Letting go of Max

Our first cat Max passed away a little over a year ago (the day before AJ's first birthday). He wasn't that old by indoor cat standards but cancer took his life prematurely. My wife and I were with Max when he passed into the next life. We actually made the decision to end his suffering and put him to sleep (see this early post that included this decision and my belief in prayers being answered). Max was cremated and his ashes sat on our dresser for the last year. We had always planned on spreading his ashes somewhere scenic but we never got around to it. With the one year anniversary of his death, we decided it was time to finally set him free.

Today (fittingly Memorial Day), we went over to Shoreline Park and spread Max's ashes by the water where the birds like to congregate. It was a beautiful day and I think that Max would have approved of the location (see these photos). My wife and I walk at Shoreline regularly so we'll get to visit him often. And there is plenty of wildlife activity there to keep him busy when we're not around. Since he was an indoor cat, we never let him go outside on his own. Now, he's finally free to explore the great outdoors to his heart's content.

While we said our final goodbyes today, I actually let Max go a number of months ago. After his death, I thought I was ok with his passing but I wasn't. There were still many things left unsaid and unresolved. Finally, one night, I decided to pray about it. For whatever reason, I really struggled with it. I couldn't bring myself to start. I couldn't figure out what to say. After about 10-15 minutes of this, I decided to focus on my breathing. Eventually I didn't notice my breathing and my mind went completely clear. I knew it was time to begin so I did. I told God that I needed to let Max go and I needed Max to let me go. I also asked to speak to Max for a moment. I genuinely believe that God opened a channel for me directly to wherever Max was. I said some things to Max that needed to be said (and cried heavily in the process). Then I could tell that the signal was fading so I wrapped things up. Afterwards, I was completely spent. I simply laid on the ground (in the dark) for probably 20 minutes. This was the second time I've felt God's direct presence (see this post for the first time about 12 years ago).

Max was a special creature and my family was very lucky to have him in our lives. We still love him and look forward to being reunited with him at some point in the future.

To-do lists

I suppose it's never too early to start making to-do lists. I'm only half-kidding. My older son JD was reading Frog and Toad Together yesterday. In one of the stories, Toad decides to make a list of all the things he's going to do that day. So JD (without any prompting from me or my wife) decided to make his own list of "things to do today":

• Wake up
• Get dressed
• Have breakfast
• Put on church clothes
• Go to church
• Have lunch
• Take off church clothes
• Have quiet time
• Play with AJ
• Eat dinner
• Clean up
• Watch a show
• Brush teeth
• Get into PJs
• Read books
• Go to bed

As JD did these things throughout the day, he'd cross them off his list (just like Toad). I make plenty of lists too. I actually haven't found a personal organizational scheme that I really like yet. I had a day-planner for a while but I couldn't stand transferring entries from one day to the next by hand. I've read some of David Allen's work (Getting Things Done) but managing whole-life to-do lists becoming unwieldy without proper software support. The current system I'm using is GooToDo. It's a pretty cool little Web-based tool that I would highly recommend to others. It's not perfect by any means but it's convenient for scheduling to-do's in the future (but not seeing them now) and prioritizing taks for a particular day. Also, you can email tasks to yourself and have them show up on a particular day. The main thing that it's not good at is managing what David Allen refers to as "someday/maybe" items (items that don't have a specific target completion date but things that you want to remind yourself of and not lose track of). Also, the tool is only useful if you're online. I haven't figured out a great way to use it offline.

The time management quest continues. There's a big part of me that wishes, however, that my list of "things to do today"was as simple as JD's.

fat2phat: initial weigh-in

Today kicked off the new fat2phat (see this post). I weighed 203.6 pounds with a body fat percentage of 19.1%. I've noticed that the body fat percentages on my scale are pretty suspect - or at least very sensitive to factors like hydration - so I wouldn't put much stock in that. Anyway, I weighed 203.6 pounds. So, relative to my goal of 190 pounds by Christmas, I have 13.6 pounds to go - or an average of 0.45 pounds per week. You can chart my progress with this spreadsheet (download here).

A Number

My wife and I have season tickets to the American Conservatory Theater (ACT) in San Francisco. It's been an interesting experiment. I've really enjoyed the plays but it's a hassle to rush to and from the city because of the kids. Perhaps we'll circle back on season tickets again when the kids are older.

Today's performance, A Number, was particularly thought-provoking. The play was about a father who clones his son to have another chance at being a good father. His wife committed suicide and he was an alcoholic. Some time after his wife's death, the father sends his biological son (who is hard to handle) off but clones him first. He then starts over as a father with the cloned son - without realizing that the cloning company had created "a number" of additional clones without his knowledge. During the play, the father is confronted by his biological son and two of the clones.

In the context of genetic research and engineering, stem cell research, animal cloning, etc, the play raises a number of questions that are hard to answer. One hard question is whether the clone is the same or different person from the source. Does the clone have a soul? In the program, there is an essay by Brian Alexander called "Biology Is Not Destiny". In it, he points out:

There is no such thing as "exactly the same genetic person," especially when it comes to the hypothetical idea of cloning a human being in a lab. There are scientific reasons for this. For example, the mitochondria, the little powerhouse of cells, have a small number of their own genes. When a cell from a person to be cloned is placed into an egg to begin the process, that egg will not have the same mitochondrial DNA as the mother's egg used to conceive the original person. Second, the way in which genes are switched on and off, epigenetics, varies according to many, often unknown circumstances, including our environment. And of course, a clone would probably not gestate in the same mother and certainly not at the same time. In other words, identical twins would be closer genetic copies than any lab-created human clone could ever be. Yet even they soon diverge genetically in small ways. We are all unique.

Assuming all this is true, it would seem that the clone would be his or her own person and have their own soul.

Another interesting question raised by the play is the influence of nature vs nurture on the type of person someone becomes over time. In chaos theory (see this post), one property of chaotic dynamics is sensitivity to initial conditions. This means that two points in a chaotic system may move in vastly different trajectories in their "phase space" even if the difference in their initial configurations is very small. The systems behave identically only if their initial configurations are exactly the same. So, from a nature perspective, the very slight genetic differences described by Alexander could lead to very different outcomes later in life. I think it's also fairly obvious (at least to me) that even if a person is genetically predisposed to be excel in a particular area, nurture plays a big role in whether the person will actually achieve that potential (or go in an entirely different direction).

The last important question I'll mention is whether it makes sense to clone a human being or pet when they pass on. When we lose someone or something that is important to us, it's very tempting to want to bring them back or to have another chance to right previous wrongs. It's hard to argue against the desire. But, if Alexander is correct (and I assume he's done proper research), you can't literally bring that exact person or thing back. You'd be bringing back someone that is substantially similar (at least genetically) but it's an entirely different person. Also, from a spiritual perspective, if you believe that everything happens for a reason (see this post), it was that person's (or pet's) proper time to go - even if it doesn't make sense at the time.

Anyway, lots of interesting questions raised by this play. I don't claim to have any real answers but those are some thoughts to consider.

Jesus: Unplugged

I read an interesting article in Metro Silicon Valley today. It's about an evangelical church in Santa Cruz called the Vintage Faith Church. While it has a traditional Christian focus and message, its gatherings are much more informal and hip than your typical church. Patrons wear flip-flops and jeans to services rather than their Sunday best. This particularly appeals to younger members - or as the article puts it, members of the "postmodern generation". Dan Kimball (a proponent of Emergent Christianity) got the idea for the distinctive services while watching MTV:

"Late one night, I happened upon the band the Cranberries playing an Unplugged concert on MTV. It was an all-acoustic performance. The state was draped with a dark, rich fabric and lit by candelabras. It looked more like a grandmother's attic than a rock-concert venue, and I was struck by the simplicity of it. No fancy light shows or drumset risers. I also noticed how close the audience was seated to the musicians. There wasn't a giant separation between the two groups. Rather, they were all sort of together in a 'community.' I immediately felt there was something very interesting to this 'unplugged' approach."

I have to admit. All the formality of traditional religious services is one of the things that keeps me away. I'd much prefer an informal discussion environment to a formal preaching environment. Perhaps this approach will catch on more broadly. Or perhaps it will be a passing fad. Hopefully it will be the former.

fat2phat revisited

About two years ago, I decided I needed to lose some weight. I weighed 235 pounds at the time. I set a goal for myself to lose 40 pounds in a year (a process I called "fat2phat"). It ended up taking me about 10 months to reach my goal. Since then, I've kept the weight off but recently it's been creeping back on. The last time I weighed myself (about 1-2 weeks ago), I weighed about 205 pounds. So, time for a new goal. By Christmas (7 months from now), I want to lose 15 pounds and get down to 190 pounds. That's realistic - it's about 2 pounds per month. When I lost weight the last time, I lost about 2 pounds per week.



To build some accountability into this process, I'm going to post an update on this blog once a week (every Sunday morning). The first one will be in two days. That will be the official weigh-in and starting point for improvement.

Al Gore

The more I read or hear about Al Gore, the more I like him. The latest thing was a brief interview in Men's Health magazine (PDF version here). I wonder how things would have played out differently if Gore had been elected President. Then again, perhaps the reason behind his close defeat was allowing him to focus exclusively on global warming. In the article, he offers four basic guidelines:

• When a direction feels right, go that way to find out why. Fulfillment usually follows.
• Solve one problem. You may find you're inspired to solve more.
• There are a lot of us on the planet, and we do a lot of damage. We can also fix a lot of things, if we choose.
• Everyone needs a purpose in life. Even puppies.

On the third point, Gore makes an interesting observation: "Look, in the long run the earth is going to be fine. It's humans who are at risk." On the last point, he offers this story about puppies and purpose:

When I was in my 20s, my wife and I got a little puppy at the pound. We asked a dog trainer to give us some pointers. She said, "Okay, step one: What is this puppy going to do?" I said, "What do you mean? He's going to be a puppy!" She said, "No, no, no: Is he going to get the newspaper? Be a watchdog? Herd sheep?" And she said something very simple, but to me it came off as profound: "A puppy has to have a purpose." A lot of men out there don't feel like they have a purpose.

The last interesting thing in his article is a quote from scripture that Gore says often: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might."

Emergence

It's interesting to see the unexpected connections that you form between your different interests. In response to this post regarding everything happening for a reason, my brother suggested that I look into chaos theory (see Wikipedia along with this excellent brief introduction). In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamic systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems is a sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economics, and population growth.

The butterfly effect is particularly interesting. The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different. On some level, this isn't all that different from my idea that seemingly random things happen in our lives sometimes since they serve some greater purpose (that is unknown to us at the time but has ripple effects within and across people's lives).

In the context of nanotechnology (see this post), this got me thinking about the concept of emergence. Size matters much more with nanotechnology than most other fields since many of the properties that apply at the macroscale do not apply at the nanoscale. Ratner describes cutting a cube of gold into smaller and smaller pieces. He observes that:

“All the gold bricks’ physical and chemical properties will be unchanged. This much is obvious from our real-world experience – at the marcoscale chemical and physical properties of materials are not size dependent. It doesn’t matter whether the cubes are gold, iron, lead, plastic, ice, or brass. When we reach the nanoscale, though, everything will change, including the gold’s color, melting point, and chemical properties. The reason for this change has to do with the nature of the interactions among the atoms that make up the gold, interactions that are averaged out of existence in the bulk material. Nano gold doesn’t act like bulk gold.”

Ratner further points out that the “coupling of size with the most fundamental chemical, electrical and physical properties of materials is key to all nanoscience.” With the Big Bang, particles of energy and atoms were created with certain properties that govern all larger building blocks and processes of life on Earth. Atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form molecular networks, and so on up to the planet’s ecosystem. With each new level of atomic construction, new properties and interactions emerge that did not exist at the previous level (but are governed by the properties of the preceding levels). One way to think about this is as a complex system – specifically “a system whose properties are not fully explained by an understanding of its component parts. Complex systems consist of a large number of mutually interacting and interwoven parts, entities or agents.” In response to the complexity of the interactions that take place at each level of nature, various (layered) disciplines have emerged: math as operating system of the universe, physics as the universe in motion, chemistry as physics in motion, biology as molecular networks, and ecology as interconnected networks.

Within this context, one interesting concept is scale-free networks. According the Wikipedia, “a scale-free network is a specific kind of complex network [in which] some nodes act as ‘highly connected hubs’ (high degree), although most nodes are of low degree.” One important property of scale-free network is that they are self-similar – meaning each part of the network is “exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself”. One example of a self-similar structure is a fractal. As the Wikipedia says, “in colloquial usage, [a fractal] denotes a shape that is recursively constructed or self-similar, that is, a shape that appears similar at all scales of magnification and is therefore often referred to as ‘infinitely complex.’” Many objects within nature including clouds, snowflakes, mountains, river networks, and systems of blood vessels have been shown to be fractal in nature. (Sound familiar? Fractals are also important in chaos theory!)

This is not surprising, however, given that all of these macrostructures are built up of atoms. In studying the connectedness of the Web, physicist Albert-Laszlo Barabasi and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame “found that the probability p(k) that a node in the network connects with k other nodes was, in a given network, proportional to k^−γ. The degree exponent γ is not universal and depends on the detail of network structure. Numerical values of the exponent γ for various systems are diverse but most of them are in the range 2 < γ ≤ 3.” Within the world of atoms, the maximum electrons in the nth shell is computed as 2n^2. Atomic valence dictates possible chemical reactions, chemical reactions drive biological functions, and so on. Nature becomes an “infinitely complex” system that “appears similar at all scales of magnification” and is ultimately governed by fundamental properties at the atomic and subatomic level. (Note: The connection between atomic valence and the properties of scale-free networks is potentially a stretch on my part but an interesting one in my opinion) Many people think science and mathematics are at odds with religion. They think science and math make God irrelevant. I actually think they could be helpful in terms of understanding how God operates and interacts with us in our daily lives. When you look at how nature operates and how elegant mathematics is, it's hard for me to believe that God doesn't have a hand in it. It's just all too perfect to be that way by chance (or even things like natural selection). Bringing all this together, two interesting questions to think about are: (1) If different properties emerge as you put more and more atoms together, what properties emerge as you put more and more people together? How are these properties influenced through a combination of God's will/plan and human free will? and (2) Even though life seems random and chaotic, could it really be "deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters"? Can chaos theory help us better understand the nature of God's relationship with man?

Nanosolar

I'm taking another online course through Foothill College. This time the topic is nanotechnology. The Wikipedia states that "nanotechnology comprises technological developments on the nanometer scale, usually 0.1 to 100 nm [1nm = one billionth of a meter or the width of approximately ten hydrogen atoms] ... Nanotechnology is any technology which exploits phenomena and structures that can only occur at the nanometer scale, which is the scale of several atoms and small molecules." The course overview defines nanotechnology as "the study, design, creation, synthesis, manipulation, and application of functional materials, devices, and systems through control of matter and energy at the nanometer scale". And the United States' National Nanotechnology Initiative (per Glenn Fishbine) defines it as follows: "Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range, to provide a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale and to create and use structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size. Nanotechnology research and development includes manipulation under control of the nanoscale structures and their integration into larger material components, systems and architectures. Within these larger scale assemblies, the control and construction of their structures and components remains at the nanometer scale."

Nanotechnology sits at the nexus of physics, chemistry, biology, material science, computer science, and many other scientific and technical disciplines - its multi-disciplinary nature is a distinguishing characteristic of nanotechnology. As Ratner points out, "the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology may explain why it took so long to develop. It is unusual for a field to require such diverse expertise. It also explains why most new nano research facilities are cooperative efforts among scientists and engineers from every part of the workforce."

At a business and economic level, the worldwide annual industrial production in the nanotech sectors is estimated to exceed $1 trillion ten to fifteen years from now and will require about 2 million nanotechnology workers (according to M.C. Roco ,Chair, WH/NSTC/Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSEC), and Senior Advisor, NSF). Nanotechnology has applications in a variety of fields including semiconductors, electronics, energy/power, and life sciences. Many people believe that nanotechnology will have an equivalent or greater impact on society in the years to come than computers and telecommunications have had in the last three decades. The NNI has even dubbed it "The Next Industrial Revolution"

My interest in nanotechnology stems from wanting to help solve the global energy crisis and save the planet from the continued effects of global warming (see this post or this one). One area of research and commercial application that is especially interesting to me is solar cells. For my midterm paper, I did a technology review of solar cell technology and a local startup company called Nanosolar (paper available for download in PDF format). Nanosolar, along with a handful of other companies, are trying to apply nanotechnology and manufacturing process innovations (such as roll-to-roll printing) to dramatically drive down the cost of solar cells while either maintaining or improving their current power efficiency. We all need Nanosolar (or some other company in this space) to succeed. By 2050, carbon dioxide levels will be roughly three times pre-industrial levels and will only level-off if we can generate approximately 15 terawatts of energy (roughly the entire worldwide energy production today!) from non-carbon sources. That's a tall order and pretty soon I suspect I'll be working more directly on making it a reality.

Everything happens for a reason

This past Wednesday was AJ's birthday. I decided to take the day off from work but ended up getting sick the night before. I was able to make it to AJ's party but I spent most of the day in bed. That sort of turn of events would normally bother me but it didn't that day. I had a sense it was happening for some reason beyond my comprehension and I simply accepted it. It was an interesting feeling.

In my world view post, I stated that one of my spiritual beliefs is that "everything happens for a reason – even if the reason isn’t immediately apparent." A couple of weeks later, I did a post on good and evil that included Zoroastrianism and free will. I've been thinking about this topic a little more since then and I'm beginning to converge on a concept I like that's ironically based on computer chess. Let me explain.

When I was at MIT, one of our programming assignments was to write a computer chess program. The way that a computer plays chess is that it looks at all the permutations of moves it could make along with all the permutations of moves the opponent could make in response and scores each board configuration. Also, like the best human chess players, the computer looks a number of moves ahead - so it might be willing to sacrifice a piece now to maximize its advantage in the future.

So here's the concept. What if all human beings on Earth are part of an elaborate multi-player game of computer chess? God's objective is to get as many people as possible to use their free will to choose good over the long term. At each moment of time, God looks at all the permutations of moves that he can make. He can change environmental factors (like the weather) and also plant ideas into each person's head. Let's say the Devil can plant ideas in people's heads as well. Now, God looks at all the moves he can make at that instant in time along with all the choices that people could make in response and looks ahead an infinite number of moves (scoring each board configuration relative to his objective). He then makes a move with each person simultaneously. An instant later, each person makes their move in response - using their free will to embrace or ignore God's suggestions (or the Devil's suggestions) or do something entirely different. With these decisions made, entire sets of possible future outcomes are eliminated but others are created. Then God picks his next set of moves and the process continues instant by instant.

Now, the thing that is interesting is that God can plant ideas in one person's head about someone else and the decisions that one person makes can influence the circumstances or outcomes of other people. So it's an impossibly complex analysis / optimization problem to perform in real-time - as there would be an infinite number of permutations to consider. But God conceivably has infinite computing / parallel-processing capacity and could actually pull this off. Also, in chess, both players share the same objective. In life, individual people might be trying to optimize for a different outcome than God. Therefore, when considering the range of moves that people might make, God would need to probability-weight the person's set of possible actions. The only way to accurately do this would be to know what's in (or could develop in) the person's mind and heart - which only an omnipotent God could know.

Coming back to everything happening for a reason, something bad (or good) could happen in my life now because it's relevant to a situation 2,000 moves in the future. Alternatively, something could happen in my life now not for my benefit but for the benefit of someone else. It might be important that other person observe and learn from my life now since it will be relevant to them 1,856 moves in their future.

None of this explains (1) why people have free will in the first place and (2) why the Devil exists and why God allows him to persist and influence human beings, but it does potentially explain events that might otherwise seem random to us. Also, it might begin to explain why bad things happen to good people. For example, in chess, you may choose to sacrifice a piece to lure the other player in. In life, God may give people hardships to prepare them for future challenges or to motivate them to seek his fellowship. Or he might actually give one person a hardship to act as a wake-up call to a number of other people (either direct acquaintances or people who hear of the hardship second-hand). Again, he's maximizing a (very) long-term, not short-term outcome.

Just a theory at this point. Needs more work and refinement. Feedback very welcome!

DaVinci Code

I organized a small team-building event this afternoon to go see DaVinci Code (DVC). It was a decent movie. I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much if I hadn't read the book. It was interesting to see how certain parts of the book were translated onto the big screen but I'm also not sure that the movie would have totally made sense without the prior reading. Even though critics are complaining the movie is too long, I'm not sure how they could have made it any shorter and had it still hang together. Definitely no need to see this movie in the theater. DVD would be fine - and then you'd get all the special features too.

It really amazing to see all the interest and controversy around this book and movie. The movie theater (for a 12:30pm showing) was totally packed. I ended sitting off on the right in the third row from the screen! People are talking about the movie on the radio. Apparently certain Catholic groups want to boycott the movie - which only gives the movie that much more free publicity. I guess this book (just like the Gospel of Judas) has caused a lot of people to question the church and their own faith. If a single novel can have that much impact, it begs the question of how strong those people's faith was in the first place. There is an interesting article on explorefaith.org that says that "if DVC has done nothing else, it has exposed an undercurrent of suspicion and cynicism directed toward the church by a segment of the American public, and we need to acknowledge the validity of their antagonism toward an imperfect and sometimes abusive church." Another very good article points out that "to me, Dan Brown has done a huge service to the Christian faith in bringing these questions to popular culture. Suddenly people are seriously engaged in theological questions…questions about the divinity of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, and the development of orthodoxy. Nobody outside of seminary is usually interested in that stuff."

That same article also makes another important point. What if the theories advanced in DVC are true? What if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene to had children? So what? Does that invalidate who Jesus was or that he was divine? When posed that question, "some said they would feel more connected to Jesus if he had a family like they did. Some felt that maybe the church would have had fewer problems acknowledging women’s roles and sexuality if that had been taught. Still others found it didn’t make any difference to what they believed. Since the Church has always taught that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, nobody felt that Jesus’ divinity would be jeopardized by his being a husband and father. Asking the 'So what?' question helped some to be less afraid and more willing to really engage their own faith." The article goes on to make the point that "the most important thing the Da Vinci Code controversy can teach us is that real faith can survive our questions. We might accept the new thought or not, but real seeking after truth is what Christian discipleship has always been about. If certain questions can’t be asked or if certain answers are not allowed from the beginning, we can’t honestly seek the truth. And if we can’t seek the truth, how will we ever find Him?"

A different article on the site raises the question of whether you need to be certain of what you believe. As Allen Jones, Dean of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, puts it, “The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.” This a refreshing perspective (at least for me) because it seems that many people need absolute certainty around their beliefs to have faith. This article discusses why it's often so hard for us to challenge our belief systems.

If all this doesn't give you the necessary DVC fix, here is a list of articles on "deciphering DVC" along with an assortment of others regarding the nature of belief.

Entrepreneurial spirit

I've been a volunteer coach at the Girls Middle School for three years. My sister-in-law HG turned me onto the Entrepreneurial Program there and I've really enjoyed working with the 7th graders to build their businesses. It's actually quite remarkable to see 12-to-14 year-old girls put together a coherent business plan (including financials), pitch their companies to real VCs in front of 400 people, and then actually run the business for a semester. This year's group (Natural Eaze) closed their books today. After running the business for 4 months, they had $1,800 in sales and $1,065 in profit. After paying back startup loans (with interest) and donating 20% of the profits to charity, each girl walked away with $170 in cash - quite at score at that age.

I wish I had more time for volunteer activities. In addition to the Girls Middle School, I also tried to get involved with the Computer History Museum. Computers are near and dear to my heart and being a docent at the museum would have been a lot of fun. Getting back involved with NARF, a local animal rescue group, would also be interesting to me. But it would all take time that I don't have right now. Oh well. I guess it's all about priorities.

Livin' large

My wife and I got to stay at the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay tonight. I'm actually writing this with my Ritz Carlton slippers on. I've stayed at some nice hotels before (including the Nine Zero in Boston, the Clift Hotel in San Francisco, and the Weston La Cantera Resort in San Antonio) but this place is probably the nicest place I've ever stayed at - and the added bonus is that it was free! My company is having a management offsite here tomorrow and my boss hooked me up with a room that would have otherwise gone to waste. What a score for me and my wife - especially on Mother's Day!

The interesting thing about all of this is that the more nice things I do (stay here, go to plays, skydive, etc), the more I want to do this stuff on a regular basis. And, of course, all of this costs money. I can really see how people get into situations where they want (and need) to keep making more and more money. And the irony there is that making all that money (work) can take you away from the things you actually want (both family and fun). Anyway, I'm going to get back to enjoying this experience while it lasts. But I certainly wouldn't mind if it happens again (especially if I don't have to pay for it).

PS - A huge thanks to HG for taking the kids tonight so my wife and I could get away.

Mother's Day

Today is my wife's 4th Mother's Day (as a Mom). I'm so glad that JD and AJ have my wife as their mother. She's confident in her parenting and grounded in her approach. She lets the kids be kids and discover things on their own and at their own pace. She also sets appropriate limits and boundaries. The more I interact with other parents (especially here in Silicon Valley), the more rare I can see these qualities are. The kids are blessed. I am blessed.

My wife and I make our marriage a priority. We feel like the single best gift that we can give our kids is the knowledge that their parents love each other and nothing will tear them apart. With that foundation, they should have the confidence to try or do just about anything. Between an incredibly involved aunt and some wonderful babysitters, my wife and I have the opportunity to go out together (for some private time) on a regular basis. That is also a great blessing. Ironically, I think some parents put so much time and energy into their kids that they neglect their marriage. A co-worker once told me that kids either bring a couple even closer together or amplify marital problems that were previously neglected. I think both are true. Kids bring you closer together, amplify old marital problems, and create entirely new ones. It's a lot of stress on the individual parents and their relationship. That's why I think it's so important to make the marriage a priority, to proactively address issues before they fester and undermine the marriage.

In Having It All ... And Making It Work (see this post), the authors observe that "We have discovered that many working professionals and emerging leaders struggle to achieve balance. We also see evidence that chronic imbalance causes serious problems at work and at home. Sadly, some people live in denial, at least until they experience a major wakeup call. They believe that problems in their personal lives with marriage and family relationships won’t affect their work or that problems at work won’t affect their family lives, but invariably an imbalance in one domain affects the other.” In the context of marriage and parenting, I would add "Sadly, some people live in denial, at least until they experience a major wakeup call. They believe that problems in their marriage won’t affect their kids or that problems with their kids won’t affect their marriage, but invariably an imbalance in one domain affects the other.” My wife taught me this. All the more reason I'm so happy I'm married to her and that she's the mother of my children.

Honk!

I took JD to a Peninsula Youth Theatre production of "Honk!" today. He saw their production of "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" last month. I was pretty impressed with the quality of the performance - especially the girl who played the mother duck and the boy who played the cat. The musical is about an ugly duckling who is teased by everyone (except his mother) but later turns into a beautiful swan. With Mother's Day tomorrow, I was certainly struck by how the mother duck stuck by her child even though everyone else (including the father duck) rejected him. I wanted to have a conversation with JD about how we shouldn't judge or tease others simply because they're "different". That immediately made me realize that I do that all the time. I don't mean to. It's simply instinct. For those of you have read Blink or Gift of Fear, there are certainly benefits to "thin-slicing" and trusting your instincts with strangers and/or dangerous situations. I wonder how to continue to benefit from these innate capabilities that evolution has fine-tuned over thousands of years but not have them limit me or cause me to be treat (or judge) people unfairly. Blink offers some suggestions in that regard (education, awareness) but they're easier said than done.

MySpace

I should be doing work right now. It's Friday night. I suppose that's a good excuse to slack off. Anyway, I was talking to some people at work today about how I don't get MySpace. It's this super-hot thing right now (especially with teens) but I don't see what the big deal is. They suggested I sign-up so I did. In case you're ever bored, here is my new MySpace page. I still don't get it, though. Actually, that's not true. I can see now why it's such a hot thing with teens and young adults. MySpace combines social networking with instant messaging, blogging, comments, music, and video. So, I should rephrase. I do get it but I'm not into it. Then again, I wasn't into blogging and now look at me go. Maybe I'll make lots of new friends online and suddenly get all into it. Who knows. If you're into MySpace (which I strongly doubt), add me as a friend.

Fortune cookies

Fortune cookies are always fun - although I have to say that too many fortune cookies contain random quotes or sayings these days instead of genuine fortunes. Anyway, I opened up two cookies today and these were the fortunes: (1) "A short stranger will soon enter your life" and (2) "You will be coming into a fortune". Intriguing. I'll meet a "vertically-challenged" person sometime soon and I may come into some money. Perhaps the stranger will give me money. Who knows. Or perhaps the fortune isn't monetary. Maybe it's spiritual. Height varies a lot by gender and race (see data) but perhaps I should be on the lookout for a 5-foot (or shorter) stranger with spiritual advice. Maybe a 4-foot-8-inch Mormon missionary will come visit me. That would be interesting.

Good times

It's been a really great weekend. On Saturday morning, I took the kids to the park. Then my brother and I took JD camping. I went sky-diving this morning. And I spent the afternoon with my wife. It would be hard to top this.

This was JD's first time camping (my first time too). We did a backyard campout last November. JD enjoyed it so much that I decided to take him for real. We camped out at Sunset State Beach. I'd describe it as camping with training wheels. You can park right next to your camp site. There are bathrooms and showers nearby along with running water to wash dishes, etc. There's even Wi-Fi coverage at the campground - although we didn't take advantage of it. And, of course, there's the beach. We all had a great time - especially JD.

After packing up our stuff this morning, we headed down to the Monterey and I did a tandem sky-dive from 15,000 feet. I had originally tried to go last Saturday (and then again on Friday) but the weather didn't cooperate. Since I was in the area again, I gave it another try and the weather was perfect. It was a little scary going out of the plane but otherwise it wasn't bad. And the view from 3 miles up is amazing. Roughly 60 seconds of free-fall and then about 4-5 minutes of parachuting. SP and JD weren't there to see me land but they did get to see my co-worker land (along with a bunch of other folks).

Since I talk about God a lot on this blog, I'll mention something here. When the weather didn't cooperate last Saturday and again on Friday (after driving almost two hours each way), it definitely makes you wonder whether God is trying to send you a message. Here's the interesting question, though. There were four people in our group both days. So how do you know who God is sending a message? Perhaps it's one of the other people and I didn't get a chance to jump those days as a side-effect. Or maybe God wanted me to go today so SP and JD could be there. Or maybe the weather conditions were simply random and God wasn't telling anyone anything. It's impossible to know. That's the challenging thing with God. You can read whatever you want (or don't want) into certain events and convince yourself of just about anything.

Anyway, it was a great weekend. I'm glad I got a chance to spend so much quality time with JD and SP.

Stunted by Sameness

I just read this article on the explorefaith.org Web site. It's an interesting and important reminder regarding the benefit of diversity in our lives.

We all have our comfortable circles. There are places where we feel we belong and we are understood. As the theme song from Cheers says. "Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name. And they're always glad you came." Everybody needs places of such refuge and belonging

But being comfortable with like-minded people can produce a spiritual ghetto that at its worst can turn into mob-think. There is something stimulated when you find yourself among strangers, without title or standing, listening to ideas and thoughts that come from a different and challenging perspective.

We need one another in all of our diversity. That's a lesson we get from Jesus who crossed all kinds of religious and cultural barriers to interact with those who were different from him and different from each other. St. Paul offers the image of the body. A complete humanity needs all parts of the body. The ear can't say to the eye, "I have no need of you."

I don't have enough diversity in my life. These days, it seems you have to seek out diversity. It's so easy to miss or avoid. Like-minded people go to the same churches ... they work in the same companies ... they want and like to spend time with each other. And there's nothing wrong with that. But it's also limiting. I guess I'll add "seek out diverse perspectives" to my ever-growing to-do list. I wish there was an easier way for diverse perspectives to find me. Any suggestions?

My church

My brother made an interesting observation last night. He said that in the absence of a particular religion or church, this blog is my church, my way of communing spiritually with other people. How very true and very insightful.