Wild Idealism vs Messy Reality. Again.

 

Well, Kevin Carey's book The End of College has certainly gotten a lot of attention over at Inside Higher Ed. As of today, I've read three essays discussing the book, or discussing the ensuing discussion of the book. Try to keep up, if you have the time.


This is where I came in: Barbara Fister's take, "No Libraries for You!"
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library-babel-fish/no-libraries-you

Then there was this book review:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/03/23/kevin-carey-talks-about-his-new-book-end-college

Then Audrey Watters and Sara Goldrick-Rab wrote this:
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/03/26/essay-challenging-kevin-careys-new-book-higher-education

and Matt Reed wrote
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/public-matters-response-kevin-carey

Then Joshua Kim wrote
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/dear-kevin-5-challenges-%E2%80%9C-end-college%E2%80%9D
and
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/criticism-vs-attack

Goodness, what a kerfuffle!  As if that wasn't bad enough, somewhere along the line the conversation got derailed into a discussion about sexism and something called "mansplaining".  What that might be, perhaps someone can elighten me. It sounds a bit silly to me. I thought the discussion was about whether the University of Everywhere idea would fly or not?

How often has this happened, that somebody gets a good idea, and runs waaaaaay past practical reality in declaring it to be the Answer To All Our Problems? 

The part of all this that gets me the most is the naive assumption on Carey's part that the University of Everywhere "brand" will, any time soon, replace the cultural capital that established schools have in terms of potential employers putting faith in the UofE graduate's actual comprehension.  There's a reason people want to to to Harvard - its reputation carries weight. It will take a long time for the UofE to get anywhere near that kind of reputation. And every slacker who coasts or cheats his way through to his 'badge' or certificate will be a barrier to the UofE reaching that point.

Maybe the UofE concept that Casey describes will come about. It will just be long after his 4-year-old daughter has finished graduating from whatever college she ends up choosing to attend. 

The Power of Quiet

"When I tell people I identify as an introvert, they say, “How are you able to give speeches in front of 600 people and still consider yourself an introvert?” Introverts, I say, know how to “bring it,” or at least can learn when we have to. But it has a cost. Learning how to embrace your “inner extrovert” when you need to is necessary."

 Michael Stephens at Library Journal writes about the challenges and opportunities for introverts in the library world (hint: there are lots of us) in The Power of Quiet, on his blog Office Hours.

I am often times grateful for my office, which is tucked away in a staff area, far from the Maddening Crowds of students. An older office that I occupied for several years was directly off of a student casual seating area of the library, so I would often look out my door (it felt too stuffy to keep the door closed) and see a student watching me with curious interest. It was disconcerting to say the least. Among my memorable interactions with students in that office was:

• The student who walked into my office, and then asked if she could use my microwave to reheat her coffee. I was discussing an issue with my supervisor, who was sitting right next to me, at the time. I let the student use the microwave. 
• The student who got all the way into my office before realizing that this was not an available study room. My name plate on the wall and all my stuff posted on the door did not seem to register to him that the room was occupado. 
• The string of students who wandered back and forth outside my door while talking loudly on their cell phones. 

By comparison, my new office is much less subject to interruptions. I do get phone calls from student workers, asking me to tackle a reference question that they're unsure about, and that's fine. Sometimes I cringe when the phone rings, if I feel like I can't handle talking to anyone; but I've got my "inner extrovert", or my professional face to get me through a tiring encounter. 



I don't claim to never need interaction; I really enjoy talking with our student workers, and learning about where they've come from and where they want to go. Maybe that's why they call me with the hard questions. However, I'm usually the one who initiates and ends the conversation, and I prefer to talk with students one on one. At staff meetings, whether student workers are involved or not, I tend to sit quietly and let people come and join me if they choose. If they do, thanks for enduring the meeting with me. If not, I'll be all right just the same.



What's your preference, in the thick of it, or towards the edge?



photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/60141638@N06/8512104420">Hello My Name Is Introvert</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/">(license)</a>

So Colleges Don't Need Libraries Now? Right.

Barbara Fister over at Inside Higher Ed quoted this NY Times piece on her blog Library Babel Fish. I decided to read the whole article ("College for a New Age") before I read Fister's take, so I could write my own take. The part that librarians took issue with was this:

“You don’t need libraries and research infrastructure and football teams and this insane race for status,” he says. “If you only have to pay for the things that you actually need, education doesn’t cost $60,000 a year.”

 So what to make of this? Well first of all I have to agree with Mr. Carey about a lot of what he is supposed to be saying in his book. College is way expensive, and something's gotta give. I expect that the college library was not even his main target in the book. The quote might have been chosen by the journalist writing the piece because talking about getting rid of libraries gets people upset, and therefore talking about the article.

"Only pay for things you actually need," he says. Unfortunately, at least in the article Carey does not elaborate on what he thinks you need to complete your education.  Call me biased, but I think that you do need a library to succeed in college.

The library as a place is often derided as a collection of dusty old books. Fair enough, it is hard to keep the average library dusted; books create dust. Books also have been for centuries the primary record format for the accumulated knowledge of Western Civilization, and the place where you can go to get access to that knowledge. It is a continual frustration to me that the urban legend endures that says 'everything is on the internet, and it's all free".  No, no it isn't. 

Most current scholarship is publicized in ways that do not include dumping on the Web for anybody to read. The Open Access movement is changing that, but right now, if you want current research and scholarly writing, you have to pay for it yourself, or get access through some organization that has paid for it and will allow you to look too. In other words, a library.  
 

As it was in 1890, so it is in 2015

Oscar Wilde said in An Ideal Husband that "information is the modern commodity". If you want to be educated today, you need access to information. Libraries have it, and we take some of the hassle out of finding it. We'll even help you find it, or find it for you. 

A few other points

Not all colleges are focused on 'research'. Lots of schools still focus on teaching and the liberal arts. My school self-describes as a teaching university. The big research schools are a small proportion of all the colleges/universities in the United States. 

The article says that Carey explored online learning as an alternative to the traditional classroom model. Good for him. He is reported as saying his online class was a better experience than if he had sat in a classroom with the professor (who teaches at MIT). Well, that's nice, but it is pure speculation. He hasn't taken a residential class with this professor, so he has nothing upon which to build his comparison. Oh, and by the way, I work with professors who teach online classes as well as residential, and they want their students to use the library. How else are their students going to get the current scholarship?

They get it here. Of course.

I agree we do not need any more big, fancy football teams and stadiums. They are supposed to be money-makers, but that's not what college is about. 

It is probably true that in the future there will be other venues for certification and credentials that employers will accept. But you have to get the business world, which is also encumbered by cultural habit, to change its employment practices (like the resume, a bureaucratic dinosaur) before that can happen. And that's outside the world of higher education. We'll change more readily when the business world says they want it. 

There, that's my two bits. Now I'm going to go read Fister's take on it. Read it here, then tell me what you think about it. 

Far From the Maddening Crowds

"We live in an age of chattering masses,"  writes librarian Mark Herring of Dacus Library, Winthrop University, in the library journal Against the Grain (Feb 2014 v26,1).  "Everybody talks to everybody else," but nobody is listening, he says. Well, I listened. I also asked his permission to extensively quote his article, and then give my hopefully well reasoned response to it. Here it is. For the remainder of this column, anything in italics are his words.

                In our hyper-connected age, everybody talks to everybody else, with all sorts of entertaining news . . . we 'blow up' the Twitterverse with our claptrap that masquerades as real conversations and human connections. Essentially we are talking to ourselves because no one is really listening.

                Why is no  one listening?  Is it because we're too enamored of our own opinions?  On the 'nets we are free to spout our opinion, often behind a protective layer of anonymity. This gives the added bonus of not having anyone get in our faces about what we've said. There's no consequences to commenting or re-tweeting. It might be, however, that we are instead too insecure in our opinions so that we must shout them louder than everyone else, lest we hear a contrary view that might upset our world. 

                We talk about nothing because to talk about something requires that we stop and think, read, study and consider. If we do that, we might miss something else as it goes zooming by. Our culture, particularly online culture thrives on the new and on things happening fast. This is not in itself new; St Luke notes in the Acts of the Apostles (17:21) that the Athenians spent all their time telling or hearing some new thing. The difference is that today the new thing arrives much more quickly. If we stop to think about any of it, several other things will have passed us by.

                We enjoy Twitter nitwits like Anthony Weiner . . . In many ways people like this deserve what they get, courtesy of the lightning rod we call the Internet.

              Nitwits like Weiner are ubiquitous - it is just that they now have a wider forum in which to display nitwittery. Lack of discretion and foolishness is also a part of the fallen human condition, which is to say it's not new either. The 'nets just make them visible to more people, for a brief period.

             The chattering masses may just want to be heard, to be recognized, to have someone validate their existence. I regretfully note that I check my page counts more than once a week. I am not immune to the lure of Internet fame. It is sad to think that counting 'likes'  or re-tweets may be the new Man's Search for Meaning. Why should we accept this "claptrap that masquerades as real conversations and human connections"? We need conversations and connections, but we simply will not find them on Twitter.  Twitter, by the way, is not the Internet. One can find a form of community online, if one looks for smaller venues that the Twitterverse - forums and blogs and discussion boards that have a common theme, whether hobbies or beliefs or what have you. I have had many informative and sometimes challenging conversations with others online who share my interests. This is still not the same thing as my friends with whom I play games or worship or do my work, but it is not nothing. It cannot however substitute for the real thing.

                It is an unfortunate truth that we often end up with the results that we fear because of something we did – especially when we are afraid or insecure – which is very common for the post-modern chattering masses.  We want to be heard, but don't listen. Listening is the first step to being heard: if you want others to listen to you, start by listening to them. By shouting (or TYPING IN ALL CAPS) we try to force others to listen to us, but it doesn't work. It may even encourage louder shouting on their part, to get you to listen to them.

                Twits, like Weiner and others, try to get our attention by being outrageous, but how long will it be before his stupidity is so commonplace as to no longer be shocking?  Then we will experience a new depth of outrageous stupidity, and another, and another. We deaden our sensibilities by continuing to absorb the barrage of outrageousness and ridiculousness, and eventually nothing is shocking. We can lose our ability to be shocked, and in the process, our ability to feel anything. 

          “This isn’t so much a reading problem – though it certainly is that - as it is a cultural shift to react, not think, to post, never reflect, to chatter and not shut up for even a second . . . for this we are giving up newspapers, personal communications, books, libraries and Lord only knows what else!?”  I don't Tweet, but I do read and write blogs. The ones I read most often are focused on specific activities - like librarianship, or writing, or my other job, sci-fi role-playing. Of the blogs that I read, I can say that I rarely come across a post that, whether short or long, isn't thought out and expressed with clarity. Often I find myself thinking, "now why didn't I write that?" or "I could write something about that myself". 

                I find these things that Mr. Herring says sad, rather than maddening. The Internet is a very large pond indeed, and we are very small fish. This in itself is difficult for most people (even me) to accept. Shout as we might, it's not going to make a lasting impression. With so many people making ripples on the pond, whatever ripples I may make will be swamped and broken up almost immediately.

                Europeans have long thought of Americans as shallow, frivolous and a bit too silly. But are we a bit too superficial for our own good?  Yes, of course we are. The Europeans look at us and think “Been there, done that” as if their jaded decadence is somehow better than the mess we've got. And of course, it is not like the Internet only exists in America. There are plenty of Euro-nitwits out there cluttering the Twitterverse, I'm sure.

                Andy Warhol supposedly promised everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. What are we supposed to do when the fifteen minutes are up and we get washed back into obscurity? Unplug. Get off the 'nets and go have a conversation with someone face to face. Accept our (relative) obscurity. We are not obscure to God. He made us to be in relationship with Him and with each other – in person, not as text on a screen. The 'nets are nice for information, weather reports and funny cat videos. But it is not where we were meant to live. 

                The irony is not lost on me that I have suggested that people unplug and spend less time online – on a social media site. Nor is it lost on me that almost no-one will read this. I must not be shouting loud enough.

Something is afoot at Deep in the Stacks

I've decided it time to make a change. I have greatly enjoyed the experience of blogging here at Deep in the Stacks, the challenge of finding material, of composing my thoughts, of resisting the temptation to be super self conscious about whether I'm getting readers or not. I don't want to give that up. 

Wait for it . . . 

So I'm not going to. What I am going to do is start a second blog. Now there will be two times the fun! Deep in the Stacks is not going anywhere, but I'm going to move most of my game-related and all of my Traveller related stuff to a new blog which will be about just that. I got some good advice recently about trying to cover too many bases. I enjoy writing about being a librarian; I enjoy writing about Traveller; I enjoy writing about Orthodoxy and its intersections with my job and my hobby. Starting soon, I'm going to be writing in two different places, which I hope will enable me to expand my writing about both.

Update, 4/11/2014
The new site is up! It will need some additional tweaking, but we are off and running. Several of the gaming-related posts have already disappeared from Deep in the Stacks and are now to be found at:

Ancient Faith in the Far Future

What is a Dictator?

    We in America like to think of democracy as being ‘good’ and dictatorship as being ‘bad’. But it is worth noting that in its most basic form democracy is the ability of 51% of the population to legally rob the other 49% blind. It can be argued that dictatorship, then, is the ability of the 1% to rob the other 99% blind. That neither happens that simply points out the complicated nature of the world in which we live.

     Robert Kaplan at Stratfor recently wrote an essay (subscription required) in which he explored the phenomenon of the dictator as head of state, and makes the shocking claim that not all dictators are card-carrying members of the Club of Evil.

    Kaplan’s thesis is state in paragraph six: “we recognize a world in which just as there are bad democrats, there are good dictators.” Geopolitics is complex. Things and people don’t always fit into simple categories. The astute observer of the world will look at more than how a leader came to power. How did that leader use the power; did his use of power make things better or worse for the state he ruled? Kaplan supports his argument that not all dictators are bad with examples of autocratic leaders who have made things better. One such was Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. He was clearly a dictator, but he also initiated meritocracy, good governance and world class urban planning.” Deng Xioping of China oversaw a dramatic rise in personal freedom and standard of living for the largest state by population in the world. Bashar al-Assad of Syria protected the minority Christian population from persecution by his fellow Muslims.
 
   Now, none of this makes these men saints or even nice people. But it does illustrate that good or bad governance can be accomplished by more than one political system. Governance, the act of governing, is morally neutral. It is what one does while governing that can be morally judged.
 
    One product of governance that can be achieved by either a good or a bad ruler, democratic or otherwise, is stability or order. Moammar Khaddafi, the late and unlamented despot of Libya, for all his faults or wickedness, provided a more orderly state than what Libya is currently suffering at the hands of the factions scrambling for control of the country. A steady or orderly state can carry on its business, even in conditions of limited personal freedom, and hopefully lay the groundwork for eventual improvements to the public good – personal liberty, opportunity to prosper and improved standard of living. Khaddafi may not have done this, but such things are for the time being much less possible, under a supposedly more democratic ‘system’ if such a term can be used in this case.

      Good fiction is realistic, so it helps to recognize what the real world is like when turning one’s attention to fictional worlds. There are plenty of examples of bad dictators, Emperor Palpatine of Star Wars and Sauron of the Lord of the Rings being perhaps two of the most well-known. But there are good dictators as well. The best example I know of in fiction of the good dictator is HavelockVetinari, the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork on the Discworld, created by Sir Terry Pratchett. Vetinari is unquestionably a dictator; he came to power by personally assassinating the previous Patrician (who happened to be insane). He spies on his own people and manipulates everyone. He practices the rule of “one man one vote” in that he is the Man and he has the Vote. Being in his presence makes most residents of the city uneasy and anxious, and Vetinari cultivates that climate of fear and unease, to keep the advantage. Vetinari is also responsible for the rejuvenation of the city’s banking and postal services, the reduction of street crime by organizing and regulating the Thieves’ Guild and the Assassin’s Guild. All of the city’s power brokers hate him, but they hate each other more, and Vetinari keeps it that way. The city works, and everyone realizes that a city without Vetinari would not work as well as it does, so they put up with him. Stability and the survival of the state are his main aims, and he will have them, thank you very much. So is Vetinari a villain or not?

    In the universe of Traveller, there are several Dictatorship type governments. Specifically they are the Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy (which I call Hereditary Ruler), the Charismatic Dictator, the Non-Charismatic Dictator, the Charismatic Oligarchy and the Religious Dictatorship.

     According to an article on Traveller governments I read from SJ Games, the term Charismatic refers not to the dictator’s popularity, but to the source of his authority. Kings and elected leaders have an external source of their authority – it comes from the society of which they are a part. Established law or tradition says who is the legitimate ruler, and if or when that ruler has to give up power. In contrast, rulers like Oliver Cromwell or Fidel Castro or VI Lenin appealed to personal traits, such as their moral righteousness or adherence to the right political cause or philosophy, to legitimize their rule. ‘Charismatic’ governments are all about the person(s) holding the power.A non-charismatic dictator is simply the successor or inheritor of a charismatic dictator's power - the first step in the transformation into a new tradition or legal system.

    In my Traveller universe (link goes to a page with subsector maps) there will therefore be both good & bad dictators, and good & bad democrats. There are also kings & patricians, republics and the ever-mysterious feudal technocracies (does anyone really understand what that is?).

· House Dirata (Dormarc-Ostrander) is all under the control of the Dirata family. Turf wars among the extended family are the cause of its instability.
 · The Talaveran Empire (Dothan-Talaveran) is ruled by a Hereditary Monarch, but benefits from input from the people through the aristocracy. Plus, it is one of the most religion-tolerant states.
· The Union of Socialist Worlds (Union Subsector) is run by a dictatorial council, filled by ranking members of the only official political party. The Union is officially atheistic, and endorses religious persecution.
· The Patrian Concordiat (Daktari Nebula) is a dictatorial autocracy under the control of the Patria family. The Concordiat is rife with all manner of corruption and abuse. Power is all that matters to the Patrians.
· The Kingdom of Onaji (5 Worlds-American)is ruled by the King, period. The king manages the centralized economy well and is tolerant of religion.
· The Litton Confederation (Solaris-Litton) is a stagnated bureaucracy. Regional interests trump effectiveness in Littonian politics.
· The Alliance of Dormarc (Dormarc-Ostrander) is ineffectual and corrupt. Its parliamentary system all but guarantees gridlock and a bloated bureaucracy.
· The Kamarov Republic (Solaris-Litton & Union) is for the most part an open society that encourages education. It is stridently secular-materialist, and is hostile to all religion.

Examples from the Independent worlds:

Mavramorn (Holtzmann’s Corridor 0605) Independent C-34374A-10 50 million people
The Mavramorn system is potentially very rich in natural resources but the local government isn't developing them. They are very jealous of their sovereign territory, and won’t let anyone else in to develop them. Figurehead president is a glorified bureaucrat, the real power is the Army & Navy Chiefs of Staff, who own or control most of the industry and public services. Mavramorn & Stavanger fought a brief war 100+ years ago, and the military heads came to power under wartime rules. The civil leadership is maintained in place to placate the populace with meaningless ‘reforms’.

Tucloas (Weitzlar 0308) C-2316A5-10 Independent 8.5 million people
Tucloas’ current King took the throne after a short but bloody civil war against the reigning monarch. He was an aristocrat and a distant relative of the ruling line, but thought himself the more competent administrator. After wiping out the royal family in a series of bomb attacks, he led his forces (stiffened by a large number of mercenaries) against the next closest relative of the former king, whose claim to the throne was distant enough to cause doubt and division within the armed forces. The new king is having trouble keeping his mercenary forces under control, and there are still loyalist forces at large.

Drexell (Daktari Nebula 0204) C-9327A5-12 45 million people
Drexell’s head of state is a figure known only as El Supremo. "El Supremo" is arguably insane. The listed law level applies to only some upper-class autocratic types. For everyone else, it's level 12. El Supremo is managed by his aristocratic 'secretaries' and 'ministers'. Off-planet visitors are restricted to the southern continent, away from the main bulk of the population.

On Biblical Interpretation

One day some of the brethren came to see Abba Antony,[St Antony the Great, the father of Christian monasticism] and among them was Abba Joseph. Wishing to test them, the old man mentioned a text from Scripture, and starting with the youngest he asked them what it meant. Each explained it as best he could. But to each one the old man said "You have not yet found the answer". Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, "And what do you think the text means?"
He replied, "I do not know".
Then Abba Antony said, "Truly, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he said: "I do not know".

From The Sayings of the Desert Fathers

   I take Abba Antony's point to be that the starting place for understanding the Scriptures is understanding our own limitations and ignorance. Without proper humility, we will not 'find the way' to a right understanding of Scripture, as our pride will lead us instead to interpretations that make us feel clever, or give us license to do the things we want to do.

   Pope Francis, the current Bishop of Rome, in a recent interview, spoke of the necessity of doubt and uncertainty to our faith, because it leads us to humility. He says, "If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself." Read an article discussing the Pope's words here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/10/08/mistaking-gods-will-for-our-own/

   While Pope Francis was not speaking specifically about Biblical interpretation, I think that what he says certainly applies. Many Christians in the West, under the influence of the Reformation dogma of Sola Scriptura turn to the Bible as a sort of substitute prophet; starting with an idea or intention of their own, they comb through the Bible and pull verses out of context to build support for that idea or intention. The same tradition that concocted Sola Scriptura also invented the idea that each believer is capable of correctly interpreting the Scriptures on their own. The result is obvious and all around us - disagreement, division and individualized faith are the hallmarks of American Christianity. This is the result of our insistence upon individual autonomy. We assume that we know, or can deduce using logic and reason, the mind of God.
   This stands in contradiction to the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures and their interpretation. The Church as a whole (body) interprets the Scripture in and through the lens of our Holy Tradition. An individual may (and probably will) err, but the Holy Spirit, which is the Mind of the Church, guides the whole into all Truth. Many of the big heresies that have plagued the Church throughout her history were instigated by a person pulling his/her own interpretation of a verse or passage and insisting that everyone but them got it wrong. See Arianism for the uber-example.

"19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1: 19-21 (emphasis mine)

"The prophets hear God speaking to them in the secret recesses of their own hearts. They simply conveyed that message by their preaching and writing to God's people. They were not like pagan oracles, which distorted the divine message in their own interest, for they did not write their own words but the words of God. For this reason the reader cannot interpret them by himself, because he is liable to depart from the true meaning, but rather he must wait to hear how the One who wrote words wants them to be understood."

St. Bede the Venerable, On 2 Peter.

Life Lessons from Chess

     Over the weekend my younger son and I played a game of chess. It lasted two hours, which in itself is a testament to my son's improved concentration and focus. I started teaching my boys to play chess two years ago. I'm not a great player but I do all right if I can remember to always look down the board for the likely response to my move. I can't count the number of games that I've lost because of a hasty move that cost me a key piece, usually the queen. As I reflected on this defect in my own play, I got to thinking during a short break about the lessons about life one can learn from chess. Below are few things that came to mind. I can't really claim any special insight or wisdom, and probably better chess players could add a lot to this. All the same, this is my blog, so here's what I think one can learn about life and living from chess:
 
Be patient. Chess is not like arcade games. You have time to think, use it.

Consider the consequences before you make a move; and its' corollary: Everything you do will have consequences.
 
Cooperation is better than going it alone. Ask any Knight or Bishop that has been sent to die on the enemy's line all by itself.


Respect everyone, even the little guys. A lowly pawn can take down the King, and a pawn that sneaks to your back line is suddenly a very BIG problem.


Whether you win or lose any particular game, it is always an opportunity for you to learn something. It can be about your play, your opponents, or about life above the board. Every game can make you better.   

Planning is a good thing. Having no plan leaves you at the mercy of an opponent who does have one. 

You can wish for a perfect setup if you want, but the setup you have to deal with is the one on the board. Take life as it comes and make the best of it.

You will have to change your plans if your opponent doesn't cooperate. Which he probably won't.

You always have to make a move on your turn, so make the best one you can. Even if it is not an ideal move, do something. No one wins at anything by being frozen in place.

Opponent is not the same thing as Enemy. When you're playing for fun, play to win, but shake hands and be a good winner OR loser. No one should lose a friend over a chess game.

Expect some losses along the way. No one wins a chess game with their whole army intact. Everyone will face some defeats in life, but as long as you're alive you can keep playing. (Yes, I know there's the Fool's Mate, but seriously, how often does that happen?)
 
Abandon your plan as soon as it is clear that it won't work. Evil Overlords throughout history have lost it all by clinging to their Evil Plan that isn't working.


Skill and patience, not luck will get you to your goal. Sure, you will get lucky sometimes, but you have no control over when and how often. It is the same as not having a plan.

Every move entails some risk. You can manage it with good planning, but never eliminate it. Learn to live with uncertainty.

And let me conclude with what is our unofficial family motto:

Latin - “tardus stabilis laborque, finis obtineatur”  
English - By slow and steady labor the goal is achieved.


If you've got Chess advice for Life, please add it in the comments section.  

For the record, my son did not beat me (this time) but he did have me on the ropes once or twice. I expect that he will beat me in the not too distant future. If I've taught him to play chess, great. If I've taught him how to live life, even better. 

Off the Cuff Movie Review - The Lone Ranger

     No, sorry, not that Lone Ranger. I'm talking about the 1956 film of the TV Show staring Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels. With all the ads about the current feature film, my boys wanted to know about this Western hero. So we found on Hulu or Netflix that we could watch episodes of the 1950's vintage B&W TV show. The boys love it, and I've been enjoying the show as well. Good guys wear black (masks)!
    Now, the story in the film is, quite plainly, an extended length TV episode. No origin story, no startling revelations or world-changing plot twists. Just our eponymous hero and his faithful friend riding hard to save the day for settlers and the Indians. I know that some of the expressions, especially racial epithets and stereotypes, used in that era are not acceptable any more, so I'll try to avoid using them, but they are not enough reason to not see this film.
    The story opens in an unnamed territory out West, with the territorial Governor coming to visit an influential rancher. The territory wants to apply for statehood, but the Governor is concerned that “Indian trouble” will be a stumbling block to that process. You can tell almost right away who the film's villain will be. Rancher Kilgore gets a minor-key musical motif, and his name (Kilgore= kill + gore) implies wickedness.
    The Governor also has a secret meeting planned while in town, and eventually he meets up an old prospector who show him a silver bullet as his credential. After establishing that the Governor is on the up-and-up, the prospector does a quick change into the Lone Ranger! Clayton Moore does a great character switch; I really did not know he was both characters until the LR dropped into the prospector's voice to convince the Governor. The two agree to work together to maintain peace between the two sides, and root out the source of the trouble.
    LR & Tonto go to visit the local reservation and meet with Red Hawk, the aging chief, and his ambitious junior, Angry Horse. Is that supposed to sound like Crazy Horse?  Maybe. Anyway, the Indians (no tribal name is given) have their gripes with the Territorials, violations of their land, especially the Sacred Mountain, which is taboo for everyone. Tensions are on the rise, and the younger braves want to fight.
    Kilgore's men start up a cattle drive. The herds cross Indian land, the ranch crew steals cattle from another farmer and kills him, to further demonstrate who the bad guys are. At the other end of the drive, Kilgore's henchmen pick up a shipment of dynamite on the hush-hush, so you know they're up to no good with it.  Later some more of Kilgore's men disguise themselves as Indians and start a dangerous brush fire. The final straw comes when Kilgore sends his daughter away to keep her from danger and her carriage is attacked by the Indians. The Territorials form a posse behind Kilgore to get her back and punish the Indians.
    Our heroes, having discovered Kilgore's ultimate goal (surprise!) in causing all the strife,  ride ahead to the reservation to secure the girl's release. LR debates with Angry Horse, saying that he doesn't have the wisdom needed to be a leader of his people. The two get a good fight in, with the girl's release dependent upon the victor. You can guess how the fight ends.
    Unaware of all this, Kilgore leads his posse towards the reservation to start the war. LR & Tonto find themselves in the middle of the two warring sides. Do they survive?  Is a happy ending possible?  Of course, and I won't spoil it.

    One of the things I appreciate about the TV show and this movie is that there is a balance – people on both sides want to fight, and people on both sides want to live in peace. Yes, Kilgore is the designated villain, but he's not the only source of ill-will and even he gets some sympathetic treatment. The local sheriff and Indian Agent want to maintain peace and respect the Indian's rights even against the sentiment of many of the Territorials. The gunplay is exciting but unbloody & the Ranger does a lot of his trademark trick shooting. There is one near-lynching of an Indian which is clearly meant to seem unfair and unjust to the audience.  The Ranger's simple and humble heroic career is a refreshing change from the modern penchant for jaded anti-heroes.  This movie is a fun, fast-paced adventure with lots to cheer about. It remains to be seen if the current feature film can live up to this standard of good guys, good friends and justice over vigilantism.

p.s.    As to the stereotypes, we've used them as starting points for conversations with our boys about how we, especially as Christians, treat those who are different from us, and recognizing & respecting virtue no matter who displays it.  

Listening to Young Atheists

Listening to Young Atheists – A reflection

     The June 2013 issue of The Atlantic magazine included an article by Larry Alex Taunton entitled “Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity” I was very interested in what the author had to say, even though I don't know any atheists personally.

    Go and read the article, but here is a summary of their findings: (paraphrased by me)
1. Most had experience with Christianity in some form, and reacted negatively against it.
2. Those with church experience thought that their church's mission and message were vague
3. They asked hard questions, and were given superficial answers
4. They still had respect for Christians who believed and practiced their faith seriously
5. Most chose atheism between ages 14 and 17
6. The choice to embrace unbelief was in part an emotional one, not a purely rational one
7. The Internet, specifically Youtube videos and forum chats were significant influences

My thoughts about the article and its findings:

    On point one, It is implied not stated that most of those interviewed came from Evangelical or Mainline Protestant churches. As these are the expressions of Christianity with the most adherents in this country, that is a reasonable assumption.  Orthodox Christians should absolutely not assume that this is just a Protestant thing, and our children will not have to deal with this. We're all human. Anyone's kids can be led down this path. I do not think I can emphasize this point too strongly. Most all of the atheists surveyed became atheists in reaction to Christianity or some experience within a Christian setting. In a country where it is so easy and acceptable to be passively irreligious, there has to be some strong motivation for a person to become actively or even militantly irreligious.

    On point 2, how well are we communicating the centrality of our faith to our kids? Whether the Liturgy is in English or another language, we must take time to explain and inform. Orthodox liturgies are beautiful, and rich in worship and doctrine. Make sure the lessons are being caught. We may also want to explain them to visitors. Can we as parents explain the doctrines of the Church, especially justification sanctification and theosis?  If we can't, we are simply a cultural artifact with nice artwork.

    On point 3, I don't think that this is as serious of a problem for the Orthodox. I hope I'm not wrong, but I might be. With centuries of Church Fathers who spent their lives pondering and inquiring into the mysteries of God, there are probably few topics that the Church has not already tackled. So any question should be answerable, if we are willing to do some reading. Our kids deserve to be taken seriously when they ask serious questions. This could even be a time to grow together as you seek answers to questions. 
    Evolution & creation?  Yes, the Church does speak to those things, but without the essentially Enlightenment & Rationalist mindset of some Heterodox groups. Sexuality? Orthodoxy has a very well developed theology of the human person, which includes sexuality. It is holistic, balanced and grounded in Scripture – like all of the Church's doctrine. What it is not is agreeable to the modern secular 'personal fulfillment uber alles' mindset. Biblical inerrancy?  Here the Orthodox may surprise many in that it is the Church, not the Bible that is given highest authority. The Bible exists within the life of the Church and is interpreted by her. The Orthodox do not adhere to rigidly literal interpretation, so textual disputes have less significance. This is not to say that there is not discussion or disagreement about some matters, but not major issues of doctrine. 
     N.B. I just have to take issue for a moment with the inaccurate equating, in this article and American culture generally, of Christianity with the Bible. Jesus created the Church at Pentecost (celebrated recently in the East) and the Church compiled the Bible. The Bible is part of the Church's expression of its fullness. Clear?  Moving on.
     Only one way? Orthodoxy has a very elaborate and rich Christology. Christ is the Creator and Redeemer of the cosmos. We cannot with our limited understanding declare with certainty who is or is not a part of Christ. What we do say is that the Church is what Christ gave humanity as the way to Himself, as our Rule and Practice.
     Purpose? Significance?  We bear in our humanity the Image of God! We are called by God to assist in the redemption of the Cosmos! How much more significant can we be?  Orthodoxy does not accommodate the ethical standards of any age or culture. The Church's ethical teaching is consistent, unified and clear. The right thing to do is not hard to know, it is hard to do.

     On point 4, how are we responding to visitor or inquirers?  I've heard many anecdotal accounts of cultural Americans entering Orthodox churches and being asked “why are you here (since you don't look like us)?” We had better not think that the Gospel and the Church belong only to people like ourselves. If we don't want to share the Faith, then maybe it doesn’t' mean much to us either.

     Orthodox evangelism is in my experience more subtle and less transactional than the approach favored by some other groups. “Come and see” is an often used invitation. Still, I think we could be more willing to accept as the article says “socially awkward"-ness  to initiate conversations about the Church. Always, of course with “gentleness and respect”.

    I have yet to meet an Orthodox priest who does not take his calling and the Gospel entrusted to him seriously. A priest is no more likely to become wealthy than any given Protestant pastor. Most every priest of my acquaintance works a 'civilian' job on top of their clerical duties to support their families.
    What about us lay folk? It is a lot easier for us to be passive and think 'that's the deacon's/priest's job' instead of confronting attitudes habits and behaviors that are not Godly. For my own part I admit to often avoiding this because I don't want things to be 'socially awkward', even with young people at my own parish.

    On points 5 & 6, teenagers are emotional critters. This is common knowledge. If something in or at the Church is creating an emotional situation for your kids, let them talk about it – even if they're angry. Take it seriously and never assume that they won't decide to leave on emotional grounds. For one example, what will they do if their heterodox or irreligious girl/boy-friend does not want to join the Church? Do we really think that our kids would never walk away from the Church for 'love'?  There are plenty of other touchy situations that could go badly if not handled with care – refer back to points 2, 3 and 4.  The teenage years are tough, with lots of changes coming fast and from all directions. We the parents and the Church should be the rock, the stable point that they can rely on as they work and grow towards the maturity we all want for them.

    On point 7, this is just one more reason why parents in particular, but Church family as well should know what the kids are up to online. I am glad for all of the Orthodox blogs and sites that communicate the Faith, and some that engage the atheist world view with the Truth that has endured. I wonder, I don't know, if we Orthodox Christians should seek out and engage the atheists on these forums, presenting the Church that takes the Faith and the Bible very seriously, that has a firm purpose and message, and that has the hard answers to the hard questions. If we do, it cannot be to pick fights and hit people with our doctrine stick but always to share the fullness of the Faith, the true Life who is our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. 

Lord, have mercy on all who have been deluded by atheism, and have mercy on me a sinner.