« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »

October 31, 2004

Alleycat Recap

Last night was the Halloween Eve Alleycat. It started late -- 8:30pm -- so we were riding under the moon and streetlights the entire time. It started at The Mr. Roboto Project in Wilkinsburg, and ended in Oakland. The format was a set order checkpoint race, taking us on a nice tour of the east end of town, visiting two cemetaries, a church, and a monument to the Blessed Virgin Mary (more on that in a bit).

This was going to be my first alleycat riding a brakeless fixie, and I wasn't nervous -- until I got the manifest. The second checkpoint was Calvary cemetary in Greenfield, and the path of least resistance to the next checkpoint (the Jail Trail under the Birmingham Bridge) was a STEEP downhill into Hazelwood. How steep? Steep enough the organizers warned us about it. Gulp. A quick survey of the crowd revealed only two other brakeless riders, one of whom I knew, and knew was a bit crazy.

After the start and a visit to the Smithfield cemetary in Point Breeze, I hooked up with the other brakeless fixie, and we rode to Calvary, trying to decide how we'd get to Hazelwood. He suggested Hazelwood Avenue -- it wasn't terribly steep at the start, and it had a bit of a plateau before the final drop to Hazelwood. So after the stop at Calvary, we started the long descent. The other fixie (Evan, I think) took off, as he had much bigger legs than I, so he could lay down a skid to keep things under control. I was a quite a bit slower down the hill, but never felt out of control, and once I was on Second Avenue, we're were cruising again into town.

The checkpoint on the Jail Trail was quick (didn't even have to get off the bike), and a few minutes later we had made the stop at Trinity Cathedral. Nothing left but the slog up Penn Avenue. That hurt. A lot. The ride from Smithfield Cemetary to Calvary was surprising hilly (and unnecessarily so -- we should have been on Murray Avenue), but I survived. We picked up a votive candle at Allegheny Cemetary (to be taken to the shrine on Ward Street) and we were off to Oakland.

We floundered around Oakland a bit trying to find the shrine, and we soon disovered that it required a bit of hiking. After a minutes walk from the end of Ward Street, we found the shrine. It is quite literally built into the hillside overlooking the Parkway East. And, based on the number of lit candles, it is well-used by Oakland's Catholic community. We exchanged the candles for a sticker for the manifest, and it was time to ride a few more blocks to the finish. Evan ran into some mechanical issues on the climb up Ward, snapping his chain. He simply tossed the broken chain in his bag, and pushed along the remaining block like a scooter.

Good times. I finished in the top 30, but I sorta wish the organizers would start a fixie category, because especially on a course like this, we're at a distinct disadvantage. But, I don't do these things as races, really, so it doesn't matter. The new Steamroller handled quite well, and I doubt I'll put a front brake on it anytime soon. I was also surprised that I survived all the hills running 42x16, especially Penn Avenue at the end of it all. The only I really would have liked was a set of TT bars, just because the climbing position is more comfortable.

October 30, 2004

Single Issue Voters

The Japery has an interesting column about the Christian tendancy toward single issue voting. I really only want to comment on the last paragraph:

Abortion, properly understood by pagans and religionists alike, pertains to end of life "issues," like euthanasia; genetic meddling on all kinds of life; the proper limits of the state; economic and "social" justice--and more. How we regard and treat life, especially human life, and the health of the family (the fundamental ordering structure of society) is a basic, foundational political concern that rightly precedes all others. One can vote on it as a "single-issue" or "litmus test" because it impacts all other "issues" most profoundly, and a person's views on "abortion" always tell you a great deal about that person and what you might expect from them.

He should be right, but unfortunately, that's just not the case in this present age. Is there anyone out there that really believes George Bush's entire political agenda is driven by his desire for a "cutlure of life?" If that's the case, why isn't he pushing to extend the welfare to help those who can't help themselves? I can't remember where I read it, but I came across a quote a few weeks ago that went something like this: Conservatives only care about you before you're born. Sure, George Bush wants to fund more faith-based initiatives, but if you're a Christian in government, wouldn't you want the government to do Christ's work of helping the poor? Many single issue voters support Bush for his anti-abortion stand, but they end up agreeing with his plan to democratize the Middle East through force to ride the world of those Godless Muslims. Am I the only one who sees a bit of contradiction there? The "culture of life" only applies to you if you're an American.

And let's talk a bit about "genetic meddling." Christians are whole-heartedly against stem cell research (despite the potential conflict created with the support of fertility clinics), but they are oddly unaffected by another aspect of "genetic meddling" -- genetically modified plants and animals. And who are the biggest foes of GMOs? Those baby-killing Democrats. Science can't tinker with humans, but everything else is fair game. There are endless reports of the potential dangers of GM foods -- from danger to the consumers to the disruption of the ecosystem. But few Christians pay any attention to the Biblical mandate to be stewards of creation. Where is the link Fr. Jape says exists? A Pro-Life perspective does not necessarily inform one's political perspective.

Freedom And Decency

My church's little "cultural issues" discussion group has picked the readings for our next get together, and I thought I'd use this space as my notebook for my thoughts.

Freedom and Decency -- David Hart (from First Things)

Hart, and Eastern Orthodox theologian, sets out to define whether or not we, as Christians, are engaged in a cultural war with a rapid deteriorating society, and if we are, what we should do about it. The first problem, he surmises, is that our government, thanks to society's worship of the modern liberal idea of choice, can no longer define decency through censorship. He looks wistfully back to the "good old days" when the Hays Office controlled Hollywood and the Post Office could prosecute those who sent illicit material in the mail. But the Hays Office and code were nothing more than a think veneer of decency, and Hart even admits as much:

Consider one of the more obvious cases of commercial standards abandoned, that of cinema. For all the ponderous parochialism of the old motion picture code, it did at the very least demand of screenwriters the kind of delicate technique necessary to communicate certain things to mature viewers without giving any hint of their meaning to the children also watching. Thus films had to be written by adults, and the best films required writers of some considerable skill. After all, everyone of a certain age in the audience was well aware of what things occurred between men and women in private. They understood, therefore, what may have happened between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman when the camera cut away to the watchtower’s revolving beam of light; what had failed to happen when Spencer Tracy quietly slipped out of Katharine Hepburn’s apartment, neglecting to take his hat with him; what it was that Katharine Hepburn was both relieved and offended to discover had not happened when, on the previous evening, her inebriation had required Jimmy Stewart to carry her to her bed; what Bogart and Bacall were really discussing under the veil of their equestrian metaphors; why Glenn Ford was treating Rita Hayworth with at once such tenderness and such malice; and what Barbara Stanwyck was implying when she wrapped her arms around Fred MacMurray’s neck and murmured, “But, darling, we are at Niagara Falls.”

This was a better circumstance because the indecency was hidden, just a bit, from the audience. It doesn't seem to matter that the clever writers are still writing about "indecent" acts -- just the fact that we can't see them makes all the difference. What's even more interesting about this argument is that Hart later alludes to Plato's cave, but in this circumstance, aren't we all still stuck looking at the shadows on the wall? Sure, the images are pure and clean, but what they allude to isn't. It's just an illusion of decency. And is that really any better?

The idea of a "censorship office" has another potential pitfall, one that Hart doesn't discuss -- the door of censorship can swing both ways. One man's decency is another man's perversion, and think for a moment if the head of the "censorship office" decides that certain religious narratives are "indecent" -- perhaps not in the lewd sense of the word, but just plain old unacceptable. Hart does, however, realize that what Americans really treasure is choice -- the ability to decide for themselves what is indecent. Again, one man's decency is another's perversion. Part of his point is well-taken:

This is the crucial issue, I think: not what we understand decency to be, but what we mean when we speak of freedom. It is a curious condition of late Western modernity that, for so many of us, the highest ideal of the good society is simply democracy as such, and then within democracy varying alloys of capitalism, the welfare state, regionalism, federalism, individualism, and so on. And what we habitually understand democratic liberty to be—what we take, that is, as our most exalted model of freedom—is merely the unobstructed power of choice. The consequence of this, manifestly, is that we tend to elevate what should at best be regarded as the moral life’s minimal condition to the status of its highest expression, and in the process reduce the very concept of freedom to one of purely libertarian or voluntarist spontaneity. We have come to believe—more or less unreflectively—that the will necessarily becomes more free the more it is emancipated from whatever constraints it suffers; which means that, over the course of time, even our most revered moral traditions can come to seem onerous nuisances that we must shed if we are to secure our “rights.” At the very last, any constraint at all comes to seem an intolerable bondage. But it was not ever thus.

But, he seems to forget his history. Many conservative (and non-conservative) Christians see the pilgrams from England as heroes -- they left their home and went into harm's way to find religious freedom -- no, religious choice. Again, Hart finds a door that swings both ways. Choice is a liberty we have, and it is at the very foundation of our constitutional government. And Hart begins to blur he lines between our constitutional system, and Christian faith:

And yet—and I would not even go so far as to call this a paradox—freedom is possible only through constraints. True freedom, at least according to one venerable definition, is the realization of a complex nature in its proper good (that is, in both its natural and supernatural ends); it is the freedom of a thing to flourish, to become ever more fully what it is.

Part of our leap of faith as Christians is giving over ourselves to God. We switch one master for another, and in that, we have freedom (in the theology sense). But we make that leap willingly, and happily. To expect a non-believer to give up their liberty of choice as a stepping stone to greater freedom is a stretch. And I believe most Americans understand the complex nature of freedom -- what political theorists call liberty. Citizens do give up certain "freedoms" to live in a civilized society. But we can't expect them to give up choice because we as Christians operate under that same freedom. Freedom of choice defines behavior broader than just the indecent.

And here's where I come to my greatest agreement/disagreement with Hart:

And if we insist on being moderns, or Americans, or democrats, or consumers first, rather than Christians, Jews, and virtuous pagans above all, whose spiritual loyalties transcend all other associations, and if we allow ourselves to believe that true freedom is anything other than the liberation and perfection of a definite nature in conformity with the highest Good—with God Himself, that is—then we will always be divided against ourselves, and will be to some degree accomplices of those very forces whose defeat we think we desire. Indeed, we cannot really affect the course of the nation at all, or even properly imagine what kind of political or social future we should want, so long as we fail to remember (and to fashion our lives according to the knowledge) that we exist only because there is One who has called us from nothingness to be what He desires us to be, not simply what we would like to make ourselves, and that we shall truly be free—and know what freedom is—only when we have no choices left.

He's right, but we aren't going to teach people this by taking away their political freedom. Decency laws won't change people's hearts. We as Christians need to models for a Godly lifestyle, but unfortunately, we fail miserably time and again. Only by working from the inside out can we expect to affect any cultural change.

October 28, 2004

More on Religion and Politics From Slate (Or, Why I like Slate)

Why are religious conservatives still the squeaky wheels?

Great points brought forth in this article. Thanks to the Christian Right, if you say you're a Christian, you're branded as a close-minded political conservative, which, for a lot of us, just isn't the case. But don't just blame the Religious Right and the, ahem, left-leaning media for this bias:

Some responsibility for the continued loud voices of political conservatives rests with the leadership of mainline Protestant traditions. Mainline Protestants, who have tended to become more politically liberal in the last two decades, are the natural base for a "Vote ALL your values" initiative. And yet whether concerned with the in-house business of their own denominations or wary of alienating the person in the pew by perceived involvement in political debate during a polarized time, few denominational heads showed up at last week's New York press conference. With the exception of an Episcopal bishop and an ecumenical officer for the United Methodists, all the other featured speakers were heads of large extra-denominational organizations. Moderate leaders within traditional church structures are not going out on any limbs.

I think for some folks (at least reformed types), going out on a limb means potentially creating rifts within a congregation, because there are still plenty of political conservatives to be found in evangelical/reformed circles. Do you risk dividing a church by talking politics from the pulpit? While many Christians may not agree with George Bush's policies, how many would be willing to say that they are sinful? But perhaps that's the wrong question -- the plank in your own eye and all that. We should, however, be able to examine political policy under the Biblical microscope. A pastor should be critical of putting the cart before the horse -- are we letting our faith be influenced by our political views, or are our political views shaped by the proper study of Scripture? And I've asked before, we're we called to be counter-cultural?

October 27, 2004

Geeky

I haven't been very geeky in this space lately, and my current job isn't always technically challenging, but today I discovered that you can use C# within an XSL template. The stylesheet was being applied to a DataSet that had been converted directly to XML, and I needed to manipulate a date field (and I couldn't easily do the manipulation in SQL), so it was C# to the rescue. Groovy.

Bush's Anti-Intellectual Faith

Slate has a interesting article on whether or not George Bush is the right posterboy for evangelical Christians. A couple of key passages:

By most accounts, the president's basic intellectual make-up was formed long before his faith conversion. If Bush is incurious, it's not God's fault.

That is, don't excuse Bush's ignorance (which he will tell you about) as a product of his faith in God.

Conservatives are right when they say that the faith-makes-you-irrational idea is a gross caricature. What Bush supporters are less willing to admit is that President Bush has helped to promote this caricature that liberals now exploit.

But in the consideration of reason and faith, we are left with an interesting question: Bush has actively cultivated the image of the simple man of God; how does that reflect on the rest of America's born-again Christians? Is Bush a helpful spokesman, in the end?

I'd argue that he hasn't really been a helpful spokesman, at least for reformed types. We're not prone to over-simplification, and I think a lot of us are willing to put together our political views piecemeal, instead of just jumping on board with a party because of one or two platform planks. And I think Bush's perspective on homosexual marriage, and the marriage amendment he has proposed, does nothing more than perpetuate the view of Christians are close-minded homophobes that don't necessarily understand the Biblical concept of sin (as discussed in the space many months ago).

October 26, 2004

Convenience

Salon suddenly has a new posterboy for their pro-Kerry campaign, Eminem. Thanks to an anti-Bush song and video, the rapper is suddenly a favorite son of the magazine, which has called him to task in the past for his misogynist, homophobic lyrics. But hey, all that's forgiven now, because the man's a democrat.

I've grown weary with Salon as the election season has progressed, mostly because they're becoming less of a news source and more of a cheerleading squad for John Kerry. That's their prerogative, of course, but that doesn't mean that I need to treat them like a source of balanced news. I do, however, still read King Kaufman's Sports Daily, because even though Kaufman is a liberal, he rarely lets that spill over into his sports commentary.

October 25, 2004

Climbing Photos

jen on the white eyebrow

robert on a white eyebrow variation

the variation again

oh, how the mighty have fallen! jen and i toproping(!) at the cirque.

Back from the New -- Updated

We got back from our five day trip to the New River Gorge last night. It was good to be back there -- the place where we've spent a good portion of lives from 1993-2002. We saw a lot of old friends, and made a few new ones, and made a pact to go there more often, especially since our friends Jason and Rachel offered to let us stay at their house (and let Seb play with their daughter).

The climbing was typical for the New -- when we got there Wednesday, the boulders at Hawk's Nest were soaking wet from a combination of rain and condensation. The weather cleared for the next few days, but we got more rain on Saturday night and Sunday morning. In the end, we had three climbing days out of 4.5 days, so it wasn't so bad. Sport climbing wasn't as horrible as we both thought it would (since we haven't been on a rope since before Seb was born), though we were hardly in route shape. That didn't stop me from trying hard routes though, and hanging and falling a lot. I did notice that I still haven't kicked the fear brought on by a nasty fall a few years ago. I'm fine on familiar and overhanging ground, but as soon as I'm out of that comfort zone, the fear really holds me back. I'm not paralyzed, but it certainly prevents me from trying hard.

Photos should be up soon.

Update

I figured since I'm waiting for my workstation to get hooked to a new domain, I'd fill in some details on our trip...

Wednesday
Drove down. Very mellow drive, and Seb did well. We hiked out to Hawk's Nest to try and get some bouldering in, but unfortunately everything was wet. I guess there had been some rain there, then higher temps, and nothing was drying. Oh well. We hiked back to the car and hooked up some friends at their house in Fayetteville and unpack and get settled.

Thursday
Hawk's Nest take two. We first tried to visit some recently discovered boulders up the hill from Hawk's Nest, but they were still wet, but....the boulders were amazing. Endless Wall quality stone, and big, big faces. Killer. I can't wait to go back. We went back to Hawk's Nest with some friends, and had a nice day. Nobody sent anything groundbreaking, but it was still good fun, and Seb had fun playing in all the puddles.

Friday
Very slow day. Seb decided to take a morning nap, and that held us back, despite the good weather. We finally got motivated and decided to try and find some of the new routes at Bubba City. My advice? Don't go. We hiked for well over an hour, most of which was bushwhacking over loose scree. We finally found the wall, and most of the routes looked incredibly lame. Since it was getting late, and we figured it might be an adventure getting back to car, we just left. Woo!

Saturday
Went to Summersville Lake. The conditions were good, though it wasn't sunny, and just about everything was dry. After some warm-ups, I headed over to the Coliseum to try Apollo Reed. Who cares if I'm not in shape? I can fall with the best of them. I hung once, which I figured isn't bad since I did as many moves on that route as I do during one day at Coopers. I tried Mercy Seat as well, and got spanked. Good fun.

Sunday
Rain overnight and in the morning forced us to the Cirque. I got on Finders Keepers to warmup (5.12b to warmup? Sure!). I was still pretty psyched out by the fall I took a couple of years ago, and I lowered off at the crux. I was a bit disappointed, but it was still a fun day, and I toproped a line to left, just for kicks.

October 20, 2004

Vacation

After a false start last week (thanks to Seb's cold), we're heading to the New River Gorge later today for five days of climbing and relaxing. The weather is looking much better than last weekend so maybe the change in plans isn't all bad. We're looking forward to seeing some friends we haven't seen in awhile (since Seb was born, really), so it should be a very good time. I'm also looking forward to catching up some reading as well. There may be some random posting from the trip -- we're bringing the laptop so Jen can do some writing -- but who knows if there's a wireless hotspot down there.

One political note (and why I like Slate). Chris Suellentrop has a nice article on John Kerry's own verbal curlicues and his inability to say things simply. What's really good about Slate is that even though writers like Suellentrop and Will Saletan are Kerry-supporters, they aren't afraid to criticize him.

October 19, 2004

Weather

Up until yesterday, riding to work has been a breeze. Outside of day here or there thanks to sickness or my cranky back, I've ridden to work nearly everyday since I started. But yesterday, I realized that things are about to get harder. The ride home included temps in the 40s and driving rain. Those conditions weren't terrible on their own, but a couple of things made them rather unpleasant:

* Getting hit with the wave from a huge puddle on Smallman Street. Nothing like getting 10 gallons of sub 60 degree water dumped in your lap.
* Not having a good waterproof jacket. I've had one for about seven years, which seems to be greater than its usable lifespan.

Also, as much as I think they'll make my bike look sorta dumb, I could use a set of decent, removable fenders for the wet days.

But now, the weather is throwing down the guantlet, daring me to ride in the worst fall weather it can throw at me.

A Retraction of Sorts

After a fine discussion yesterday via email with a climbing friend, I've decided that my critique of Christopher Hitchens' article about the Ten Commandments was a bit, well, over the top. After re-reading his piece and then my post, I realized that at the time, I just didn't get the satire. So Hitchens can make his theological "mistakes" all he wants, and that's fine with me.

I do, however, stand by my opinion that Hitchens is an intellectual bully and windbag. And, as I said, I do agree with assessment of Roy Moore.

October 18, 2004

Rallye de France Wrapup

Finally, something new to report besides Petter Solberg winning and Sebastien Loeb taking second. Markko Martin set a blistering pace all weekend in his Focus, and beat Loeb by over two minutes. Ford was set to sweep the top two places, but Francios Duval had engine trouble on day three and didn't even make the finish ramp. Loeb and Citroen admitted post-rally that he didn't push for the win, but you can't deny that suddenly the Focus looks like the car to beat on sealed surfaces. But even with Martin's dominance, Citroen was right there, with Loeb taking second and Carlos Sainz third, a result which guarantees Citroen the manufacturer's title for the year. And, in more good news for Citroen, Loeb's result gives him the driver's title, regardless of the results of the final two rallies.

And now, the bad news. Solberg's Subaru was well off the pace, even when the weather wasn't agreeable. Solberg has to hope that he finds some speed in the next two weeks, because with another tarmac rally in Spain, Martin could catch Solberg in the points race. The only good news for Solberg was that he did manage to set a scratch time on Sunday. The rally was also bad news for Peugeot, with Marcus Gronholm also well off the pace, and the 307 of Cedric Robert retiring. It's shocking to think that Peugeot was the top maker just two years ago.

Two weeks from now, the WRC travels to Spain. While it's still a sealed surface rally, it's decidedly different from Corsica. The roads flow a bit more, meaning more speed, and the open corners promote lots of cutting, so those further down the running order will have to deal with dirt and gravel. Gilles Panizzi owns the last two victories here, but with Mitsubishi's sad state at the moment, Loeb and Martin should be fighting for victory.

October 15, 2004

Rallye de France Day One

As usual, the Rallye de France is providing some surprises, best of which is the fact that the top two positions aren't held by drivers named Loeb or Solberg. In fact, Ford is finally showing some speed, with Francois Duval and Markko Martin holding the top positions going into day two. Sebastien Loeb has picked up the pace, and is in third place, just over 30 seconds behind Duval. Carlos Sainz is in fourth, another 20 seconds or so behind Loeb. Marcus Gronholm is fifth, another twenty seconds adrift. The biggest surprise is Petter Solberg, who is clinging to seventh. Solberg hasn't had any pace today, and he blamed his poor start on a bad tyre choice. His championship defense could be on its last leg, unless things go all wrong for Loeb.

October 14, 2004

Well, That Explains It

Thank you, Christopher Hitchens, for your brilliant deconstruction of the Ten Commandments. For all his intellectual gibberish, Hitchens should really take a moment and do a bit of research into theology before saying something like this:

One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers.

Even the most untheological Christian could probably explain the concept of "original sin" and it's effect on humanity. But since Hitchens wraps his ignorance in $5 words, he is clearly the more intellectual person. And satire does not forgive ignorance.

A related side-note: I really don't care what the Supreme Court decides about the Ten Commandments issue, and I've said this before. And I will agree with Hitchens in his critique of Judge Moore. And Dahlia Lithwick points out that should the Supreme Court decide that the display of the Ten Commandments is, in fact, unconstitutional, they will have to do a bit of house cleaning themselves.

Update

My father-in-law just sent me this email message, which I think adds a bit of theological weight to insignificance of the presence of a chunk of stone in a courthouse:

I just read your blog for today. I'm surprised at how little thought Judge Roy Moore and other defenders of the faith have given to the faith they seek to defend. When the 10 were first given, the people who heard that dread voice of God begged that He not speak to them again, so awful was the sound (cf Ex 20:18-19; Deut 5:23-25; Heb 12:19). Moore, etc., have lost the perspective of the original story. Even in the Old Covenant when the 10 were central in God's relationship with his people they were never on public display. When God gave Moses the 10 written in stone, he also gave him the blue print for the Tabernacle in which the stone-etched Law was to be hidden in the Ark of the Covenant under the Mercy Seat, never to be seen by human eye (cf. Ex chs 25-31 and 31:18). Then later, when the Philistines returned the confiscated Ark of the Covenant to Beth-shemesh in Israel, a great many people were slaughtered by God because they looked into the Ark where the stone-carved 10 were (1 Sam 6:19). George Lucas understood the stone tablets better than Roy Moore.

October 13, 2004

Hacking

Gideon Strauss has written what seems to be the theological and philosophical basis for being a hacker:

I really like the notion that most of us are vocational experts in a limited number of areas of life, and at the same time responsible for being thoughtful amateurs in several more areas of life.

That's the whole idea behind being a hacker -- choosing to meddle in everything and anything to learn how it works. The more we know about the world around us, the better off we are.

October 12, 2004

Yanks v. Bo-Sox

I'm really not a baseball, at all, but I sorta wish I could watch the Yankees/Red Sox playoff series. Honestly, regardless of what happens in the World Series (even if an NL team beats this series' winner), this is the best thing to happen to baseball.

Jacques Derrida RIP

One of the founding fathers of deconstruction, Jacques Derrida, has died. Leave it to Gregg Easterbrook to write a moving eulogy:

The philosopher Jacques Derrida died Friday. Few thinkers have had more impact for such recondite ideas. Derrida was given to gibberish pronouncements such as "deconstruction, if there is such a thing, takes places as the experience of the impossible." His followers received such words as oracular while his detractors received them as threats to Western civilization. (TMQ received them as gibberish.) Derrida believed writers never truly control what they say because limitations of language and social structure impose barriers no writer can evade; this is an important idea that should have lasting merit in literary criticism. The idea is also easy to satirize -- if an author's intent "cannot overcome the inherent contradictions of language itself, robbing texts of truthfulness, absolute meaning and permanence," as the New York Times said in its obituary, then Derrida's own theory may not be truthful, and if his own theory isn't true then maybe writers can in fact control their words and convey absolute truth, and so on. At least Derrida got people excited about intellectual theory, which is more than we can say for most intellectuals.

While I agree with Easterbrook (at least the part about the gibberish), there is a fundamental truth in what Derrida had to say -- the limitations of language do built barriers for the writer. If you're at all versed in literary criticism, but don't subscribe to deconstructivist theories, you can't really argue with this point, otherwise, well, what's the point of the other schools of critical thought? If what the writer meant is really there and not limited by language or social structures, then why critique it at all? Perhaps only Formalism would remain.

October 08, 2004

Chit Chat

We had the first of (hopefully) many discussions at our house last night with a few other folks from our church. The idea is to find interesting/challenging articles and papers about "faith in the public square" and how we should interact with culture as Christians. First, a quick rundown of who was there:

* A CMU professor
* A doctoral candidate from Pitt (studying the philosophy of science)
* A part-time college instructor (holding a PhD in theology)
* A employee of the chemistry department at Duquesne
* Jen
* me

Not exactly a bunch of intellectual slackers. In fact, I'm the only one not involved in higher education at all. We got together to talk about Reformational Christian Philosophy and Christian College Education by Calvin Seerveld. Seerveld is an leader in the neo-calvinism movement within Reformed theology (see some of my sidebar links for more neo-calvinism). The article, a lecture delivered by Seerveld at Dordt College (a bastion of neo-calvinist thought), outlined his vision for a Reformed perspective on higher education. I won't rehash the article here, but I would like to talk about my reactions to it, and the discussion that followed.

First, I find myself to be in a bit of conflict with many neo-calvinistas (Gideon Strauss' term) because of their perspective on eduction, as outlined by Seerveld. Though they put an emphasis on "reforming creation" by letting their faith and knowledge of God define their task/vocation, often that "reformational" act never leaves the safe confines of the Reformed university setting. We can become far too comfortable debating theological/philosophical issues with our Christian peers (who will never disagree on an atomic level -- they obviously share our basic religious beliefs). But how does that reformed education help us debate with the larger world (in neo-calvinist parlance -- how do we reform that sphere in which we operate?)?

One thing I learned from the discussion was that I couldn't let myself become too insular in what I read. Sure, the neo-calvinists are interesting, and I share a lot of common ground with them, but that's no reason to ignore other voices. I think important sources of information/thought could be First Things and The New Pantagruel, which are heavily influenced by both reformed and Catholic thought. And guess what? We all share many of the same ideas about "faith in the public square." And I think the folks in this group will help to keep me in the right direction, since not everyone shares my interest in neo-calvinist thought.

October 05, 2004

Alleycat

There will be a halloween alleycat here in Pittsburgh, albeit on October 30. Not many details yet, but it'll start at the Mr Roboto Project in Wilkinsburg at 8:30pm. Cost is $5. A good time will be had by all.

October 04, 2004

Rally Italy Recap

Petter Solberg cruised to his third consecutive rally win on Sunday, setting 13 of 19 scratch times. But the win did little for his title hopes, as Sebastien Loeb finished second, giving up only two championship to Solberg. Loeb's lead stands at 26 points with only 30 left on the table. Solberg has promised to fight to the bitter end, and given his speed over the last couple of months, he should be on the podium for the rest of the year, but unless Loeb runs into serious problems, he should cruise to the title.

Citroen's Carlos Sainz put in another fine performance in third place. Only two other factory cars managed to score -- Ford's Francois Duval in fifth and Peugeot's Marcus Gronholm in seventh. Fourth, sixth, and eighth were filled with privateers, though sixth place finisher Gianluigi Galli has driven a factory Lancer this season.

Next up on the calender is France, with it's tight and quick tarmac stages. Loeb will be the man to beat, and even with his speed as of late, it will take another miracle/disaster for Solberg to win (last year Loeb had problems in the rain and Solberg won). Loeb can wrap up the championship with a podium finish.

The manufacturer's race has heated up some, with Subaru within striking distance of Ford in second place. Ford had a terrible rally in Italy, and given Mikko Hirvonen's speed, Subaru could overtake Ford in France.

October 02, 2004

Rally Italy -- Leg Two

Petter Solberg is firming in control of the rally, but with Sebastien Loeb comfortably holding second place, it does little to help his title defence. Marcus Gronholm held second place through most of the day til turbo problems got the better of his Peugeot, and the Finn lost over 23 minutes to the leaders, though, unusually, Gronholm didn't retire, and he managed to stay at the top of the time tables for the rest of the day. This was bad news for Solberg, however, as Loeb moved in second place, and with Carlos Sainz over a minute behind the Frenchman, there was little chance of Loeb protecting his championship lead.

There will be a podium battle, however, with Markko Martin just behind Carlos Sainz. Martin hasn't been happy with his Focus, and he's really been off the pace, but he will push Sainz tomorrow. The rest of the points places are filled with privateers taking advantage of the high rate of factory car attrition (Harri Rovanpera, Mikko Hirvonen, Armin Schwarz, Toni Gardenmeister).

October 01, 2004

Rally Italy - Day 1

A switch for this year's rally in Italy -- instead of the sealed roads of San Remo, the WRC comes to the island of Sardina, with it's narrow, sandy roads. Both Sebastien Loeb and Petter Solberg downplayed their chances to win, given their unenviable tasks of running first on the roads on day one, acting as sweepers for everyone else.

But, heading into the day's last service, Petter Solberg is holding a thirty second lead over Marcus Gronholm and Sebastien Loeb. Markko Martin is fourth, Carlos Sainz fifth, Harri Rovanpera sixth, and Francois Duval seventh. All are less than 60 seconds behind Solberg, though this gap should grow greater as the drivers make their second pass through the opening stages, negating an any disadvantage Solberg and Loeb have.

End of Leg Update

Solberg will take a 30 second lead over Marcus Gronholm into Leg 2. Sebastien Loeb is lurking close behind, 34 seconds off Solberg's pace. The rest of the field is slowing slipping away, with Markko Martin just under a minute behind Solberg. The reigning champ will be running last on the road tomorrow, giving him the opportunity to adjust his pace according to Loeb and Gronholm, and Solberg generally does well holding onto a lead.