When the Mountains Don't Move.

When people talk religion online, I tend to stay out of it.  I have good friends on both sides of the pew, people I wouldn't hurt or humiliate for the world. A few people know where I stand on my own faith, and I have not always been one of them.  Suffice it to say that I don't believe anybody has it right, and if a person has never questioned their own moral judgement then they're probably doing it wrong.

My faith is like a sore tooth, I frequently find myself testing it, poking at it with my mental tongue trying to find out what feels right and what stings.  At times this has led to doubt and consternation, but through internal Socratic method, I find my way back into a spiritual comfort zone.

I have been thinking lately of my journey of faith during my adolescent years.  Social media has allowed me to reconnect with a handful of the people who shared that path with me, and as a result I find myself considering the various spiritual homes in which we now reside considering we walked the same road for awhile.

The church youth group that I attended during and just after my confirmation years was, in a word, intense.  I witnessed impassioned prayer, protracted worship, laying of hands, speaking in tongues, and visions of God calling some of us to a life of prophecy. I was told by the youth minister that I would lead a ministry.  Several of the people that I was involved with during that time have gone on to become spiritual leaders in their communities, but I wouldn't define myself as such.

I remember one intense session of worship when I was about fifteen years old.  One of the other teens in our group, a young man about a year older than me, was legally blind.  He wore those chunky glasses that people still sometimes call Coke-bottle-bottoms, but even with these his vision was profoundly damaged.  During the meeting, another member felt that the Holy Spirit had called our group to heal this young man's blindness.  We went about our task with a verve only achievable by hormonal teens in a frenzy of religious faith.  We prayed, we sang, we performed a laying of hands, we reenacted the events of John 9:6 and made mud to put on his eyes.

When it was finished, his vision remained unchanged.  We were still hopeful that he would be cured in God's time, but as the days passed our attention shifted to other religious experiences.  Shortly after that evening, I went through the biggest crisis of my young life and ended up moving to a different city.  I kept up a little contact with my friends from the old youth group, but I never knew what became of our own Bartimaeus.

Today, I find my thoughts returning to that evening like the sore tooth I referenced earlier.  Why didn't God immediately heal that boy?  If it wasn't in His plan to heal him, why were the others in our group so certain that it was?  Doesn't this disprove the very idea of God speaking to us during prayer?

I don't believe so.

I believe that on that night twenty years ago, God did speak to our group, but our understanding of that message was skewed by our human desire to see first-hand an unambiguous miracle.  Unfortunately for us, miracles are never so concrete.  Rather, life has shown me that the miracles we experience are performed by a more artful hand, and require an open mindset for observation.

God did not call us to cure his blindness.  God called us to BE the cure for his blindness.

God called a small group of His faithful to support and carry him through the darkness.  He called us to be as dependable and trustworthy as a healthy pair of eyes.  In our zeal, we attempted to perform an overt miracle, without considering the deftness of His hand.

It took me over twenty years to figure out what happened that night, and why.  I hope that along the way somebody heard God's call to service for what it was, and that young man finally found his cure.

God doesn't want me to do stuff.
God wants me to be something.


P.S.  I found my ministry. I shepherd a flock of three little sheep, but I believe they will change the world for the better.

Daddy Rants: A Battle of Wit and Wordplay

I have, on occasion, use this forum to delineate my thoughts on common behaviors that I encounter in my everyday life.  While for the most part, I am an active participant in the lives of my family and close friends, I have always enjoyed people watching.  I try to mitigate my judgmental tendencies with self-deprecating humor.  It is only thanks to my many foibles that I am able to identify those I see around me.

Today's subject is particularly near and dear to my heart.  It is a pastime with a long and storied history and it fits particularly well with the technology of today.  It has many aficionados and I count myself among their number.  The difference is that I at least recognize it for what it is and list it among my guilty pleasures.

I am speaking, of course, about heated debate of a political or controversial nature.

My family, particularly on my father's side, is the reason that I enjoy passionate conversation.  As my wife will tell you, getting us all together is an experiment in multi-target hearing and would be the subject of serial nightmares for any court stenographer.  It could also be compared to standing in a room full of agitated ducks.

Facebook in particular has molded itself well to the ideal format for an argument.  The ability for anybody to write out comments in reaction and counter-reaction to somebody's statement fulfills everything an accomplished arguer could ask for.  You can review and research your opinion as you are creating it, and your opponent's statement is conveniently written out for you to pick apart point by point.

See, the point of debate, especially online, is not to sway the opinion of your opponent or audience.  The point is to flex your intellectual muscle and show off those syntactic skills.  When engaged in a good debate I am so consumed with finding more compelling and eloquent ways to defend my mindset that my audience is rendered inconsequential and my opponent exists only to postulate more philosophical clay pigeons for the double-barreled shotgun of my logic.

It is very similar to blogging.

It is also very similar to masturbation.

Though there are many many more similes to be drawn between using Facebook for passionate debate and the act of self-pleasure I will abandon this line of thought. After all, my mother sometimes reads this blog.

Here are a few reason why Facebook is the perfect forum for matching wits against the masses:

1. The 'like' button is available on everything.  This allows instant feedback on the brilliance (or lack therof) contained in an argument.  For an audience member, it is the equivalent of murmuring general approval.

2. The ability to see individual threads of specific argument is far superior to the # tagging that Twitter employs

3. The ability to see and measure the quality of conversation simply by the number of comments it generates.  I have never seen a post that earned more than twenty comments without being overcome with curiosity and seeing what all the fuss was about.

4. The notification feature allows you to immediately know when somebody has responded, either in agreement or in their continued ignorance.

Regardless of its inherent selfishness and the narcissism it implies, I enjoy both blogging and engaging in online debates.  And while I appreciate each and every one of my readers (especially those of you who 'like' my Facebook page) I know that even if there was nobody out there reading this I would still have to write it, for I have tasted the sweet nectar of sermonizing, and God help me I like it.

Added bonus- embedded video!

This is the job for which I have been searching my whole life.

Top 10 Songs Of The Moment: The Covers

I have always had a soft spot for a well made cover song.  There is something I respect about an artist who can take a well known song and pay homage to the original while still making it their own.  There are some legendary covers that have eclipsed the original in terms of quality and public recognition.  Aretha Franklin's rendition of Otis Redding's "Respect" is one excellent example, and Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" is another.  For this list I tried to stick to songs that earned more recognition in their original form, thus maintaining the "homage" aspect that I feel is critical to a good cover song.


Zox | Canon | Take Me Home 
This peculiar little band released a reggae version of Pachelbel's Canon in D Major as part of their freshman album. Although the wedding circuit has ground away most of my enjoyment of the original song, I still like this fun and fresh rendition.


Type O Negative | Cinnamon Girl | October Rust 
It took me a very long time to appreciate this band.  In most circumstances I wouldn't consider myself a fan of their dark, gothic-metal sound.  The fact that they included a cover song on both October Rust and Slow Deep and Hard made me take a closer look at them and their music, much to my benefit.  


Me First and The Gimme Gimmes | Rainbow Connection | Are a Drag 
I don't know if it is fair to put a covers-only band on this list, but these guys are really good.  Their albums are well themed and fun to listen to, but it is their choice of songs that makes them a top-tier cover band.  When punk rock meets The Muppets, magic happens.


Anberlin | Enjoy The Silence | Lost Songs
I like the pop-punk feel that Anberlin does so well.  Their version of this oft-covered Depeche Mode hit adds a nice rock feel without making it too dark or heavy.


Authority Zero | Drunken Sailor | 12:34 
About ten years ago I heard a really fantastic punk cover of the famous sea chanty "What Do You Do With A Drunken Sailor", and since then I have been looking for the band that made it with no luck.  Since this album wasn't released until 2007; I doubt this was it.  But it is a very good version and is absolutely worth a listen.


Alien Ant Farm | Smooth Criminal | Anthology 
I really do believe that there is something about Michael Jackson's music that lends itself well to the rock genre.  I offer both this song and Fall Out Boy's cover of Beat It as proof of this hypothesis.  But it must suck to be a one-hit-wonder for doing a cover of somebody else's song.


Metallica | Astronomy | Garage Inc.
I'll admit that I had not heard this song until I heard Metallica's version.  But the esoteric lyrics and far out references are classic 1970's prog-rock fare typical of Blue Öyster Cult.  After hearing the original version of this song, I realized that Will Ferrell truly captured the spirit of the band in the famous "More Cowbell" sketch. I especially like the references to various celestial bodies. 


Muse | Feeling Good | Origin of Symmetry
I love the sultry, jazzy feel that the band added the the Nina Simone version. (Itself a cover of a 1965 show tune.) While I am not a fan of Simone's voice, I do enjoy Matt Bellamy's nasal falsetto, especially when paired with Muse's synthetic-alternative sound.  The Muse version captures the feel of the original far better than the soulless Jennifer Hudson Weight Watchers ad ever will.


Johnny Cash | Hurt | American IV: The Man Comes Around
I almost didn't include this song on the list, because it very nearly eclipsed the original in the same way I mentioned at the beginning of this post.  Thanks to the radical difference in genres and audiences between this and the original version, I felt it safe to include this legendary cover by a legendary artist.  I love Reznor's reaction to this after seeing the video, "that song isn't mine anymore..."  a classy reaction by a phenomenal artist.


Marilyn Manson | Personal Jesus | Lest We Forget: The Best of
Marilyn Manson is unique among artists in the fact that I am more familiar with his covers than with his original works.  This song really suits his style, and he didn't add too much to the Depeche Mode original other than increased distortion, but somehow he made it his own.  I don't know how to address the fact that there are two D.M. songs on this list except they must produce excellent cover fodder.

And The Tiny Little Angel Wings You Flew In On!

Valentine's Day is happening right now.

Again.

There are three distinct schools of thought on Valentine's Day.  Lots of people feel that it is a perfectly wonderful holiday, with lovers exchanging pretties and candy.  These are people who have realized that the fourteenth of February occurs at nearly the same time every year and, armed with their sibylline knowledge, procure that most rare and special of Valentine's Day gifts: the dinner reservation.  Jewelry merchants have inappropriate physical reactions when these first types come within 25 feet.  The second is that of the schoolchild.  These are people who view the holiday with some confusion.  Am I getting a gift or not?  If I get one am I then obligated to reciprocate?  Will some sort of hand-made coupon book suffice?  Just point these types toward the candy and they are happy.  This second camp is where yours truly has made his residence.  The third type are the haters.  They object to the holiday and everything it stands for, citing candy and card manufacturers as the shadowy overlords of the Pink & Red Mafia.  This is the realm of the jilted lover, the perpetually single, and the hordes of dedicated non-conformists.

At some point in my upbringing, an authority figure passed on the information that  the valentine "heart" shape that is so commonly used to decorate valentines and candy actually resembles a human organ, just not the heart.

I've never been a fan of those chalky little candy prostates ever since the revelation.

Since I've already confessed to being somewhat intimidated and confused by the holiday, it is no wonder that my Trophy Wife is not a big fan of the holiday either.  I am disappointed by this, since I feel that there is probably some grand scheme that I could pull off in order to forever change her mind about Valentine's Day.  We've celebrated with some little dates in the past, taken in our share of romantic comedies, and dipped a crap-ton of strawberries into an ocean of chocolate.  I really feel that what makes this holiday feel awkward for both of us is that all of the goods, events, and activities associated with the day doesn't enhance the love that we've shared for the past decade.  What is the point of putting chrome plating on a perfectly cut diamond?  I don't want somebody else to put words in my mouth for any reason, especially not the words I want to share with the most important person in my world.  Am I less in love with my wife because I don't buy the goofy cards, the factory chocolate, or the overpriced dying flowers?  Absolutely not!

I'll spend this Valentine's Day the same way I spent the day before, and the same way I'll spend tomorrow.  I'll enjoy my time with my wife and our kids, get some work done around the house, make a nice dinner, and enjoy a nice evening at home.  The only difference is that I will make a point to step outside myself and look at the love my wife and I share, to revel in the awesome magnitude of it, to give a silent recitation of thanks for the circumstances that brought us together, and to appreciate how we have maintained a passionate yet steadfast devotion to one another throughout all we have faced together.

I love you.

Tonight, On a Very Special Raconteur Daddy

Even though I make my residence in Nebraska, I will always call South Dakota my home.  I still follow South Dakota politics, neither because of my attachment to the state nor due to any great love of politics, but because most of my friends on Facebook still live there and a few are politically active one way or the other.  It was one of those friends that turned me on to a story that touches on a hot-button issue.

There was an editorial written by a local newspaper calling out legislators who are spending their time preparing legislation as a form of political posturing rather then work to enact policy that addresses the issues facing the state.  The letter goes on to state that other legislation, which would require Dept. of Social Service workers to administer drug screenings to welfare recipients, is an unrealistic plan and a waste of legislative time as it is currently written.

This sparked significant debate on my Facebook wall when I linked the story. The debate started with one person asking why I thought drug testing for welfare recipients was a bad idea, and it went on from there.

Here is my take on the subject.  If the government-sponsored aid in question were being used to provide only for an individual, I would support testing that individual for illegal drug use.  However, it is far more likely that the aid is being used to support a family, not just an individual, and that the children in that family are innocent victims of the poor choices and addictions of their elders.

It is these innocent victims who will be forced to suffer when government passes a zero-tolerance "no aid for addicts" law.  Nobody wants to see the government pay to support illegal drug addiction, or any kind of addiction for that matter.  But when you remove the support for addicts, you are removing the support for their families as well.

Most people will respond to this by arguing that any children living in the home ought to be removed in the event their adult provider fails a drug screening.  There is validity in this argument.  After all, a person who cannot pass a drug screening is hardly the ideal parent, and their addiction is likely damaging the well-being of the children.  It is also likely that the addiction is the cause of most of the hardship that caused them to apply for government aid in the first place.  This solution causes a new batch of complications.  The first complication that comes to my mind is that I don't feel like a single failed drug screening should be grounds for the children to be taken from the home.  The process for removing children from the home requires substantial evidence that the parent is unfit, and I don't know that a single failed drug screening should qualify.  If that was the case, then shouldn't we be removing the children from the household for anybody who fails a drug screening, such as those required for work?  To do otherwise seems to be singling out citizens who are already suffering financial hardship.  The idea of a government taking custody of the children based on the results of one drug screening smacks of Gestapo.

The second problem I see is easier to communicate.  There will be parents who simply do not attempt to receive government aid simply because they are too entrenched in their addiction, but do not want to face the prospect of losing their children.  These children will be left without support to suffer until they are removed from the home for some other reason.

It is very easy for politicians today to make the demand that government aid not be used for illegal drugs.  It's hard to argue with that, nobody wants to feel like their tax dollars are supporting a dangerous and illegal addiction.  But with so much support offered so readily, these consequences and several others are overlooked.  The reality of the situation is that most government aid is given in a method that cannot be used to directly purchase drugs.  More likely, the aid is used to cover expenses, such as groceries and utilities, thus freeing up resources that can be spent feeding their addiction. 


So what is the solution?  


I don't know.  I don't claim to know.  But if I can come up with these dangerous pitfalls just off the top of my head, it seems that a zero-tolerance edict is not the way to go.  I would recommend looking at the entire situation, solving the problems in reverse order.  For example:  We want to end government sponsored addiction, so first we need to make sure that the innocent dependents of the addicts are supported.  So before we can do that we need to make sure the programs are in place and funded to cover their increased workload.  Otherwise the children will suffer while lawmakers scurry to fix the problem they created.  Simply put, we need to make sure the safety nets are up before we go pushing people out on the tightrope, rather than installing them after somebody starts falling.


If you've made it this far I would first like to thank you.  Your dedication to listening to my rant is nothing short of remarkable.  I still plan to keep this blog fairly light reading, liberally seasoned with humor.  Remember how, before the era of the "dramady", a sitcom would occasionally warn you that tonight's episode would be free of humor by calling it "a very special" so-and-so?  Well, I suppose this was "a very special" Raconteur Daddy, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.  I promise that the next post will be more fun.  Maybe I'll throw a fart joke in there.

I'm not uncool, I'm just out of fashion right now.

I've had a longstanding pet peeve for some time now.  By "some time" I mean it began about ten seconds after I became a parent.  There seems to be a complete inability in Hollywood to write a realistic father character.  Nearly every "Dad" character on television is a complete idiot.  They are all completely out of touch with their families.  They are only motivated by sex, food, beer, sports, gadgets, or the chance to be lazy.  They all manage to ignore their wife and embarrass their children.  Fathers with daughters are all awkward and overprotective.  But at least the daughters fare better than the sons, who either have a big idiot trying to be their pal instead of a real parent or are ignored completely.  Homer Simpson was supposed to be a caricature of all the male foibles, but he has instead become the basis for nearly every male character on television or movies today.

I understand that the life of an average father would not make for an entertaining movie or television show.  I'm not so naive as to believe I should be able to turn on the television and find a reflection of myself.  But I do believe that I should be able to find at least one male parent character with which I can identify on at least a few minor points.  Am I so unique that my actions and beliefs are completely alien to society at large?

It did not used to be so.  Despite their current status as a modern-era joke, I find that the fathers made famous by Bill Cosby, Alan Thicke, and even Bob Saget to be a more realistic representation of the average father's daily life, if only slightly so.

Here are a few pointers for any budding screenwriters out there:

• A real dad can change a diaper, however foul, without having to choke back vomit.
• A real dad may be a sports fan, but he wouldn't hurt his wife's or children's feelings in order to somehow "catch the big game" (see anniversaries, school plays, dance recitals, etc.)
• A real dad can talk to his daughter about any issue (even "girl stuff") and while Mom will likely be included, she will not have to handle it alone.
• A real dad doesn't turn into a drooling idiot when presented with either an attractive woman or the possibility of actual sex.
• A real dad may make corny jokes, or embarrass their family, but it is not a fundamental building block of their entire way of thinking.
• A real dad would not completely lose it if he found his son playing with a doll, or showing off a dance move, or some other "feminine" action.
• A real dad can sit through an opera, or a ballet, or some other event he attends purely for his wife's enjoyment, without making an ass of himself.
• A real dad, when asked by his wife how she looks in an outfit, can look at his wife, assess what is right and wrong with the outfit, and give her a helpful answer without throwing a temper tantrum or clutching his collar in a nervous sweat.

 Even if I were a gay man trying to raise a child, I'd still be pissed at how screenwriters portray fathers.  As far as Hollywood is concerned, gay fathers turn into screeching pools of ineptitude at the slightest issue with their children.  While the writers are attempting to be "forward-thinking" and "open-minded" they still manage to pander to the archaic stereotype "queer".

Commercials, though, are the worst.  If I were to boycott every product that portrayed "Dad" as a lummox and source of all the family tribulation I would have to learn to live without painkillers, cleaning products, and a whole slew of household goods.

I know I'm not alone.  I know there are other great dads out there that love to spend time with their families and can communicate with their wives as well as their children.  I'm just saying that it would be nice to see one on TV once in awhile.