The Misfit Academe

I shouldn't be writing this blog.

I should be writing an essay. I don't want to write the essay. Why? I find it boring. That may sound ridiculous considering the fact that I picked the topic. But, even with the boon of picking my own topic, scientific writing doesn't thrill me. It is a spiritually thankless art. Sure, a skilled scientific writer may do better in grad school or be more likely to get published in a prestigious journal. However, that is a different kind of fulfillment that what one gains when the muses strike a chorus of thunder and the pen boldly writes of inner thoughts.

I deeply tempted to write the essay in the form of a scholarly personal narrative (SPN). As an undergrad I was lucky enough to have a great professor introduce me to this form. The SPN blends the virtues of traditional scientific writing (credibility, attribution, review, and process) with the voice of the author. I know that it can be done and what is more--I have already done it. So what is holding me back? Put simply, guts. I wasn't given the slightest guideline for this essay. Essentially, it was "go west, young man, and prosper!". So, there are no explicit warnings against writing in this style. Yet, I am savvy enough to read between the lines. The essay is for a course in a department in which I am an outsider--a department in which engineering and design and numbers take precedence. Literary creativity would at best be seen as nothing more than a misguided attempt to fill up pages with words and at worst would be seen as a failure of a liberal arts hack to adapt to the realm of science. Yet, the SPN offers a unique opportunity to enliven a dreary topic.

Relatability. All of politics, success and life is based on relatability. What good are all those numbers, coefficients, r-squares, and chi-values without application and context? They are absolutely worthless. Science exists not to exclude the layman from a social circle, but to improve his life through defined procedure. Yet, the layman does not readily translate Pearson coefficients into money, joy, or love. Science is the slave to art. Art may have value on its own, but without art science cannot be digested by the multitude.

You know what? I am writing an SPN tomorrow!

The Highwall Speaks!

Today was my best day of hunting in a long, long time. The conditions were terrible this evening. The temperatures were in the 70's, the moon was full, and the wind was howling. I had jumped some deer off of a hillside earlier in the day and decided to set up there this evening. I sat in an unmowed strip of prairie grass and scrub on the side of the hill and watched a hay meadow from 3:00 p.m. to about 5:30 p.m. I had already decided that nothing was going to come by, so I began to fold-up my collapseable shooting sticks. When I looked up there was a doe probably 40 yards away running at full blast. I told myself to not to shoot her yet (I am a meat hunter) and then I realized that now 10 ft. behind her was this brute. I bleated and he paused momentarily and then took off running again. I swung my 1885 and let her rip as the crosshairs passed over the shoulder. He continued up the hill, as did I (all the while jamming a .405 round in the falling-block). Once I crested the hill I saw him roll and kick. Today, like every other day, I am a blessed man.

Waging War Against the Blight of Drugs and Alcohol

About once a month I get into an argument with someone about the legalization of drugs. Partially this is because I frequent circles that are inhabited by both Republicans and Libertarians. Inevitably, my Libertarian friends will regurgitate the platitude that the government should have no control over your personal life. I am sympathetic to this viewpoint, but I must contest their logic. In the case of drugs, there are extenuating circumstances.

In today's time of Tea Party politics and Libertarian fervor the topic of freedom is trendy. Boiled down, all of politics is really about how much freedom we should have. This brings into question where I fit in the political spectrum. I've had people (and tests) tell me that I am a Republican, Conservative or a Libertarian. In truth? This matters little. For my purposes, I am going to call myself a "Sensible" Libertarian.

Why the superlative? Because I believe in the following level of liberty;

Every person should have all conceivable liberty is his or her life up until said liberty threatens the well-being of others.

It is a proven fact that drugs alter your ability to control your actions. The extent of this phenomena is wide-ranging, depending on the drug in question. While marijuana may debilitate your reflexes and decision-making ability, hard drugs may very well lead you to kill someone in order to support your habit. At this point I am certain that there are recreational drug users reading this very post and disagreeing with my last observation. Look it up! NO. Don't trust your personal experience. That is not logical. If a drug really does alter your consciousness, how would you know that it didn't by taking it? According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/Marijuana.pdf), marijuana has the following effects: "distorted perceptions, impaired coordination,
difficulty in thinking and problem solving and problems with learning and memory... increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia". If you experience these symptoms you are undoubtedly a threat to not only yourself, but to the people around you.

What is more, ONDCP also points out that since 1998 the potency of seized marijuana has doubled. ONCP further mentions that the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 16.7 million people used marijuana in the month preceding the survey. Keep in mind, this is a self-reported statistic. The actual usage of this drug likely far exceeds this number. As I write this, media sources are indicating that California's Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in the state, has failed(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/proposition-19-results-california-votes-reject-marijuana-measure/story?id=12037727, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44590.html).

I often encounter proponents of drug legalization that cite two defenses to my argument. The first defense is to point out that we allow personal ownership of firearms and that firearms are considerably more dangerous than drugs. This is a shallow and illogical defense. Firearms do not cause accidents, nor do they cause people to harm other people. Firearms are simply tools. The same logic that would ban firearms would also ban steak knives, sharp sticks and panes of glass. If a person picks up a firearm, he or she is not suddenly possessed by the perverse desire to wantonly commit violence and destruction. Conversely, the usage of a drug well may subvert the rational capacity of the human mind and lead to acts that directly harm other individuals. Whereas a firearm is a tool, a drug is a disabling agent. I would like to point to the fact that if I purchase and use $10,000 worth of firearms I will not necessarily harm myself or my fellow man. However, I purchase and use $10,000 worth of a given drug, I most certainly will leave a wake of harm.

The second defense brings alcohol into the dialogue. According to a recent study alcohol is in fact, the most harmful drug (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/01/alcohol.harm/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29&utm_content=Google+Reader). I have some faith in this decision, but I have not read the actual scientific article, nor examined in-depth the criteria by which these drugs were ranked. Regardless, the consumption of alcohol can be dangerous. So then, am I a prohibitionist? Perhaps not, but I am a teetotaller. I can find no just reason to encourage any person to drink. Drinking has never solved a personal problem and has never resulted in a positive long-term outcome in someone's life. Because of this, I am an advocate of temperance. At this point my critics will suggest that I either allow for the legalization of drugs or support the ban of alcohol. I will do no such thing. By legalizing drugs we would only encourage negative behavior and by prohibiting alcohol we would only encourage the criminal enterprise.

What then, is the solution? Education and moderation! Very rarely are those two things not the solution to a problem! We must educate the public about the dangers of the consumption of alcohol. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism the immoderate usage of alcohol can lead to: difficulty walking, blurred vision, slurred speech, slowed reaction times, impaired memory, brain damage, and liver disease (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm). This does not even begin to describe the crippling psychological effects of alcohol.

One of things that bothers me most is society's view on alcohol. Too many people see it as a "social lubricant", as a personality enhancer, or as an escape mechanism. What is worse, we have structured our society in such a way that it is difficult for the teetotaler to participant in healthy social interaction. We have brought an unhealthy, disabling habit into the mainstream and made it acceptable. I find it disturbing when people tell me that alcohol makes it easier for them to be themselves. What this really tells me is that they are uncomfortable in their own skin and that their behavioral filters are such that they are incapable of expressing themselves effectively. Alcohol is not a solution to this problem. Rather, we should encourage self-confidence in our peers by listening to them and by actively engaging them in meaningful discussion. We must fundamentally change what we value in a person as a society in order to do this. Consider for a moment reality television. Based on it, what is it that society values? Lewdness? Idiocy? Repulsive behavior? We now see that the problem with drugs is not just a physical one or an economic one, but a philosophical one. We must strive for a more complex evaluation of what is good in a person. We must seek the inner light in our companions and bask in that glow, not in the distributing facade that is created by the narcotic or the liquor.


Find the true value in people by dedicating yourself to knowing their natural beauty preserved in their inner-spirit.

Balm in Gilead

"And as he rode himself alone, it's there he saw the milk-white hind. The hind she broke, the hind she flew, the hind she trampled the brambles through. First she'd melt, then she'd sound, sometimes before, sometimes behind. Oh what is this? How can it be? Such a hind as this I ne'er did see. Such a hind as this was never born, I fear she'll do me deadly harm."

From Famous Flower of Serving Men, Laurence Price, 1656

As hunters and as men we all seek the milk white hind. We grasp for the untouchable, and yearn for unknowable. We seek out that which we cannot have for its sibylline nature. This is not completely our fault. While we would have that which cannot be brought to bear, we are drawn to the spectre of its presence-- a presence that darts from the past, to the present, to the future without even a moment's consideration. This visage emerges from the foggy depths of our subconscious and makes its way, beguilingly, into our realities. In the drunkenness of our nostalgia we make more out of a such a hallucination than what was. Where we might have seen a glimpse of silvery moonlight in our peripheral, our recollection is that of graceful form bounding through night's whispering realm.



Such sightings are bound neither by geography nor time. One may just as easily behold such a vapor in the dancing stalks of grass as on a busy street corner. Try as you may, you can never regain the first vision, though those that follow are no less sweet. So then, we spend our lives enchanted---recalling what was and praying for what is to come. Yet,we are no better than the gambler, who coming off his hot-streak recounts his former glory (or the facade of such). Our vices are not counted as the gambler's though. They are far too dearly bought, and far too private to be broadcast in hopes of redemption. They are, in the Tolkien sense, "our precious". They are rooted too deep and watered too well for any steely axe to chop. These roots delve beyond the soil of our consciousness and into the bedrock of all eternity. They exist in our very biology.



We are but slaves to the omnipotent consideration of "What could have been". Less kindly writers before have referred to such phenomena as the "black dogs" of our subconscious. Dogs they are not. While they may nip at our heels and howl in our dreams, we are too fond of them to kick them like some mischievous cur. Nay, we nurture them with each progressive delusion of possibility. We feed them our best store---golden grains, ruby wines, and shimmering fruit all in hopes that some day they may mature in reality. But we are always grasping at the wind. They melt and they sound at leisure, and our ability is not to summon or bide them, but to embellish them. Embellishing them makes us seem more sane, and less irrational. So we polish these visions. We buff them until they shine like starry orbs and when we finally see our reflection in them, we realize how long they have had hold of us.

You Have to Stand for Something: The Most Divisive Issue Facing Hunters Today

I was intrigued today by a headline posted on Field & Stream's website. The article mentions that North Dakota is bringing forth a referendum on banning hunting in high-fenced areas (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/10/north-dakotas-possible-high-fence-ban-garners-national-attention). This is an issue of much contention in the hunting community and I have friends that fall strongly on each side of the aisle. If one is to approach this topic rationally, there are weighty pros and cons on the issue.

Pros
-Wildlife management is much easier on high-fenced properties
-Selective breeding can lead to large trophies
-Deer farming (not to mention exotics) is a multi-million dollar industry that reintroduces money into the outdoor sphere
-Access to public land and free-use private land is dwindling
-Hunts may be set up so that the handicapped or special needs hunter can enjoy the experience

Cons
-Promotes "trophy-centric" attitudes
-Compromises wild nature of game animals
-Detracts from the overall experience of hunting by limiting difficulty
-Creates a negative image for anti-hunters to feed on
-May lead to increased spread of potentially deadly diseases
-Promotes instant gratification when hunting
-Belittles the unique history that hunting has with regard to the development of mankind
-Promotes emphasis on monetary value of a living animal
-May limit hunting access to only the wealthy

I have to say that my experiences with high-fenced hunts have been very negative. I have never paid for a high-fence hunt, but I have had them given to me and they have never left me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Rather, I was left angry, saddened, and with a uneasy feeling deep in the pit of my stomach. With that being said, I have friends who raise deer for such enterprises. They themselves are not unethical when it comes to hunting.

Society changes. This is what has driven and created this craze of high-fenced hunting. There once was a time not so very long ago when a person could walk countless miles across private property and the landowners would gladly allow you to do so. That time has come and gone. Now landowners frequently charge obscene trespass fees. The natural alternative is to hunt public land. The problem there lies in the fact that much of the public land is literally crawling with other hunters. A recent trip with friends to Deep Fork WMA found us bumping into two other hunters, with additional vehicles piling into the area as we were leaving. Was there game in the area? Absolutely. Did we see any? Absolutely not. This is the conundrum of hunting in modern times. Hunting, whether we like it or not, is quickly becoming a rich man's sport.

What is the solution to such a problem? I cannot claim to have the answer. It is tempting to say that when acreages are large enough that high-fence hunting can be legitimate. I am not going to say that. There comes a time when we must discern the difference between game and stock. If you purchase an animal and release it into an enclosure it cannot by any reasonable means be considered game. If we accept this fact can a person who kills such an animal in an enclosure call himself (or herself) a hunter? No. The title can only be butcher. Again, it is tempting (oh so tempting!) to say that hunting in an enclosure by a youth or otherwise special needs person is legitimate. We must consider what actions are taken by these "hunters" in the course of harvesting their animal. Do those actions truly fall in line with those most associated with a hunter? Did they scout the area, build a blind or hang a stand, spend countless hours sitting without avail? The ugly truth is that they often do not. Instead, they write a check. They let the guide or ranch hand drive them to a stand that they have never seen before and shoot an animal whose granddaddy was named "Cowabunga", cost $450,000, and scored 567 3/4" Boone & Crockett.

I am sometimes frustrated by hunting. Strike that, I am often frustrated by hunting. For example, I am on a bit of a hard streak right now and haven't seen a deer in quite some time (over two weeks). This is not the first time that this has happened to me. There have been years when I literally hunted until I was on the verge of hypothermia and did not see any deer. Oftentimes I would simply quit for a while and go back later. After successfully harvesting my quarry later (sometimes much later) I always looked back and appreciated how hard I had worked to put my hands on such a glorious animal and how this rare gift was a true treasure. Who can say that when they shoot an animal in a pen?

In the end there are only a few suggestions I can give.

>Learn what it is to appreciate the entire process of the hunt, not just the killing or the antler size

>Promote restoration and conservation so that future generations can enjoy public land

>Resurrect the lost art of hunting small game. This is a suggestion that I feel strongly about. When I was a child people lived to hunt different small game species. You would know certain people as a "squirrel-hunter" or a "rabbit-hunter" or a "coon-hunter". Where have all these people gone? No one pays any attention to small game these days.

>Learn to make use of the full bounty of a harvested animal. Sure, a big rack looks good on a wall, but what about a backstrap seared perfectly on the grill or a pair of moccasins made of out of supple buckskin? If we utilize the full bounty we will appreciate the animal much more than just admiring antler measurements.

Autumnal Baptism Revisited: The Spoken Version

In the Midnight Hour

My Research Methods course is one of those scary classes that wields science like some leaden sword. You may duck it quite often and avoid the blows most of the time, but if it strikes you, you are in for a severe wound. I say this not to complain, but to make the point that it requires WORK. Academic work is one of those things that I have in the past been able to deftly avoid by luck, grace, or another means. Much of the work in this course has been reading. Such reading is often dry and uninteresting. But, there has been one theme that has emerged several times in the readings that I wholly agree with and am interested by.

We do not take time to think.

We may answer questions and solve problems, but much of this is stock and store. Rarely do we ever think. As I walked across campus tonight I took in the smell of incoming rain and the dances of lightning streaking across the clouds. I thought, this is a beautiful night. Admittedly, I did not immediately set to immerse myself in the nocturnal splendor. I did what I normally do, I get on my computer and dive into the social media to see who is doing what, and what issues they are grappling with. One of my friends mentioned that she was listening to the rain with book in hand and hot tea sitting by. What a novel idea! Hopefully by citing her ambiguously I am not plagiarizing her brilliance, but I did the exact same thing.

Assam tea was steeped in my earth-toned mug and granules of stevia were introduced. I dragged a raggedy wood chair (complete with paint splatter) onto my "porch" and began to read. I'm reading Francis Chan's "Forgotten God" currently. The book is about how Christians in today's society largely neglect the Holy Spirit. The book reinforces much that I already knew---that some people fear the Spirit as an emotional manifestation, others abuse its existence to attempt to edify themselves, and still others (who nonetheless claim to be Christian) are completely unaware of its existence. Granted, my spiritual background includes time spent in so-called "Charismatic" churches (labels, labels). But this issue grieves me seriously. The author confesses that he once openly denied the word of any person prophesying in modern times. I know many who are like this today. Yet, I have (and will continue to be) witness to such prophesying. I have seen an elderly woman speak with such boldness, authority, textual correctness and power that it was completely beyond her mortal ability. There was no denying it, just as there is no denying the importance of the Holy Spirit to the Christian faith. Unfortunately, so many churches are dead in the Spirit. There is no passion in their belief and there is no boldness and inspiration in their lives. Likewise, on the other end of the spectrum, there are churches that are full of passion and worship, but they do so not for the edification of God, but for their own ego and entertainment.

I was struck by such an image when I purchased "Forgotten God". I was in Ruth's bookstore in Quail Springs Mall shopping with some friends when I came upon this:


Who is being edified by this image? I confess that I am not familiar with this man's works (and they may very well be good). However, the portrayal of him on this book cover should make the practicing Christian shudder. There is no room for ego in the Christian heart. This brings me back to our lack of thinking. Chan quotes 1st Thessalonians 5:21-23 in his book and it made me sit up and pay attention:

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Our society largely lacks critical analysis with respect not only to our everyday lives, but also with respect to our spiritual beliefs. We cannot claim to be in the rank-and-file of Christendom with thinking about and applying the whole text of the Bible, not just those passages that are convenient. I myself am guilty of such, as are many others. This applies totally to the Holy Spirit. One cannot except a part of the Trinity and lead the full life of a Christian. This does not mean that it is easy. There are many stumbling blocks in the way. I personally have had such negative experience with people who fake the presence of the Holy Spirit that I abandoned attending church for some time. We cannot let such stumbling blocks ensnare us. Always ask, who does this edify? If the answer is not God, then the legitimacy is not there.