The Gridbook Blog

This Blog Is Not Dead, It's Just Resting.

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 06:38:00 +0000

The Gridbook Blog has been silent over a year now. I apologize to anyone who is here looking for new essays. Other projects including an unfinished book and another blog I author anonymously have occupied the time I previously spent on The Gridbook Blog.

I haven't abandoned this project, but I expect posts will remain rare for the time being.

I consider the 100 posts of The Gridbook Blog to be some of the best work I have ever done. The first rule of blogging is "keep posting," however, I value this blog and its readers too much to produce hurried ill-prepared essays just to maintain a posting schedule.

There will be more essays in the future, but don't hold your breath. You can subscribe to the feed and have gridbook posts sent to you when they are posted. You can also browse the archives and go TheGridbook.com to see what I've been up too...

...or you can watch this Monty Python video:

Self-Control: Gates and Crowley

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:24:00 +0000

Sgt. James Crowley and Henry Louis Gates Jr. have become the source of ceaseless public discussion in the last few days. Both men were in a stressful situation. Both men got angry. Both men probably misjudged the other. Both felt so certain of the prejudices of the other that they became too offended to admit any misjudgment on their own part. Either could have ended the situation by simply calming down. Instead it escalated and now their argument is at the center of a media circus.

While race is still an issue in America, I think the real issue that needs to be discussed now is self-control. Two adults, who both should have known better, let their hurt feelings take over and lost control of themselves. The officer had all the real power in the incident. He had the authority and the weapon and he was up against an irritable small man who walked with a cane. He represented the people of the state, and he should have been more professional. Once he realized the error and that Gates wanted him out of the house he should have bit his tongue, apologized, and left. Since the incident Gates has had the power, since he is a famous man who knows the president and has the ear of the media. He is supposed to represent thoughtful academia. Since the incident he has used his influence to insult officer Crowley's character and motives. Crowley has responded in kind. Both men still refuse to back down. The issue at stake now is pride and ego. Both are willing to damage the reputation of whites and blacks, academics and police in order to win this battle of wills without apologizing.

I am trying to teach my toddler self-control. As a one-year old he responds to not getting his way by screaming and throwing things. It is childish behavior because he is a child. I hope to raise him to become young man with self-discipline so that even when he is misjudged or insulted he will not loose control and let himself mistreat others. This is what we should expect of any mature adult.

Race and misuse of power in America are being debated non-stop in this case. While these are issues worth discussion, the more important issue is that our nation is full of adults who are unwilling or unable to practice self-control. A police officer and an honored professor should both be acting like men not boys.

Killing in the name of...

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:11:00 +0000

As a blog that often espouses Pro-life ideas I think it is important along with all the pro-life community to soundly condemn the murder of George Tiller. Tiller was a well-known abortionist who did late pregnancy abortions. He was shot yesterday in the foyer of his church.

Being pro-life means trusting that killing is not the right way to fix problems. Tiller had most certainly killed thousands of children, but stepping outside of justice and killing him is evil and inexcusable. Murder and mayhem for a good cause is still murder and mayhem. It is sad that many in our society believe violence is the path to goodness and peace (apparently even a few isolated pro-lifers).

It is encouraging to see the pro-life community as a whole condemn this violence. I hope that the understanding that even the killing of so bad a person as Tiller is wrong will lead the movement to oppose other such behavior such as capital punishment and unjust wars. I am still hopeful that someday our culture will find common ground on a Consistent Life Ethic that defends and respects all human life.

To Prepare A Face

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:32:00 +0000

There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions

From "The Lovesong of J. Alfred Profrock" by T. S. Eliot

Ecuador Photo Essay

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:15:00 +0000

I have been wondering for several months how to write a post about the time I spent in Ecuador. I am still at a loss for good words to describe the experience of Ecuador and the people of the Andes. Considering how my own nation and culture are in many ways still a mystery to me, I doubt I could do justice to the world of Ecuador. Instead I'm posting my first photo essay of images from Ecuador.

Click on the photos for larger images.

Click here to Subscribe to The Gridbook Blog

He's Not White Or Black

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:41:00 +0000

All the recent media coverage celebrating our “first black president” makes me recall an interesting article in the Washington Post entitled He's Not Black.

Being in a interracial marriage and raising an interracial son, debates on ethnic identity sparked by Obama's election have a sense of urgency to me. How do I raise my son to be himself when society cannot decide what he is?

Barack Obama calls himself “Black” although his mother was a white woman from Kansas. He has brown skin and coarse hair. He identifies himself as what he looks like rather than what he is. Obama was raised during a time of racial tension in America when those with mixed heritage were often stuck in a cultural no-man's-land. In a sense he was forced to pick a side. In his book “Dreams From My Father” he says that he felt as a young man that people that identified themselves as interracial were betraying their fellow blacks as just “ordinary niggers.” (His words)

That young man eventually got his bearings and achieved greatness. The America that elected him president is very different than the one into which he was born. The political tensions surrounding race have dissipated, something America seems to have only fully realized once a brown-skinned man became president. Cultural assumptions based on ethnicity, however, are as prevalent as ever. Jamie Foxx commented at an inaugural ball that Obama's dance moves were proof “we definitely have a black president.” We are right to assume that culture and upbringing have an effect on a person, but it is absurd when we assign cultural identities to a people just because of their skin. Obama was raised by a white Kansan mother in Indonesia, but that doesn't matter. He is just “black.” You are what you appear to be.

It is this racial destiny assigned by looks that gave me anxiety when my wife was pregnant. I wondered how I a white man would raise a son that was identified by everyone as a black man. An unusual genetic shuffle, however, produced the opposite of what I anticipated. If Barack Obama is black, then my son is certainly white. His skin is lighter than mine and his hair is very straight. Even thought he looks just her, people seem to assume his beautiful, black mother is his babysitter. Throughout his life people will think he is white and make assumptions about him based on assigning him to this racial group.

My son may be light-skinned but he is not white nor do I want him to be. Obama may be dark-skinned but he is not black even though he calls himself that. Even the American categories of “white” and “black” are imprecise groupings of people of many ethnicities that where artificially created to justify slavery and segregation. It is true that culture and family affect an individual, but assigning culture based on skin tone is backward. Perhaps eons ago when humans rarely moved one could make accurate judgments about lineage and culture just by looking at a person's features, but in our interconnected world assumptions based on skin are more likely to mislead than inform.

Obama described his first innocent encounters with the world when “I was too young to realize I needed a race.” He doesn't need a race, nor does my son. Nor does anyone. A person's physical description doesn't necessitate a cultural classification. My son will probably always be fair-skinned, but that doesn't make him white and it definitely doesn't make him less his mother's child. He is who he is, and he can be proud of all of his heritage without having to pick or have one assigned to him.

The Washington Post wrote “We are racially sophisticated enough to elect a non-white president, and we are so racially backward that we insist on calling him black. Progress has outpaced vocabulary.” Racism may be nearly eradicated but Race with all its presumptions and misjudgments is alive and well. We can discuss our cultures and bodies without needing to draw these artificial lines between us. I hope my son is proud of all of his family and his heritage. He doesn't need to claim a color in order to have identity. He is himself and that should be enough.

Christmas and its Discontents

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:21:00 +0000

I had been irritable recently because I worked so much around Christmas. Time with my family and friends have been in such short supply recently, and I had so little during the holidays.

My dissatisfaction made me more sensitive to the general unhappiness of this season. The quiet discontentedness of people I see in my office in December is overwhelming. One patient put it bluntly: “Christmas is depressing.”

This unhappiness is not due to the materialism that ads try to sell each holiday. Not one of my miserable patients was obsessed with presents or possessions. It is the wholesome things about Christmas that create the misery: the peace, joy, and family happiness. None of these things happen much in real people's lives.

Against this shinny myth of merriness real holidays seem so ugly. Modern Christmas is a microcosm of our American Dream: an expectation that harmony and happiness will always be our natural state. As a result we are miserable when we discover that our own lives and families fall short of our expectations. Materialism never destroyed the wholesome holidays. Ravenous buying is the degrading way we seek consolation once we realize the “perfect Christmas” we hoped for was a lie.

If we expected Christmas to be merry it is because we misunderstood the celebration. Christ was born because we are always so far away from hope and wholeness. Even the most jolly of families hides flaws, cruelty, and contradiction. These blemishes are most obvious when we try to manufacture a joyful occasion. Christ was born on Christmas day to save us from ourselves. We should rejoice because he came. We rejoice because He died for us, not because we imagine our lives or families to be anything worth celebrating in themselves.

Dancing on a Midsummer Night 1935

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:44:00 +0000

I was looking through a gridbook and found this review of the 1935 film of "Midsummer Night's Dream" written by myself as a sentimental 21 year old college student. I find it even more interesting as a man with a job and family who will turn 31 tomorrow:

Old Film can be dangerous. It undermines the illusion that the present is eternal. We will not always overflow with vitality, strength, and beauty. Tonight we watched the 1935 Midsummer Night's Dream. It was breathtaking. What affected me most were the long dance scenes of the fairies and goblins. The dance was beautiful and stunning. It embodied life and death, magic and love, passion and sadness, sexuality and strength. It made me want to rise and dance around campus.

But that dance was not tonight, it was 65 years ago. All the dancers (even the children) are either broken with age or long dead and decaying. Film gives us something entirely different from a live performance. A live dance lets us become lost in the furious passions of this moment. In this moment I feel bold and strong, and the women in my life are as beautiful and graceful as the dancers.

Seeing a dance from 1935 doesn't allow such thoughtless joys. We must celebrate with those long dead. We cannot help but see this spellbinding pathos of the dance within the context of time. This forces us the acknowledge that even our own nights of dancing out the youthful life that pulses in our veins will end. We too grow old and die. We are aging even as we dance.

Film lets us partake in these mad revelries with past generations, but it caries with it a sad taste of mortality. As T.S. Eliot declared, “The dancers are all gone under the hill.” The dance may be eternal but the dancers are not.

Unfortunately the first video I posted was deleted. This is another section of the film.

Hope and Politics

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:24:00 +0000

It is with mixed emotions that I congratulate Barack Obama on becoming the president of the United States. It is an historic landmark for America to choose a man with brown skin to be our leader. After listening to my wife's grandfather, the grandson of a slave, tell stories of all the discrimination he received as a soldier fighting for his country, I understand why America needed this—and why my African American wife was excited to vote for Obama. Obama really is a great man, and having a president capable of articulating a vision for America will be a welcome change after 8 years of a president who seemed incapable of explaining his ideas or decisions.

As proud as I am to have a president with a similar interracial makeup to my son, I am also dismayed that this president would have wholeheartedly supported us in killing our son 6 months ago if we had decided he was inconvenient—even offering government funds to help terminate him.

My wife says that I am foolish to hope for leaders that always guide us toward what is better. America will never choose a president like Joe Schriner. Politicians (at least the ones capable of being elected) won't or can't save America from itself. Perhaps trying to stop evils committed by our nation through voting is misguided. After all politicians only enable us to do the injustices to our fellow man that we have already decided as a society that we wish to allow.

This election cycle has me discouraged about the willingness of American to vote for any real improvement in this nation. Several state ballot measures to limit abortion lost badly. It seems that the much touted “values voters” are only really energized to ban gays from getting marriage licenses, but aren't willing to stop the murder of unwanted infants (just as most “pro-life” politicians haven't done a thing to limit abortions). The unpopularity of the war in the campaign was only rivaled by Obama, who opposed the war, falling all over himself to assure us that he is very willing to strike other countries. It seems voters don't have the stomach to accept the sacrifices required either for war or sustained peace. American voters seem to expect war to be convenient, easy, and bloodless—things war will never be. Obama had to repeatedly reassure voters that he will not “spread around wealth,” because Americans would not tolerate being required to share their means with the needy. In the end this election was about the economy. The results imply that Americans vote for their money and convenience; right and wrong doesn't factor into most voters decisions at all.

After spending a great deal of time on politics here at the Gridbook Blog I wonder if I have fallen into the pitfall of imagining that real change can be effected through government. This election has been touted as a reemergence of “hope” in the political process. As much as I admire Obama personally and what he symbolizes as an interracial president, I have very low hopes for him. Just as our nation gets beyond the horrors of racism, we only more deeply ingrain our policy of infanticide. Having seen first-hand the devastation of abortion, the fragility of human life, and knowing that Obama supports this atrocity makes me skeptical of all the other good intentions he has.

But perhaps this is the problem of hope in politics—we hope for too much. I had high hopes for Bush 8 years ago too, and he has been a sore disappointment. The problem isn't politicians. It is ourselves. Humans are naturally a violent and selfish species, and no law or government will undo this tendency. It can only be changed from the inside, supernaturally.

So I have learned to vote my conscience, but without as much hopefulness that the political process can cure the ills of our society. Rather than hoping for the law to enforce social justice, non-violence, equality, and treatment of all with dignity, perhaps I must work harder to live out these values in my daily interactions. I may not change the world, but if I change the lives of a few people it will likely be worth more than every vote I ever cast.

(Click here to subscribe to the Gridbook Blog)

Presidential Endorsement: A Wasted Vote?

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:47:00 +0000

The Gridbook Blog proudly endorses Joe Schriner for President of the United States. Most of you are probably asking "Who?"

Out of all the people running for president this election (there are options other than the two you always hear about) Mr. Schriner is the only candidate who espouses Consistent Life positions. His political stances are consistently compassionate. His unyielding focus on human dignity and social justice is to be applauded. Although both major party candidates are honest and likable people, they both have serious defects in their positions on basic human rights. Schriner is usually right where the Obama and McCain are wrong.

The next question everyone asks is, "Why waste your vote writing in a candidate no one has even heard of?" I admit that Schriner will not win the election this year. I suppose if I choose the lesser of two evils and pick the Democrat or Republican ticket I would perhaps get to vote for the one who will become president. I would also ensure that every 4 years we would continue to get nothing but liberals and conservatives from which to select our leaders.

When I was 2 years old my parents got to vote for either Carter or Regan. Every election since with all the different names on the ballot the basic stances haven't changed. Americans are weary of both parties and their morally bankrupt conservative and liberal ideologies, but if we keep voting for Democrats and Republicans that have a chance to win no other party or ideology will ever have gain enough traction to be noticed. I don't want my infant son to grow up and have to pick the lesser of two evils from two candidates with different names but the same ideas as McCain and Obama.

Are you bold enough to waste your vote so our children don't have to waste theirs? Read up on Joe Schriner. You might find yourself excited about writing in a name Republicans and Democrats have never heard of.

(Click here to subscribe to the Gridbook Blog)

Genocide Reflects Poorly On Us

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:14:00 +0000

I'm watching the debate:

Barack Obama just said, “When genocide is happening... and we stand idly by, that reflects poorly on us.”

He was talking about genocide in foreign countries, but his words demonstrate how poorly his own indifference toward the systemic killing of unborn children in his own country reflects on him. Obama's commitment to justice is only matched by his callous blindness towards his own hand in horrible injustice.

It really is a shame. He could have been so much better than this.

Human Rights and Gut Reactions

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:00:00 +0000

I recently read a fascinating post by Frank Schaeffer on Huffington Post on political compromise in abortion. His approach is interesting and compelling enough that it deserves some response:

First of all I don't want to minimize the significance of the biggest liberal site on the net arguing that late abortions are brutal murders and that Democrats should overturn Roe v. Wade. I hope this this realization will be an important step in the gradual political progress that will hopefully lead us away from the violence of abortion.

The ethics of the post, however, are so problematic that they must be pointed out:

"To most Americans--including me--it is gut-check self-evident that a fertilized egg is not a person, because personhood is a lot more than a collection of chromosomes in a Petri dish or in the womb. To most Americans--including me--it is also gut-check self-evident that an unborn baby is mighty like one of us, and that a lot of fast talking about reproductive rights and choice or a woman's mental well being, doesn't answer the horror of a three-pound child with her head deliberately caved in lying in a medical waste receptacle. Perception is reality in politics, maybe in ethics too."

Human Rights should not be based on emotional gut reactions! Emotional reaction doesn't always lead to right ethics. A European 200 years ago would have said it was gut-check self-evident that people of color couldn't live without white supervision. It sometimes seems obvious that people who cut me off in traffic deserve to die. It seems gut-check obvious that torturing one terrorist would be alright if it might prevent attacks. Gut feelings sometimes lead to good deeds and sometimes lead to enslavement and genocide. We debate human rights because gut reactions aren't enough.

Schaeffer calls “absolutists” who would either permit or ban all abortions “stupid” and claims that they are ruining our hope for political progress in America. I disagree, absolutists are the only ones actually thinking about abortion. Schaffer believes most people could agree on First Trimester as a place to draw the legal line for terminating a pregnancy. But any line in the middle of a pregnancy would be arbitrary. What would make an 11-week 6-day fetus a piece of tissue that can be removed, and a 12-week fetus a person deserving of protection? Almost nothing. The development from one-cell to infant is gradual.

There are only two monumental changes that could be logical candidates for conferring human rights: conception and birth. If you deserve rights from conception then all abortion is murder—and we should not compromise on murder. If before birth no one deserving of rights exists in the uterus then shackling a woman for 9 months to a fetus she doesn't want is unjust imprisonment—and we should not compromise on imprisonment of the innocent. While these are extremes, they strike me as the only thoughtful approaches to abortion. We may compromise on all sorts of politics (economics, healthcare, taxes, immigration) but we shouldn't compromise on human rights.

Schaffer's idea might offer a workable political compromise. Drawing an arbitrary line at the end of the first trimester could let some voters rid themselves of the nagging gut reactions that unsettle them now. Such a compromise would work like the “moderate” policy of whites in America between the Civil War and Civil Rights. Whites wanted to acknowledge the humanity of blacks while denying them legal equality or political power. Human rights compromises may work politically for a time but they are inherent contradictions that struggle under the weight of their own absurdity. Only one side can be right. Only one idea will win in the end. I can only hope that eventually a great human rights movement like the one lead by Martin Luther King will bring our divided culture to agree on the moral bankruptcy of killing unborn humans at any stage.

Schaffer is both insightful and correct on one assertion: If Obama loses this election it will be because of the voters like me who would have happily voted for him except for his unwavering support for abortion.

A Month Without Blogging:

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:21:00 +0000

The recent dearth of posts on the Gridbook Blog perhaps requires an explanation: Occasionally life moves so quickly that recording the wave of experiences, realizations, and reflections is simply not possible. My recent life has been such a time.

The complexity and beauty of a growing infant in our home is a source of daily amazement. The adjusting of a marriage to the presence of this new child and strains of outside commitments has been both challenging and wonderful. Also in recent weeks I have finally moved from the Limbo of Emergency Room work and finally become what I always wanted to be. I am now the town doctor of a small rural community. I now have patients who call me their own personal doctor. I have also been writing regularly—just not the sort that would fit into this blog.

The interplay of family and friends, health and illness, responsibility and dreams, politics and absurdity, have provided much to discuss with you in the future. I have only lacked the time to turn these reflections into blog posts.

So the Gridbook Blog is not dead... it is changing. I expect that posts may be less frequent, but hopefully more interesting. There are also several excellent guest posts in the works. Often there will be quiet spaces between postings. You may find that subscribing by email or RSS is easier than checking the site. I look forward to talking to you more about the fascinating times in which we live.

An Open Letter to Senator McCain

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:35:00 +0000

While John McCain certainly has a more humane approach to unborn children than Obama, his support for embryonic stem cell research shows a different disturbing flaw: McCain is comfortable doing something he knows is wrong if the benefits appear great enough. This may provide a key to his support for torturing prisoners or killing foreign civilians in times of great need.

Dear Senator McCain,

I have been deeply impressed by your honorable character and consistent opposition to abortion. However, as your fellow pro-lifer and a physician I must respectfully but strongly express concern about your support for embryonic stem cell research. The idea that terminating any other human being for any potential benefit to ourselves is a direct contradiction to the Pro-Life stance you claim to hold. How do you ask a woman not to kill her 7 week-old fetus which may be greatly convenient to her to do, if you are killing 7 day-olds for the potential benefits they could give to her if she develops an illness like Parkinson's or Diabetes?

The argument that age, size, or mental-functioning below a certain level open up humans to destruction if their termination is expedient is the very argument used to support killing babies near birth, the sick, the mentally-challenged, or the elderly. You enter serious moral peril by classifying any human individual as a “thing” rather than a “person.” I am certain you are a very intelligent man, but I don't believe you have the right or ability to draw a line excluding any human (even an embryo) from basic human protection. It is this same logic that allowed my ancestors to commit crimes against Blacks, Native Americans, and others they deemed “inferior” in order to make things better for themselves. History has judged them harshly, and I fear it may judge us the same.

As a physician I care deeply about my ill patients, but killing in order to help them is something I cannot do. I urge you not to kill another human in my name or the name of my patients.

Thank you,
Jonathan Davis MD

With both major parties giving consistent-life voters poor choices, The Gridbook Blog will be endorsing a 3rd Party Candidate. Stay tuned.

Ortona Italy

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:11:00 +0000

One year ago today my wife and I were walking the streets of Ortona Italy, the town on the other side of the world where my grandfather Eduardo Pantaloni grew up. Then we hadn't even yet conceived of the little boy (Eduardo's great-grandson) who I hold in my lap as I write now.

I think of Eduardo (who changed his name to Edward when he immigrated) growing up in Ortona and my little son growing here in my lap. Eduardo died on Christmas day when I was only a little boy. One of my strongest memories is of him telling me about the beautiful farms in the seaside village were he grew up, only a few days before he died.

He has been dead for decades now, and no one in his home town remembers his name. He is even a distant memory to me. It makes me realize that even though I am 30 now I will also someday be gone and forgotten even in the places that were once my home.

This makes me glad that I am a father. My son may not know it now but his great-grandparents who will only exist in his mind as black and white photos have left themselves in my wife and me, and thus their lives project into his own. Similarly I will leave myself in him.

Is Transcendence Bunk?

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:40:00 +0000

I am realizing that the importance I place on transcendence is not something many others share. This leads me to wonder if my perspective is hopelessly skewed?

Transcendence has been a unifying theme of things that have mattered in my life. Transcendence: breaking beyond mundane existence and experiencing that which is deepest, most beautiful, divine—even if only for a moment. My most worthwhile experiences (friendship, adventure, love, music, sex, art, literature, sacrifice, learning, suffering, worship, creating) I appreciated partially because of the transcendence I experienced in them. I was not discontented with normal life, instead I saw normal life as a necessary staging ground from which to break through to what is beyond it. I was not searching for some mystery or magic, but I lived daily life more ecstatically. Nor did I think all transcendent experience was inherently good. Transcendence could mislead as well as enlighten, but these moments seemed to me our best evidence that we are not mere animals or mechanisms —that we are fallen children of God.

The problem of my life now is that I feel myself becoming more of a mechanism each day. The responsibilities of being a doctor, home owner, husband, debtor, father have bound me to the daily grind of being a producer and consumer. Although responsibilities provide stability there is little or no transcendence to be found in them. Some days my spirit feels like an ox yolked to a heavy plow.

Ten years ago I was not a consumer but an ecstatic and idealistic mind. All of my friends were similar and we all lived on a diet of dreams. I assumed that the feelings of transcendence we basked in were universal to all of mankind. We scorned those who didn't "suck the marrow out of life." Now all of my old friends have become hopelessly practical people, and don't seem to miss the transcendence in which they once lived. I talk of seeking transcendence and hear it dismissed as the stuff of childhood—something you grow out of. If no longer transcending life is a natural feature of being an adult, why am I the only one uncomfortable with the maturation?

The other day my wife said, “You don't need too much time on your hands. Instead of centering yourself when you rest, you get your head in the clouds. You end up very dissatisfied.” Am I dissatisfied? I had never thought of myself as a discontented person before, but I saw she was right. The thing I strive for is becoming increasingly hard to reach.

Is transcendence bunk or is it the very stuff life is made of? If transcendence truly is life then I am slowly dying of starvation of the soul, but if it is just a childish emotion then I am worrying myself over nothing and should embrace my maturity. As much as transcendence is a sensation of deep meaning, I cannot say if I really understand anything better than others who have had no such experience or put no stock in such things. The feelings of understanding and meaning are almost too deep for words, but if I can't express what I gain from transcendence have I really gained anything at all? Am I enhanced as a person by transcendent experience or is it only a "mental high" full of sound and fury but signifying nothing?

I am in a bit of a quandary. As I grow older the powerful experiences that were once the natural state of my mind become increasingly rare. Should I chase after transcendence or let it go? Am I a pitiful addict trying to reproduce a high that I can never achieve again, or am I doggedly seeking truth, beauty, and meaning in a cynical world that squashes all that is really worthwhile?

I really don't know at this point. I am perplexed. Perhaps those with more wisdom can help me find the answer. Any advice?

I Planted A Child

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:05:00 +0000

I was thinking about my son today as I tried to save my dying plants. Right now the man he will become is developing beneath the surface of his infancy. I imagine him putting down the first delicate roots that will deepen to sustain him through the droughts and storms of life.

My recent fitful attempts at gardening brought a disconcerting thought to mind: small early damage can doom a plant. I planted hydrangeas that withered in a late frost. At first they seemed to recover and even grow, but one by one they all died.

Today I was trying to save my shriveling plants from the sweltering heat of a Georgia summer drought. I was out of town so they didn't get any watering. Their new root systems weren't strong enough to reach the deep water like the big white oaks in the front yard. My vegetable garden is lost and many of the trees I planted were withering. I attempted to revive the little maple by the driveway with water, but I wonder if from now on it may always be stunted. Even a redwood I planted last Fall was visibly damaged.

I want my son to grow into a man like a redwood: immovable, deep, self-contained. They grow to become the world's tallest trees, but the little redwood in my back yard is nearly dead after a few weeks of drought.

Of course the principles of gardening are simple and well known. Babies are more complex. Conflicting theories abound on how not to damage their developing souls.

When I hear my baby cry what should I do? One theory tells me I must immediately go to him and comfort him. He will learn love, kindness, and trust from this, otherwise he would grow up cold, distant, unable to connect to another. Another theory tells me as long as he has recently been fed, cleaned, and loved I should let him cry. Self-soothing will develop self-control and patience. Immediately comforting every cry creates self-absorption and a false expectation that the world should always serve him.

The problem with babies is that their rooting takes place beneath the surface. They cannot tell us about their formation, nor will they recall it afterwards. All our theories about their developing souls are speculation, and the vast differences among children make clear patterns difficult to ascertain. Perhaps we flatter ourself to think we are influencing their formation at all. Perhaps they arrive with roots already so deep within the soil of themselves that they are hardier than any fitful weather of infancy.

I wonder if my abilities as a father will be any better than my gardening? I am certain within my love I am already making mistakes. I am reminded of Paul's words “I planted... but God gave the increase.” I can water, fertilize, prune, provide sunlight and shelter, but the life within a growing tree will remain a hidden mystery. It is the same with my son. He is not my own. I pray that God is good to him, and guides him with a steadier hand than my own.

Us Versus Them (politics with no thinking required)

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:00 +0000

The polarization of American politics has stifled any real progress or discussion. Respectful opposition has been replaced with demonization and name-calling. The free forum of the internet was supposed to liberate us from the hegemony of the two political parties. Instead we got more obnoxious partisan bickering.

Of course, Conservatives and Liberals have real differences worth discussing, but there is little or no discussion online. Political hatreds (such as the Right's vehement disgust toward the Clintons, the Left's similar distain for the Bushes, and various ad hominem attacks and name-calling directed at each party) have replaced political discourse.

No one even tries to understand political thoughts anymore, just label them. Once an idea has been labeled “Right” or “Left” you can reject or accept it based on your affiliations without even having to strain your mind to even give it any real consideration.

A blog like this that often ventures into politics but has no real Right/Left affiliation is an anomaly on the internet. Recently I read a review of my site on Stumble Upon (a social bookmarking site that allows people to vote on any website). The only written review of the site consists of one man giving the site a thumbs down and stating “The guy voted for Bush... not once but TWICE!”

While I did vote for Bush and do not regret it, any reading of the site should reveal that my positions are drastically different from Bush's. I imagine that this man had to do some significant exploration of the site to find my voting history since it is noted in passing on a post that doesn't get much traffic or or have outside links, but thinking about what he was reading didn't seem to be part of this web surfer's approach. I imagine this poor liberal scanning through ideas and posts without giving them any thought until he final found something that made sense. “Two votes for Bush! The writer must be Republican, an enemy. Bad site! Don't consider any of the ideas in these essays! Give it a bad review so no one else reads it either.” Interestingly this is the same site that a conservative acquaintance called me a “pinko commie” after reading.

The truth is I am neither a Conservative or Liberal, but I give a lot of thought to politics—both personal, local, and national. While there certainly are thoughtful people of all political persuasions the vast majority voters have no desire to think about what anyone else says. They only want to win arguments and elections for their side. Having friends who are sincere and intelligent Liberals and Conservatives as well as reading blogs and books from all sorts of political perspectives is what freed me from feeling the need to pick a side. Both sides are right and wrong on a great many things, so I defend what I believe is right and point out the wrongs I see. If most voters aren't open minded enough to even listen to someone outside their own group I fear we will never solve this nation's problems.

On Contraception

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 31 May 2008 23:42:00 +0000

With all of the recent discussions of new birth as well as the longstanding defense of the sanctity of life it is important to make a clarification on the issue of contraception. As a whole-hearted supporter of the Pro-life movement I believe it is essential that we recognize human life begins at conception and defend the dignity and rights of all our fellow humans. Unfortunately, many of the most vocal in the Pro-life movement often add to the cause political opposition to access to contraception. Contraception as its name implies prevents conception. While, the responsible use of contraception (and thus sex) is a topic that deserve much introspection and discussion it is not directly a "life issue." While leaving the "right" to kill our fellow humans to our own discretion is something that must be opposed, I believe that leaving decisions such as contraception in the realm of personal ethical choices makes for a better, freer, and more just society.

Contraception, unlike abortion, does not kill. Contraception is a non-violent tool: a tool that can be used wisely or unwisely, but it should not be the goal of the Pro-Life Movement to make everyone wise--it should be to make a society in which we do not kill. Fortunately, the vast majority of pro-life Americans (80% according to a recent poll) favor no restrictions on contraception. These more "pure" pro-lifers, however, are not usually the public face of the pro-life movement. Pro-life advocates that politically oppose contraception re-enforce the rhetoric that seeks to label us as trying to control people's choices rather than save human lives from violence. If we truly desire to save innocents from being murdered we do better to simply oppose killing in the public sphere and leave contraception to discussions of private ethics.

Therefore, today I declare along with other pro-life bloggers (sponsored by TurnTheClockForward) on dozens of blogs that we support access to contraception.

On Midwives

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:07:00 +0000

Doctors can be quite useful, but when they are not necessary it may be best to not have them. Last week when my son was born an incredible nurse midwife was beside my wife from the moment she arrived at in her room until almost an hour after our son was born. As a doctor myself I have been in hundreds of deliveries and I have never seen a delivery so calm or a physician so comforting.

There are times when a doctor is needed. In a life-threatening illness a doctor may be the best person to have, but we doctors are trained to act boldly, to fix, to intervene. When there is discomfort but little danger a physician's presence can often disrupt, dismay, and even bring a danger of its own. I think of all the times people bring their sufferings to the ER with minor illnesses such as colds. My training says "It could be a cold or it could be something more dangerous. I need to poke, prod, X-ray, and draw blood just to be sure." The doctor must constantly disturb the patient in order to look for death or disability hiding behind their suffering.

That is what I loved about the midwife. She saw the suffering of birth as part of a natural process. I know she was alert for problems, but unlike a doctor her primary goal was comfort and support. She had a doctor in the hospital on back-up if their were any problems. She didn't have to focus on death. She recognized the suffering as part of a beautiful unveiling of life. In many ways I was jealous of the midwife. I became a doctor due to a rather vague desire to "help people" but often I find my job is more fighting illness than really bringing comfort to people's lives. Comforting people is a side job in medicine, the real responsibility is to find, fight, and manage diseases. I realized watching the midwife that I wish had the ability to stop worrying about disease and focus exclusively on caring.

Doctoring and Parenting

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:26:00 +0000

When the midwife found out I was a doctor who had delivered babies in the past she offered for me to assist with the delivery. I declined mainly because I knew my wife would prefer I focus solely on emotional support.

Now it is interesting to realize how much I am shunning any sort of doctoring in my new son's life. I haven't even laid a stethoscope on him to check his heart for murmurs. I am realizing that there is such a difference in perspective that I never want to think as a physician about my child.

A doctor looks for flaws—a parent only sees perfection. A doctor tries to remain objective—a parent unreservedly loves. A doctor prepares for possible future illness and disability—a parent looks at his child's life with optimism. A doctor expects death and decay—a parent lives to hope for his child.

I used to think that being a physician would be be a wonderful asset in my parenting. Now I think I'll leave my doctoring at the hospital, and leave my son's doctoring to his physician. I am his father and I want to be nothing else to him.

Good Tidings of Great Joy

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:38:00 +0000

Our little baby boy was born in the early hours of the morning two days ago. He is sleeping beside me as I write now. I am overwhelmed with joy and love for this little child as I finally get to hold him in my arms. He is so tiny and beautiful. All my anxieties about fatherhood just melt into simple love. I look forward to watching him grow over the years and teaching him about the world. I hope he becomes a better man than me.

I know The Gridbook Blog isn't typically for updates about my life, but such monumental news I couldn't help but put here. For more details and pictures you can read my personal blog here and here.

Death of Dignity: the danger of theory

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Mon, 19 May 2008 21:49:00 +0000

You can become so deeply entrenched in theory you completely looses touch with your humanity. A fascinating example of this is a recent article by Steven Pinker a professor at Harvard: “The Stupidity of Dignity” Pinker argues that the idea of human dignity has no real value and should have no part in discussions of what is right and wrong. The ethical theory that has lead him to this absurd conclusion is his focus on autonomy (a person should make his/her own decisions without coercion). The curious idea that each human being has some inherent value (ie: Dignity) is just a mental trick to make us respect the will of others. Pinker seems especially offended that religious people see dignity in God's regard for humans rather than our will for ourselves. Pinker then cherry picks some rather absurd arguments based on dignity to show us what a foolish idea this is.

Pinker makes his argument with all the tack and self-assuredness of a scientist assuring us that there is no such thing as love. “Love is only a mental trick our brains use to describe our sexual need to pass on our genes. Why be so naïve as to talk about love when what you mean is sex? Besides this unnecessary concept of love is impossible to define precisely and is subject to misuse.” Similarly Pinker tells us the human dignity we see in each other is a useless illusion.

Forgive my reactionary response, but such ideology can have real and dangerous consequences. Pinker is right that in many (perhaps most) situations my ethical obligations based on respecting the dignity of another person involves respecting and deferring to that person's will. But when you strip away human concepts such as dignity and replace them with theory your calculations can lead you to dangerous places. The bioloethics based on autonomy only allows for the will of a human, therefore those who have no will have no value. Pinker never mentions this in his essay but the principle difference between those who talk of dignity and traditional bioethics is the ethical ability to kill our fellow human beings. Those who cannot make decisions such as unborn children or the mentally disabled can be killed without ethical dilemma because you have not violated their will. Dignity sees value in all humans, will or no will. Believing in human dignity means that traditional bioethics have given the nod to the murder of millions of human beings—humans with value and rights simply because they are human. (Perhaps it is too sensationalistic to mention that ideologies on the supremacy of the human will also lead to the gas chambers of Auschwitz.)

Is Pinker a monster? No, but perhaps the inhuman calculus of his ethical reasoning may stand as an example to all of us whose attachment to an ideal threatens to cloud out our humanity. I know that in this blog I have rather staunchly espoused certain ideas and ethics, and it is with shame I say that sometimes in defense of these ideals I have acted in ways that are less than humane. I have even been ungracious when disagreeing with my wife. Theory is fine, but be cautions if it leads you away from love, compassion, or respect for the dignity of others.

An Open Letter to Senator Obama

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:04:00 +0000

Dear Senator Obama,

I hope that out of the many letters your receive every day you have an opportunity to read this and consider my words. First I must say that I admire your dedication to social justice, equality, and peaceableness, as well as your deep sincerity. On a personal level as part of an interracial marriage and the father of a biracial son I would feel deeply proud to see a man such as yourself in the presidency. I will not, however, be able to support you in your run for the presidency due to your support for legalized abortion, which contradicts all the ideals that you espouse in your speeches.

In your book “The Audacity of Hope” you imply that opposition to abortion is a primarily theologic concern, and thus while it must be respected it is foreign to the realm of politics. Nothing could be further from the truth! Claiming that opposing abortion requires a faith inaccessible to the uninitiated ignores the universality of human rights. To segregate basic respect for our fellow human beings to the church does a disservice to the rest of the nation. If people of faith were the first to oppose injustices such as slavery, inequality, and mistreatment of women it is not because these issues were only theological, but because religious people sometimes have a heightened sensitivity to real wrongs.

My personal awareness that this is more than some “political issue” was when I was fifteen years old and my mother told me that I was scheduled to be aborted myself and I had two older siblings who had been killed by abortion. Then I understood that abortion is not some abstract issue but a real violence destroying real humans. When I became a physician my mother asked that I use my influence as a doctor to help prevent abortions and help other women and families avoid the devastation that legalized abortion had on us.

In your explanation of your abortion position you said you support unrestricted access to abortion because the act is never done without the woman “wrestling with her conscience.” While this certainly should change our perspective on women who terminate their fetuses (compassion instead of judgement) the difficulty of the decision doesn't make the outcome (killing a fellow human) any less wrong. If you read in a history book that a slave owner or participant in genocide had deep misgivings about their actions this should elicit your sympathy, but the result for their victims (death and enslavement) becomes no less wrong because it was hard for their oppressors to do it. Nor should empathy for those who feel they have no choice but to act violently prevent their fellow citizens from restraining this violence and demonstrating a more peaceable way.

Senator Obama, as someone who champions human dignity and recognizes that our rights as individuals should not allow us to trample our weaker neighbors I would expect that you would be pro-life or at least more neutral on abortion. As someone who has been moved by your writings and speeches, I hope that your unwavering support for abortion is a blind spot you have carelessly inherited from the Democratic Party platform, rather than any true hypocrisy of the humane values you claim to espouse. Having read your books I really believe the sincerity of your values. I also believe it is not mere rhetoric when you say that you deeply respect me as a pro-life American. But your respect for me and your pronouncements of sympathy towards pro-life values are no comfort when the outcome for the victims is the same. Unborn Americans are being killed by the thousands everyday and as president you would do nothing to defend them.

Were it not for your position on this single issue I could have wholeheartedly supported your run for president, but instead I must vote against you and invest all my political energies into opposing your election.

Despite my opposition, however, I believe that you will become the next president of the United States. So as you enter your presidency I beg you to reflect on your values and reconsider your duties to human beings not yet born. You could use the “historic moment” of your presidency to lead America towards a more compassionate way that protects all the weak from violence. Like you, I am optimistic that the recognition of human dignity by political power will someday make our nation and world a better place. Future generations will judge our lack of action. If you do not realize that human rights apply to all humans another reformer one day will, and I fear that history will judge you harshly for your blind spot—like the early American leaders who spoke boldly about liberty and kept fellow humans as slaves.

Thank your for taking the time to read this letter and consider its contents. I pray that you exceed all my expectations and prove all my concerns wrong, and become the sort of leader America so desperately needs.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Davis

She Speaks

noreply@blogger.com (John Whittemore) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:46:00 +0000

I have the exciting opportunity to offer Gridbook's first guest blogging: a response to the blog by my brilliant and insightful wife...

I yelled at my husband today... because I am a Fortson (and of course a sinner too). It is a generational feature of the Fortsons to become loud as they become increasingly passionate about finding the truth. My grandfather died of high blood pressure. My aunt died of an aneurysm. Of course, I do not know how I will die but it may well be caused by some inner pressure that has just exceeded its maximum. They both raised their voices in direct proportion to their passion. For my grandfather, the issues were spiritual. He would pace the floor with his Bible, becoming more agitated and adamant as he made his point about predestination. My aunt championed social justice. She became incensed over racial inequalities and would work herself into a foul mood over topics of poverty and injustice.

I don't know if my causes are quite as defined. Sometimes I just yell... because of everything I haven't figured out yet; because I haven't yet found a satisfactory social or spiritual hook to hang my hat on, a battle ground to fight my life's fight and defend to the death. I haven't found that thing for which I'm willing to sacrifice my blood pressure and the health of my arteries. But I am a Fortson and I will pace and fuss and yell (mostly in the privacy of my home) until I find it.

In the meantime, my husband blogs. He constantly puts out his thoughts, emotions, and ideas for all to see. And I disagree with most of them. Is that any wonder when the first conversation we ever had was him discussing how he could sympathize with (but not justify) supporters of the KKK? Would you be shocked to know that the first time I visited him at his home, I discovered that he proudly flew the Confederate flag? (These are not things I rushed home to tell my parents.) Yet I married him with love and pride and would do it a thousand times again.

However, I must now speak because my picture appears on his blog, next to his writings. My name is mentioned in his thoughts. My son is discussed in these entries. And I do not endorse all of his views. He will always vote pro-life. I will not. He is unflinchingly against wealth, the upper-class and accumulating materialistic things. I love a cushy lifestyle. He loves to advertise his views by covering his car in bumper stickers. I prefer for my views to remain private unless it is absolutely essential that they be revealed. I could go on about our differences. They are as opposite as black and white. Yet just as our son will reflect our unity, somewhere in our diversity we agree.

I most wanted to say to you, his readers, that he is married to a woman who does not think like he does, respond the way he does, or arrive at the same conclusions that he does. Although I am passionate, I am not public. I do not wish to publish my thoughts or opinions, mainly because they are constantly evolving, deepening, widening, wisening. What I think today may be developed into an entirely new thought after I experience tomorrow.

So while I thought it was “time to speak,” what I want to say is still being formed and developed and perfected. And someday soon, I may be able to say in exactly the way I want why the gridbook does not reflect who I am.

I am the great granddaughter of slaves married to the great grandson of slave owners—I am a black woman. I will soon give birth to a son who even more than me will have to create his identity everyday—I am a mother. I am married to a man who is the antithesis of my views and approaches to life—I am a wife. I am the daughter of a full-time homemaker—I am creating a career. I am a believer in Jesus Christ although I am often ashamed of His followers—I am a Christian. I am both proud and disappointed in my country, its leaders, citizens and policies—I am an American. I believe that everyone should have a choice when it comes to their bodies and their lives—I am pro-life. I am not easily defined. The boundaries around my thoughts and beliefs are constantly shifting; widening, deepening, excluding—I am complicated.

I kept my middle and maiden name when married, adding "Davis" to who I already was because none of me was lost at my marriage to Jonathan Davis. I only grew. I added on. I expanded.