1 percent, but nothing compared to the recent past, such as 11.8 percent unemployment in 1992; there are no shortages of resources, energy or goods. Here, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows that return on capital is historically high; high returns on capital are associated with strong economies. Some Americans have significant problems with mortgages, and credit availability for business could become an issue if the multiple bank-stabilizing plans in progress don't work. But the likelihood is they will work. When the 1987 panic hit, people were afraid the economy would collapse; it didn't. This panic is global, enlarging the risks. But there's a good chance things will turn out fine.

Why has a credit-market problem expanded into a panic? One reason is the media and political systems are now programmed for panic mode. Everything's a crisis! Crises, after all, keep people's eyes glued to cable news shows, so the media have an interest in proclaiming crises. Crises make Washington seem more important, and can be used to justify giveaways to favored constituent groups, so Washington influence-peddlers have an interest in proclaiming crises.

An example of the exaggerated crisis claim is the assertion that Americans "lost" $2 trillion from their pension savings in the past month, while equities "lost" $8 trillion in value. "Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth" read a Wall Street Journal headline last week. This confuses a loss with a decline. Unless you cashed out stocks or a 401(k) in the past month, you haven't "lost" anything. Nor have most investors "lost" money, let alone $8.4 trillion -- crisis-mongering is now so deeply ingrained in the media that even Wall Street Journal headline writers have forgotten basic economics. People who because of financial need have no choice but to cash out stocks right now are really harmed. Anyone who simply holds his or her ground with stocks takes no loss and is likely, although of course not certain, to come out ahead in the end. During the housing price bubble of 2003 to 2006, many Americans became much better off on paper, but never actually sold their homes, so it was all paper gains. Right now many Americans holdings stocks or retirement plans are much worse off on paper, but will be fine so long as they don't panic and sell. One of the distressing things about last week's media cries of doomsday is that they surely caused some average people to sell stocks or 401(k)'s in panic, taking losses they might have avoided by simply doing nothing. The financial shout-shows on cable tend to advise people to buy when the market is rising, sell when the market is falling -- the worst possible advice, and last week it was amplified by panic.

We've also fallen into panic because we pay way too much attention to stock prices. Ronald Reagan said, "Never confuse the stock market with the economy." Almost everyone is now making exactly that mistake. The stock market is not a barometer of the economy; it is a barometer of what people think stocks are worth. These are entirely separate things. What people think stocks are worth now depends on their guess about what stocks will be worth in the future, which is unknowable. You can only guess, and thus optimism feeds optimism while pessimism feeds pessimism.

There is no way the American economy became 8 percent less valuable between breakfast and morning coffee break Friday, then became 3 percent more valuable at lunchtime (that is, improved by 11 percent), then became 3 percent less valuable by afternoon teatime (that is, declined by 6 percent) -- to cite the actual Dow Jones Industrials swings from Friday. And the economy sure did not become 11 percent more valuable Monday. Such swings reflect panic or herd psychology, not the underlying economy, which changes over months and years, not single days. For the past few weeks pundits and Washington and London policy-makers have been staring at stock tickers as if they provided minute-by-minute readouts of economic health, which they do not. It's embarrassing to see White House and administration officials seemingly so poorly schooled in economic theory they are obsessing over stock-price movements, which they cannot control and in the short term should not even care about.

Consider this. On Black Monday in 1987, the market fell 23 percent. If you had invested $100 in a Dow Jones Index fund the following day, it would be $460 now, a 275 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the big slide of the past month, and still excellent. So don't panic, just hold your stocks. And if you'd invested $100 in real estate in 1987, it would be $240 today, a 30 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the housing price bubble burst. A 30 percent real gain in 20 years isn't a great investment -- until you consider that you lived in the house or condo during this time. To purchase and live in a dwelling, then come out ahead when you sell, is everyone's dream. Not only do stocks remain a good buy, America on average is still coming out ahead on the housing dream. (This example uses the Case Shiller Index for the whole country; because housing markets are local, some homeowners have lost substantial ground while others enjoyed significant appreciation.)

Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved -- the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes -- $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways -- the more the economy will soften over the long term. It's long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out. My former Brookings Institution colleague Peter Orszag, now director of the Congressional Budget Office, was on "Newshour" last week talking about the panic. Orszag is a wicked-smart economist -- for instance, he is careful to say pension holdings have declined, not been lost like most pundits are saying, as if there were no difference between decline and loss! The below exchange occurred with host Jeffrey Brown. Remember these words:

PETER ORSZAG: One thing we need to remember is we're lucky that we have the maneuvering room now to issue lots of additional Treasury securities and intervene aggressively to address this crisis.

JEFFREY BROWN: Wait a minute. Explain that. Lucky in what sense?

PETER ORSZAG: That people are still willing to lend to us. If in 20 or 30 years we continue on the same path, with rising health-care costs and rising budget deficits, we would reach a point where we wouldn't have that ability.

Some Political Help.

[NOTE: This post has been updated considerably since I first put it up.]

God help us all if I start to write about politics on this blog, but I did feel the need to share something with you.

So much of what bothers me about our current political system is that so much of so-called "news" is really just preaching to the choir. Punditry and analysis reign on all four (FOUR!) 24-hour news networks, and rarely are we given straight-up facts to help us make up our minds. Then we have the slew of books from said pundits and analysts clogging up bookshelves. Add to that all the rhetoric from both the Ds and the Rs (and don't even get me started on talk radio) that consists primarily of saying "The other guys are bums! Vote for us!" and I'm downright disillusioned with the whole shooting match.

No one is willing to admit that anyone on their side has ever made a mistake, or that anyone from the other side has ever done anything worthwhile. It's nonstop preaching to the choir in concerted efforts to keep the contributions going, and it's turned me into a hardened, follow-the-money-on-both-sides cynic.

And then, in the midst of this, someone shared these little nuggets with me (see the links below). Basically, they are factual breakdowns of the promises made in both Barack Obama's and John McCain's acceptance speeches at their respective party conventions. People, one of these guys is going to be your President for the next four years, and whether you wholeheartedly endorse one of them or, like me, have a tough time believing either of them, you owe it to yourself and to the country you call home (if you live in the USA, that is) to at least hear them out.

My recommendation: read them both, then please--please--make up your own mind about which candidate's vision of America most closely aligns with your own. Don't let anyone else tell you how to vote, and don't turn this election into a one-issue circus. Don't say to yourself, "Well, I really love everything about that guy, except for that one pet issue I have where we don't agree, so I'm going to vote for the other guy." Please. Don't.

Let's all put aside the rhetoric and punditry and take a clear-eyed look at what the two sides are proposing, then vote according to our own senses and values.

Vote responsibly.

Obama's Promises || McCain's Promises

Note: Since whomever gets in office will be there for a solid four years, it would behoove us all to take a little extra time--an hour, maybe?--to read the full text of each of their speeches. So, with that:
Complete Obama Speech || Complete McCain Speech

And, since the VP candidates are often trotted out to say the things that the Presidential candidates want to say but can't for fear of looking bad:
Complete Biden Speech || Complete Palin Speech

[One last note: The thought dawned on me as I whacked some weeds in the backyard the other day--this is the first time in twenty-eight years that the ticket does not include the names "Bush" or "Clinton." I consider this to be a positive sign.]

The Best Book Of 2008 (That I Didn't Write).

I'm not too familiar with the works of N.T. Wright, but I read an article about him on Time.com, in which he discussed his newest book. I thought I'd snag it from the library and give it a once-over. I thought it sounded intriguing, but I didn't expect it to completely revolutionize the way I see my faith. This is the book that I was told The Shack would be. I couldn't resist sharing a few snippets with my vast, vast internet audience:

The power of the gospel lies not in the offer of a new spirituality or religious experience, not in the threat of hellfire (certainly not in the threat of being "left behind"), which can be removed if only the hearer checks this box, says this prayer, raises a hand, or whatever, but in the powerful announcement that God is God, that Jesus is Lord, that the powers of evil have been defeated, that God's new world has begun. This announcement, stated as fact about the way the world is rather than as an appeal about the way you might like your life, your emotions, or your bank balance to be, is the foundation of everything else. Of course, once the gospel announcement is made, in whatever way, it means instantly that all people everywhere are gladly invited to come in, to join the party, to discover forgiveness for the past, an astonishing destiny in God's future, and a vocation in the present.

I don't know about you guys, but that gets me excited. Or check out:

...What we can and must do in the present, if we are obedient to the gospel, if we are following Jesus, and if we are indwelt, energized, and directed by the Spirit, is to build for the kingdom. This brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15:58 once more: what you do in the Lord is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that's about to roll over a cliff. You are not restoring a great painting that's shortly going to be thrown on the fire. You are not planting roses in a garden that's about to be dug up for a building site. You are--strange though it may seem, almost as hard to believe as the resurrection itself--accomplishing something that will become in due course part of God's new world. Every act of love, gratitude, and kindness; every work of art or music inspired by the love of God and delight in the beauty of his creation; every minute spent teaching a severely handicapped child to read or to walk; every act of care and nurture, of comfort and support, for one's fellow human beings and for that matter one's fellow nonhuman creatures; and of course every prayer, all Spirit-led teaching, every deed that spreads the gospel, builds up the church, embraces and embodies holiness rather than corruption, and makes the name of Jesus honored in the world--all of this will find its way, through the resurrecting power of God, into the new creation that God will one day make. That is the logic of the mission of God. God's recreation of his wonderful world, which began with the resurrection of Jesus and continues mysteriously as God's people live in the risen Christ and in the power of his Spirit, means that what we do in Christ and by the Spirit in the present is not wasted. It will last all the way into God's new world. In fact, it will be enhanced there.

I have no idea what precisely this will mean in practice. I am putting up a signpost, not offering a photograph of what we will find once we get to where the signpost is pointing. I don't know what musical instruments we shall have to play Bach in God's new world, though I'm sure Bach's music will be there. I don't know how my planting a tree today will relate to the wonderful trees that there will be in God's recreated world, though I do remember Martin Luther's words about the proper reaction to knowing the kingdom was coming the next day being to go out and plant a tree. I do not know how the painting an artist paints today in prayer and wisdom will find a place in God's new world. I don't know how our work for justice for the poor, for remission of global debts, will reappear in that new world. But I know that God's new world of justice and joy, of hope for the whole earth, was launched when Jesus came out of the tomb on Easter morning, and I know that he calls his followers to live in him and by the power of his Spirit and so to be new-creation people here and now, bringing signs and symbols of the kingdom to birth on earth as in heaven.

Am I wrong for finding myself fascinated with this? I'll close with one more, this one about the responsibility of the Christian artist. Sound off with your thoughts below:

When we read Romans 8, we find Paul affirming that the whole of creation is groaning in travail as it longs for its redemption. Creation is good, but it is not God. It is beautiful, but its beauty is at present transient. It is in pain, but that pain is taken into the very heart of God and becomes part of the pain of new birth. The beauty of creation, to which art responds and which it tries to express, imitate, and highlight, is not simply the beauty it possesses in itself but the beauty it possesses in view of what is promised to it: ...the chalice, the violin, the engagement ring. We are committed to describing the world not just as it should be, not just as it is, but as---by God's grace alone!--one day it will be. And we should never forget that when Jesus rose from the dead, as the paradigm, first example, and generating power of the whole new creation, the marks of the nails were not just visible on his hands and his feet. They were the way he was to be identified. When art comes to terms with both the wounds of the world and the promise of the resurrection and learns how to express and respond to both at once, we will be on the way to a fresh vision, a fresh mission.

The Government Is Afraid Of The Truth!

Don't you dare attempt to correct the government's typographical errors.

Here's the lead paragraph to tantalize you into reading the story:

A man from Somerville, Mass., and his friend who went around the country this year removing typographical errors from public signs have been banned from national parks after vandalizing a historic marker at the Grand Canyon.

A Costa Rica Story.

[NOTE: People have been asking me to tell a story about our trip to Costa Rica. Instead of doing that, I'm going to take a shortcut and reprint here a piece I wrote for a devotional put together by my church. Enjoy.]

I love kids. Perhaps this is why I have so many of them. I love seeing the world through their eyes, or hearing them invent new ways of using language, like when my four-year-old daughter Dorothy decided that “beautiful” just wouldn’t cut it while describing a rainbow, and coined the more accurate “cute-iful.”

So yeah, I love kids a lot, especially my own. So, when we decided to go on a family missions trip to Costa Rica with Believers World Outreach this past summer, I felt great anticipation at the thought of spending time in a foreign country with my kids. This anticipation was tempered, however, by a feeling sheer panic at the thought of spending time in a foreign country with my kids.

Maybe not the “spending time” part so much as the getting there, getting around, getting all our basic needs met, and getting home parts.

Nevertheless, time marched on, and, after many generous donations from many friends, family members, and straight-up strangers, we raised the full amount we needed to get there. Before we knew it, we were in Costa Rica, all of us astounded by the natural beauty of the country.

We discovered that our children are natural travelers, and they’re very good at going with the flow. They generally ate whatever was put before them, went wherever we told them, showed up whenever they needed to be somewhere.

But the real revelation came toward the end of the trip, when we went to minister to a group of people living in an area of Jaco that everyone calls “The Riverbed.” It is a place of extreme poverty, a shanty-town erected on either side of a small river fed by the Pacific Ocean. Families live here, in ramshackle homes constructed of found materials like random doors or wooden pallets or rusted pieces of corrugated tin.

The river itself serves many purposes for this community. It is their source of water for drinking and cooking, it is their bathtub, it is their laundry room, it is their toilet. Oftentimes, it is their trash can.

We’d heard quite a bit about the Riverbed before we went, and we did our best to prepare the kids. We told them, in terms they could understand, about the poverty there, and what the kids there would look like, and generally tried to prepare them for the heart-rending images they were likely to see.

And then the strangest thing happened. We went there, and while Michelle and I were devastated by the living conditions of those in the Riverbed, our kids didn’t seem to notice. And while we were busy pitying the shabbily dressed, smudge-faced, hungry-looking children in the Riverbed, of which there are many, our kids simply approached them, smiled, waved, and began to play with them.

Simple as that.

While we adults—supposed examples to our children—were busy focusing on the differences between us and those who lived in the Riverbed, the kids looked right past that (I’m not sure if they even saw the differences in the first place) and focused on the truth of the situation:

I’m a kid. You’re a kid. Let’s play.

In faith today, especially in America, and extra-especially in this part of America, we tend to focus on the differences. We like to compare different churches, different preaching styles, different worship leaders, different song selections, different locations… we notice what makes each church different. And if we don’t like something, we can always go somewhere else.

But what if Jesus, when he told us we needed to “receive the kingdom of God like a little child” (Mark 10:15), meant that we needed to act like my kids acted in the Riverbed. What if he’s saying that, since “both Gentiles and Jews who believe the Good News share equally in the riches inherited by God’s children, (Ephesians 3:6)” then we need to stop looking at the differences between us and start looking at faith—and church—like this:

I believe in Jesus. You believe in Jesus.

Let’s play.

No Child Left Behind.

Well, we all made it, as this official photo, taken on our next-to-last day there, proves:
We are back from Costa Rica, and, after a quick scan of all our available beds, I find that everyone made it back and is now asleep.

As for the trip, I have to say, it was a delightful time. Here are a few things I learned while abroad:

1) My kids are great travelers. They are very good at standing in long lines at airports that move very slowly*, and on the way there, they did a relatively whine-free job of toting all their clothes, crammed into their individual backpacks, due to our highly rational fear that the airline would lose our luggage (it happened to someone else on our team!).
2) San Jose, capital city of Costa Rica, is much bigger than I thought. And much more cosmopolitan. Being a dumb American, I was expecting ramshackle huts constructed of mud and straw. They have supermarkets!
3) Buying avocadoes the size of your head from some guy on the street? Genius.
4) I never got tired of gallo pinto for breakfast.
5) It's possible to have too much fresh pineapple. Just barely, but it's possible.
6) The people of Costa Rica are absolutely beautiful, inside and out. They are also, by and large, incredibly earnest, and my American sarcasm was lost on them. Fortunately, I know how to be funny without it.
7) The correct way to say "you're welcome" there is not "de nada," but rather "gusto."
8) Even when brewed in mass quantities with subpar water and so-so filters, Costa Rican coffee is incredible.
9) Short-term missions trips are as much about changing yourself as they are about changing the country you visit.
10) The USA is incredibly foolish for sweetening Coca-Cola with high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar.
11) I understand more Spanish than I thought I did. Speaking it is still a problem, though.
12) Everyone has a story to tell, and everyone has something to contribute to the cause of Christ. Even kids.
13) Charlotte's personality is her ministry.
14) Dorothy can be best friends with just about anyone, at any age.
15) Noah was born to play in the ocean. It's like every breaker is his long-lost twin.
16) Emma has the most willing missionary heart of anyone I know. The girl yearns for the lost (even though she gets humanly cranky at times).
17) Marley is great with kids who don't speak the same language as her.
18) Outside of Jesus, Michelle is the greatest thing ever to happen to me.
19) I can take a two-week break from my computer and not only not die, I can not even miss it.
20) "Por favor, depositar el papel en el basurero" is a wicked, wicked phrase, even if they do say please.
21) Americans, myself included, are far too concerned with trifles, to a troubling extent.
22) Guanabana is quite possibly the best tropical fruit you've never had.
23) Franz and Francisco are incredible bus drivers, and, should bus driving ever become an Olympic sport, will take home the gold and silver for Costa Rica. Regardless of where said Olympics are held, these two men will drive their medals back to Costa Rica on their buses. In reverse.
24) You can have some of your loudest congregational worship with just an acoustic guitar and someone playing a pulpit like a djembe.
25) Surfing is simultaneously fun, peaceful, and awe-inspiring.
26) People in Costa Rica actually say "Pura Vida" and mean it. It isn't just a tourist thing.
27) The iPod Touch costs about $550. But there is an authorized Apple Store in the mall in San Jose.
28) If you speak Spanish and aren't afraid of the walk-out, you can negotiate a super-cheap price on just about anything.
29) All kids love VBS.
30) Fly on Wednesday afternoon. There was literally no waiting at the Miami International Airport security checkpoint.
31) When in Jaco, eat at either Soda Rustico or Pachi's Pan. The former is authentic Costa Rican food for cheap, and the latter is a bakery that blows the mind. At Pachi's, order the chicken empanada (only a buck) and marvel.
32) The world needs Jesus, and the United States is not his favorite place in the whole entire earth.

That's all I can think of now. I'm sure there'll be more to come.

Thanks to all who supported us. It was truly an educational, enriching experience for every member of the Palmer Tribe, and now that we all have our passports, I tremble at the thought of where God might send us next...


*(I mean that the lines move slowly, not the airports.)

2007 Media Review: Bold Predictions For 2008.

[Concluding the media review with a look into the upcoming year...]

BOLD PREDICTIONS FOR 2008
1) Fox Searchlight will unearth another breakout indie hit/awards favorite featuring a talented and as-of-yet unheard-of young lead actress in the title role who people will sort of recognize from a supporting part in a previous summer blockbuster. It will be packed with Quirky characters, and people will tell me how great "the writing" is, when, in actuality, they mean "the dialogue has words you don't hear every day." The success of the movie will be primarily spurred on by positive word-of-mouth, and a print/web marketing campaign that bludgeons the consumer with a singular bright color that plays an insignificant role in the actual movie.

2) The Dark Knight will surpass Titanic for overall awesomeness in box-office receipts. Christian Bale will then be swept into office of President by a groundswell of write-in votes, which will also overturn the Constitution to allow a Welshman to govern our fine nation.

3) No summer blockbuster for the next ten years will be able to achieve a crummier, more anticipation-deflating title than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Thanks for wresting this one away from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, George Lucas. At least you kept it in the family.

4) The writers' strike will end the same day the rapture occurs. I have 2008 reasons this will happen in 2008.

2007 Media Review: Top Concerts/Sporting Events.

[The last of the media review entries. Tomorrow will see my bold predictions for 2008. And now, to continue the running theme, I'm closing this sentence with an ellipsis...]

TOP 5 CONCERTS AND/OR SPORTING EVENTS
1) Boston Red Sox vs. Colorado Rockies, in Fenway Park, in June. Michelle and I enjoyed a World Series preview without knowing it would be a World Series preview. The Sox got creamed, by the way, but it was cool to see Curt Schilling on the actual mound, and to cheer every time former Tulsa Driller Troy Tulowitzki got on base. Also: the official team store across the street from the park is a sight to behold.

Um, that's only one:
Yep. I don't have time to take in concerts and/or sporting events; I'm assuming the stage productions of Annie and The Nutcracker that my daughter was in don't count.

Worst concert and/or sporting event:
See previous response.

2007 Media Review: Top TV.

[The shortest post yet in my media review; I mainly divide my time 'twixt motion pictures, the written word, and my familia (and that's in reverse order)--not a lot of time left over for the television (and sports don't count). We'll cover concerts/sporting events tomorrow, and then my bold predictions for 2008 on Thursday. But now, let's go over 2007's...]

TOP 5 TELEVISED SPECTACLES
1) Lost [I thought about the season finale for days.]
2) The Office
3) 30 Rock
4) Planet Earth [I don't have cable, so we watched the DVDs, which feature the original British tones of BBC narrator David Attenborough. Me like.]
5) Did I mention Lost?

I don't watch much TV, so I don't have any other categories, so let's skip to the worst TV of 2007:
24. After such a great setup, it turned into a disappointment... again. I won't be watching in '08.

2007 Media Review: Top Music.

[Get those toes a-tappin' as the media review continues...]

TOP 5 MUSICAL ENDEAVORS
1) Once: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova [In case you couldn't tell, I liked this movie.]
2) The Reminder, Feist [So many people put this on their review, and it almost made me not list it--but I have to be honest and say I probably have listened to no album in 2007 more than this one.]
3) Sky Blue Sky, Wilco [The best Eagles album released in '07. Ahem.]
4) The Trumpet Child, Over the Rhine [Cabaret is not dead; it just moved to Cincinnati.]
5) The Black and White Album, The Hives [No one does high-energy hubris rock better than them. I quote from the liner notes of this record: "W. Churchill says: 'Never before have The Hives done so much for so many.'"]

Let's just go ahead and make it a top 10:
In Rainbows, Radiohead
Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace, Foo Fighters
We Walked in Song, The Innocence Mission
Volta, Bjork [on the strength of "Earth Intruders" and "Declare Independence" alone.]
Give Yourself Away, Robbie Seay Band

Coolest musical invention of 2007:
The Reactable. Watch the Basic Demos and be amazed.
(Demo #1) (Demo #2)

2007's catchiest song:
"1 2 3 4", Feist

2007's catchiest song about terrorism:
"Tick Tick Boom", The Hives

Worst music of 2007:
I don't have time to listen to crap, so this would have to be pretty much any of the "performances" by "artists" (who the heck is Akon? and why was he on twice?) on the Wednesday night episodes of American Idol I was forced, much against my will, to endure.

2007 Media Review: Top Movies.

[The madness continues, movie-style. Tomorrow: music. Until then, enjoy...]

TOP 5 MOVIES
1) Once [I have nothing but love in my heart for a movie that does absolutely nothing wrong and everything right. All musicians should watch this film, and be amazed, and then depressed that no song you ever write will be as good as "Falling Slowly."]
2) No Country for Old Men [This time, all the critics were right. The comments section below is waiting for you if you didn't "get" the ending.]
3) Ratatouille [Brad Bird is turning into one of my favorite directors. No movie in '07 delighted me more.]
4) The Bourne Ultimatum [Literally everyone put this movie on their very diverse list. If Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon keep making these, I'll keep seeing them.]
5) Rescue Dawn [Whew. I'm tired. And suddenly hungry.]

Almost there, but not quite:
Zodiac [It was actually a toss-up between this and Rescue Dawn for the #5 slot.]
Breach
A Mighty Heart
The TV Set
No End in Sight
Spider-Man 3
The Simpsons Movie
Sunshine
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
The Kingdom

Movies that might've made the top 5, if I'd seen them:
There Will Be Blood [Hurry up and come to Tulsa, movie! This is the only film here that I yearn--yearn!--to see on opening weekend. Everything else will do on DVD.]
Into the Wild
I'm Not There
Michael Clayton
Across the Universe
The Darjeeling Limited
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
In the Shadow of the Moon
The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters
Persepolis
Into Great Silence [A 3-hour-long documentary on silent monks. What's not to like?]

Movies that threatened to be brilliant, then shot themselves in the foot in the last act:
Sunshine [contemplative and stunning, it cheesed out by becoming, essentially, a monster movie. This is hands-down the most frustrating cop-out of '07, even though it almost redeemed itself in the last five minutes. What a waste.]
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (IMAX 3-D version) [never again will I take in a movie not meant to be 3-D in the first place. It ceased being about the story and became about the very jarring spectacle.]

Movies that received much critical acclaim and that all my friends told me were great but that I cannot muster any enthusiasm for:
Juno [The only one on this list I've seen. It tried way too hard to be Quirky(TM). Wes Anderson should sue for copyright infringement.]
Atonement [Epic + Romance + Period Piece = I won't see it anytime soon.]
The Kite Runner [I know, I know: I'm a horrible human being.]
Away from Her
Lars and the Real Girl
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Best fight scene featuring Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner:
The Kingdom

Worst fight scene featuring Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner:
Juno

Worst movie of the year by a mile (and possibly of the decade), which is quite a feat, because this year gave us Evan Almighty and Bratz:
Transformers [I was expecting big, dumb fun; it gave me two out of three.]

2007 Media Review: Top Books.

[Note: Some friends of mine and I have an ongoing annual ritual. Every year, we email each other lists of our top five entries in five different media: books, movies, television, music, and concerts/sporting events (we also include the "worst" entry of the year). This year, I'm sharing my list with the internet! I'll post the lists daily over the next four days (I hope), starting with the...]

TOP 5 BOOKS OF 2007
1) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling [This is less for the book itself ("Ron said sycophantically." Really? Fire your editor, J.K.) and more for all it stood for. I loved the way she wrapped up the series, character- and plotwise. Writingwise, not so much.]
2) God on Mute: Engaging the Silence of Unanswered Prayer, Pete Greig [The best Jesus book I read this year]
3) The Yiddish Policemen's Union, Michael Chabon [He makes my writing sound like Pat the Bunny, though he needs to retire the words "acrid" and "tang" for the next couple of books.]
4)I Am America (And So Can You!), Stephen Colbert [Hilarious from start to finish; definitely a deserving winner of the Stephen T. Colbert Award For Literary Excellence. The audiobook is awesome as well, and available from the Tulsa City-County Library. (A note, however: it does contain some mildly coarse language and subject matter.)]
5) Are We Rome? The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America, Cullen Murphy [Semi-political book thrown in for flavor. Fascinating read.]

Honorable Mentions:
Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light
Bambi vs. Godzilla, David Mamet
From Bad to Worse, Todd & Jedd Hafer
Save Me From Myself, Brian "Head" Welch

Books from past years that would've been on this list if I'd read them in that year instead of 2007:
What is the What? The Autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng, Dave Eggers (2006) [You owe it to yourself to read this heart-rending account of one of the Lost Boys of the Sudan.]
The Areas of my Expertise, John Hodgman (2005) [smartly funny writing from the guy who plays "PC" in the Apple commercials. It had me with its half-page essay: "When Writing, Please Avoid These Failed Palindromes."]
The Road, Cormac McCarthy (2006) [I don't know how this was an Oprah book club selection, but I thank the person who fooled her into backing one of the most brilliant--but bleak--character studies I've possibly ever read. Makes Children of Men look like The Wizard of Oz.]
Fear and Trembling, Soren Kierkegaard (1843) [I don't even remember my top books from 1843.]

Book that should've been on everyone else's top 5 list:
Knuckle Sandwich, Adam Palmer

Worst book of 2007:
The Almost Moon, Alice Sebold. [I actually didn't read any severely horrible books, but out of all the best-sellers and whatnot that get premium placement at big-box retailers, this is surely a letdown. I didn't jump on The Lovely Bones bandwagon, so I didn't expect much from this one, and it failed even to meet those low expectations. Skip it.]

Greatest T-Shirt Ever.

The geniuses at Glarkware have done it again. First there was Good Grammar Costs Nothing, and now this. If only they didn't cost so much.

[Note: there is a bit of PG-13 language on the Glarkware site. Browse at your own risk.]

Manufactured Hand-Holding.

As I mentioned previously, I am enamored of the fine motion picture Once, and as such I've been intermittently visiting a particular online retailer to determine when this musical masterpiece will be available on DVD, or, as we say in the business, "DVD."

It's been awhile, but I finally discovered that the movie is scheduled to release on December 18, just four days after my birthday (but still in plenty of time for Christmas!). So I got all this information off my local online retailer's website, which, coincidentally, featured a still image of the DVD's cover, which caused me to simultaneously chuckle and sigh (or "chigh," if you will [which is not the same as this]).

I chuckled because studios are never subtle in their DVD packaging and have been known to misrepresent the content of a movie with a cover that told a different story than the one told in the actual picture. But I sighed because this cover (spoiler!) ruins part of the mystique of Once, suggesting romance when there was none...that we know of.

Compare the DVD cover (the first image) with the original movie poster (the second image) and you'll (hopefully) see what I mean.



In the DVD cover, we have the man and the woman in the same image from the poster, but lightened considerably. The dingy background of downtown Dublin now shines like a Hollywoodized Paris, France. Even Glen Hansard's jeans have been made bluer and fresher, as if he just pulled them out of the dryer after a rinse with Tide with Bleach. Notice also that Glen's gig bag has been replaced with something smaller, as if he's toting around a banjo in that thing.

But these things are minor quibbles. In the DVD image, Glen and co-star Marketa Irglova have been moved together and slightly jostled to suddenly appear as if they're holding hands. Ye gods! The (spoiler) whole point of the movie is that these two characters collide in a way where they might be in love, but never say it or act on it in any visible way! This is what makes Once such a treat to begin with, this complete denial of the formulaic story we expected.

Still, pointless Photoshop work aside, it is a fine film that I cannot recommend enough. Do yourself a favor and check it out, though I feel obligated to warn you that, since it takes place in Ireland, with Irish characters portrayed by Irish people, it does have copious amounts of swearing. They use the F-word like we say "extra cheese" in the States.

Boy, this post really fizzled out toward the end there, didn't it? Sorry--it's been awhile since I picked this "blog" thing back up.

Writing Is Easy: Down With Stupid Verbs!

I've decided to create a new regular installment here at Dregs that I like to call "Writing Is Easy." I think someone else has something with that same name somewhere on the internet, but I like it, so I'm going to use it as well.

Each episode of "Writing Is Easy" will provide tips and/or advice on writing. I figure, since I do it professionally, I might be able to share a thing or two with you, the reader, though I will most likely use "Writing Is Easy" as a thinly disguised platform to rant about the degradation of our language.

Take, for example, today's exciting episode: Down With Stupid Verbs!

Lately, as I've read various and sundry "entertainment" style websites in an effort to keep up with newly released motion pictures, I've noticed the insidious creep of the word "pen." As a verb. Where it shouldn't be.

"Pen" has long been used as a verb, but it's only recently begun to bother my somewhat literal mind. For example, two days ago I read the phrase "So-and-So penned the screenplay." Now, the likelihood that So-and-So used an actual pen seems pretty low, so, in the interest of accuracy, it seems to me that the phrase should be "So-and-So keyboarded the screenplay."

See? Doesn't make sense when you look at it that way.

What's wrong with plain ol' "write" and its variations? Why didn't So-and-So "write" the screenplay? Because people think "write" is boring and want to go with something they propose to be fresher and edgier. It is the sad state of our exclamation mark culture, where people no longer want to communicate--they want to outshout the competition.

But I digress.

Another stupid verb? "Google." I don't know why, but it annoys the heck out of me when I hear this used as a verb (and I hear it all the time). "Google" is a proper noun, not a verb. It can also be used as an adjective, which is how I use it: "I did a Google search on 'pomegranate juice,'" for example. I understand I'm kicking against the goads here, and that eventually I will be dragged kicking and screaming into Google-verb acceptability, but I'll fight it as long as I can. I shall not be a Google-verb Pod Person.

What about you, theoretical reader of my blog? Any verbs-that-aren't-really-verbs that stick in your craw? There's a whole comments section below just a-waitin' for your thoughts.

Fact: TV Makes Kids Stupider.

Don't believe me? Check out this article from Time.com, tantalizingly titled "Baby Einsteins: Not So Smart After All." I have to admit, we've plunked the tots down in front of those videos before, though I often failed to see the appeal. Still, if it was supposed to be, as Homer Simpson might put it, smartening them up, why not?

Oh, but we were wrong, says journalist Alice Park, who tosses out such tasty, guilt-inducing morsels as:

Led by Frederick Zimmerman and Dr. Dimitri Christakis, both at the University of Washington, the research team found that with every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants learned six to eight fewer new vocabulary words than babies who never watched the videos. These products had the strongest detrimental effect on babies 8 to 16 months old, the age at which language skills are starting to form. "The more videos they watched, the fewer words they knew," says Christakis. "These babies scored about 10% lower on language skills than infants who had not watched these videos."

...and...

Mounting evidence suggests that passive screen sucking not only doesn't help children learn, but could also set back their development. Last spring, Christakis and his colleagues found that by three months, 40% of babies are regular viewers of DVDs, videos or television; by the time they are two years old, almost 90% are spending two to three hours each day in front of a screen. Three studies have shown that watching television, even if it includes educational programming such as Sesame Street, delays language development.

...and, my favorite...

He and other experts worry that the proliferation of these products will continue to displace the one thing that babies need in the first months of life — face time with human beings. "Every interaction with your child is meaningful," says Christakis. "Time is precious in those early years, and the newborn is watching you, and learning from everything you do."

The only flaw I can find in the piece is that Park calls Sesame Street "educational," a claim I've found dubious ever since they introduced that stupid fairy character. She's cute, but I think she exists more to sell ancillary products than to teach my kids how to count to twenty. For a more incisive take on the whole business of that show, check out this flammably titled LA Times article: "Elmo Is An Evildoer."

One Last Harry Post Before I'm Pottered Out. --or-- Yay, America!

Look at that cover. The image just to the right. Isn't it glorious? Mary Grand Pre has done a magnficent job with the covers to the Harry Potter novels, especially since she appropriately ditched the original goofy montage motif with the last three. Though Order of the Phoenix remains my favorite strict cover, I have to say that Deathly Hallows is my favorite complete jacket. The entire image that comprises the cover, spine, back cover, and front and back flaps is, in my humble opinion, masterful. Here it is, all by itself:


When it was released a few months ago, I and my friends debated what the image meant. Were Harry and Voldemort working together? They didn't seem to be fighting each other. What was coming at them out of the sky? How in the world were Harry and Voldemort working together to repel the unseen beast/person/object that was out of the frame of the picture? Who are those shadowy figures in the background--are they the Deathly Hallows? And did the curtains on either side mean anything? And finally: Why in the world did it look like Harry and Voldemort were working together? It whet our appetites for the final installment like nobody's business. Now that I've read the novel and understand that scene, I applaud it as a cover choice all the more; it's nothing short of brilliant artistry and marketing.

By contrast, thank heavens we didn't have to deal with these dreary, bland, boring, borderline offensive covers of the UK versions of the book (across the pond, they have separate children's and adult editions):













Seriously. Seriously? The children's edition looks less like Harry Potter and more like Archie, Veronica, Jughead and the Big Bank Bust-up!, while the adult edition retains a certain understated dimestore paperback Michener/Crichton/Collins vibe, no?

Way to go, America (and Scholastic in particular). You got this one right by a mile.