Focus on Easter

Focus on the task at hand. It’s always been a sort of plan of mine, an ideal to live by. Block out the distraction and forge ahead. This is true for work mostly but it bleeds into my personal affairs. When I sit down to write I have to close out my browser or I’ll waste time on Facebook and Youtube. Tasks aren’t smooth and plans get disrupted constantly. Like most people I tend to waste time on trivial things. Christians need reminding, frequently, that people all around us need help. Easter is perfect for such reminding. Easter recognizes the risen Savior, the eternal promise fulfilled, hope for mankind. 

In the gospel of Luke the Angel tells Mary “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” This was Sunday morning, when Mary went to visit the Lord’s tomb and found the stone rolled away. We can almost sense a “What next?” aspect to this surprising news. We can even ask ourselves today if what we are seeking has lasting value.   

 Am I seeking life where it doesn’t exist? What regrets keep me from fully pursuing truth and purpose? Am I spending too much time with worthless pursuits? Not inherently evil plans but selfish distractions and empty victories. Do I put myself first in all things? 

By “life” I mean eternal, purposeful steps that lead others to truth and meaning. I don’t believe anyone can really pursue eternal 'good' unless Christ has changed their heart. There are countless examples of humans all over lifting up others through education or jobs, food and general welfare. Warren Buffet alone is responsible for incredible charity in both the US and around the world. The ability to change a heart isn’t possible through charity though. Only through surrender to Christ does a heart change.   

People everywhere seek happiness. We seek power, truth, pleasure and meaning. Often we need to rebuild our priorities from the ground up. It all gets to be too much. Stress and disappointment eat away at our soul and we forget about the larger picture in life. Or we just waste away assuming our past mistakes or victim status determine our future.

There is a great picture of God's grace from John 21:15 when Peter (Simon) sees the Lord after his Resurrection. The last time they saw each other Peter vehemently rejected even knowing Jesus. He did this on 3 separate occasions. Most of us fail the first time we’re squeezed. Jesus could drill Peter with talk of betrayal, shake his head in disgust. He zeroed in on Peter's regret and urged him to move forward instead.

So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these? He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”

He asked this of Peter 3 times, removing the burden from Peter’s mind and giving him a task. "Feed my lambs".

Why do you seek the living among the dead?

 For us it’s a cautious warning, don’t waste time with traditions of men. Don’t waste time regretting past decisions. Forget how you were raised, the people you hurt and the ones who hurt you. People everywhere need to understand the eternal. You must tell them. Tombs are for the dead. He is not here; He lives! Go and find them. In the short time between the Lord’s reappearance and his transfiguration into heaven He emphasized the ‘gospel’. “Go into all the world and preach the gospel…” (NIV)

Meaning and purpose and value aren’t found in the ‘dead’ things in life.

   

Easter is a reset for life. It’s a little like New Year’s Day but with an eternal purpose, a new hope. How can a 2000 year old story be a “new” hope? Easy. Death was defeated for all time for anyone who believes, a superhero story written by a divine author. One who loved His audience so much He wrote His own Son into it. 

So don’t seek the living among the dead. Look for the eternal purpose in every action and leave the past behind. We can now. The Savior is risen!

Papers For Sale

Students pay big for college level essays. Essay mills aren't confined to just higher education but the ‘importance’ of getting into universities drives much of the cottage industry around essay writing. Both buyer and contractor are guilty if the writing is meant for a classroom assignment. Cheating on tests and papers comes in different forms but most people still know that paying for work and calling it your own is wrong.

Plagiarism comes in different forms. One way is to make up quotes, attribute it them Abe Lincoln and select a random history book for the bibliography. This is nearly impossible today because you need to document your sources. Sources that can be easily checked with a google search in most cases. A less blatant form of plagiarism is when an idea isn’t attributed to its original creator or original source. It’s more common because with research comes the mixing and melding of ideas. When you assume a particular line of thinking is common knowledge and don’t properly cite, it’s an understandable mistake. But it’s still wrong.

Most of us have at been tempted to use a paper that someone else turned in for a grade in a different class. Change the title and the author name (hopefully) and present it to the professor with a sleepy look in your eyes. It’s tougher to do this than it used to be, especially if you buy one from a website selling papers with subjects on everything from 'human anatomy' to 'farming practices in ancient Mesopotamia'. The software catches subjects and themes that have been used before. My favorite story is about a student submitting an essay they bought from a website with the original title still on it, something like “Web Order Number 254”.  I imagine professors have some type of shared database that scans across all disciplines. Maybe they just use Goggle. Either way it’s tough to get around it and the downside to getting caught is steep, expulsion.

Some writers make a living doing work for wealthy clients. Vice has a great article here from a freelance writer who does all the typical nonsense blue chip schools want to see before they admit kids. From admissions papers to reflection articles about how some particular art trip made them feel. Apparently this is a real problem for Korean and Chinese students in particular. For anyone who speaks English as a second language, the requirements for processing and getting up to standard are extremely difficult. It’s no excuse for cheating of course, but it does suggest a handful of undergrads probably aren’t cut out for the rigors of a top notch school. If the recent scandal with the Hollywood actors caught buying scholarships proves anything, it's that Americans are likely to use shortcuts as internationals.  

It’s easy to point at wealthy elites who pay to get around roadblocks, but the writer taking their money has no right to do so. Is the crooked cop taking bribes any better than the gangster who pays them? He’s basically saying I can’t believe how corruptible the system is that I profit from; I think you’re scum, are you hiring?

 I had an experience in college during my second year where my own ethics were tested. I was friendly with one of the athletes in my class, a foreigner on a sports scholarship. It was one of those requirements that everyone in the major had to take. He shared notes with me on a quiz I’d missed so I could study it before the final. Here is the rub. He did me a favor because I wouldn’t have known what to study otherwise.  Later that same year he offered me a $100 to do an assignment that he couldn’t finish, a paper of some kind. He needed to get back home (he said). I don’t remember the reason. I refused to do it and he asked for a recommendation. I told him I thought it was cheating and I wouldn’t help. I’m sure I was careful with my words but he got the message. He assumed that his helping me with the quiz constituted a quid pro quo. What the hell bud, I help you out of a jam and you call me a cheat? He never said that but it’s the feeling I got. 

For all the different ways people bend rules or fudge numbers, most things are black and white. The grey is the unusual, the rarity, the one off. Cheating might be a sliding scale, an orders of magnitude problem, but most of us understand when something is wrong. Here is a test for students if you aren’t sure, tell someone what you are considering. Tell a whole lot of people, friends, other teachers. Take an informal poll. If the idea of letting anyone else know what you are up too feels like it would ruin it, it’s probably cheating.

Baseball's Creeping Math Problem

I started reading Smart Baseball  by Keith Law, about the nature of player evaluation in baseball. Keith works with teams to evaluate performance and help big league teams win more. He’s loves numbers and comparisons and telling us how little we understand the game. He comes off a little stuffy with his 'well actually' deep dives into historic players and old statistical measurements. He’s mostly good natured though, and it’s hard not be convinced that these newer sabermetric figures are the most efficient ways to compile stats. 

I’m a bit old fashioned on sports, I enjoy the sport first and consider the numbers second. Mostly I don’t think about them. I don’t gamble or play fantasy baseball so individual stats are important as a measuring stick for historical comparison and salary. I follow teams and then players. I realize having statistically better players means you team is more likely to win, but it doesn’t mean I want to slice numbers thinner than a deli counter prosciutto. Smart Baseball isn’t a book full of cheery anecdotes and life lessons from a former executive. It’s more like a textbook, informational and straightforward.

 The thesis is really this: as a measure of value to a team, the old statistics should be phased out. If the purpose is for managers, owners, scouts and sportswriters to assign values to players, sabermetrics are perfect. The data says so at least. I think at least some portion of this is slick graphs and quirky player FYIs. But I’m willing to listen. Baseball elders did the best they knew how with available data at the time. We watch a more precise game now. Everything is tracked and nerds create new ways to map player contributions.

The much criticized statistics (batting average, RBI) at least had broad appeal. Fans and scouts knew how to score players and assign value. Newer stats like WAR (wins above replacement) and wOBA (weighted on base average) are certainly more precise but, for now, don’t have broad appeal.

 A guy named Bill James created efficient measures of performance in the late 70s. We call them sabermetrics and most clubs have come around to his way of thinking. Acceptance takes time though and just because someone comes up with a brilliant system doesn’t mean everyone will be on board. Reluctance to change doesn’t equate to stupidity or arrogance, it just means this ‘thing’ needs more time.

Sabermetrics provide value where no one knew to look before. But they risk becoming an end to themselves unless the baseball continues to draw sharp lines around their product. They should allow changes to the game on the margins and phase everything in slowly. The NFL created additional problems by trying to redefine things like catches, holding and pass interference. The multiple camera angles create the need for more precise rules on those very things we are trying to determine. It’s a vicious cycle and not one that gets resolved easy.

The MLB is a slow moving body, like an Alaskan glacier or the U.S. Senate. This is a good thing. It ensures consistency. If it lets the stats wonks change everything we track, it won’t be long before the fun is gone. Mangers will manage purely on numbers and forget how to take chances. Players won’t take chances at the plate on a first pitch strike if the percentages are bad. It could be a lab experiment, a test between each team’s mathematical models. Too boring for average fans.

 Every team needs wins. Wins come from runs. Runs come from more opportunities to score. Yes, I realize I’m summarizing the Jonah Hill explainer from Moneyball but stay with me. By valuing certain aspects of the game over others (OBP over AVG) clubs can scoop up wins they might not otherwise have gotten using traditional measures of performance. Moneyball and the A’s are just the most high profile example of this thinking. Wonkish number crunchers who follow baseball have been doing this for years, creating their own statistics I mean.

More competitive teams mean fan participation goes up. (No I didn’t create a graph for that but it stands to reason right?) Clubs sell more tickets and merchandise with a winning team in town. All this comes with a lot of caveats and side bars but winning or at least the chance of winning trumps loosing. What does the game look like in 20 years if managers utilize shifts on defense for every opposing batter and mix up the pitching rotation to devalue the closer? It might turn baseball into America’s favorite sport again, but it could also make it a total bore.

I watched a Netflix special the other night on the origins of curling. It closer to amatuer bowling in the eighties, guys from the local club meeting for beers. Apparently one of the best players found a loophole in the scoring and exploited it to countless Brier victories. The problem was it kept scoring so low and turned the whole affair into a colossal bore that fans started booing them everywhere they went. The sport instituted some rule changes to prevent low scoring games (matches?) and bring back the fans. 

I think there is a lesson in there for baseball. Make changes where necessary but be deliberate please. Too much too soon and the already dwindling fan base goes away for good. Don’t change the nature of the sport and don’t assume statistics that are practical and quantifiable will be embraced by everyone.

The average age of baseball fans is 57. So they have a problem every sport suffers with, how to attract new fans while not alienating the regulars. Don't let the math overwhelm the talent. 

Running Blog

I’m still running. 

The winter can be tough week to week from a weather standpoint. It rains a lot in the spring too which is rapidly approaching. The worst part about the extended rainy season is that the ground is soaked and often doesn’t dry up for a long time. It makes going to the parks impossible. Last week was blustery and hoovering just under 20 degrees on Sunday, my big run day. No big deal. I needed a break. But I didn’t need one on the following Thursday when I usually do a second, much shorter, run. I missed running on the treadmill that night.

 I can’t run outdoors in the dark. In the summer I don’t mind if the sun is going down and I’m finishing up, but otherwise I avoid it. I’ve started thinking about how I’m going to approach the summer. Normally I go for a late morning jog on Sunday morning and add another morning one, maybe 3 miles, on a day off from work. So I’ll get two in for the week. But I’ve never tried to run more than 4 miles in the Oklahoma summer. It’s pretty much hot an hour after the sun is up. Anything over 3 miles is brutal. The heat adds another dimension that with sweating and cramping.

If I want to maintain the same distances in the heat, I’ll have to either run with water or wake up earlier. I can’t imagine getting up early enough for the heat to be a moot point. Even for work the earliest I’m out of bed is 8:00 am. On weekends it’s closer to 9:00. After coffee it’s almost 10:00 and by then the sun is punishing anyone foolish enough to exercise outdoors. So carrying a small bottle with a strap for my hand sounds like a good option right now. Will it be enough? I guess this will be a learning experience for me. If I have to cut back on the longer runs then so be it. I think I’ll have to answer the very tough question at the front of my mind “How bad do you want to run?”

I need to add an extra day with of running instead of doing other cardio like the spin bike at the gym. Nothing strengthens the legs for running like running. Currently I’m doing more squats and leg presses for the hamstrings. I can’t tell if mine are unusually weak or if the after jog pain is normal. I’ve heard from other runners that as long as you aren’t changing your stride the weaker muscles will come along. In other words, don’t worry about nagging soreness. Worry if something is pulled or stretched.

Anyway, I’ll keep figuring out how to increase distance and stamina in all types of conditions until It’s second nature.

Loss of Connection

I’ve been reading all about ISIS. Mostly I’ve been covering the news on the fighting in Syria because it looks like it’s coming to an end. The ISIS part of it at least. I feel a little guilty about not following the wars we (Americans) are currently engaged in closer. It feels so far away. Not only far in distance terms but also far away in relevant terms. This is sadly true in too many of these wars. We, the American people, lose touch with the mission and the purpose of sending soldiers there in the first place. I don’t mean the mission isn’t worthwhile or critical to preventing strongholds of Islamic terrorists that can launch attacks from sympathetic governments in foreign countries. This is how we got into Afghanistan after all, take out Al Qaeda and prevent weak governments from inviting Osama bin laden types to set up camp.

My concern is that Americans are losing connection to the conflicts we’re involved in. We are able to fight them like on a small scale with limited loss of life (good thing) and little knowledge of the scope of the battle (bad thing). Syria sums this up perfectly. 

  

Syria is basically a mixture of groups and alliances all controlling different territories and with different ideologies. It’s the last of the Muslim countries to have a rebelling in what started during 2011 in the “Arab Spring”. It’s also had the toughest government response to the fighting. Egypt, Morocco, Libya and Yemen all forced their leaders out through popular will and violent street protests. Most of the rebellions played out in similar ways, a citizen gets punished unfairly with beatings or torture for some low level crime. Defiance on a small level (supposedly kids that used graffiti on official buildings) created a full scale insurrection that dragged other fighters, jihadists and regime supporters. The underlying resentment against officials created a spark that lit a powder keg. 

When we finally did send a contingent of troops the biggest questions was “OK, so who are we supporting exactly?”  I remember talking to a women whose husband was in Syria, this was probably 2016 or so. My response was “Wait, so we have troops there?” Maybe “troops” is the wrong word, more likely they were elite units and specialists.

To say the rebels we trained didn’t share our values is an understatement. I don’t mean in the “well I don’t approve of their methods” line we use when explaining support for non-democratic leaders. I mean cruelty on a ridiculous scale. I remember a video of a rebel who killed a soldier and cut his heart out Temple of Doom style. Unlike Temple of Doom the fighter did one better and actually ate it. Yep. Those were our boys alright, for a while anyway. No one was going to make the ‘he may be a cannibal but he’s our cannibal’ case at least. We abandoned the cause of training and equipping a lot of these groups shortly after.

The reality of most wars, conflicts, episodes and flare ups is they reinforce geopolitical realities rather than realign them. Countries need allies the way people need friends.  Friendly governments align based on tradition or pragmatism. The U.S. aligns with Western Europe because of traditions rooted in similar cultures, languages, legal and economic systems. We align with governments of Iraq and Saudi Arabia because of pragmatism and trade, often reluctantly. The House of Saud fights the regime in Iran (the Ayatollahs) which spreads terrorism around through the Middle East and especially against Israel. Russia supports both the government in Iran and Syria.

It’s a bit of mess on a global scale but if you follow the alliance it makes a lot more sense. Governments help each other when it’s in their interest. For all the talk about the Cold War being over much of the alliances post WWII are still in play.

I don’t subscribe to the knee jerk reaction that “Well that’s their problem, it aint our war”. It’s getting harder to define what is “our” war and what isn’t. Part of that is our fault, we need to pay attention. We have the luxury of not knowing where Syria is on a map, let alone being able to point out the factions and list the grievances. But if we string enough of these conflicts together year after year at what point is it no longer America’s military?

It could just become a rapid deploy force for America’s allies.

The way Congress gets around voting on each conflict is to give the president the ability to conduct it on his terms (called the Authorized Use of Military Force). Presidents get to manage the war and talk to generals about the progress. It makes sense to give this authorization for expediency’s sake, but voting to send in troops in the first place is the best option. I know it’s tough to get the legislative branch to agree to anything, but when presidents make unilateral decisions it creates separate tracks of responsibility. Wars are fought by the president and the Defense Department; domestic spending and investigation are done by Congress.

 If the future of warfare is going to consist of small groups of well-trained soldiers, like Army Rangers, whose missions are limited and opaque, we should know about it. Our representatives should vote on it and tell us why they did. Whose interest was served? Does the enemy represent a threat to American operations or some third tier ally? I’m not against being in Syria necessarily but I’m worried that our success creates the impression among our friends that we are the tip of the spear in every possible fighting scenario. 

 For all the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq we had some connection to both conflicts. We had family, friends and neighbors that served in both wars. There was home-front opposition to the war and messy results in both cases. But President Bush made a convincing case for both wars we sent our troops. He paid a price. Our soldiers paid a price. Their families paid a price. We did it the right way though, tell the American people, enlist allies, plan the war.

I think this is part of the reason for trying to keep conflicts small and impersonal. Don’t force the public to decide on sending a hundred thousand troops somewhere, keep it small, keep it out the news. I’m sympathetic to that line of thinking, but if we aren’t careful it can become a pattern. Maybe it already is.    

The Hidden Characteristics

 

Paul Harvey used to tell us about the “Rest of the Story”, interesting vignettes about famous people that few of us had ever heard. They had a way of rounding out the flat surface of long dead individuals. Even with helpful stories that broaden characters we can only really know a little about each person.

History filters out characteristics central to character but opposed to the larger narrative they represent.

History is never quite as clean as we’d like. Henry Ford called history “Bunk” as in, nonsense or hog wash. I don’t think he meant “lies” but certainly exaggerations and distortions. There are indisputable facts throughout history that we know to be true. The Civil War between the states took place between 1861 and 1865. The Union outlasted the Confederacy through a war of attrition exhausting all resources the South could muster. General Sherman hated the South and viewed slavery as something barbaric. The first two statements are true and the third is basically false.

 We know that Sherman wanted to keep the Union together but as he did live in Louisiana for a while and come to respect the Southern aristocracy. He didn’t think slavery a terrible thing despite fighting for the side with the most abolitionist sentiment. He comes close to supporting it on a few occasions. He may have come around to the view that freeing slaves was the best alternative but I couldn’t find any proof of it. I’m guessing Sherman isn’t unique in that way either. I doubt many Union generals thought of freeing slaves as their primary concern. A lot of Civil War history (recent) emphasizes the most important goal of the Union, to free slaves. But to read accounts of generals, on both sides, the cause of slavery seems a minor issue.  

 We tend to exaggerate traits that show up in their lives, and ignore other characteristics that don’t line up with our image. Union soldiers fought to end slavery, Confederate soldiers wanted to keep it. A lot of pseudo history flows from that.

I read a biography of Benjamin Franklin years ago and was surprised that the author kept trying to explain away Franklin’s request for prayer at the Constitutional Convention. A known Deist, Franklin couldn’t have really thought a prayer would make a difference goes the argument. The author ties himself up to explain this ‘one-off’ over this minor example that seems to contradict what the great inventor was all about. It doesn’t contradict anything though. People are complicated and prone to change their minds. Some historians want Franklin to be the logical scientist, running electrical tests and dismissing notions of faith as silliness.

There is always the chance that Benjamin Franklin had matured in his old age (81 during the convention) and placed a greater emphasis on God and faith. After seeing Washington’s rag tag army survive the onslaught of the British troops and their vastly superior infantry, isn’t it at least possible? How many of us have changed our minds on an issue as more information becomes available?

Someone like FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) is much harder to get at the heart of. He is miserable to study because he rarely wrote things down. He would famously tell staff members one thing and send others off with contrary instructions. He didn’t record much of it in his diaries either so historians have to piece together his life with large chunks missing.

It isn’t hard to imagine how easy it is to misunderstand someone or only see a particular side of them. A lot of historical writing is just that. Leo Tolstoy writes Napoleon as a silly little man surrounded by sycophantic followers in War and Peace. As a Russian he didn’t buy the ‘great man’ narrative surrounding the French general who rebuilt the country after the disastrous revolution. It didn’t hurt that Napoleon was run out of Moscow by the brutal winter more so than the Cossacks that defended it. This made him seem beatable for maybe the first time. But Leo Tolstoy only knows about Napoleon from Russian sources, it’s a shaded picture. Napoleon might have been overrated as a leader by French standards, but does anyone honestly think he couldn’t command fighting men?

I usually only see my neighbors when I work in the yard. I wave, they wave. Our relationship isn’t too much more than that, pleasant but impersonal. I lose my temper frequently when doing yard work. Either the mower won’t start or the weed wacker won’t spool out line; I threw my hammer and cussed out the shingles (many times) on my garage while replacing the roof a few years ago. I told a man walking through the neighbor (in no uncertain terms) I didn’t trust him and he’d better keep walking. Any neighbor observing my behavior (It gets really hot in the summer OK!) would describe me a lot different than someone I work with. I’m typically agreeable at work.

That’s how this whole picture of a person works. When you realize we act different depending on the situations it helps to explain the full image a little clearer. There is also the issue of any of us at different ages or different phases in life. Before kids and after kids; as a student and after retirement. Our essential nature doesn’t change but the intensity and importance of our pursuits often does.

I try to keep it in mind when reading history.

Nature Shows

Occasionally PBS will have a show that catches my eye. The other day landed on one about these veterinarians in Africa (Botswana maybe?) that worked at a habitat for elephants. A baby elephant had some disease they needed to monitor so they separated him from the pack to medicate him and monitor his progress. I’m not sure what diseases he contracted or why he needed to be separated. The saddest part was watching these doctors and clinic workers drag this little guy away from his family while they freaked out and try to attack the workers, who they basically trust. The little elephant came around after a few days of serious emotional turmoil and started feeding from a bottle. 

Most of us won't get to experience animals in the wild or even in a reserve. These shows get us closer than we otherwise might. 

The BBC is the gold standard. Their nature stuff is impressive; the camera work is flawless. Each episode of Planet Earth, or Blue Planet tells small stories inside of larger ones, colonies of pipers within island communities and how dolphins follow mackerels. I’m cynical enough to think maybe the footage doesn’t show exactly what it purports to show however. Does the family of geese on screen encounter predators exactly the way the narrator lays it out or am I seeing clever camera work and a lot of different geese? Are bison running from wolfs in real time, or is it different packs at different times? How much mundane filming do the crew engage in before they have enough footage? Every so often they get lucky. I thoroughly enjoyed this seal attack from a starving polar bear. I don’t think the film crew could have gotten a better shot if they air dropped the seal on the patch of Ice before releasing the skinny bear from a cage.

With filming it’s tough to get that perfect shot where the great white bites down on a struggling sea lion paddling like mad. I can understand adding sounds like crunching snow and bones cracking. Is it dishonest? I guess a little, but it’s a long way from staging events. It’s a little hard to take the ‘family’ dynamic angle in the stories cooked up by the narrator. Every pair of mating birds or turtles or snakes is somehow a family working hard to keep their offspring safe and learn a trade. Some animals mate for life and raise the next generation, wolves and penguins, but it isn’t the norm and notions of familial care seems forced. Narrators get carried away on this. I understand why they do it; it adds a personal touch in an otherwise monotonous video.

As to why I enjoy zoning out on nature films, this article gets it. From the Independent: “They are tranquilizing television, a form of social calming, as soothing and unthreatening as a hot bath.” Love the phrase ‘social calming’.  It almost sounds like the opposite of social media. I think it gets to the heart of why I enjoy them so much, I don’t have to follow characters, scripts and bother with Adult content if kids are in the room. So far the politics (mostly) are low key, running in the background but easy enough to ignore. There are too many dark, nihilistic shows on TV and Netflix and I’d rather not try analyze another philosophy. Certainly I’ll turn off anything preachy but most nature shows tread lightly hoping to avoid the fate of so many shows today, political exhaustion.

Nature and nature documentaries are different beasts, the same as watching a basketball game in the arena and seeing it on TV. But appreciation breeds experimentation and if the BBC is responsible for an interest in nature that leads to hiking and camping than bring it on. As of now I’m not a huge fan of camping, not the real kind at least with tents and lanterns. I’ll do the cabin style with the screen door and electric outlets, as long Wifi is available. I’m not crazy about clip clopping down to the shower carrying a towel and a change of clothes and hoping the last person didn’t use all the hot water.

I enjoy nature because it was created to be enjoyed. Natural wonder is a kind of unifying beauty we can all share. Animals are a part of it too. It isn’t surprising that so many of us love to see the same majestic stuff on summer vacations. From the Grand Canyon to Yosemite and the Rocky Mountains we all enjoy the same things.

So keep filming and creating; I’ll certainly be watching.