General Rules for Living

Most people just bumble through their lives. Here's a few personal rules for living better. They're what I see as good, and struggle to live up to. Suggestions welcome. This is, of course, a work in progress and rambles a bit; better to get it out than to generally ignore the thoughts. You've seen lists like this before; this is my version (where's yours?).

Up by 6am

Get a head start on others. How can you get ahead when others have completed half a day's work before you even get up?

Work out, preferably with some goal-oriented practical style.

Sculpted body, martial arts, dance, whatever...hampsters running in wheels are healthy but have nothing else to show for it.

Write: book ideally. If engaged in text discussions, refrain from largely content-free replies, write a meaningful one-pageish text worth publishing on web page.

If you have nothing worth saying, don't say it. If you do, say it fully and record it for posterity.There's a lot in your head that others want to hear: organize and polish your thoughts into a book.

Sunday: a holy day of rest.

God put this one ahead of the commandment forbidding murder. Go figure. Formal bible study weekly.

Sleeping thru a sermon once a week isn't enough. Get involved with other like-minded studious folk.

Listen to spouse. Live to fulfill him/her needs and wants.

Live 100% for the other. Takes both to make this work. This - paradoxically - includes letting the other be selfish as needed.

Don't compromise. Find mutually completely satisfactory solutions.Compromise means both giving something up. This is rarely necessary...if you both look for creative solutions.

Daily reading with spouse.

Share ideas and stories. Get ideas together. Put away the TV. Watch only special events. Videos OK. Movies/theater better.

Better yet, shoot your TV. No-ad paid-admission events exist for the content, while ad-sponsored shows exist only to grab your eyeballs for those ads.

Counry life: own large self-built house with land.Dirt gives life. Concrete supresses it.Live spaciously. Have room to think and create in peace.

Own few things: don't have much, but have best. Get rid of pointless duplicates. Save up and buy excellence.If you don't have time to use and enjoy your things on a regular basis, why have them? Excellence is timeless and retains value. The rest belong on eBay.

Art: own and make.Own original artwork, something unique and beautiful. Express yourself.

Study. Always have at least one degree in progress, even if master's, black belt, or community college associate's.Learn constantly. Be able to prove you learned something.

Be decisive.Better to choose wrong than choose nothing or blown by the wind...and end up wrong by default.

Walk with spouse, at least once a week, preferably 2 miles per day.Exercise together. Be together. Experience the world together. Do all three in a single act.

Camp.Problems become very small when you face basic survival head-on.Recognize that the world is much, much larger than your cubicle...and that most problems are very, very small.

Bed by 9pm usually. Read, talk, cuddle, whatever...in bed.A good night's sleep begins with not staying up half the night.

Play or concert at least once per month.Experience artistic excellence live.

Keep house clean. Tidy up before bed, starting with kitchen. If you don't have time for general cleanup (heavy work excluded) today, you've got too much stuff or distractions.

Keep a few pampered plants.Bring the beauty of plant life into your home.

Get a dog.If you don't know why, you desparately need one.

Raise a child.Nothing is greater than creating and raising a human life. Don't let your genes and

memes (ideas) die.A child brings everything else into better perspective.

If possible, work at home - preferably own business. Work near spouse. Let child observe or participate.The industrial revolution destroyed something wonderful. Recover it.How can we expect children to become good workers if they never (or rarely) see parents working?

Learn an alternate low-tech skill. Use the skill to retain it.You are one paycheck away from total self-dependency. Whether faced with basic unemployment or societal collapse, you should have an immediately saleable skill (sewing, blacksmith, armorer, etc.).

Pay bills immediately upon receipt. Should have enough money on hand to do so.Just takes a minute now...or hours and past-due fines later.If you can't pay all your bills upon receipt, you're spending too much.

Invest finances - aggressively.Except for predicted near-term needs, your money should be out making money.

Music purchases: most should be no more than 2 years old. The rest should be bonified classics.That's "most", not "all".Art is moving forward. Don't get stuck in the past; little is worth repeating. Be aware of what's emerging.

Model lifestyle after great people. They did something right. Don't reinvent the wheel.

Brand names: preferred, but with discretion.A good brand is based on something well-done. Finding and buying good brands improves chances of owning good things.Don't confuse popular brands with good brands.

Clothing: "one small thing I can do to make the world more beautiful."People have to look at you. Make that experience pleasant.A Holocaust survivor was asked why he dressed so well all the time. "It's one small thing I can do to make the world more beautiful."

Create "Brand You".Michael Jordan. Oprah Winfrey. Tommy Hilfiger. Martha Stewart. Donald Trump. You?Make a name for yourself. Make your name a brand.

Keep list of what's special/important to spouse.You're not going to remember it all...and you're screwed if you don't.

Love.In every sense of the word, as completely as humanly possible.

Just Money?LOS ANGELES (AP) — The president of Costco stores questioned on Monday why an armored car guard exchanged shots with two robbers during a deadly gun battle that took place in an area filled with weekend shoppers.

Some people will say "but it's just money; nobody should die over it." Possibly. I gotta ask...what is money?

Money is a medium representing and facilitating a barter of goods and services. Most money recently represents services. Services are what a person spent a portion of his/her life doing; i.e., money paid for services represents an exchange of a fraction of someone's life for other goods/services.

Let's say I make $20/hour. I give up an hour of my life for, say, a nice dinner out (tack on another hour traded for m'lady's half of the dinner).

On the way to dinner and fiddling with my cash for some trivial & reasonable reason, some perp snatches $20 from me - he has stolen an hour of my life, an hour I gave up for...his next crack hit.

Ticked, out $20 (an hour) of adequate dinner money and still hungry, I find an ATM and withdraw $320, figuring I need money for the next week anyway. Distracted by the previous theft, I fail to notice the incoming thug who whacks me upside the head and takes my just-withdrawn wad. $320/($20/hr)+(8 hrs daily sleep) = a full day of my life stolen.

Sore, pissed and late for my date, I go back to my car so I can get m'lady and pay for dinner with plastic. No car. $**^% car is gone. It was right...there. Gone in 60 seconds. My just-purchased-for-twenty-grand slightly-used loaded '98 Mustang is so much air. $20,000 - poof. $20,000/($20/hr)+(n days * 8 hrs sleep) = 2 1/4 months of my life given up. A fifth of a year of my life spent banging my head against buggy beta-level programming tools in exchange for...raw materials in a chop shop.

See where this is going?

Let's consider the armored car in the original article. The perps, dreaming of a million-dollar Brinks heist (servicing CostCo? never said perps were smart), figure out the routine and show up to knock over the truck. Let's say they're luck and the truck does contain $1,000,000. Most of that money is there because of people exchanging their time for small

green pieces of paper, at an average of $20/hr. That megabuck truck contains the representation of 8.5 straight years (including sleep) of human life.

$1,000,000 = 8.5 years. If I'm 70 years old, and on average have 8.5 years to go, and some thug decides to take my life before my proper time, I've got every right to stop him by any means. Similarly, so does the Brinks guard when some perp decides to take the exchanged-for-greenbacks 8.5 years of people's lives.

Just a thought.

Art Eatman summed up the above blather very nicely:"I spent part of my life acquiring that (money; property). Nobody has the right to say that my life is worthless or meaningless, or to steal part of that life."

What's ImportantSo, what's important to me? What is valued, what goals?

EducationMy primary education goal was achieved in August '98: a masters in computer engineering from Syracuse University. That covered all aspects of computing, from quantum mechanics to exotic languages to distributed processing.

The next steps involve specialized education connected with my work. As a Kodak employee working in computer generation of final movie images, future education includes image science, high speed / massive data embedded system processing, cinema digital audio formats, etc. The longer I stay at Kodak, the deeper the required knowledge.

Other education is also important. Knowing many skills, facts and philosophies is important. Read, practice, be aware.

WorkSome 9 years after getting my BSCE, I've finally achieved my dream job: digital cinema system programming. Fast voluminous data, embedded systems, cool graphics, programmable hardware, cryptography, object-oriented programming, ground floor of a major new technology, more...it's all here. Time to settle in and get deeply ingrained in this project. I've wanted and worked for this a long time, and will not be quick to give it up.

HomeI primarily grew up in the country. Space between homes, big (and do mean big) garden, wood heat, nearby forests with nifty waterfall, collecting wild apples, poking thru old abandoned foundations, camping, clean air, quiet, big yard, dirty fingernails, safety...I wanted to stay there (did 'till 25), wound up on the edge of Rochester, and eventually escaped the sardine mentality and returned to the country. A casually considered ideal is a simple cabin on a lonely lake in the Adirondacks or Rockies (with a sattelite data feed, of course). More practically, home should be about 30 minutes or less - via fast roads - from a medium-sized city.

I've long studied and pondered my ideal home. Most considered was a log cabin somewhere in the country. Other options include various forms of "real" building material: logs, bricks, post & beam...something more substantial than quick-build 2x4s. A house should have character, be carefully designed, open and facilitating the life of the occupants.

A year ago I bought my grandparent's house. They designed and built this ranch some 30 years ago, an open and well lit design, set on two rolling acres and surrounded by hay fields. Peace, privacy, and beauty, all 35 minutes from almost any point in Rochester. My grandparents created it; no wonder it fits me so well.

Would I leave my home? Preferably only for a superior custom home, and persuaded by a strong reason. I could live in a city, provided convenient and interesting enough, but would remain quietly unhappy. Living so close to thousands of others in inartistically designed cramped spaces is apalling when the beauty of God's creation can be enjoyed with a simple glance out the window elsewhere. Better the company of a few loved ones in the Rocky Mountains than being lost in a crowd on Broadway.

HobbiesOne's hobbies should be meaningful, beyond mere time-spending (though I do succumb to that). Reading quality literature, maintaining an interesting home, time with loved ones, creating art, combat training, exercise, studying history, current event awareness, travel, and quiet observation of life and nature.

RelationshipsI keep fairly few active friends, being a bit of a hermit. Those few are very important. Highest of all is a woman of wifely potential, one who is greatly worthy of love.

When the time comes, my wife will be of highest importance in all my earthly matters, one whom I will deeply love and intensely care for and never leave. Children may come, and must recieve intense attention - from both parents - as gifts from God. A family should do most things together; even when doing different activities, there should be a sense of closeness. All other matters - work, home, hobbies, etc. - are subordinate to family, adjusted to satisfy the needs of family and never more important. The same is expected from all family members.

Such attention and service to others is paramount. This can only work if both persons do so equally.  

SummaryUltimately, life must be lived in accordance with God's word (the Bible is final say...given careful study), and in service to family and others. Personal needs are considered and satisfied as a means to serve and please others (one is hard pressed to serve when miserable). Life must be kept simple, uncluttered by society's pressures, and pursued through and to quality and consideration. Have few things, do few things, but make sure they are excellent. Surround oneself with quality people. I may not live up to

these goals, but they are the goals.

On GamblingI gambled for the first time today. Roulette. Ok, so it was a cheap roulette wheel, the money was fake, and the gambling was the feature for "Casino Day" at our department's Christmas party (no, I have no idea what the connection between Christ's birth and Roulette was supposed to be, but that is off the topic), but the chips were real and the process was proper. I've never been interested in gambling - being well versed in probability, statistics, and knowing the odds are simply against you - but the $500 play money was pressed into my hand and the wheel was spinning...and the chips could eventually be used in an auction for nifty door prizes, including a gen-ew-wine DVD player (and I need one).

Blackjack and Craps just didn't get my attention, as proper Blackjack playing requires card counting and Craps just generally eludes me (easy considering my apathy towards it). Roulette, however, made sense. The spinning wheel is a decent randomizer for the 38 numbers, and the numbers, colors, even/oddness, and high/lowness were reasonably broken up and bet upon. The attendant running the table gradually listed the odds: 1 to 1, 2 to 1 (I do a few), 10 to 1...wait a moment...mental wheels spin...10 to 1 is wrong; she should be giving 8 to 1, and admits it! but sticks to 10 to 1! There's hope! Time to settle in for a long roulette session.

Roulette. The wheel spins, a ball is dropped in, you pick your numbers or groups thereof, the ball settles on a number, and you win or lose your odds. There's 36 numbers, including 0 and 00. The zeros are on green backgrounds. 1 thru 36 are evenly split between red and black (exact distribution is statistically irrelevant). You can bet on low (1-18), high (19-36), even, odd, red, black, various groups of 12, groups of 4, pairs, or single numbers (00-36). Odds are, respectively, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 1-1, 2-1, 8-1, 18-1, 40-1. Except that for the last three, she was giving 10-1, 20-1, and 40-1. At this table, two of them were better odds than they should have been. The statistician in me perked up. Bet on four numbers at a time, any group; keep going, and see what happens.

What happened was boredom. Sometimes I picked the same group repeatedly, sometimes I picked other groups. Statistically, it didn't matter. Wa-hoo. One chip on four numbers, repeat. Pick more than one group at a time, and the average winnings drop...so no point in that. One quad at a time. Sure, I sat on one group until I was extra bored, then picked another, and "of course" the previously sat-on group won. Statistically, it didn't matter. The money went for a while. Then the money came; I was up to $1400 at one point. Oooo...I had $1400...so what?

statistically, it didn't matter: I would keep using chips (someone had more than I did, and we both wanted that DVD player) until I had enough to win the auction or until I had nothing. Then I was casually tossing $50 and $100 chips around instead of $20s and $10s; statistically equivalent, just faster processing. The money stayed. Then it went. Use smaller chips to extend the stay. Then it was gone. Three hours gone; time to go back to the office.

Chatting with a friend, I later decided the ideal strategy. Didn't think of it until too late. A very efficient strategy. Statistically (I'd have to work the numbers to be sure) same as the stretch-those-chips strategy. Simple: find the best odds (in this case, 10 to 1 in Roulette), put all the money - all $500 - on a single bet at those odds. One Bond-sized bet. $500 in, $5000 or $0 out. That would get it over with quickly (time efficient), and ultimately face the same odds. Yes, there is the chance that stretching the chips for a long time could net a higher amount, but the single law of probability says that small enough probabilities don't occur.

Once the math of gambling is understood, there really is no excitement or dejection, as gambling really is a mechanical process in the long run: insert money, run the operation, see if anything pops out, repeat. Money won will become money lost if you keep going. Except in rare cases (hey, it won't happen for us) you won't get to stop when the results have accumulated a notable amount.

So, finally, I've gambled. Never wanted to, never will again. It's dull.  

On An InsultRecently I came across a notable sentence in a column by conservative pundit Thomas Sowell. It seemed insightful enough to add it to my email signature file, thus ending every email I sent with: Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing "compassion" for the poor, but those   who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution     more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.        - Thomas SowellWhat an interesting contribution to the political dialog about solving poverty. Whereas moden political poverty solutions based on FDR's New Deal have wrung hands, made grand gestures and distrubuted trillions of dollars only to create a multi-generational dependent underclass, advances in lowering industrial costs has given most of the poor running water, efficient transportation, relatively comfortable housing, and large TVs (among other comforts and luxuries). This is a valuable observation worth constructive analysis in a bi-partisan atmosphere.

But this rant is not about Sowell's comment, but instead a liberal athiest's reaction to it.

In my office area is a liberal athiest who is deeply passionate (to put it politely) about his beliefs. I was surprised to get an unsolicited comment from him about Sowell's observation:

Blah blah blah. And furthermore, blah blah blah. To recapitulate, blah blah blah. - some right-wing windbag

At first, I felt insulted, as this individual (let's call him CC) has repeatedly made rude comments on my political beliefs. Should I respond or ignore it? Bouncing it off a couple close respected friends, I decided to largely ignore it for - by distributing such a crude response to the entire software department (probably unintentionally) - he has managed to embarass himself and once again show his true colors, those of an intolerant leftist.

Some time ago I decided to make a distinct point of learning from political opponents. They sincerely believe things for a reason, and by examining comments I may understand others and perhaps improve myself. So...what about the "blah" comment? What can be learned?

CC did bother to read the lengthy quote. That reinforces my belief that adding quotes to one's email signature is a worthwhile endeavor. It's nice to get people to think about ideas that they normally would not be exposed to. There is value to soundbites. Sure, the soundbite likely did not have a great impact, but like an advertisement it did get into his mind and the meme will do its work.

The comment challenged his views enough that he felt motivated to respond, even if out of blind anger...blind enough to (based on previous experience) not realize that he was about to embarass himself before a couple dozen coworkers.

This response shows that he sees no value in the views of others. Opposing opinions are only worth insulting, even if the quote in question is from a respected pundit and viewed highly enough by someone who appreciates the quote enough to extract it from a widely-published article and uniquely and regularly attach it to one's own messages. Rodney King asked "why can't we all just get along?" This is a prime example of why: rather than engaging an opponent in a meaningful exchange of ideas and trying to learn from the dialog, many instead simply discount and insult and embarass those who think differently.

Another point is the quality of the insult. While certainly better than "you suck", it sure reflects badly not on the object of the insult but on the provider. Consider Cyrano DeBergerac's response to one who insulted his ample nose:

"Ah no! young blade!  That was a trifle short! You might have said at least a hundred things By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . ." and proceeds to insult his own nose with numerous clever comments, ending with "Such, my dear sir, is what you might have said, had you of wit or letters the least jot: But, O most lamentable man!--of wit you never had an atom, and of letters you have three letters only!--they spell Ass! And--had you had the necessary wit, to serve me all the pleasantries I quote before this noble audience. . .e'en so, you would not have been let to utter one-- nay, not the half or quarter of such jest!"Sometimes observes that another's views are indeed foolish and worthy of insult. Reader, if you are inclined to insult someone, apply your experiences and do so with a meaningful barb worthy of this and other great insults recorded in history. "Blah blah blah" just doesn't cut it. Even an insult may, well phrased and properly applied, benficially advance society.

Should I directly respond to CC? I could go to him and say "please don't insult me" or "why do you feel compelled to treat me that way" or "so, this is the kind of constructive polite dialog I should expect from a liberal athiest?" Probably not, for as he has repeatedly behaved this way before, methinks it's unlikely that he will change unless he figures it out for himself. Time and the silent observation of dozens of others may have greater effect than an expected whining from the object of his insult. Kindness will do more than a returned insult; as observed in the Bible:

"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee." - Proverbs 25:21-22Despite this in the latest string of insults (of which all have backfired), I will be kind and polite to CC.

CC, if you are reading this, let me reiterate that I would much like to understand and learn from you. Unfortunately, you seem far more interested in raging against one who has thoughtfully come to a different conclusion. I'd like to know what you think is wrong with Sowell's comment; surely you have something more constructive to offer than "blah blah blah".

Is this rant overkill for what prompted it? Maybe so...but I sure got more out of it than simply ignoring an insult, and hopefully - now that you're reading this closing sentence - you did too.

Biblical Grounds and Guidance for Personal Arms Posessionby Carl Donath carl@donath.org Latest update at http://www.donath.org/Rants/BiblicallyArmed

(C) © Copyright Carl Donath 1999

(This is not a "finished" work. The more I add the more needs adding. Comments, suggestions & criticisms greatly welcome.)

0. SummaryLuke 22:36 (Sword included among posessions for self-sufficiency) 1 Timothy 5:8 (Provide for one's family, presumably protection also) Matthew 12:31 (Axiomatic view of strength protecting home) Luke 11:21 (Axiomatic view of armed protection of posessions) Exodus 22:2-3 (Slaying nighttime intruder acceptable) Proverbs 6:6-8 (Storing provisions) 1 Chronicles 21:5 (All families in Israel and Judah owned arms) Matthew 26:52 (Do not use deadly force inappropriately) Romans 14:1 (Do not condemn different beliefs/actions if rightous)

From these and others I conclude, via axioms, example, law and directives, that weapons have a place in private hands for protection as one is required to provide for the well-being of one's dependents and one's self.

1. "If you don't have a sword, go buy one." Arm yourself prudently.My reasoning usually begins with Luke 22:36 "[Christ] said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'" Christ had been with the apostles for a few years. Being their leader and [nearly] constant companion, he had assumed the responsibility of protecting them from physical harm. He had shielded them from weather, mobs, and

powerful & vengeful people. Now He was about to leave them, no longer providing immediate protection from physical assault. Along with other fundamental necessities of purses and bags (presumably with basic common contents), He tells them to, even at expense of comfort, sell a cloak and buy a sword if one is not owned. In a time when the local police would not be expected to show up within 30 minutes of a cell-phone call, when thugs were not uncommon, and when a group of murder-minded Pharisees were about to execute the head of a new religious movement (and perhaps not likely to stop there), Christ instructed them to prepare themselves to combat a violent, physical, and not specifically expected, assault.

One person I've conversed with on this subject suggested interpreting this a certain (and I feel contemptible) way in light of the next verse, Luke 22:37 "'It is written: ''And he was numbered with the transgressors''; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.'" The proposed interpretation is that in the statement "go buy [a sword]", Christ was specifically instructing his followers to violate local sword-control laws (presumably enacted for reasons very much like comparable modern reasoning) so that His followers would be labeled "transgressors" and in turn He would fit the verse from Isaiah 53:12. I reject this interpretation, as it sets up Christ as one who would instruct His devoted followers to break laws - and arguably commit sin - solely so He would fit a known prophecy. Instead, I interpret this verse as Christ instructing his followers to rightly and reasonably prepare themselves for a possible and reasonably expected violent physical attack. While ten of the apostles eventually did succumb to violent ends, they did so at reasonable times, and not as the result of random or otherwise (how do I say this well) unimportant or unsanctioned violence.

This section in Luke ends with an important point. Luke 22:38 "The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.' 'That is enough,' he replied." Many who oppose gun ownership fear a "wild west" scenario where everyone is armed to the teeth. Christ did not insist that every apostle posses and be highly trained in the latest weapons, bristling with broadswords at the side and other weapons attached to shiny armor. He recognized that this group would generally stay together, and that by reasonably arming a fraction of the group they could be reasonably protected against typical crimes of the day. Notice also that the apostles' response to Christ's directive was to show the weapons they had, with the arguable implication that said weapons were not visible or even known to those not possessing them, i.e. they were discretely concealed. They may not be able to hold off hordes of highwaymen or a pharasee-directed army, but they are able to satisfy basic self and group protection needs.

One may say "A Christian's faith is to be in the Lord, not his firearm." This is true. The faith of the apostles was strong, yet Christ directed them to obtain defensive tools. When we are told to have faith that God will provide, we do not immediately cease all labors and wait for a roof to appear over our heads and for food to appear upon our tables. We proceed to make reasonable preparations that God may work with and through those actions and items, be they food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or weapons. David would have been unable to slay Goliath had he not been armed with a small but effective weapon which God was able to work with and through.

How does this passage apply to us? In a family group, or in other groups acting together, a small fraction of the group should be reasonably and discretely armed, as that is likely enough to protect the group from extensive harm. In all the cases in our somewhat recent history where one person killed a number of others in a group (ex. Colon Ferguson on a train, the Empire State Building incident earlier this year, and even the school incident a few days ago), I have always been sad that not a single person had the basic defensive tools, training and reflexes to stop the assailant before the death and injury toll rose so high. One responsible, discretely armed citizen with basic training can stop an assailant bent on murdering dozens. As for the role of the police: they can only clean up the mess afterwards; it's up to the individuals and small groups to defend themselves.

2. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." If a life is not threatened, do not in turn threaten life as some things are not worth fighting over.In the passage (Matthew 5:38-42) where Christ instructs us "do not resist an evil person", an initial glance (especially by those predisposed toward gun control) seems to interpret this as a prohibition against opposing an assailant. Note that Christ's comments do not include opposing life-threatening assault.

Limitations of English require us to dig into the Greek words used to identify life-threatening vs. non-life-threatening assaults. Tom Sullivan observed that the "slap" mentioned in Matthew 5:39, which is the only physical assault mentioned, is translated from the greek word "rhapizo" meaning "slap", and the parallel Luke 6:29 passage uses "tupto" meaning "strike". A slap is hardly worth taking a life to prevent, as are many (most?) instances of a strike. Compare these to the words used for life-threatening assaults on Christ by the Roman soldiers: "paio" (John 18:10, Luke 22:64 and Matthew 26:68) meaning "beat", "sting" or "strike", and "dero" (Luke 22:63) meaning "strike", "scourge", "flay" or "beat". Another example is Acts 12:23 (God killed Herod) which uses "patasso", meaning "strike" with the given result of death. Noting that Christ used certain words and not others for the "turn the other cheek" passage indicates that He was referring to putting up with evil actions that did not threaten death or grave bodily harm to an innocent.

Reasonable and prudent possession, carry and use of a deadly weapon requires that one become wise in the way of identifying when deadly force be exercised and avoiding its use whenever possible. Many who oppose personal ownership of firearms for self defense will make statements of the form "What's a guy with a gun going to do when someone wants to steal his wallet? Shoot him?" and "Oh great, now we'll have lots of people shooting others for getting annoyed while driving." These miss the point of defensive firearms ownership and presume gravely irresponsible actions by friends, family and colleagues. An early rule in defensive firearms training is that if a criminal does not seek to gravely harm or kill you or another innocent, give him what he wants. Whenever possible and prudent, run, avoid, deter, or satisfy a criminal that greater harm to anyone be avoided. My firearms instructor, a highly respected trainer, suggests carrying a small, weighted wad of cash apart from ones wallet specifically for tossing to a would-be mugger that his evil desires may be satisfied and that additional violence be avoided. He even suggests doing so with a cheerful "have a round of drinks on me". Likewise, most hold-

ups should be met with cooperation, as few thugs seek to do more harm than mere theft. These, and other actions advocated by this agnostic instructor, are wholly within the spirit of "turn the other cheek". When a human life is not on the line, do not behave in a way that does put a life on the line.

Some do become irritated with this "turn the other cheek" approach, as evil seems rewarded. Be satisfied by scripture: Proverbs 25:21-22 "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you." Also, Ecclesiastes 11:1 "Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again" - this goes for the evildoers as well as believers.

3. "You shall not murder." Never commit grave physical harm except to prevent grave physical harm to an innocent.Opponents of weapons ownership for defense often bring up "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13 surely cannot be interpreted that as an absolute prohibition against taking a life as God proceeds to lay down numerous death-penalty rules and instructs the Israelites to go slaughter the inhabitants of a number of cities. Many believe, with various reasonings including strict meanings of the original Hebrew, that the proper interpretation is "You shall not murder". Murder is a non-defensive act which stems from anger, and Christ extends this commandment to cover the angry heart. Also, a death stemming from gross or intentional negligence presumably is covered by this commandment.

The commandment prohibits the intentional, willful taking of another's life. When a life is taken or threatened as an act of defense, the actor must perceive no other choice in the matter. The act should be such that it is followed by thoughts of "I didn't want to hurt him, but if I did not act my loved one would now be dead." Few could condemn a lethal action in such a situation, and those that do are despicable (more on this later).

Exercising deadly force in self defense is not done as an escalation of force, but as a means of redirecting the consequences of an existing threat. There are three criteria, as taught by the highest-level defensive trainers, for exercising deadly force:

1. "Ability" - An attacker must have the ABILITY to cause death or grave bodily harm to an innocent.

2. "Opportunity" - An attacker must have the OPPORTUNITY to cause death or grave bodily harm to an innocent.

3. "Jeopardy" - An attacker must be behaving in a way that places an innocent in JEOPARDY of death or grave bodily harm.

Only situations wherein all three of these criteria are met may a person actively wield deadly force against another. In such a situation, an innocent person is - by the intentional actions of another - about to suffer death or grave bodily harm, and an appropriate defensive action redirects the consequences of such an action from an innocent to the perpetrator. Put another way: an innocent person (you, your

child, your spouse, etc.) is about to die and as an armed Christian you have the opportunity (and as discussed later, the duty) to change the "who" from the innocent to the guilty.

In appropriate situations, killing or grave physical harm does not violate the sixth commandment as it is the only way to prevent an equal or greater harm. Nowhere in scripture is such an action - when appropriate - condemned, yet there are instances where a killing, to protect innocents, is described and not condemned.

4. "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." Providing for one's family includes protection from violence.1 Timothy 5:8 is a broad and harsh statement. Those who can must provide for their families. Surely what is provided is not just food and a roof, but (among other things), when one cannot rely on instant response from the local constabulary, includes means of protecting possessions by locks and protecting lives by strength and weapons. Matthew 12:31 "'Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.'" While this passage is in a different context (driving out demons) it relies on the presumption that strength in protecting one's home is good. A corollary is that a weak man cannot oppose those who want to rob the home. Likewise, Luke 11:21 "'When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.'" Surely his family within are more worthy of armed protection than his possessions! It is unreasonable for one to protect one's possessions with locks and strength, yet neglect to protect those living within with appropriate tools and greater strength. And in recognition of a disparity of force (armed vs. unarmed, large vs. small, man vs. woman, many vs. few), various tools are needed to augment a person's abilities and increase his strength.

Exodus 22:2-3 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed." A breakin during the day does not warrant executing deadly force against the intruder, presumably because there are others awake and around to apprehend or drive him off. But at night, when most are home, asleep and vulnerable, one can assume that an intruder entering an occupied home intends to, or is prepared to, kill the occupants. While killing an intruder must never be a goal of the homeowner, using deadly force to deflect a home invasion is scripturally acceptable.

These and other verses indicate that armed protection of one's self, family, and even possessions is axiomatic within scripture. One can conclude that, because of the given laws and examples, the protection of self and family from violent assault is so fundamentally expected and required that little is explicitly said because it is so obvious. Like the framers of the Constitution, the authors of the Bible would likely be baffled at today's notion that citizens should disarm themselves in the face of well-known and common crime.

Given that protection of the family is a basic duty, and that preparation for any reasonable eventuality is repeatedly ordered (Proverbs 6:6-8 "Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and

gathers its food at harvest."), basic preparations of training and tools for self defense is a fundamental expectation of scripture.

1 Chronicles 21:5 gives weight to the pervasiveness of weapons ownership in ancient Israel: "And Joab gave the number of the census of all the people to David. And all Israel  were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword; and Judah was 470,000 men who drew the sword." In the whole population of the divided kingdom, about 1.5 million men were registered sword owners. While the total population (men, women, young, old) is not known, compare that number to the current total population of over 5 million. Clearly every homeowner possessed a sword (the most advanced personal weapon of the day) and was ready to use it.

The role of the civil magistrate is sometimes raised in this discussion. As such serious matters of worship, justice, vengeance, law enforcement and war are handed over to the civil authorities, some argue that arms possession and use should likewise be handed over to authorities. This fails to take into account that every power of the corporate government is also present to a great degree within the family unit. Worship, justice, vengeance, law enforcement and defense all have implementations within the family. A family may not own a weapon of mass destruction, neither is it entitled to set up and operate a church; yet a family may own sidearms to repel assailants, and may construct a chapel for family worship if desired. In repelling an assault, an individual or family may only do so to the degree necessary to protect life until higher authorities may intervene. Also, when determining what degree of firearm ownership or use is permitted within society, those making the laws must observe the biblical and practical needs, and must truly be wise in the subject to prevent haphazard, poorly designed and ill-willed laws.

Some may still disapprove of obtaining arms at home and preparing for their use yet say "well of course I'll fight for my family when necessary". They do not realize that an assault requiring life-and-death decisions and actions will appear and be over in a matter of _seconds_. There will be no time for the police to come; the will show up in time to clean up the mess. There may not be time to even call the police. There will be no time to go get the hunting rifle out of the closet, find some ammo, load it, and threaten the attacker. There will be no time to figure out the best options. There will be no time to consider the morality of various options. There will be no time to decide what one's personal capabilities are. There will only be time to act on one's preparations.

Famines may come. Fire may come. Bad weather may come. Debts may come. Criminals may come. Be prudently ready for all.

5. "All who draw [live by] the sword will die by the sword." Be careful how you use your weapon.A quickly-raised opposition verse is Matthew 26:52 "'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'" With varying translations, this is usually quoted as "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." This common quotation is quite true, as one who makes his living (i.e. obtaining food, clothing, shelter, along with protection) by a weapon is not likely to live long. Yet there is more to this verse.

The context of this verse is Christ's arrest, particularly when an unspecified believer chops off the ear of a servant of the high priest. A great number of heavily armed men have come to arrest Christ. In the face of ridiculous odds, and while still under the presence and protection of Jesus, one follower strikes out violently at the mob. The act is absurd, for surely if Christ had not chastised him and healed the injury on the spot this follower, and possibly others, would have been immediately slaughtered. Clearly there are times when one's weapon has no chance at protecting life, and acquiescence is more likely to lead to survival. As any firearms instructor will insist, never draw on a drawn gun, and that goes multiple if there are multiple equivalent weapons drawn against you. Another principle of armed self defense is that if you do actively engage an assailant with a weapon, you will immediately become a prime target. This is why, when it is necessary to defend a life with deadly force, one must have a superior combination of skill, tactics, cover, and firepower, and even that does not guarantee survival. Remember, deadly force is to be used only when, without it, an innocent will die.

Christ makes this statement within the hearing of a highly armed pharasee-led mob. In His habit of making points to the Pharisees with powerful indirect statements, Christ may actually be condemning the leaders of this mob by pointing out that those who draw and live by swords outside of mere immediate self-defense will come to violent ends. His follower was merely attempting to protect himself and Christ against armed assailants; it is the arresting mob which was truly drawing and living by the sword.

Notice that Christ began with "Put your sword back in its place". Where is its place? In the scabbard at the side of its owner. Even in the face of overwhelming force, Christ did not tell the follower to drop the weapon, but to put it back where it came from and where it would be ready for use if appropriate.

It is hard to believe that Christ was condemning responsible weapon ownership and use, especially as this statement comes shortly after he tells his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords. It is more reasonably a condemnation of the Pharisees for wielding swords in immoral ways, and a prediction that said persons would as a direct result come to violent ends.

6. "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters." If you don't want a gun, don't get one; if you do, be morally responsible.Tom Sullivan makes a clear point: "Those who do not wish to have or use a gun are not required to do so. But those to whom guns are foreign should not try to infringe on the rights of those of us who do wish to own guns and use them." When pressed hard enough and long enough, most people will admit that sometimes it is reasonable for a citizen to own a firearm for protection. Many of strongest anti-gun leaders and lobbyists in fact own firearms or have well-armed bodyguards. Either way, there is the fact that coherent and educated people differ severely on an issue. Romans 14 goes into detail about tolerance and attitude in disputable matters. Romans 14:1 "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."

Romans 14:2-3 "One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him." In this case, we could easily substitute "carry firearms" with "eat everything", etc. and the point would remain. Some of us think firearms are evil and only good for destruction, while others of us think there is a moral place for wielding that destructive power. Let us learn to respect each other, and as in Romans 14:6b "He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." Those who will not own weapons are thankful for a weapons-free home and trust God for protection; those who do seek to own and use them responsibly see a need for such tools, thank God for the freedom to own them, and trust God for guidance and wisdom when their use is warranted.

Romans 14:21 "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall." Excessive display or talk of weapons ownership may cause some to stumble or sin by entertaining fear and anger. Likewise, those who believe in being unarmed should not rail openly and forcefully against gun ownership, as it may lead those who differ to embarrassment and anger. Those of us who do posses weapons should do so discretely. Open carry of handguns is scripturally improper, as it attracts the attention and ire of those who do not approve. Likewise, arguably unwarranted prohibition against weapon possession is also improper, as it can place those discretely carrying weapons in the awkward position of having to choose between following rules, and risky impromptu storage of firearms and feeling vulnerable.

But'But'. A little word. A common word. And a scourge on our language and culture.

When [a large company]'s data department decided to embark on a new, warm & fuzzy management structure, all employees were compelled to take a month of brainwa...er, training on how to interact with other employees and operate in what amounted to a leaderless business environment (which could be the topic of another rant, but I digress). The one worthwhile phrase (not even a whole sentence) I gleaned from four weeks of touchie feelies was:

"The all-negating 'but'."

Consider: "I love you but...", "we worked hard on it but...", "the tickets weren't sold out but...", "the tickets were sold out but..." and so on. In nearly every sentence where the word 'but' is used, the speaker builds up an emotional state (usually positive) in the listener then says 'but' to negate that emotional state. Often 'but' is followed by an inverse of the preceeding statement. Even worse, 'but' is a powerfull enough word that nothing need be said after its utterance, and it still utterly destroy whatever was built up with all the words before it.

Next time you are about to make a statement of the form "X, but not X" consider leaving out the entire buildup and mind-wrenching alteration of 'but', and instead pursue the pure honesty of saying what you really mean to say. Use 'and' instead and change the whole sentence accordingly. It's hard, as it's deeply ingrained in our language and culture. Eliminate most occurences of 'but' and enjoy the fresh clarity of up-front honesty.

ctd 7/97

A subsequent email exchange debated the related word "yet":

"Yet" may be even worse than "but". It's used for the same purpose, and achieves its goal in a more subtle fashion. "But" is a slap in the face. "Yet" is more like the line about diplomacy: "Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell such that they will look forward to the trip." "But" is a bullet, setting the person up then shooting them down. "Yet", especially when used frequently, is more like arsinic.

Quotes from Hazrat Inayat Khan

A man's inclination is the root of the tree of his life.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

All names and forms are the garbs and covers under which the one life is hidden.

- Hazrat Inayat Khan

As man rises above passion, so he begins to know what is love.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Believe in God with childlike faith; for simplicity with intelligence is the sign of the Holy Ones.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Every soul has a definite task, and the fulfillment of each individual purpose can alone lead man aright; illumination comes to him through the medium of his own talent.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Every soul has a definite task, and the fulfillment of each individual purpose can alone lead man aright; illumination comes to him through the medium of his own talent.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

He who can live up to his ideal is the king of life; he who cannot live up to it is life's slave.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

If people but knew their own religion, how tolerant they would become, and how free from any grudge against the religion of others.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Love brought man from the world of unity to that of variety, and the same force can take him back again to the world of unity from the world of variety.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Love manifests towards those whom we like as love; towards those whom we do not like as forgiveness.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

On Meditation: When he can go into the inner chamber and shut the door to every sound but to that of his soul, he will know the keynote of his life.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

The only power for the mystic is the power of love.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

The truth cannot be spoken; that which can be spoken is not the truth. - Hazrat Inayat Khan

The wise man, by studying nature, enters into unity through its variety, and realizes the personality of God by sacrificing his own.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Thought draws the line of fate.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Truth without a veil is always uninteresting to the human mind.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

When you stand with your back to the sun, your shadow is before you; but when you turn and face the sun, then your shadow falls behind you.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Whoever knows the mystery of vibrations indeed knows all things.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Whoever knows the mystery of vibrations indeed knows all things.- Hazrat Inayat Khan

Your faith in me would be of no use to me. What I need is your faith in you.- Hazrat Inayat Khan