Couple Random Things

In the next month, buses will be rolling through the Washington D.C. area emblazoned with ads stating "Why Believe in a God? Be Good for Goodness' Sake." It's a takeoff from a similar campaign running in London this holiday season.

article here

A couple thoughts:
1. Certainly one more sign of the times. As we become even more of a pluralistic society, Christianity is becoming simply one more voice among the many.
2. Many Christians will choose to be offended by this ad campaign (or so I'm guessing). Perhaps, instead, this may become an excellent conversation starter. After all, they ask "Why Believe in a God?" And we've already been given the challenge: "Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). So if they ask, let's give them an answer. (not forgetting that Peter said to carry out the above "with gentleness and respect".)

_____

Closer to home, next year a law goes into effect in Seattle and King County, requiring restaurants to hand out and display nutritional information for all the food they serve, in order to assist people in making more informed dining choices.

The P-I ran an article on this new law this morning, along with some pertinent nutritional facts from our local eateries.

If you want to remain in denial about those frappuccinos and chili burgers you're ingesting, don't go check it out. But if you're wondering why you just can't lose those last 15 pounds, maybe it's because that macaroni-n-cheese has 2430 calories and 128 grams of fat.

See, here's what you need to understand

I've always been very healthy. Other than breaking my wrist a couple times, I've avoided major medical treatments. Never spent the night in a hospital. Never had my tonsils out, never had my appendix out, never even had my wisdom teeth out. So this surgery thing is completely new territory that I am entering. Which means, I suppose, I'm going through a whole process of "psyching up" for it. Just getting my head around the fact that I'm the guy who might go in for surgery, and not just any surgery but a transplant, on my own precious eyeball. . .I'm just not even sure what I'm supposed to think about that. Or what I'm supposed to feel about that. When I do give it much thought, I don't like the idea much. And I don't like the feelings I have surrounding the idea. And yet, I know it's necessary, and I like the idea of what's on the other side - semi-normal vision.

Please forgive me, I'm still processing.

On corneas, medical technology, and decisions to make

"Do you want to talk about grafting?"

And so it all changed. We went to Seattle yesterday so I could be fitted with my new contact lens. After messing around with the eye, doing all sorts of tests and measurements, after getting the lens in and fitting as best possible, Dr. Ralph Archer asked the above question.

Up to this point, the game has been "Find the lens that works best." Apparently, we've reached the end of that road, unless I feel like living with a huge piece of plastic in my eye for the next decade.

In came Dr. Rotkiss, the head corneal surgeon, for a long talk about the possibility of a transplant. About the only good thing he could say about the current situation was "It's a testimony to your fortitude or stubbornness that you've lived with this lens so long."

So, the question we're pondering today is "Do I go ahead and have the corneal transplant?" So far, the doctor's recommendation is "yes." And I think we're moving in that direction as well, although I want to spend some time praying about it first. Somehow I thought this day was a lot further off, out in that nebulous "future" that we never actually believe is going to show up.

A couple of things

- I'm heading down to the Covenant Annual Meeting tomorrow through Saturday, so I don't know if I'll be blogging anything over the next few days. I do look forward to seeing some old friends and maybe making some new ones. We're staying with my aunt and uncle in Tigard, so should have some good family time. And I hear Bruce and Katy are up from Turlock. . .

- Today was, I think, one of the final visits to the eye doctor for awhile. We've arrived at the place where it's about as good as it's gonna get. I had to accept that, due to the nature of this corneal thing, it just won't ever be perfect and pain-free. The lens that's in now is the lesser of all evils, according to Dr. Ralph. It gets me to 20/25 vision, and it mostly stays where it's supposed to. Although if I look to the right, it has a tendency to pop out. So if you want to sneak up on me, come from the right, as I won't be looking that way much. He did say technology is moving along rapidly, and hopefully in another 10 years they might be able to do a transplant that will take care of the whole thing. So until then, we make do.

- If I was a sociologist, this is what I'd study: It seems we've become a society who expect to have private moments in public spaces. There was an article in the P-I the other day about a park near Pike Place Market that is famous for two things: being a huge draw to tourists because of the view, and being a haven for homeless people, including many drug addicts. The arguments fly back and forth - compassion and understanding for the homeless vs. lock 'em all up so we can have a nice clean park. But I think, underlying it all, is the assumption that "I" can go to a public park and have a private little time there, not having to put up with other people, especially people I don't particularly care for. In reading the comments under this article, I sensed this idea again and again. "I should be able to go to a park and not have to be bothered by other people." The fact that they are homeless is merely a mask for the underlying feeling that public space should become private space.

I know it's not this way in other cultures. You go out in public to interact with the public. I don't think it was this way in America all that long ago - whenever we went camping we made the effort to meet our neighbors. But more and more, we are autonomous individuals assuming we can make our way through public space without having to interact with others (think ipods). And it comes to a head here - I should be able to go to the park and have my little time there and not have to have any interaction with others.

Anyway, I need to think it through more. Maybe you can comment and spur my thinking more.

As to the article in the other Seattle Paper about the Episcopalian Priest who claims also to be a Muslim. . .it's been too long a day to comment.