Get Real

Everyone knows about the proliferation of social networking sites on the Internet: MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Friendster, et al.  There's something powerful about using the fluid and networked nature of the Internet to connect to people based on interest, geography, and degrees of separation.

You know what's even better?  Real networking.  Face to face conversations, glad-handing at events, bumping into colleagues on the street.  Social networking sites might leverage the efficiency aspects of technology, but they can't hold a candle to the nuances and intimacy of human contact. 

Please don't misread this as a bash on social networking sites.  I'm just saying that too many people are either/or.  They're either all about the virtual or all about the real.  There are benefits and shortcomings to both.  So whether for social, spiritual, or professional reasons, you'll be better off working both. 

A Parade During Her Childhood

Although my sports allegiances remain firmly with the teams of my youth, particularly the A's and Raiders, I have taken to rooting for Philly pro teams as well.  Some is out of wanting to fit in - this is definitely a football city, so we'll be raising our kids as Eagles fans lest they get beat up.  Some is out of getting caught up on the bandwagon - who can forget the Sixers' magical run in 2000-2001 or the Eagles' equally magic run in 2004-2005?  And, quite frankly, some is out of wanting the city to get the psychological and financial boost that comes when its teams win. 

But I think the biggest reason to root, root, root for the home team is to be able to take my daughter to a championship parade on South Broad Street.  The city hasn't had one since 1983, when the Sixers won it all.  Who knew at the time that there would be a 20+ year drought, given that the Phillies and Flyers had recently won it all, and the Eagles had just made their first trip to the Super Bowl. 

And yet it is now 23 years and counting.  And the short-term prospects don't look good.  The Flyers I don't follow, but it's hard to live in Philly and not know that they're stinking up the joint this year.  The Sixers and Eagles have hung their hats largely on Allen Iverson and Donovan McNabb, respectively, and it looks like both are on the descent, good enough to command star money and bring out the fans but not good enough to bring home the prize.  And let's not get started on the Phils. 

Jada likely leaves the nest in 2023.  By then, will I have had the chance to take her to South Broad for a confettied, streamered parade?  That will have been 40 years since 1983 and 17 years from now.  With four pro teams, what are the chances that Philly will go oh-fer that entire time period?  Nevertheless, like a true Philly sports fan, I ain't holdin' my breath.  After all, just in the last five years, we've experienced "close but no cigar" runs by the Sixers, Flyers, and Eagles - not to mention St. Joe's, Villanova, Smarty Jones, and Barbaro.  On the other hand, like a true Philly sports fan, I also say, "All that means we're due."  For the sake of my daughter, let's hope so. 

University and City

I am increasingly grateful to live in a neighborhood called University City, for universities and cities - and their interconnectedness - continue to rise in importance to our modern economy.  Consider first what cities offer universities: employment and entertainment options for students, research and commercial opportunities for faculty, and a vibrant, amenity-rich environment for all.  Consider second what universities offer cities: student purchasing power, knowledge economy brains, and high-end equipment/services.  Consider third what universities and cities can together offer their regions: academic/industry collaborations, agglomerations of intellectual capital, and cultural resources for all ages. 

Now consider all of the demographic groupings that are flocking to campus and city.  We all know about yuppies, who are drawn by high-skilled jobs and/or a "Sex and the City" social life.  But some of the most attractive urban places for such young professionals happen to be more attractive because they are not only urban but collegiate.  Austin, Boston, and Charlotte come to mind - cool cities for post-grads because the density of young'uns makes for a plethora of musical and romantic and recreational possibilities. 

Second, there seems to be an influx of young families to urban settings.  Inner ring suburbs are becoming no different than cities in terms of the stereotypical negative amenities, like crime and infrastructural deterioration.  Outer ring suburbs are just a little too Wisteria Lane for young parents who prefer easier on-ramps to their bygone youthful socializings.  Cities, on the other hand, offer rich cultural and social opportunities and are cleaning up their acts when it comes to safe streets and tidy sidewalks.  And an abundance of innovative school options, well-kept parks, and kid-friendly museums make raising kids in the city a viable way to go.  

Finally, it's no secret more boomers are retiring to cities, active as they want to continue to be in their post-career years.  It turns out being near universities is also something boomers like, whether to actually go back to school to keep their minds sharp or tap into a long-buried passion or simply to be a part of the hustle and bustle of campus life.  These demographic and geographic trends are making for an interesting mash-up of not only study, work, and leisure, but also of the young and restless with the old and restless. 

I guess what I'm trying to say in all this is that as communities wrangle to amp up their urban and university amenities to tap into all these goodies described above, I feel all the more lucky to already be sitting at the nexus of a vibrant campus and a vibrant city. 

Raising Funds for"Dear Zachary"

Below is a message from my high-school friend Kurt Kuenne, who some of
you know and/or whose films you might have seen. Kurt is one of the
most decent people I know, and his decency translates into films that
are not only technically sound but morally uplifting. He's working on
an important and personal film project and he needs help. Take a look
at the website and trailer he mentions below, and if you're interested
in supporting this project, please do so.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Please help - trailer for Kurt Kuenne's "Dear Zachary" now on line

Dear Friends,

Kurt Kuenne here; I hope this email finds you all well. I have a very
big favor to ask of you, and I apologize for the mass email, but it
would take me forever to contact each of you wonderful folks
individually about this, so I'm going for the modern shorthand. Here
it is:

As many of you well know, for the past four and a half years I have
been working on a documentary film about the life and murder of my
lifelong friend Dr. Andrew Bagby (1973-2001). Andrew was killed 5
years ago by his ex-girlfriend, who fled the U.S. for the Canadian
province of Newfoundland and went on to give birth to his son after
Andrew's death. I began making this movie for that little boy,
Zachary, as a way for him to get to know his father when he came of
age. Because Canada let Andrew's killer walk free on bail while
awaiting extradition, she had the opportunity to commit another murder,
killing herself and baby Zachary on August 18, 2003. After a lot of
soul searching and conversations with Andrew's parents, we ultimately
decided that I would transform my film for Zachary into the story of
what happened and release it to the general public. It is titled as it
was begun, "DEAR ZACHARY: A LETTER TO A SON ABOUT HIS FATHER." The
film will become a powerful tool in the Bagby's fight to get the bail
laws in Canada changed, so that a tragedy like this will never happen
again. Andrew's father David has written an excellent book about this
nightmare which is being published in the spring; my goal is to have
my film done by May to coincide with its publication, and to make the
deadline for the 2007 Toronto Film Festival. We aim to hit the media
with a strong one-two punch next year, book and movie working in
concert.

In order to meet this goal, we need to raise some money. This film is
not for profit, it is fiscally sponsored by the International
Documentary Assocation, a 501-C(3) organization, and all donations to
it are tax deductible. All proceeds from the film will go to the Dr.
Andrew Bagby Scholarship at Latrobe Area Hospital in Latrobe, PA and
the Dr. Andrew Bagby and son Zachary Bursary at Memorial University,
Newfoundland. Every contribution helps, no matter how small.

I've cut a 10 minute trailer to give everyone a sense of what the
finished feature film will be like. It is now on line at:

www.dearzachary.com

If you are moved by what you see and would like to contribute to the
cause, that would be wonderful. Tax deductible donations can be made
on line, or checks may be mailed to the International Documentary
Association, or donations can also be made to me directly (thereby
avoiding the IDA's 5% sponsorship fee). All the information is on the
site.

PLEASE forward this email to everyone you know, and please ask them to
forward it to everyone they know and so on. I believe we actually have
a shot at making change. On October 4th, the government of
Newfoundland released a review and investigation officially finding
that Zachary's death was preventable if the departments of Child, Youth
and Family Services and Child Protection had done their jobs right and
removed Zachary from his dangerous mother's custody; the head of the
department resigned, and politicians were squirming and tripping over
themselves to endorse the review's recommendations and begin their
implementation. The Provincial Minister of Justice took the review's
findings to the federal government to begin discussing the topic of
bail reform. This investigation and review would not have happened if
Andrew's parents hadn't stood up and screamed for change. That was
Step One, and it has been successful -- but the issue of bail still has
not been addressed. That is Step Two in this endeavor; David Bagby's
book and my movie are going to be the juggernaut that keeps this issue
in the public eye until it is seen to completion.

Thank you so much for your time and help. Check out the trailer. I
hope that you will join me on what has been the most rewarding journey
of my life. I sincerely believe we have a shot at making the world a
safer, better place.

All the best,

Kurt
Writer/Director/Composer, "Dear Zachary"
www.dearzachary.com

An Even Greater Forgiveness

One positive thing that has come out of the tragic murders of the
Amish schoolgirls earlier this year is that people have marveled at
the Amish's forgiving spirit. Even the most irreligious person had to
give credit for the strength and decency required to forgive such
savagery.

Why it hasn't translated to an awe of God's forgiveness of sinful men
and women is mostly because we simply don't equate our transgressions
to those of that cold-blooded murderer. In our post-Christian
society, we take the redemptive work of Jesus the Christ for granted
not because we think too small of the debt He paid but because we
think too small of the debt we owed.

Yet it is no less true today than when the Old Testament prophets or
St. Augustine or Jonathan Edwards spoke out: we are all depraved, and
our depravity demands God's wrathful judgment.

I recall attending a prayer meeting on the night of 9/11, and being
moved to my knees at this thought: if I, myself just a man, am full of
righteous indignation towards the terrorists, how much more should God
be in a position to judge our own sinful deeds? In that moment, I was
not experiencing a diminishing of the despicable nature of those
murderous actions, but rather a magnifying of the perfect nature of
God. And, myself just a man, I was overcome with fear and trembling.

We will see few deeds nobler than what the Amish have done since that
awful tragedy, in forgiving and calling for forgiveness and even
reaching out in love to the family of the murderer. But I know of at
least one nobler deed: a Lord and Savior who willingly, meekly, and
triumphantly submitted to the cross, for the purpose of satisfying an
even greater wrath and of securing an even greater forgiveness.

Useful Players in this Urban Age

David Thompson, my friend and fellow urban Christian, is fond of
referencing the description of the new Jerusalem at the very back of
the Bible in the book of Revelation and saying, "We're heading towards
a heavenly city, so you can join me now or join me later." Meaning
that understanding how to be an urban Christian isn't just relevant
for Christians who happen to currently live in urban settings, but for
all Christians. Because though we started in a garden, we're going to
end up in a city.

It turns out that even on this side of glory, we're heading towards an
urban future. At the 2006 Urban Age Conference in Berlin earlier this
month, Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution presented "An Urban
Agenda for an Urban Age"
(http://www.brookings.edu/views/speeches/katz/20061110_berlin.htm).
In his speech, he argued that our future will be an urban one, both in
terms of numbers (today, a majority of the world's population lives in
cities) and issues.

The issues that our world faces and will face make just as good a
point as my friend David that it behooves all of us Christians to
understand cities. In quoting stat after stat, Katz explained that
the Urban Age would be defined by sheer numbers, explosive growth,
mobility/migration/diversity, complexity, and connectivity. He shared
that the issues facing such global cities as New York, Mexico City,
Johannesburg, London, and Shanghai, are the very ones that will define
the Urban Age: balancing massive sprawl with environmental
sustainability, battling violent crime and racial exclusivity, and
finding enough money for transportation infrastructure and public
services. He noted that the challenges that plague the world's cities
– poverty and climate change and prejudice – are the very things that
are best solved in urban places.

Finally, he proposes that the solutions to the problems we will face
in the Urban Age boil down to three P's: people who are linked
together, policies that are linked together, and places that are
linked together. In other words, it will be about the integration of
city builders across disciplines, the integration of programs that
address multiple avenues, and the integration of the urban form with
the sociological and psychological needs.

If this is so, should not urban Christians then be useful players in
this Urban Age? We who, as a unit, are connected, cross-disciplinary,
and multi-cultural? Who care about things like bigotry and indigence
and violence? Who have a category for both the physical and the
spiritual, the economic and the environmental? Who daily seek to make
cities places where the tax burden is fair and crime is deterred and
jobs are available and the most vulnerable are cared for? Would not
an urban Christian perspective be useful to this age, and point others
to the age to come?

If that's so, then let me modify what my friend David likes to say,
add suggest: "We're heading towards an urban world, so you can join me
now or join me later." Would that more Christians, whether currently
in cities or not, become more sensitized to urban issues, that this
side of glory would be better off, and the other side of glory more
eagerly anticipated.

Translation Services

Organizational design folks often talk about leadership, management,
and administration. Leaders are the ones who set the direction for an
organization, and serve as the public face in communicating that
vision both internally and externally. Administrators are the ones
who actually do the work, and thus their job is all about production
and execution.

And managers? Having been in middle management for most of my adult
life, this is the perspective I'm most familiar with. And the more I
think about it, the more I realize that while managers have a myriad
of roles and responsibilities, they all fall under one heading:
translation.

Consider first that the vision a leader casts for his or her
organization must be translated into discrete programs and actions.
Administrators might have some input on how those programs and actions
can be best run, but it's the managers that translate fuzzy visions
into tangible deeds.

Second, as the public face of the organization, the leader accepts all
the glory and all the blame. But before and after the glowing or not
so glowing front page story, individuals and teams must be held
accountable. It's the manager that translates general principles into
specific accountability mechanisms, so that even as the leader is
getting toasted or roasted, the responsible individuals and teams are
also receiving their rewards or punishments.

Third, managers translate upward, from administration to leadership.
Broadly speaking, administrators need to know they have access to
their leaders' ears, and thus that their managers will go to bat for
them, whether it be a grievance or a request. Managers also need to
filter up trends and ideas that are percolating at the line level, so
that their leaders have enough dots to connect to be informed about
what's going on and what decisions need to be made.

That's a lot of translating to do! Not surprisingly, middle
management can be a lonely experience. Leaders buddy up to other
leaders, and administrators usually enjoy a high sense of identity and
camaraderie amongst themselves. But managers are often caught in the
middle, having a line to everyone and the understanding of no one.
Work satisfaction notwithstanding, managers have to figure out how to
keep on doing that translating, no matter how isolating it feels, in
order for their organizations to be successful. Let's hope our
managers are getting the technical training and the emotional support
to do just that.

No Competition

Earlier this month, I had to make two phone calls in the same morning.
One was to a government agency and one was to a manufacturer's
customer service center. The outcomes could not have been different.

The government agency I was calling because I had filled out an
application for a certain document, which they had processed fairly
promptly, but now I needed that processed document to be further
authenticated by the same agency. So I sent in the processed document
with a note to that effect and a self-addressed stamped envelope.
They sent the document back to me, unauthenticated, with a note saying
it would be $20 and a blank application form. Clearly, they assumed I
was asking for the document to be processed, not realizing I had
already processed it and just needed it to be authenticated. So I
sent it back to them with a clearer note and another SASE. Again they
sent it back to me, this time with a note saying, "We've already done
this," as if they couldn't understand why I'd keep sending them a
completed document. So I called the agency and was told their
computers were down and that I should call back again later on in the
morning. Which I did, only to be told "I'll see what I can do," which
always makes me nervous, especially when it comes to government
agencies.

Contrast that to the second call I made that morning. A household
item had broken and, noticing on the manual when I was trying to fix
it that the product had a lifetime warranty, I called the 800 number
and asked to have the part that had broken sent out to me. A chipper
woman apologized profusely for the part having broken, professionally
collected my information, and said she would expedite the part out to
me. Lo and behold, the very next day the part was waiting for me in
the mail.

I think I've ranted about this before, but the fact that this happened
again kind of proves my point. What motivated the second entity to be
some prompt, in comparison with the first entity? Most of it is lack
of competition: if the second entity doesn't take care of me, I can
buy my household item from dozens of other places, but if the first
entity doesn't take care of me, what am I going to do? Hence,
competition stirs everyone to get better, and the consumer wins, in
the form of higher quality products and lower prices and more choice
and faster response.

I'm not saying government shouldn't then do anything; there are, after
all, many functions only government can do, even though it creates a
monopoly for them that might possibly lead to inferior product quality
and poorer customer experiences. But at the very least, for the
things that government doesn't have to do, for which there are dozens
of private sector alternatives for people to use, why would government
bother to be in those businesses?

Privatization guru Stephen Goldsmith, former mayor of Indianapolis,
calls this "the Yellow Pages test." That is, if I can find what I
need in the Yellow Pages, why would I as the government be doing it?

Unions, of course, despise the privatization movement. But if done
right, privatization can be good for unions. Only the vilest of union
leaders would tell you (at least in public) that what they want is to
enable their people to be lazy, second-rate, and overpaid. Instead,
they'll tell you that they just want their fair shot at the work
that's out there.

And good privatization advocates do just that, for their goal isn't
necessarily to convert public functions into private ones, but to
inject competition into functions previously administered as public
monopolies. Far from haphazardly banishing public employees from the
payroll, they give those employees the same chance as private firms to
bid on and win government business. After all, those employees just
might utilize some competitive advantage, whether previous experience
or specialized skills to do a better job than the private sector.

Because sometimes the public sector folks are actually better than the
private sector folks at getting something done. And in the end,
that's what's most important: not that the public or private sector
wins, but that competition allows us citizens to win.

Chicago Envy

Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm a lover of Philadelphia. (By
the way, does that make me a philophiladelphian?) But I have to tell
you that I am often Eagle green with envy for another big city:
Chicago.

Where to begin? First, while Philadelphia has just as much of the
negative aspects of political corruption as Chicago, Chicago seems to
enjoy more of the benefits. Concentrated power might make for
undemocratic decision-making, but sometimes that translates into
things getting done faster, bigger, and in a more coordinated fashion.
And so Chicago has done more with its skyline and its waterfront than
Philadelphia has, Navy Pier and Millennium Park being two gorgeous
examples.

Second, not only is it a bigger and meaner than Philadelphia, but it's
also at the same time nimbler and prettier. When we hired our new
school chief from Chicago a few years back, the comparison was made
that the district he operated in Chicago was twice the size of
Philadelphia's, as if running things in Philadelphia would be easy if
he could hack Chicago. Chicago's ethnic communities and sports fandom
are more vibrant and more rabid, and yet even more lovable. And while
Philadelphia is becoming a huge mecca for the bicycling world, it's
Chicago that's become far more friendly to the everyday use of biking
to work, school, and errands. Speaking of mobility, there are two big
airports that serve Chicago, and you can get to both of them with just
a subway token; not so here in Philadelphia.

Cap all this off by the fact that the 2016 Summer Olympics, which once
seemed like Philadelphia's to lose, is now probably going to be hosted
by Chicago. Philadelphia and Houston were cut from the USOC's top
five earlier this year, and then San Francisco withdrew this week
because it couldn't get a deal done for the 49ers new football
stadium, leaving just Chicago and Los Angeles, which hosted the
Olympics barely two decades ago. So while Philadelphia licks its
wounds and asks, "What if," Chicago gets to rally around new
facilities and new parks and more transit and more tourists.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drown my sorrows in a big,
greasy cheesesteak.

Running Dry

I started getting interested in global water issues in college, when I
read a number of articles about water scarcity and its adverse effects
on the poorest, youngest, and most vulnerable. Some suggested that
water and not oil would soon become the liquid that caused more
conflict in the Middle East.

Now, as then, I am astounded by the sheer numbers, as presented at the
Philadelphia Global Water Initiative's Kick-Off Conference, which I
briefly attended this morning at the University of Pennsylvania:

* more than 1 billion people lack access to improved water sources and
more than 2 billion people lack access to improved sanitation

* at any given moment, over half of the world's hospital beds are
occupied by people suffering from water-related diseases

* each year, almost 2 million people -- mostly children under the age
of 5 -- will die from diarrhea, an easily preventable water-related
disease

These and other stats were provided in Senator Paul Simon's June 2006
report to Congress, which went on to speak of the linkage between
water and disease, poverty, lack of access to education, women's
inequality, child mortality, environmental degradation, and war.
Given how vital water is to basic human life, and how relatively easy
it is to provide interventions to help people safely access it, it
astounds me how little we in America are aware of this global crisis
in the making.

Hopefully not for long, if the Philadelphia Global Water Initiative
and other such movements would have their way. Indeed, celebrities
are starting to lend their fame to the cause, including Jay-Z, Jane
Seymour, and, locally, NBC10 meteorologist (and PENN grad student) Amy
Freeze, who introduced at this morning's conference a short film
called "Running Dry." The film (which you can watch at
www.runningdry.org) features such luminaries as Shimon Peres and
Mikhail Gorbachev, and paints a stark and vivid picture of the squalor
too many of the world's children live in.

On a personal note, I could not help but think of my own daughter, who
was likely born into a dirt-poor Chinese village that lacked running
water and had sanitation issues. In other words, those stats I
rattled off above have become harder for me to rattle off as cold,
hard numbers, because I know that there are individual little boys and
girls that those numbers represent, boys and girls who should not have
to wonder where their next drink of clean water will come from, boys
and girls who should not die of diarrhea by the millions every year.

I urge you to watch the film at www.runningdry.org, and in general to
become more intellectually informed and politically active towards
global solutions to our growing water crisis. And every once in a
while, when you brush your teeth or take a shower or fill your cup
from the tap for a drink, won't you say a prayer for those political,
scientific, and environmental leaders who are working towards a world
in which no one fights or dies for lack of clean water?

A couple of useful reports that were referenced at the conference:

* Paul Simon's full report to Congress -
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/67716.pdf

* UNDP's "Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty, and the Global Water
Crisis" - http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/

A Glorious Day

The last time I had more than two hours to myself was over six months
ago, when my wife went to see her sister and took our daughter with
her, freeing me to go for a nice long bike ride and do a little
uniterrupted studying in the middle of the day (I was still in grad
school at the time). The situation repeated itself this weekend, and
the weather couldn't have cooperated any better, so there was no way I
wasn't going to go for another long bike ride.

I can't begin to tell you how beautiful the scenery was, biking up
West River Drive along the Schuylkill River, crossing Falls Bridge,
and taking Forbidden Drive to Valley Green. The leaves in the air and
on the ground, and those descending from one to the other, made for a
picturesque scene. I was tempted to never stop: even though I knew
the farther I went, the farther I'd have to return, I couldn't help
but forget the burning in my legs and lungs with all the beauty around
me.

I stopped at one of my favorite vista points, a couple of miles shy of
Valley Green Inn, where I have gone countless times in the last
fifteen years to mull over big decisions, confide my deepest pains and
insecurities to God, and just plain be still and be in awe of His
creation. This weekend's view didn't disappoint. As the Wissahickon
Creek slowly weaved its way under the bridge I stood on, all of my
worries seemed to slow down too. I looked up at trees that have been
there for decades, steady as ever, despite season after season of
change, resilient in the face of long winters and scorching summers,
and felt myself drawing from their steadiness and resiliency. Most of
all I felt the presence of God, finally able to get through to me, no
longer crowded out by the hustle and bustle of my daily schedule.

He didn't say anything to me, and I didn't say anything to Him. No
words were needed, just stillness and the recognition of divine
presence. What a glorious day.

The Power of a Tree

Despite my love of National Geographic and of recycling, you won't
often find me among the tree-huggers. But I am starting to love trees
more, and let me tell you why. Not only are they pretty to look at,
but there are all sorts of cold-blooded benefits to having them
around. Here are three, taken from a blurb in a Penn periodical about
a recent greening symposium that took place on campus:

* Improves stormwater management. Most buildings are considered, in
design parlance, impervious, meaning that when it rains, there's
nothing to soak up all that water. Too much grey and not enough
green, and you get a lot of flooded basements. In contrast, one
California oak tree with a canopy of 100 feet across can hold 57,000
gallons of water during a flash flood. That's a lot of water being
soaked up and used to produce pretty leaves instead of creating
flooding problems.

* Improves property values. One of my colleagues at work recently
co-published a paper in which it was found that while proximity to a
neglected vacant lot subtracts 20 percent from the value of a
neighboring home, being near a stabilized, "greened" lot can add 15
percent. In fact, the City, through its Neighborhood Transformation
Initiative, has been doing a lot of this converting of eyesore lots
into temporary mini-parks, not just because of the aesthetic benefits
but the fiscal ones: higher property values mean more property tax
revenues.

* Improves urban attractiveness. Parks and outdoor spaces are a huge
draw for our (increasingly mobile) knowledge workers as well as for
domestic and foreign visitors. Sprucing up, then, can translate into
net inflows of tourists and residents, which breaks our cities out of
that vicious cycle of population loss and infrastructural decay and
into a virtuous cycle of population gain and increased vibrancy.

So the next time a tree-hugger asks me to join in on a tree planting,
I just might join in. Just not necessarily for the same reasons as
the tree-huggers.

Transparency

However you feel about Sarbanes-Oxley -- do we need even more such
requirements or did it go too far -- you have to appreciate the
sentiment: in light of no-no's in the corporate world, we need more
transparency to deter people from engaging in questionable and
outright illegal machinations. When you shine a spotlight everywhere,
there are less crevasses to hide our shady deeds.

And so it is with our personal morals, our Christian marriages, and
our church management. The scandals that make the headlines are about
people that are no different than you and me: no more or less deviant,
and no more or less depraved. They're just more in the public eye,
and so are subject to more scrutiny and shame.

But in our own churches, families, and even in the hidden caverns of
our thought lives, we must humbly exercise a self-imposed
transparency, to keep ourselves from drifting further from the light
and into the darkness. Whatever our innate predilections, whether
pornography or drugs or workaholism, absent persistent accountability
we will slowly but surely be overtaken by them.

Thanks be to God for mechanisms for forgiveness, both from Him and
from our fellow brother and sister. And thanks be to God for good
Christian men and women with whom we can be transparent, who are
decent and discreet and dogged enough to hold us accountable in ways
that are simultaneously loving and firm. The recent scandals we've
seen in our headlines should make us feel neither self-righteous nor
hopelessly vulnerable, but should rather sober us to our own
weaknesses and steel us to seek out the accountability and
transparency we need to stay on the narrow path.

Thin-Slice Forecasts of Gubernatorial Elections

In his recent best-seller, "Blink," Malcolm Gladwell references a
study in which students were asked to watch a half-hour clip of a
professor and then guess what that professor's student rating would
be. They were something like 95% accurate. The study then takes
another pool of participants and asks them to watch a five-minute clip
and do the same, and their results are something like 92% accurate.
The study goes as far as five-second clips, and still the accuracy is
90% or more. Gladwell calls this "thin-slicing," or the ability to
extrapolate to great accuracy despite have just a sliver of
information.

This month, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a
timely paper called "Thin-Slice Forecasts of Gubernatorial Elections,"
in which participants watch a ten-second clip of two gubernatorial
candidates and then are asked to predict the outcome of the election.
Their accuracy is better than sophisticated economic forecasting
models and on par with what you'd predict if you knew incumbency
status. Even better (or worse), accuracy deteriorated when
participants were given information about the issues and positions
candidates were campaigning on.

Is this what politics has become in a sound-bite world, that I can
tell you who's going to win by looking at a picture and peeking in for
ten seconds? Or does this demonstrate the profound ability of people
to "thin-slice" and, out of a cacophony of information drill down to
what's actually going happen? Is it bad that we so easily jump to
conclusions and let those conclusions orient our opinion of someone or
something? Or does it just mean that you never have a second chance
to make a first impression, so make sure to add some polish to your
polish?

Frankly, I don't know, and my head spins the more I think about it.
But I thought this all was very interesting, and while I don't know
what the implications are, I know that there are implications.

Rat Race

Why do we rat race? Why do we keep up with the Joneses? (And who are
the Joneses, anyway?) Why do we try to keep ourselves busy at all
times? In light of my own drivenness, I've taken to contemplating
such questions, in search of some answers. Let us consider some of
the possibilities, or at least the ones that drive me.

Pride. We want to be better than others because that's what makes us
feel better about ourselves.

Insecurity. We don't want to be worse than others because otherwise
that would make us feel worse about ourselves.

Envy/jealousy. We want what others have, or we don't want others to
have what we have or don't have, because we're petty like that.

Revenge. Somebody in our past or in our lives told us we couldn't do
it, so we try all the more to do it just to spite them, just to show
them up.

Greed. If we run as fast as possible, we'll get ahead, and we'll
become desirable and updated, and we'll be able to earn enough to
support the lifestyles we seek.

Anxiety. If we don't run as fast as possible, we'll fall behind, or
become unmarketable or irrelevant, or we won't be able to earn enough
to provide for our families.

Addiction. We don't know any other way than to work work work; if we
stop, we go through withdrawals.

Fear. We're afraid that if we stop, we'll be all alone with ourselves
and our demons, and we don't want to have to deal with that.

Vanity. We want to separate ourselves from the crowd so that people
will look up to us and admire us.

Peer pressure. We do it because everyone else is doing it, and far
from us to not be hip to what everyone else is doing.

That's a lot of impetuses, all of which I've been guilty of in some
shape or form. The solution, of course, is not to kill any ambition
or drive in our lives; sloth, apathy, and idleness are just as bad,
and the great tragedy of modern Christians is probably not that they
do too much for the Kingdom but that they do too little. Making the
most of our time, talent, and treasures while we are still on this
side of glory is still a great and God-honoring thing to do.

Yet it must be tempered by the awareness that that drive is so easily
influenced by worldly motivations that creep in and taint our purposes
and our works. Would that this generation spend more of its times on
its knees in prayer, that we'd do great things -- spurred on not by
sinful impulses but by a God who promises to do great things for and
through us.

Conservatives and Mass Transit

A nice report called "Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is it Time for a
New Look?" (http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/conserve.pdf;
see also "How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not Ride It: A
Conservative Inquiry" at
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/how_transit_benefits.cfm)
makes some nice points about why conservatives should support mass
transit and why transit agencies should listen more to conservatives'
perspectives. As a pro-transit conservative, the article caught my
eye and helped summarize some of why I'm a pro-transit conservative.

We conservatives can sometimes be down on mass transit because 1) it
seems like a huge government-subsidized thing that would never stand
on its own, 2) we don't use it and nor do our constituencies, and 3)
it doesn't serve anything on our agenda. But wait! Mass transit
might not exist in a totally free market, but then neither would cars,
seeing as how governments have ploughed much more money into roads and
bridges than in transit since the invention of the car.

Secondly, there are a lot of conservatives riding those rails and
buses, and even if there weren't, we're not so selfish that we
wouldn't care just because "our" people aren't users, would we? Which
leads to the third point that the article makes, that public
transportation actually does contribute to important conservative
goals, like getting people off welfare and on their way to jobs, and
fostering community, and stimulating economic growth.

On the flip side, the article urges transit agencies to consider the
old arguments being made by the conservatives. Poor allocation of
subsidies can lead to inefficiencies that help no one, and regulatory
reform and public-private partnerships can lead to efficiencies that
help everyone.

Alas, far too often we are locked in our narrow ways, unwilling to
have this kind of dialogue. And in this case, we and "the other side"
and transit riders and taxpayers and society and the environment are
worse off for it. As the report suggests, it's time for a new look.

It Takes a Family and a Village

Maybe I'm the last person to write about this, but doesn't it take a
family AND a village to raise a child? Hillary Clinton and Rick
Santorum famously dueled in their book names, with Clinton writing "It
Takes a Village" and Santorum countering with "It Takes a Family."
Clinton's point was to argue for a government compassionate enough to
care for our kids, while Santorum argued that it's the family that has
the responsibility to raise a child.

We all side with one perspective more than the other, but in doing so
let's not lose sight of the good of the other side. If you want the
government to do better in this role, you also want it do that in a
way that strengthens, rather than replaces or stunts families. And if
you want families to take responsibility, you also want your
government to back that up in ways it alone can act.

Again, I'm not arguing that everyone should be in the middle: I'm
pretty far on the right on this one, and have friends who I respect
who are pretty far on the left on this one, and I have no problem with
the gap between our opinions. But our goal here shouldn't be to be
correct at the expense of those with whom we disagree, but to do
what's best for our society and our children. And what's best would
seem to be not family at the expense of village, or village at the
expense of family, but family and village, each playing their parts,
for the sake of our children.

No Rest

In college and shortly afterwards, I tried to take a weekly Sabbath,
or day of rest. It's one of the Ten Commandments, and while the Bible
also instructs us not to make it a legalistic thing, if done well it
can do wonders for your spiritual health and your relationshp with
God. It is one day out of seven to cease from the striving that can
so easily drive and define us, to be still and to renew our connection
with and focus on God.

This struck me as a healthy, if challenging, thing to commit to, and
to the extent that I could, I tried to do that. Even after getting
married, I can fondly remember weekend days spent Sabbathing: while my
wife was working a double shift on a Saturday or Sunday, for example,
I could go on long bike rides or read a book in a green patch downtown
or sing my lungs out at home.

The introduction of a little one into our lives has, as you can
imagine, changed the calculus of our schedules. My potential free
time to Sabbath has been chopped by work and parenting
responsibilities into sixteen two-hour chunks: morning and evening
each day, and Jada's naps on the weekends.

My morning chunks are already booked: personal devotional time +
exercise + getting ready for the day has me digging Jada out of bed
without a minute to spare. I usually have to devote at least one
evening per week to house chores, paperwork (more if my stack of bills
is joined by adoption application administrivia), and church meetings.
One night a week, I meet up with a good friend for prayer and
accountability, and squeeze in the weekly grocery run to avoid
expending another free evening. And at least one of the two afternoon
slots I'm capitalizing on my only daylight free time at home to do
some sort of outdoor chore.

That leaves four two-hour blocks to read, do social things, relax with
my wife, and do Sabbathy kinds of things. And I am embarrassed to
admit that there are weeks when I don't use any of my free time on
such things, important as they are but so easily swept aside in favor
of more administrative finaglings or mindless sports website surfing.

I just read a great little short book by Henri Nouwen called "Clowning
in Rome," which speaks of the importance of solitary contemplation and
Godward reflection. And I am convicted, to paraphrase a Christian
best-seller, that I am too busy NOT to make time for such things. I
have engaged in the sin of drivenness, a virtue in our go-go-go world
but a vice in God's world because it acts as though our value is in
our works and our success is by our doing.

Described in this way, drivenness is just as godless a lifestyle if
not more so than one consumed by substance addiction or material
covetousness or seething anger. In some regards, it is a far more
insidious sin because it comes off as noble, in the eyes of both the
religious and secular. For who could find fault with someone who
seeks to maximize the minutes given to him to live?

Yet if I am found "maximizing" in ways that minimize my connection to
the One who gives me purpose and strength and triumph, if I sacrifice
completely the rest He offers in exchange for more me-centered
striving, what have I truly gained? It is true, as Jesus put it, that
"the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," so we
must take heed that we aren't exchanging legalistic striving for
legalistic resting. Nevertheless, the command is no less true no
matter how we approach it: God invites us to rest, and I will seek to
do better in accepting that invitation.

Election Musings

Here's an excerpt from something I posted on November 3, 2004: "Even
though I am a Republican I am nervous that the Republicans control the
Oval Office and both houses of Congress. I almost voted for Kerry for
this very reason; for if he had won, he wouldn't have been able to get
anything through Congress, so the threat of the "liberal" taking
office and ushering "big government" back in was an empty one. With
Bush now in for another four years, I fear we'll have another four
years of pork being dished out to various special interests and signed
into law. I urge people on both sides of the aisle to help me monitor
our representatives to make sure this doesn't happen."

Oh well. So I'm kind of glad the D's have taken the House, especially
since it's mostly centrist D's. As long as the next two years aren't
taken up with investigations and posturing, the more balanced Congress
could possibly mean less pork and more fiscal conservatism. Or as my
even-more-right-leaning friend once said, "Split Congress = can't ram
anything through = nothing gets done = fiscal conservatives rejoice!"

One other post-election musing: I'm saddest about Rick Santorum
losing. Not only does he represent many of my political views, but I
think highly of him as an individual. Allow me to indulge in two
personal anecdotes. First, he's visited my former workplace a number
of times, most recently with then-Secretary of Treasury John Snow to
announce tax credits for Pennsylvania, where he spoke earnestly and
intelligently about the use of the tax code to stimulate private
sector initiative.

Second, about six years ago, I decided I ought to write to my elected
officials on a regular basis because that's what good citizens do. So
I got the addresses of my two senators (Santorum and Specter) and my
congressman (Fattah) and, on a quarterly basis, wrote to them about
issues important to me, like public education and world hunger and
mental health. Senator Santorum's office was consistently the first
to get back to me with a response, and not just a short "thanks for
caring" note, but a detailed letter with information about what he was
working on. I always appreciated that.

Time will tell what the 2006 elections mean for America and the world.
For now, those are my two thoughts.

Walking and Talking in the City

I spent a summer in Moscow 12 years ago and one of the things my
friends and I would do for fun was meet up, walk and talk, and then,
when we got tired, take the Metro home. Moscow's vast network of
tree-lined boulevards made the pastime quite enjoyable. Fast forward
to the present, and walking and talking has become, for my wife and I,
the preferred way to spend an evening alone when we've left our
daughter with a babysitter.

This weekend, we actually had a free afternoon, as my in-laws came
down to watch Jada. So Amy and I headed east from our University City
home and were quickly through the PENN campus and across the Walnut
Street Bridge to Center City. We decided to stop first at the Reading
Terminal Market to take in the sights and smells and grab a bite while
we cooled our heels. From there, we made a beeline for the Italian
Market to pick up some of the freshest and cheapest produce in town.
We decided to conclude our afternoon out back at Reading Terminal
Market, but not before slight detours through South Street,
Independence Mall, and Chinatown.

If you're counting, that's five places in one afternoon! After our
second bite at Reading Terminal Market, we took the subway home,
having logged about six miles on foot, but with steady conversation
and visual sights to distract us from our sore legs. You might decry
Philadelphia's crowded streets and tight blocks, but just remember
that the flip side of that is that all of that makes for a very
walkable city. Just like Moscow.