Make Room
Mood:  lyrical
Topic: Blessings

Those of you who read this blog already know this ⁽¹⁾ but we recently completed the addition of a sunroom to our home⁽²⁾. Here are some stray thoughts, lessons learned, and reactions:

• I never knew I wanted a sunroom, but now that I have one, I can't imagine not having it. This raises some interesting sub-points:
  • Some people think the same thing about children.⁽³⁾
  • I wonder if there are more things like this in my life. If so, I want to get them sooner, so I appreciate them longer.
  • How can something move from "not even on my wish list" to "can't live without it" so quickly?
• I spent 9 hours in there on Friday. When it's sunny, it's beautiful. When the sun is setting, it's enchanting. When the sun has set, it's warm and comfortable.
• We made exactly the right decision by not putting a television in it.
• When Sherry picks colors, I know enough not to doubt her. I simply can't do the "visualizing" thing the way she can. Come see the room and you'll see what I mean.
• Kudos to Leah and Sarah for being able to do the same thing Sherry can.
• Music is more than twice as good when it's surrounding you.
• We did not have the trouble with our contractor that seems to plague the remodeling industry. Was it done exactly when he said it would be? No. But it was close, and he was pleasant to work with.
• Why would I ever think a sunroom should not have a fireplace?
• Yes, I like the deck, the garage, and the driveway. I even like the roof (it's much, much better than what we had), but the centerpiece of the remodel is the sunroom.
• Before the furniture was delivered, the room was perfect. Now that the furniture is here, it's even better. How is that possible?
• I hope I can follow through on my plan to spend time in this room on a regular basis, reading.
• In the grand scheme of things, does it matter as much as my friends and my kids and my wife. Of course not. But since I have all of those things, this sunroom is a great addition to my life (as well as to my house!)

I hope everyone who visits us gets to enjoy this new room at some point.
------------------------------------------------------

⁽¹⁾I think Lucas and Mike may be the only people who do. If you are not one of these two fine and discerning people, and would like to be included in such illustrious company, send me an e-mail .
⁽²⁾To see some before/after pictures, see this link.
⁽³⁾ Are you listening, Adam? (That was teasing!)

Steve?s Top 10 TV Series of all Time - Part 1

Now Playing: Various Christmas Music
Topic: TV

What makes a TV series a candidate for this list? First of all, it’s “Steve’s” – it’s mine. So clearly, the series has to have these attributes:

1. I saw it.
2. I enjoyed it, a lot.
3. I remember it (especially while I’m creating the list.

Point 1 means I won’t be considering some shows that many people would put on the list. The Sopranos may top some lists, but I didn’t see it. Same goes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Seinfeld gets excluded for a similar reason. I’ve seen some of it, but I have not even seen half the episodes, and I rarely watched it during its first run. [After seeing some shows which made my list of series to consider, I will have to reexamine this exclusion.] And, given my age, any series which aired before 1966 or so is not going to get on my list. This leaves out I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners, which is probably too bad. Not to mention Edward R Murrow's news shows.

Point 2 should be obvious, but I felt I needed to state it, for completeness. I’ve seen a bunch of Wheel of Fortune in my time, but have I enjoyed it enough to even consider it? Get real.

Point 3 is my “cover my rear” clause. I am sure to forget some great show. Further, I probably loved a show 20 years ago, but I won’t think of it while I’m writing this.

Beyond those three primary rules, what causes me to consider a show for the list? Well, maybe the thing to do is just generate a list (unordered for now) and then see what happens.

Shows for consideration

Star Trek (the original series)	Star Trek: the Next Generation	Battlestar Galactica - the recent SciFi Channel show	Stargate: SG1
Hill Street Blues - In case you thought I only consider SciFi	M*A*S*H - Yes, I consider comedies, too.	Babylon 5	ER
Lost	Heroes	Nowhere Man One season only. What a shame.	Quantum Leap I include it, but...
The Cosby Show	Newhart - though it's tough to decide between this and The Bob Newhart Show and maybe they should just both be on the list.	The Carol Burnett Show	Scrubs - with caveats. I'm breaking my own rules by listing it. But they are MY rules.
Frasier - though I must admit I haven't seen them all, either.	St. Elsewhere - Does anyone remember when Denzel Washington was a fresh face? Or when David Morse was the sensitive and victimized doctor? Or Howie Mandel - with hair - in a semi-serious role?	Family Ties - has to be in the discussion. Alex P. Keaton for goodness sake. And talk about a mom who's "got it goin' on" - Meredeth Baxter!	All in the Family - Funny and important.
Columbo - Another rule-breaker. It was never, truly, a series.	The X-Files - has to be on the list.	Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - If ST:tNG is on the list, this must be too!	Star Trek: Voyager - Can't make Top 10, but ...
Enterprise - Its percent of good episodes is probably higher than ST: Voyager's.	Survivor - my favorite "game" show. And it overcame my initial preconceptions.	thirtysomething which was un-missable.	The Cosby Show
The West Wing	Sports Night - short lived but very well written.	NYPD Blue	24 Gripping.
Kate & Allie	3rd Rock from the Sun	Perfect Strangers - Balki and the "Dance of Joy"!	Monty Python's Flying Circus
The A-Team Great? No. Great fun? You bet!

It was enough work to create the table. I think I'll leave the rating for another time. In fact, I will leave some parts of the table blank so I can fill in with shows as they occur to me.

-------------------------------

I've made significant additions to this since it was first posted. I may re-post at some point, but for now, it's easier to revise it in place.

Top TV Series
Topic: TV

A couple weeks back, the e-mail pals (to whom I refer as "Milords") discussed a topic that made its way into the discussions of my lunch pals (the "Dudes") as well as the dinner table (the "Family")

It would be fun to document some of that discussion. I won't be quoting anyone (at least not without permission) though I will likely mention points which were discussed.

Anyway, to document something I said at the beginning of the conversation, here's a quote from an e-mail I sent to Milords ("BG"=Battlestar Galactica - the current series on SciFi; "B5" is Babylon 5; "H" is Heroes, which got us started on the topic):

It seems very American to want to classify things as "better" or "worse" than other things. We seem obsessed with Top 100 lists, and get into silly (but fun) discussions as to whether Archie Bunker is really a better TV character than Lucy, or Homer Simpson, or whatever.

I could certainly make a case for BG being the best TV series ever. This, of course, assumes that it continues with its current quality until it completes. Yet I would be willing to entertain other suggestions -- B5 was excellent for its time, and if considered without its 5th season, certainly competes (though not in acting, I think -- Olmos could act circles around Boxleitner.) Other series that would enter into consideration for me: The West Wing, M*A*S*H, Star Trek, -- I'm sure there are more -- probably shows from the 80s. We discussed this at lunch yesterday, prompted by Mike's comments. Shawn nominates "The Sopranos" but I have only seen an episode or two of that. I might consider "X-Files" and "ST:tNG" though there were some real stinker episodes, and BG has just had one episode that was less-than-great (in my opinion.) I hear "Seinfeld" was excellent, but I saw it sporadically. And I really do think the first 5-6 seasons of "All in the Family" were hilarious, and important in its time period. "Sports Night" was one of the best written comedies I've ever seen -- but it only lasted two seasons, and its humor was obviously "my kind" of humor and not appreciated by enough people.

Maybe we should develop our own lists: Top Drama, Top Comedy, Top Medical, Top Law, Top Sci-Fi -- with the 10 best in each!

Nah -- we don't sit around enough bars having debates to make it worth the time... :-)

So I think I will put some entries in about "Top" shows. It could be fun. Maybe the blogosphere is close enough to a "bar" -- or as close as we're going to get!

I'm spending HOW long on that?
Now Playing: Still nothing. How strange.
Topic: Time
So, last night, as we finished playing the new Link/Zelda game on the Wii for the evening, I noticed that we've spent over 26 hours on it so far.

26 HOURS!

Am I really better off knowing how much of my life is being spent on that game?

I think other things in life should have those "counters." How much time do I spend:

• in traffic? (not much, compared to "city folk")
  
• watching TV just because I have a few minutes and can't think of anything else I can get done in that time?
  
• Waiting for everyone else to be ready so we can go to church? (Or whatever ... To be fair, this counter doesn't get incremented much anymore. Not because I don't go to church, but most of the time, it's just three of us, and we either go in two cars, or we're just more in sync than we were when there were six and Adam was one of them. :-)
  
• Reading Fantasy Football stuff (yikes - at least this counter doesn't go up as quickly)
  
• Reading fiction -- I want this one to grow much more than it has in the last 15 years.
  

Civ III Complete tells me how long a game TOOK -- but thankfully doesn't tell me how long it's TAKING.

Back - For Now
Now Playing: Nothing at all
So, Mike blogged today for the first time in a month. And he had something to say! Huzzah!

And me?

My last entry was less than a month ago, but it doesn't really count.

It would count if it were one of many in that month -- Lucas sometimes has very short entries, but he blogs quite regularly.

I think I've touched on the topic of "Why do we blog?" several times before. It's cool how the people in Lucas's group of friends use blogging to stay in touch. They have grown up using Instant Messaging and e-mail. For many of them blogging is a type of continuous monologue which allows their friends to know more about them than my generation typically shared.

But while I think this sort of blogging is pretty widespread, I don't think any of my other kids do it. (Or maybe they just haven't told me about it....?)

Meanwhile, Mike uses it as an outlet for opinions about events in the news. This is very different from what Lucas does, but it seems to be quite popular as a motivation, as well.

Me? What do I use it for?

Sometimes, I just like to write. There are times when something touches my soul and I just have to express it. Blogging is good for that.

But when it comes to sharing day-to-day issues, I guess I just rely on conversing with Sherry and sending e-mail to the select few. I wonder if I would see a benefit from doing what Lucas does?

To do what Mike does would require me to pay more attention to the news than I do.

Maybe my new Tuesday routine (which is supposed to include READING in the new sunroom) should also include blogging. Hey, the wireless signal is stronger in there than it is in my La-Z-Boy in the living room.

So ... very ... tired
Now Playing: "Yesterday"
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz............












zzzzzzz................

Topic: Instructor or Pedant

I promised an entry on “beg the question.” Here it is.

When you hear the phrase “beg the question” in modern conversation, it is almost invariably used incorrectly. Newscasters are extremely fond of using it, but they are mis-using it to be a synonym for “raise the question.”

For example, Corey Lidle’s plane crashes into a Manhattan skyscraper. The news people are shocked, and think maybe there is something the government could have done, but didn’t do, so they state “This accident begs the question, ‘Are officials doing enough to protect New York City?’” Well, the accident might well raise that question, but it doesn’t beg it. The questioner might want to beg for an answer, if he wants to be dramatic, but the situation did not beg a question.

Why not?

“Begging the question” is a term used in logic, debate and discourse for millennia. It means, essentially, to argue that something is true because it is true. It is a form of circular logic. When you are trying to prove a point in logic, you start with a base set of assumptions. If you then logically arrive at the point from those assumptions, you can have been said to have proven it. However, if you end up assuming your point in order to attempt to prove it, you have proven nothing; you are begging your question (the “question” is the point you intended to prove.)

An example would help. Let’s suppose I set out to prove that “X should be illegal.” I can start by arguing that if something is wrong, it should be illegal. (We might not agree that’s true, but for the sake of argument, let’s.) Then, perhaps I assert that breaking the law is wrong – which most of us can agree to. But then, if I point out that “X is illegal, hence X is against the law, hence X is wrong, hence X should be illegal” I am using circular logic. I have argued that something is true because it is true. I am guilty of begging the question.

Here’s one of the entries I found when I looked up “beg the question” at Dictionary.com:

beg the question

Take for granted or assume the truth of the very thing being questioned. For example, Shopping now for a dress to wear to the ceremony is really begging the question - she hasn't been invited yet. This phrase, whose roots are in Aristotle's writings on logic, came into English in the late 1500s. In the 1990s, however, people sometimes used the phrase as a synonym of "ask the question" (as in The article begs the question: "What are we afraid of?").

Now, I think the example the citation uses is not quite what Aristotle was thinking about, but you can see that the misuse of the phrase began recently.

To me, this is an example of how our language is losing its effectiveness. We have a perfectly good, meaningful phrase being distorted to mean something else – and we have plenty of good phrases which could be used instead.

My personal opinion on why this misuse occurs is this: people want to sound intelligent, so they use a phrase they have heard other intelligent people use – but they use it incorrectly.

 

Citations and references.

As is often the case, Wikipedia has a great explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question

 

beg the question. (n.d.). The American Heritage? Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beg the question

Topic: Instructor or Pedant
Definition:
Pedant:
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.

I don't think I'm a pedant. But I clearly care more about proper use of words than many people do. It's my belief that if there is a good word or phrase for something, that word or phrase should be used properly. It should not be used to mean something else, and other words should not be substituted, especially if they do not share the same meaning.

In my previous entry, I mentioned that I should write a series of posts about commonly misused words or phrases. While I mentioned "beg the question" as my potential first entry, I've decided to start with "thence."

Definition:
thence:
1. from that place: I went first to Paris and thence to Rome.
2. from that time; thenceforth: He fell ill and thence was seldom seen.
3. from that source: Thence came all our troubles.
4. from that fact or reason; therefore: We were young, and thence optimistic.

I'm starting with "thence" because it is used -- incorrectly -- in the Apostle's Creed in the version of the LCMS hymnal we have used for years. In that version of the creed, it says "On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead."

That can't be right. "Thence" means "from that place." This means that the creed is saying "... at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from from that place He shall come..." A double "from" is incorrect.

Now, if you go to the web and search for Apostle's Creed -- even on an LCMS site -- the wording has been corrected. That's good. But for years and years and years the people who have read this have been using the word incorrectly. Yet, because they have seen it in an authoritative text, they assume it's right. And, since it seems to mean "there" (not "FROM there"), they are tempted to use it as a synonym -- and they probably think they sound educated when they misuse it!

Many of my usage peeves are related to this very point -- people try to sound smart by using words or phrases which sound educated, yet in the process they only serve to demonstrate the opposite to the knowledgeable, while spreading their mis-usage to the uninformed.

Here are some other similar words, phrases and pronunciations.

• "beg the question"
  
• "sojourn"
  
• "often" -- with a "t"
  
• "hopefully" -- though this one shows how misuse can cause "acceptability drift."
  

Perhaps I will get around to posting about them sometime.




Citations:
pedant. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 05, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedant


thence. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved October 05, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thence

Anarchy? Permissivism? That's NOT what I meant.
The entry below about Right/Wrong - Legal/Illegal might be miscontrued.

I am not promoting anarchy.

Society can only function if we have rules for behavior. This is clear, and a cornerstone of my belief system.

Many of those rules must be codified into laws. I support that.

What I tried to say below was that moving something from the "frowned on by society" consequence to the "made to pay recompense, financially or with a loss of freedom" consequence needs to be carefully thought through. If I can be kicked out of school, or charged with impinging on someone's rights, for saying "X" -- well, I think "X" needs to be pretty darn bad, and pretty clearly bad. If it's merely insensitive, then people should be educated as to why it is, and how they might say it in a more sensitive way.

Similarly, if I do "Y" in the privacy of my own home, and it can lead to my incarceration, there should be a very good reason why "Y" is bad for me to do. There are plenty of things that justify being punished and jailed. Lots of bad "Y." But don't you think, given our society's history, we've been too quick to put something in this category? And then, once we've done so, we justify its continuing to remain illegal by saying "Clearly, it's Wrong -- it's illegal!" That, my friends, is truly begging the question!

(I should do a whole series of posts on words and phrases that are losing their meaning because of mis-use. "Beg the question" is on the top of the list.)

Right and Wrong -- Legal and Illegal
Mike and I had an interesting exchange of ideas in his blog a few weeks back.

I had not considered the personal aspects of some specific wording. He made his point. I accept it. We will never completely agree, but that's not necessary.

What the exchange pointed out to me, though, is a philosophical ideal which I have -- and it's related to whether things should be made illegal.

You see, I firmly believe that Right and Wrong exist. However, I do not believe that most of us, or society in general, has a good grasp on Wrong. It therefore bothers me when a subset of the population decides that it knows Wrong well enough to make a particular thing illegal.

Now, "illegal" might get you a fine, or thrown in jail, or worse. Or (and this is where we get back to the discussion) it might be that "illegal" gets defined as "unconstitutional" or "impinging on the rights of another."

I accept that many behaviors are ill-mannered or rude. Some are just plain Wrong. Heck, there are some which are unconscionable. But I have real trouble when society decides to make those behaviors "illegal" or "unconstitutional."

The difficult point for me is that people who absolutely agree with me on some Wrong, will entirely disagree with me on another.

If I say something, and in so doing I offend someone, I can certainly be criticized and/or corrected. But charged? Sued? If you're going to do that, I had better have been given clear guidelines, and the speech had better be pretty harmful.

The same sort of thing goes for my actions. I think society has gone too far in deciding certain actions are Wrong. While many (or even most) people might think some activity is Wrong, making it "Illegal" should only be done when there is a clear reason for it.

I've talked about it before -- and I know that it's not feasible -- but sometimes I wish we could have all laws "expire" every generation or so. Then people would be forced to reconsider their positions about illegality.

Well, this has been a rambling post. But perhaps my thoughts are clearer now.