This is the last year for Yankee Stadium. After this season the Yankees will play in a new stadium being built across the street. The new stadium will be the most expensive stadium in America, and the third most expensive in the world, with a total cost of $1.3 Billion. It has a lot of cool retro features, and will do well to tie into the rich history of Yankee Stadium. But it will never be the House that Ruth Built. That stadium will be torn down.
I explained this to my wife this way: Imagine if they tore down the vatican in order to replace it with a newer more modern church. She thought that was a bit of a stretch, so I called my friend Jeremy and asked him what he thought. His take was this: Even if they were going to tear down the vatican, they wouldn't have played the all-star game there this year, so the end of Yankee Stadium is a bigger deal than that.
It's hard to argue with his logic! :-)
Joel
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Red Light Cameras
Victorville has been putting up red light cameras all over town. This is not unique, many cities are doing this. It's a huge moneymaker for the city and it's all in the name of safety right? Wrong. If you click that link you will see that red light cameras actually increase accidents, therefore endangering public safety all in the name of revenue. Oops.
Thankfully the state of Minnesota has outlawed them. Unfortunately, I do not live in Minnesota. I live in California where they are still legal. There is something inherently wrong with photo enforcement. It completely disregards and flies in the face of the presumption of innocence, a foundational point of law worldwide. In talking with a friend of mine his comment was that they are "unamerican" which I believe is right on the money.
Red light cameras and photo radar are not about freedom, and they are not about public safety, they are a public tax that hasn't gone through the regular channels, processes and such that are required before taxing the people. To make matters worse, they always are sold with long term contracts, meaning that if you vote out the city council, the city will still have to pay the cretins that sell these things for years to come. They ignore the foundational principle of law that we are innocent until proven guilty, and they differ from every other form of traffic enforcement in that you are not arrested by an officer and allowed to discuss the situation.
I am not for running red lights. It's dangerous. But these cameras solve a problem that didn't really exist in the first place. People do not run red lights as a matter of course, and installing these cameras creates accidents rather than reducing them.
I found one site that I really like that talks about the issue, highwayrobbery.net. These things need to go away, they are an assault on our freedom.
Joel
Thankfully the state of Minnesota has outlawed them. Unfortunately, I do not live in Minnesota. I live in California where they are still legal. There is something inherently wrong with photo enforcement. It completely disregards and flies in the face of the presumption of innocence, a foundational point of law worldwide. In talking with a friend of mine his comment was that they are "unamerican" which I believe is right on the money.
Red light cameras and photo radar are not about freedom, and they are not about public safety, they are a public tax that hasn't gone through the regular channels, processes and such that are required before taxing the people. To make matters worse, they always are sold with long term contracts, meaning that if you vote out the city council, the city will still have to pay the cretins that sell these things for years to come. They ignore the foundational principle of law that we are innocent until proven guilty, and they differ from every other form of traffic enforcement in that you are not arrested by an officer and allowed to discuss the situation.
I am not for running red lights. It's dangerous. But these cameras solve a problem that didn't really exist in the first place. People do not run red lights as a matter of course, and installing these cameras creates accidents rather than reducing them.
I found one site that I really like that talks about the issue, highwayrobbery.net. These things need to go away, they are an assault on our freedom.
Joel
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Do we overemphasize church?
Years ago when we would do baptisms, people would spend a lot of time in their testimonies talking about how great this church was. While that is way cool, it always made me uncomfortable. Our faith is in Christ, not the church. Christ is our redeemer, not the church. He is risen, we merely point to Him.
It's not that the church is bad, or shouldn't be praised. Indeed Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for Her. But I think sometimes we get too hung up on church attendance and forget that attending church is not what is important, following Jesus is what is important.
As I get older I realize that people experience God in different ways. For some it is being at church, but for others it might be in serving the poor, or gazing upon a mountain vista, or leading a small group, or singing songs together as a family, or any other number of things. Church is important, yes, but do we focus so much on going to church that we create a belief that this is the only way to connect to God?
I'm not advocating that attending church is not important. It has been my experience in life that many of the people who claim that going to church is not important seem to use that as an excuse to not follow God. I believe that time together as a community of believers is extremely valuable to our spiritual walk. But when we become legalistic about it, I think we dilute it's impact and create a culture of obligation rather than worship.
Just something I'm pondering these days.
Joel
It's not that the church is bad, or shouldn't be praised. Indeed Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for Her. But I think sometimes we get too hung up on church attendance and forget that attending church is not what is important, following Jesus is what is important.
As I get older I realize that people experience God in different ways. For some it is being at church, but for others it might be in serving the poor, or gazing upon a mountain vista, or leading a small group, or singing songs together as a family, or any other number of things. Church is important, yes, but do we focus so much on going to church that we create a belief that this is the only way to connect to God?
I'm not advocating that attending church is not important. It has been my experience in life that many of the people who claim that going to church is not important seem to use that as an excuse to not follow God. I believe that time together as a community of believers is extremely valuable to our spiritual walk. But when we become legalistic about it, I think we dilute it's impact and create a culture of obligation rather than worship.
Just something I'm pondering these days.
Joel
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Once in a Lifetime Moments
It's not every day that you have the opportunity to see something historic. Sunday afternoon I was watching the 24 Hours of Le Mans while web surfing (slowly) with my laptop. I went to espn.com to see what the scoop was with the Lakers, and read an article by Pat Forde about how Tiger was injured and any other golfer would have mailed it in, but Tiger didn't "get the memo" that he was done and rallied to bring himself back to the lead by the end of the day on Saturday...
It piqued my interest, so I turned the channel to NBC and watched as Tiger and a guy I've never heard of played to a draw after 72 holes of golf. Tiger only caught Mediate on the 18th hole with a fantastic putt. It was great stuff, and as I was waiting for the playoff holes to begin they said that an 18 hole playoff would be held on Monday.
Monday. Two guys, one US Open Championship in their grasp. Tiger Woods, the single greatest golfer ever, was going to play for the US Open title, and I suddenly had to be there. It's not every day that you can see Tiger Woods win a major, and if he didn't win, it's not every day that you see one of the greatest upsets in sports history. I thought about it for a bit, and decided that the only person crazy enough to go with me was my friend Tim. So I called him, and he asked me if this was a practical joke. I said no, and he proceeded to tell me that he was holding two tickets in his hand that he had purchased eight minutes before I called.
And so, it was on. Tim told me he was bringing his 6 year old son because kids under 12 were free, so I went into Jacob's room and asked if he would like to go. He got very excited (despite not caring one tiny little bit about golf) and so at 5:30 the next morning we left and drove down to San Diego to see what many are calling the greatest US Open Championship ever. And we were there.
But it gets better. The crowd was astonishing. I figured that since it was a monday and people who came from out of town would have flown home that the crowd would be small. WRONG. The official attendance was a little shy of 22,000, but one official says that more than 25,000 people were there. Think about that for a second. Over 20,000 people to watch just two guys play golf. Needless to say golf courses aren't really designed for this kind of crowd, particularly following only two people.
Needless to say, it was very hard to find a spot, and you had to pick and choose which holes to go see. We started at the green of four. We managed to get the boys under the rope so that they could see, and one official moved them closer to the action, which was very kind. Then we moved on to eight, stopping for water along the way. At eight we had to put the boys on our shoulders, but it was nice because we could see the entire hole, from the tee to the fairway to the green. We decided that we wanted to see 13 next, one of the signature holes. 13 is so popular that the grandstands were filling when we first walked in with people who were content to sit there all day waiting. We got a great spot, and again got the boys under the ropes. After Tiger and Rocco were on the green, an official took the boys from the ropes and put them right next to the green with the photographers! It was _so_ cool to watch. I don't think they quite realize how remarkable that was, but their dads did! They got to watch the action of the US Open all of ten feet or so from Tiger and Rocco. As a dad, that was one of the greatest moments ever.
After 13 we decided to make our way to 18. We debated watching 17 instead, and in retrospect I wish we had. By the time we reached eighteen, probably half of the 25,000 or so were crammed around the green, down the fairway, anywhere just to get a glimpse of it all. The atmosphere was electric. Once Tiger and Rocco arrived, the entire crowd was there. Rocco had the lead by a single stroke! It all comes down to this. Rocco got par, and Tiger, being Tiger, did what he had to do to get a birdie. 18 was not to be "the moment" as we had hoped. Now it would go to sudden death, starting on hole 7.
From where we were, it was impossible to get to 7. There were somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 people between us and it. Furthermore, as people were heading to 7, others were trying to get in closer to 18 for a better view of the trophy presentation. It was pandemonium. We worked our way towards the busses and watched the end of the tournament on the screen attached to one of the TV cameras on another hole.
Jacob said several times that this was one of the best days of his life, and he doesn't even like golf. But it was a chance to witness history and to be with his dad. We really didn't have the money to spend, and I really didn't want to use a vacation day for this, but I wouldn't trade it for the world. In life we have to seize the moment, do those extra special things that break us away from the ordinary. Monday was one of those days. I don't know that I would ever do it again, but on Monday, June 16, 2008 Tiger Woods won his 14th major championship, and we were there. That's a memory we will hold forever.
Joel
Monday, June 2, 2008
Fabricating Jesus - How modern scholars distort the gospel
Craig A. Evans is a brilliant scholar and writer. Dr. Evans teaches at the Acadia Divinity School in Canada, but every summer he comes to California for a couple of weeks and teaches at Fuller Seminary. I had the opportunity to take two classes from him, as well as attending several lectures on popular topics that were presented in the evenings.
Dr. Evans is very good at making clear the convoluted issues that surround the gospels and biblical interpretation. This is exactly what Fabricating Jesus is about. After a solid introduction in which he introduces some of the issues and key players, he dives into the topics at hand.
He begins by discussing the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. Evans does an excellent job of distilling the key issues and reasons that these works are late and not authoritative. In the case of "Secret Gospel of Mark" by late we mean "written in the 20th century" as it is a forgery.
In regards to the Gospel of Thomas, for example, one of the works that many people have been told is "authoritative" Dr. Evans details four key points against the Gospel of Thomas being an early work:
(1) Thomas knows many of the New Testament writings.
(2) Thomas contains Gospel materials that scholars regard as late.
(3) Thomas reflects later editing in the Gospels.
(4) Thomas shows familiarity with traditions distinctive to Easter, Syrian Christianity, traditions that did not emerge before the middle of the second century.
The reason the dating of Thomas is important is that those who argue that it is authoritative argue that it was written before the canonical gospels, and is therefore more accurate, particularly when it contradicts the other gospels. Evans lays out a clear argument (unpacking each of those four points above as well as others) that Thomas is late, written to support gnostic ideals, and should not be used to form an understanding of Jesus and His teaching.
After discussing these other writings, Evans moves on to tackle the idea that Jesus was a cynic, something that a few scholars have advocated. Cynics were known for their ragged appearance, and for behavior such as urinating, defecating, and engaging in intercourse in public. Hardly the kind of behavior that attracts followers and draws crowds of thousands. Evans goes far beyond simple logical analysis, and brings research and evidence to the table to show that Jesus was not a cynic, nor was there a presence of cynics in the area of Galilee.
There are also chapters on taking sayings out of context, the reality of the healings and miracles of Jesus, the dubious use of Josephus, and other exaggerations and fabrications that misrepresent who Jesus was and what He was about. The book closes with a positive affirmation of who Jesus was and how he is to be understood from scripture.
The book is well arranged and reads quickly. It is scholarly in content but not in style. Evans moves through each of the issues and provides the reader with solid evidence and scholarly analysis.
Highly, Highly recommended.
Joel
Dr. Evans is very good at making clear the convoluted issues that surround the gospels and biblical interpretation. This is exactly what Fabricating Jesus is about. After a solid introduction in which he introduces some of the issues and key players, he dives into the topics at hand.
He begins by discussing the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. Evans does an excellent job of distilling the key issues and reasons that these works are late and not authoritative. In the case of "Secret Gospel of Mark" by late we mean "written in the 20th century" as it is a forgery.
In regards to the Gospel of Thomas, for example, one of the works that many people have been told is "authoritative" Dr. Evans details four key points against the Gospel of Thomas being an early work:
(1) Thomas knows many of the New Testament writings.
(2) Thomas contains Gospel materials that scholars regard as late.
(3) Thomas reflects later editing in the Gospels.
(4) Thomas shows familiarity with traditions distinctive to Easter, Syrian Christianity, traditions that did not emerge before the middle of the second century.
The reason the dating of Thomas is important is that those who argue that it is authoritative argue that it was written before the canonical gospels, and is therefore more accurate, particularly when it contradicts the other gospels. Evans lays out a clear argument (unpacking each of those four points above as well as others) that Thomas is late, written to support gnostic ideals, and should not be used to form an understanding of Jesus and His teaching.
After discussing these other writings, Evans moves on to tackle the idea that Jesus was a cynic, something that a few scholars have advocated. Cynics were known for their ragged appearance, and for behavior such as urinating, defecating, and engaging in intercourse in public. Hardly the kind of behavior that attracts followers and draws crowds of thousands. Evans goes far beyond simple logical analysis, and brings research and evidence to the table to show that Jesus was not a cynic, nor was there a presence of cynics in the area of Galilee.
There are also chapters on taking sayings out of context, the reality of the healings and miracles of Jesus, the dubious use of Josephus, and other exaggerations and fabrications that misrepresent who Jesus was and what He was about. The book closes with a positive affirmation of who Jesus was and how he is to be understood from scripture.
The book is well arranged and reads quickly. It is scholarly in content but not in style. Evans moves through each of the issues and provides the reader with solid evidence and scholarly analysis.
Highly, Highly recommended.
Joel
Friday, May 30, 2008
Speed Racer - The Movie
Tonight we are having a girl scout sleepover at our house. As such, I made plans to not be home. Somehow having a large number of ten year old girls in my home doesn't sound like the ideal evening. ;-)
So I took Jacob to see Speed Racer. He loves the original cartoons, just as I did when I was a kid. If you aren't familiar with it, the show Speed Racer is early Japanese anime. The style was very unique for its time, and what kid isn't impressed with a 5000HP car that has buttons for things like jumps and underwater operation.
As an adult Speed Racer is fairly comical to watch, because Speed will invariably crash, fight bad guys, save the girl, and still manage to win the race by pressing the accelerator down more than the other drivers... Still, it's good fun and the movie looked like it would be fun.
And it was.
First off, it has a very surreal look. The color palette is very bright, and the saturation has been turned up another 50% or so. Somehow it works. The races involve a lot of cars smashing into each other, spinning seems to be part of the standard way to drive, and all of the tracks have things like loops and jumps. Not exactly the streets of monaco, but again, somehow it works.
The movie definitely plays best if you are a fan of the original series. There are many little things that aren't explained, it is expected that you will know, for example, that pops is a wrestling champion. The movie takes elements from the series, like that companies live or die on winning races, and expands it into all the races being fixed. Speed, of course, does not play by the rules of the "big sponsors" which is why people are always trying to kill him.
The movie was fun, but definitely slow in parts. I felt like this would have been a better movie with about 20 minutes trimmed out of it. It was an odd mix of hyper-fast racing action with lots of slow dialog. Slow parts aside, the movie was entertaining, which is the point of movies to begin with.
My 7 year old asked if we could buy the movie when it was over, so obviously he liked it a lot. As a speed racer fan, I enjoyed it too. If you like the original series, you will probably enjoy the movie, but if you have never seen speed racer, most likely you will find the movie rather odd.
Based on the critical reception and box office, I'd say more people are familiar with the name Speed Racer than the actual show...
Joel
So I took Jacob to see Speed Racer. He loves the original cartoons, just as I did when I was a kid. If you aren't familiar with it, the show Speed Racer is early Japanese anime. The style was very unique for its time, and what kid isn't impressed with a 5000HP car that has buttons for things like jumps and underwater operation.
As an adult Speed Racer is fairly comical to watch, because Speed will invariably crash, fight bad guys, save the girl, and still manage to win the race by pressing the accelerator down more than the other drivers... Still, it's good fun and the movie looked like it would be fun.
And it was.
First off, it has a very surreal look. The color palette is very bright, and the saturation has been turned up another 50% or so. Somehow it works. The races involve a lot of cars smashing into each other, spinning seems to be part of the standard way to drive, and all of the tracks have things like loops and jumps. Not exactly the streets of monaco, but again, somehow it works.
The movie definitely plays best if you are a fan of the original series. There are many little things that aren't explained, it is expected that you will know, for example, that pops is a wrestling champion. The movie takes elements from the series, like that companies live or die on winning races, and expands it into all the races being fixed. Speed, of course, does not play by the rules of the "big sponsors" which is why people are always trying to kill him.
The movie was fun, but definitely slow in parts. I felt like this would have been a better movie with about 20 minutes trimmed out of it. It was an odd mix of hyper-fast racing action with lots of slow dialog. Slow parts aside, the movie was entertaining, which is the point of movies to begin with.
My 7 year old asked if we could buy the movie when it was over, so obviously he liked it a lot. As a speed racer fan, I enjoyed it too. If you like the original series, you will probably enjoy the movie, but if you have never seen speed racer, most likely you will find the movie rather odd.
Based on the critical reception and box office, I'd say more people are familiar with the name Speed Racer than the actual show...
Joel
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Serious about coffee
This is the back of my truck, loaded with 650 pounds of green coffee beans. A few years ago while out in the desert with our 4x4's, my friend David and I began talking about the idea of roasting our own coffee. When we returned to his house for dinner we ordered up a sampler pack of green coffees from Sweet Marias, an excellent website for the home roaster. We didn't actually own a roaster at that point, but we decided we wanted to try. The next day David's wife bought something like 7 popcorn poppers at a local thrift shop. With those poppers we began roasting coffee. Roasting on a popper is not a fun experience. It's loud, it takes a while, the batches are tiny, and it makes an awful mess. But it's a great way to get started.These days we roast on a commercial roaster and we go through somewhere around 1000 pounds of coffee a year. A lot of that is sold to the church coffee shop which uses our espresso in all of their coffee drinks. We can provide coffee to them that is higher quality and much cheaper than they can get anywhere else.
Coffee is an amazing product. There is a tremendous amount of diversity in the flavor profiles of coffee. What you find in a can of folgers or even in the standard "pike's place blend" at starbucks is a far cry from what is out there. You can get a hint of it at Starbuck's with their "black apron exclusives" which are high quality coffees roasted in small quantities. These are the kinds of coffees that we buy and roast. The interplay created between the flavors when you blend is where the really amazing cups of coffee come from.
After unloading this, we roasted for almost four hours. What a great night!
Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)