Great Deeds and Noble Hearts: A Musical Revolution

Remember those stories that had you fill in key words or phrases to create a totally random and hilarious story? It'd typically go something like, "This morning, I woke up to the sound of a     (noun)     while I was dreaming about     (an activity you hate doing)    ..." You would ask a friend to give the your necessary words or phrases without telling him or her the context of the words. When you were finished, you'd read the short story from beginning to end and have a good laugh over it.

I bring this up because I was thinking about what kinds of answers would fill in the blanks if modern popular music provided the answers. Probably something like this:

I was awoken this morning by    tik tok, on the clock, but the party don't stop no   , after a long night of    livin' a Teenage Dream   . I put on my    ripped jeans, skin was showin'    before going downstairs to have some breakfast. Next thing I know, I'm    gonna pop some tags, only got twenty dollars in my pocket   , but before I do, my mom says to me, "   HEYYYY, SEXY LADY!!!!   ".

Ok, maybe this is a silly exercise, so are these lyrics. Although the truth is that you could do this to Shakespeare and he'd look pretty comical, the point is that these are the things were hear from popular music and have been for a very long time.

PSY performing "Gangnam Style"

However, I am sensing a shift in the preferences of a growing portion of today's music lovers, and it's exactly because the younger generations are realizing that life isn't about the instant gratification anymore. They've been there, they've done that for long enough and they're finally over its glamor. So how is this reflected in musical tastes?

Whatever is "popular" appeals to a baser part of our souls. People choose what is "popular" not because it enriches them; rather one chooses what is popular because it is in keeping with the status quo. Since "everyone is doing it", no one is going to criticize or attack your for doing it yourself.

Sometimes, though, this conception of "popular" wavers and falters under the underestimated strength of the human heart. Sometimes, a truthful light shines through and those who are open to it gather around it. I believe that some interesting trends in contemporary can be seen in this way: as encouraging and cultivating inspirations of what we all truly long for in the deepest desires of our hearts.

The first expression of such a longing is in hurt. Artists such as Grace Potter and the Nocturnals and ADELE come to mind here. The primary subject matter of their songs center around themes of sadness, hurt, and loneliness. Broken and shattered amidst the heartbreak in the world, this music expresses confusion and laments, "I often think about where I went wrong, the more I do, the less I know." ("Don't You Remember" - ADELE, click here for full lyrics) Living the disillusioned life has indeed brought about this pain because the indulgence in what is "popular" has promised the maximum pleasure, but only delivers the deepest, cutting pain. This hurt is always present in the shame at who we have become and what we have sacrificed, "'Cause every town's got a mirror and every mirror still shows me, that I am my own ragged company." ("Ragged Company" - Grace Potter and the Nocturnals, click here for full lyrics)

These artists and others have become "popular" because they speak for the hurt and shame that we all have. Their appeal is in their lamenting that we can all identify with. Though it would be a mistake to believe that one day, this is all the world will listen to, this is what a large number of people are gravitating towards because 'misery loves company', and these artists make explicit what lives implicitly in all of our broken souls.

Acknowledgement of one's misery is the first necessary step, but even more imperative is the discover of our innate desire for the good and the willful resolution to obtain it. Florence + the Machine and Mumford & Sons rank among the most popular influences on this genre which encourages people to be "more like the man you were made to be." ("Sigh No More" - Mumford & Sons, click here for full lyrics) It's true, these songs are about pain and hurt, but their defining characteristic is not in complaining to the world about endless woes. Courage is necessary to carry on after being let-down, the ability to pick up the pieces and find peace in carrying on. This kind of music has gained significant popularity because the listener it attracts is "done with [her] graceless heart, so tonight [she's] gonna cut it out and then restart." ("Shake It Out" - Florence + the Machine, click here for full lyrics)

Though we must not fool ourselves into thinking that because a few artists are gaining some traction in popular culture, the whole world will suddenly embrace this truth and desire for the full meaning of our lives, but what I think it does mean is that there is a growing number of people out there who are realizing that their lives have purpose and they are called to acts of heroism and virtue.

A calling to deny those passions that come so easily to us and ascend to lives of greatness and meaning is the heart's true desire. "Party rocking" and living "gangnam style" feed the body, but they leave the soul starving for sustenance. Pop culture is popular and will remain so, as long as it feeds our vices and encourages our lukewarmness. But life's true adventure is proving to ourselves, even when no one is watching, that we were made for great deeds and noble hearts.

Schedule Killed the Action/Adventure Star

I use Google Calendar every day. It's incredibly handy and helpful, and all my appointments and events are on there. With alerts, I can be reminded of events that I might otherwise forget. I have separate calendars for my different kinds of events (birthdays, fitness training, etc.) The plethora of different views allows me to see my schedule in any way I might (or might never) want.

I hate Google Calendar. And any kind of calendar/schedule-maker that is easy to use. If it's easy to use, people will use it, and with calendars and schedule-makers, that just won't do.

The Face of Boredom

When you have a schedule, you subtly believe you know what is going to happen during your day. You set the events of your day and you move from one appointment to the next, one task to the next, and one pre-planned moment to the next. It's true that society could hardly function without schedules, but it's just a cultural symptom of our obsession with productivity and efficiency.

This is bad for two reasons: First, because your day is "planned", nothing new or exciting can happen. You know the sequence of events (in fact, you have determined most of them). You become the ultimate master of your own destiny and therefore, there are no surprises.

Second reason: how mind-numbingly boring is that? The chief problem afflicting our culture today is not poverty, hunger, or filthy interstate rest stops... it's boredom. When we use a schedule to line up every minute detail of their days, weeks, years, and lives, we perpetuate this heinous evil and rob ourselves of engaging stimulation.

Maybe each day feels the same because they ARE the same.
"Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today."

For most people with schedules, each day feels exactly the same. It's like you know what's going to happen tomorrow. In corporate America, a select few people have truly exciting jobs, but for the rest of us, it can be a drudge. If you're expecting  the same unexciting day as yesterday, what are you looking forward to? Tomorrow will come and go, and you might ask yourself why do you really care?

Maybe we like schedules to feel in control of our lives. In an effort to be certain of as many things as possible, we plan our lives as a sequence of calender events and appointment invites. It's like giving someone a wrapped gift that you picked out. They may have no idea what's inside, but you do. For that reason, there is no surprise for you. Imagine always giving people wrapped gifts and never receiving one yourself.

What is this ultimately taking a toll on? Reliance on schedules negatively affects our ability to be spontaneous and adventurous that romantically invaluable skill. Imagination is the heart and soul of spontaneity. A common error is to believe that one must be erratic or impulsive to be spontaneous. However, it is imagination that gives the human soul the agility to be spontaneous. But there are few things that kill imagination, and consequently spontaneity, more than pre-planning your life and relying on rigid structures. Consequently, we become slaves to our schedules, both self-imposed and imposed from the outside.

Spontaneity also has a profound influence on one's courage. When an unexpected opportunity or challenge arrives, our ability to rise to it will be diminished, just because it does not fit into whatever we expected. Life is meant for action, and courage is what enables us to take appropriate action in any circumstance. Without courage, we miss out on life's rewards. Life is not always pre-canned or predetermined, and the most critical moments in life are usually those ones that are not planned or expected. Most of us don't need to chase after tanks on horseback or stop an alien invasion or escape from an island of genetically-engineer dinosaurs to satisfy our spirit of adventure and test our courage (if you do, you might be a fictional character), but that courage and adventurousness needs to be reclaimed.

Seize the moment. Push yourself to heroics. Do not settle for blindly following the established order, and do not be afraid to throw the schedule out and blaze your own trail!

I'll bet Indiana Jones didn't schedule this... and he turned out just fine.

“Smells ‘n Bells” VS “Drums ‘n Chums”

As a Roman Catholic, I have been to many Masses in my lifetime. The majority have been your typical, run-of-the-mill parish Sunday Masses or your quick daily Masses, but I’ve also been to youth Masses, Novus Ordo Latin Masses, Tridentine (Pre-Vatican II) Latin Masses, and even Masses involving people collapsing into tears and wailing after receiving Communion.

That being said, I would like to discuss what I perceive to be two different “styles” of the Holy Mass. The first is one I’ve referred to here as “smells ‘n bells” (which alludes to the frequent use of incense and the bells that are rung at the moment of the Consecration), which one might consider to be orthodox. A Latin Mass is a perfect example of a “smells ‘n bells” Mass, but many vernacular Masses will also neatly fall into this category. Each piece of music is referred to as a “hymn” and the primary instrument is the organ. With these details, I am assured that the reader has been to a Mass of this sort before, so I will not spend any more time on describing it. For brevity’s sake, I will hereafter refer to this as the solemn Mass.

Blessed Pope John Paul II at World Youth Day

Second, there is the style of Mass that I refer to as the “drums ‘n chums” Mass (which refers to the frequent use of rock drums sets and the emphasis on the community of those in attendance). The style is largely attributed to the influence of Blessed Pope John Paul II and his institution of World Youth Day. From what I know of its history, the youth Mass was a method to attract young people who had no firm foundation of faith to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus, its execution is less conservative and of a higher energy. Guitars and drums belt out songs that focus primarily on the greatness of God and worshiping him. I will define this and refer to this as the youth Mass.

Most of the time, the style in which Mass is celebrated is a blend of these two and most people have a preference for one style over another, but it is my perception that a large number of faithful Catholics have strongly critical opinions about one or the other. Of the solemn Mass style, people say that it is too boring which makes it difficult to pay attention. Another frequent complaint is that the priest’s homilies are too difficult to follow or contain content irrelevant to them. Of the youth Mass, common criticisms are that the Mass becomes more like a social hangout spot where kids go to see their friends instead of going to receive Christ. Also, the sign of peace lasts fifteen minutes and everyone is so "touchy-feely".

So which is better? The goal of faith is to increase in it. Ultimately, the more faith we place in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, the better our lives will be and the better life after death will be. Anything that keeps us from increasing our faith must be discarded and a solution to this blockage should be discovered.

It is no mystery to any observant Catholic that generations of Catholics since the 1960’s have been without firm foundations for faith. John Paul II saw this crisis around the entire world, so he began World Youth Day to draw the youth of the world to Christ, and the concept of the youth Mass spun off of that. Had the Church said, “Well, we really can’t do anything for these people because that would involve adapting the Mass and our approach towards apostolate to a degree we’re not comfortable with,” that would have been an obstacle to the Church’s increase in faith, and an evil.

A youth Mass

The youth Mass has to attract young people, while staying true to its purpose. Why is the youth Mass emotionally appealing? For many people with emotional baggage, there are significant obstacles from their past lives that have to be overcome before a deep faith can be achieved. It is OK to be on fire with Christ’s love, after all. Why does the youth Mass seem to place an emphasis on relationship with one another in community? Many people are unaware of the unity of the Body of Christ, made up of the members of the Church. Society encourages individuality and rejects community, so it's very important that people realize that they are part of something bigger and more amazing than just them. Also, emphasizing healthy, virtuous relationships with one another is a step towards fostering a close, loving relationship with Christ.

However, many youth Mass attendees that I have known stop there. They get into a routine of going to youth Mass every Sunday and hearing the music and seeing their friends, but they do not look inward to discover if there is anything more that they’re missing. Truth is, they’re missing 2000 years of Church history and tradition. They could be missing doctrine and teaching on Mary, the lives and writings of the saints, and the other sacraments that are vital to a flourishing life of faith (just to name a few). They stay where they’re at because they are comfortable there and no one tells them otherwise. This is also an obstacle to the Church’s increase in faith, so it is also an evil.

Tridentine Mass

A return to the solemn Mass is the answer. The solemn Mass moves beyond the secularly appealing aspects of the youth Mass and focuses intently on deep theological truths of our faith. These truths are by no means those you would only find in a PhD theology program; rather, they are those deep aspects of Christ, His Mother Mary, and His Church that we are called to contemplate. The solemn Mass removes the guitars, drums, buddies, and girlfriends, and places the individual in a chapel with a monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament, alone in mental prayer and Adoration. Ultimately, the Mass is meant to draw us to Christ and, in doing this, to one another; not the other way around. The Church allows for the secular noise to which we are accustomed with the hopes that in a desire to grow more deeply in faith, we will cast off the training wheels by doing things like spending Holy Hours with the Blessed Sacrament, reciting the Rosary, and going to silent retreats for contemplation.

The solemn Mass fulfills the purpose of the youth Mass. It is a channel through which we may pass in our relationship with Christ that speaks to us in terms that we are initially comfortable with. As our desire to more fully know Christ matures, we must also work to mature our faith and contemplate those deep mysteries of the Divine Love.

Graphic Credits:
catholicseeking.blogspot.com
becketyouth.org

traditioninaction.org

sttimothy.pipertechnology.com

The Culture of Coffee

This post is a portion of a larger untitled work in progress...

I love coffee. Since I was a boy, studying for the Advanced Placement Physics test in high school, my affection for this drink has known no bounds. Through college, it was the muse to my philosophical meanderings and stimulated both thoughtful and humorous conversations between my friends and myself. And in the working world, I greet it every day as the encouragement to welcome both the blessings and challenges of that day, yet to come.

In the past, I have often been accused of “coffee snobbery”. I prefer the term, coffee connoisseur. This term suggests that I respect the history and traditions surrounding coffee, whereas the former term implies that I arrogantly abuse my knowledge of coffee to compensate for my own lack of, shall we say, “beans.” I assure the reader: that is not the case.

As an example of my respect for the traditions surrounding coffee, I bring to your attention a misnomer regarding coffee proper in our culture. When you ask a friend to grab a cup of coffee with you, what you really mean is to grab a latte, an Americano, a mocha, or, saints preserve us, a “frappuccino”. It is very rare that I find myself sitting in a coffeehouse with a cup of freshly-brewed traditional black coffee before me. The above mentioned beverages are actually espresso blends, not made from traditional drip coffee makers.

Though I will be the first to agree that espresso possesses a rich, poignant flavor to it that is not found in regular coffee, it is a dainty European beverage. To me, it is the drink of the high-class and wealthy.  With their menu consisting of either overpriced espresso drinks or “freshly brewed coffee”, your next visit to the nearest Starbucks will either leave you with a small fortune missing from your wallet or a simultaneous regurgitation and loss of bowel control.

While I mention Starbucks, I would be remiss if I refrained from expressing my disdain for the establishment. They either fleece you or they “release” you. But I have disputes with Starbucks on crimes against the culture of coffee.

Starbucks has commercialized the coffeehouse. With their political awareness and patented coffee cup and heat sleeve design, they have infringed upon the peace and warmth that was once the local coffee shop. Starbucks has driven out the truly conscious and thoughtful people and made the coffeehouse into a rabble house of mindless, unimaginative pretenders. It is now considered “trendy” to drink Starbucks coffee, to hold the branded, recycled cup and carry it as a symbol of status, long after the liquid essence is gone. I once asked a man that I knew was a regular Starbucks coffee drinker why he preferred Starbucks coffee.

"It's because I'm sold on the brand." he grinned.

If I manufactured, packaged, and marketed mediocrity, despair, and misery in a buy-one-get-two-free combo pack, would you buy that too?

Among the throngs of people, there is something lonely about sitting in a Starbucks, knowing that maybe a few blocks away, there is another one, exactly like it. There is nothing unique about where you are sitting at this moment. For centuries, coffeehouses have been the source of inspiration for writers, actors, inventors, scientists, and every other occupation. And when one is sitting in a commonplace room that has been replicated in other locations a thousand times over, with overpriced, bitter hot water, and the noisy, zombie rabble, inspiration is very hard to find. I have achieved no manner of peace sitting in a Starbucks.

However, for me, the culture and traditions of coffee are alive wherever I call home. In fact, coffee has become a necessary part of my home. To many, this may sound radical, but coffee has been as integral a part of my history as it has been in all human history. Although the worldly pleasures of drugs, sex, and alcohol beckon temptingly, coffee is my innocent release. It is a necessity to maintain a caffeine habit for many, but I have no habit to maintain. It is just second nature.

The true traditional roots of coffee lie in its reputation as the drink of the working man. It has become a great American tradition in the workplace. Many people consider it just a caffeine fix, but I am sure that those same people would not substitute it with an energy drink. They do not drink it simply for its utility. It is an organic and wholesome stimulant.

Coffee is an agent of relaxation, taste and smell. I would wager that nearly everyone that has experienced the smell of coffee has wanted their kitchen to perpetually smell like a coffeehouse. You imagine yourself just breathing in that toasty aroma every day and feeling comfort. It slows your breathing to a relaxed rhythm; your days begin and end with that calming scent.

In my own experience, coffee stimulates social, intelligent conversation in a leisurely setting. As the smell and taste encourage relaxation, coffee is a catalyst for creating a comfortable atmosphere where friends can come to discuss their thoughts and opinions. Were I ever to become a philosophy teacher, I would have enough coffee in my classroom to give to my students. It turns what could be a boring, uninteresting college requirement lecture into an energetic exchange of ideas, a true search for the truth and right understanding. I could be wrong about this strategy, but at least none of my students would ever fall asleep in class.

Speaking of sleep, I frequently enjoy coffee while listening to classical music. Some might say that there is no other way to listen to classical music without falling asleep from boredom, but they are wrong. There is a true fittingness to this combination.

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, coffee is an intellectual beverage. Scientifically, the caffeine in coffee increases the effectiveness of nervous impulses in the body, making you more alert and quicker to absorb information. Smell, flavor, and chemical composition combine to create an atmosphere of scholarly expedition.

Classical music, as well, is an intellectual experience. If you have not heard of the “Mozart Effect”, look it up. For at least two decades, classical music has been a hot topic in developmental psychology as to whether or not it makes one smarter, more intelligent, or whatever terms they have created to describe the phenomenon. Most people I have spoken with say that they listen to classical music primarily while they are studying… or trying to fall asleep, unfortunately, that was the runner-up usage. Either way, it proves, at least to me, that classical music at least allows one to focus their intellectual efforts and drive out distractions. Combined, coffee stimulates the mind without assaulting it, while classical music stimulates the senses without overloading them. They strike the perfect balance for intellectual pursuits, of which I am very fond.

To conclude, coffee has a long tradition. I do not believe that I invented it; I would not be nearly clever enough to pull that off. But there is a deep integrity and culture behind the simple mug of hot coffee that can be enjoyed in the peace and quiet of the little coffee shop on the corner. With the first sip of the day, you sigh and smile, and it almost sounds like someone nearby is playing the “Morning” piece from Grieg’s Peer Gynt Suite just for you.

Political Philosophy Pt. 3 "The City-State"

Part 3 in a three-part series.

In my previous poli-philo post, I specified that because each human being is capable of a measure of rational activity, they should participate in the political process of an ideal nation. However, a citizen's participation can easily be nullified by a badly established structure of governance. Sure, we claim to strive for a democracy, but is that what the political establishment facilitating?

Aristotle, in his Politics, describes his political establishment in terms of the polis, or rather, "city-state". The polis is comprised of a "downtown" area and the surrounding countryside. The size of the polis is large enough that the people that live in it are self-sufficient, but small enough that every citizen has a reasonable opportunity to know every other citizen. They are capable of feeding, housing, blacksmithing, clothing, and other necessities. They also may have some finer crafts and arts that they could use to trade with other poleis. Each polis would be governed independently from the other poleis, in accordance with that particular peoples' traditions and culture.

Currently, this is not how our political system in the United States appears to work today. The Founding Fathers granted all rights to the States, while giving the federal government only the power to regulate interstate commerce, provide for the national defense, and handle foreign policy. However, even today, that right is stretched to the limits in nationwide decrees on divorce, abortion, business, and in the most recent debate, healthcare. These are all decisions and laws handed down by the federal government and they apply to all states. As a result, most of the power in today's legal and judicial system is wielded by the federal government.

A possible advantage of having a strong central government is that it would make standardization laws among states easier. There is a universality among the states and their governance comes down to a singularity, the federal government. All decisions are made from D.C. and wherever you go, the laws will be uniform.

However, this returns us to my first blog post on the topic of political philosophy, concerning the viability of the philosopher-king. A singularity of power is not what a nation should be governed upon, especially in the vastly dissonant moral atmosphere of modernity. The moral health and character of this singularity will affect the governed body as a whole. If the leadership is sick, then the whole nation is sick.

In more recent times, our democracy has appeared more as an aristocracy (the term "career politicians" springs to mind). As the size of the federal government increases, the power of the federal legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) grows in terms of making federal laws. Political parties have been narrowed down to two groups, Republican and Democrat, and in order to receive any support from your party to win elected office, you must buy into the party's platform. Also, within the judicial system, the term "legislating from the bench" has become a popular phrase in light of many Supreme Court justices handing down decisions that essentially write laws for the whole nation.

But in recent years with the deadlock between entirely contrasting viewpoints, the President has gained legislative power. Nothing is accomplished in Congress's stalemate, so the President passes laws and declares wars without congressional approval. With the legislative branch rendered impotent, our political establishment appears more as a monarchy (or tyranny). Once more, the singularity narrows from the aristocracy (rule of the few) into an monarchy (rule of the one).

This is indeed troubling and worthy of much alarm, especially when 535 members of Congress legislate for over 311 million citizens and even worse when the President gets involved in the legislation process without Congress. So what is the solution?

The answer is to return power to smaller governing entities. Each area is aware of their governing needs, based upon their real-world experience in that area. Being at the "ground level" of a particular territory, whether it be the state or city level, will always be a more advantageous position to gauge the particular challenges of a population than a singular position in Washington DC.

In addition, the elected officials that wield the most power will be those that are of the same background and culture of the population. And a political system that establishes personal acquaintance and knowledge of the elected official is always to be encouraged in order that a citizen might be more informed when selecting those for governing duty.

In essence, this returns our nation from the folly of national political parties and encourages local groups with real concerns for their own community. Aristotle used the polis as a model for governance because it would prove large enough for self-sufficiency, the minimum for a decent living, but also small enough that it might not be encumbered by such extreme vanities and legislative singularities that currently plague our modern nation. Such global governing institutions cannot effectively and properly rule such a vast population. As a result, injustices occur and government is rendered incapable of completing the task it was designed to do: create and enforce laws, designed for the good of the people.

Political Philosophy Pt. 2 "The Social Order"

Part 2 in a three-part series.

Sponsored by Aristotle For Philosopher-King

In the previous post, it was established that the "philosopher-king" was an impractical scenario because in order for it to work, the ruler must be virtuous (lest the monarchy falls into tyranny) and there must be an impartial system in place for choosing his successor (elections and primogeniture have historically proven to be unreliable). And because a proper aristocracy (rule by the few) would be more difficult to establish (not only do you have to find one virtuous man, but you have to find several), it is to democracy we place our hopes.

In establishing democracy, it is necessary to determine who would be considered citizens, allowed to participate in the political process. Aristotle claimed that natural slaves/manual laborers and women were not to participate in the political process because natural slaves/manual laborers did not possess the ability for rational activity and women's rational activity held no authority over their emotional nature. Though I disagree with the end result of Aristotle's argument here, I believe he is only trying to make the best conclusions of what evidence he had.

Those who reject Aristotle's political system more than likely first point out that he believes that some individuals should, by their very nature, be enslaved. Oh horrid ideology! I, on the other hand, believe there is an alternate reading to this and it fits very well into his philosophy. Fact: there are alot of people out in the world who are well-endowed with physical strength but are not very intelligent. Asking the Aristotelian question, "what is the function of these persons?" can give us a decent idea of why Aristotle thinks these individuals should stick to manual labor and not participate in politics: because they're equipped for it and not very good at rational activity. So are there any modern day natural "slaves"? On the blue-collar side, farmers, factory workers, manufacturers, construction workers, etc. On the white-collar-side, interns, IT help desk, call center, etc. (note: these are simply generalities based on general observation; they are by no means scientific laws) These people are not performing jobs that require them to be physically strong, but they may not have the natural rational ability to rise any higher than work at this skill level. All "natural slaves" must be capable of some measure of rational activity because they take direction from their superiors and exhibit understanding of their respective roles.

So are there "natural slaves" that are better with menial tasks and not capable of high amounts of rational activity? Yes. But should these people vote and participate in the political process? If you say, "yes, of course!", ask yourself how many times you've seen people you've considered idiots or morons on the street and thought to yourself "Wow... and that guy's vote counts as much as mine." I have thought this many times myself, but in the end, I believe that "natural slaves" has a right and an obligation to participate in choosing its future because they are capable, by their nature, of rational activity.

As for women, Aristotle made a natural distinction between men and women that was a bit strong. As I've described in another post, there certainly is a distinction between how men and women express themselves: men in logical terms and women in emotional terms. Both are completely human, both can be valid, and both are prone to fault. Aristotle claims that women's reason has no authority over her emotions, but I think that a more accurate, albeit nuanced, representation of his observations is that the persuasive terminology of women is to appeal to emotional relationships. This can be a valid (though not strictly logically valid) form of argumentation because everyone has feelings. Though I don't think that appeals to emotion belong much in political governance, to say that reason has no authority in a woman is very harsh and not a true representation of the factual evidence.

Therefore, should women participate in the political process? Absolutely, because they are capable of rational activity and are free members of society that should have a say in deciding its future.

What's my point here? Hasn't modern thought solved all these problems already? Every citizen gets to vote, including women and uneducated workers. So what's the big deal?

I guess I am trying to rescue Aristotle's political philosophy from being completely disregarded in political discussion. There's a bad habit in modern thought that finds one thing wrong with ancient/medieval philosophy and then decides that it should all be tossed out. (another example is when Descartes threw out Aristotle's physics, including the notion of telos, or "final cause", only because it was not mathematical in basis; therefore, it was considered wrong and useless) That is not honest thought and a discussion misses alot of important ideas without the ancient/medieval approaches.

Political Philosophy Pt. 1 "The Philosopher-King"

Part 1 in a three-part series.

In Book VI of his seminal work, The Republic, Plato writes about the need for philosophers to fill the Guardian role in his utopian society. They will be fit to rule over the rest of the polis because of their wisdom and knowledge obtained in their study of philosophy. His student, Aristotle, wrote in his Politics that only those capable of rational activity should be allowed to participate in the state's politics. Despite modern philosophy's general aversion to confronting the arguments of these two ancient geniuses, there is much to be understood and gained if only we were to follow the reasoning of these honest thinkers. Sure, they made some errors, but I am confident that although I have never met these two in person, they attested to what they observed and described their thoughts without prejudice.

And so begins my first post on political philosophy. It has been a long time in coming, but with the impending election, everyone will more than likely be burned out from all the political talk after the election results come out and no one will be interested in reading this post. (so really, this is a chance that only comes once in 4 years)

First, my political views do not endorse any political party or candidate. Parties typically represent ideologies, which tend to be dangerous, and if a party offers a strict creed of political policies and not some kind of rich, dark beer (like a proper party should), than I'm ultimately not interested. That is not to say that I do not find myself aligning with one party or another; however, that only occurs because a choice must be made if anything resembling my idea of an ideal political atmosphere is to exist.

Second, the persons that have influenced my political philosophy include Plato, Aristotle, Alisdair MacIntyre, and G.K. Chesterton. Please note that none of these men are or ever were politicians. They are philosophers of one sort or another and have applied themselves to determining the goals of political activity, something that is nonexistent in today's political discourse.

In contrast, I will be the first to admit that philosophy, alone, is useless (numerous potential employers looking dubiously at my academic credentials have confirmed this). It is a guide in all areas of study and aides the thinker to understand the principles behind the other sciences. So it would not be helpful in today's political discourse to write about a "dream society" where each detail was figured out and everything was engineered for peace.

Every society in history has been faulty, some more than others. From small fishing towns to vast empires, each society has one thing in common: they are comprised of human beings. For millennia, each society has been created by human beings and comprised of human beings. I claim that the problem with creating a perfect society is man himself. There is something about human nature that consistently thwarts the establishment of a lasting, good society. Therefore, as long as a civilization is made up of human beings, it will have its faults.

However, my philosophical outlook on politics is not all that bleak. There are definitely some sound insights to be applied to a forming society.

I agree with Aristotle that the best form of government is a monarchy, and I agree with Plato that the ruler of a society should be a "philosopher-king". A monarch represents a singularity of rule and law. He discerns the good and commands his subjects towards that good. His subjects are accountable to him, just as he is accountable to God.

Most of you, I'm sure, are playing out the scenario of your college intro-philosophy professors being elected president, cringing at the thought. Fear not, I suggest no such thing. A true philosopher performs both contemplation in addition to cultivating practical wisdom. A philosopher-king is not just a philosopher (*SPOILER ALERT*: he's also a king). Devoting all one's time to either philosophy or governance makes for a poor ruler. Rather, seamless incorporation of the two is both possible and necessary for the philosopher-king because one rational activity forms the other.

Now that I've put the idea of the philosopher-king out there, I'm going to admit that it cannot be done for several reasons. First, the line between monarchy and tyranny (according to Aristotle, the best and worst forms of government respectively) is very thin, and anyone less than a virtuous man will abuse his power or be rendered impotent. Also, the means of selecting a successor would be very difficult because democratic elections would be fraught with self-interested politics and primogeniture doesn't always work properly.

The interesting thing about a monarchy would be that everything comes down to a single link, as far as decision-making is concerned. This is either very good or very bad for the society, heavily dependent on the moral stuff of the ruler. If an aristocracy (rule of the few) was installed where there were several people ruling a nation, the vices of one individual might be lessened by the virtues of the others. However, the fate of the nation still rests in the hands of a few people, and in the currently aimless moral climate of modernity, a true sense of honor and honesty in an individual is hard to come by. Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to be ruled by one or a few and aim for democracy (rule of the people), endeavoring not to fall into ochlocracy (rule of the majority).

My First Car

This post is a portion of a larger untitled work in progress...


V6 and black. That’s all I told my brother when I asked him to find me a car. He found me a V6, in black, with red leather interior.

Ok, let’s test drive this.

An hour later, I was buying this car, my first car, a 2.7L V6, 172 horsepower, 2008 Hyundai Tiburon GT Limited (tiburon is Spanish for “shark”), the most accessorized trim for the model with the red leather interior, Sirius XM radio, sunroof, fog lights, low-profile sport tires, and ‘select-shift’ transmission. I had performed my own research and was having trouble finding something for which I was comfortable paying. Whatever I drove away with, I needed to love it. Finances would be tight and I wanted to be sure that I wanted to pay for it every month.

I wanted a 6-cylinder engine because I was a young man. I wanted to pull out into traffic and roar up to speed with everyone else. I wanted to be pushed back in my seat as if I were on the back of some wild animal. I wanted to drive down that straightaway 70 mph highway feel the power of freedom over the bellowing of the engine.

Two speeding tickets later, though, I had given up on the whole going faster than the speed limit notion. You would think that fast cars were made for young people to get caught speeding in. But for someone my age, the acceleration of this beast leaves nothing to be desired.

I wanted a black car because black is appropriate for any occasion. It is colorless, but not characterless. It projects class and composure like a sharp man in a tuxedo, but also stealth and elusiveness like a thief in a black turtleneck and ski mask.  Black is about business and silent power, formality and dark strength. It has good manners, but will quietly dispatch opposition.

A complex duality to the color that lacks any color, but I wanted both personalities for my car. I am not a rambunctious red or a pristine white car man. I wanted both professional functionality and sleek style.

With the inclusion of red leather, this car became all about stylish business on the outside, and party on the inside. I had never expected or dreamed that I could afford a car with a leather interior, much less a fashionable leather interior. The expression “icing on the cake” does not properly do it justice. Rather, was like “icing with flowers made of icing on the cake made entirely of corner pieces”.

Of course, she has her one foible. Miles per gallon? Not too great, and I have the V6 to blame for that mostly. But after what I’ve mentioned previously, who cares?

With time, I would come to properly appreciate the ‘select-shift’ manual transmission, referred to as ‘Sport Mode’ in the user’s manual. I had initially been shopping for a manual transmission car, but after a harrowing experience with my father’s Jeep, I had decided that I was not that interested in dying so young. However, the select-shift on the Tiburon was exactly what the doctor ordered for the hand-foot coordination nightmare that is manual transmission for me: manual shifting with an automatic clutch. Because sometimes, you’ve got to be able to shift down to jump off that corner as fast as you want.

With all of these things combined, you get the sheer delight I experienced driving 70 mph down Highway 55 in the early morning in my stylish, sleek ‘shark’ sports car, Genesis blaring over the voracious roar of the V6. Is this love?

My History of Coffee

This post is a portion of a larger untitled work in progress...


When birthday or Christmas time rolls around, people ask me for gift ideas for me. Typically, I don’t appreciate this question because that spoils all the fun of getting someone a gift. But I play along anyway. What I usually say is very simply, “Coffee.” I get a laugh or two and then they ask me what I really want for my birthday.

This puzzles me. I just told them. Coffee.

People that don’t know me very well seem not to take that answer seriously. Wait, was I being serious? Was I really talking about the beverage that everybody makes, half-asleep, a couple minutes after dragging themselves out of bed in the morning? Was I actually referring to the chewable, black tar that the bushy-mustached old man makes at the office, referring to it as a “cup of Joe” when it would be more accurate to refer to it as a “cup of– wait a second… is this dirt”? Was I speaking about the beverage that represents just a "caffeine fix", as easily replaceable by Red Bull, Monster, or RockStar?  Oddly enough, coffee is not my source for a caffeine fix.

Coffee is a source for spiritual experiences.

Kaldi, son of Aldi

Given to mankind from the Mug of God himself, coffee has a long and hallowed history. Originating in Ethiopia in the 9th century and discovered by Kaldi, son of Aldi (who himself was the successful founder of a global discount supermarket chain), the drink quickly became known for its healing powers and use in religious ceremonies. It was adopted by many Middle Eastern countries and became a staple as a drink of the Muslim world. Despite the success of the drink in the immediate area, the Islamic nations withheld trade to the Western and Far Eastern countries.

It was not until the early 12th century when Saint Drogo, blessed by the Lord with the ability to bilocate, was able to liberate the bean covertly from the Middle East’s grip and brought it to Italy, thereby earning the title of “patron saint of coffee and coffeehouses”. Unfortunately, the Christian world was not yet prepared to accept the strange brew from the Muslim world. But in 1600, Pope Clement the VIII proclaimed that the drink be made available to all Christians, declaring, “Non magis excusat desideraturus mane Missam!” The western world was ecstatic, blessing God for his infinite goodness and generosity.

The Boston Coffee Party of 1773

Since then, nations all around the world began to discover the black and life-giving treasure. In America before the Revolutionary War, the King of England had laid a heavy tax on tea, prompting the colonial peoples to import coffee as a substitute. After tasting the first arrival of the new beverage, they were astonished at the superior taste and tossed all of the British-imported tea into Boston harbor in celebration. The event was erroneously misnamed because the drink of choice at the ensuing party was in fact coffee, making it accurately known as the “Boston Coffee Party”.

In the early 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte sought to invade and conquer Russia. Despite the Russian’s “scorched earth” tactics, the French army was resolute on entering Moscow. Although two thirds of Moscow lay burned upon their arrival, it was not the ruin and spoil of their prize that disheartened the Emperor of France: the Russians did not have any coffee in the city . Unable to devise a strategy to survive the bitter Russian winter without the soul-warming brew, Napoleon sounded the retreat and his army limped back to France, discouraged, defeated, and de-caffeinated.

Without coffee, Thomas Edison’s 10,000 attempts to invent the light bulb would have been impossible to accomplish during the long days and endless nights of work. Without coffee, Ward Cleaver would have woken up every morning to the sound of Beaver’s voice without the character-fortifying agent that restrains the disciplining backhand. And without coffee, countless research papers and final projects would have lay in ruins before procrastinating student.

Every culture, every land, throughout all of human history, has benefited from this wonderful beverage. If fresh, it is sweet to taste and refreshing to the mind. Though truly fresh coffee is difficult to obtain, roasts abound that harness the power of the bean and still yield not to bitterness.

Why Sex is Meant For Marriage, Pt. 2 "Women"

The point was raised in a comment on my first post concerning sex and its proper context, marriage, that has prompted this follow-up post. The claim was that my argument was from the perspective of a man and, therefore, I had only shown that it was right for man to save sex and sexual acts for marriage.

But what about women? Do the same principles apply for women as they do for men? This was a bit trickier for me, a man, to tackle with an argument from experience. I have met women and I have dated women, but I have never been a woman. However, I will draw on from what experience I have to prove in an argument complementary to my first that sex and sexual acts are meant for marriage according to the healthy feminine nature.

First, there some differences between the masculine and feminine natures. These are necessary to point out to show that my first argument in my previous post does not really apply well to women, but more importantly, to outline the challenges unique to a woman. I have often heard it said that men are more logically based than women, and that women can often allow emotion to "overrule their reason". I believe this to be an unfair characterization because it frames women as irrational beings (albeit, at times). In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say that the feminine nature generally favors seeking empathetic understanding with others as opposed to logical agreement. This method of communication can create a deeper connection between two people than a simple "agreement of facts" can. For conciseness though, I claim that men tend to express themselves in logical terms, and women tend to express themselves in terms of their emotional connection to a situation, person, etc.

All the other terms and premises from my previous post apply, such as exclusive uncommitted relationship. If you need a refresher on that one and others, click here.

Ok, now suppose we take the same couple that we considered in my first post in an exclusive uncommitted relationship. As sex and activities leading to sex are frequent, the woman will become charged with emotional stimulation (similar to how the man is physically stimulated). The act is physically pleasant, but the woman primarily draws on the emotional closeness that she feels towards the man. As the emotional attachment grows stronger, the woman needs to be constantly assured of the man's affections for her (which can cause heightened expectations on the man, thus straining the relationship). Ultimately, the exclusive uncommitted relationship is bound to end or see serious hardship. If it ends, regardless of who initiates the break up, the woman will be forced to annihilate the vast emotional bond that she so dearly invested herself in.

The sexual act and acts leading to it inevitably create an emotional bond between the man and the woman. This is a sacred trust that is necessary to being together forever; to invest in and empathize with the joys and sorrows of the other. It is so tight-knit that were it to be broken, both would suffer excruciating emotional turmoil. The sexual act and other associated activities lead to one of two outcomes: (A) a loving, lasting emotional attachment between a man and a woman that allows them to enjoy together emotional sunshine and weather together emotional darkness, or (B) the woman succumbs to insecurity and despair as she searches for a full, lasting emotional commitment in vain.

Considering the path (A), just as with the argument from the masculine perspective, I do not think this option is available to those in an exclusive uncommitted relationship. As soon as the woman consents to any activity leading to sex, she has forsaken, to some degree, her essential dignity as a woman. It is a woman's responsibility, especially in this day and age, to command respect from men by holding them to honorable standards. Women can have, if they choose, a seductive power over men's reason. The feminine nature confounds his reason and ignites his passions. In my experience, this is not a reciprocal attractions, meaning, men do not have this same seductive power over women. (James Bond does not count because he was engineered specifically to give men the notion that they too could make women swoon over them; it doesn't happen) Women, in my experience, may fall for a guy, but they are never as without their wits as a man is before a woman. Thus, in the exclusive uncommitted relationship, the woman has the reigns of Reason and must show the man that she demands his respect and his full commitment to her. Without this respect, that emotional bond will not properly form.

In the case of (B), a woman who has engaged in many sexually active relationships will begin to wonder either what was wrong with the men she has dated or, my more frequent experience, what is wrong with herself. In the pornographic culture that we live in, there is an enormous pressure on women to be flawless. Each successive break up and emotional PTSD will be negotiated with thoughts that she just needs to lose more weight, get plastic surgery, etc. This goes hand-in-hand with the (B) scenario outlined in my first argument. Men will become more critical of their woman's appearance and ultimately, their partner's physical appearance will not be enough for him. A woman will be able to sense this acutely, especially if she is aware of any unfaithful relationships or pornography that the man is engaged in. This will only increase her sense of insecurity. With increasing insecurity, she will steadily set her sights lower and lower and entrust herself to more abusive and baser men, unable to believe that she is worth anything higher. If all her future relationships engage in sexual acts, she will be aware constantly of her physical appearance and remain in deep insecurity regarding her man's expectations and, more importantly, her worthiness of respect.

The repeated "high-stakes" emotional investment for a woman in a sexually active relationship will leave deep scares on her self-esteem, making it difficult for her to take her dignified place as an equal partner in a lasting relationship. A woman must not underestimate the power she has over a man; and it is this power that she must wield responsibly or forfeit it to the man's physical appetites. If a woman does not pick up this charge, then it becomes very difficult for a man to control his passions in the relationship. Though he is no less responsible for reigning in his passions, no man should associate with a woman who fails to hold him accountable for them, and no woman should associate with a man who fails to respect her according to her dignity, body and soul.

Authors Note: Ok, there it is. This is all based on my experiences and careful thought, but it is by no means infallible, whatsoever (a deep contrast to my other writings ;) just kidding) Whatever your thoughts, man or woman, please comment. This is a forum for serious discussion and I'll be the first to submit myself to guidance in this area.

Why Sex is Meant For Marriage, Pt. 1 "Men"

As a philosopher, I am always looking for rational explanations to things. I have devised my own rational system (some would call it a "philosophy") and I feel compelled to place everything I experience into that system as best as I can. I am also a man of faith, but there is something sweetly gratifying about coming to a reasonable conclusion based on one's experiences. In this process, I feel like I'm progressing somewhere and my sincere and thoughtful observation of the world is moving me towards that goal. It's really awesome, also, to receive divine revelation in one's prayer because you receive the answer without knowing how that answer was arrived at rationally. It is a rational answer (discrediting those who claim faith is irrational), but the proof to how one comes up with that solution can remain a mystery to us for some time. Still, I like to come to the answer on my own, if I can.

The thought occurred to me that the reason why sex is meant for marriage is because sexual intercourse and the intimate, affectionate acts that lead to up to it are ordered to married commitment.

Consider a man in an "uncommitted" relationship, meaning he has a girlfriend. Personal opinion: if a man and a woman are dating, that relationship cannot be healthy unless they are exclusively uncommitted to one another (and I know people define "dating differently, but I consider this goes for any form of romantic relationship other than marriage). "Exclusive" in the fact that that both parties are not "looking around" romantically (i.e. they have chosen to focus their romantic interests on this one person), and "Uncommitted" in the sense that this dating relationship is not meant as a long-term commitment (just a lead-in to marriage) and the courtship or dating arrangement can be broken at any time by either party for any reason, good or bad. I believe this also includes the period of engagement, and that the only difference between dating/courtship and engagement is that a man and a woman are preparing explicitly for marriage. The intention of a commitment has been spoken, but they still have not bound themselves morally to one another. (which is my assumption of those in marriage, albeit not a very good assumption for this culture)

Also, if you commit yourself to someone, I assume that you commit yourself to the whole of them. I do not think it's even worth discussing the execrable individual who would only commit themselves only to a human being's physical presence. So you make a commitment to another person, body and soul, because you make the free and actively conscious choice to love them.

Ok, now that I've defined most of my terms, suppose sexual intercourse is a frequent practice in this particular exclusively uncommitted relationship. Frequent physical stimulation can condition a man to expect psychologically that level and frequency of physical stimulation on a regular basis. Any increase in this status quo may create an increase in expectation, but any decrease will either be met with a painful expectation readjustment process for the man or a search for sexual gratification elsewhere (explained below).

In the case of sexual acts, a man and a woman are at their most vulnerable. They are "getting to know" (in the Biblical sense) one another in the most vulnerable and intimate way possible. It is like a shared secret that only the two of you know. And you both must promise never to tell another soul. It's not only a physical secret, but an emotional and spiritual secret that is beyond words. And it is in keeping that secret that there lies the sacred commitment. It is a very fine line (especially in the present culture) between (A) considering this vulnerable intimacy a sacred thing that a man is charged with the duty to protect and care for, or (B) the alternative, claiming ownership of it for his own ends and taking pleasure in it for its own sake.

It is impossible for the former option (A) to be selected in an exclusively uncommitted relationship because the man is purporting to commit and learning to commit at the same time. The man cannot commit to protect and venerate that which he has not proven himself capable of protecting and venerating. In other words, he cannot give what he does not have: recognition and respect for the woman's sacred honor. Dissenters' counterargument: this "proving" and "committing" times do not have to correspond to or have anything to do with when/if the couple gets married. My Response: for anything involving temptation and basic human urges, the justification of self-autonomy has been proven time after time to be the exact thing that leads man to lose his autonomy; I submit myself to authority on this.

If the latter (B) is chosen, a great attention to the woman's physical details will arise in the soul of the man. He will begin to focus on those physical qualities that excite him, at the expense of considering and cherishing the woman as a whole human being. If the relationship continues like this, he will cease to have a fixation with this specific woman's physical qualities and will begin to center his attention on those same physical qualities, but this time, of women in general (i.e. forsaking the beauty of her face and focusing on the various beautiful qualities of women's faces in general), turning to unfaithful relationships and pornography (in all-to-frequent worse-case scenarios) to slake his demand of physical stimulation, mentioned above. All of this might be an entirely subconscious reaction, but nevertheless, its reality becomes painfully apparent if one studies how the man treats the woman when such pleasant affections are not exchanged when he desires them.

However, although marriage makes (A) truly possible, it does not magically make (B) an impossible circumstance to find in a marriage. Marriages in these modern times are constantly assaulted by these temptations and many fail to weather the difficulties. However, the commitment can always be re-realized and made again and again as long as the spirit is willing.

All this comes about when men and women fail to acknowledge the gravity of the affections they show one another, whether it be the act of sex itself or acts that are intrinsically ordered to and end in the sexual act. I claim that (A) is impossible in an unmarried state and if you find the consequences of (B) to be undesirable, then unless there are alternatives I am unaware of, sex and acts leading to sex are meant for marriage because marriage is a relationship of complete commitment.

A Guide to Making Friends, Pt. 2: Dealing with Rejection

This post is not necessarily meant as a sequel to my first post on developing friendships, but while writing it, I suppose that's what it became. In my long history of friendships, I've learned some incredibly valuable things. One thing is that when I talk about physics, I scare people away. Another thing is that you shouldn't be too eager to evangelize because people are turned off to that kind of thing. And also, that you can't pay people to be your friends (well, if you want them to be real friends that is).

However, I believe that all of my "lessons learned" don't hold a candle to the priceless understanding that I have acquired regarding rejection (specifically, with friendships, but romantic relationships can fit in here as well). No matter who you are, we've all experienced it.

So, you meet someone you really think is alot of fun (guy or girl, it doesn't matter). They seem to enjoy themselves and you think, "Gee, I'm really attracted to this person's fun-loving nature. I think I want to get to know him/her more." You talk for a little bit and if you're smart, you don't take this as a sure-fire sign that they like you already. They might be conversing with you out of politeness, but that's ok, you're not best buds yet.

Fast-forward a week. You want to get a group of people together or maybe you just want to hang out with this person for some one-on-one time. You call this person to see what they're up to and they say they're busy or maybe that they'll keep your invitation in mind as they figure out their evening/weekend plans. Ultimately, they decide to not hang out with you. And that's the same story for the following weekends until you just decide to give up on them.

Why do people do that?? They never get back to you, they never decide to hang out with you, and they may ignore you at all future gatherings. In other words, they're just really flaky and not committed to forming a friendship with you, despite there seeming to be some initial potential. Unfortunately, I still search for the answer to this question, but my gut tells me that it varies by circumstance. But, it doesn't change the way you feel. Repeat the above-described process a couple more times and it'll kill any motivation you ever had to make friends, especially in a new environment. You feel like you've extended your hand to someone and it's been slapped away or, worse, chopped off. Or maybe you feel like you stuck your neck out for someone with a little generosity, only to have the ax swing and rend your head from your shoulders. It's painful, it hurts, and nobody likes to feel that way.

People can be disappointing. Certainly a depressing thought, but despite all the optimistic thoughts about human beings, I've found this one to be fairly consistent. Therefore, I propose the following thought: let not the measure or worth of your friendship efforts be the responsiveness (or lack of responsiveness) on the part of those whose friendship you pursue. Or in other words, change your operational mindset when making friends.

The approach I propose requires concentration on what each of us is doing to facilitate a welcoming atmosphere to those we wish to befriend. We must polish our approach to people to make them feel welcome. We shouldn't go to social events as if we're going out into the wilderness to "headhunt" for friends. This approach is too aggressive and our intentions will quickly become apparent to those we encounter. They will feel "stalked" or "preyed upon" if we aggressively attempt to make their acquaintance. And obviously, this quality is wholly unattractive in another human being.

When we go out to socialize, we must bring the hospitality of our homes with us. Instead of hoping to slay someone with our charm, wit, and laughter, we should have the mindset of inviting people to us, telling them to pull up a chair, and enjoy one another's company. That's the difference. A "headhunting" friendship approach is based on results; a "home entertainer" friendship approach is based on improving our own merits. Instead of going out to win or conquer friends, we develop our personal generosity and then invite others to join us in our exquisite beneficence. If performed genuinely, this can be deeply gratifying for you, the host. And it will encourage others to open their generosity to you as well.

There are a few key pitfalls to this approach that must be avoided. One may interpret this approach as allowing others to "take, take, take" from your well-meaning. You must keep your dignity here because a successful friendship is never a one-sided engagement. Anyone who is interested in who you are for who you are will naturally be willing to return your kindness with their own form of graciousness. Another is that when realizing that someone is not interested in being your friend, we become bitter and self-righteous, claiming that "they were never deserving of my generosity", so "screw them". This must be avoided at all costs because it robs us of our peace and completely disarms this mindset. It is also indicative of a regression into the "headhunter" mentality, which gets frustrated and resentful when results are not achieved. If you do not have peace with this approach, then you're not doing it right.

There are many other benefits to this mindset as well. One benefit is that as long as you have purged your intentions of any "headhunting" tendencies, you will be better equipped to deal with rejection better. If someone isn't open to you good will, you can move on because you weren't concerned with "conquering" them to begin with. Instead, you can turn your efforts to other prospects. Secondly, since this approach is focused on our own service and merit offerings, we can seek to make friends and deal with rejection dispassionately. If someone refuses your generosity, look elsewhere for those who can appreciate your hospitality. We can be resistant to bitterness and emboldened against rejection. Also, this emboldenment will necessarily boost our self-esteem and self-image. We can become confident in what we have to offer other people and sure of our own merits.

If you are in a new environment or just looking to make friends, I highly recommend that you give this approach an honest try.

Opinion: Rudy and Notre Dame

For most people, the University of Notre Dame, my alma mater, is typically associated with football, merchandise, and the film "Rudy" (or how the administration invited Barack Obama to speak at commencement; oh, I've not forgotten).

I'm watching the film right now, actually. Fall is around the corner and I want to go back, so I'm getting the beautiful cinematography of campus. I was lucky to have my dad take me and my brother up to campus for a few football games when I was little (he earned his bachelors and law degrees from ND). I didn't really care as much for the football, but the campus was gorgeous and it was alot of fun to be there. There was something about the place that I never could forget. I, like Rudy, also transferred into Notre Dame; I was not accepted out of senior year of high school. My first year there was my sophomore year, so I had three years there. The summer weekend that I was on campus to look for an apartment for sophomore year, My dad, my little brother and I watched "Rudy" on my laptop in St. Ed's, which had been converted into an "alumni hotel" for visitors during the summer vacation months. I remember being excited to finally be here and getting ready for the experience of a life time. I wouldn't say I loved the film, but it was exciting to see the campus and now to be there for real.

And then I saw it again as a senior. It was the night before my first LSAT, so I had essentially quarantined myself from everyone to make sure that I got a relaxing evening before the big test. I had decided to close the LSAT study book, grabbed a light snack and went through my film collection to pick one that would be relaxing and inspirational, and "Rudy" seemed to fit that bill. I didn't do so great the next day on the test. I blame Rudy.

If my time at Notre Dame taught me anything, it was to dislike Fighting Irish football. I remember loving it as a young-un (my first words, in order, were "mommy/daddy", "no", and "cheer, cheer for ol' Notre Dame"), watching it on TV with my family. It was a really awesome tradition. But as a student, I swiftly realized that it brought the worst out of people. It might be true that the university wouldn't be as prolific as it is today if it weren't for the revenue generated by football, but I often found myself wondering if it hasn't become an end in itself. Fighting Irish football had become such a materialistic commodity and the center of everyone's attention that it's gigantic presence in everyone's mind had suffocated the aspects of Notre Dame that really are special, such as spiritual formation. The administration was so focused on squeezing every last dime out of fans (and students) and bombarding students' consciousness with every update on the football team.

So, back to "Rudy". The last time I saw this film (senior year), I was struck at how much I hadn't paid attention to the things Rudy was telling people about how he was going to play football for Notre Dame and the facial reactions of those people at this thought. Talk about delusions of grandeur! The character looks crazy! Everyone looked at him as if he had lost his mind. I think maybe he did, at some point. So he's at his best friend's funeral (the one who died in the factory accident) and he leaves the service early to sob in the foyer with his gf trying to console him. The first thing he says when he composes himself is how much he misses his friend now that he's gone... oh, wait, actually he says that he's decided to go to South Bend to try to get into Notre Dame. Oops, never mind. Then, pretty much everyone he tells, he says that he's going to play football for Notre Dame.

So, ok, I don't like the fact that Rudy is obsessed with football. There comes a point where his mentor tells Rudy that even if he never gets to dress for a game, he'll be graduating with a degree from the University of Notre Dame (and I wish he would have added that he will have received the valuable spiritual formation in those critical college years, but it wouldn't be Hollywood if it was expected to get everything right). And that is something. That's truly a staggering something. And he will have had an experience of a lifetime.

Contrary to most inspirational sports films, I think this film could have been my favorite film of all time if the protagonist had not achieved some measure of success in the sport. It really would have been a happily-ever-after if the dream of playing football had motivated him to discover the bigger things in life: learning, friendships, and most importantly, faith. In this alternate version of the story, he would have been so consumed with going to Notre Dame to play football that along the way, he discovered how much he loved to learn, how Notre Dame is a place to meet really great people, and how he learned to love Christ and His Mother, Mary, after whom the university is named. And this is what makes his dreams come true. And when he doesn't make the cut for the football team or he doesn't get to dress in uniform for a game, he realizes how little that matters to him now. He's found what he was searching for, and it wasn't what he set out to find.

And besides, the fact that Notre Dame ever cooperated with the production of a film about a hobbit playing football is completely beyond me.

Opinion: A "Hobbit" Trilogy?

"The Hobbit" is going to be three movies."

Most people might read this statement and think, "what is a 'hobbit'?" I'm sorry if you're one of those few, but feel free to educate yourself here.

I have several reactions to this statement, and hopefully by the end of this blog post, I will have gotten my bewilderment sorted out and (maybe) have a coherent opinion on this news.

First: why? Why are they making three films out of one book? This strikes me as a stupid money-making marketing ploy. I hate it when Hollywood complicates stuff like this and really ruins good films. Because the creative team here is mostly intact and all the original actors have returned to play their respective characters as needed, this "trilogy" will forever be associated with The Lord of the Rings, which is critically acclaimed as excellent. Whether for good or ill, this will be considered as essentially the same story. So if this goes south, LotR is going to go the way of Star Wars and its 3 prequel films and Jackson will be regarded as just another George Lucas who creates your childhood cinematic loves, (LotR is very much this for me) then once you've reached adulthood, he ruins them by using it to get more cash from you. So this thought makes me angry.

Second, how? The Hobbit is about 310 pages long. This is just a little over half the size of the Fellowship of the Ring... the first book in the series of the Lord of the Rings trilogy! And it's about one fifth the size of the whole LotR trilogy. Somehow, they got it so that the original plan was to make two movies out of the Hobbit. Where are they getting this new material from? Apparently, much of it arises from the appendices listed at the end of the Return of the King (the third book in the LotR series) and in Tolkien's other notes. But unfortunately, alot of this was not published by Tolkien as its own work because it was not complete/finished. It might be mentioned in passing in an appendix, but will Jackson and the crew be able to fully realize Tolkien's vision and tell his story? Or is it just material scraped and scrounged to make a Hollywood blockbuster? I'd say this idea makes me doubtful.

Now, my reaction to this news has also been positive. Peter Jackson has done a pretty good job of adapting Tolkien's work to the screen. And while it may not be faithful to every single little detail written in the books, I think it does a good job of illustrating for the viewer in the span of 10ish hours what Tolkien is trying to say. (if you want any more than that, then I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to suck it up and read the books) So with this in mind, I'm a little curious to see how Jackson pulls it off.

Also, Howard Shore will be composing the music. All three of his scores for the LotR trilogy were stellar (with the scores for the 1st and 3rd films garnering Academy Award wins). So, if anything, the extra film will just produce more beautiful music that I will inevitably be buying. An example of this are the additional Pirates of the Caribbean films. I have only seen the first two sequels, but the music that Hans Zimmer wrote for them complement and expand on Klaus Badelt's decent score for the first film (which I believe that Hans Zimmer also had a strong hand in creating). Regardless, I'd say more music from Howard Shore's interpretation of Middle Earth makes me giddy.

In conclusion, I'd say I'm dubiously furious at Peter Jackson's audacity to make what was a simple bedtime story into 3-film cinematic epic, while still remaining inquisitively enchanted at the prospect of there being more of Middle Earth to see on the Silver Screen.