Coffee shop irksomeness

I walked passed a table with two cadets studying for what I'm sure was an upcoming philosophy test. They sat reviewing terms. "Wait, what is virtue?" one aked. "Oh well, that is a trait that someone values as being good," responded the other. "Then what's value?..." And on.

They may have well been reviewing terms for economics or physics. Philosophy is just another class here at the Academy. Few care about what it really means to be a "lover of wisdom." So many study as if these terms - like virtue, perfection, morality, evil, soul, justice, truth - have nothing to do with them. Should we ever be forced to come to terms with the age old question of good and bad, right and wrong, then I shall await some moral pacesetter of a teacher that will surely speak out against such blatant wickedness! To think, the student must judge for themselves!

Slap me sideways you who should ever find me reviewing philosophical terms for some debilitating quiz come philosophy 310.

Manly character, vigor, or spirit. -Virility
To think hard; ponder; meditate -Cogitate
A moving force; impulse; stimulus -Impetus

words.

Cold Metal Bust

Some body stands in the stairwell.
Another strides the expensive ground. It's late.
A bust of a great man propped up where
none stroll or get lost looks on... blankly, cold.

'A pilot, you think?'
'What else.'
Visitors ooh and aah over
the war stories and
fantastic thoughts regain conciousness.
Regret's on all fours.
But I wonder what he would say
if one stopped and
committed more than a self-
righteous blank cold stare?
'Don't worship my half-lived life.'

Academy corruption surfaces

Cheating, drugs, porn, theft, and sex - The Air Force Academy's honor crisis. The Superintendent of USAFA announced last week that the moral compass of cadets here has gone astray. The school is investigating dozens of honor cases involving freshmen cadets cheating on military knowledge tests. A small minority of cadets have been accused of drug abuse. Last fall the communications squadron discovered why the the internet was moving so slow - cadets have been illegally streaming porn and other questionable material on their personal computers. Pirating music is at an all time high. And apparently we have another sexual assault to top it off.

I know very well the strongest argument most noble cadets offer in response to the news: the culprits represent only 1% of all cadets! Not bad. The numbers (at least those published) do in fact yield less than 1%. One must realize, though, that immoral cadets are not just the ones who get caught - and I am highly confident the Academy has not caught everyone.

Truthfully, the numbers don't mean much to me. It's hard, if not impossible, to quantify morality. The primary consequence of this Academy's corruption breaking the surface of acknowledgement is this: each cadet can't help but spend some time instrospecting. And from my own introspection I've no problem admitting that I am not the perfect, most honorable cadet. Then, when I examine the moral landscape of the Academy I consistently reach the conclusion that most cadets are not perfect and even in some cases the epitome of human depravity. So now what? Is this place hopeless? Maybe.

Cadets aren't pillars of moral perfection - I'm not shocked by that realization, we live in a fallen world. But I should ask what is the Academy doing to encourage and inspire cadets to put forth sincere effort into becoming "officers of character" and following the honor code: We will not lie, steal or cheat?" First, I wonder where the Academy adopted these virtuous rules from? I'd venture to say the Bible. Just take a look at the 8th and 9th commandments. If not, I'm only creative enough to suggest they're engraved on the Academy for some economic or differentiating gimic. If so, our country (and the world really) is worse off than I thought. Now, assuming the honor code is founded on biblical righteousness and following God's commandments, what's the best way to motivate a cadet to follow what the world says is worthless, too lofty, or unprofitable? I say profess truth. Invite God into the classroom, invite Him into our conversations, encourage communal prayer, brotherly and sisterly love, reintroduce apologetics. What has the leadership at the Academy done? All that is secular.

How can the Academy hope to create officers of biblical character without citing the Bible and without using God's name? It's a sad venture. Leaders are restrained from government powers, by those lobbying for tolerance and moral relativism. Why should the government be able to pressure the Academy like this? Money. Every cent comes from tax money and tax money spent has stipulations.

Why should the Academy expect to create officers who honor moral absolutes set by the Creator of the Universe when they can't teach His decrees?

I live in a paradox where leaders challenge cadets to be "good" and to disdain "bad" choices, but when asked "what is good and bad?" I hear the silence which best describes the United States Air Force Academy's moral climate.

What then shall we choose?

I had an enlightening experience with Allan Bloom and his book "The Closing of the American Mind" in the coffee shop this morning. Read this and try not to cringe in the face of truth:

Natural science asserts that it is metaphysically neutral, and hence has no need for philosophy, and that imagination is not a faculty that in any way intuits the real - hence art has nothing to do with truth. The kinds of questions children ask: Is there a God? Is there freedom? Is there punishment for evil deeds? Is there certain knowledge? What is a good society? were once also the questions addressed by science and philosophy. But now the grownups are too busy at work, and the children are left in a day-care center called the humanities, in which the discussions have no echo in the adult world. Moreover, students whose nature draws them to such questions and to the books that appear to investigate them are very quickly rebuffed by the fact that their humanities teachers do not want or are unable to use the books to respond to their needs.

The enlightenment springs from my newly found intelligible support for my elderly intuitional desire to leave the Academy. I will soon patch it altogether in some literary composition.

For now, I will pose this question. The question ranks among the most important I've ever struggled answering. If the moral fabric of this nation is in mature degradation due to, in large part, the collapsing function and execution of higher education and classical liberal studies in today's universities, what then shall I choose? Hope and encouragement, I've recently found, comes from Bloom's genius matter-of-fact:

After a reading of the Symposium a serious student came with deep malancholy and said it was impossible to imagine that magic Athenian atmosphere reproduced, in which friendly men, educated, lively, on a footing of equality, civilized but natural, came together and told wonderful stories about the meaning of their longing. But such experiences are always accessible. Actually, this playful discussion took place in the midst of a terrible war that Athens was destined to lose, and Aristophanes and Socrates at least could foresee that this meant the decline of Greek civilization. But they were not given to culture despair, and in these terrible political circumstances, their abandon to the joy of nature proved the viability of what is best in man, independent of accidents, of circumstance.

Thank you, Mr. Bloom.

A Life of no Sound

A life of no sound sounds appealing to me.
Empty words cease screaming,
annoying drips cease dripping,
and it stops the buzzing of the bee.

The Great Silence comes all at once...
She and he will question me,
I'll don a look and offer glee
And they'll think me crazier than I was

Their caged minds I will unlock.
Peace I'll give to ignorance
and War I'll give to compliments
and pray they'll learn the better of them both.

Bad day for snow

I'm in Boulder, CO. If all had gone according to plan, I'd be flying over Washington now, ready to see home. The prediction was snow last night. I woke up early this morning and chuckled because I didn't see any - then I re-awoke three hours later and saw five inches and building and thought, "uh oh." I then duly received an automated call from Alaska Airlines rescheduling my cancelled flight to Christmas Eve.

At least I packed some good books... Happy holidays everyone!

THIS JUST IN
City of Boulder - Closed

One christian perspective on poker

For some years now I've played the game of texas hold-em poker. I still recall many fond memories of sitting around makeshift poker tables with my best friends. Nowadays, this style of poker is found everywhere. Americans of all ages are playing the game in all kinds of environments: living rooms, bed rooms, kitchens, real poker joints, and my personal favorite - cold garages. Despite the popularity and thrill of the "cadillac of poker," as a christian, I've questioned its legitimacy in my life. I know that's not uncommon. In fact, one of the best guys in our group of players turned his back to the game a while ago because of its conflict with his faith. Answering some important questions about the game is a wise choice for any christian poker player. Is the game inherently sinful? When does poker create conflict between the player and God?

I won't argue or try to describe texas hold-em beyond claiming that it is pure entertainment, and if you've ever played, you know. Anyone who identifies with this generation recognizes poker and has most likely experienced the rollercoster ride that it is. Note also, I am arguing one segment of poker - the low stake ($5 buy-in), 1-2 time per week game, with friends. I have little to no experience (nor interest) in casino or high stakes poker, other than what I've seen on the World Series of Poker.

The Poker Gamble

The question I think most people are asking when they contemplate christianity and poker is a modified "may christians gamble?" Despite the fact that the Bible never actually mentions the word "gamble," I assert that poker (especially texas hold-em) does not quite fall into the category of gambling. A current definition of gambling follows:

"Gambling is an act by which one party consciously risks money or other stakes in the hope of gaining (through chance) at someone else’s expense"

Opponents have many good points against poker or any other form of money gaming. One argues that poker/gambling can be a form of stealing, consequently breaking the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Another claims, citing the Bible, wealth that comes easy goes easy. Additionally, compulsiveness and addiction arising from poker is another strong point of the opposition.

While many of those points may be true for other realms of poker such as high stakes, I disagree with their relavence to the late night kitchen-table poker with friends. Addressing the theft argument, if players agree before hand to play the game of poker, they understand that if they play poorly, the money they bought-in with will be dispersed to those who played well. I liken this to a situation among two men. If one chooses to jump the other and kill him, he has murdered. But if both agree to become enemies and go to war, and one man kills the other - it is not murder. The Bible states, "Thou shalt not murder" (the Original Hebrew text employs the word "ratsach" which means murder). Thefore I cannot fully subscribe to the belief that if players agree prior to the game to bet, that they are stealing.

Concerning Proverbs chapter 13, which speaks much of money and its value and the importance of honest work, the stakes that most people usually play with are low enough not to apply. If I win, it's usually not enough money to write home about, in fact the most it really accomplishes is a "Hey, it's on me," as I whip out my wallet at the Dairy Queen counter with a friend. And if I lose, I had a fun night joking around and playing poker with good friends - all for maybe fifteen bucks (assuming I bought-in three times).

The compulsiveness and addiction of the game can, I forsee, be dangerous to any player. I'll discuss that in a proceeding paragraph.

The primary reason I cannot comfortably label poker as pure gambling is the "chance clause." The current definition of gambling requires a huge portion of chance, such is the case in activities like lottery, bingo, craps, roulette, etc... The difference between those and poker is narrowly defined, but still significant. Picture this:

You are in a hand of poker. You look down at the hole cards, Ace-Ace. Excitement rises. On the board is a Two-Four-King-Eight-Six. One person is left, it's just you and him. You've been closely following the betting history. He didn't bet until the flop - you put him on a King. The other cards don't scare you. You judge you have the best hand and confidently announce you're "all in." He quickly calls and flips over two Kings in his hand - three pair, you lose.

Now, did you just lose because of chance? If you did, you're gambling. I submit that it wasn't chance but something else. Poor judgment. That's what texas hold-em is all about really, judgement. You controlled the outcome. You could have read it right and dropped the hand - that would have been the right play. But you judged wrong. None of that was because of the polling of some random numbers or the roll of a dice. It was purely decisional. That is where the difference lies. The money adds the incentive and reward for a decision made well. Most people aren't opposed to that concept. Look at professional football for example - you play better, make good decisions on the field, guess what? - you get paid more. The "chance," I guess, in that game comes in the form of bodily injury. So, if society demands that poker be labeled as gambling, the definition needs a little tweaking and the list needs to be lengthened to include professional sports, investing - anything that adds the new ingredient ascribed by the new definition, skill.

I think I've proven that playing texas hold-em with friends is not inherently sinful. Everyone agrees on the stakes prior to starting and understands the consequences of playing well or playing poorly. No one is going to the bank with their winnings to buy a car or put a down payment on a house - the stakes are no where near that high. And while there is good argumentation for why the current definition of gambling may be sinful, another strong argument exists claiming poker should not be categorized as gambling.

Poker idolatry

Even though I'm quite positive playing texas hold-em with friends is not sinful in itself - poker can become a sin by diverting the worship God seeks and ultimately deserves. In this respect, the Bible makes it clear on what to do, "Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry" (1Cor 10.14). If playing poker is the primary objective or passion in my life then my priorities are messed up.

Also, Romans 14:23 describes a man who has doubts about what he should be eating in regards to his faith. And Paul writes, "But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." Therefore, in light of this wisdom, don't play poker if you are unsure of its nature.

Otherwise, some advice on play, in the words of Michael, "Three pair never wins..."