Hanging Up My Phaser

Dear Avid Reader,

Tomorrow I end my tenure as a marshal at Lazercade. And I am sad. I will miss it.

Working as a marshal was, and is, fun. And the reason lies within the business itself, or maybe in my perception of the business itself. I'll explain.

Everything Always Goes Back To Something Else

In my theatre studies I learned one constant truth: your audience wants you to succeed. In the same sense, when working at an arcade, your customers want to have fun. It would take a lot of hard work to mess that up.

So after a few nights I caught on to something. "If I'm having fun," I realized, "Then they have fun." And sure enough, it works. If my group and I were waiting for a game to start, I would start singing. If there was a good song on in the arena, I'd start dancing. During the explain the rules portion, I'd try and crack jokes. I didn't mind trying to embarrass myself, because it was for them. But it wasn't all candy and sunshine, let me tell you.

I took all of this very seriously. The way I see it, my job wasn't to explain rules, flip on a switch, and then stop kids from beating each other up. No, my job was to entertain. My job was to make sure that every person in my game had a good time. If they did, they would come back and spend more money. See, having a good time is still hard work. But it is also fun work. If that makes sense.

Yes. Yes It Does Make Sense

So why am I quitting? Well, it's for purely selfish reasons, I assure you. The main, easiest answer that I can give you is that I want my weekends back. I already have a job during the week. So after a year of working on the weekends, and during the week, and now fitting Grad-School in there as well...I just want some time back for other pursuits. Like blogging.

Contrary to what my last posts may have feared, the new owners are pretty cool bosses. I'd be a fool to say that the changing management hasn't sped up my departure, but certainty isn't the main reason that I'm quitting. I had been thinking about leaving before the place ever went up for sale. But now that things are changing at The 'Cade, it seems like a good time to move on.

People And Museums...The similarities Are Endless

Leaving anything makes me instantly nostalgic. Yes, nostalgic for something that ends tomorrow.

Now that my experience has ended, I can look at it as a completed work. Like when a musician dies; you are able to judge a body of work and you can place that work in a context that is no longer changing because it is in the past. i.e. What events took place during their life, how things led to other things, and et cetera all can be looked at objectively. While they are alive, their music seems open ended because they can make more. But after they die, you can really start looking for how everything fits together.

The same is with life, I suppose. I look back on things like jobs and school terms as an archeologist. I can hold artifacts up and point to their significance in the culture of me. Events that seemed so small (conversations and jokes), now look bigger after time. And things that seemed so important at the time (old wars and fights), now seem trivial.

So I piece together clues of what exactly happened, to see if this past civilization can help the current one. Can any lessons be learned? What can my history teach myself? I must keep digging for the truth.

But this is all academic. The facts are that here in the present, I am going to bid adieu to my career at Lazercade. But still, even now, I wonder how historians will look at this period in my life.

The Next Post Promises To Be Better,

James

In Ethics Class...I Dominate

Dear Avid Reader,

I just read my last post, the one on change.

And you know what, it is completely off-base. There is absolutely no way that anyone can separate emotion from decision making. It would be completely naive of me to suggest otherwise.

But I still think there is some validity in the spirit of my post. These revelations happened during my ethics class while we were discussing...ethics.

The question was asked, "Are there 'situational ethics'?"

I said yes.

To quote me, I said, "Are there 'situational ethics'? Yes. This is because there isn't a manual for life. There is no 'If A happens, then B is the right response and C is the wrong response all of the time.' This doesn't happen.

"The fear of the person that says there ARE absolute ethics, is that in a reality where situational ethics exist, there can be no absolute right and wrong. I disagree. I believe that absolute right and wrong exist, and they exist absolutely. What changes, is which response is right and what response is wrong within a situation. In each situation, there exists an absolute right response and an absolute wrong response."

A few other choice revelations.

"Whenever someone begins to talk about ethics, they talk about action. No one ever discusses if unethical thinking exists. Only unethical action."

"Speeding is always brought up when discussing ethics. Speeding is ground zero for ethical inquiry."

Going back to situational ethics. I believe that situational ethics have a biblical back as well. Consider Jesus and healing the blind man on a Sabbath. He broke a law, but he did something good/right. The same can be applied to...Speeding. The classic is that is you are rushing to save your friend from a gunshot wound, then it's O.K. to break the law.

Some would counter that the spirit of the speed limit is that you should not drive recklessly. Ergo, you aren't REALLY breaking the law (Thank you Robyn). But to me, this is semantics. The question still remains, "Is speeding unethical?" And the answer is, sometimes yes and sometimes no. It depends on the situation. We can only know if it was right or wrong in retrospect.

In this way, we can say that ethics are values in action. If you do something with the intent to make yourself feel good while causing someone else to feel bad, then to are unethical. But if you are trying to minimize pain and create compassion, then you are ethical. Ethics, then, are about intent.

So once again, change is going to happen, the potential rightness or wrongness of the change is unknown. But right and wrong still exist, and they exist absolutely.

See, nice little bow on the end.

The Next Post Promises To Be Better,

James

Change...Proceed With Caution (Part II)

continued from previous post

Going Macro On This Piece

Now we take this dynamic to a national scale. In specific terms the common "liberal" versus "conservative" fight. This fight is taking place right now on some internet site, or in an office, or on a cell phone, basically everywhere. And the fight they are having is the same one that happened yesterday and is the same one that will happen tomorrow. What the combatants can't do, is separate their personal feelings from the fight long enough to see what is really being argued about.

Let's go to a recent headline, the supreme court ruling on the Oregon "right-to-die" law. The Supreme Court sided with Oregon and allowed Oregon doctors to continue writing prescriptions that resulted in a terminally ill patient's death.

I'm going to discuss the problems of extreme people on both sides of the issue and use sweeping stereotypes. Just remember that these are stereotypes that I wish to eliminate, not solidify.

On the "liberal" side, you have people who are just happy that someone in the Bush Administration, John Ashcroft, lost. On the other side, you have those that wish to turn this not an opportunity to remove a law that they don't agree with on the basis of personal faith (suicide is a sin).

Both people have allowed themselves to enter the argument with an axe to grind. And everyone can smell it coming. But here's the thing, you can no longer sneak your agenda in. It's already assumed that you have one and you are going to try and sneak it in. In fact, the only thing that people are interested in anymore is finding out what agenda you are guilty of.

So this type of arguing is pointless. No one on the other side is going to listen to political arguments from someone that is solely focused on blaming Bush, Christians, and America for all of the world's problems. All they are going to hear is that you are trying to insult them for believing in God.

Similarly, no one on the other side is going to listen to arguments that are solely based on faith in Jesus. All they are going to hear is someone telling them that their lifestyle is wrong and that they are in danger of hell.

So what's my point? We should stop arguing like this.

Now That This Post Has Become Political, I Assume I Have A Lot Fewer Friends

What we need to do is remove the prejudices of this religious jihad that is happening under every political argument. Let's have the religious discussion in the open. When we try to sneak it in, it turns the conversation into something sinister. Moreover, when we try to sneak these feelings into what we say or how we write laws, it means that we aren't doing it in the open. And if you aren't dong something in the open, then that means you know you're doing something wrong.

Here's a story.

A high-school teacher was telling a story in a class that I was in recently. She was talking about the Chronicles of Narnia books. The main feature of her story was that if she were asked about the Christ imagery by one of her students, that she would sneak in that "some" people believe that it can be read in "this way". She went on to say that "they" can't do anything if you "do it" that way. To her, this was her opportunity to minister. So long as she didn't mention that it was her personal way of thinking, then she could say what ever sh wanted.

To me, this is not an opportunity to minister. It's trying to trick this kid into believing in Christ.

If you want to have a frank discussion, then meet outside of school. It really bothers me when teachers use this kind of language. As if Christian teachers are part of a secret society and everyday, they are sneaking Christ into their lesson plans. I just don't think that that is the way to go about it. Why try and hide it?

Again, if you have to hide it, doesn't that mean you think it's wrong?

Wrap It Up, We Have To Go To Commercial

Let's move onto the speed of change and back to the question of if change can be right or wrong. When it comes time to change something, such as a law, how can we know if it is going to be a good change or a bad change? Conservatives would say that change should happen organically, i.e. slowly. Liberals think that change should happen quickly, i.e. revolutionary. There can be tremendous good from change: civil rights, suffrage, and the like. But change can also be bad: Nazis, communist Russia, et cetera. We can only know for sure if a change was bad in retrospect. All we can do is look at the level of discomfort that the change will cause and weight it against the amount of alleviation it will cause and hope for the best.

I guess what I want to say is that change is going to happen. But it's not something we should embrace or stifle on its face. Rather we should look around, weigh out the merits of each case and do it with a little compassion and knowledge that losing the debate is alright.

And we should try our level best to remove our personal feelings about the issue and try and think of the greater good. If you want make decisions based on faith, do it in the open. If you want to make decisions based on your distrust of religion, do that in the open too. Just quit sneaking around about it.

Why does writing make me so angry?

The Next Post Promises To Be Better,

James

Change...Proceed With Caution

Dear Avid Reader,

"The only constant is change"

There are a lot of changes happening this year. So I guess this year is going to be constant.

Situation 1: Lazercade

First, the owners of Lazercade have decided to sell the business. This means that I will probably not like the new owners because I am comfortable with the current ones. Here's why.

When they first opened, I was there every weekend working. I built up a level of performance that the owners appreciated. So now I live in the aftermath of those times. I can continue to perform at the high level that I always have, but I don't necessarily have to come in every day to prove it. I've already proven it. This works out well for me because I am getting my Master's degree and can no longer work all of those hours that I once did.

But the new owners will have no preconceptions about what each employee can do. All of us are starting fresh. Which is good if you have a record of poor performance, but bad for me because I have a record of good performance.

Unfortunately, as I stated before, I don't have the ability to work all of the hours that I once did. I am in the middle of my Master's work. This is coupled with the fact that I will probably move away when I graduate (I say probably because I refuse to say anything definite about the future due to my faith in God and my faith that God has a sense of humor about things like "certainty".) All these things add up to me not having the political weight that I may have carried in the past.

"Why listen to this guy," the new owners might say, "He's hardly here and he's leaving in three months."

This will then allow some other person in as the main "go-to" person and person will turn out to be an idiot and they will in turn screw everything up. I say screw everything up, but what I really mean is change things from the way that they are currently and make me uncomfortable.

Situation 2: Harding

Now let's talk about my other job. Of course, I have to be a little secretive about what I'm talking about, so bear with me.

There is this idea that I have, we'll call it Project Totally Rock-Awesome (PTRA). PTRA is an idea that I've had for a while, but I could not seem to get the right combination of supervisor and extenuating circumstances to get it through, until now.

PTRA, however, means that some other departments have to come out of their comfort-zones. This may mean that PTRA may not be implemented, but it should. It would help so many thing in my department and would eventually help everyone once the change has been excepted.

So now we reach an epiphany. In both situations, change is going to happen. And for one party, there will be discomfort and for another, and alleviation of some discomfort. For Lazercade, the owners are selling the business in order to spend more time with their other jobs and family. The discomfort will be felt by the current employees and the new owners and maybe even Lazercade's customers. At Harding, the discomfort will be felt by other departments, but I will experience the alleviation.

So when change occurs, it is not bad or good in of itself, but can be perceived to be good or bad by those affected by it. In this case, I perceive the Lazercade change to be bad and the Harding one to be good. But these distinctions are completely selfish. But can change be either good or bad by itself?

I feel as though it cannot, at least it cannot be judged that way before it happens. Take artificial intelligence. If we develop it and we don't have machines revolting and taking over the world, then that change would have been good. But if robots rebel against us and we lose control of the world, we may look back and say we were better off not developing AI.

continued...

Blog Proliferation

Dear Avid Reader,

There are rules to making a blog. One of them is to write. But ho much do you have to write to "be a blog".

I guess just one entry will do. Sign up on blogger, make a post, BOOM, you're a blogger. But I think there is an unspoken understanding that you have to post a lot before you are a "good" blogger. You know what, I may be catching everyone off-guard here, let me tell you the impetus behind this entry.

I Really Do Read Those Blogs On The Right

My friend Trey recently wrote in his blog that he felt as though his tenure as a blogger was coming to an end. Here's the quote:

"I'm thinking that this blog thing is about over. My counter has slowed down. And people don't leave as many comments as they used to. Other blogers (sic) post less often than they used to. Some people's posts I hardly read because they are so dull I feel my brain locking up. I just scan for my name then move on. Is this the end of our blog ring?"

Laminack, T. (2006). Freedom... yeeeeeaaaah! Trey's Bloglicious Blog.

I think his quote captures what every blogger feels. They want to write something, and they want people to read it. Then they want people to post that they like it. Well, Trey doesn't say anything about wanting to be liked, but I am.

Then he goes on to describe something that I feel. Most blogs are lame. If you hit the next blog button on the top right hand corner of this page, you will be whisked away to a random blog on Blogger. This blog will probably be Bush-hating political flame, a long boring diary with endless meaningless details about the blogger's daily routine, pornography, or something in a language that you don't know.

The sites will alternate between these things until you unearth something out-of-the-ordinary. You will read it, but will most likely be disappointed because the person hasn't posted in over three months, or there will be something that doesn't strike a chord with you (In that it will be different and interesting and cool, but not quite suited to your particular tastes. Like appreciating art that you wouldn't buy and put in your house.)

The Good, The Bad, and The Really Bad Diary Blogs That I HATE...Ugly

But there is hope. Because you see Trey has a good blog and Trey is a good blogger. And after considering his post I think Trey is experiencing something that I am experiencing. I feel that my blogging is good, so I take it seriously. So seriously, that if I don't blog often, then I am failing. I treat the blog as if I have a column with deadlines. This taking it seriously, is what makes the blog good.

The reason that the "diary" blogs, which compose about 130% of all blogs, are so lame, is that the authors aren't taking the blog seriously. They just show up, post their current to do list, tell us how much they really need to buckle down and blog more, and then hit submit. These posts happen about every month or so until the person completely forgets that they even had a blog to begin with. Needless to say, I hate these type of blogs.

So now we come back to Trey. He has been posting at least once, more often three times a week for over eight months (This stat comes from the top of my head, so you don't try and correct me in the post section. Consider this artistic interp.). I have been reading them regularly for some time and I really enjoy them. Usually they are earnest and funny and always encourage the reader to build a community in their life.

But Trey is probably tired from all of the writing. And he is frustrated by the lack of discipline and skill in the bloggers that he reads. In the face of these problems, he has considered giving up the whole thing and use his time to do something else. Presumably, something more constructive.

But I would say no to this course of action. I say, keep writing. Why give up something that you are good at?

Again I Ask, Why?

If I could get all of the disciplined, good bloggers in a room together, I would tell them all one thing. Unless you are making money for new content, it's O.K. to miss a week here or there. One week, or even two weeks missed dose not a poor blogger make. Blogging is not what you do for a living. You have work to go to, people to interact with, and other interests to attend to.

Look at the humble model airplane builder. If a model airplane hobbyist takes a two month break from making a model airplane, no one would suspect him of slacking in his duty as a hobbyist. So why not apply the same latitude to ourselves?

I say take a week off. I say go do other stuff. Blogging can wait. You can always pick it back up after a refreshing hiatus.

And remember, being prolific doesn't mean that everything you write will be a good post.

But to the majority, undisciplined rabble, remember that it does help.

The Next Post Promises To Be Better,

James

Vacation Over

Dear Avid Reader,

You may be wondering where I've been. You may have been wondering where the new posts are. Well I was on vacation. And It was pretty cool.

And They're Off!

It started with the packing. This is a major fight starter in my household. My wife likes to consider the packing and plan for it before she packs. This means that the packing happens much closer to our departure time. I on the other hand prefer action to contemplation when it comes to packing and my packing happens way ahead of schedule.

Now the wife does a better job of the actual packing. The clothes are all nicely folded and all available space is utilized. But as I mentioned before, the packing happens close to departure time. This creates the possibility of missing the departure time and removes the possibility of "making good time".

As most of you know, the point of a vacation is not to relax, visit with family, or to "see the sites". The point of any vacation is to make good time. So while my wife is trying to maximize the other three "goals", I am trying to complete the main objective, i.e. make good time.

These two opposing furies battle each time we go on vacation, or head home from vacation. And the sparks fly. But the sparks always die out and we head out on our vacation. The first stop, the in-laws.

Hardcore Relaxin'

We arrived in Needville (southwest of Houston) at an unmentionable hour. It is unmentionable not because of the earliness of it, but because when I looked at a clock to see what time it was, all of the numbers began to run together and spell out the words "doomed underwater fashion". So I decided to stop looking at clocks when we were just outside of Houston.

After we got up, we were greeted with breakfast. Normally, I skip breakfast, so when I eat it, I know I'm on vacation. We had breakfast all the time while at the in-laws. And let me tell you, breakfast rocks.

There was church to attend, presents to open, and fun was had by all. We participated in all of the classic Christmas fare. The non-traditional but still rock-awesome parts of the trip were playing Acquire, seeing The Chronicles of Narnia, playing Lazer-Tag, watching Jeremiah Johnson, and making an experimental art film with my father-in-law. After all of that I had a fight about how to pack luggage with my wife and we were off to my family's place.

Round Two

We got into Fort Worth at about eight and a half in the nighttime. All of me younger siblings were there. Because we arrived after Christmas, there wasn't much classic holiday action. But here's the rock-awesome list for the back nine of the vacation:

Beating Red Dead Revolver on the X-box, playing Crash Bandicoot with the childrens, catching one of my sister's basketball games, watching my sister post up some mad "D", watching my sister come down hard on her foot, being concerned about her foot, the concern about her foot giving way to nick-naming her "Crutches", watching the Cowboys' playoff hopes vanish, smoking a turkey with my brother, and a Western themed New Year's Eve celebration in ficticious "Dryland, TX". After all of that, all we had left was one more fight about packing and we were on our way.

We ate some awesome stuff on our trip besides just breakfast. On the homemade front, we had some killer burgers, sausages, & chicken off the grill. We had enchiladas, gigantor tubs of snacks, several helpings of my rock-awesome chili, German chocolate cake, and one smoked turkey. One the dine-out menu, we supped at the Barbecue Inn, Flying Saucer Pies, Whataburger, Jack-In-The-Box, Bennigan's, and Ruby Tuesday. I think as you get older, what you eat is important to include in a vacation's description.

So that's my vacation. Read it an' weep.

Oh, I also invented a new slang term: Rock-Awesome! And don't go trying to tell me you've heard it before, because I invented it! Comprende?

The Next Post Promises To Be Better,

James