swords into plowshares

Like most people, I enjoy it when smart people agree with my viewpoints. In a previous post, I express my distaste for our president's actions after 9/11. Mr. Bush called for national vengeance. I believe a true leader would have called for repentance.

I suspect that hidden within our president's call to vengeance is the conviction that God is on our side. We're America, dammit. We're the land of the free. We're one nation UNDER GOD. Surely God is on our side.

The people of Crossings, a Christian organization started in by two seminary professors, remind us that just because we're Americans doesn't mean God is required to be with us.

But if God does bless America, then He can do the opposite. And the story of the OT, the Revelation to John, the hope of the prophets and the promise of the psalms is indeed that the Lord controls the fate of nations, bringing low and raising up, making both weal and woe. So, even though the attack is not proof of God's disfavor against the USA, we would be guilty of the broadest obtuseness and biblical ignorance if we do not at least ask ourselves whether God may have specific cause to be against us. Can you think of any? Given the centers of attack, we could begin looking at our role in world trade and in military affairs. Again, to ask the question is not to have a prejudice in favor of a positive answer. But if we suspect that the answer may be positive, then it would be first of all up to those who believe that God wants to turn His judgment into mercy to begin the repenting, inviting others to join in.

I am one of the crazy people who believes in the positive answer--we, as a nation, have plenty of sins worthy of repentance. And as one who believes with all his heart that God does indeed want to turn God's judgment into mercy, I intend to begin the repenting, and I invite all whom are willing to join in.

For the entire essay quoted above, click here.
For Crossings' website, click here.

blessings,
the preacher

my whisk(e)ybiography

This is not my autobiography. It's my whisk(e)ybiography, my journey which will one day lead to whisky nirvana. The 'e' in whisk(e)y is in parens because like any other religious discussion, nobody can agree. The Scots spell 'whisky,' the Americans 'whiskey'. Makers Mark is an exception, they use the Scottish spelling.

While attending college, I lived with ShoeBlog. Before honouring me with his presence as a roomie, he lived in Scotland for a while, where he acquired a taste for fine scotch whisky. After hearing him rave and rant about the mystical qualities of scotch, I gave in and coughed up 50 bucks, and he went and bought a bottle for us to share. Of course, he suggested I might need a guide for my virgin scotch experience. He graciously volunteered. After spending considerable money and time at the liquor store, he brought back a bottle of Dalwhinnie. I took a sip, and thanks to my guide, I was home.

Now, first things first. Shoe - you suckered me. I figure you ran your mouth about scotch every chance you could because you figured I'd eventually fork out the money to buy a bottle. Well done, my friend.

Anyway, for a year or two I drank nothing but scotch. Then I joined the real world and realized most people can't consistently spend 50 dollars on a bottle of nerve-soother. I had a nasty habit which was costing me too much money. It seemed there were two options: 1) quit drinking. 2) Find something cheaper. Number one seemed more like a really bad idea than an option, so I set out to find something cheaper. My girlfriend (now wife) suggested I try Jack Daniels. She said her father and brothers all drank it. So I gave it a shot.

If fine scotch is beef carpaccio with capers, manchego cheese and radish, good whiskey is ribeye steak. Good Scotch is intricate, delicate, complicated, nuanced. Good whiskey is simple and straight forward, without any frills. I like to be wowed by elegant presentation and preparation at fine restaurants, with the skill of something delicate like carpaccio. But damn, if a home cooked ribeye right off the grill doesn't hit the spot, too.

I drank jack for sevaral years, and not much else, except on special occasions, when I'd drag out a fine bottle of single malt, preferably Lagavulin.



Then something happened which would have made Uncle Jack furious. The folks at Jack Daniels decided to lower the proof of their signature whiskey.

Now, 3% less alcohol isn't going to make or break my night, but the whole thing bothers me. Mind you, I'm a bit of a purist. I think the DH in baseball is a terrible idea. So I'm a bit pissed Jack lowered their proof. I'm suspicious their press release, "We researched it and decided the majority of people wanted a less potent drink" is a big line of bull. What's really going on is that they remembered water doesn't cost anything.

In light of Jackgate '04, I decided to branch out and try some others. I've landed on Makers Mark, a traditional Kentucky bourbon. Curious about the difference between Tennessee Whiskey and Bourbon? Check out this page.

So that's my whisk(e)ybiography, at least to date. Happy drinking everyone.

early retirement

While on vacation, I picked up the latest GQ, a magazine I've never read before. I was entertained by most of the articles in the magazine, so I'm thinking about getting a subscription.

A piece in this month's edition is titled "The (very) Early Bird." It's written by a 28 year old single man who got laid off, and then decided to move into a retirement community to see what retirement holds. "I started thinking. What's going to happen if I finally get to retirement and it sucks?"

Since I can't find the article online, I'll reprint in full a paragraph I found most enlightening:

I've found that once retirees retire, it's not uncommon for them to want to unretire. They've made it past the initial stages of adjustment, and now they're experiencing the onset of restlessness, not to mention residual guilt because they do nothing productive all day long. Doris, who works as a clerk in the Century Village clubhouse, as unretired three times already. "Every time I retire, I realize I'm not happy doing nothing." she says. "So I get a job."

So if retired people aren't happy being retired, why don't we just allow people aged 22-30 "retire." Then once you turn 30, you start working until you die. Fellow bloghead Jason Coleman first got me started about this idea. The more I think about it, I think he's on to something.

During water cooler conversation at work, some of us dream about starting a new political party, titled "the common sense party." (No decision yet on the mascot)

Here's a sampling of the party platforms: Flat tax. Investement in alternative energy. Balanced budget. No religion in government.

More on the common sense party later. For the time being, however, I'm adding mandatory retirement for all people aged 22-30 to the list. Maybe I'll make a run for office in '08.

vacation

My wife, my daughter, and I returned home today from a 4 night, 5 day vacation. It was much needed. I have been working 70+ hour weeks, and was turning into a monster. I was grumpy, didn't see my daughter but for a couple minutes each morning, and the little sleep I did get was interrupted by dreams about work. Isn't that a bitch? I'd wake up in the middle of the night and realize I had been dreaming about work.

We vacationed in Wisconsin Dells. For those of you not familiar, everybody has been to a place like Wisconsin Dells. It's one of those towns that wouldn't exist if people didn't have kids and need a place to get away for a few days on the cheap. Southern France it's not. But it has plenty to keep children busy. It's the epitome of what father would describe as a "tourist trap."

At this point in my life, I'm not picky about vacation destinations. I've been to Europe, and I'd love to go back. My wife and I have vacationed in Puerto Rico, Mexico, Colorado, Maine, San Diego, and Boston. We'd love to travel all over the world, see lots of exotic things, golf in Scotland, sample wine in France, ride camels in Egypt. But for now, with an 18 month old daughter and a tight budget, we're easy to please. We want a place away from home, so the normal distractions of life don't interfere. We want easy entertaining for our daughter. And if there are cheap drinks/golf/hotels/food/shopping, all the better.

all you can't leave behind

Giddie up

Anyone know what this is a picture of? More to come...

duke sucks

It seems I have some UNC fans reading my blog. Duke sucks.

Many congrats to the national champions of college basketball. I'm a little disappointed in the fans, however. When my school won the college hockey championship, we rioted and burned cars. Wussies.

(Make sure to take a look at the link - it's even got pictures to prove how stupid, er...i mean totally cool, we are.

what i'm drinking

Tonight feels like a knob creek night. I enjoy the knob creek. It reminds me of the old stand-by, makersmark, but with a smoother, sweeter finish.

Some of my other blogging buddies will sometimes tell us what they are listening to, i.e. which mp3 is currently receiving heavy air time in their ipod.
Instead of telling you what I'm listening to, I'll tell you what I'm drinking, i.e. which amber liquid is receiving heavy air time in my favorite tumbler.

blogging in iraq

The Star Tribune has a reporter in Iraq who is blogging about his experiences.

dear mr. bush

Mr. President Bush,

My wife voted for you twice. I know you're not smart with the math, so I guess I should explain. She voted for you in 2000 and in 2004-not twice in the same election. Using the same "new" math, I only voted for you once, but that was four years ago; I've since learned my lesson. Four years ago, I went against my conscience and voted for you because I thought you were an honest, good man, a man of character and integrity. Of course, it didn't hurt that your opponent was a complete moron. And in retrospect, the fact that you lost the popular vote to him does not bode well for your legacy. But I digress...on with the letter.

You began to lose my respect in September 2001. Like most Americans on September 11th, 2001, I was furious. I wanted someone to suffer for their sins. I wanted American jets in the air, and I wanted those jets bombing the hell out of whoever was responsible. I did not want Osama bin Laden "brought to justice." I wanted him dead. Him and whoever worked with him. I wanted vengeance. And it felt good.

I went to bed that night feeling terrible, secretly disgusted with myself. How did such incredible hate so suddenly fill my heart? Yet, I'm sure my thoughts were the thoughts of most Americans. We were pissed and wanted revenge.

I then began to think about what a great leader would do. A true leader would guide the nation not from his/her heart, which would undoubtedly be filled with hate and vengeance, but would guide with wisdom, divorced from emotion. A true leader would call for peace. The hate stops. It stops with us. We have been deeply wronged, but we will not return murder with more murder, killing with more killing, hate with more hate. Instead, we will work to reconcile ourselves with the rest of the world, taking blame when need be.

Our nation needed a leader who would urge the people to "beat swords into plowshares" (Isaiah 2.4). Instead you urged us to beat our plowshares into swords. And you did it, of all places, in a church. On Sept 14, within the walls of the National Cathedral, you proclaimed America's awesome thirst for vengeance. "This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others; it will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing." These words are eloquent, Mr President, and I'd be lying if there wasn't a bit of my own persona which enjoys the idea that we have the power to annihilate our enemies. But need I remind you, the leader of our nation, that power corrupts?
You have made it clear that the "hour of our choosing" will come by means of force, our military might, motivated by desires for vengeance. I want more from a leader. Something much more radical. Violence and war are easy, especially for the most powerful military on earth. Diplomacy, leading by example, and the willingness to forgive without being asked for forgiveness, are much harder, yet much braver.

Did you ever stop to think men could only be angry enough to fly planes into buildings because they've been sinned against? And that we, the most powerful nation on earth, occur a little of that blame? People are angry because they have no hope. We Americans are hated not because we have freedom, but because we have failed to give other people the same hope which we possess. In some way, it's our own fault people hate us. And a war sure as hell ain't going to fix anything.

At the time of this writing, 1,528 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. 11,568 have been wounded. 16,389 civilians have died. Why?

I ask why because I honestly don't know. I'm not a liberal hack. I'm not out to prove you wrong just because you're a republican. I just can't make any sense of it. The common conspiracy theory, we went into Iraq for the oil, doesn't hold water. Gas is now 2.25 a gallon.

In the beginning, we went to war because Iraq was a sponsor of terror. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Going into Iraq was part of the "war on terror." But now we know that's not true.

Then we were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even the most daft among us knows that's not true.

The list of bad reasons for the war is endless. If you'd like a summary of all your lies, check out Eliot Weinberger's piece in the London Review of Books.

Mr President, you seem like a fairly religious chap. I respect this about you. I too am deeply religious. Furthermore, I don't think you are wrong to rely on your faith to guide you. I actually think this is a healthy quality to have. I don't think you are wrong to have deeply held religious convictions. This too, I think, is healthy.

The problem, as I see it, is that we have deep disagreements about what our religion, Christianity, teaches.

You seem to think God cares about whether or not homosexuals can marry. As a Protestant, I assume you derive this from scripture alone. Here we disagree. Strongly. I maintain the bible has little, if anything, to say about same sex marriage (If you'd like a full explanation of my biblical analysis please respond to this letter, and I'll go into more depth). In constrast, I fervently declare that the bible offers us an unified message about how to treat widows, orphans, and the poor. But that message is much inconvenient for you, isn't it? The bible offers us a description of how "easy" it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom or heaven (as easy as a camel passing through the eye of a needle). Would you consider yourself rich, Mr President? For your sake, I hope you can thread your body through the eye of a needle.

I don't mean to oversimpfy things (like you so often do), but are judges only "activist" when they rule against your liking? You think we need a constitutional amendment to declare marraige as a union between one man and one woman. You think an amendment is neccessary because activist judges are ruling otherwise. In 2000, you were declared president due in large part because of a ruling by the judges of the supreme court. I'm assuming you wouldn't dare label them as "activist." But the judges who rule in favor of granting universal rights to men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, are "activist?" Damn those activist judges, trying to ensure we continue in our belief that "all men are created equal."

How are you and Dick getting along?

In reference to Terry Schiavo, you said that we are a nation which "errs on the side of life." But during your reign as governor of Texas, 150 people were executed. This includes the execution of mentally retarded offenders. I know the people on death row have been convicted of heinous crimes. But why not "err on the side of life" for them? After all, in the past 30 years 119 death row inmates have been found innocent and released. It seems your hypocricy knows no bounds.

I wanted to vote for you again, especially considering the knucklehead you were running against. In the end, I took the advice of the Economist, and voted for incoherence (Kerry) rather than incompetence (you). I want to like you, Mr President, but I can not. Maybe we can work our differences over a round of golf and a beer sometime. I'd know I'd like that. In the meantime, I beg you to take seriously your pledge on Nov 3, when you spoke after hearing your opponent had conceded the election. You pledged to be the President of all Americans. That goes for me too, Mr President. I did not vote for you. I think you are incompetent. I beg you to prove me wrong.

pretend like nobody is reading

From How to Blog, by Tony Pierce:
"if you havent written about sex, religion, and politics in a week youre [sic] probably playing it too safe."

From here on out, I'm taking Tony's advice. I'm going write as if nobody is reading this. I promise to write what I really think.

irish is a state of mind

I know, St. Patrick's day was two weeks ago. Better late than never. Did you know St. Patrick was one of the original apostles? Skeptical? Here's the proof.

preachin' whiskey

Whiskey reviews. Religious discussions. What's the connection? Jack Daniels, or course.

Jack Daniels was first distilled by a minister. I choose to accept the tale as true, though I acknowledge the possibility that it's just clever marketing campaign. Isn't the same true for many thoughtful religious people? Many people of faith, including myself, accept their religious traditions as true, yet in the back of their minds wonder if it's all just a crafty bit of marketing.

And then, when it's least expected, every once in a while, someone gets lucky and stumbles upon something new, something without a marketing campaign, and the soul searcher feels at home. So it is with religious quests. We search for the answers which can be bought without a sexy marketing pitch.

Here again, the world of whiskey and religion collide. People of faith desire truth without a sales pitch. People of whiskey do too. Witness George Dickel Tennessee Whisky. Like Jack Daniels, George Dickel is Tennessee Wiskey. George Dickel, however does not need a sexy marketing campaign.

scalia revisited

My blogging buddy timbu has posted a response to my take on the death penalty. I deeply appreciate his post, mostly because we do not agree, yet he disagrees in such a way that makes me wish we did. His writing reminds me of something blatantly missing from our country's present policical arena. Intead of respectful debate, we're forced to observe desruptive polemical politicians. And they wonder why much of the country is so apathetic.

I'd also like to aplaud timbu for his courage. His post is the "most incendiary thing" he's ever written in his blog. I'm quickly learning how hard it is to be completely honest when writting these blogs. Mostly, we're probably afraid of rejection...maybe we're just scared. We're scared of what I'd describe as "cognitive nakedness" - exposing our innermost thoughts for all to read.

Sometime in the near future I'll post a more formal reply to timbu's take on the supreme court's latest death penalty decision.

Peace,
the preacher

sunday school revisited, part 1

I have big aspirations; today's topic is intended to be the first in a semi-regular series.

Periodically, I hope to present morsels of goodness which will induce a reaction of surprise. For each piece in the series, the common theme intends to be one which should invoke the following reaction: "I sure as hell didn't learn that in Sunday school!"

First, a couple of initial, yet parenthetical, observations:
My religion (Christianity) has many skeletons in the closet. And we Christians are fickle about them. We don't enjoy owning up (nobody does when it comes to matters of faith); we're much more comfortable sweeping sins of our mothers and fathers under the rug, implicitly imagining we've honoured our prescribed penance.

My religion's holy book (the bible) has many strange and unusual writings. And we Christians are fickle about them. We'd much rather pretend they don't exist; instead of accepting the bible as it is, we create a bible of our own, conveniently ignoring the parts which don't jive with the god we've created in our own image.

My intent is not to ridicule my own faith, but to acknowledge some things we Christians often feel uncomfortable talking about (much less thinking about). In doing so, I hope to find the freedom which comes when one laughs at one's self. I find life to be better when taken a bit less seriously; a healthy dose of frivolity certianly can't hurt religious dialogue.

Enough preaching. On with today's "I sure as hell didn't learn that in sunday school!" observation.

In Jeremiah 13, God announces a judgment to God's people. "And if you say in your heart, 'why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated...because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies, I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen" (Jer 13.22,26).

Has your skirt ever been "lifted up" because God was pissed at you? Was this what was really going on in the famous picture of Marilyn Monroe?

whiskey review

Like many of us, when I need to put off doing something important, I surf the web. After reading through some blogs, I often look for websites devoted to a "hobby" of mine: whiskey.

Here's the best I've found so far, complete with suggested poems which pair well with whiskey. Many thanks Dennis.