tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-372595682024-03-13T06:40:33.598-07:00Luke A. HolzmannMusings Through a Glass DarklyLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-82850548410834781312021-06-25T19:53:00.002-07:002021-06-25T19:54:21.781-07:00Camping Redemption<p>We were going camping as a family with friends of ours. We were going to leave this morning at 11am.</p>
<p>We did not.</p>
<p>A full hour late, we're finally on the road. Fifteen minutes out and we realize we've forgotten something. Nothing major, so we don't turn around, but I -- holy man that I am -- am furious. We don't have time to do this with two kids. We're barely holding life together right now. We didn't prepare enough in advance. This trip is starting out on the wrong foot. ...the complete wrong foot! Gah!</p>
<p>In other words, I'm "frustrated". Euphamistically speaking, of course.</p>
<p>I'm seething.</p>
<p>And my wife suggests, as she tends to these days, that I pray and ask God to redeem or bless or show His goodness in this apparent bad situation.</p>
<p>"Apparent", mind you. These little hints of "it's not really bad" really get my goat*.</p>
<p>So, I -- holy man that I am -- pray. Kinda. A bit. An angry, faithless prayer. Something like, "Okay, God. I'm angry. This is so bad. Do something good with this if You will because, obviously, You <em>can</em> do something miraculous ... but I'm not counting on it at all. Thanks." That "thanks" was as thankless as you can get.</p>
<p>We stop for lunch at our faviorite cafe in this neck of the woods. The food is great. The sky drips on us a bit. I'm feeling better as we get back on the road. Even almost missing my exit doesn't completely throw me.</p>
<p>But our friends are packing up their tent in the middle of some crazy wind and rain. They're bailing. The weather is not going to get nicer.</p>
<p>So we simply reroute to their house, without backtracking at all, and spend a pleasant evening hanging out with them, making s'mores on their gas firepit, and packing up before the rains arrive there. The kids play together. We get to relax. It's nice. And then we drive home, planning to meet at our house for more hangout time tomorrow.</p>
<p>And that, my friend (looking at you, Future Luke), is just a tiny example of how God can redeem, bless, and show His goodness in an apparent bad situation.</p>
<p>Oh, and the drive home was lovely, too ... with beams of light dancing on the valleys and the foothills dragging their fingers through the clouds.</p>
<p> ~Luke Holzmann
<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Father (twice over)</p>
<blockquote>*I much prefer "goad", as it makes more sense to me. But, apparently, it's "goat" ...which may be a misheard "goad" ... we don't know. English. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfCXKhlxFkY&t=15s">Vote with your usage, friend.</a></blockquote>Luke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-29666024443944824472017-01-27T13:09:00.002-08:002017-03-25T08:05:11.484-07:00Non-Religious Reasons: Part 4 - Abortion<a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-3-stem-cell.html">Part 3 here</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>One non-religious reason against safe abortions.</blockquote><br />
<strong>There isn't one.</strong> ...because there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion.<br />
<br />
Just a refresher (from Google). Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.<br />
<br />
Definition of "Pregnant": having a child or other offspring developing in the body.<br />
<br />
So, every single abortion is the termination of a developing baby.<br />
<br />
"But Luke," you may say, "it's not a <em>baby</em>, it's a <em>fetus</em>."<br />
<br />
...which, if you were thinking that, you clearly missed <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-1-separation.html">Part 1</a> of this brief series where you learned that a fetus, by definition, is "an unborn human <strong>baby</strong> more than eight weeks after conception."<br />
<br />
Though you may feel it at the moment, I'm not so thick as to not understand what "safe" means in the original context. It means "safe for the mother." And, yes, if I had to choose between losing two lives over one, I'm utilitarian enough to agree that "safe" is better than "unsafe" ... but such a discussion misses the more important part: The purpose of abortion is to terminate an unborn fetus' life (remember: human baby).<br />
<br />
And one of the roles of the government is to protect its citizenry. And while it is true that the unborn do not currently fall under the protected status, anyone who cares about the disenfranchised, the powerless, the voiceless should be demanding that our government do better, be better, and seek to protect the most defenseless.<br />
<br />
This is not to say that I do not have incredible sympathy for women in crisis pregnancy situations. We must do better by them (and the Church -- which, I realize has nothing to do with non-religious stuff -- I believe should be at the forefront of that, which is why I'm so proud my church is involved in <a href="http://youhavealternatives.org/">Alternatives</a>). In fact, some of the most frustrating things for me when I hear about Pro-Choice arguments are all the things that make women in these situations feel like <em>they don't have a choice</em>. Be it churches, boyfriends, their family, or socially, we have repeatedly failed women who need love, support, and care during these horrible situations.<br />
<br />
And I'm not even 100% against abortion. I merely think that we should start with the assumption that it's wrong -- like killing anyone -- and allow for the possibility that there may be times when the government has reason to condone such behavior (like in self-defense or national security). Of course, I would urge everyone to be as cautious about that as possible. But, really, that's a totally different topic.<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
In conclusion:<br />
<br />
Please, at minimum, take two minutes to google a topic before posting about it on social media.<br />
<br />
And, if you don't feel like doing that much work yourself, come chat with me and I'd be thrilled talk about these issues. I get it: marriage, research, and health are huge, important, complicated issues filled with all kinds of nuances and twists that make it difficult. I appreciate the difficulties with many of these things and fully recognize where the Church and Christians and I have totally screwed up in these kinds of things. I urge us all to do better, and I know I have much to learn about all this.<br />
<br />
But if you are looking for nothing more than one non-religious reason why the government should be concerned, I hope I've helped you out.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-66399945119752626702017-01-27T12:45:00.001-08:002017-01-27T13:17:22.346-08:00Non-Religious Reasons: Part 3 - Stem Cell Research<a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-2-same-sex.html">Part 2 here</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>One non-religious reason against stem cell research.</blockquote><br />
<strong>There isn't one.</strong> ...but this isn't what people are actually arguing about.<br />
<br />
See, if we did the smart thing and collected stem cells from fat tissue instead of embryos, no one would/should be complaining. And I read this scientific knowledge first in <em>Wired</em> way back in 2010! (Seriously, it's a great article: <a href="https://www.wired.com/2010/10/ff_futureofbreasts/">All Natural: Why Breasts Are the Key to the Future of Regenerative Medicine</a> and has been out for more than half a decade.) If you took the time to look at the science, you would find that fat is a ridiculously better source for stem cells than unborn human babies (aka "fetus"):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>There is roughly one adipose stem cell per 100 fat cells. (By comparison, bone marrow contains one per 250,000 to 400,000 cells.)</blockquote><br />
So go donate some of your fat for science (I'm willing!) and let's super-power stem cell research.<br />
<br />
What people complain about is the use of stem cells from aborted children (and not just for the obvious scientific reasons).<br />
<br />
...which brings us to the <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-4-abortion.html">non-religious reason against safe abortions</a>.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-1568020931095105122017-01-27T12:34:00.002-08:002017-01-27T18:43:55.001-08:00Non-Religious Reasons: Part 2 - Same Sex Marriage<a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-1-separation.html">Part 1 here</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Give me one non-religious reason against same sex marriage.</blockquote><br />
<strong>There isn't one.</strong> ...but this isn't actually a problem for people who support traditional marriage.<br />
<br />
See, marriage itself is a religious practice. It is a covenant between two people. For the Christian, it was established by God and therefore has a lot of stuff associated with it (things you're likely to hear about during a traditional marriage celebration).<br />
<br />
"But Luke," you may say, "non-religious people get married too!"<br />
<br />
Yes, in a sense. But these -- again, going no further than Wikipedia -- are <strong>civil unions</strong> defined as "marriage without religious content carried out by a government institution." And, I don't know if you remember back to when the whole gay marriage "thing" went viral here in the States, but that was one of the main arguments put forth by the supporters of "traditional (read: religious) marriage": <strong>Civil unions already exist</strong>; it is against the First Amendment for the government to force civil unions into the definition of marriage.<br />
<br />
Now, does that mean I think we should strip gay couples of their rights? Not at all! Indeed, when I first heard how <em>the government</em> was mistreating some homosexual couples, I was angry and could not believe that some civil unions did not provide the partners opportunity to file their taxes jointly or to have visitation rights at hospitals. That was absurd.<br />
<br />
But rather than fixing the government's problems, the government crashed through the separation of church and state and established a mandated religious expression for same sex unions.<br />
<br />
You should be on the side of "traditional marriage" while also demanding better from our government concerning the civil unions it oversees.<br />
<br />
"But Luke," you may say, "the government hands out marriage licenses. So marriage <em>is</em> a legal (not religious) thing."<br />
<br />
And you are right, in part. The part of marriage that is connected to the government has everything to do with what the government does: collecting taxes, enforcing justice, and ensuring their citizenry is not abused. It doesn't actually define marriage itself (though, in seeking to protect, say, children, incest and under-aged pairings are often prohibited).<br />
<br />
Please note: Marriage should not be defined by the government. The only time the government gets involved is when the elements of unions impact taxes and separations.<br />
<br />
Click here to go on to the <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-3-stem-cell.html">non-religious reason against stem cell research</a>.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-22802090935287250222017-01-27T12:10:00.000-08:002017-01-27T12:34:51.031-08:00Non-Religious Reasons: Part 1 - Separation of Church and StateI can't find the original, but these questions are attributed to <em>maswartz</em>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I honestly think people forget that the church and state are supposed to be separate. Give me one non-religious reason against same sex marriage. One non-religious reason against stem cell research. One non-religious reason against safe abortions. Go ahead.</blockquote><br />
Enough of my friends have been sharing this lately that I thought I'd take the time to actually write down the reasons rather than just thinking, 'Just one? Okay.'<br />
<br />
Before we jump into the specific questions, we need to address the larger issue first: Separation of Church and State.<br />
<br />
You need merely type the phrase into Google and it will reveal to you (from Wikipedia) that:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>It's <strong>not actually part of any official government documentation</strong>, but rather is a phrase from a letter written by Jefferson.</li>
<li>The text from the First Amendment specifically <strong>restricts the State</strong> establishing a religion...</li>
<li>and <strong>prohibits the government</strong> interfering with religious expression.</li>
</ol><br />
In other words: The idea is that government must not interfere with religious experience whatsoever. It says nothing about religious people being part of the State or their involvement with government.<br />
<br />
And when it comes to questions of marriage, research, and terminating a fetus ("an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception") I plan to show that the State has at least one non-religious reason to be concerned. Moreover, for those who want greater separation between government and religion, you have my wholehearted agreement if you've read the above and think, "Sheesh, yeah, let's stop having the government infringe on religious practice."<br />
<br />
Even if you don't agree, I urge you to click here to move on to the <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2017/01/non-religious-reasons-part-2-same-sex.html">non-religious reason against same sex marriage</a>.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-11166450832605281982014-06-25T06:53:00.001-07:002014-06-25T06:53:22.616-07:00A Sad Day for IronyThe New York Times wrote <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/opinion/timothy-egan-walmart-starbucks-and-the-fight-against-inequality.html">a piece about Walmart</a> which Walmart "<a href="http://blog.walmart.com/fact-check-the-new-york-times-the-corporate-daddy">fact checked</a>" which was then counter "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/walmart-fact-check-new-york-times_n_5525588.html">fact checked</a>" by the Huffington Post. <sigh><br />
<br />
The comments, as usual, are rampant and mostly side with the side of the article the person is reading. Feel free to wade in those waters if you like. But for me, the piece I haven't seen mentioned at all is something so painfully obvious that I just can't fathom how we haven't mentioned it yet. The one section of the original article that made me roll my eyes was this little gem:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>It's a sad day when we have to look to corporations for education, health care and basic ways to boost the middle class. Most advanced nations do those things for their people. ... By default, we have no choice but to lean on our corporate overlords.</blockquote><br />
He's probably railing against <a href="http://libertymaven.com/2009/09/25/michael-moore-its-not-capitalism-silly-man-its-corporatism/7449/">corporatism</a> and just doesn't realize it yet. There's much irony there, but that's not what made me roll my eyes. The question is much more obvious:<br />
<br />
<strong>What do "advanced nations" do to generate wealth to fund education, health care, and boost the middle class?</strong><br />
<br />
I'm not an economist. I know very little. But I do know this: The only way a nation makes money is by people producing goods/services and trading them locally/globally. In other words, we create wealth when we produce stuff. Citizens, individuals, and businesses create value and trade in goods and services to such profit that the government can tax their activity to provide for things the government and/or its citizens want done.<br />
<br />
The government does not have a way to generate wealth in and of itself. It takes a cut of every transaction -- including a car you buy used, which has already been taxed and, should it be sold multiple times, could be taxed for more than it was originally sold. In a very real sense, then, even if we were to find a government-run utopian solution to education, health care, and middle class boosting, we would do so by leaning on our corporate overlords ...our employers, be it ourselves or someone else.<br />
<br />
So what is the article's author's solution?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congress could raise the minimum wage, make college more affordable, or even make it universally accessible for all qualified applicants. At the very least, it could reduce the student loan burden.</blockquote><br />
Solution 1: Have the government create wealth. Uh, how is Congress going to generate the money needed to pay everyone more? Printing money does not create value, it creates inflation which reduces the value of the dollars already owned (which is great for people, or governments, in debt, not so good for people only buy what they can afford).<br />
<br />
Solutions 2 & 3: Make college cheaper/free. How? Thus far, from what I've read, the skyrocketing tuition costs are precisely because of the government's involvement. I like the idea of free online education -- hence why I offer my own <a href="http://blog.production-now.com/p/free-film-school.html">free film school</a> -- but there are huge problems with free online education; my own experience has shown that students don't complete free online classes.<br />
<br />
Solution 4: Reduce the student loan burden. I don't even know what that means from any kind of practical standpoint.<br />
<br />
Any solution based non-ironically on irony is simply sad.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, GuardianLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-56315237973617529112014-06-09T21:18:00.000-07:002014-06-09T21:18:04.214-07:00Why Kids Today Can't Define Marriage<img src="http://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/s526x395/10447153_10152070210636863_9160936997306705143_n.jpg" alt="Marriage is about LOVE" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152070210636863">This image</a> showed up in my Facebook feed today, posted by one of my super-sweet "kids" whom I love dearly. But every time one of my friends shares these kinds of images, <a href="http://xkcd.com/386/">Duty Calls</a>... not because I want to start a shouting match on Facebook, but because, as my friend, I feel like this person deserves to have a chance to at least think about these things for more than the time it takes to click "like."<br />
<br />
Let's run through this, shall we?<br />
<br />
1. What is love? (by the way, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrBDcQq2DM">greatest proto-techno song ever</a> <smile>) Or, to be more precise, how is marriage-oriented love different and distinct from the many other loves we have in life (family, friends, pets, technology [like for your iPhone or the near-future presented in the film "Her"], lovers, sweethearts, crushes, etc)?<br />
<br />
2. Assuming we have a workable definition of what "LOVE" -- as mentioned in the photo above -- means, what is wrong with polygamy, polyandry, or marrying your children once they are of age? Is there? Or does Equal not mean Equal?<br />
<br />
3. What is marriage? Marriage should certainly be about love ... but the thing something is about does not, in any way, define what it is. I know that may not be very clear, so an example: A television show can be about gay weddings, but it is not -- itself -- a gay wedding. So what is marriage?<br />
<br />
4. Assuming we have a working definition of marriage, let us not forget the very insightful words of <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/did-christians-gay-marriage-094500388--politics.html">Jay Michaelson</a>: "'Marriage will never set us free,' wrote academics Dean Spade and Craig Wilse last September, ... same-sex marriage is a step backward for LGBTQ people and others whose agenda is liberation rather than assimilation." [Hat Tip: <a href="http://dangitbill.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/what-will-become-of-marriage/">Brian Sandifer</a>]<br />
<br />
Love is beautiful. Marriage is beautiful. Marriage is also (as rightly pointed out in the image above) more than a religious thing (though religion is there); it is more than a baby thing (though, as we know, that's there too); it's more than about money (though that's a big part of it, and the major reason why the government is involved at all). So, as it stands, marriage is a cultural phenomenon highly influenced by religious thought and political pressures. It also, depending on the history you read, has a strong basis in religious symbolism and ideals. We, as a society (especially within the church) have allowed it to stop being everything it is and instead joined the masses in believing marriage is about "being happy" and "love." But what it is, at its heart, that we have lost. And so, given that, I'm fine if our society wants to make marriage about "LOVE" of whomever or however many. That doesn't bother me. But the loss of what traditional marriage is and means, that is a significant loss indeed. Especially in light of the fact that most kids I talk to today can't even define marriage or why someone would want to get into it other than that they are "in love" and want to "be happy" ...whatever that means.<br />
<br />
I'm not trying to stir up any heated arguments, I just want to point out -- again -- the silliness of these kinds of sentiments and how little thought there is behind them.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, GuardianLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-47912209327461289102013-05-06T21:12:00.000-07:002013-05-07T18:48:05.125-07:00Photos, Miracles, Lies, and HumorGod, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove">the comedian on Facebook</a>, recently re-posted a picture from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/nirmukta">Nirmukta</a>:<br />
<br />
<img src="https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/302942_10151394197878372_1203203796_n.png" style="width:400px"><br />
<strong>Miracles vanished with the invention of the camera</strong> ...until Photoshop<br />
<br />
Funny.<br />
<br />
Sorta.<br />
<br />
It's also insipid and a lie.<br />
<br />
As a filmmaker, I have a mild interest in the image acquisition game. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera#Kodak_and_the_birth_of_film">the camera was invented in 1888</a>. Photoshop was released <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history">exactly 100 years later</a>, in 1988. Based on the graph above, we should have zero reports of miracles during the early 1900s.<br />
<br />
Does that match up with reality?<br />
<br />
Not at all.<br />
<br />
Google instantly fed me a few options, from the odd <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun">Miracle of the Sun</a> to the massive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing#Pentecostalism.2FCharismatic_movement">Pentecostal healing movement</a>. In other words, the graph above--created by an organization dedicated to promoting Science and Freethought--felt free enough to generate data to promote their ideals, disregarding all facts to the contrary. And here's why that bothers me so very, very much: Since this is humor, it turns off people's minds. Rather than thinking about what they've seen on Facebook, the masses fall in step and say, "Yeah! Miracles, what a bunch of hogwash!" And in <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2013/05/think-for-yourself-and-other-bad-ideas/">their ignorant free-thought</a>, they swallow the lie, hook, line, and sinker.<br />
<br />
Granted, this group exists to "promote a naturalistic life philosophy as a moral and fulfilling alternative to religion and spirituality." ...something that simply cannot be done. There is no morality in naturalism. Naturalism, while absolutely a philosophy, discredits itself as such. And naturalism cannot bring fulfillment. This aspect of their <a href="https://www.facebook.com/nirmukta/info">mission</a> fails before we finish the bullet point.<br />
<br />
Another goal is to "promote scientific literacy and to fight against pseudo-science." I would propose that the best way to do this is to create information that is scientific and discard this rubbish you find funny but does the exact opposite of your stated purpose. I'd also recommend that in teaching "scientific literacy" they also encourage people to learn to think well at the same time, and so realize that naturalistic thinking produces crap... what C.S. Lewis so masterfully illustrates as "secretions."<br />
<br />
<blockquote>On the fully naturalistic view all events are determined by laws. Our logical behaviour, in other words our thoughts, and our ethical behaviour, including our ideals as well as our acts of will, are governed by biochemical laws; these, in turn, by physical laws which are themselves actuarial statements about the lawless movements of matter. These units never intended to produce the regular universe we see: the law of averages (successor to Lucretius's <em>exiguum clinamen</em>) has produced it out of the collision of these random variations in movement. The physical universe never intended to produce organisms. The relevant chemicals on earth, and the sun's heat, thus juxtaposed, gave rise to this disquieting disease of matter: organization. Natural selection, operating on the minute differences between one organism and another, blundered into that sort of phosphorescence or mirage which we call consciousness--and that, in some cortexes beneath some skulls, at certain moments, still in obedience to physical laws, but to physical laws now filtered through laws of a more complicated kind, takes the form we call thought. Such, for instance, is the origin of this paper: such was the origin of Professor Price's paper. What we should speak of as his 'thoughts' were merely the last link of a causal chain in which all the previous links were irrational. He spoke as he did because the matter of his brain was behaving in a certain way: and the whole history of the universe up to that moment had forced it to behave in that way. What we called his thought was essentially a phenomenon of the same sort as his other secretions--the form which the vast irrational process of nature was bound to take at a particular point of space and time.<br />
~C.S. Lewis "God in the Dock" <em>Religion without Dogma?</em></blockquote><br />
Also, manipulating of images began long before Photoshop or the camera was invented. Here are a few <a href="http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/">examples of photo-tampering from the past</a>. In case you're interested.<br />
<br />
Please, use your brain. Feel free to chuckle, as I did, but know that you're being fed lies. You'd be foolish to accept them blindly.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-27331944023128598772012-09-19T20:29:00.000-07:002012-09-19T20:29:10.282-07:00Michael Moore, Monsanto, and MeA few years ago I watched Michael Moore's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232207/">flick about Capitalism</a>. After the credits, a simple search revealed that Moore was merely mistaken when he created his flick: <a href="http://libertymaven.com/2009/09/25/michael-moore-its-not-capitalism-silly-man-its-corporatism/7449/">It's Corporatism, silly man.</a><br />
<br />
I just finished watching a far-less fun flick, but with a bit more information: <a href="http://geneticroulettemovie.com/">Genetic Roulette</a>. If you've been in the gluten-free world and seen <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/">Food, Inc</a>--as I have--the first 40-60 minutes may be familiar (or boring). But there's some good stuff that was new to me, and the end really picks up.<br />
<br />
So, Michael Moore misunderstands what he rants about and Monsanto sure looks evil... what do those have to do with each other?<br />
<br />
Politics.<br />
<br />
Going into the Genetic Roulette film, I expected some kind of cry for government intervention or overhaul. You know, the two sides to the same coin where Reds and Blues live. Instead, I found the Libertarian view peeking around the corner. "We have the power," the filmmaker intoned. "It's up to us to make this right by using market forces to bring change that our government--for a billion (trillion?) little green reasons--has failed to do."<br />
<br />
Granted, just like Michael in his films, there was lots of talk of what the government should do, and what evil, money-grubbing corporations have done... but ultimately, the burden was placed back on us: the people.<br />
<br />
I found that happily refreshing. Like a GMO-free smoothy.<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-37178095165658778182012-02-26T08:29:00.000-08:002012-03-19T14:48:20.368-07:00Taxes and the TrinityThe Mormon Missionaries have shown up again, which is always really cool. We get to sit down and just chat about whatever they bring up. Every time it's different, so I always wonder if I'm saying the right thing. Ultimately, it's up to God... but your prayers are always welcome as we chat with all the kids God brings into our lives (what a joy and blessing!).<br />
<br />
This week, the doctrine of the Trinity came up again. We were reading <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng">3 Nephi 11</a> and came across verse 27: "...verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one."<br />
<br />
I stopped us there. "That sounds pretty Trinitarian to me."<br />
<br />
The one response they had was that in verse 32, Jesus is recorded as saying, "I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me." Thus showing distinction between the two... namely, that they aren't <em>truly</em> one in anything other than purpose.<br />
<br />
Standing under the hot water of my morning shower, a thought struck me: The Trinity is modeled in Taxes. I've heard many explanations and word pictures used to describe this mystery. How does this one fit?<br />
<br />
Brittany and I are two distinct persons. If we had a kid, that'd be a third. But to the government, we are but one entity when filing taxes: The Holzmann Family. They see us as dependents and parents, to be sure, but ultimately we are only one. One family, three persons.<br />
<br />
Considering how often God uses family to give us pictures of who He is and how He works--Lover, Husband, Parent (<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=16&t=NIV">Ezekiel 16</a> comes to mind)--it doesn't seem like a very big stretch to think that this may be another glimpse into the mystery of the Trinity. God, in and of Himself, makes up a complete "family." But this heavenly family is made up of the persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the unit is the Godhead Trinity.<br />
<br />
That make sense to you? Or is my morning shower not the best time for theological pondering?<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-21154164435508281552011-10-28T12:47:00.000-07:002012-12-21T05:56:53.723-08:00Free Film School<a href="http://blog.production-now.com/p/free-film-school.html">Learn how to make movies.</a><br />
<br />
I haven't been on this blog much because I've been working on my <a href="http://blog.production-now.com/p/filmmaking-101.html">Filmmaking 101</a> course. It's a 36 week introduction to movie making. The first ten weeks are up and running, and I'm working on getting the rest done.<br />
<br />
But I have a problem: I don't know who wants to learn how to make movies. So, I'm passing this on to you to pass on to anyone you know who wants to learn how to shoot videos. If you have an aspiring filmmaking--or are one yourself--please check out my <a href="http://blog.production-now.com/p/free-film-school.html">free film school</a> and tell others as well.<br />
<br />
Thanks!<br />
<br />
~Luke Holzmann<br />
Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-45967075751677398772011-05-08T06:21:00.000-07:002011-05-09T16:25:02.351-07:00Love and Reconciliation"I had just gone through a really bad breakup." Her smile--which always lights up a room--carried a heart-wrenching pain. "He started making snide comments and I told him I just couldn't handle that right then. He blew up and said, 'No man is ever going to put up with your BS!'"<br /><br />A moment.<br /><br />She lifted her eyes. "So, yeah. It's hard to pretend that everything's okay right now."<br /><br />This is a story of forgiveness. This is a story that hasn't ended yet. For now, this girl can forgive the man. Indeed, she must. Carrying bitterness destroys the soul. Thankfully, we--by God's grace--have been given the ability to forgive those who wrong us. Not because it restores the relationship between us and them, but because it allows us to be free of the bondage of being wronged.<br /><br />"Has he ever admitted he was wrong? Has he apologized?"<br /><br />"No. Never."<br /><br />But forgiveness is not reconciliation. If a company purposefully cheats you, you can decide it's not worth suing them. You can decide to let that go. You can move on with your life. But you wouldn't use that company again. The cheating company would need to apologize, admit their mistake, make a policy change and work to make restitution. Forgiveness is one thing. Repairing a relationship is another.<br /><br />Today the world is abuzz with talk of Universalism and the idea that a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell. Christ's shed Blood covers the sin of all mankind. God is love and God ultimately wins.<br /><br />But like the scene in <em>Bruce Almighty</em> where Jim Carrey tries to command his girlfriend to love him, I'm not sure even God has the ability to make us love Him. He can absolutely forgive us; indeed, He has. He can even pay for the wrong we've done. He's done that too. But relationships are two-way. Reconciliation requires repentance at some level.<br /><br />This is why, no matter how much she longs to be reconnected with her father, my friend is separated from him until he asks for forgiveness. And this is why salvation through the grace of God is such a beautifully simple, yet brutally severe transformation: It requires us to admit we were wrong. It requires us to drop our pride. It requires us to accept the forgiveness already offered us.<br /><br />When a man can't allow himself to make right the relationship with his daughter, it's little wonder we can't bring ourselves to the grace of God. We can bide our time and try to sweep things under the rug of our relationship. But all the forgiveness in the world won't make us friends again. That requires us to accept the forgiveness given.<br /><br />"But I do accept her forgiveness," this man may say. "That's why I'm trying to move on."<br /><br />You can't do that. You can't skip the important step of repentance, of apologizing with an aim to be better. Until you do that, you've merely accepted civility and tolerance. Grace and forgiveness say, "You have wronged me, but I will still accept you as a friend." To respond and say, "I'm glad we can still be around one another," ignores the first part. We must bring ourselves to say, "Thank you so much for being my friend. I am so sorry I have wronged you."<br /><br />That is accepting love in a way that brings reconciliation.<br /><br />The difference between the two responses to love is painfully clear. A girl, who loves her father, quietly mourns that divide.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-77771449900258648762010-08-19T20:01:00.000-07:002010-08-19T20:27:06.651-07:00Ken Ham's Math Problems Solved!It appears that my confusion in <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2010/08/confused-by-ken-ham-math.html">Part I</a> has to do with Mr. Ham's poor wording--and/or my inability to read properly--and not his math:<br /><br />5% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before elementary/middle school. (Hence Ham's stated 95%)<br /><br />40% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly, stopped doing so before high school. (Hence Ham's 55%... 100% - [5% + 40%])<br /><br />Since 11% of those who are now 20-29 and at one point in life attended church regularly but now longer do so, were still attending church regularly during college. This complete shift in focus totally threw me for a loop. But, 55% - 11% = 44%, so 44% of those who are 20-29 and no longer attend church regularly, stopped before college.<br /><br />Thus, based on Ham's wording, we must assume that this last 11% left during or sometime after college.<br /><br />So, despite being incredibly unclear in my mind, his math does check out.<br /><br /><br />In <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2010/08/confused-by-ken-ham-math-2.html">Part 2</a>, it turns out that I was the one who made the serious error. I rightly assumed that they should have been percentages, but my mistake was to assume that these two percentages from mutually-exclusive groups necessitated that adding them together should come to 100%. This was not the case. Rather, 34.3% of Group A agreed, 69.7% of Group B also agreed, 28.9% of Group C... and so on.<br /><br /><br />Thank you all for helping me figure this out! As frustrating as it is for me to learn that my math <em>skillz</em> truly are completely dull, I am happy to know that the numbers--when untangled from what I perceive as poor wording--do come out correctly.<br /><br /><br />As for Ham's conclusions, assumptions and ideas... well... I'll get to that at some point.<br /><br />I am happy to report that the last chapter contained no math which confused me. ...mostly, I'm sure, because the last chapter had no math whatsoever. Had I been confused then, well, more than just my math <em>skillz</em> would be missing...<br /><br /><smile><br /><br />Thank you, again, to those who set me straight. I appreciate you taking the time to correct my thinking.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-33760733589330136792010-08-17T21:33:00.000-07:002010-08-17T21:44:52.101-07:00Confused by Ken Ham Math 2Let's say I have a sample size of 1,000 individuals. These individuals can easily be sorted into various groups. So, I ask them a question, say, "Do you understand how to label your values?"<br /><br />This is how many people answered yes:<br /><br />Those who passed Algebra with an A - 34.3<br />Those who failed - 69.7<br /><br />Those who plan to retake Algebra - 28.9<br />Those who will never touch a math text again - 78.3<br /><br /><br />...I decided to do a little simple addition:<br />34.3 + 69.7 = 104.0<br />28.9 + 78.3 = 107.2<br /><br />So, I ask you--since Ken Ham and his number crunching buddy and his editor couldn't be bothered to check his numbers or give me a label of what kind of number I'm looking at--what does it mean that <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=aHEmMUH4EPUC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false">107.2 of my 1,000 said yes</a>?<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-32878747531585356712010-08-16T20:06:00.000-07:002010-08-16T20:29:01.386-07:00Confused by Ken Ham MathHelp me out, friends! I used to be good at math, but I've since lost all of my <em>skillz</em>. Let's say I give you this:<br /><br /><strong>Of all the 20 to 29-year-old people who were virgins but no longer are so:</strong><br /><br /><ul><li>95% were virgins during elementary and middle school years</li><li>55% were virgins during high school</li><li>11% were still virgins during college</li></ul><br /><br />I would be horribly mistaken to say that "11 percent of those who lost their virginity did so during their college years." I would also be completely misreading my data to say, "Almost 90 percent of them lost their virginity in middle school and high school. By the time they got to college their virginity was already gone!" Further, I'd be remiss to state that "about 40 percent are losing their virginity during their elementary and middle school years!"<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Reasoning (equations I'm using in my head):<br /><br />100% of all virgins<br />-95% virgins during elementary and middle school<br />----<br />5% lost during that time period<br /><br /><br />95% virgin prior to high school<br />-55% virgin during high school<br />----<br />40% lost during that time period<br /><br />55% virgin prior to college<br />-11% virgin during college<br />----<br />44% lost during that time period<br /><br /><br />Right?<br /><br /><br />So... can someone please explain what Ken Ham is doing on <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=aHEmMUH4EPUC&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false">page 31 of "Already Gone"</a>?<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-19592049323476650422010-07-08T16:34:00.000-07:002010-07-08T16:54:54.218-07:00Brown Paper Bag FloorI recently mentioned on my <a href="http://www.sonlightblog.com/2010/07/4-ways-to-beat-summer-boredom.html">SonlightBlog</a> that we have a brown paper bag floor. Curious, some of you asked for more information. For those of you not interested in learning more about how to create a brown paper bag floor for your home, move along. There is plenty of more interesting stuff on the internet.<br /><br />So, what is a brown paper bag floor?<br /><br />A. <strong>An inexpensive and yet good looking floor covering alternative you can do on your own.</strong><br /><br />Good looking? See for yourself:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WBDpA9NxuXE/TDZhhSnTHDI/AAAAAAAACgU/_Pi3Xp-YL5M/s1600/Paper-Floor1.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 170px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WBDpA9NxuXE/TDZhhSnTHDI/AAAAAAAACgU/_Pi3Xp-YL5M/s400/Paper-Floor1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5491684020185144370" /></a><br /><strong>Brown Paper Bag Floor in Our Home Office</strong><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WBDpA9NxuXE/TDZhs8F5XhI/AAAAAAAACgc/7rMsTObfn-I/s1600/Paper-Floor2.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 170px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WBDpA9NxuXE/TDZhs8F5XhI/AAAAAAAACgc/7rMsTObfn-I/s400/Paper-Floor2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5491684220297895442" /></a><br /><strong>Close Up on the Paper Floor</strong><br /><br />What you need:<br /><ul><li>A floor (preferably ugly wood or concrete)</li><li>Paper (preferably brown, like contractor's or kraft paper, though you can use packing paper or grocery bags without printing on them)</li><li>Glue (cheap white glue, purchasable by the gallon)</li><li>Polyurethane (water-based, low odor worked best for me)</li><li>Brushes</li><li>Rags</li><li>...assorted other stuff</li></ul><br /><p>What you do:<br />Tear the paper into irregular medium sized pieces (approximately 8"). Crumple and then flatten to create a texture. I suggest you do this before hand as it makes gluing faster.<br /><br />Clean the floor you're going to cover. Spread some glue and stick your paper pieces down. Slightly overlap your pieces, but try to avoid glue on the top of the paper as this stains darker.<br /><br />Let dry.<br /><br />Apply a coat of polyurethane and let dry. Ventilation is preferable during this step. Hanging a sheet to close off the room can work if you were to, hypothetically, attempt to do this in the middle of winter. Repeat this step 5-6 times.<br /><br />Admire your work. Allow time to set.<br /><br />Easily repaired with a little glue, a piece of paper and more poly.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Empty NesterLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-17670094649666550152010-01-05T19:33:00.000-08:002010-01-05T21:25:33.920-08:00The Cost of Christianity: ForgivenessIn church you hear one message: Turn to Jesus as your savior because He makes everything better. Sure, life still has it's ups and downs. But wouldn't you rather have God on your side through that?<br /><br />Faith in Jesus saves. No more need for thought. You want saving, don't you?<br /><br />If you answer, "Not yet," then we adjourn until next week. If you answer, "Yes," then we say the prayer. You can come back next week where you'll again hear the wonders of walking with Christ.<br /><br />At the moment, I'm sick of it. I'm done. Count me out of such pathetic religious babble. I've had enough.<br /><br />Becoming Christ-like is nothing like that.<br /><br />So what is <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=14&v=28&t=NIV#28">the cost</a> of following Christ? I've heard of things like giving up porn, abandoning alcohol, reducing your rage, and surrendering your ambitions. And I'm sure there is a part of this that includes all of that. But that's not where I am at the moment. No, tonight I'm a lot more basic than that. I'm near square one: Forgiveness.<br /><br />"Will you forgive me?" she asks, not daring to come closer.<br /><br />"I don't know," I spit. "That's asking a lot of me."<br /><br />"I know," she breathes.<br /><br />I stew. The pain, the anger, the frustration. It's all there, very real. I want to hate her. I want to be furious. I want to feel this way forever because... because I have the right to. It may be petty, but it's real. Very real. "I have to eat this if I forgive you."<br /><br />"It sounds very bitter."<br /><br />"It is."<br /><br />"I don't want it to choke you. Is there a way that it doesn't have to choke you or be bitter?" She really wants to know. It would hurt her too much if it choked me. And she can't bear more bitterness.<br /><br />Bible truths start nudging my brain. These aren't lessons you learn in Sunday School. These aren't messages you hear from the pulpit. You've heard about your need for forgiveness. You've been told over and over again that you forgive because of how much you have been forgiven. You can even remember a time when someone told you that your ability to forgive rests on God's ability to take care of you and take that burden from you.<br /><br />But I want to hold this burden. I want to choke on the bitterness of forgiveness. I want to be crushed under the weight of the wrong done to me. I don't want it to go away. I certainly don't want it replaced with something like <em>intimacy</em> and <em>fondness</em>. Even the thought of those words makes me want to spit.<br /><br />And this, I realize as I stew silently, is why there is no transforming power of Christ in my life. This--and other things like it--are what make Christianity so impotent in my life. This is why I see no power, no heart change, no awesomeness in following Christ. This is why Christianity is simply so hard for me to share: Because it costs so stinkin' much! And if I'm not willing to make the payments, I'm certainly not going to ask someone else to do the same.<br /><br />"I forgive you," I grumble. I'm a man of my word, and if I'm going to follow, I'm going to follow... even if it's terrible. Even if it costs too much. Even if it isn't worth it.<br /><br />I cling to the burden a moment more, feeling Christ gently prying it from my hands. I scream, 'I don't want to let You have this!' I curse at my Savior. I swear at the One who forgave me. I scream profanity in the face of Him who promises to repay whatever I'm going to lose in this exchange of forgiving.<br /><br />I'm feeling the cost.<br /><br />It hurts. This is faith in action, and it hurts.<br /><br />I let go.<br /><br />The world, sadly, doesn't crumble. My wife slides closer and puts her arms around me. Life can go on. I've exchanged my pain, anger and frustration for forgiveness. Christ's blood has covered the difference. I paid the price of following Christ and He paid me back with more. Much more.<br /><br />But it wasn't fun. It wasn't nice. It was worse than paying a needless bank fine. It was awful. Horrible. Terrible.<br /><br />But here I am, a couple hours later, writing about it. And not in a vehement, vengeful, violent way. I'm okay. I'm okay in way that I wouldn't have been years ago before God started working this forgiveness thing with me.<br /><br /><blockquote>...</blockquote><br /><p>A few months ago I almost wrote a piece about the ineffective nature of Christianity. I was going to argue, and argue well, that if we could just grasp one simple concept, we would be perfect. It was this easy:<br /><br />Realize that, no matter what, you'll be okay. Even if you're not okay, you'll be dead and, therefore, okay. So just let everything roll off you.<br /><br />If we could do that, I'm convinced, we'd be fine. Wars would end. Hatred and rage would cease. Generosity would flow. The world would experience harmony and love the likes of which has not been seen since the Fall.<br /><br />...but I realized something tonight: That can't happen. When we let things "roll off" we forgive. We take that burden. We eat that cost. And it is heavy. It is bitter. And if we have no place to put it, nothing to pay us back, then we just carry it ourselves and become overwhelmed.<br /><br />This is why Christianity is so powerful: We have a God who offers to carry those burdens, to replace the bitter drink with a cup full of good things... like intimacy and fondness.<br /><br />The cost of following Christ is great. But the payoff is worth so much more.<br /><br />And I think I may just be beginning to <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=13&v=44&t=NIV#44">understand these things</a>...<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-89994888168992974502009-11-21T18:18:00.000-08:002009-11-21T19:24:04.793-08:00A Man Can Do Nothing Better<blockquote>...than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. ~<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Ecc&c=2&v=24&t=NIV#24">Ecclesiasties 2:24</a></blockquote><p>People have asked me recently how it's going with the <a href="http://www.sonlightblog.com/2009/10/when-god-keeps-door-closed.html">two girls</a>. My response has been fairly consistent.<br /><br />"I'm not having fun."<br /><br />Don't get me wrong: We're doing quite well. The girls seem to have adjusted marvelously. We've got a solid routine. They eat well. They sleep well (well, naps are different, but bedtime is fine). They've got their "please" and "thank yous" down. They love the park. The love playing with blocks. They get along. They're both coming along with potty training. All good things.<br /><br />But me... I've rediscovered just how much I don't find joy in children. Not that I don't like kids. I do. But my mom said it best: "Luke likes it when kids come to him on his terms." And once you're watching kids, you have to meet them where they are. As Brittany's mom said: "You have to play with them at their level."<br /><br />So, again: "I'm not enjoying it."<br /><br />Brittany asks me, "Weren't you having fun?" after we've been roughhousing or building with blocks while giggles filled the house.<br /><br />"It wasn't torture," I tell her.<br /><br />But then I recall a conversation I had with my older sister a few years ago. I'm not sure how the topic came up, but she put the question to me, "So, Luke, what do you do for fun?"<br /><br />"Fun? Umm... I write. ...I like movies. ...I... I guess I don't have fun." Never before had that thought crossed my mind. My natural exuberance about life masks this general apathy when it comes to my personal experience.<br /><br />Those ideas collided today.<br /><br /><em>Kids</em> is one of the few areas of life that people ask about our enjoyment. Granted, we ask about other elements here and there--did you like dinner? did you have fun on that ride? how was the movie? But those are events, not <em>phases</em>. <em>College</em> and <em>work</em> are probably the two closest proximities. But our enjoyment of these has much more to do with the environment and tasks we preform. <em>Kids</em> seems to question your humanity by your connection with the munchkins.<br /><br />Perhaps my answer is biased by the simple fact that I just don't have fun much.<br /><br />If that is the case, I take comfort in "the teacher" who suggested that I can do no better than enjoy ice cream, bed time, and what I do.<br /><br />And I do.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Surrogate FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-53535809398583726432009-09-12T16:25:00.000-07:002009-09-14T18:45:37.763-07:00Evolution vs. Creationism - Part9[Long posts scare me. <strong>Read time: 5.25min</strong>]<br /><br />I have to return this book tomorrow, so I'm going to whip through the rest of it very quickly.<br /><br />In Chapter 4, Scott presents a very interesting overview of the scientific community prior to the 20th century. Covering a wide range of people from Plato to Pope Pius XII, Scott points out some of the difficulties that Darwin's ideas faced. For instance, the idea that the world was stable and mostly unchanging [74]. She points out that many discoveries, however, challenged this view. For instance, discovery of the Americas lead to major rethinking of theological as well as scientific assumptions [76]. The scientific community of the mid-nineteenth century considered science to lead to "positive finality. Anything less than certitude was deficient." [80] Darwin's ideas were thus sometimes rejected as not rigorous enough and mere speculation... even though his methodology has since become the standard of science [81]. Scott also claims that Christians reject evolution because of a belief in Special Creation [81] or a need for a Design and Purpose [82].<br /><br />Scott then discusses some of the political/religious reasons why Americans tended to reject Darwin's ideas despite the fact that, "[by the] mid-twentieth century in Great Britain, Europe, and North America, the scientific community no longer questioned whether evolution occurred." [86]<br /><br />Scott appears to all but bemoan the lack of centralized education as the reason Americans still don't teach evolution in class [87-88] but then agree with the ACLU that teachers should be given free speech when it comes to teaching evolution [94]. Thus, as long as the educators teach what she likes, she seems willing to flip sides. This is not uncommon for us humans, but an editor should have pointed this out to her.<br /><br /><br />Chapter 5 covers the "invention" of Creation Science. Scott cites the uneasiness of Fundamentalist parents as more and more students attended high school in early 1900s. [91] My <em>Alma Mater</em> is credited as laying the foundation for Fundamentalism [92] and evolution is rejected for it's incorrect association with German ideals and the robber barons [93]. Scott then talks about the "three-ring circus" of the Scopes trial [93-96] which did little for either side of the controversy [97].<br /><br />It was Sputnik, Scott claims, that pushed our government to promote science in the classroom... and science was evolution. This lead to a major resurgence of evolution in high schools which had all but disappeared in the years after Scopes [98]. The rest of the chapter is a brief look at the legal history of Creation Science in the courts with a culmination of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman">Lemon test</a> and other rejections of religion in the classroom.<br /><br /><br />Most of chapter 6 is dedicated to taking down Intelligent Design. Scott criticizes irreducible complexity by pointing to Behe's mouse trap and the scientists who have made less complex versions [117-118]. Of course, she never cites any of these or gives an example, so these "less complex" options may not actually detract from Behe at all.<br /><br />Scott next points out that Behe misrepresents the process of evolution. Rather than building piece by piece "like stringing beads", natural selection can build useful, less complex pieces that could form together to make an ultimately irreducibly complex feature [118]. Again, she offers no hint as to how these could, via mutation, combine. She also mentions the "scaffolding" idea: Masons build irreducibly complex arches by supporting the arch with scaffolding before placing the capstone. "The now superfluous components can be removed by natural selection," Scott points out [119]. And while she goes on to criticize Behe's "God of the gaps" argument [119], I don't feel that it is fair to say that her view of evolution is scientifically backed with the gaping holes in her own thinking.<br /><br />It's true: Science may "come up with an additional mechanism" that fills in these gaps [119], but to put such faith in a current idea that has no cited basis in reality feels far-fetched to me. This is especially poignant when Scott later strips away the "dichotomy between 'natural' and 'intelligent' ...because some of the agents on the 'intelligent' side are actually 'natural'" including "extraterrestrials (if such beings exist)" [122]. Which reminds me of a lesson at Biola: If God exists, then we add nothing outside of reality to support our beliefs. Thus, arguably, the most <em>natural</em> force in the universe is God.<br /><br />Scott makes an excellent observation, however:<br /><blockquote>Enamored of an ideological, political, or social goal, it is all too easy to misrepresent or ignore empirical data when they do not support the goal; certainly Creation Science is infamous for doing so. [126]</blockquote><p>As is, it seems, the education community as well.<br /><br />Scott next complains that "Intelligent Design proponents ... exploit public confusion about 'Darwinism' to promote doubt about evolution." [127] I'm convinced that if people like Scott actually defined "evolution" and stuck with the definition, IDers wouldn't be able to so easily sway people. Unfortunately for her, Scott seems unable to keep her own theories straight in her writing and has all but confused me more than once. It is little wonder there is confusion in the general public.<br /><br />In the last few pages of her own writing in this book, Scott finally mentions the reasons I've always been less than convinced of evolution: The evidence against it. Yet Scott seems unwilling to accept that "evidence against evolution exists" [129]. Why? She doesn't say. But she does say, "Presenting evidence against evolution per se is only bad science" [130]. Ironic, since she's spent the rest of her work promoting the wonders of science's corrective measures when faced with evidence.<br /><br />She concludes her words with a reminder that while evolution is a theory, it is not "just" a theory because theories are "the best [explanations in science]" [130].<br /><br />I stopped reading on page 135 when Scott mentioned, "I do not present evidence for evolution" because it is the consensus of the scientific community and you'd need to read scientists or take college classes. This, after the opening when she criticizes IDers for not letting her reproduce their writings because their articles would not do their theory justice. [xviii]<br /><br />So, now again, half way through a book on evolution, I learn that there is none to be found here. Despite my clear request for a book with <a href="http://boremetotears.com/2009/08/05/how-to-find-secular-homeschooling-resources/#comment-3158">the evidence</a>.<br /><br />Final thoughts on this challenge to come...<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-76127896879127964032009-09-08T18:34:00.000-07:002009-09-08T19:54:28.894-07:00Evolution vs. Creationism - Part8[Long posts scare me. <strong>Read time: 3.5min</strong>]<br /><br />Scott spends pages 54-56 talking through the symbolism found in Genesis. My dad has blogged about <a href="http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/07/denis-lamoureuxs-evolutionary-creation.html">this</a> <a href="http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/07/denis-lamoureuxs-evolutionary-creation_21.html">before</a>, and there are interesting things to consider in all that.<br /><br />But then Scott presents us with two huge straw men which she burns in passing. In describing a continuum of Biblical literalists to philosophical naturalists she also tacks on creationists to evolutionists. But wait, there's more! Her first two examples of "creationists" are... flat earthers and geocentrists.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />She's got two beliefs that are utterly separate from creation as examples of the foolishness of creationism. Granted, they are both part of a literalist continuum of Scripture, but it is completely wrong to include them in a creation/evolution scale.<br /><br />Somehow she also wants us to equate Young Earthism with Flat Earthism as well. [57]<br /><br />Now she begins an overview of the various segments of her supposed continuum. A few points worth mentioning:<br /><br />"The basic body plans of major phyla that appear in the 'Cambrian Explosion' are seen by most [Young Earth Creationists] as evidence of Special Creation." [60] No footnote for further study. No mention of how she got to this idea. No hint as to where we can go to find out why the "Cambrian Explosion" is (or is not) evidence for creation. Nothing. In typical fashion for this work. I'm appalled that the "Internet Bookwatch" would say, on the back of this book, that Scott adheres "to the highest standards of academic research"... when she references nothing of importance. Ever.<br /><br />Similarly, she states, "In proportion to the mission activity, little scientific research is performed by [Institute for Creation Research] faculty." [61] That doesn't surprise me much. I have no trouble believing it's true. But if you're going to make such a statement, giving some hint as to where she got that idea is essential to prove she isn't just a windbag.<br /><br />I do appreciate her inclusion of this quote from Matt Cartmill:<br /><br /><blockquote>Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief. It's an honorable belief, but it isn't a research finding [67].</blockquote><br /><p>Scott concludes the chapter by stating,<br /><blockquote>both supporters and deniers of evolution argue erroneously that because science utilizes methodological naturalism (and quite successfully), science therefore also incorporates philosophical naturalism. Unfortunately, such a confusion makes communication about science and religion, or creationism and evolution, more difficult. [68]</blockquote><p>And I would agree.<br /><br />Of course, arguing from erroneous couplings and citing no evidence also makes discussion more difficult as well.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-18621672776229600732009-09-07T07:02:00.000-07:002009-09-07T20:48:45.786-07:00Evolution vs. Creationism - Part7[Long posts scare me. <strong>Read time: 3.5min</strong>]<br /><br />Eugenie Scott now turns her attention to "Beliefs: Relgion, Creationism, and Naturalism" where she reminds us again that the natural world is not all that people think about; there are parts of reality that science can't examine. [47] This is, perhaps, "the most important reason scientists restrict themselves to materialistic explanations" [50].<br /><br />She begins by stating that all religions seem to have "a belief in something beyond the material world, an Ultimate or Absolute or transcendent reality" [47]. And the ethical systems of human societies are "usually, though not universally ... strongly influenced by religion" [48].<br /><br />Two thoughts:<br /><br /><ol><li>Non- or irreligious people do have a code of ethics. In fact, they are often easily perceived as <em>more</em> ethical than their religiously motivated, intolerant neighbors who are steeped in the blood of religious history. A closer inspection of this perception would, I believe, be very beneficial to everyone; unfortunately, that is far beyond the scope of this post.</li><li>While I think it is perfectly fair for Scott to say that ethical systems are "strongly influenced" by religion, I think it is also essential that we recognize that often societal ills are perpetrated by those who are acting outside of their religious code. For example: Pornography use is rampant within the Christian church, but that is outside of the Christian ethic. I think there are fascinating implications to this reality, but--again--that is beyond this post.</li></ol><p>Scott next points out that religion often asks the question of motivation: What is the motivation behind a natural disaster? Were the gods angry? These kinds of questions show a "blended" spiritual and natural worldview [49].<br /><br />But just because we in the Western world accept a natural explanation for a "natural disaster" that does not mean that God was not involved... merely that He can use the natural world. Though, remember, the Bible does seem to show a certain <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=5&v=44&t=NIV#44">impartiality to the righteous and the unrighteous</a>.<br /><br />Scott then quotes St. Augustine who makes a good case for not relying on the Bible to inform our views of natural world: If the Christian maintains "foolish opinions about the [natural world based on Scripture], how then are [others] going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection ... and the kingdom of heaven?" And much like Newton, it is wise to take on a natural philosophy and look for laws within nature. [49]<br /><br />Yet it is entirely possible to stick with a "methodological naturalism" as opposed to a "philosophical naturalism" [50]. Scientists who are Christian often hold to the former, but there are those who go to the latter extreme and thus reject anything beyond the physical world.<br /><br />Scott then mentions much of what I wrote in <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2009/08/evolution-vs-creationism-part2.html">Part 2</a> stating that, "The Catholic Church rejected [geocentrism] partly on scientific grounds" but also because of their interpretation of Scripture [51]. I would also remind us to think of the political motivations as well.<br /><br />"It is important to define terms and use them consistently," Scott tells us. [51] Too bad she has so infrequently taken her own advice thus far.<br /><br />She then talks about "Origin Myths" which "are 'true' even if they are fantastic and deal with impossible events [because they] encapsulate important cultural truths" [52]. And I think that is fair; CS Lewis (or, perhaps, <a href="http://www.seekgod.ca/lewis.htm">Tolkien</a>?) called Christianity the <a href="http://relijournal.com/christianity/one-true-myth/">one true myth</a>. Too bad she does not include <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2009/08/evolution-vs-creationism-part5.html">her own origin myth on page 27</a> in this mix.<br /><br />I'll pause here and let you take a break. We'll continue this chapter in the next post.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-91024573237775385242009-08-27T19:34:00.000-07:002009-08-28T12:44:00.315-07:00Evolution vs. Creationism - Part6[Long posts scare me. <strong>Read time: 6min</strong>]<br /><br />Scott tells us: Darwinism is natural selection, not evolution. Again: There is a difference between the phenomenon and the mechanism that makes it happen. In short, if we take "repeated iterations of randomly generated solutions, combined with selection of the characteristics that meet the necessary criteria, [we'll get] a series of solutions that more closely approximate a good solution" [34].<br /><br />In other words: The key difference between natural selection and <a href="http://www.randommutation.com/">Perry Marshal's Random Mutation Generator</a> is that Perry's lacks the part that selects only the mutations that make up proper words... or, at least, recognizable approximations like kthxbai.<br /><br />Conclusion: Natural selection works with already operating systems where at least a part of the population can function in a different situation. Hang onto that idea because it is, I think, the crux of the failure of this chapter--and probably, this book (if not the entire "theory" in question here).<br /><br /><br />Scott continues: Thus, natural selection is genetic differences within a population that leads to those who are better suited for the environment to naturally reproduce more than the others. [35] Natural selection is not based on chance, but rather luck. Those who are "lucky" enough to have the genes for a situation procreate. Nothing "chance" about it. [36]<br /><br />I think it's rather lame to replace "chance" with "luck" ...but whatever. It's her book. Though, I was struck by how closely this kind of verbal quibbling resembles the tension between freewill and predestination.<br /><br /><br />Scott: Natural selection is survival of the fit enough. "The process of natural selection works more like a tinkerer than an engineer" much like building guitars out of toilet seats and strings... using what you have rather than designing it from the ground up. [37]<br /><br />I think what Scott is secretly referring to is the flawed nature of the world. It's almost as if she is unconsciously saying, "It's far too messy to be designed by anything like that Christian God." But she doesn't say it. She merely makes these rather odd statements and drifts on.<br /><br /><br />I am very glad Scott includes this definition: Speciation happens when a population becomes <em>reproductively isolated</em> from the others of its kind. [42 emphasis hers]<br /><br />I've long known of the struggle to define the term <em>species</em>. And Scott's definition does little to clear things up. For this definition could include speciation if a human population was put on one side of a wall and the rest of us kept on the other side. Granted, she is right in that we will likely see a shift in the evolution of these two groups. But a new species of human? The definition is shaky, but I'll go with it (because at least she's defining something).<br /><br /><br />But in the end, after having said little more than what is paraphrased above, Scott wants us to know one very important thing: Man is not descended from monkeys. Far from it! No, man is merely related to monkeys via a common ancestor.<br /><br />So, I am not a descendant of my Uncle Earl. That would be preposterous! But Earl and I are both descendants of my Great Grandpappy Joe.<br /><br />And that makes it all better.<br /><br />Only those with <a href="http://lukeholzmann.blogspot.com/2009/08/evolution-vs-creationism-part3.html?showComment=1251243620905#c207310330981190905">with *no* understanding</a> of human relations would believe that "I came from my Uncle Earl."<br /><br />I had a biology teacher who said that his biggest peeve was that people said humans were descended from apes. Somehow this was huge for him (and others) because we are not descended from them, but rather descended like them from a common earlier thing. I'm still not sure why that bugged him so much. If someone learning English misapplied the idea of the word Uncle to mean Predecessor instead of Relative, I wouldn't get bent out of shape. I may politely correct this minor slip, but my foreign friend would still get the gist of what was happening.<br /><br /><br />Which has lead me to the following observations:<br /><br /><ol><li>Scott (and many others) get all bent out of shape with a few specific definitions, and yet fail to clearly define most everything else in their discussion.</li><li>It seems that "common ancestor" is the "right" answer simply because it's nebulous whereas apes are concrete. I have yet to hear an explanation of any kind from anyone as to why this distinction is so important.</li><li>Scott quoted no science--as she defined it in the previous chapter--that indicates any kind of macro evolution. None.</li><li>Instead, she gave very nice details about how rabbits have adapted, birds have diversified, and fish have splintered in various species.</li><li>Thus, in a chapter dedicated to evolution, Scott presented absolutely no scientific data--which is explained in detail the chapter before--that points to macro evolution.</li><li>Therefore, Scott has shown that evolution only works in the horizontal way with organisms already in place that come pre-built with the ability to adjust.</li></ol><p>Therefore, what I understand to be the case still holds true: Change does happen within things via natural selection and genetic mutations. But no data has yet to arise that scientifically demonstrates vertical progression between the species.<br /><br />None.<br /><br />And this is the book written by the "Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, the leading advocacy group for the teaching of evolution in the United States." [273] If she can't come up with any data or information, it is little wonder people still seriously question the scientific backing of this idea.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father<br /><br /><blockquote>[<strong>Added 8/28/09:</strong> Humans are <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/is_it_a_falsehood_that_humans.php">from apes</a> after all. Greg does want us to remember, however, that there's no such thing as "human exceptionalism"...]</blockquote>Luke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-59215743918778327742009-08-26T19:08:00.000-07:002009-08-26T20:27:00.319-07:00Evolution vs. Creationism - Part5[Long posts scare me. <strong>Read time: 2.5min</strong>]<br /><br />Scott starts out her chapter on evolution proper with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28idiom%29">red herring</a>. And a very big and very red one at that. After stating that "most people" define evolution as "man evolved from monkeys" she goes on to point out that "surely no one believes that only males evolved" [23].<br /><br />Surely.<br /><br />Her definition of evolution is "a cumulative change through time" [23]. And this change is seen in astronomy, geology as well as biology. But focusing solidly on the evolution that is really in question requires the definition of living things sharing common ancestors leading directly to decent with modification; the leading mechanism of this is natural selection.<br /><br />Scott then drifts into abiogenesis after mentioning the big bang. She actually quotes the Miller-Urey experiment [24]. This is utterly ridiculous considering I, as a high school student, wrote a paper that exposed the gaping hole of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28chemistry%29#In_biology">chirality</a> in this experiment. I find it completely dishonest to continue to present this data as anything other than a nifty idea that failed. And as a scientist--as she talked in great length last chapter--she should have moved on.<br /><br />But she doesn't. Over the next few pages she tries to impress us with her use of vocabulary and ultimately tells us that we just don't know that much about the origin of life. But! "Once life evolved, biological evolution become possible. ...Life had to precede evolution!" [27]<br /><br />Clear?<br /><br />Life evolves. Then evolution can start.<br /><br /><nods emphatically> See!?!<br /><br />...I would appreciate it if she would actually stick with definitions. I hear that's important when you're building a case.<br /><br />But for now, Scott wants us to remember that the "distinction between the patterns of evolution and the processes of evolution" is important because of criticisms of evolution we will address later [27].<br /><br />Clarity.<br /><br />It's lacking.<br /><br />Scott now gives us a brief history of time:<br /><em>Deep time</em>: A long period--so long it's hard to get your mind around it. Thus <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem">something magical happened</a>.<br />...and then cells, invertebrates... wait:<br /><br />"[D]evelopmental biologists [are astounded to discover] that very small changes in genes affecting early, basic structural development can cause major changes in body plans" [30]. Actually, small changes in genes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Harmful_mutations">can really mess all of us up</a>. Though, to be fair, it is interesting that such little changes can massively affect the outcome.<br /><br />More gibberish about how things may or may not have changed. And then: The four basic principles of biological evolution are "natural selection, adaptation, adaptive radiation, and speciation." [33]<br /><br />Which we'll delve into more in the near future.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-72198198157176535842009-08-24T18:41:00.000-07:002009-08-24T20:25:33.988-07:00Evolution vs. Creationism - Part4[Long posts scare me. <strong>Read time: 4min</strong>]<br /><br /><blockquote>We live in a universe made up of matter and energy, a <em>material</em> universe. [M]ost individuals believe that the universe includes something in addition to matter and energy, but science is limited to the latter two. [pg 3]</blockquote><p>I am so thankful that Scott started out her book with this acknowledgment. Science does not address everything, nor can it. But, for the material universe, it is well suited for the task.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Because, Scott gladly tells us, science relies on the natural world "as the arbiter of truth." [3] Unlike, say, Authority, which could be misinformed or lying; Revelation, which relies on supernatural powers with which at least someone disagrees (e.g. Greek gods, Muhammad, Mormons, Catholics can't agree on what is right); Logic, which requires that we properly understand the "real world" before it is of any practical application. [4]<br /><br />But Science! Ah, Science; Science goes to the natural world for verification. Even so, Scott notes, this is "not perfect." [5] Scott then rambles on for a few pages about all the ways that Science has found itself wrong over time; constantly correcting wrong ideas, and ultimately getting us every closer to truth... but always open to further illumination. In fact, Facts are the "least important" aspect of scientific inquiry, behind Hypotheses and Laws with Theories at the top. And a Theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." [14]<br /><br />Theories aren't just hunches. Instead, they rely on "inferential reasoning"... which makes them scientific and therefore... umm... well... er... she doesn't say. But she does want us all to know that "most people" don't use the term properly. [14]<br /><br />Using the powerful scientific "if/then" model, we can test even evolution scientifically. And here we go:<br /><br />1. If life came from a common ancestor, then distant past things should be different from what we see today. And, Scott assures us, "this is indeed what we see." [15] But we'll have to take her word as an Authority on that because she cites nothing here (though, she hinted at possibly doing it later in this book).<br /><br />2. If evolution happened, simple organisms will be in old rock and more complex ones will be in newer rock. Again, we're told this is what scientists have found. No footnotes, references, or data whatsoever. All we get is one nice scientific sounding phrase: Cambrian period.<br /><br />3. We should see "connecting forms between the major groups." There isn't as much of this, Scott admits, but there are two reference titles she mentions that demonstrate "good evidence" of connecting forms. [15] I don't have access to these titles, but there are enough books published by other scientists--who have read and studied much more than I--that question this interpretation of the fossil record to leave me still skeptical. But, we could all be wrong... so... <shrug><br /><br />4. We should <em>not</em> see jumbled sets of fossils. And we don't. Instead, things stay in their proper layers the world over. [16] If this is true--again, no sited evidence, but she's got to be basing this claim on something--I must admit that is intriguing. I don't know what kind Logic Creationists have against this observation. I'm guessing that they'd point to <a href="http://siriusknotts.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/polystratefossil.jpg">a tree</a> or something. Of course, <a href="http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200001/0207.html">people disagree</a>.<br /><br />Scott closes this chapter with this:<br /><br /><blockquote>Evolution, like other sciences, requires that natural explanations be tested against the natural world. ...The heart of creationism--that an omnipotent being created--is not testable by science, but fact claims about the natural world made by creationists can be. [20]</blockquote><p>It's petty, but I didn't realize that evolution was its own science. Does gravitation have its own science? What about electron theory?<br /><br />I mean, sure, she's writing a book on the topic, but does that mean it should be <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/435/">its own science</a>?<br /><br />But I do appreciate her comments about science's relationship to creationism. She makes a solid point, and one that is well worth remembering on both sides of discussion.<br /><br /><br />I may flesh out these ideas more in my next post. But for now, I leave you with just this brief summary of Scott's brief glimpse into the world of science.<br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37259568.post-66057974012178793102009-08-20T20:56:00.000-07:002009-08-20T21:01:17.814-07:00Fail Gov...or: <strong>How the Government Got a Reality Check</strong><br /><br /><br />So buried deep within a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/An-Update-on-Reality-Check/">blog post</a>, the government has given us the closest thing to an apology for bad form as we're going to get.<br /><br />The upside?<br /><br />They are now a little clearer as to what they are looking for as far as <a href"http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/contact">contacting them about Health Reform</a> is concerned, and you get another cool graphic from me:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WBDpA9NxuXE/So4bluX3uCI/AAAAAAAAB9Y/0xMdBmejoDU/s1600-h/fail-gov.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 170px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WBDpA9NxuXE/So4bluX3uCI/AAAAAAAAB9Y/0xMdBmejoDU/s400/fail-gov.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5372261740416841762" /></a><br /><strong>Fail Gov</strong><br /><br /> ~Luke Holzmann<br />Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant FatherLuke Holzmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799632321310461828noreply@blogger.com4