the tindog coffeehouse

I love the Winter Olympics, which may seem odd for a native Texan who’s only been snow skiing once in his life (and by “skiing”, I mean awkwardly falling down down the bunny slope while trying not to break anything). Maybe it’s because the men and women competing are such amazing athletes, or maybe because every single event with the possible exception of curling has the potential to end in a horrifying death.

And now (as if the threat of blood and carnage weren’t already interesting enough), Popular Mechanics has a breakdown of the physics behind several Olympic events, including:

• Alpine skiing – “Alpine skiers’ knees sustain about 110 ft-lb of lateral torque during turns and nearly 300 pounds of total force at the joint—almost as much torque as can be found in the engines of a ski resort’s snow-removal trucks.”
• Hockey – “When a player blasts a slap shot 30 feet from the net with 125 pounds of force, the goalie has less than 200 milliseconds to react to the flying 3-inch-wide, 1-inch-thick puck.”
• Figure skating – “A 45-degree jump gives skaters 0.55 seconds of air time—enough to complete all but the devilish triple axel, which requires 0.65 to 0.75 seconds and a spin rate of 420 rpm—the engine-idling speed of some cars.”
• Ski jumping – “Laminated foam ski jumpsuits are one of the sports world’s most tightly regulated pieces of equipment. The reason: Even small tweaks to surface area can add lots of lift. ‘People were tinkering with the suits and flying like bats,’ says Troy Flanagan of the U.S. Ski and Snowboard Association. So the International Ski Federation standardized the gear. Suits can now be no more than 5 mm thick; the underwear, 3 mm. And, since airtight suits function as sails, the rules require materials that allow 40 liters of air per square meter to flow through them per second.”

Previously:
The reasons behind all the Olympic swimming records

Former Microsoft vice president Dick Brass (insert your own jokes here) wrote a pretty indicting op-ed piece yesterday in the New York Times about how his previous employer’s corporate culture stifles any true innovation coming out of the Redmond monolith:

Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator. Its products are lampooned, often unfairly but sometimes with good reason. Its image has never recovered from the antitrust prosecution of the 1990s. Its marketing has been inept for years; remember the 2008 ad in which Bill Gates was somehow persuaded to literally wiggle his behind at the camera? …

What happened? Unlike other companies, Microsoft never developed a true system for innovation. Some of my former colleagues argue that it actually developed a system to thwart innovation. Despite having one of the largest and best corporate laboratories in the world, and the luxury of not one but three chief technology officers, the company routinely manages to frustrate the efforts of its visionary thinkers.

He goes on to use as one example the story of how Microsoft’s ClearType technology was resisted by multiple groups within the company, thus apparently undermining any comparative advantages it would’ve provided.

Microsoft, naturally, doesn’t quite agree with Brass’s assertions. It replied that:

At the highest level, we think about innovation in relation to its ability to have a positive impact in the world. For Microsoft, it is not sufficient to simply have a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea. We measure our work by its broad impact. …

[F]or a company whose products touch vast numbers of people, what matters is innovation at scale, not just innovation at speed.

OK, fair enough. Microsoft admits having “a good idea, or a great idea, or even a cool idea” isn’t their top priority, which is another way of saying, “Bite me, Steve Jobs.” No, Microsoft is more concerned with quality. And if quality takes time, then they’re totally fine with that.

The problem is, in the 21st-century world of enterprise and consumer technology, quality doesn’t mean Jack. It’s all about speed, who can get the newest, shiniest product to market the fastest. It doesn’t have to be perfect (the first-gen iPhone certainly wasn’t, and virtually every Google product carried the “Beta” label for years), it just has to exist. If your product isn’t generating headlines on TechCrunch or Mashable, then you’ve lost, simple as that.

But doesn’t “innovation at scale” account for anything? After all, Microsoft is quick to trumpet that Internet Explorer 8 is now the most-used web browser on the Internet. Of course what they fail to mention is that IE6 is still number two. And why is IE6 still so popular? Because thousands of enterprises are stuck with it because their legacy web-based apps simply don’t work with any modern, standards-based browser. In other words, it’s Microsoft’s lack of quality (combined with corporate laziness) that helps keep its numbers as high as they are.

And while Microsoft may be patting itself on the back for the success of Windows 7, it’s completely left in the dust when it comes to smartphones, social networking, cloud computing, and digital media. Even its venerable Internet Explorer continues to lose ground to Firefox and Chrome, a trend that will surely continue as more sites follow Google’s lead of blocking IE6 altogether.

So I guess I could buy the “innovation at scale” argument if the “scale” was more commanding. But it’s not, and the reason is because the quality just isn’t there in many cases.

Brass claims that the lack of innovation is directly due to Microsoft’s “dysfunctional” and inherently competitive corporate culture, which makes any chance of true innovation nearly impossible, and I’m inclined to agree, at least in part. As a former Microsoft employee myself (in enterprise support, not development), I experienced the direct impact of its muddled, ever-changing org chart and constantly-recalibrating corporate visions.

However, Microsoft isn’t really that much different than any other large corporation. Generally the larger (and older) a company gets, the more conservative it becomes; it’s just the way corporate America works. So to blame the company’s mediocrity on its organizational structure is a bit of a cop-out. The fact is, Microsoft just doesn’t fully understand the various industries it’s in, and no amount of org chart reshuffling is going to change that.

Previously:
The biggest mistake Microsoft made with Windows 7
Windows launch party video: the perfect ad for OS X
New Microsoft ‘I’m a PC’ ads: too little too late

I’ve been a huge fan of Lost since Season 1, but for whatever reason I’ve only blogged about it (briefly) once. And I’m not really starting now. After all, there are so many other, better places to find in-depth reviews, analyses, and theories. But with so much going on in this final season, I just wanted to jot down my initial thoughts of last night’s episode, brain-dump style. I’ll try to update the list throughout the week as I read through everyone else’s ideas, and hopefully I’ll repeat the process for the entire season.

That being said, here goes (in no particular order):

• So fake-Locke is the resurrected/reincarnated Man in Black, and fake-Sayid is the resurrected/reincarnated Jacob. Which means that the actors we saw in the Season 5 finale were probably resurrected/reincarnated as well. In other words, the battle between the two characters has been going on for a long, long time. When one body dies, the spirit of that character moves on to another host and the cycle continues. That is, until the Man in Black finds his loophole.
• Interesting that MIB says he just wants to go home. Where’s that? Anywhere but the island. (Think metaphysically, not geographically.)
• Smokey is another incarnation of MIB! Interesting how Smokey lives not in the Temple, but in the catacombs underneath and outside of it, an underworld if you will. A realm of the undead, much like Hades. Does that mean MIB is undead, sentenced to an eternal captivity, eternal damnation? Certainly seems that way. Remember, Lucifer (Satan) was condemned by God, cast out of Heaven, and sentenced to an eternity in Hell (Hades) (Ezekiel 28:15-16, Luke 10:18). And much like the Smoke Monster, the Bible says Satan comes to “steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10).
• Love the imagery of Sayid being lowered into the water and raised again, arms splayed as if he were on a cross, then coming back to life. A true baptism: a death of the old life, washing away his sin, then being reborn in the image of Christ and consumed by the Holy Spirit.
• Does that mean Jacob is the equivalent to Jesus/the Holy Spirit? Remember: “God loves you as He loved Jacob”. And “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
• Is that why Richard Alpert doesn’t age? MIB said Richard looked different out of his chains, but were those chains literal or metaphorical? Was he set free from bondage/sin by Jacob in return for eternal life?
• Interesting that MIB took the form of dead-for-real John Locke, yet Locke’s body remained. Meanwhile, when Sayid came back to life, he was still in his own body. So maybe the Jacob-inhabiting-Sayid theory isn’t true after all.
• Juliet told Miles that the reset worked, and it did — in a way. The Losties are back on Oceanic 815 but in an alternate version, a separate reality string. This reminded me of Desmond’s flashes, memories of events that really didn’t happen in his past but were happening simultaneously in a different reality string. Which reminds me of Ms. Hawkins’ warning that you can try to change the future (or the past), but the universe has a way of self-correcting. In other words, even though the reset worked in a way, the Losties will still end up however they were destined to end up. (Again, rehashing Lost’s themes of free will vs. determinism!)
• Funny how some of the the alternate universe Losties are better off than their originals and some aren’t. Hurley is now the luckiest guy in the world instead of the unluckiest. And Locke finally got to go on his walkabout. But yet, Locke is still returning home to world in which he is crippled and emotionally broken. Kate is still in handcuffs. Charlie is still a drug addict. Jin is still a henchmen for his father-in-law. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
• Was Claire on the plane? We saw her in a cab at LAX but not on the plane. We also didn’t see Michael, Walt, Libby, Ana Lucia, Eko, or Nikki and Paulo. Were they (the characters) on the flight? Maybe, maybe not. After all, Shannon wasn’t. Hmm…
• Frogurt was on the flight. How awesome was that?
• How can you not love Rose and Bernard?
• Glad to hear Greg Grunberg’s voice as the Oceanic 815 pilot.
• What about the battle for the island between Ben and Widmore? I hope we don’t get so focused on Jacob/MIB that we forget about them. Because there are so many unanswered and unresolved issues there.
• Ms. Hawkins warned Desmond last season that the island wasn’t done with him yet. I hope she’s right. Because that’s another set of unresolved questions.
• How does Christian Shepherd fit into this whole thing? I think the fact that his body is missing in the alternate universe is very telling. That was absolutely intentional.

Whew! I think that’s it for now.

My brain hurts!

Previously:
Dead is not dead

While college football fans may be begging for a playoff system, they should probably be careful what they ask for. At least if the NCAA basketball tournament is any indication. If the NCAA and coaches get their way, the current 65-team March Madness tournament could expand to as many as 96 teams, adding up to a mind-boggling 31 extra games to the schedule. (And you thought filling out your bracket was tough before!)

BCS proponents argue that in basketball, the already-bloated playoff system makes the regular season irrelevant, and if that’s true, then a 96-team playoff would make it even more so. That alone should be reason enough not to fatten the tournament any more than it is.  But Andrea Adelson of the Orlando Sentinel points out another reason, one that would drastically affect college football as well:

One more point to consider in this story. If the tournament does expand to 96 teams, this could pave the way for superconference expansion. The idea of superconferences has been batted around for quite some time, and gained steam again when the Big Ten said it is considering expanding and could add more than one team. With more teams being allowed into the NCAA tournament, all conferences would have the green light to expand. Why? Because they wouldn’t have to worry about their teams beating up on each other and missing March Madness. Even the middle-of-the-pack teams would get in.

What would that mean to college football? It would essentially give even greater power to the traditional conferences and schools. All the non-BCS conferences, including the Mountain West and WAC, would become irrelevant because its good teams would be poached. The more powerful conferences would raid the not-so-powerful conferences. TV deals would explode, giving more cash to many programs that are already rolling in it. In essence, the face of college football would be totally changed.

To say this is all about money is of course just stating the obvious. And of course, just like with the BCS, the fans are on the losing end of the deal. March Madness is big enough already, probably even too big considering how lopsided many of the first-round games usually are. The last thing we need is to make it bigger, especially if it threatens non-BCS conferences such as the Mountain West.

Previously:
Legislating a playoff system isn’t the answer

When Mozilla released version 3.6 of its Firefox browser, I immediately installed it on my home computer. Overall, it’s a pretty nice update, but naturally a few of my add-ons didn’t work with it. (Par for the course.) One of those add-ons is IE Tab, which allows you to view a website using Internet Explorer while still in Firefox. Since I use that particular add-on pretty regularly, I decided to take another look at Google Chrome since the latest update of that browser, version 4.0, adds support for extensions such as AdBlock, Xmarks, and IE Tab.

Without question, Chrome has a lot of advantages. It’s fast, it’s more standards-compliant than Firefox, and each tab runs in its own process (thus allowing one to fail without taking down the whole browser). But even with the latest updates and extensions (Chrome’s versions of Firefox’s add-ons), it doesn’t really feel complete.

First, Chrome has always been a stripped-down browser, and this latest version is no exception. The simplicity is fine for basic browsing but becomes a severe annoyance if you plan on using it for any extended period of time. The lack of a native print button, the inability to add buttons or move them around, and the mandatory thumbnail page when creating a new tab are just a few of the nuisances. Some of the limitations, of course, can be remedied with third-party extensions, but not all them.

Second, while a lot of extensions are available, none of the ones I tried seemed as well-developed as their Firefox equivalents. IE Tab in Firefox, for example, allows you to configure which sites or domains will always open in an IE environment and allows easy switching back and forth with one click of a button. IE Tab in Chrome, however, has neither of those options. ForecastFox in Firefox displays the weather in the bottom status bar. In Chrome, you just get a button in the top toolbar that you have to click on for weather details. Xmarks, the popular bookmark syncing service, also didn’t quite deliver. Bookmarks would sync but would screw up the bookmarks on my home Firefox install, and even after multiple syncs, it never did work exactly right. And that seemed to be a common occurrence in my experience. While all of the extensions I tried worked to one degree or another, most felt clumsy and awkward.

The more I used Chrome, the more it reminded me of the contrast between Google’s Android platform and the iPhone. While Android has improved considerably since its initial release, it still lags pretty far behind the iPhone in terms of overall user experience, and the apps for the iPhone are far more numerous and generally better developed than those for Android. Such is the case with Chrome and its extensions versus Firefox and its add-ons; while Chrome continues to improve, it’s not nearly as polished as Firefox.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that it’s a matter of preference. I understand why Chrome is so popular, but in my opinion, Firefox is still the better browser.

Previously:
Giving in to Google
Internet Explorer 8: Faster but no Firefox

Apparently I’m on to something.

About a week and a half ago, I killed off my old Twitter account and moved to a brand new one, thus losing all my old tweets along with all my followers. It wasn’t originally my intention to do so, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of starting over fresh.

Now comes a couple of reports that back up the idea that when it comes to social networking, smaller numbers are in fact better.

First, a professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford, Robin Dunbar, has concluded that regardless of how many Facebook friends we might have, we can only effectively manage about 150 friendships.

He found that people tended to self-organise in groups of around 150 because social cohesion begins to deteriorate as groups become larger. …

“The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 people that we observe in the real world,” said Dunbar.

This explains why I also don’t tend to follow more than 170-180 people on Twitter. Inevitably, when I add more people than that, I always tend to drop a few others as the “noise” increases.

Clive Thompson of Wired seems to agree. He points out that in social networks, once a group grows too large, conversation and interaction stop. What starts out as a small one-to-one or one-to-few circle of connections becomes a large one-to-many broadcast, thus losing any sense of intimacy or connectedness. Thus, rather than strive for bigger and bigger numbers, he argues, we should be working to maintain smaller, more connected social circles. He concludes, “There’s value in obscurity.”

Fortunately, obscurity is one thing I’ve mastered.

Previously:
How to instantly lose all your Twitter followers
How to play the game of ‘Blog-Facebook-Twitter’

What’s the easiest way to lose all your Twitter followers and throw out over 2,000 tweets? Start over with a new Twitter account.

For the record, I wouldn’t recommend it.

That wasn’t my intent, of course. But that’s what happened over the weekend. In “Internet-speak” it’s considered an epic fail on my part.

Here’s the deal. I created a Twitter account over a year ago on a whim. I didn’t know much about it and had doubts I would even use it. After all, most people who aren’t on Twitter — and even most who are — don’t get it. But I signed up anyway out of curiosity and chose a Twitter handle that complemented my blog. (“Tindog” was taken so I went with the alternate “tindogcoffee”.) At the time I didn’t intend on using my full name or even putting my picture on my profile.

Fast forward a year later, and I was considering changing my handle to my name, “jasonspooner”. But I couldn’t go through with it; I was too attached to “tindogcoffee”. Nevertheless, I didn’t want to lose my name to another Jason Spooner, so I created a second account with that username. (Yes, that’s technically squatting, and yes, that’s technically a violation of Twitter’s TOS. Tell that to the squatter using the “tindog” handle.)

Anyway, the more I thought about it, the more I decided I should use my “jasonspooner” account. But Twitter makes it impossible to transfer usernames from one account to another. So I couldn’t just rename my “tindogcoffee” account; I would have to start over from scratch.

In the Twitter world, that’s suicide. I knew that. I knew most of my followers wouldn’t make the transition. That’s nothing against them, it’s just human nature and the nature of the platform. But I made the decision anyway. And even though I still wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, I think it may ultimately be for the best.

It made me realize how much value I place in those little numbers on my profile page. The number of followers I have, the number of tweets I’ve posted, the number of lists I’m on. Even though I’ve said before that those things aren’t important, I still kept coming back to them for validation. And that’s not right.

So I’m starting over. It may the absolute worst thing to do in the social networking world, but I think it’s the best thing for me.

Previously:
Who are you following?
A little social network housecleaning

For some reason I’ve been really down the last couple of weeks.  I don’t know if it’s a case of post-holiday blues, my workload, the weather, or what.  But I’ve been depressed and have constantly been beating myself up.

Staring at the images of Haiti, though, I realize how petty I’ve been.  Even in the best of times, the people there live in unimaginable poverty.  According to Encyclopedia of the Nations:

Most Haitians live in small, often remote, villages or isolated settlements, with no access to electricity, clean water, or social services. Some rudimentary education is offered by church and other charitable organizations, but the distances children must travel to school, the costs of books and uniforms, and the necessity for them to work from an early age means that illiteracy is estimated at over half of the adult population. Illness can often spell financial disaster, as meager savings or investments such as a pig must be sold to pay for medicines. In some areas large numbers of people are dependent on aid agencies for food supplies.

Existence in the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince is perhaps even grimmer, with overcrowding, disease, and squalor widespread. Those who work can expect to earn no more than US$2 a day, hardly enough to buy food, let alone other necessities. The majority, however, must scrape some sort of living from the informal sector. Figures for child mortality, communicable diseases, and life expectancy reveal the country’s poverty and deprivation. According to the Pan-American Health Organization, approximately 380,000 Haitians—over 5 percent of the population—were infected with HIV/AIDS by 2000.

Meanwhile, my family and I live in a nice house in a nice suburban neighborhood.  We have electricity, heating and air-conditioning as needed, clean water, plenty of clothes, and more than enough food.  Our kids are getting a great education in a public school only a mile from our house, and I have a full-time job that pays well.  We also have health insurance and easy access to some of the best medical care in the world.

We’re blessed beyond measure.  And yet I’ve spent the better part of the last two weeks feeling sorry for myself.  Why?

The earthquake that hit Port-au-Prince on Tuesday was simply tragic.  My heart is broken for the countless numbers of people impacted by the devastation, for the thousands who died, and for the possible millions who are left homeless.  I’m thankful, though, that even in the midst of so much suffering, God is still in control.  That much, at least, I can take solace in.

More photos here.

In the final moments of the Big 12 Championship game before kicker Hunter Lawrence kicked the game-winning field goal with 1 second left on the clock, Texas Longhorns wide receiver Jordan Shipley gave him a word of encouragement from Jeremiah 17:7: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in him.”

A month later Lawrence returned the favor before the BCS National Championship game, giving Shipley a verse from 2 Corinthians 12:9: “‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’  Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weakness, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”

Those words, ironically, seem to have even more meaning in the wake of the Longhorns’ disappointing loss to Alabama.  But the final score is only part of the story.

When asked how he felt after the game, quarterback Colt McCoy — whose incredible college football career ended rather suddenly in the first quarter with a nerve injury to the right shoulder — responded, “I always give God the glory.  I never question why things happen the way they do.  God is in control of my life.  And I know that if nothing else, I’m standing on the Rock.”

And it’s not just McCoy, Shipley, and Lawrence.  Or even center Chris Hall, who opted out of the NFL draft in favor of attending seminary.  As Rivals.com writer Jason King points out:

What makes the Longhorns unique is the quantity of players who are so open and passionate about their relationship with Christ. …

Attendance at Wednesday night FCA meetings can often be overwhelming, players said. And each Friday before home games, a group of Longhorns visit children at a local hospital.

Offensive lineman Adam Ulatoski spent time last summer building a house for a less fortunate family through Habitats for Humanity while McCoy went on a mission trip to Peru for the second straight year.

As often as he can, Shipley speaks to various high school groups and church youth groups in and around Austin. Shipley said his faith went to a new level during his first two years at Texas, when injuries kept him off the field.

“It was tough,” Shipley said, “but it allowed me to figure out who I was away from football. I did a lot of soul searching and developed my faith. Now that’s my motivation for every game. I try to use the pedestal I’ve been given to glorify God.”

Indeed, the record books will show an Alabama victory — and deservedly so — but ultimately that doesn’t matter.  These players understand that they are part of a bigger plan and that their faith will have a far greater impact than football championships ever will.

And that’s the best legacy anyone could ever hope to leave.

Hook ‘Em, Horns!

Previously:
We need more Tebows, McCoys, and Bradfords

Yes, I know I’m a week late in saying it, but Happy New Year.  Now can I start out the year with a little honesty?  I mean, we’re friends, right?  Here goes…

I’m a failure.

At least according to the world.  I’m not rich, I’m not famous.  Heck, I’m not even “Internet famous”.  And I probably won’t ever be.  I don’t have thousands of Twitter followers or Facebook friends, and chances are, no one is even reading this blog post.  I have a steady but mostly unfulfilling job that consumes the best hours, days, and years of my life but nothing that even closely resembles a social life outside of that.

Donald Miller talks in A Million Miles in a Thousand Years about viewing life in terms of telling a story, with a narrative arc that includes overcoming obstacles in order to get what you (the protagonist) want.  He writes on his blog:

A story involves a person that wants something and is willing to overcome conflict to get it. If you plan a story this year, instead of just simple goals, your life will be more exciting, more meaningful and more memorable. And you are much more likely to stick to your goals. For instance, rather than saying I want to finish getting into shape this year, I’ve written down that I want to climb Mt. Hood with a couple friends. I have a vision of standing on top of the mountain in May, taking pictures and all that. Now my goal has a narrative context. That’s just a simple story, and I’ve planned some stories that are far more difficult but I only use that as an example. If my goal were to lose twenty pounds, I doubt I’d stick with it. But when you have friends flying up from Texas to summit the mountain with you, you’d better believe you are going to be hitting the stairs. I have to, because it I don’t, my story will be a tragedy. Again, stories give goals context.

That’s great advice.  But it depresses the hell out of me.

(We’re still being honest, right?)

Why is it depressing?  Because it’s a lot harder to say than to do.  Because I feel helpless and worthless and trapped and alone.  And that sucks.

I know I’m not supposed to admit that.  I’m supposed to “engage my audience”, “cultivate my online community”, “build my personal brand”.  I’m supposed to read more and blog more and network more and do all the stuff that will drive traffic and generate bigger numbers.  Because I’m told by the people on the Internet that that will make me a better person.

Instead, after taking a 3-month break from Facebook, I quietly reactivated my profile and promptly unfriended half my friends.  And I actually made a conscious decision to blog less, not more.

It’s not that I don’t want friends; I do, absolutely.  Everyone wants to be liked and appreciated and respected and lauded for their achievements.  But as much as I like love it when people take the time to read my posts and even take the time to leave a comment, this blog was never meant to attract an audience; it was meant for me, as an outlet.  If others stumble on it or want to follow along, that’s great.

So by any quantifiable measuring stick, I’m a failure.  I’d like to say I have all these grand goals ahead of me for the year, but I’m not making any promises.  I will, however, continue to try to be the best husband, father, and Christian I can, even if that doesn’t really mean anything to most people in this day and age.

And, well, there you go.  If you’re still reading, I’m sorry if I’ve totally bummed you out.  But I think it needed to be said.

Previously:
A little social network housecleaning
A different checklist

The above photo was taken by the Hubble telescope in October (click to enlarge or download the original here).  From NASA:

The festive portrait is the most detailed view of the largest stellar nursery in our local galactic neighborhood. The massive, young stellar grouping, called R136, is only a few million years old and resides in the 30 Doradus Nebula, a turbulent star-birth region in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a satellite galaxy of our Milky Way. There is no known star-forming region in our galaxy as large or as prolific as 30 Doradus. Many of the diamond-like icy blue stars are among the most massive stars known. Several of them are over 100 times more massive than our Sun. These hefty stars are destined to pop off, like a string of firecrackers, as supernovas in a few million years.

About a week ago I helped direct about 20 third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders in a little Christmas play at church, and I thought about this photo when it got to the part about the Three Wise Men.  According to Matthew 2:1-12, a group of Magi followed a star in the east for as much as two years in search of the prophesied Messiah before finding a very young Jesus in Bethlehem.

The Magi were astrologers, possibly Zoroastrian priests.  As Wikipedia points out, “these priests paid particular attention to the stars, and gained an international reputation for astrology, which was at that time highly regarded as a science.”  Yep, they were scientists.  Much like the modern-day astronomers who produced this amazing photo.

Obviously the Magi of Jesus’ time wouldn’t have seen anything this spectacular, but what they did see was apparently compelling enough to cause them to pursue it for many months, not because of what the star was but because of what it announced.

Like the Magi of 2,000 years ago, I’m in awe of the stars.  I’m captivated by the majestic beauty of the universe and overwhelmed by its near-infinite expanse.  How big and powerful must God be to have created it, to form the stars and planets, create entire galaxies, and set into motion a process that spans billions and billions of years.  And it was those same stars, some millions of years old, that led the “wise men from the east” to the feet of the Creator Himself in the little town of Bethlehem.

What do you see in the stars?  Do you see a random collection of gases, elements, and chemical reactions, the remains of a Big Bang that happened eons ago without reason?  Or do you see a masterpiece, a work of art created by a God that transcends time and space but who “became flesh and made his dwelling among us”?

The Magi understood.  Upon finding Jesus, they fell to their knees and worshiped Him.  And I worship Him today.

Merry Christmas!

In an interesting turn of events, Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain have proposed reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, which — among other things — prevented commercial banks from merging with investment banks.  That restriction, first passed in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and it was that law that set in motion much of the financial meltdown that we’re still dealing with today.

“I want to ensure that never again we stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion or even larger tab to bail out the financial industry,” Mr. McCain said, referring to the Treasury bailout program of financial firms.

Mr. McCain said he isn’t opposed to investment banks taking risks to pursue greater returns, but he doesn’t believe these risks should be taken using retail banking depositors’ money.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, it’s unlikely that the call to separate the banks will go very far in Congress, and Newsweek has compared it to “unscrambling an egg”.  So why is it so interesting?  Because McCain voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999 and because one of the authors of the bill, Phil Gramm, was McCain’s chief economic adviser during his presidential campaign.  Which makes me wonder if McCain would be making the same call had he won the election.  My guess is, probably not.

Previously:
The root cause of the subprime meltdown