Yesterday, while in mass, I was struck by a most warm and poignant image. In the pew before me was a little girl, about 4 years in age. She and her two friends were drawing, playing, and watching the adults around them as they waited out the service. The adults in question were all on our knees reciting in beautiful unison the Lord's Prayer. It was, however--I think, not quite beautiful enough. For the little girl in the pew before me saw it necessary to add to it: and so she did. She began to dance just as we said "Thy will be done". She did a little 'stir'n the pot' and a little 'tootsy roll'. Her little face working hard to keep in time to the chant of the paternoster being sung about her, and there--in the pew in front of me--was a little reminder that we are in the season of great blessing, a season for rejoicing, for singing 'alleluia', and joyfully ringing bells.

I will tell you something about myself: I live in California, and am registered to vote here. Thus, in light of the coming elections on Nov 8, I have been looking into the propositions on this years ballet. There are two, 78 and 79, dealing with medical benefits that are almost identical at first glance: one supported by the pharmaceutical companies, the other supported by their apponents.

My initial reaction was to vote against the pharmaceutical companies, because some deep seated distrust for big business asked me to. But I decided to first look into the info for or against it online, I am of the general opinion that to find out info on a certain subject, you should read blatantly biased information put out by the opponents and see if they have any points, then go read the actual text in question to see if their complaints are valid. And thusly I went to it.

Interestingly enough, I found that the pro79 people had little worth while to say against the pro78. Likewise the pro78 folks had little deeply damaging things to say against the ideals of the pro79 folks. However, they (the pro 78ers) did point out an interesting thing:79 creates some new bureaucracy.

I then went to read the official info on the two props: 78 and 79.

79, upon investigation appears to me to be this: a quick and dirty re-writing of 78 changing a few numbers here and there to make it look prettier, with one underlying good principle nestled in and among a rotten bowl of stew. The one good principle is the idea of getting some leverage over the big business of pharmaceutical industries to make sure they make the drugs reasonably attainable by those who would need them. The dangerous things it proposes are: 1) another bureaucratic echelon governing medical care and 2) a potentially negative set of stipulations that are specifically not capitalistic. (Note, I am not particularly capitalistic myself, but as far as I understand it, our country is: and trying to mix capitalism with lots of governmental stipulations seems illogical.)

Suddenly the prop I thought I would vote for seemed like a dying bird an unwanted cat dragged into the living room. So 79 is out.

78, however was still (potentially) in. It did not seem to have any big warning lights on it, so it became more a question of is it worth having this law on the books than a question of is it an ok law to have on the books. Also, I wanted to take into account how important it was for 78 not to be on the books. Because, were they both to pass, the one with the greater margin of support would be taken as law; so in a way voting for one would be two votes against the other.

Please, go look at info on the props. I was surprised when my first inclination to vote against a usual enemy was proven unsound.

I have for several years contemplated the issue of music and its ability to move the soul. This question came to my mind the other day as i walked past a violinist who was plucking out a very simple tune under an evergreen tree. There seems to be something very honest about music, especially instrumental music, that i can only describe as honest. It seems to confront the soul and speak truth to it, confronting it, or encouraging it if need be, in a way that nothing else can.

What I am particularly interested in is the difference between live music and recorded music. Few would argue that recorded music is superior to the same music live, but there is still some level of ability in the recorded song to move oneself. My question is this: is recorded worship music glorifying to God?

If in fact the praise album playing in the cd player is glorifying to God, then it seems the artist's worshipful spirit is somehow captured and reproduced in his work. If not, then what is different in the way that God's Spirit can be moved versus how man's spirit can be moved. For a person listening to music is certainly moved by the album.

It seems, then, that--inless we can get a reason for God's spirit being imune to such items--God receives glory from pieces of art as they capture some aspect of the human spirit in worship.

Thats rather cool.

So starts Plato's dialogue that bares the same name. I think it is one of my favorite starts to any story. Second only to John1:1ff. I periodically ask myself: Self: Whither and whence. I'm not certain always of the answer. Indeed, it is such a question that one may never fully answer. But there is always some answer, and--even as incomplete and shortsighted as it may be--generally it is a helpful one.

I asked myself that question today, and found that I did not entirely like the answer. Yet there was not a problem with the answer itself, but the answer always brings up something of a State of the Unit address. For whither and whence implicitly demands where.

So, here in the Dry Wash I once again try and pick up where I left off in the whence in order that I might re-apply myself to the whither.

In unrelated news, yet strikingly parallel, I would like to thank a-sdf for his help in redesigning the dry wash.