Friday, February 27, 2009

The Vintage Brits Metabolic Depression is Ending!

Here Beyond Thunderdome, the snow is finally starting to melt, the air is clearing and smelling much better, we are starting to see asphalt and the BTDOT is beginning to drop their orange barrels so they can fix what the freeze-thaw cycle has ravaged. All of this means only one thing. It’s car season. Huzzah, huzzah!

What? You’ve never heard of car season – that joyous time of year when the vintage cars wake from their long winter’s hibernation, rub their headlights, and begin to poke their sweet little heads out of their garages? What’s that you say? A car is only a tool by which you move from point A to point B? Who cares what it looks like, so long as it works, you say? Who cares how it runs, so long as it does? What’s that? Cars are little more than headaches and bloated money-sucking leeches?! Oh, dear readers, as I stand agape at such appalling but understandable notions, I thank goodness I found you when I did before any additional motoring hate speech entered your otherwise untainted, God-given intellect.

I once thought as you do now, but something in the back of my mind kept whispering that such corrupt notions weren’t accurate. And in fact were the result of bad PR on the part of the car culture, underexposure, and of course, a barrage of horribly uninteresting automobiles.

Allow me to explain.

You see, when we were kids, it was all about cool cars. We had Hot Wheels and Matchbox collections, Transformers, the ubiquitous Lamborghini Countach poster, James Bond (Lotus Esprit submarine, anyone?), Mad Max, cartoons in which our superheroes drove magnificent cars, … you get the idea. Then in Junior High, the Countach poster came down, and the Van Halen, and Def Leppard posters went up (or maybe The Cure depending on how you felt about your parents). By High School, girls, sports, and music took all the time, while school was squeezed into whatever space was left. Cars were interesting, but you wished you had something else drive the date around besides mom’s ’88 Mercury Sable. And then the college years - forget cars – someplace to live would be nice.

With college graduation came the gradual sluffing-off of the politically radical elements we eagerly sopped up in our early years. We get into a profession and that with money and the commute, we start thinking about cars again. Unfortunately the scenery is anything but pleasant. The cars have become huge, heavy monstrosities, without elegance, grace, or simplicity. Driving assists are so common that the driver feels no connection with the road. On top of that, it’s difficult to escape the feeling of alienation when you don’t have a sleeve of tattoos, an ample goatee, and deep affection for Mötley Crüe.

Simply put, a true motoring enthusiast is not a mere poseur: a poor soul whose fragile ego must be compensated by large engine size; or the volume produced by a beautiful powder-coated manifold, headers, and glass-packed exhaust system. NO! A true motoring enthusiast cares little for these shallow trappings. Actually, by “care’s little,” I mean cares a lot, but the true enthusiast is not defined by these things.

So dear reader, I understand your lack of interest. May I offer something that might pique that interest once again? Allow your eyes respite here -


I know. A moment of silence is certainly appropriate. Allow the awe to pass, and read on.

What you are seeing are the wonders of vintage British engineering. Notice the backdrop of classic stone architecture, lack of sleeve tattoos, the plethora of vehicles whose proportions suggest speed, taste, and simplicity; notice there is something intrinsically right about that design.

This phalanx of Austin Healeys represents one of the great British sports cars of the 1960s. Amongst this stately lot you’ll see Triumph, MGB, Jaguar, Lotus, TVR, Morgan, Cooper and others. This was the last time in motoring history that designers could design without the suffocating restraint of legislation. Most are convertibles. They were built before the Interstate system became the main arteries of transportation. Therefore you moved at a much more leisurely pace not being beaten senseless by the wind at 75 mph. This was driving the way it was meant to be: as much for recreation as for necessity.

You might be thinking “ok, I get it, no Mötley Crüe, no big block bad boy attitude, but a lot of stuffy old, rich folks.” That’s certainly an impression one gets at first glance. But remember, these are British cars, many didn’t make it there under their own power, and those that did left a few liters of oil behind them (to find their way home, of course), and others are held together with duct tape and bailing wire. That’s just part of the charm, and all British motoring enthusiasts recognize that. It keeps us a titch humble. Despite that, they can still perform well against something modern (ever seen gearheads sipping tea?).

So this summer, keep you’re eyes out for these beauties. You might see one archaeologist with a permagrin behind the wheel of a red TR6.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Oscar Night! Huzzah.

(Part CLXVII on my “Crotchety Old Man - Gol Darn You Kids Get Off My Grass – I Got My 12-Gauge” Rant Series.)

It was Oscar night last night, and while I knew the contenders, I didn’t watch it. Here’s a posting that shares my opinion of any Oscar celebration since I’ve been alive. Before we get started, I must apologize for the following but with an explanation. While I haven’t played in the punk band for a very long time, the music still flows in my veins so it’s tough to repress my inner iconoclast.

I'm a pretty active movie watcher. Despite the fact that I hardly ever watch TV (not necessarily by my own choosing), I can usually squeeze in a movie now and again. And for some reason, I have this Rainman-like ability to remember movie minutia. But I think I’m like most discriminating movie fans in that moviegoing is a love-hate relationship. Most films are total crap (to be said in the Mike Meyers/SNL Scottish accent), deserving its due loathing. Occasionally something comes along that is vastly entertaining – which after all, is the job of a movie.

Movies were made for man, not man for the movies. I get the impression that movie industry elitists look down their noses at the majority of America because these lowly troglodytes can’t see the nuance, subtlety, art, and often ham-handed moralizing that accompany such high culture. The truth is, most of America loves movies the caliber of National Treasure because it’s entertainment, and that’s it. Most of America doesn’t want or need anything more from Hollywood than that.

Another assumption I've heard from elite-thinking intellectuals is that America doesn’t want to be intellectually challenged by the art-house films, which is why they don’t make money. I agree on all points. It seems that most folks have enough mental and physical challenges in everyday life, and if they are going to plunk down their 10 bucks it better do a good job at distracting them for a moment. I’ve seen enough mainstream and art-house movies to know that very, very few can offer a true intellectual challenge. On the contrary, most result in either a mental stupor or a “well there’s 2 hours I’ll never get back” malaise or both. There’s plenty of challenging and stimulating written material out there anyway. And yeah, I'm just a plebian.

On behalf of plebs everywhere, I will say that art-house film induced mental stupor, depression, and malaise don't send the necessary endorphins to stimulate the plebian brain. I know, it's totally illogical.

Speaking of written material - I think Plutarch’s entry about the Spartan King Agesilaus is fitting here:
Things which [Agesilaus] saw other people admiring he seemed not even to notice. For example, once upon a time Callippides the tragic actor, who had a name and fame among the Greeks and was eagerly courted by all, first met him and addressed him, then pompously thrust himself into his company of attendants, showing plainly that he expected the king to make him some friendly overtures, and finally said: "Your Majesty, do you not recognize me, and have you not heard who I am?" At that Agesilaus fixed his eyes on him and said, "Yes, are you not Callippidas the buffoon [deicelictas]?" That is what the Lacedaemonians call actors.
(Cf. Plutarch's Life of Agesilaus, chap. xxi (607D).)
Take it from the culture who gave us acting. The folks who invented it named the person on the stage the hypocrite, literally. While protesting the Oscars probably produces exactly the opposite than the desired effect, Sean Penn could use a lesson in ancient wisdom: “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.”

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Lessons of the USS Boise

Yesterday, my dad sent me this photo of a United States Naval Brooklyn-class light cruiser, the USS Boise (CL-47). At the time he sent it, he only said “your Grandfather was on board at the time this photo was taken.” My first thought was “Cool! I wonder where he was on the ship.” A great deal of patriotic pride swells in me, knowing my Grandpa Easton (come to think of it - Grandpa Gott included) was one of those young men who simply did what was required of him at one of the most pivotal moments in human history. I replied back to my dad something about the smoke and that’s where the real story unfolds.

The USS Boise was a light cruiser, built for speed, interception, and distraction – often serving as bait while something bigger was happening elsewhere – and was commissioned to the Pacific seas during World War II. Bait was exactly her mission in the Summer of 1942, when she was sent to distract the Japanese Navy while marines landed on Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands (northeast of Australia for the geographically challenged). Guadalcanal was a base of operations for the Japanese to harass shipments from the United States into Australia. It was the marines’ job to chase the Japanese off the island, while the Naval ships intercepted Japanese shipments to the island.

Allied forces slipped into Japanese territory on the night of August 8th, completely taking the Japanese by surprise and throwing off their base of operations. The Japanese retaliated over the next few months. This is where Grandpa’s story comes in.

On the night of October 11, the Japanese were sending a major supply and reinforcement convoy to the islands. His ship, the Boise, along with three other cruisers and five destroyers were tasked with intercepting the convoy. Shortly before midnight the two forces met. The allies under Rear Admiral Norman Scott retained the upper hand through surprise and quickly sank one cruiser and one destroyer, while severely damaging another cruiser (the Aoba) and mortally wounding her rear admiral, Aritomo Goto. The Japanese retreated under fire. Scott lost one of his destroyers and one cruiser. Another cruiser, the Boise was heavily damaged.

In Boise’s case, she was heeled over after firing and took the Japanese round in a thinner portion of the hull below turrets 1, 2, and 3. The impact caused a flash fire in the powder room, rather than an explosion. The damage appeared so severe that the call to abandon ship was made, but for some reason was never executed. Good thing too, Grandpa couldn’t swim. However, he was a member of the party that entered the turret (as I understand it, the one stuck pointing upward) to cut out the charred bodies. In all, 107 sailors were killed in the fire, and buried at sea.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had to cut out charred bodies after a barrage of 6-inch gun fire. I’ve never seen a charred body, let alone those of men you once knew living only moments before. I’ve never considered risking my life to save it by jumping into the “wine-dark sea” choked with bodies and debris when I couldn’t swim. And by the way, Scott’s mission was a strategic failure, the Japanese succeeded in getting the shipment through Allied lines, even though they suffered great losses and retreated. But that illustrates my point with greater emphasis.

I realize that there is some wisdom to shielding your children from the darker realities of life in an effort to preserve their innocence. However, there comes a time when children need to be taught the truth behind the trauma. Life in America (and the West in general) has become so cushy, so luxurious, and so entitled that the idea of evil has become passé. The current argument seems to be that only an uncultured neanderthal could possibly believe that concept, because every person or nation has a reason for their actions, and every reason is equally justified. And unfortunately, with the passing of “The Greatest Generation” and the rise of the postmodern, that truth is being incrementally lost with every re-write of history.

After years of teaching at a University, I realize that parents and teachers have largely failed to teach their children and students the core truths of human history. For example, many of my students had no idea why democracy is so important; no idea that it hung by a very thread in 490 BC; that the course of human history was full-speed ahead despotism until some backwater Greek farmers who had just begun that new experiment in free-choice took a stand. Why? It is becoming increasingly fashionable to not teach war. During my freshman year as a university student, I had a American History professor who in a lecture summed up all of World War II with "it was a great war, lots of people died." He told us outright that his philosophy was to not teach war.

At the time, I thought, "that's great! He's teaching peace." But I realize that he did his students a profound disservice. How can you teach the struggle for human freedom without teaching that democracy was saved on the field of Marathon, or in part at Guadalcanal? Unfortunately, the field of battle has always been the place where the entire gamut of human behavior is in microcosm. The ultimate lesson of which is that the dark and ugly side of human life and history will inevitably affect each of us at some point. If we are not prepared, or if we actively deny that evil exists, we won't have the ability to intellectually, spiritually, and maybe even physically counter it.

I think that’s a central message of the war chapters in the Book of Mormon, by the way: that no matter how good you are in God’s eyes, there will always be those (nations or individuals) who use their freewill to take what you have, or destroy the good that you have created. It is inspiring to think about those poor, rank-and-file Greeks on the plain of Marathon in 490 BC, or those poor, rank-and-file sailors off some remote island in 1942 doing simply what was asked of them.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

The Guilty Taketh the Truth to be Hard

The Nuge cutteth me to the center. Either that or I guess I'm one step closer to my cantankerous old man phase when words like this resonate. Though there is light at the end of that tunnel knowing I'll certainly be as cool as Eastwood in Gran Torino. Man, I can't wait 'til I'm 80.

"My childhood and the man it produced stand in stark contrast to today’s average male. I am saddened by the blatant decay of rugged individualism resulting in a pathetic lack of real boys and real men across America today. I see a preponderance of mealy-mouthed, milquetoast, fat, slow, hunched-over, starry-eyed, zombies everywhere I go: soulless slouchers, softies, wimps, clueless in their pathetic little dependent, whiny, girlyman lives. Hell, just the way many young men carry themselves: sagging, flopping shoulders, shuffling stumbling feet, hanging heads, blank stares, combined with a barely audible mumbling and a total incapacity for any meaningful dialogue makes me crazier than a bear in a nest of hornets. I am convinced that most kids today have never heard the word "posture." Combine that with abandoned table manners and the result is too many kids resembling the chimps they supposedly evolved from.

"We can’t forget that parents produced these failures and didn’t teach or discipline their children to greet people properly, shake hands, or at the very least say a caring, kind “hello.” And with nobody at home or at school telling them any differently, we are seeing reverse evolution at its worst, which of course affects our society. This neglect is rather depressing and terribly indicative of these kids resulting state of mind. It ain’t right. That Ozzy Osbourne’s drug addled, retarded behavior is considered entertaining is both sad and pathetic. At least Koko the gorilla could occasionally push a blue button and get food. These losers can’t open a can of soup."
-Ted Nugent

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

How to Teach in the LDS Church: A Few Tips

Over the years, I’ve had a lot of people ask for advice on teaching good lessons at church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). Since I’ve spent most of my life in front of a class: being disciplined; a seminary teacher, a university instructor, young men’s advisor/counselor; elder’s quorum instructor/counselor; sundry teaching callings; and a gospel doctrine instructor; I suppose I’ve learned a couple of tricks. And this entry is just that: the tips and tricks of teaching. Obtaining the Spirit to teach is a more vigorous exercise to which I have only minimal expertise.

The problem: how can church lessons be so mediocre or boring, when the gospel and the scriptures are so fascinating? Answer: it’s all in the teaching.

There are plenty of teaching resources out there. The two best are the teaching guide published by the Church, Teaching: No Greater Call, that all church instructors should read, and Boyd K. Packer’s book called Teach Ye Diligently. Despite what some intellectuals think of Pres. Packer he is a very talented teacher especially to the youth (a talent I desperately need), and many of his tips are far more wise than mine. Another blogger recently posted his tips, which are also excellent.

1. Preparation: Study hard. Study the reading block multiple times so that you know where key concepts are located visually. When you start to know your scriptures by the way the pages look, you’ll be able to better engage the class away from the pulpit, then return to your scriptures and not be lost. There’s nothing like the thought “holy crap, I’m lost” and the accompanying blurred vision fear to totally deep-six your lesson.

2. Stick to the scriptures, especially the reading block. This is a huge one (hence my verbose description)! Respect those that have actually prepared for your class by reading the block by sticking to the block. Sometimes teachers present a lesson that is very well prepared, but the teacher never cracks the scriptures. The biggest problem with this method is that the class is not prepared to discuss this unknown lesson and they will tune right out.

If you can make the scriptures come to life, you’ve got the Spirit, and you’ve got your class. And believe me, they will be inspired. Everyone loves the scriptures, and those who have passing interest really WANT to love the scriptures. The miracle of the scriptures is that they speak to everyone (and have been doing so for only a few thousand years). When they get excited about Gospel Doctrine, they will anticipate your lessons for a week, and they will ask you honest questions. It’s what good seminary teachers get to experience regularly. You should experience the same thing. The great news for Gospel Doctrine/Relief Society/Priesthood teachers is that these are adults and are easy to inspire. They will come ready. Don’t disappoint.

3. Don’t be afraid of the manual. This is especially applicable to the Relief Society and Priesthood Manuals this year. Truly there has been no greater guide in my lifetime than the Joseph Smith manual. This thing is so full of gems that you’d be foolish not to dig into it. I’ve actually heard a teacher say “I couldn’t find anything interesting in the manual, so I’ve got my own lesson.” He then proceeded to draw the usual plan of salvation circles on the board, and immediately 85 percent of the class tuned out.

While some manuals are (or were – how cool would it be to live in the days when Jesus The Christ was the manual?) better than others, it’s always a good idea to stay fairly close to the current manual. Indeed some lessons are difficult to teach, especially those based on the D&C where you are jumping from scripture to scripture hitting only bullet points. However, the lesson manual mostly has good questions, good quotes, and will help keep you on the topic. Again, the class is prepped to talk about what’s in the manual, so big deviations from that will alienate the class.

4. Begin the class with a preparation activity. It’s a terrible idea to start with “We are on Lesson 5, so everyone turn to D&C 6 and can someone read verse 1 please?” It’s a good idea to start with a short personal story, a short history lesson, or some anecdote that has universal interest and then direct the class to the scripture saying something like “how does D&C 6:2 relate to that story?” Prep activities engage the class and get them into the scriptures quickly. Don’t be too elaborate with it, or else it will become a distraction and not an aid to the scriptures. Spend only 2-3 minutes on it, and certainly not more than five. Don’t be afraid to use humor to begin the class. For us guys, starting off the lesson crying does not work as well as laughing.

5. Ask compelling questions. Dennis’ posting on Thinking in a Marrow Bone (linked above) has some great advice on this one. Searching questions stimulates discussion, and when the discussion goes in the right direction, the Spirit testifies. When you pick up on something interesting in a scripture verse or in a quote, point it out and ask the class what it means. It can be that basic. Try questions like “Why are the Lord’s words “quick and powerful?” “What does quick mean?” or “Why do you think the Lord chose to use a sword metaphor in D&C 6:2.”

Avoid too basic questions though. Only the most charitable class member will answer “How important is the atonement?” Some questions are too broad to answer well such as “What is faith?” You’ll certainly get impersonal answers, but you’ll not escape the slogging feeling that will arise. Of course, avoid close-ended questions like “How does the atonement make you feel?”

And please don’t ask “Who has read the scripture block?” unless you are going to start throwing candy. This one is really bad, because it puts the class into two categories: participants and observers. It will also prompt other side effects that are equally as bad or worse.

6. Seek active participation. The teacher should only talk about 50% of the time. When the class is given equal time to express themselves, the Spirit can more freely express Himself. Besides, your job is to stimulate discussion among the class, and keep it on topic. So lectures are bad. Really bad. If you find yourself on lecture-mode, get out of it. On rare occasions it’s needed, but they are rare, and I couldn’t tell you when. There are enough people in the class who know the gospel really well that chances are you are not lecturing on anything they haven’t heard before. Unless you have the talent of Cicero in oration, ask your significant other or friend beforehand to signal you – a cough, a sneeze, blow you a kiss, whatever.

7. Stay on the subject. Yes, I know. There’s so much cool stuff in the gospel it’s really difficult to stay on target… stay on target… stay on target (Star Wars trench battle, anyone? No? Sorry). Not only is it your job to stick to the subject, it’s your job to help the class do so. I’ve never known a gospel doctrine class that didn’t have Brother Knowitall, Sister IJustTookAReligionClass, or Brother Octogenarian, seeking to divert the discussion. Don’t ignore them just limit how often they talk. Always thank them for their comments, and don’t worry if they are the only ones willing to talk. If you ask good questions soon there will be others willing to participate. Others can also lose interest if you choose the same folks to answer the questions.

8. While current events are fine, don't talk politics. You may think everyone in your class supported a recent political proposition, but you know there were those who didn’t for whatever reason. On the other hand, current events are excellent if they are universal concerns for church members or are universal between political parties (gang violence, or those dreaded bear attacks, for example). Don’t assume that because you are conservative/liberal (in US terms) everyone else is. Don’t think because you are conservative/liberal (in US terms) that everyone else should be. The gospel transcends this stuff anyhow.

9. Teach deep doctrine. When it’s from the scriptures, and the questions are compelling, the concept of faith, repentance, and baptism, are as deep as any other subject. The aversion to deep subjects seems very odd to me, especially those who are proud to avoid inquiry or new ideas. Besides, I don’t know anyone who talks about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, or whether the gates of heaven swing outward or inward. And if subjects like that were brought up, I can’t imagine too many class members tolerating such frivolity.

10. Testify. Dennis, at the link above suggests testifying at any salient point during your lesson. What a great idea. Make sure you testify at the end. That should be the climax of your lesson. If you end well, everyone will be spiritually uplifted. And that is the whole point.