Those Darn Cats

The neighborhood cats love my yard. It’s a little like Switzerland during World War II. It’s a neutral zone where fighting is prohibited but everyone is welcome--a reprieve for weary warriors. Hard to say how my yard became this ‘no man’s land’ for feline R&R. The neighborhood is full of strays who spend most time defending their home turf from fellow feline ruffians. My yard is a woodsy bliss with no trace of anything cats would find menacing.

 I blame myself for never chasing them off the land. I encouraged their disregard for boundaries and dangerous curiosity. Like a wicked witch cooking a stew though I had ulterior motives, mice. I hate when mice invade my kitchen or garage. Cats are the only real killers that mice respect. Mice are difficult to catch and nearly impossible to kill, once they’ve moved in the only choice is death…uh…for the mice I mean.

But aren’t cats lazy and selfish, concerned with being fed and rubbed before agreeing to work? Ahhh, but here is the beauty of my plan. All cats are welcome for a time but none can’t supplant the others and claim ownership of said property, least the others object. It’s all very legal. Occasionally I do wake up to the sound of screeching cats under my window fighting each other over the yard space. Night time is precarious for those unaccustomed to the schedule; new recruits wander recklessly into the lush grass. Veterans set them straight by roughing them up a bit. Youngsters exercise caution next time.

 I get the benefit of mice hunters without the annoyance of having them jump on my face at 6:30 a.m. ready for breakfast before I’m awake. Hair and subsequent dander stay outdoors just like the litter box waste. My leather (pleather) chair remains in one piece not subject to clawing stretching felines ripping holes in soft fabric. They don’t bother me with incessant meowing (begging) for wet, stinky canned meat or that cardboard dry mix they ignore. All previous cats I have owned have either left the canned food half-finished or just walked away at the sight of whatever I shoveled out for them. This isn’t a problem for dogs. Dogs never have enough. You could order a semi-trailer full of kibble and they would devour it in time to sit by the recliner and whine for popcorn from your bowl.

This isn’t to say the welcome cats haven’t gotten lazy in their day time prowling. I’ve pulled in the driveway multiple times to find the neighbor’s tabby asleep on my sunny stoop, oblivious to danger. Oblivious to my loud car too since it hadn’t so much as twitched when I zoomed into the parking spot. An overweight, lethargic tabby is a cat that isn’t getting a workout chasing mice around my crawl space. But I don’t complain. I know the next one through the yard will be hungry.  I’ve also nearly run them over crossing the street in front the curb; the veterans don’t run so much as stroll away unafraid of my loud engine and lights piercing the quiet and dark yard.

I don’t own a dog so my decent size yard is a playground for felines blowing off steam and chasing birds. Dogs would raise hell at the sight of a cat cutting through the grass and leaping over the fence. Dogs never manage to catch those irritating fur balls walking skillfully from fence to roof, roof to fence. It does limit the chance that cats will spend time using the yard as a hunting ground though.

For now the truce among midtown Tulsa cats abides. Let’s hope not one gets greedy wresting exclusive control of the yard and breaking the agreement. For me not having mice scurrying through the house to their well-healed caverns is worth whatever trouble cats are up to. 

Separation of Powers

Should Christian (traditional) countries bring in Christian refugeesbefore Muslims?

Hungary thinks it should and they have doubled down by insisting Christian groups be given help before Muslims.  I think it is entirely appropriate for governments' to pick who lives in the borders of their country, even at the expense of discriminating. Citizenship is not a right it's a privilege. It shouldn't matter the motives of a particular country or regime in favoring one group over another. Whether safety from Islamic radicals or just a preference for a common religion, countries can allow whomever they wish. 

This is the ‘defend and protect’ position, the law enforcement initiative. 

Christian citizens around the world have a responsibility to help whoever is in need regardless of religion. The church is most effective when unleashing the power of aid and volunteerism through their countless channels. Often they are first responders in disasters and emergency relief. Organizations like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse have warehouses of food and supplies strategically located around the world for better effectiveness. Non-Christian charities work the much the same way. They have locals who specialize in relief and charity. These charities frequently need the diplomatic assistance of countries everywhere for flight clearance, easing visa restrictions, military support and logistical support.

This is the ‘serve and give’ position, the compassionate voice initiative.

As tough as it is to reconcile the opposite opinions on refugees it remains an issue that can't be ignored. When the rich world lets countries like Syria descend into civil war the result is massive inflows of refugees. Also come the migrants from poor countries just escaping the cycle of poverty and lack of real jobs. It isn’t the responsibility of governments to provide housing, food, medicine and work but it is the responsibility of believers of Christ.

Officials can make Christian charity an easier goal to accomplish by removing transportation barriers and letting the military provide support and protection. I am not sure how the two sides can reconcile differences and give genuine aid without flooding borders and subjecting citizens to possible terrorism, but ideas must be brainstormed. The choices shouldn't be all or none. 

"Whoever has earthly possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him?" (I John 3:17 International Standard)

Laws, Facts...and tables

Alan Dershowitz, famed defense attorney, has a great quote about the practice of defending clients.

“When the law is on your side pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table! (paraphrase)” it is a brilliant line because it sums up most of our adult arguments in a classic ‘rule of 3’ joke line. From the time we are kids we argue based on one of those three conditions. Most adult arguments can be boiled down to those three elements. Our debates fit neatly into one of the camps but rarely is our opinion solidly so.

As kids we took turns washing the dishes every night fighting about whose turn it was. From the lazy “It was my turn last night I ain’t doing ‘em again!” to the exaggerated “I wash all the time!” 

The ‘law’ part works like this. The dishes need to be done; it is the law of the house and someone must do them. The ‘fact’ part of the argumentation goes like this, some wash dishes more than others so they shouldn’t be assigned the dishes yet again. It doesn’t matter if the person shouting about doing the chore more frequently is telling the truth. We never had a system for determining who ACTUALLY washed the previous night—memories being short.

Imagine a third family member (cousin) who never did dishes because they didn’t live there getting dragged into the conversation. The task was given to the visitor, it’s the least they could do getting a free meal and such. The cousin is neither required to do the dishes on a regular basis, no law, neither have they cleaned up at any point in the past, no facts. Their only recourse is to shout, threaten or beg mercy and hope the other family members are scared enough or compassionate enough to recant on the chore.

By appealing to a sense of sentiment “I am a guest here!…how many times do I come over and I have to clean up?” Or violence “I am going back up real slow…when I turn around I better see those dishes getting scrubbed.” This is said while holding a steak knife and doing mock jabs into the air. The ungrateful visitor is ‘pounding the table’ since they lack other options.

It goes further toward explaining most issues of the day whether political or cultural. These days the two collide like heated atoms. Take any issue and apply the formula. Donald Trump has rocketed to fame this year, primarily because of his strong stance against illegal immigration. He pounds the law by emphasizing the illegality of being in the country and his recommendations are born of law enforcement—a big southern fence. Hilary Clinton, when she does debate, pounds the facts of illegal immigration and the businesses that depend on migrant workers and low skilled employees. Groups that support amnesty for illegals and congressman like Luis Gutierez of Illinois pound the table by criticizing the law and name calling their opponents.

Immigration is a far more intricate spectacle than the simplified version I laid out. I gave Clinton too much credit; mostly she prefers table pounding and name calling. She has been on both sides of the issue surely. Trump has been nasty as well but has recently softened his position on making Mexico pay for the wall. The tactics politicians use are a mixed bag and almost no one takes a purely rational line on anything. The framework Dershowitz laid out for the courtroom holds true for issues of the day. If nothing else, it should help a person recognize what the opposing view might look like and where it will come from.

Oh and our dish problem was solved by the revolutionary idea of assigning a day to a kid, 6 kids 6 days. Mom took day 7.

 Legal brilliance tied law and fact together and no one was hurt—despite the table pounding.   

'New Media'

What will the future of media consist of and how is that different from the current model?

Consumers of news have seen a transition since the late nineties away from newspapers and toward internet based free websites. Internet pages update regularly forcing ink covered dailies to report old news.  A new term has popped up in recent years new media. It is basically what you imagine, social media like Facebook and twitter, podcasts available through streaming and interactive webinars. Old media like newspapers and radio broadcasts will still probably hang in there as a business model for a while, but won’t get the numbers (audience/readership) it used to. We’ve already seen this be true in live TV broadcasts, Netflix stealing much of TV surfing crowd.

The general thrust of new media is the interactive quality and the feedback mechanisms for regular folks. This to me is the most frustrating aspect of new media and why I don’t have a Twitter account. No, I don’t care what @Frank156 in Omaha thinks about the Huskers D line this year. Please keep your thoughts on ‘campus rape culture’ to yourself @VTechRachel, and your ‘proof’ on 911 conspiracies @NorfolkTruther. Some like the idea of an open all-views-welcome type of format where opinions come from everywhere. This is where Twitter falls short. Trolls reduce the content to a muddy pig pen. Like the public library, Twitter surrounds the reader with endless knowledge but too much time is spent avoiding panhandlers in the lobby. Free stuff online is overrun with freeloaders.

Also, not all opinions are equal. A missionary with experience in India knows more about food shortages in Gujarat than a guy who read a story on the BBC. The guy who just read the story is more likely to share his ‘expertise’. People with experience (I won’t say experts) should be the ones media goes to when seeking comments for information. This is an old media staple and something I don’t think will change even in the diffuse landscape of new content. What will change, already has, is the long form interviews and talks on wonkish subjects for grad students like economic policy or gear heads on motorcycle maintenance. Most of this stuff has been available for years but the communication (the web) has leveled the field and spread the interests out.

The best sources of news and information for the future will be diffuse. I listen to podcasts on various subjects from modern China and technology, to Christian teaching, and interviews with Comedians. This allows the best at their trade to teach to the listener/viewer without a journalistic interpretation. Nothing against journalists, they are generalists where an expert knows the subject intimately. The best part, it is cheap! Anyone with decent recording software can piece together a podcast, or simulcast, on a topic they are into. I listened to a self-described ‘roller coaster fiend’ give details about the speed and tilt of coasters around the country. I enjoyed listening to this tech friendly guy who had put a website together for other ‘fiends’ like him, talk about and share his passion for theme park rides.   

Media companies like News Corp and AOL/Time Warner will continue buying whatever looks promising but expect smaller ratings across their range. The vast number of choices for consumers means only audience heavy events like the Super Bowl are a sure thing. 

I watched an interview with Rupert Murdoch a few years ago where he outlined very simply how he has expanded his media juggernaut so effectively. “Content” was the word he used probably fifty times when asked about success in ratings and vision for the future of media. He was at pains to explain to the reporter that it didn’t matter what the content was, just that if it was quality people would listen, read and watch. The reporter wanted to pin Murdoch down on what type of content was best, or what subjects and analysis were considered best. Murdoch basically said that it didn’t matter, the cream will always rise whether in print or radio, TV or website.

This new media reality is a relief for people with big ideas but small wallets. Make the content good and people will find it.  A market will always exist for quality content, The CEO of News Corp said so!