That title makes you want to punch me in the face doesn't it? I don't blame you. It comes off as arrogant. Who the . . . do you think you are to say that you are better than me?
But in actuality, I am better than you at a large number of things and you are better than me in a large number of things. Too often in this society, we pretend like this isn't so; even when the numbers paint the picture for us. If we took the same class, but I made better grades than you, I'm better than you at that. If we run the same race and you cross the finish line first, you are better than me at that. And that's ok. It's not subjective. There are numbers, letters, grades, placements, etc. that we can gauge our success by.
Perhaps the problem is that we feel acknowledging that someone is better than us at something diminishes our own self worth. That's a self-esteem problem. That's on you; not on them. Probably we believe it ties in with the person's ultimate thoughts about us.
There is a fine line between having enough self-esteem (confidence) and being cocky. How do you have this confidence without being prideful?
There have been a few people I have known in my life who get this right. The majority fail. I fail. The people I really admire in this area have a quiet confidence. They don't nitpick failures in an area in which they are supremely knowledgable. They "let it be". If you ask, they answer. They help, but they don't dominate. They let you go down that path and they will help you if you ask; but they won't push.
I can count on one hand the number of people I've known who have gotten this right. I'd like to get it right one day. One day . . .
Some quotes on pride:
"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Prov. 16:18
"Pride is the recognition that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned" Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
"There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else... Pride is essentially competitive - is competitive by its very nature - while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud. . . A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you. . ." C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Monday, April 23, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
80/20 Analysis of Obama's Budget Proposal
We use this little tool at work called 80/20. It's very simple, but it provides the basis for how we look at every decision in our business. It's based on something called the Pareto Principle. In summary, 80% of your sales come from 20% of your customers. 80% of your time is spent on 20% of your job functions, etc. If that is difficult to understand, consider your closet. If you were to really evaluate it, you'd have to say that you wear 20% of your clothes about 80% of the time. It's not always 80/20, but it's a good rule of thumb and is generally always in the ballpark.
We see that with Obama's budget proposal below. 79% of total spending comes from five categories. Those five categories can really be split into three major categories (Defense, Healthcare, Welfare). In case you were keeping tabs, that's 16%. 16% of items in the federal government generate 79% of the spending.
Only one of these (Defense) is provided for in the Constitution. Let's pretend for a second that we left that alone (although the low hanging fruit here is also easy to see; >1,000 military bases in over 15 countries). Wouldn't you think we'd take a stand against the unconstitutional programs we have in place that are sucking over half of our budget? I wonder if people realize we built this country into the most powerful (economically and militarily) nation the world has ever seen without these programs. I'm not saying you stop grandma's social security checks tomorrow. I'm just wondering aloud why our government officials act like this is terribly difficult to solve. It's not. Revert back to the document you swore to uphold.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Church Building
Chad Gibbs, author of semi-recent book, "God and Football" authors a blog which can be found here. His recent post entitled "If You Build It" got me to thinking. He asks if it is wrong for a church to spend money on a building when there are so many the church is trying to reach without the necessities. If it is ok, is there a limit to the extravagance?
I posed the question to a couple of people much smarter than me and got the following responses. Which one do you agree with if any? What are your thoughts?
Person 1
The first Christians, indeed before they were actually called Christians, met in homes. Some fellow Christians maintain we should still only have “house churches” even today. They feel there are many advantages to meeting in the homes of other Christians and once the Body exceeds some small number (15 – 30 is the size that has been advocated by some Christians I’ve spoken with) we lose our corporate contact with The Spirit. To meet as a body in a house church setting is fine and I would not dissuade anyone that sees this as best for them from doing so. Conversely, I have a problem when someone tries to convince others that meeting in a structure built primarily for corporate worship (a church building) is not God’s best for The Church. There are many advantages to derive in economies of scale. So perhaps it would be instructive to consider why did the early Christians meet in homes?
One of the main reasons from the outset was because they couldn’t meet where they had been meeting before. Since most early Christians were Jews first, they had been meeting in the temple or synagogue. They were prohibited from meeting in those places for Christian worship. Another aspect of this is fear of punishment. As Jews, they were subject to the death penalty or at the very least the loss of their livelihood by declaring themselves to be Christians. Certainly in a number of places, that is the case even today. One of my Christian brothers has a son and daughter-in-law serving as missionaries in a Muslim country. They are forbidden from meeting for Christian services and would be expelled from the country or killed if exposed as Christians. They currently meet with a few Christian converts in the home of someone to worship.
How did the construction of church buildings first arise? Meeting in homes became problematic. We see one of the problems when the apostles instruct the body to select seven men to serve as deacons. The body was growing larger. As a result the body most likely grew so large it outstretched the capacity of all but the largest of homes to accommodate. While it isn’t explicitly described in scripture, it isn’t difficult to imagine the conflicts, the issues arising as a body of believers sought some place to worship together. Certainly when the 3,000 souls accepted Christ in Acts 2:41; the Christians present were praising Him. Perhaps then Peter turned to Robbie or Person 1 or whoever was hosting the next church worship service and asked about the size of their home. My house would not hold 300, let alone 3,000.
They had been worshiping together in a “church” building as Jews or pagans; so why not worship together in a church building as Christians? After all, what is a church but “The Lord’s House”? I have a difficult time criticizing someone for desiring to worship in a clean, warm, dry, safe place with fellow believers.
Where it seems we encounter problems is when we allow the building and not The Body to become our focus. That is, rather than focusing on how to design the building to meet the varied needs of The Body, we allow the focus to be primarily about how beautiful, lavish and impressive the building can be to everyone. Do all the implements of the church need to be all about how impressive they can be? An exaggeration of this point would be installing recliners for everyone in the worship center. There needs to be a balance between creating a useful, functional, purposeful structure to meet the needs of the local body with reaching out and meeting the needs of those who are hurting and in need.
Regarding spending lavishly to decorate a building; it is easy to go overboard and easy to be critical. So let David Platt and others be critical. Call church bodies to task for not helping those in need as much as they should. We need those people to be prophets and call to us and help us to not abandon our “first Love”. All the law and the prophets are summed up by “You shall love The Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… and your neighbor as yourself.” – Matthew 22: 36 – 40. I think the question then to keep “at the frontlets” of our heart when we consider how to build a structure to worship Him is, ‘am I loving Him as He would have me to and am I loving my neighbor as myself’?
Person 2
Miserable waste of money and resources. Shameful attempt at self glorification. Might as well be a golden calf. More harm than good (actually, ALL HARM and no good).
I am also anti building campaign and actually anti "church membership" all together. The only reason to log member and count heads is either to build yourself up or get SBC funding.
Person 3
. . . , and now abideth faith, hope and charity (usually translated love), and the greatest of these is charity.
First, I have to disagree with Platt for disregarding the Old Testament in his assertion that God does not care about His building. Obviously, God was pretty clear that he wanted His Temple to be pretty spectacular. And as Jesus said, He did not come to destroy the Old, but to fulfill it. That being said, it is also very obvious that Christ did not care one bit about earthly wealth or even earthly comforts. After all, our “treasures” are to be in Heaven, not on this earth. If you follow the “treasures in Heaven” line to its ultimate end, then I would assume that all good Christians should give away all they own and live as Christ did, with “no place to lay his head.” However, if this is correct, I have to wonder why Abraham, David and Solomon are held in such high regard even though, according to most historians, they were some of the richest men to ever live (adjusted for inflation.)
I do not think that the stories of the Old Testament are to be ignored, nor do I think they are there to confuse us. I think they are there to introduce us to the Christ, and to give us examples of how to live a godly life. We do not have to be perfect (David.). We do not have to possess a special talent (Moses.) We do not have to be brave (Jonah.) We do not have to be smart (Gideon.) We do not have to be rich (John the Baptist.), and we do not have to be poor (Solomon.) We just have to love God, and seek to do his will.
I believe that prosperity to the Christian is very much like protestant denominations; different strokes for different folks. Some can handle wealth, while some cannot. Some are happy living a sparse and frugal life, while some prefer comforts and things. As long as we love God and are seeking to do His will, we can expect Him to guide us on to the path He has chosen for us.
I think it is a socialist view to categorize the wealthy as bad. In the United States, the wealthy overwhelmingly provide more in taxes than the poor and middle classes combined. This means that they also are responsible for most of the food stamps, welfare and other freebies that the poor love so much. I am sure that the same is true in the Church (and other charitable giving.) I just heard today that Mitt Romney paid $3,000,000 in taxes in 2010. He also gave $3,000,000 to charity the same year. I have no idea, but I bet Mr. Romney attends a large (big building) church (I know, he is a Mormon.)
It is harder for a rich man to enter Heaven, but not impossible. It is harder for a mega-church to stay pure in its actions, but not impossible. I would like to know the “cost per member” and “charity per member” averages for several churches. I bet that the bigger the church, the lower the cost and higher the charity. But I do not know.
Person 4
My thoughts on this are to be taken with the certainty that they are not the purist of thoughts, as is the case with any of my thoughts! J But given that, here are still some of my thoughts.
To begin, thinking of the idea of worship, it is my understanding that worship of God is an opportunity all the saints have 24/7, 365 days/year – not just something that can only be done for 2 or 3 select hours once or twice a week in a dedicated building for worship. I think worshipping God is very close kin to serving Him. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for saints to assemble together is that they get equipped to better serve or worship Him in the circumstances of their lives, and in the choices they make in directing their lives. And I think true worship of the Lord occurs when the members of His spiritual body involve themselves with the things that Christ Himself is doing today through His members, motivated by love and appreciation for Him since they have received as their personal salvation His payment for and putting away of the sin and sins of the whole world, by His death of the cross and resurrection.
I think building a building can be worship of God - it really depends on the counsels of the hearts (1Co.4:5) of the builders, concerning their motives.
Since the saints themselves are collectively & individually the temple or house of God, where God through His Spirit actually resides; & He “dwelleth not in temples made with hands”; I can’t see how God really has a great degree of care what the structure looks like, where the saints might assemble to get better equipped to worship Him.
To me, the more emphasis in one’s mind about the looks of the place, the more emphasis on thinking that is counter to true worship. For we are to “walk by faith, not by sight” aren’t we? And to look not at the things which are seen, which are temporal, but at the things which are not seen, which are eternal? I think there’s no question that God looks not at the outward appearance, but on the heart instead.
By the inherent nature of the issue, people that are attracted to attend a place because of its beauty or magnificence, are people that are placing emphasis on the wrong things in their heart (lust of the flesh? & I know this is in all of us) where the goal of edification in the Lord’s things are concerned. Anything valued above the goal of growth in the things of the Lord is probably detrimental to our edification in Christ (again, this natural bias is unfortunately in all of us!). Unless a premium is placed on the value of truth, I think improper motives will inherently be involved in choosing a church. And I think churches that compromise the truth in one area to get the numbers up, will probably be more prone to do so in other doctrinal areas to keep the numbers up, because the building & expansion funds . . . .
“But let’s first get them in, then we’ll teach them truth they would not have gotten if they weren’t here.”
Well, I just believe that if someone wants to know the truth, God will send someone (a “preacher”: Ro.10:15 understanding that a “preacher” is any one that proclaims the gospel – not a “man of the cloth”) with the truth. The one God sends will have been equipped to serve (worship?) in that capacity. Did he have to get so equipped by membership in a mega-church?
Did Paul, Barnabus, Silas, Titus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junia, Priscilla, Aquilla, Apollos?
Did John the Baptist, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Matthew, James #2, Simon, Matthias or Justus?
(See 2Tim.2:2)
I posed the question to a couple of people much smarter than me and got the following responses. Which one do you agree with if any? What are your thoughts?
Person 1
The first Christians, indeed before they were actually called Christians, met in homes. Some fellow Christians maintain we should still only have “house churches” even today. They feel there are many advantages to meeting in the homes of other Christians and once the Body exceeds some small number (15 – 30 is the size that has been advocated by some Christians I’ve spoken with) we lose our corporate contact with The Spirit. To meet as a body in a house church setting is fine and I would not dissuade anyone that sees this as best for them from doing so. Conversely, I have a problem when someone tries to convince others that meeting in a structure built primarily for corporate worship (a church building) is not God’s best for The Church. There are many advantages to derive in economies of scale. So perhaps it would be instructive to consider why did the early Christians meet in homes?
One of the main reasons from the outset was because they couldn’t meet where they had been meeting before. Since most early Christians were Jews first, they had been meeting in the temple or synagogue. They were prohibited from meeting in those places for Christian worship. Another aspect of this is fear of punishment. As Jews, they were subject to the death penalty or at the very least the loss of their livelihood by declaring themselves to be Christians. Certainly in a number of places, that is the case even today. One of my Christian brothers has a son and daughter-in-law serving as missionaries in a Muslim country. They are forbidden from meeting for Christian services and would be expelled from the country or killed if exposed as Christians. They currently meet with a few Christian converts in the home of someone to worship.
How did the construction of church buildings first arise? Meeting in homes became problematic. We see one of the problems when the apostles instruct the body to select seven men to serve as deacons. The body was growing larger. As a result the body most likely grew so large it outstretched the capacity of all but the largest of homes to accommodate. While it isn’t explicitly described in scripture, it isn’t difficult to imagine the conflicts, the issues arising as a body of believers sought some place to worship together. Certainly when the 3,000 souls accepted Christ in Acts 2:41; the Christians present were praising Him. Perhaps then Peter turned to Robbie or Person 1 or whoever was hosting the next church worship service and asked about the size of their home. My house would not hold 300, let alone 3,000.
They had been worshiping together in a “church” building as Jews or pagans; so why not worship together in a church building as Christians? After all, what is a church but “The Lord’s House”? I have a difficult time criticizing someone for desiring to worship in a clean, warm, dry, safe place with fellow believers.
Where it seems we encounter problems is when we allow the building and not The Body to become our focus. That is, rather than focusing on how to design the building to meet the varied needs of The Body, we allow the focus to be primarily about how beautiful, lavish and impressive the building can be to everyone. Do all the implements of the church need to be all about how impressive they can be? An exaggeration of this point would be installing recliners for everyone in the worship center. There needs to be a balance between creating a useful, functional, purposeful structure to meet the needs of the local body with reaching out and meeting the needs of those who are hurting and in need.
Regarding spending lavishly to decorate a building; it is easy to go overboard and easy to be critical. So let David Platt and others be critical. Call church bodies to task for not helping those in need as much as they should. We need those people to be prophets and call to us and help us to not abandon our “first Love”. All the law and the prophets are summed up by “You shall love The Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… and your neighbor as yourself.” – Matthew 22: 36 – 40. I think the question then to keep “at the frontlets” of our heart when we consider how to build a structure to worship Him is, ‘am I loving Him as He would have me to and am I loving my neighbor as myself’?
Person 2
Miserable waste of money and resources. Shameful attempt at self glorification. Might as well be a golden calf. More harm than good (actually, ALL HARM and no good).
I am also anti building campaign and actually anti "church membership" all together. The only reason to log member and count heads is either to build yourself up or get SBC funding.
Person 3
. . . , and now abideth faith, hope and charity (usually translated love), and the greatest of these is charity.
First, I have to disagree with Platt for disregarding the Old Testament in his assertion that God does not care about His building. Obviously, God was pretty clear that he wanted His Temple to be pretty spectacular. And as Jesus said, He did not come to destroy the Old, but to fulfill it. That being said, it is also very obvious that Christ did not care one bit about earthly wealth or even earthly comforts. After all, our “treasures” are to be in Heaven, not on this earth. If you follow the “treasures in Heaven” line to its ultimate end, then I would assume that all good Christians should give away all they own and live as Christ did, with “no place to lay his head.” However, if this is correct, I have to wonder why Abraham, David and Solomon are held in such high regard even though, according to most historians, they were some of the richest men to ever live (adjusted for inflation.)
I do not think that the stories of the Old Testament are to be ignored, nor do I think they are there to confuse us. I think they are there to introduce us to the Christ, and to give us examples of how to live a godly life. We do not have to be perfect (David.). We do not have to possess a special talent (Moses.) We do not have to be brave (Jonah.) We do not have to be smart (Gideon.) We do not have to be rich (John the Baptist.), and we do not have to be poor (Solomon.) We just have to love God, and seek to do his will.
I believe that prosperity to the Christian is very much like protestant denominations; different strokes for different folks. Some can handle wealth, while some cannot. Some are happy living a sparse and frugal life, while some prefer comforts and things. As long as we love God and are seeking to do His will, we can expect Him to guide us on to the path He has chosen for us.
I think it is a socialist view to categorize the wealthy as bad. In the United States, the wealthy overwhelmingly provide more in taxes than the poor and middle classes combined. This means that they also are responsible for most of the food stamps, welfare and other freebies that the poor love so much. I am sure that the same is true in the Church (and other charitable giving.) I just heard today that Mitt Romney paid $3,000,000 in taxes in 2010. He also gave $3,000,000 to charity the same year. I have no idea, but I bet Mr. Romney attends a large (big building) church (I know, he is a Mormon.)
It is harder for a rich man to enter Heaven, but not impossible. It is harder for a mega-church to stay pure in its actions, but not impossible. I would like to know the “cost per member” and “charity per member” averages for several churches. I bet that the bigger the church, the lower the cost and higher the charity. But I do not know.
Person 4
My thoughts on this are to be taken with the certainty that they are not the purist of thoughts, as is the case with any of my thoughts! J But given that, here are still some of my thoughts.
To begin, thinking of the idea of worship, it is my understanding that worship of God is an opportunity all the saints have 24/7, 365 days/year – not just something that can only be done for 2 or 3 select hours once or twice a week in a dedicated building for worship. I think worshipping God is very close kin to serving Him. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for saints to assemble together is that they get equipped to better serve or worship Him in the circumstances of their lives, and in the choices they make in directing their lives. And I think true worship of the Lord occurs when the members of His spiritual body involve themselves with the things that Christ Himself is doing today through His members, motivated by love and appreciation for Him since they have received as their personal salvation His payment for and putting away of the sin and sins of the whole world, by His death of the cross and resurrection.
I think building a building can be worship of God - it really depends on the counsels of the hearts (1Co.4:5) of the builders, concerning their motives.
Since the saints themselves are collectively & individually the temple or house of God, where God through His Spirit actually resides; & He “dwelleth not in temples made with hands”; I can’t see how God really has a great degree of care what the structure looks like, where the saints might assemble to get better equipped to worship Him.
To me, the more emphasis in one’s mind about the looks of the place, the more emphasis on thinking that is counter to true worship. For we are to “walk by faith, not by sight” aren’t we? And to look not at the things which are seen, which are temporal, but at the things which are not seen, which are eternal? I think there’s no question that God looks not at the outward appearance, but on the heart instead.
By the inherent nature of the issue, people that are attracted to attend a place because of its beauty or magnificence, are people that are placing emphasis on the wrong things in their heart (lust of the flesh? & I know this is in all of us) where the goal of edification in the Lord’s things are concerned. Anything valued above the goal of growth in the things of the Lord is probably detrimental to our edification in Christ (again, this natural bias is unfortunately in all of us!). Unless a premium is placed on the value of truth, I think improper motives will inherently be involved in choosing a church. And I think churches that compromise the truth in one area to get the numbers up, will probably be more prone to do so in other doctrinal areas to keep the numbers up, because the building & expansion funds . . . .
“But let’s first get them in, then we’ll teach them truth they would not have gotten if they weren’t here.”
Well, I just believe that if someone wants to know the truth, God will send someone (a “preacher”: Ro.10:15 understanding that a “preacher” is any one that proclaims the gospel – not a “man of the cloth”) with the truth. The one God sends will have been equipped to serve (worship?) in that capacity. Did he have to get so equipped by membership in a mega-church?
Did Paul, Barnabus, Silas, Titus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junia, Priscilla, Aquilla, Apollos?
Did John the Baptist, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Matthew, James #2, Simon, Matthias or Justus?
(See 2Tim.2:2)
Monday, December 19, 2011
Passing the PE Exam
Have you ever had that one thing in life that you couldn't do that made you feel like a loser? Even though you busted your tail attempting it? Even though you had been striving for that moment for the better part of a decade?
I'm not good with failure. I don't like people who are. Sure, you learn a lot from failure, but failing, is not to be respected. It is to be avoided. It is a plague. It is for the weak. It is for those that didn't work hard enough. To me, if you busted your tail and did everything to the best of your abilities, you would never fail. My thoughts were changed in that area when it came to having kids.
Concerning the PE exam, I was confident though. I could honestly say, I don't think anyone worked harder to pass that exam that I had. I posted about that here. I failed. Then, I failed again. Then, I wrote this demoralizing post here. Then I did something I couldn't believe. I passed.
I couldn't believe it. I still can't. Since that first disappointment, I hadn't let myself believe I could actually pass. I had resigned myself to failure. I still wonder if my name got mixed up. I dreamed of this moment since I was a kid and idolized those engineers with the P.E. behind their name. Now I can do that. Crazy to think.
P.S. In case you were wondering, Becca wanted to open the letter up when it came in the mail, but I wouldn't let her. I made her bring the letter to Mt. Fugi, where we were eating that night. I opened it and had to reread it to make sure I didn't misunderstand it. We celebrated like crazy people over in the corner.
I'm not good with failure. I don't like people who are. Sure, you learn a lot from failure, but failing, is not to be respected. It is to be avoided. It is a plague. It is for the weak. It is for those that didn't work hard enough. To me, if you busted your tail and did everything to the best of your abilities, you would never fail. My thoughts were changed in that area when it came to having kids.
Concerning the PE exam, I was confident though. I could honestly say, I don't think anyone worked harder to pass that exam that I had. I posted about that here. I failed. Then, I failed again. Then, I wrote this demoralizing post here. Then I did something I couldn't believe. I passed.
P.S. In case you were wondering, Becca wanted to open the letter up when it came in the mail, but I wouldn't let her. I made her bring the letter to Mt. Fugi, where we were eating that night. I opened it and had to reread it to make sure I didn't misunderstand it. We celebrated like crazy people over in the corner.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The Opry
As proof that sometimes an unfortunate situation turns out in the end to be better than you could have hoped:
A couple of months ago (June I think it was) we were all set to go to the Country Video Music Awards. A friend from high school that works in the industry had secured us some tickets. All the popular acts were performing. I let that be Rebecca's mother's day gift (with mini-shopping spree and stay in Nashville for the night). She was so excited. The guaranteed tickets turned out to be not so guaranteed. One person depends on someone else to do with they say they can do and . . . Day after day, we were supposed to get word that the tickets were in hand, but on the day of the show, we still didn't have a final answer. I went to work, hoping that we would be able to leave early to head up to the show. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. The tickets never came. We watched the awards live from home that night.
Fast forward to two weeks ago. That friend asked if we wanted to see Carrie Underwood at the Opry. Uhh, yes! And we would be able to go backstage. Yes!!! And also performing were Brad Paisley and Alabama. Rebecca was ready to plant a sloppy one on her for that.
So, we headed out. Rebecca shopped at Cool Springs. We ate at Carabba's. Then, we went to the Opry! After 30 minutes trying to find the backstage entrance, we arrived. I've seen this famous backdrop for years. It was surreal being on the stage where so many of the great ones have played.
A couple of glimpses of the backstage area:
Johnny and June!
We were allowed to sit on the actual stage. That was pretty amazing! As you can see, first up was Little Jimmy Dickens! I think I eclipsed him in height just after my 4th birthday.
Carrie Underwood came in on the other side of the stage.
So, we did what you would expect we would do. We went to the other side of the stage and stood there to be the first people she saw when she came off stage!
I'm not judging, but it seems Carrie purposely tried to avoid her backstage fans by coming in on the other side of the stage (every other act came in on the right side while she came in on the left). She was more than gracious though when Rebecca was speaking with her.
We moved back over to the other side of the stage to watch Brad Paisley and Alabama. That was pretty awesome!
Brad Paisley was pretty amazing. He took the time to listen to one lady's story for 10 minutes, making her feel like she was the only person in the world. He seemed to make everyone feel that way. He took a picture with both of us.
I'm so thankful for the experience of a lifetime.
A couple of months ago (June I think it was) we were all set to go to the Country Video Music Awards. A friend from high school that works in the industry had secured us some tickets. All the popular acts were performing. I let that be Rebecca's mother's day gift (with mini-shopping spree and stay in Nashville for the night). She was so excited. The guaranteed tickets turned out to be not so guaranteed. One person depends on someone else to do with they say they can do and . . . Day after day, we were supposed to get word that the tickets were in hand, but on the day of the show, we still didn't have a final answer. I went to work, hoping that we would be able to leave early to head up to the show. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. The tickets never came. We watched the awards live from home that night.
Fast forward to two weeks ago. That friend asked if we wanted to see Carrie Underwood at the Opry. Uhh, yes! And we would be able to go backstage. Yes!!! And also performing were Brad Paisley and Alabama. Rebecca was ready to plant a sloppy one on her for that.
So, we headed out. Rebecca shopped at Cool Springs. We ate at Carabba's. Then, we went to the Opry! After 30 minutes trying to find the backstage entrance, we arrived. I've seen this famous backdrop for years. It was surreal being on the stage where so many of the great ones have played.
A couple of glimpses of the backstage area:
Johnny and June!
We were allowed to sit on the actual stage. That was pretty amazing! As you can see, first up was Little Jimmy Dickens! I think I eclipsed him in height just after my 4th birthday.
Carrie Underwood came in on the other side of the stage.
So, we did what you would expect we would do. We went to the other side of the stage and stood there to be the first people she saw when she came off stage!
I'm not judging, but it seems Carrie purposely tried to avoid her backstage fans by coming in on the other side of the stage (every other act came in on the right side while she came in on the left). She was more than gracious though when Rebecca was speaking with her.
We moved back over to the other side of the stage to watch Brad Paisley and Alabama. That was pretty awesome!
Brad Paisley was pretty amazing. He took the time to listen to one lady's story for 10 minutes, making her feel like she was the only person in the world. He seemed to make everyone feel that way. He took a picture with both of us.
I'm so thankful for the experience of a lifetime.
Monday, October 3, 2011
When to Quit
“A winner never quits, and a quitter never wins.”
Is this true? I think not.
I've quit many things before: (1) Soccer after one year. I now think it is a communist plot to take over the United States (only half joking here). (2) Karate - after about six months. I was a pudgy kid. Husky and Tae-Kwon-Do don't mix. (3) Jobs - 3 of them to be exact. For one reason or another, they weren't the right fit.
Is this true? I think not.
I've quit many things before: (1) Soccer after one year. I now think it is a communist plot to take over the United States (only half joking here). (2) Karate - after about six months. I was a pudgy kid. Husky and Tae-Kwon-Do don't mix. (3) Jobs - 3 of them to be exact. For one reason or another, they weren't the right fit.
My point is, there is a certain skill that goes along with quitting. I was never going to be a world renowned soccer player or karate chopper (I really don't know what you call these people, but chopper sounded good).
That being said, I don't take defeat lying down. I've busted my tail throughout life to keep trying no matter how much heartache and money it took to have children, graduate within 2.5 years from college, and get promoted at work.
I just wonder, though. Is there a skill to quitting things at the proper time? This discussion led me to think so (The basis for this blog). It discusses how baseball players who get drafted (a dream of mine since I was a kid) have only an 11% shot at making the big leagues and often drain away 10 of their prime earning potential years without an education, making $20k-$24k/year. At some point, don't you have to say to yourself, "Am I ever going to make it?"
That leads me to the PE Exam, which I will attempt again in a few short weeks. This is my third time trying the exam. It does almost nothing for me career wise. My only goal in passing it is to fulfill a goal I've had since I was in high school. I was working for a company doing CAD drafting (engineering drawings) and looked up to those guys with "PE" after their names. I decided that after college, I would try to get my PE license.
Now, I don't do much Engineering work. I've tried twice now; devoting more than 10 months of studying (over 300 hours) the first year (Read post on it here). Last year, I developed a glossary of terms spanning over 15 books. The size 5 font text covered 300 pages by the time I was through. I studied for 3 months, devoting an hour a day until the exam. The result: another failure.
Maybe it is time for me to let that dream ride off in the sunset? Maybe I'm just kidding myself to think I could ever pass it (note, it is incredibly hard. The first year, no one in the state of Alabama passed the Metallurgical PE exam). Maybe . . .
But you know what they say. . . "Third times a charm".
I guess they also say. . . "Three strikes and you're out".
We'll see.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Rules: A Life/Political Commentary
I was having a political discussion with a coworker the other
day while we drove back from lunch. He
tried telling me that our government should operate off a “living, breathing
Constitution”. This is just another way
of saying that we don’t believe that the Constitution is good enough for us anymore. I explained to him that politicians who
believe this have steered us off the cliff this nation is currently nose-diving
down.
He looked over, and I was driving 82 in a 70. He pointed this out to me as an example that even
I break the rules I hold dear. But, this
further corroborated my point. I drive 82
in a 70 because I have taken a calculated risk.
I drive these roads every day. I know
that:
The probability I will meet a cop (5%)
X
The probability the cop will have his radar on (60%)
X
The probability I won’t be able to slow down quick enough
(50%)
X
The probability the cop feels like taking the time to write
a ticket (50%)
=
< 1%.
And then I realized something very important that may seem
absolutely obvious to you (and to be honest, in a sense, was to me too). When we don’t enforce the rules, people break
the rules.
I don’t advocate this, but if cops were stationed every ¼ miles
and people were executed on the spot for speeding just 1 mile an hour over the
speed limit, how many speeders do you think we would have on the road? What’s that?
Zero? Ok.
Let’s relate that to our political analogy.
We don’t follow the Constitution anymore because there is no
penalty for failure to do so. The citizens
are too busy with their lives and too apathetic towards the future of our
country to worry about something as pesky as the Constitution (like this politician). We don’t hold the politicians accountable.
You come into work 15 minutes late virtually every day
because you have been doing it for a year and no one says anything to you about
it. Then you get fired.
Your husband doesn’t take out the garbage because, when he
forgets, you do it and he knows he can “depend” on you to take up his
slack. More recently you notice he “forgets”
more often.
Your kids don’t budge when you tell them you are going to
spank them for doing something wrong because they know it takes you at least
three warnings to do anything.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a libertarian. Although I don’t personally agree with them, I
would legalize drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage if I were elected. I don’t believe the government has a right to
tell you how to live your life or how to raise your family or what you should
eat. Rules are but a necessary evil in the
worst of scenarios. However, the fact that
we don’t enforce the rules we had in place from the beginning is the reason we
have faltered. For God’s sake, READ the
Constitution.
Just in case you were interested in the discussion with my
coworker, I had this to say in a follow up email later in the day:
The role of the federal government is outlined in Article 1
of the Constitution (for the full text, go here).
The full list of what congress can do is below.
Everything outside of that specific list is found in
Amendment 10 of the Constitution, here: “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.” “It” means the
Constitution. The statement, “nor prohibited by it to the States” means
“unless the States are specifically forbidden from this via the
Constitution”. Therefore, the statement reads that the powers of the
Federal government are limited to only the powers given in the
Constitution. Anything outside of that is the right of the States of even
lower down the line, to the communities or the people themselves.
The entire goal in writing out specific roles of the federal
government and not doing so with the States or the people was to put the
government as close to the people as possible. The Federal government
should ONLY be involved in the things listed and those are things the states
should not or could not do themselves (coin money, maintain an Army, etc.).
Do you see my point?
Role of the Federal Government
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises,
to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of
the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall
be uniform throughout the United States;
·
To
borrow money on the credit of the United States;
· To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
· To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
· To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
· To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
· To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
· To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
· To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
· To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
· To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
· To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
· To provide and maintain a Navy;
· To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
· To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
· To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
· To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
· To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
· To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
· To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
· To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
· To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
· To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
· To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
· To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
· To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
· To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
· To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
· To provide and maintain a Navy;
· To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
· To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
· To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
· To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
· To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)