Trying to Imagine a Place Where It's Always Safe and Warm

Part XX (My Response)

I'm going to try to restrain my opinions on your particular rooting loyalties (Duke basketball, Yankees baseball, and Lakers basketball) for a little while, but for now, I'll be glad to talk about sports fanaticism in general.

I mentioned this to you this weekend, but I really think you would enjoy Warren St. John's "Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer." St. John grew up in Birmingham, Alabama as a HUGE Crimson Tide fan, but when he decided to go to college at Columbia, he couldn't understand why no one there cared about the school's football team, when during his childhood, the Crimson Tide were the biggest thing going in the state of Alabama (sorry, Auburn fans). He goes back to Alabama, follows the team around during the 1999 season in an R.V., meets an entire cast of bizarre/lovable characters, and does a little writing about the idea of sports fanatacism in general.

The main reason that I think people are so fanatical about sports, besides the ones that you've already mentioned (triablism, vicariousness, competition) is that it provides a context in which we can experience all of these emotions that the world tells us are bad (hatred, anger, violence, revenge, etc.) in a setting where it's more socially acceptable, because, after all, it's just a game. People from the entire southeastern United States don't really hate Tim Tebow (well, maybe they do). They hate that he plays for Florida, a team that they loath.

Sports fanaticism is appealing also because it's an inviting alternative to the ambiguities of everyday life. At the end of a regular day, we may feel good about what we've done that day, we may be proud of what we've accomplished, or the day may have been an unmitigated disaster and we can't wait for it to end.

But here's the thing: All of that exists in this subjective gray area. Sports has none of that ambiguity. At the end of the game (unless it's that sissy game of soccer), we have winners and we have losers, and you can't really get confused about who's who because the answers are there for you on the scoreboard. With that understanding, we sit down to watch our teams play knowing that we'll have some sort of resolution (whether it be good or bad) in a few hours. It allows us to experience all of those aforementioned emotions in a way that isn't exactly real.

I'll stop there and let the conversation continue.

You're up, Reeves.

What Can a Poor Boy Do Except to Sing in a Rock n Roll Band

Congratulations to Mr. John Middleton for correctly naming "A Long December" by the Counting Crows as the Monday Song of the Day. Congratulations to my sister, Katie, for coming up juuuuuuuuuust short. Sorry, Katie.

Part XIX (Luke's Response)

This is sort of a zig in topic, but the idea of balance is common to this and our conversation thus far. On my list of interests is sports fanaticism. Sports teams, in some people, arouse more passion than any other subject. More than politics, more than religion, and (sadly) more than some human relationships.

This is a topic I've wanted to discuss with you (and others who are warmly invited into this conversation via the blog). Many of these prompts we've been discussing are explicitly categorizable as, as you tag it "amateur philosophy." But some might say sports fanaticism doesn't fit there; that it isn't a serious topic. I'd argue the converse. Sports and sports fanaticism is a meaningful discussion topic. Tribalism, vicariousness, competition.

Of the discussion topics we've discussed, this one isn't merely a prompt for me. I really don't get it like many people do. Sure, there are teams for whom I root. But I don't think I treat sports like other people. I've more than once been derided, called a sports heretic. My sports loyalties aren't geographically based, nor are they divided by rivals. That is, I'm a fan of both Williams and Krzyzewski.

So because I know you've got more than one man's share of opinions on this subject, I'm leaving it vague and just saying, let's talk about sports fanaticism.

There will be blood.

Drove Up to Hillside Manor Sometime After Two A.M.

Part XVIII (My Response)

Those last few lines definitely resonate with me. As I was sitting down to gather my thoughts before writing this (yes, I tried to gather my thoughts even if what you are about to read doesn't seem logical or methodical) I tried to find the root of that need for independence, that need for self-sufficiency. It would be convenient to say that attitude/world-view comes from one place, but in truth, it is like most things in life, a combination of a variety of factors and experiences that come together to make us who we are.

Part of it is probably in my nature as a man. I'm certainly no expert on the genders, and I'm not saying that men don't have cooperative tendencies and women don't have independent tendencies, but it seems like men have a greater proclivity towards this kind of a self-sufficient, Lone Ranger taking on the problems of the world outlook. If you (Luke or the readers) think that I'm way off-base in that, I really would love to have you set my straight and settle my hash.

Another part of it is that we love to say the right things about community, accountability, and responsibility, but when it comes down to it, those things are difficult. Many times, realizing that we are out-of-balance in some portion of our lives is a painful experience, and if we can live in our own world and convince ourselves that we'll pull ourselves up by our boot-straps (even though I don't even own any boots) and back into this state of balance that we have been discussing for the past few weeks. We know rationally that we will be in a better position if we allow others to point out our blind spots and give us advice, but in our hearts, it is much easier to live in the deluded state where we can figure it all out if we only continue to grind and work towards that balance on our own.

As the Day Grows Dim I Hear You Sing a Golden Hymn

Congratulations to the recently-married Joey Halbert for correctly naming "Interstate Love Song" by Stone Temple Pilots as the Thursday Song of the Day.

Part XVII (Luke's Response)

One thing that's definitely worth mentioning- we shouldn't be leery of technology to the point that we're kept from participating in it. Whenever new gadgets/technologies come along, there are always haters. The anti-facebook people, the anti-twitter people, etc. History will reveal that I used to be one of these. Hell, I didn't have a cell phone until I was a junior in college. But now I'm of the school which says technology, especially technology that encourages togetherness among people, is good.

Usually I'm not the best judge of how balanced I am. That is to say that often people around me are aware of my imbalances before I am. And it then falls on my friends (or others around me) to alert me of such things. That's a friend's responsibility and privilege. And as technology continues to advance, and we continue to tread in ever-new directions, maybe it's on us (we friends) to help each other achieve balance.

And it's not a one and done thing. It's not like, "well we've achieved balance, good thing we don't have to worry about that again." Balance is something at which we must continually work. That last sentence is certainly true of me. One of the duties of the principal (the person in question, for example, me) is discipline. For me to achieve balance, I'm not relinquished of the need of discipline.

So achieving some balance between ever-imposing/connecting technologies and solitude is a lot like with the rest of life. We need to work hard. And we need help.

I'd guess you and I are similar in that we both like earning our own way. That is, the above-mentioned about accepting help, receiving guidance from others about our personal levels of balancedness sort of strikes a dissonant chord within us. Personally I'd rather buy a car from an Iraqi auto manufacturer than accept any help of any kind from anyone. I can handle myself, dammit! It's this stupid self-dependence which will be my constant opponent in my pursuit of balance. I'm curious for your thoughts on this self-dependent attitude. Are you like this? Does the idea of accepting advice/help rub you wrong?

Promises of What I Seemed to Be

Part XVI (My Response)

Your experience at Austin Stone is exactly how I see churches adapting technology to the ever present need to make connections and build relationships. It's not technology for technology's sake. It's using technology as a means to an end not an end itself.

The last sentence of your response really caught my attention. We really are part of a generation that, as you say, has the "attention span of a gibbon with ADHD", although I think that might be unfair to gibbons worldwide. I've noticed a change in myself just over the last few months since I started working in terms of always wanting/needing something to occupy my attention. For example, before starting this job, I had never really paid much attention to my cell phone. Sure, with my phones in the past I had received calls and received (but could not send) text messages, but that was all my phone was there for. It wasn't a source of entertainment, it wasn't something that I used like an adult version of a mobile to distract me whenever I grew bored. Now, though, that I have the BlackBerry in hand, if there's ever a dull moment, I'll look down at my phone seeing who has posted something new on Twitter or looking to see if Liverpool has yet again disappointed me. I don't think it's to the point yet where others are distracted by me being distracted, but I have noticed the change in myself, even if no one else has yet.

Here's my question out of that rambling paragraph: What do we do to find the "balance" that we've discussed previously in this conversation between technology and solitude, between the amazing advances of the modern world and the quiet moments that man has been able to experience since the very beginning of time?

They'll Kill Him With Self Confidence After Poisoning Him With Words

Part XV (Luke's Response)

Well certainly church must be effected. And must adapt. And perhaps in a way it never has before. Since the curve of technology development is exponential, and technology is what we're dealing with, it stands to reason that history hasn't seen us need to make this jump before.

There's a cynical view that church will become more techo-ish and lose a certain human element, but I'm more hopeful. I imagine community being enriched by technology, not necessarily weakened. But effort is probably the key, as you've said.

It's interesting how some church congregations have adapted already. A few months ago I went to Austin Stone with Girod. And of course I tweeted about it. Within the hour, @TheAustinStone had tweeted back to me following up on my experience. They asked if I wanted more info., they asked how my visit was, they welcomed me. All in 140 characters. It's this type of adaptation that I imagine churches making to reach this new kind of community. And perhaps it's because I'm of this "attention span of a gibbon with ADHD" generation, but for the most part, I'm cool with it.

They're Selling Postcards of the Hanging, They're Painting the Passports Brown

Part XIV (My Response)

You're right that community must look different than it did 15, 30, 60 years ago, and your anecdote regarding the hand-written letter to a client is a perfect example. First, yes, you are better than all of us. That is freely acknowledge. Now, please quit rubbing our faces in our inadequacy. Second, the key to community in a "sound-bite community" world is to be intentional about how we interact with others. The likely reason that your letter generated such a reaction from the client is that he perceived that you were very intentional in setting aside time to hand-write a letter to him, and by extension this conveyed to him that you were concerned about the problems and issues he faced as a client. It's likely that this is (at least) partially why you chose to hand-write the letter, but sometimes people perceive motives from our actions simply by the shape those actions take. An email would have had the same content as a handwritten letter, but the handwritten letters conveys a sense of focus and attention to a specific situation that an email might not convey.

My question to you is: if community must look different than it did 15, 30, 60 years ago, how does that affect the most meaningful community in many peoples' lives, the church? I realize that dissertations have been written on such a topic, and it's far too big to answer in one blog post, but I'm very interested to read your thoughts.

You Asked Me How I Was Doing, Was That Some Kind of Joke?

Part XIII (Luke's Response)

Good thoughts on a new definition/kind of community. Spot on. And I agree that the catalyst has been technology, more specifically the internet. Contact with people nowadays requires zero effort and almost zero intentionality. Does this lead to "soundbite community"? Where our relationships are as shallow as our contact is short?

Though it's tempting, I can't in good conscience say that community/relationships now are less meaningful than 15, 30, 60 years ago. People are different than they used to be. I don't need to cite a source for that claim, I think everyone would agree. Technology has changed us, such that for the function community served 60 years ago to be served again today, community must look different.

Last week after a long series of events with a certain client, I wrote him a note thanking him for his help/patience/cooperation. He called me when he received the letter, in shock. He couldn't believe that people wrote handwritten letters anymore. Now I'm not bragging, I'm just saying I'm better than most people. But really, the fact that he was floored speaks to a change in people, and by extension a change in the way our relationships/communities look.

I Won't Be Much For Conversation If We Go Into the Rest of This

Current Reading
American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and The Making of a Nation by Jon Meacham

The Heavy Stuff Ain't Quite at Its Heaviest By the Time It Gets Out to Suburban Minneapolis

Part XII (My Response)

I've enjoyed an episode of "Lopez Tonight*." That's the first time in my whole life I've ever typed that. Thanks for sharing that moment with me.

It's pretty tough to argue with the idea that we each have our own community to isolation ratio. It's also pretty tough to argue with the idea that J.D. Salinger's was pretty heavy on the isolation and light on the community. The thing that fascinates me about Salinger is that "Catcher in the Rye" was published in 1951 when Salinger was 32. He goes on to release a few more items throughout the next twelve years, and his last published work appeared in the New Yorker in June 1965. That means that he lived almost 45 more years (almost half his life) without publishing anything else. That is what is amazing to me.

How many writers/musicians/actors/chemists/lawyers/architects/professors/doctors/etc. would receive critical acclaim in their profession 1/3rd of the way of their life, work until the 1/2 way point in their life in that same career, and then just remove themselves from that career and make no further contributions in that field?

Perhaps this ties in with our discussion about how each of us has our own isolation/community ratio, but I think that with the way that technology has changed our interactions with each other, that isolation/community shift in the world as a whole has gone towards the community side of the ledger. That's not to say, though, that the community shift I'm talking about is what people would have called "community" 30 or even 15 years ago. It's this kind of quasi-community where I'm interacting with people on a much greater frequency through avenues like Facebook, Twitter, email, text messages, or even phone calls, but all of those avenues may crowd out more conventional face to face community experiences.

*This is not even remotely true.

Remember the Promise as a Kid You Made

Part XI (Luke's Response)

Back to the isolation/community issue. I think we agree that a balance between the two is best. But I want to think longer on the subject. Especially in a post-J.D. Salinger world (as we've briefly discussed), I find the idea of hermits (hermititude?) fascinating. Although we know little of Salinger, do you imagine he achieved a balance? Or do you imagine he went off the isolation deep end?

Generally I'd claim that man exists on a level that is "natural" to him until there is impetus for change. That is to say, every man is at every moment in balance. When he encounters something causing dissonance with his held beliefs/values, he acts in accordance with what's required for him to retain balance. For example- Owen has value system ZYX. At some point in his life, he encounters W. Now it's decision time. W doesn't fit into his value system of ZYX. So he either must adopt W or disregard it. After that his balance is again achieved.

I say Salinger did in fact achieve balance, not according to you or me or this mysterious "Owen", but according to Salinger. I think his isolation/community ratio was something like 90/10, where a normal social human might be closer to 50/50, or probably more accurately 10/90.

I also think specifically one's isolation/community ratio varies with age/maturity/season-in-life, etc. We've both admitted to a felt propensity toward introversion as we age, so our I/C ratio is different now than, for example, freshmen year.

Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini. That's the first time in my whole life I've ever typed that. Thank you for sharing that moment with me.

Forget About Instinct, It's Not What Pays

Part X (My Response)

I agree with you that as a moral policy, extremism, or at least the striving towards an extreme, is the only way to go. I think there is a distinction from our earlier conversation about balance, especially in the context of the isolation v. community debate, where the decision is not necessarily a "moral" choice.

I guess morals are whatever we choose to give value to in our lives, what directs us in the way we make decisions on a daily basis, and how we choose to live, but it seems like there is something to gained from living a balanced life in the isolation vs. community context that cannot be gained by living in a morally lukewarm/apathetic manner towards others. There is some way to hold those two ideas in tension, balance and extremism, and I'm sure someone much wiser than yours truly would be able to paint a better picture of what that looks like in a human being's life.

On the idea of being both extreme while also being non-abrasive, I agree that that person is as rare as the proverbial Native American rapper, but the reason for that is likely that if you are truly extreme in your beliefs on how the world such operate on matters both large and small, you will do whatever you can to make that so. As I wrote earlier in our conversation, this desire often comes in conflict with the viewpoints and lives of others, who may be extremely devoted to their vision of how the world should operate.

If you are an extremist, it would seem to be a betrayal of your views to yield to the other person's perspective on an issue that you are devoted to. That's why it seems we must be extreme about the right kinds of things (care and concern for others, love, peace, justice, hope, etc., etc., etc.). How someone arrives at which are the "right kinds of things", well, as they say in East Texas, that is a whole 'nother can of worms.

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that Christianity/religion is a good personal policy, but a bad political one. In my mind, here's the reason why: From a Christian perspective, I want the separation of church and state, not simply because I think that religion is bad for government, but more for the reason that government is bad for religion. When I read the Gospels/New Testament, I keep reading Jesus talk about how we are supposed to be in this world, but not of this world.

The church is supposed to be counter-cultural. It's supposed to exist in this sphere that is outside of government, outside of the realm of political power as calculated by the world, outside of "the establishment." Throughout the history of the church, we as Christians have always gotten into trouble when we became obsessed with intertwining government and religion. I'm all for the promotion of religion, but that promotion should be done by the church, and not by any power gained by being co-opted by the government or attempting to co-opt the government.

I'm starting to write a novel here, so I'll stop for now.

Leavings the Last Thing I Thought You Would Do

Part IX (Luke's Response)

What if I postulated the following: not only is extremism generally the best policy, but it's the only moral policy. Such an argument would be an extension (albeit a distant extension) of the idea that the opposite of love isn't hate; the opposite of love is apathy. That is to say, lukewarmness is the ultimate evil; the stance for which there is no moral defense. This principle would oblige one to shed a commonly held view of balance as the ideal. "Balance" would either need to be redefined or abandoned.I'm curious of your response to such a value system as herein-above described. (You're welcome for writing "herein-above." I figure you probably don't get enough legalese.)

I agree with your statement that the real question has to do with our interactions with others. I actually think one can be both extreme and non-abrasive. Although, such a person is ultra-rare, almost a myth, like a Native American rapper.

I also empathize with your extremism/religion mental connection. Religious extremism is probably the most public. Last week in an office discussion about local politics and election time, the topic of church and state came up. My opinion (the correct opinion) is that a step towards a divorce between church and state is a step in the right direction. The actual wording of the proposed action was in the vein of posting the 10 Commandments on governmental/school buildings, etc. I made a statement that America must make moves in a direction away from a theocracy. A statement for which I was silently, ocularly persecuted. I said Christianity/religion is a good personal policy, but a bad political one.

I realize a discussion of church and state is not the same as a discussion on the virtue of extremism, but it's where my mind went. I'm just along for the ride.

Who Knew a Day Would Turn Into a Week

I guess this really isn't the way my Dad and Grandma would want to make the front page of the paper, but as you can read here, my Grandmother is probably the toughest 84 (almost 85!) year old woman in East Texas.

This Time Will Be Different Until I Do It Again

Congratulations to Mr. Joseph Halbert (who's getting married this weekend, folks) for correctly naming "Wishlist" by Pearl Jam as the Tuesday Song of the Day.

Part VIII (My Response)

The virtue of extremism...it's such a dirty word these days, isn't it?

Whenever we want to denigrate someone or something, we label it "extreme" or call them "an extremist." I do think you're right, though. There are some things about which we should be extreme. Like you wrote, it seems that the only way to be a true follower of a religion is to be an "extreme follower" of that religion. Much of what Jesus calls us to, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, is incredibly extreme. When I go back and read Matthew 5-7, I always notice how some portions make me very uncomfortable, and I know that's a good thing.

I think the real question of the virtue of extremism is what it causes us to do in our interactions with others. We may be extremely devoted to our cause, and in that devotion we lose sight of the values of others (i.e. the jihad that radical Islamic figures have declared on "the West" wherein their extreme devotion to their interpretation of the Koran has caused them to do great harm to those with whom they disagree) or we may be extremely devoted to our cause, and in that devotion we are attuned to the values of others (i.e. Jesus' call to love our enemies, to look for those in need, and to love without concern for reciprocity). I don't mean this to fall into the typical Islam v. Christianity divide, but the topics of extremism and religion are intertwined in my brain.

Your thoughts?

I Wish I Was a Messenger and All the News Was Good

Congratulations to Mr. Peter Pope for correctly naming "Babylon" by David Gray as the Monday Song of the Day. It should be noted, though, that even if Peter's answer had been wildly incorrect, I probably still would have given him credit, because let's be honest, when you're in P.C. at Baylor Law, you need all the encouragement you can get.


Now, on to the next part of my continuing conversation with Luke Reeves

Part VII: (Luke's Response)

Now more on the nature of balance- are there things (causes, ideas, etc.) about which one should be extreme?

It seems that "balance" could be part of the answer to many of life's questions. But is extremism ever the best/right/reasonable answer? A religious person might answer that one ought to be extreme in their devotion to that religion. A political person might might answer similarly in regards to politics. And so let the conversation begin: the virtue of extremism. Go.

Sky is Fading Red to Blue

I was thoroughly pleased to see this gentleman in the Nashville Airport yesterday: That's Chuck Klosterman for those of you scoring at home. I decided not to talk with Chuck, if only because I would looked like I was auditioning for a revival of "The Chris Farley Show."

Easily my best airport celebrity sighting since my parents and I shared a plane with the 1984 Boston Celtics.

Situations Running Through My Head

Part VI (My Response)

I agree with you on the intrinsic value of activities and also agree with you on the idea that a meaningful life can be lived in isolation, but that may not mean that you have lived the "most" meaningful life. It's that pesky idea of potential. The idea of potential drives some people to paralysis because they're constantly wondering what is necessary to reach their full potential, and in that constant search, they never actually start moving down a path towards development. On the other hand, there are people who have no conception of what they might be able to become.

This is a bit off topic, but I think we're working free form here in a manner akin to jazz, but I do wonder what I will be like in ten, twenty, thirty, or fifty years if I actually live to see such milestones. It's convenient to think that I'll be pretty similar to the way I am now, but the idea not growing and expanding, moving and learning, developing into something different strikes me as a deeply frightening one. I guess that the problem that people and organizations have had to deal with throughout the ages: How do we keep our core values intact while also being sensitive to the way the world, and those who move in it, are changing?

I see the idea of pride in very similar manner to our discussion of isolation versus community. It once again comes down to balance. An excess amount of pride/selfishness can cause me to lose track of those around me and be sensitive to their needs. On the other hand (I need to find an alternate method of rhetorically shifting to the opposing viewpoint), an extreme lack of pride or selfishness can cause to never think of how we might develop, how we might grow, and how we might achieve. I'm not sure if I would go to the same place on the idea of selfishness as Rand, but I think a healthy amount of pride and self-worth is necessary for the greater good.

We May Race and We May Run, We'll Not Undo What Has Been Done

Part V (Luke's Response)

I think there is such a thing as intrinsic good. The very act of reading, for example, can be in and of itself good. That is to say, I think a man literally stuck alone on a deserted island can live a meaningful life. He can engage in behaviors that in and of themselves have value, and thereby live a meaningful life. In the real world, I probably agree with your balance idea. While a man can live a meaningful life as a hermit, the most meaningful life is probably shared with people.

Chris Seidman's talk this morning at Highland was about pride. One thing he basically said was pride was the root of satan's fall and the root of man's fall.

My question to you is related to pride. What are your thoughts on terms like 'selfishness' and 'self-esteem', etc? Keep in mind I'm reading Rand, who once wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which I've read), but I see pride in a different way now than I once did. Your thoughts? I'm leaving this is purposely vague.

Without a Penny to Spend, They Dress to the Letter

Part IV (My Response to Luke)

On this issue, I come down on the side of balance. I would call it Aristotelian, but then I would just sound like a blow-hard. It seems that from my observations, both of myself and others, that we all need to have time of personal reflection and solitude in order to discover ourselves and really understand what is going on in our heads/hearts, but if we don't spend some of our lives interacting and being challenged by others, we'll always fall a little bit short of where we might have been if we had been exposed to challenging ideas/circumstances from others.

With that said, it seems that we have an interesting situation in the modern, wired world. People probably spend more time in isolation physically than ever before with things like TV, iPods, the internet, etc. At the same time, though, we have all of those things fighting for our attention, so do we ever really spend time, as you frame it, stuck alone on an island in self-reflection? I don't think we do.

I know that I have to try to balance the time I spend in isolation versus community because I know that without a balance between the two, I'll either become a hermit or I'll become co-dependent on others, always needing their input and validation for everything I do.

Your thoughts?

JTS

With Me Hanging Round on the Street or Here on the Beach

Part III (Luke's Response)

I'm curious for your thoughts on an idea. It's the classic solo vs. community issue.

Can a man stuck alone on an island live a deep life or does a deep life require others with which to engage and share?

When You Meet 'Em, Everyone's a Fool

Part II: My Response to Luke

Ah, law. The world of the disclaimer.

I completely agree with the sentiment about a bit too much introversion being a bad thing. I've noticed that spending a bit too much time in my own world with my head in a book/watching sports/etc. has become an issue since I started law school. I attribute a lot of that to the fact that I've told myself that I made the best friends that I could hope for at ACU (yourself included) and that I would decide to spend my friendship capital on the friends I already had rather than expanding those friendships on a deep level to people in law school. I still feel good about that decision, but I have noticed that I find myself content on a Friday night to sit and read or watch a movie rather than trying to seek out other activities. That's also probably a function of the fact that I feel as though I'm in this transition period before Amanda and I get married and that I know I won't probably spend my free-time in the same way once we get hitched, and that's almost certainly a very good thing.

With all of that said, I know that I need to seek out these opportunities with people to really share myself and make connections, because in the end, that's all we really have in this world. Sounds cliched, but it's true. Most clichés are, I guess.

JTS

We Rarely Practice Discern

Ladies and gentleblogreaders, in the hopes of reviving this here blog, I'm going to start running a series of emails that I am currently exchanging with the gentleman pictured with me above* (the one, the only, Luke Reeves).

I'll run the emails in a format where I'll post one of Luke's emails starting today, my response tomorrow, and continue alternating the responses to infinity and beyond.

Please feel free to offer your responses, thoughts, and insights.

Here goes nothing...

Part I

Justin,

Firstly, I loudly applaud the disclaimer at the foot of your email.

Secondly, I appreciate the note. As I reflect on the tail end of last year, I realize I spent a little too much time not acting human. By that I mean holing up at my house and not really interacting with people. As time goes on, a propensity for introversion is rearing its ugly head, so holing up becomes easier and easier. But that's probably not what's best. Hence the goal.

So bring it. What's been your topic of thought of late?

Again, thanks for starting this conversation.

reeves

*The picture above was taken immediately after the David Tyree catch in Super Bowl XLII. At some point in the distant future, I will direct my grandchildren to this picture to demonstrate just how improbable that catch was.

The Age of Miracles, The Age of Sound

Current ReadingLenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire by David Remnick

At Midnight All the Agents

Congratulations to my Dad for correctly naming "Long Cool Woman (in a Black Dress)" by The Hollies as the Monday (February 15) Song of the Day.

Current Reading
Namath: A Biography by Mark Kriegel