Lift Up Your Hearts!

[Insert whistling here]

Front entrance lights and tiles 

              

Kitchen bar lights and hand-crafted wine rack

              

Yep, he did it all, plus about a dozen more cool things on a smaller scale!

Sophie Scholl: The Final Days is a simply made but powerful German film (with English subtitles) about a young woman arrested for treason after distributing some anti-Nazi leaflets.  Don't expect a happy ending; the setting is Nazi Germany, where happy endings were few.  Nonetheless I recommend the movie highly.  Such depictions of goodness and heroism are rare—much less without resorting to graphic violence or sentimentalism.

Four things struck me in particular:

Sophie's courage, while lamentably rare, was of an everyday kind.  She is no saint, no Mother Teresa, no doer of grand deeds.  Initially, she seems less like a serious member of an underground resistance movement and more like a young college activist with no serious understanding of the dangers of the game she is playing.  Indeed, as the scenario works out, she is often dazed, as if she can't believe what is happening.  Yet this is where her courage shines:  she is calmly, grimly, and articulately faithful to her beliefs.  Whether or not Sophie Scholl's actions made a bit of difference in ending the Nazi insanity is debatable; what is clear is that her kind of heroism is within reach of everyone, and comes not from being especially saintly, but from character established and nourished over the years, resulting in a well-ingrained habit of doing the right thing despite the cost.

The horror that was Nazi Germany did not happen overnight. Ordinary people, attempting to live ordinary lives—working, playing, learning, raising families—found themselves gradually entrapped by a system which multiplied minor evils into great obscenities, rewarded playground bullies with power and authority, and convinced normal folks that compromise and complicity were necessary for survival.

One reviewer (I don't remember who deserves the credit, or the blame) noted that Sophie Scholl:  Die letzten Tage is a German film, and remarked with pleasure that it was good to see Germany dealing with its darker history.  I'm not so sure.  It's awfully easy to repent of other people's sins.  Sophie Scholl is now a hero in Germany, especially among young people.  From the Wikipedia article:  [I]n 2003, Germans were invited by ZDF Television to participate in a nation-wide competition to choose the top ten most important Germans of all time. Voters under the age of 40 helped catapult Sophie and her brother Hans Scholl into fourth place, winning over Bach, Goethe, Gutenberg, Bismarck, Willy Brandt and Albert Einstein. If the votes of young viewers alone had been counted, Sophie and Hans Scholl would have be[en] ranked first. No one under 40 could have participated in the Nazi terrors, and it's quite unlikely that their parents did.  Repentance is a grand thing, but it's important not to let our horror at a past regime distract us from similar evils, extant or potential, in our present lives.

Without negating one bit of the evil that Hitler perpetrated, it's hard not to detect a bit of racism in our treatment of Nazi Germany.  The 20th century alone is filled with insane dictators and horrific blood baths:  Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Nicolae Ceausescu....  You can add plenty more to the list, yet Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust are put forth again and again as the ultimate evil. It is almost as if we look at Asians, Africans, and even Eastern Europeans and expect them to be uncivilized...but Germany?  How could such horrors arise in Western Europe?  I know, it doesn't take much knowledge of European history to find plenty of evil in the West—which is why it smacks of racism to give Hitler such prominence.

Perhaps one reason we are so shaken by Nazi Germany is that much of the harm that was done was within the law.  The purpose and the glory of the law is to protect the people; when ideologues use it instead as a weapon against a country's own citizens, we are right to be frightened.

I don't recall the era of the 1960s with fondness; it wasn't all bad, but it was a messy, unkind time that accelerated our culture's decline in the areas of civility and decent behavior.  However, there must be more of the 60s in my make-up than I thought:  I'm finding good reasons to distrust The Man.  :)

Just as the National Education Association adamantly opposes home education, the American Medical Association, unnerved, perhaps, by Ricki Lake's popular home birth movie, The Business of Being Born, has taken direct aim at home birth.^*  Reaction against yet one more threat to personal freedom has come from across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right.  Congratulations to the AMA for provoking agreement between pro-choice and pro-life groups. 

Naturally one would expect professional associations for doctors (and teachers, and plumbers for that matter) to fear and oppose anything that threatens to take even a small amount of business away from their members.  This conflict of interest, however, does make it difficult to believe that the driving motivation for their actions is altruistic.  They would do better, I think, to consider the advice of wise Gamaliel to the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:12-39) when they threatened to kill Peter and the other apostles who were disrupting Jerusalem (and the Sanhedrin's business) with their stories about Jesus:

Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

---

^*If you follow this link to the U.S. News and World Report article, some of you will be particularly interested to note the first comment.

In considering the Supreme Court's nullification of Louisiana's law that allows a death sentence for one convicted of raping a child, I asked, Shouldn't the question before the Court be, "Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits the State of Louisiana from imposing this sentence?"

The Court's subsequent decision on the District of Columbia's ban on individual ownership of handguns addressed the issue in just that way:  Is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits the city from imposing such a law?  "Yes," they concluded— although the vote was shockingly close.  The Second Amendment confers a right to gun ownership that this law attempts to take away.  I applaud the decision, not because I like the idea of a gun in the hand of every irresponsible idiot, but because it was the right answer to the right question.  If our society has diverged so much from our origins that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is no longer tenable, we, the people of the United States, have the right and power to take it away via a new Constitutional amendment. The Court's job is to examine the law in light of the Constitution as it stands

I have not taken the time to read the entire, lengthy decision, but even a cursory glance shows how critical to sound decision-making is a good understanding of not only law, but also history, grammar, linguistics, and above all logic.

As I wrote earlier, one important idea I took from Marcus Buckingham's The One Thing You Need to Know is the value of expending more energy in our areas of strength than in where we are weak.  Self-evident?  Maybe, but in practice we often tend to do the opposite.

John Stackhouse's review of another Buckingham book, Go Put Your Strengths to Work, inspired me to reserve it at our library.  Although the "I gotta be me" philosophy taken to extremes can lead to unwholesome, selfish attitudes and dereliction of duty, we err in the other direction by not recognizing that God made us who we are and not someone else for a reason.  To ignore that design is not only to insult our Creator, but also to risk missing out on the good he would do to and through us.

Buckingham’s counsel—available in this book, on his website, and via other media—coincides powerfully with the counsel of the apostle Paul, who told the early Christians under his care to recognize their inherent particularity, to rejoice in it, to honour each other’s differences, and to work together for mutual benefit. In fact, Paul provides for us an image so apt that it is surprising Buckingham never makes use of it: the parts of the human body working in all of their particularity for each other’s good: eye, ear, hand, foot, and so on (I Corinthians 12).

Life is short, distractions and demands are many, and we can misspend ‘way too much of our time and effort on matters that don’t matter, or in work to which we are neither inclined nor suited. Buckingham’s book is, like all wisdom, deceptively simple and clear, and I’ve found it to be effective. It has helped me move away from activities that I am not good at, or even some that I am, but don’t have much heart for, toward those through which I can do the most good for others and enjoy myself best while doing them.

In an earlier post on the Lisbon Treaty, I stated

[I]n the U.S. we have seen state laws gradually subsumed more and more by national regulation, so that fleeing to Pennsylvania from a repressive law in New York is not as easy as it once was.  I'm not saying this is always bad, but it can be, and bears watching.

I"m watching, and here's an example I saw today.  The U. S. Supreme Court has nullified a Louisiana law allowing for a sentence of the death penalty following conviction for the rape of a child under 12.

However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.

There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.... Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."

What's wrong here?  Why are the judges debating the heinousness of the crime, and why are they judging by perceived national consensus?  Shouldn't the question before the Court be, "Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits the State of Louisiana from imposing this sentence?"

That, as they say, is why we pay them the big bucks.  Questions of the legitimacy of the death penalty and what might be suitable punishment for a man who repeatedly rapes a five-year-old girl can be debated by the voters and their representatives in each state.  The purview of those nine experts in Constitutional Law is the Constitution itself.

The role of joking in the way we deal with one another is a concern of mine, as I've said before.  Thanks to Groshlink I've found another excellent essay on the topic, The Gospel and Humor by Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.  Unfortunately, the article is in PDF format, and you have to weave amongst some other articles to read it, but it's worthwhile.  To get you started—and to give those who won't follow the link a taste of what he says—here are some excerpts.

• Your humor has a lot to do with how you regard yourself. Many people use humor to put down others, keep themselves in the driver’s seat in a conversation and setting, and to remind the hearers of their superior vantage point. They use humor not to defuse tension and put people at ease, but to deliberately belittle the opposing view. Rather than showing respect and doing the hard work of true disagreement, they mock others’ points of view and dismiss them without actually engaging the argument.


• There are [also] some people who constantly, bitterly, mock themselves. At first it looks like a form of humility, or realism, but really it is just as self-absorbed as the other version. It is a sign of an inner dis-ease with one’s self, a profound spiritual restlessness.


• There is another kind of self-righteousness...that produces a person with little or no sense of humor.  Moralistic persons often have no sense of irony because they take themselves too seriously, or because they are too self-conscious and self-absorbed in their own struggles to be habitually joyful.


• The gospel, however, creates a gentle sense of irony. Our doctrine of sin keeps us from being over-awed by anyone (especially ourselves) or shocked, shocked by any behavior. We find a lot to laugh at, starting with our own weaknesses. They don’t threaten us any more because our ultimate worth is not based on our record or performance. Our doctrine of grace and redemption also keeps us from seeing any situation as hopeless. This groundnote of joy and peace makes humor spontaneous and natural.


• In gospel-shaped humor we don’t only poke fun at ourselves, we also can gently poke fun at others, especially our friends. But it is always humor that takes the other seriously and ultimately builds them up as a show of affection. “We are not to be perpetually solemn.  We must play.  But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.” (C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”)

Scott Adams strikes again, with a definitely nerdy variation on this popular saying:

You may have noticed I've been posting a lot recently.  At one point I decided to try to write a post a day for the month of June.  There were two reasons for this.  The first—and this doesn't matter for those who use feedreaders, but not everyone does—is that I want to give people a reason to stop by frequently; if you don't write anything new, people get out of the habit.  At least I did, before I let Bloglines keep track of things for me.

The second, more compelling, reason is the accumulating backlog of things impelling me to write.  Books lined up for review; interesting tidbits of news and commentary I figure folks might otherwise not encounter; and the everyday happenings in our lives, which is my attempt to close somewhat the 1000 or more (sometimes much more) mile distance between us and those we love.  The only problem with this system is that the list grows even as it shrinks.  But at least I'm holding my own this month.  I suppose I could post more often (this is actually my second post of the day), but there is more to life—like laundry, as the persistent dryer buzzer is now reminding me.

Confessions of a Medical  Heretic, by Robert S. Mendelsohn, M. D. (McGraw-Hill, 1979)

A quick review of this so I can get it off my desk and back on the bookshelf:  There's no doubt that modern medicine has lengthened and improved our lives; the underside of that story is that modern medicine has also shortened our lives, and in many ways diminished their quality.  If you're not already half convinced of the second part of that statement, you'll find Dr. Mendelsohn's style hard to get through.  I believe him, and I still wanted to scream by about the 40th time he beat to death his otherwise illuminating analogy of modern medicine as a religion.

It's worth reading, however, especially if your faith in doctors, hospitals, and prescription medications is strong.  A little exposure to the harm that has been done in the name of health care is enough to let in some creeping doubts that nationalizing this commodity is the right path to take. At the very least it will make you a little more alert next time you step into a medical facility.

Sceptics will be quick to point out that the book was written in 1979, but if anyone thinks the basic situation has improved in the last 30 years, I'll point out that while progress has been made in some areas, the underlying philosophies and approaches remain.

I am not denouncing all of modern medicine, much less renouncing it.  Mendelsohn himself has good things to say, especially about emergency medicine.  But even religion shouldn't be taken completely on faith.  An awareness of the dangers lurking behind hospital doors can be very good for our health.

I love student recitals.  Our kids attended the Suzuki Music Institute of Central Florida for nearly 10 years, so I think I've heard more than my share of recitals.  Granted, the quality of music and musicianship was nothing compared with the Eastman School of Music recitals we subsequently enjoyed, but I can honestly say I was never bored, not even by the beginners, nor by hearing the same beginning songs again and again.  It was fun hearing the differences, not only from one child to another, but particularly as each child grew and advanced from one recital to another.

Nonetheless, I know that to many people the phrase "student recital" evokes horrifying thoughts of squeaks and off-pitch notes and shaky rhythms, over and over again as student follows student in a seemingly endless parade of classical or modern pieces the audience doesn't know and doesn't understand.

Acutely aware of this herself, when the director of the Ellison School of Music planned a summer recital for her students, she was determined that the event be both memorable and fun.  Last night we attended their Kaleidoscope Summer Concert, and can say without a doubt that it was both.  I say that even though I would like to have heard more classical and modern music that I didn't understand.  :)

Seating was at tables, cabaret-style, with delicious food (and real lemonade) from the Tropical Heat Organic Market and Delicatessen.

Pre-, post-, and entr'acte music was provided by the amazing duo of professional musicians Ashley Lochead (vocals) and Dan Flick (guitar/violin).  There was also a special guest appearance by a delightful young guy named Justin who really should be a professional singer himself, and a brief but memorable vision of beautiful, blond singers with equally beautiful voices across three generations.  In addition to singing, the show featured interpretive dance, skits, and lovely costumes.  The students ranged in age from maybe six to adult, including some high school students of considerable talent and training.

For the younger set, there was—perhaps understandably—a heavy emphasis on songs from recent Disney movies, with the older singers concentrating on "golden oldies" from the 40s and 50s, musical theater, movie music, and some just plain fun songs, like "Taylor, the Latte Boy."  No doubt you all are 'way ahead of us, and are already familiar with that song, but if not, you can find it on YouTube.  One particularly memorable song/skit was a collaboration between two older boys and a little girl on "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" and "Hakuna Matata" from The Lion King.

It was altogether a delightful evening, more like a good place for a Saturday night date than an occasion to show proud parents what they're getting for the money they spend on music lessons.  If you're in town for the next recital, you don't want to miss it.  And judging by the quality of the singers in this performance, if you're looking for voice lessons in the north Orlando area, you don't want to miss the Ellison School of Music.

We throw the term "witch hunt" around pretty loosely, but when it comes to child abuse accusations, apparently it's more accurate than not, at least in one Canadian city, where school officials reported sexual abuse of one of their students on the basis of a psychic's suggestion.  As Random Observations noted, the last time we accepted that kind of evidence in North America was during the Salem Witch Trials of 1692.

In this case, the child's mother was able to refute the accusation successfully, because the nature of her daughter's disability, combined with the fact that her elementary school had "lost" her several times, had prompted her to equip the girl with a GPS and a continuous audio monitor that provided clear evidence that the accusation was false.  How many other parents could have proven their innocence so easily?

A local man makes his living selling political propaganda, including campaign buttons.  Like a mercenary soldier, he plays all sides.  He feeds off bumper sticker philosophy, thumb-your-nose attitudes, and mocking humor.  It's not exactly the world's most useful occupation, certainly not among the more charitable.  But from the reaction to his "If Obama is president, will we still call it the White House?" button, you'd think Jonathan Alcox was a substantially lower form of life than drug pusher or Mafia don, just barely above child pornographer.

Barack Obama does not deny—indeed, he profits from—his partially African heritage.  I fail to see anything at all racist about that button; if being aware of someone's ancestry is racist, then we all are, including Obama's supporters, and the term has no meaning other than as an epithet to throw at our opponents when we run out of rational arguments.  If truth is no longer a defense, what hope have we for justice?

In the interest of full disclosure, I love word play, and am thus predisposed to finding that button amusing.  I wouldn't wear one, but can see the humor and not the offense.

Alcox has other buttons that I find far more beyond the pale. For example,

Another one that Alcox said sells particularly well features George W. Bush next to a chimpanzee beneath the words "The dangers of cloning."

If the same button sported Barack Obama instead of George W. Bush, it would be no less offensive—but also no more.  Yet selling that button would push Alcox below the child pornographers in some eyes.

Now that's racism.

I've had some adventures with palmetto bugs, but I'll take them over scorpions any day.  Check out "Et tu?"s Hospitality in my Home for your morning internal excercise, and better-her-than-me thanksgivings.

Thanks to Andy B.'s suggestion, I just installed the latest version of Firefox.  No verdict on it as yet—it was an easy install, and some of it is seamless, some really cool (such as the security information you can get by clicking on the title bar icon, though the number of websites that identify themselves has been disappointing), and some annoying (changed appearance of some of the icons, which will take some getting used to for someone with the kind of visual memory I have).  Some of the big new features include lots of things you can do from the title bar, and I see that how bookmarks are organized has changed; also, security has supposedly been significantly enhanced.

So far I've liked the evolution of Firefox, unlike Netscape which got more and more annoying with each new version, as they added features I didn't want and which ate up more and more memory and disk space.  Time will tell with 3.0.