I have eaten more refined sugar in the past two days than I had in the last 3 months. But, man, has it been good! Mmmm, chocolate chip pecan pie...three meals a day, plus snacks.

Mmmm, chicory coffee. I could never find the Community Coffee blend in a store in Athens, so I loaded up with a couple of pounds from MS to bring home. I do love that New Orleans taste!

Well, I made it to Mississippi for Thanksgiving holidays...but not without some prime road rage excitement. Tim and I were on I-285 in Atlanta (which, BTW, is such a super-fun city to drive in), and we were trudging behind a slow SUV in the far left lane. People were passing us on the right. Who are these people who don't seem to know how to drive on the interstate and who seem to be oblivious to their surroundings? Do they realize that slower cars belong in the right lanes? I passed what turned out to be a him in the SUV, voicing my concerns about his awareness of what was going on. Well, turns out he didn't like the insinuation very much. In the rear view mirror, I caught an animated, rude hand gesture -- a gift from him to me. What did I do? Did I ignore him? Did I blow him a kiss? Yeah, right. That would have required me to actually think about my actions. No, I did what came far too naturally...I returned the gesture. For some reason, he really didn't like this very much, so instead of driving at the preferred speed for his lane before, he decides to do this now and catch up to me. Headlights flashed. Heck, he even turned on his hazards. Not sure what that was about, but this was turning out to be rather exciting. Still behind me, he points to the right. I know what he wants -- he wants me to get off at the next exit so we can fight, or something terribly absurd like that -- but decide instead to simply do whatever he does, so I point to the right. He does it again. I do it again. He raises his hands in exasperation. I raise my hands in exasperation. I imagine he's not getting any calmer, and my imagination is correct when he eventually pulls up beside me. It is at this point that I blow him some kisses. All I can catch coming out of his dip-bloated mouth are some F words. He even rolls down his window. It doesn't even cross my mind to roll down mine. He eventually tires of my kisses, seeing that he won't get the chance to beat me up, and pulls back to his normally slower speed. Nothing like having boys out on the highways, huh?

Gift certificates from McDonalds? For Christmas??

I took Tim to Stamp's Superburgers when we got into Jackson today. (It's called Cool Al's now, for some reason.) I got a large Turkey Superburger -- 11 1/2 ounces of meat on a wheat bun, with grilled onions and pepper jack cheese. The patty passed beyond the bun's limits by at least one inch all around. This, Tim, is why I got a salad for lunch. Saving up for the good stuff. A gift certificate from Cool Al's? Now that's a Christmas gift!

I bought another few sweaters from the Potter's House.

I'm sure other things have happened in the past week and a half, but I can't think of any at the moment. Ah, well.

Fall Wardrobe

I hit the Potter's House (local thrift store) last week with $20 and got me the beginnings of a decent fall wardrobe. A couple of sweaters, a few dress shirts, and a pair of corduroys. I'm heading back this week for more goodies! Maybe I should hit Old Navy first -- I need to spend what's on this gift card that I've had for almost a year.

Job Hunting

The season is upon me once again. I should've started hard on it last week...but didn't.

Looking over past teaching evals is discouraging. I think of myself as a pretty good teacher, but maybe it is misplaced. The evals aren't bad. But then they aren't exceptional, either. Every semester I tell myself that I'll be more organized, but it just never seems to happen. That's a problem that I must overcome. I probably fail to pay due attention to the class from the student's perspective, which probably makes it harder on them. I guess there's always next semester... *sigh*

All of this, of course, makes me question my chosen career path. I probably shouldn't take it quite that far, but there it is.

I don't like the way my shaved head looks in pictures. I think I'm going to grow it back out.

LOST (3x06) "I Do"

I've just about lost my steam for this show. I am filled with so much apathy about what is going on at this point. Someone else tell me what's going on, because I have no idea. That said...

There were some nice scenes in the episode, but as a cliffhanger the ending was rather anti-climactic for me. It was a cliffhanger insofar as something really interesting happened at the end that puts us in a state of expectancy, but I've been in that state for, like, two seasons already about most things (facts, events) that they've introduced. Apathy ensues.

As much as I have come to tire of Jack the Whiny-Baby, he has always seemed to have the other LOSTies' interests in mind. His leadership has been frought with messiness: sometimes it is imposed from others (C'mon, Jack, you're the doctor, DO SOMETHING!), sometimes it is self-imposed (Jack, why do you think you have to save everybody?), sometimes he keeps others in the dark, sometimes he announces his plans. He wants to maintain some control, as leaders are wont to do. Once again, the S-/shepherd takes the helm and tries to save his sheep under his care (Kate and Sawyer) using Ben's life as a bargaining chip. Unfortunately, he doesn't know that they can't get off the island that they are on--at least, they don't know how to.

It seems that this time he has sacrificed himself in the process. Does he think he's going to get free? If he let's Ben die, he's a goner. If he fixes Ben, after the crazy stunt he pulled, I would think he's a goner. Looks like a lose-lose situation. He can't very well use Ben as a bargaining chip for himself, unless he plans on making a run for the gun closet after Kate (and Sawyer) is safe.

The stinkin' producers said we would know what happened to Karl (well, assuming he was Alex's boyfriend, I guess we have) and that we would find out why he was in the cage by the end of this episode. Liars.

The Alex-as-David-the-Others-as-Goliath thing was exciting but baffling. Why set off the compound alarms and come in guns a-blazin' when she has already snuck in unnoticed to converse with Kate? Pickett: "You know you're not supposed to be here." Hmm. She was cast out for some reason, but she was also sent "home" after her outburst, wherever that is. They don't want to hurt her, just keep her away. That, or it was just part of the game they're playing with Kate (and Sawyer and Jack). Who's telling the truth? Which events and claims are we to trust as true and which are shrouded in trickery as a means to whatever end They have in mind? Juliet says "Trust me," Alex says "Don't believe what they tell you" (the "they" apparently including Juliet). Akin to the liar paradox: "I am lying now." If what the speaker says is true then what the speaker says is false, or, if the speaker is a liar then the speaker is a truth-teller; if what the speaker says is false then what the speaker says is true, or if the speaker is a truth-teller then the speaker is a liar. (The same thing occurs with "This statement is false.") Apathy ensues.

But perhaps there is some hope. Juliet lies to Ben when he asks, "Did Alex ask about me?" As a matter of fact, that was one of the first things, if not the first thing, that Alex asked about ("Where is Ben?"). There was no reason for her to be tricking Jack, since Jack had no idea what happened when Alex came barrelling through the compound. There was no reason for Juliet to be playing up a supposed tension between her and Ben in front of Jack. That, and the fact that she was disturbed in the book club meeting that people (specifically, the guy who was putting down Carrie) were too quick to follow Ben blindly, suggests that her unhappiness with Ben is well-founded and not part of some larger trickery.

But another dark cloud forms. Pickett: "Shepherd wasn't even on Jacob's list." Great, another list. Another character, unless he's Eye Patch Man. So, which list is this? Not the list given to Michael. Presumably not the lists made by Ethan or Goodwin, unless Goodwin has "Jacob" in his name somewhere. Those are the only lists we know of. Is Jacob's list of the "good" people? We have to ask this question, since the good/bad dichotomy has been attached to lists of the survivors already. There is at least the weak implication that Jacob's list is of the same nature. And what does Pickett care who is on that list? It must be playing some central role in their activities surrounding the LOSTies, as Pickett is appealing to it in order to justify his action toward Sawyer (or at least to justify his attitude toward Jack and, consequently, his going after Sawyer).

Of thematic interest is the interplay between Kate's backstory and her response to Jack's and Sawyer's insistence that she run. In her backstory, she can't help but run. She can't live a normal life. I think the federal agent was serious when he said he'd stop chasing her if she would only stay with the latest life she made for herself. He understands that she's living a lie in that situation. But when Sawyer and Jack tell her to run, to escape, she doesn't do it. What is keeping her from running this time? Is it because she, like, Sawyer, thinks they are on an unescapeable island? Does she actually want to stay with Sawyer or Jack? Is she ready to stop running from intimacy? Jack and Sawyer know more about who she really is than even her husband did. Is that the kind of staying power she has been looking for?

A Tough Read

Tim Powers' Declare is a really tough read. He's a good writer (though his descriptions can be a bit tedious with its flowery flare), but he jumps around time periods so much that I can hardly follow and yet must always be mindful of what the character knows or has experienced at any given point in the narrative. And since I have no idea what is really going on with the weird things that are happening, it's nearly impossible to know which details in the narrative to pay attention to and which to overlook. I don't have enough conceptual boxes to put all of the action in, so I'm left with a whole bunch of stuff just strewn around in my head. Looks like I'll have to read it again once I'm done, but when that will ever be, who knows?

However, I will say that Declare doesn't look nearly as confusing as House of Leaves. That thing just looks like a literary nightmare.

The Bread Pipe

I got a new hot water heater today. The old one hasn't been up to par, and with it getting cold and all 5 minutes worth of hot water in the shower just ain't enough. [Cut out boring details about calls to the apartment owners and a new hot water heater leak.] Today, as I was walking through the apartment parking lot to my door, I see my water heater on the porch (good sign) and an empty box for a new water heater beside it (good sign), but when I got inside there was nothing, no one, except for the new water heater sitting outside the closet, a carpet-full of wetness in front of the closet, and some assorted tools lying about. Hmmm. Bad sign.

Not soon thereafter, the handyman and his hispanic cohorts come knocking. (This was the same handyman who replaced the ceiling light fixture in front of the water heater closet after I noticed that a leak, which I soon learned came from the water heater leak from upstairs, filled up the bowl covering the bulb of the old fixture. Yikes!) They were hilarious and in especially good spirits given that a job that should've taken 30 minutes ended up taking the afternoon. At one point, Handyman asked me for a piece of bread. Huh? This is no time to be snacking, buddy! Apparently, welding doesn't work so hot (pun intended) when the pipe you're working on has water running through it. So, I sacrificed a slice of my homemade wheat bread for the cause. Shoving bread in the pipe seems to be the accepted method of stopping the leak and proceeding with the welding. Interesting. I learned something new today.

Handyman noticed my beer gear (a couple of carboys and a Pepsi keg), but the interesting thing about it was that he noticed it as my beer gear. "So, do you make beer?" Sweet. They made quite a mess of the carpet, and one of Handyman's cohorts just happened to own a carpet cleaning business, so Cohort #1 was going to come by later and clean the carpet in the hallway. After the mishap a while back with my nut brown's sugary foam coating the carpet in Mitch's bedroom, this was my chance to see if they could clean it while they were at it in the hallway. "No problem." Sweet. The great thing is that not only did Cohort #1 clean the hallway and the nut brown spot, but he cleaned every other vacant carpet patch in the apartment! Double sweet. All the spots that came with the apartment on my arrival are no more! What a swell bunch of guys.

The new water heater works great...and my hot water isn't brown anymore.

Imputation of Righteousness

For anyone who might be interested, check out this transcript of a talk that N. T. Wright gave at a 2003 conference in Edinburgh. I think it helps to clarify, though hardly settle, some problems that reformed folks, particularly those within the PCA, have with Wright.

One criticism that comes up again and again is the charge that Wright denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers. And, frankly, they seem to be correct. But what is so bad about denying such a thing, what makes the denial so frightening and the charge so serious, is the (supposed) consequent denial of the effects of the imputation. Without such imputation, we are without hope, left only to the righteousness of our own works, which, of course, will get us nowhere. The problem is that although Wright disagrees with the popular understanding of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, he is adamant that he doesn't deny what the imputation doctrine is meant to preserve.

First, Paul’s doctrine of what is true of those who are in the Messiah does the job, within his scheme of thought, that the traditional protestant emphasis on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness did within that scheme. In other words, that which imputed righteousness was trying to insist upon is, I think, fully taken care of in (for instance) Romans 6, where Paul declares that what is true of the Messiah is true of all his people. Jesus was vindicated by God as Messiah after his penal death; I am in the Messiah; therefore I too have died and been raised. According to Romans 6, when God looks at the baptised Christian he sees him or her in Christ. But Paul does not say that he sees us clothed with the earned merits of Christ. That would of course be the wrong meaning of ‘righteous’ or ‘righteousness’. He sees us within the vindication of Christ, that is, as having died with Christ and risen again with him. I suspect that it was the mediaeval over-concentration on righteousness, on iustitia, that caused the protestant reformers to push for imputed righteousness to do the job they rightly saw was needed. But in my view they have thereby distorted what Paul himself was saying.

Read the transcript for a fuller treatment of justification as vindication. The metaphor he gives (as he did back in What Saint Paul Really Said), and that he believes Paul had in mind, is that of the Jewish law court, in which a person is righteous by being vindicated by the judge. The protestant notion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, says Wright, is that righteousness is a characteristic of Christ (in some metaphysical and moral sense) that itself is transferred to us, so that we have this characteristic of Christ that is Christ's, not ours. But, says Wright, in the law court it is not the judge's moral characteristic of being righteous that is transferred to the person. The judge makes a pronouncement, and it is so. Having been vindicated by the judge, the person is, totally and completely, innocent or guilty.

We don't get Christ's righteousness per se, says Wright, but this doesn't mean that we aren't justified in the sight of God by the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. This is why he cites Romans 6, in which Paul makes clear who we are in the sight of God because of Christ's death and resurrection. By being in Christ, we are judged by God to be in the same position as Christ before Him: righteous. What exactly is lost in Wright's formulation (if I may ask this without being thought unorthodox or heretical)? There is no denial that we are in Christ, nor is that denial implied. There is no denial that we enjoy the benefits, now and at the Last Day, of union with Christ. There is no denial that God grants us His Spirit.

What is lost is thinking of "justification" as denoting the entire soteriological ordo saludis. And this is probably the source of all the troubles. Wright is, in fact, suggesting a drastic (for some) change in thinking about justification. But that does not mean he is denying anything that the traditional conception implies. And this is the main source of the absurdity of most every criticism against Wright that I've seen. Wright sees justification as a part of the salvation process, as he thinks Paul does in Romans 8:30. That is why Wright's formulation of justification does not imply a denial of those things that the traditional conception of justification imply: they do not refer to the same thing -- the scope of Wright's is more narrow than the scope of the traditional conception.

What I find so interesting about the conference talk is his reasons for coming to this position. Many criticisms think that he came to the position after reading the dirty liberal NPP folks like Sanders and Dunn, and since reformed folks are opposed to these dirty liberals (and rightly so), then they must be opposed to Wright as well. But Wright contends that he came to the position by a most definitely reformed principle: sola scriptura. When he tried to understand and exegete Paul's writings as the Word of God and not through the lenses of this or that theological tradition, this is the position he came to. He sees his obedience to scripture as the reason why he came to, and continues to hold, his position on the matter of justification.

If we, as reformed folks, are to be "always reforming" and always taking what scripture says as the trump card to what any theological system says, then shouldn't we listen to someone who is trying to understand the concept of justification as Paul sees it, whatever the consequences for our theological system? Shouldn't we be willing to change our system, if that is what scripture requires? I'd say yes, and I'm sure, if pressed in some other context, Wright's critics would, as well. But what I've see over and over again in their criticisms is that Wright is wrong because his view doesn't match up with the Westminster Confession or with some other reformed standard. In other words, what he thinks scripture says can't be what scripture says because it's not what our theological system says that scripture says. I think we've forgotten Chapter 1 of the WCF, "Of the Holy Scripture." We would do well to keep Sections 9 and 10 in mind.

As a caveat, I'm not sure that I'm with Wright on this. Christ's imputation (double imputation, actually) is too ingrained in my thought to toy with it too much and I'm not willing to part easily with it. Plus, there is a question as to how good of an exegete Wright is, which is the cornerstone (as he himself admits) of his position. If his exegesis doesn't hold up, then neither does his position. But to criticize the position just because it isn't what our theological system says it is, which is what I've seen a lot of critics do, just isn't the way to go.

O, Beautiful Beer

Here is a picture of one of the last pints of my IPA. I was so moved by its beauty, that I just had to take a picture of it. I only wish I could include the intoxicating hoppy aroma in the picture. (Yes, pun intended.)

Those Crazy Kids

We took some pictures around the Lutz House, where Rebecca currently resides.

Aren't those the cutest boys? And maybe just a little bit silly...

The Lutz House was beautiful, inside and out. I couldn't do it justice with descriptions. Built in 1914. Original timbers on the ceiling and original brick/stone fireplaces. Restored wood floors. Filled nicely with (mostly, it seemed) beautiful mission style furniture.

Some pics (below) from the front of the house. I didn't get the chance to lighten up the main subjects (us!), but you get the idea.

Speaking of crazy kids, the Lutz boys and some neighborhood friends were in the process of making a giant rabbit for the neighborhood Halloween bash, complete with moving parts. They seemed like an amazing bunch, coming up with the design and application themselves. They'd had some mechanical setbacks when we left. Can't wait to hear how it turned out!

Here is the headless work-in-progress rabbit. Yep, it's got fur (but the fur isn't from other rabbits).

Asheville In The Fall

Thomas and I enjoyed our Weekend With Becca. Has it been a week already??

Friday night we met Becca at Jack of the Wood, a nice pub downtown. One of the things that struck Thomas and me was the clientelle -- we were among the young ones! We just aren't used to seeing "old people" in the bars downtown Athens. And you were right, Becca, Green Man ale is delicious!

Saturday we ate breakfast/brunch at Early Girl. Sweet potatoes in my scrambled eggs? Yummy! That afternoon Thomas and I headed down to DuPont National Forest. What would normally take us a couple of hours from Athens took, like, thirty minutes. Yummy!

There were mostly reds down there. Not many yellows, but it was beautiful! Especially after the all-uphill hike to get to the top of Stone Mountain. Man, I'm getting old...

Thomas showing off his pale guns for the foliage.

Then we headed down to Three Falls (pictured below).

See those kayakers? They went down the middle falls. We met them again at Hooker falls farther down the stream.


And here they are!

This is High Falls, up from Three Falls. You can just see the corner of a covered bridge at the top of the falls.

Matthew Ryan

His show last night (with David Mead and Thad Cockrell) here in Athens was most excellent. Matthew played sans his trusty sidekick Brian Bequette, but David and Thad did a fair job as substitutes. Instead of Brian's haunting guitar as background, we had Thad's harmonicas and David's mandolin. An interesting substitute, but it worked, particularly since David and Thad were decidely more folk- and bluegrass-oriented in their music than Matthew. D/T were also good substitutes for the banter that Matthew and Brian usually engage in during their shows. (Much to Kim's chagrin, I'm sure! "Just play!" I recall her saying during one of B/M's drawn out and irrelevant discussions from a previous show. Love it.)

Matthew played from his new album, From A Late Night HighRise, which we purchased and which we've been listening to. I remember his mentioning a couple of shows back at Eddie's Attic that he thought is was up there with May Day. Since that's my favorite of his albums, and since I've only listened to HighRise a few times, I can't agree with him at this point, but it's a good album nonetheless.

We talked to Matthew a little before and after the show. He seemed genuinely glad that we made it to see him. Funny thing was that he thought we were from Atlanta, since we'd mostly seen him play there. I hope he makes it to Athens more often.

LOST (3x05) "The Cost of Living"

The Black Smoke of Judgment

Ecko is dead. The LOST creators said in their most recent podcast that one of the main characters was going to die and that "people will be pretty satisfied that we are killing somebody significant." I'm not exactly sure what the reason for being satisfied would be, except to do something drastic to the characters we've come to know and love in order to get our juices flowing. But there is another sense in which I was somewhat satisfied that it was Ecko, a sense that the creators may or may not have had in mind.

Scott hit it regarding the biblical undertones for the Ecko parts of this episode:

He and Locke remove a giant rock from Yemi's "tomb", only to find Yemi is not there? Then he finds Yemi, Yemi confronts him and essentially tells him he must be judged and gives him the option of confession, and Ecko refuses. Then Yemi tells him that he does not understand why he talks to him as though he were his brother. Then the giant fist. This reminded me of Matthew 25:41, where Jesus says to the religious hypocrite, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

This gets at why I think Ecko's death wasn't such a bad thing. Ecko is supposed to be a priest. Supposed to be. Absent a confession, it seems to me he was just playing priest all along. Yemi definitely distances himself from Ecko when he refuses to confess his sins, distances himself from the judgment that Ecko was to receive.

One of the things that I find interesting about Ecko's judgment is the "hand" that brought it: the black smoke. The last time we saw it, it flashed pieces of Ecko's past in front of him. A warning? An omen? Is this the role that the black smoke is to play? Ecko's last statement was that the others were next. Sweet. Will they all be faced with the opportunity to confess their past sins, else be condemned at the hand of the black smoke?

Everyone except for Locke. Thus far, we've only seen it as the black smoke, and it seems that the others see it as black smoke. But Locke's perception of it was different -- significantly different. Locke didn't see the black smoke of judgment; he saw a bright light and "it was beautiful." This makes sense given that he wanted to be pulled down the hole that the black smoke was dragging him into at the beginning of the second season. He acts as if the island is not against him, judging him, but is leading him somewhere, to a place he wants to go. Has Locke confessed? Has he repented? I don't expect the writers of LOST to have some sort of full-blown Protestant theology in the background, so maybe they have penance in mind. Ecko was building the church that the altar boy's mother said he owed to Yemi, suggesting some kind of penance, yet he refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong. Has Locke acknowledged his wrongdoings (such as his contempt for his father) and has been trying to put it to rights on the island?

In one of the previous episodes, we got a close-up of some of the Bible verses on Ecko's Jesus stick:

Gen. 13:14 -- "The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, 'Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward". (Ecko's stick had this etched into it: "LIFT UP YOUR EYES AND LOOK NORTH.")

Hab. 1:3 -- "Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise."

Rom. 6:12 -- "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions."

John 3:05 -- "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Acts 4:12 -- "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which he must be saved."

I'm not sure whether the writers meant more than that most of the verses include The Numbers, but most of them speak of judgment, sin, and salvation. Interesting.

Also on the Jesus stick were some of The Numbers. "4:8:15:16." The other Numbers were probably on there on the other side of the stick, too, but were cut off in the screen shot.

Who To Trust?

Is Jack supposed to trust what Juliet says about Ben? Is he supposed to trust Ben now that he 'fessed up about how he was going to break Jack? What a psychological nightmare. And what a nightmare for the viewer! I don't know who to believe now, and I'm not sure it's a positive for the show. As much as I like the show, my inability to trust what any of the Others are saying is making me care less and less about Them. Or about the show, to tell the truth. Is all of this implicit trickery supposed to keep me interested in what happens next? I'm so befuddled that I almost don't care who's telling the truth and am becoming more interested in the more mundane aspects of the Others -- where they came from, what they are doing on the island, etc. At least the "what" is more clear than the "why" at this point.

Ben brings the theological underpinnings of Ecko's story to bear in his conversation with Jack: "Do you believe in God?" "Do you?" "...two days after I found out I had a fatal tumor, a spinal surgeon fell out of the sky. If that's not proof of God, I don't know what is." Again, is he just messing with Jack's head? Is this part of some reverse psychology trick he's playing? Ugh.

The funeral ceremony for Colleen was interesting. I mean, the fact that they even had a rite for the dead struck me as odd. I would think that ceremonies such as that reflect a civilization, a culture. It's not something that a group of scientists qua scientists would do among themselves. Such ceremonies are reserved for groups of a different nature. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Another Hatch?

So, Super Sayid tapped into another hatch, with yet another mystery character: Eye Patch Man. I almost don't care who the heck he is. Almost. Hopefully Locke will find out: "Guess he'll be expecting us." Sweet.

Desmond thought that the computers were connected for communication among the hatches. This fits with some of the notes written on the blast door map about "DHARMATEL INTRANET," "DHARMATEL SERVERS/HUB CABLING," and an "ISLAND-WIDE E.E.P. NETWORK." Was Walt (or whoever it was) in another hatch while communicating with Michael?


I like the season thus far, but this show is wearing on me. I hope they throw us some bigger bones this season, or else I fear it will just degenerate.