American society, I think, is built around isolation - and then for some reason, we find it odd that so many people are depressed. How can it be other? when there is no community to support the individual so very much of the time, nor an easy means to build one. Loneliness has a definite deleterious effect on the psyche, and in today's world we tend to ignore that.

I don't mean simply being alone. Many people enjoy being alone, and most need solitude at some point or another. Solitude in itself isn't harmful. Unfortunately, it's become but another name for isolation, which is not the same thing. Isolation, rather, is driving to work in a closed car, going into a closed office, and proceeding to do that day's work without any meanigful interaction with other people. Perhaps that's a rather pessimistic viewpoint; yet I think there are any number of people that go through life with that exact pattern. Far too often, there is no sense of community. It's quite possible to go months or years without ever speaking to one's neighbours on the opposite side of the fence - how much easier, then, to go to church and leave without speaking, to go to school without interacting, to go home and sit at the computer or watch television? It's an undeniable trend in our culture.

What is this doing to us, as a people?

Boredom is a very blunt thing. It doesn't tend to creep up on you at all - it just is. Sometimes it's easy enough to fight off with a book or a scrap of paper or a conversation, but other times you're reduced to wandering the house, making random phone calls, and searching for something to do. Probably I should go practice with my harp or keyboard, or else finish filling in the blanks to the study guide (bleh - talk about preaching to the choir,) or write some more on this story. Failing that, I could always go embroider a shirt. But then, that's the thing about boredom: it strikes hardest in portraying every activity as boring, as routine, until there's nothing left except for the unusual; and there's an animal that doesn't take well to calling as if on demand!

For some reason, Joy, I just thought you might like this -


Look away across the bay
Yankee gunboat come this way
Uncle Sam gonna save the day
Come tomorrow we all gonna pay...

And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn

Something dead under the bed
Local diplomats hang their heads
Never mind what the government said
They're either lying or they've been mis-led...

And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn

Vietnam was yesterday
Kabul and Baghdad today
How would they ever make the late news pay
If they didn't have the CIA?

And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn

Here it comes, the loaded gun
"Gotta keep the bad guys on the run"
You'd buy or bury everyone
For liberty and life
And just plain fun

And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn

~Bruce Cockburn

There is a difference, no matter what some people say, between a rant and a sermon. One is far superior to the other.

When a pastor stands up to give a sermon, the listeners can be (supposedly) assured that the pastor has researched the topic and is giving a Biblical interpretation - is, in effect, teaching. The message should include ample Scripture reading as backup for whatever the speaker says. While personal opinions can be voiced, they should always be labeled clearly as personal opinions and not given the weight of either Scripture or tradition.

A rant, on the other hand, no matter how justifiable, no matter how true, is not a sermon. The possible veracity of the statements made means nothing without support from both the Bible and logical arguments; if tradition is also supporting the conclusion, so much the better. The problem lies here: a rant by its very nature ignores the need of further proof than personal opinion. Impassioned rhetoric does no good to either the listeners or the speaker (save possibly - possibly - as a form of catharsis) without a solid foundation of well-researched and reasoned fact. When the rant does not even show a clear link between main points, then better to just leave it.

I will grant that some issues in the Church today are divisive, but that has been so for the past two millennia. Hot tempers flare and spark, but amount to nothing save more problems for cooler heads to solve. Everyone is welcome to his own personal opinion - everyone is welcome to rant on an incendiary topic if she wishes - but rants are not appropriate for the pulpit.

Well. Three days, and I finally realized that the anonymous setting for comments was turned off, and fixed it. Go me. Now I just have to figure out the rest of this thing... Probably take a while.

Anyway, it's beautiful right now, even if it will be hot as Satan's living room in a few hours, and almost I want to snag a laptop and take this outside. Still, I can see everything from right here, and the doors are already open - and none the other computers will run certain programs. I'll go out to the Market in a little while, and then the Queen Bean, and drink tea, and chat with Kelly about life, the universe, and everything. Perhaps I'll see if a Queen of Hearts can be made without coffee...

Sleep is a very curious thing. You never really notice it until it goes missing, and by then you're stuck with the consequences of having too little. For a light sleeper by nature or design, there's many things to wake one - heat, the dog, an odd sound out the window, a sibling turning over or sleeptalking, a strange dream, a fractional amount of light... And then, once wakened, the night's never quite as good.

Perhaps, for the remainder of this heat wave, I'll sleep down on the terrace instead.

Let's see: which of these is better suited for an army commander?

On the one hand, we have Feanor - a hothead who acts first and acts questions later, prone to bouts of extreme possessiveness and rebellion, not to mention manic depression. He is a perfect example of when the line between genius and insanity has been crossed. After swearing a highly blasphemous oath, angering the Gods, and getting himself and all of his people banned from their native paradise, he murdered his own kin in order to steal their transports in chase of a thief. Upon arrival he declared himself King and promptly got himself killed trying to fight a fire-demon.

On the other, we have Finrod: the perfect example of the Philosopher King and Warrior. Though he didn't seek for power, he wound up King of most of the continent due to wise decisions and taking the details into account. Friendly, courteous, wise, trustworthy, and honorable, his prime concern is for his people - and he's not exclusive when making that lable, disdaining racial prejudice. He led a very long military career as CIC of an enormous nation and managed to keep the majority of his troops alive while still maintaining morale and a winning streak. His views on eternity and philosophy are well-known and highly insightful, and his underfunded and undermanned covert ops mission against a world power was very nearly successful.

Now, really: which of these two would you rather have in charge of any body of people, let alone an army?

Mae govannen - maybe.

Blogs. Woohoo. This is going to be so much fun, I can tell...

Right. Sarcasm done now - mostly. I'm sure it'll crop up again later. It always does, after all - but that's for later. Currently I am sitting at Bethany's laptop typing my first post, so I am obliged to be somewhat courteous and refrain from ranting overmuch. Later, when I have more to say, I'll probably say it. Right now, all I really want to tell you is: Never say bite me to a vampire.

Ta, all.