Just Like a Fine Wine

RedhatAs an artist, I feel an obligation to look for beauty in the world and draw attention to it. Beauty deserves praise, and people benefit from giving praise where it is due.

To that end, I would like to call your attention to the man in the red hat. No, that is not the late Gene Scott, and no, this is not the beauty that I spoke of earlier. The man in the red hat is Gerry Rafferty, and it is his music to which I would like to call your attention.

Let me back up a bit… 1978. Disco was all over the radio, and punk had fought back, kicking and gouging. The New Wave had not yet broken. I had my favorite songs, like everyone, but there was one song that could turn me in to a road hazard every time I heard it on the car radio: Gerry Rafferty’s "Baker Street", which sported the most arresting hook and spine-tingling sax line ever devised in pop music. I often pulled over just to listen to it (ah, to be 17 again…). It was completely unique, and sheer genius.

So a couple days ago I’m poking around on Google, playing a round of "Whatever Happened To…" when I thought of Rafferty and decided to see what he’s been up to lately. Fortunately he has been making music, and his skills have not dulled, but matured. His new release, Another World, is a masterpiece. You want to talk about melodic structure? Vocal harmony? Spiritual depth? You don’t listen to this music, it just washes over you. But I’m gushing.

You can find out more about Mr. Rafferty and his music at his website, which features several free music downloads, including two traditional Christmas carols. If you have ever heard the National Anthem butchered by a showy vocalist (and who hasn’t?) you will appreciate his beautiful, understated harmonies.
Did I mention he also has a free download of his rendition of the Kyrie Eleison?

Enjoy…

The Data On Fiber

Weight_track_07_2005In my previous post I showed you a 12-day weight track starting June 20th and ending July 2nd.

Here’s a 12-day track starting July 4th (click to enlarge).

Look at the two carefully. You’ll notice two differences:

First, if you observe the trendline, you’ll see that I lost more weight in this period. Previously I lost about 3.5 lbs, but this time I lost about 4.5 lbs. (And, as the next couple of days that aren’t on this track revealed, it was more like 5.5 lbs.)

Second, you’ll note that the daily ups and downs have levelled out dramatically. The line of weight readings (the dark one) approximates the trendline much more closely, without the dramatic departures shown on the previous weight track. Now the daily weigh-ins are all within about a pound of the trendline.

Why?

Both of these phenomena have the same cause: Fiber. In the July 2-4 period I ramped up the amount of fiber in my diet. There was already a good bit in it, but I got serious and ramped it up to the point that I am consuming something like 45-60 grams of powdered fiber a day, in addition to the fiber in my food (probably another 10-15 grams). Another change is that during this period I switched between pure psyllium husks and a mixed fiber supplement, which is better.

As I reported previously, fiber fills you up real good and decreases appetite. As a result, I ate less food in this period (without hunger) and lost more weight (an extra two pounds). Now I have the data to prove it, so I wanted to share it with you.

Unexpected was the fact that the ups and downs would even out the way they did. On this track I had to wait a lot less time before hitting a new weight low. Indeed, sometimes I hit a new weight low more than one day in a row before an upturn.

That’s motivation!

. . . And another reason to use high levels of fiber when dieting.

Weight Tracking

Weight_track_06_2005_3There is debate in dieting circles about how often you ought to weigh yourself. One popular theory holds that you should only do it once a week.

Why? Because there are a lot of ups and downs in your weight from day to day (and even within the day) depending on how much food and water you have in the system at the time. Since dieters who are successfully losing weight tend to lose only one or two pounds a week, these losses are likely to get, uh, lost amid all the daily fluctuations. Then the dieter will get discouraged, feel his is not losing an weight, and quit.

To solve this, the solution mentioned above wants the dieter to weigh himself as infrequently as possible so that there is more of a chance of him seeing an actual loss when he (finally) steps on the scale, motivating him to keep going.

Forget that!

I’m firmly on the side of the dieters who weigh themselves daily. Indeed, I weigh myself multiple times a day.

How do I overcome seeing all the ups and downs? I keep track of them. What I do is take my lowest weigh-in of the day (typically early in the morning, before I start eating and drinking) and log it in Microsoft Excel. I then use the charting feature to graph what my weight’s doing, as in the chart above, which shows a twelve-day track of my weight starting June 20th (click to enlarge).

As you can see, it has significant ups and downs. But the nice thing about tracking your progress in a charting-capable program is that you can hae it add a trendline that will filter out the ups and downs and give you a better sense of your progress.

As you can see from this chart, I lost about three and a half pounds over the twelve day span of the track.

There are still lots of ups and downs. Note that I had a major low on June 27, but I didn’t get back to that level again in the period. If I’d weighed myself on that day and then again seven days later (not shown on this chart), my weight would have actually registered an increase, but the increase would have been illustory because it was due to food and water in the system, not actual weight gain. I would have then felt unrewarded for my week of dieting and would have had to live under that cloud for another week until I could weigh myself again.

I’d find that discouraging!

And so, for me at least, it’s much better for my morale to indulge my tendency to microanalyze phenomena and weigh myself daily, using the marvels of modern technology to look past the ups and downs and give me a better representation of my progress.

Rehnquist v. O'Connor

Two stories floated side by side at CNN:

Senators Urge [Sandra Day] O’Connor To Reconsider Retirement

[William] Rehnquist Silences Retirement Speculation

In the first story, four notoriously pro-abortion senators (although Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has a "mixed record" despite her EMILY List recommendation) have urged Justice O’Connor not to retire, piously asserting that "You possess moderation, dignity and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence" and urging that President Bush name her as Chief Justice Rehnquist’s replacement:

"In a copy of the letter obtained by CNN, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-California, Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, urged the 75-year-old jurist to return to the court as the chief justice of the United States to avoid what could be a messy confirmation fight over her successor.

"’As United States senators with the constitutional responsibility of "advice and consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as chief justice,’ the letter said."

Uh huh.  And had John Kerry won election in 2004 would these senators still recommend that O’Connor be named Chief Justice or would they be clamoring for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has apparently tired of the Retirement Watch surrounding him lately and has stated that, despite health difficulties, he intends to continue in office as long as he can:

"’I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement,’ Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. ‘I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.’"

Point of protocol:  As a side note, and to sound off on a pet peeve of mine, the Chief Justice’s title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."  It is Chief Justice of the United States.

<Commercial>Get Catholic Answers’ booklet Supreme Injustice: The Looming Disaster in America’s Highest Court written by your gracious blog host, Jimmy Akin.</commercial>

Rehnquist v. O’Connor

Two stories floated side by side at CNN:

Senators Urge [Sandra Day] O’Connor To Reconsider Retirement

[William] Rehnquist Silences Retirement Speculation

In the first story, four notoriously pro-abortion senators (although Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has a "mixed record" despite her EMILY List recommendation) have urged Justice O’Connor not to retire, piously asserting that "You possess moderation, dignity and integrity, and have demonstrated the highest standards of legal excellence" and urging that President Bush name her as Chief Justice Rehnquist’s replacement:

"In a copy of the letter obtained by CNN, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-California, Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, urged the 75-year-old jurist to return to the court as the chief justice of the United States to avoid what could be a messy confirmation fight over her successor.

"’As United States senators with the constitutional responsibility of "advice and consent," we would strongly recommend to President Bush that he nominate you as chief justice,’ the letter said."

Uh huh.  And had John Kerry won election in 2004 would these senators still recommend that O’Connor be named Chief Justice or would they be clamoring for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

In any event, Chief Justice Rehnquist has apparently tired of the Retirement Watch surrounding him lately and has stated that, despite health difficulties, he intends to continue in office as long as he can:

"’I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement,’ Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. ‘I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits.’"

Point of protocol:  As a side note, and to sound off on a pet peeve of mine, the Chief Justice’s title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."  It is Chief Justice of the United States.

<Commercial>Get Catholic Answers’ booklet Supreme Injustice: The Looming Disaster in America’s Highest Court written by your gracious blog host, Jimmy Akin.</commercial>

B16's First Encyclical

In case y’all haven’t heard, B16 is writing his first encyclical.

Actually, he’s been writing it for some time (as one could guess), but he’s reportedly using his current vacation to work more on it. Maybe it’ll be finished by the time he gets back. (One can hope, anyway.)

It’s usually only a few months after a pope takes office that his first encyclical comes out, and it’s usually a sketch of how he plans to conduct his pontificate.

Not much is known about what B16 is writing, but

GET THE STORY.

B16’s First Encyclical

In case y’all haven’t heard, B16 is writing his first encyclical.

Actually, he’s been writing it for some time (as one could guess), but he’s reportedly using his current vacation to work more on it. Maybe it’ll be finished by the time he gets back. (One can hope, anyway.)

It’s usually only a few months after a pope takes office that his first encyclical comes out, and it’s usually a sketch of how he plans to conduct his pontificate.

Not much is known about what B16 is writing, but

GET THE STORY.

"Standing Up" For An Invalid Wedding

A reader writes:

My brother  was raised catholic and has received 4 sacraments. He is now a non practicing catholic, but has not left the Church by any formal decree. he is getting married in a month in a protestant church and has asked me, my wife and our 3 children to stand up for him in the wedding. His future wife was baptized in the catholic church, but was raised in a somewhat anti-catholic family. I know his wedding is invalid. What does the Church say or teach on family members participating in an invalid wedding?

Present ecclesiastical law does not specifically address the situation, which means that we have to fall back on the principles of moral theology to help us settle the question.

It seems to me that "standing up for" someone at a wedding involves one in the ceremony in a formal way that goes beyond merely attending the wedding.

I cannot recommend attending a wedding that is known to be invalid. To do so lends one’s presence to a false union and thus constitutes an offense against the truth. It sends the message to the couple that either their union is valid, when it is not, or that what they are doing doesn’t really matter–otherwise you wouldn’t be there.

Since I can’t recommend attending an invalid wedding, I also cannot recommend becoming formally involved in it, as standing up for a member of the couple would imply.

Involving one’s children in such a situation also could send them a very bad message since, even though they may not understand about valid or invalid marriages right now, they will come to understand them with time (if they are properly educated in the faith, at any rate), and at that point they will remember that their parents involved them in such a ceremony.

You say that your brother has not "left the Church by any formal decree." I should point out that a decree is not necessary. For the wedding to be valid, your brother and his fiancee would have had to defect from the Church by a formal act (such as formally joining another church with the intent of no longer being Catholic), but it doesn’t have to be by the issuing of a decree. I’d therefore ask them more about their current religious status before concluding for certain that the marriage is invalid.

However, if the circumstances of the wedding are as you describe, I could not recommend that you or your family participate in it. I know that it would be hard to refuse your brother’s request, and I would explain to him as gently and lovingly as possible that you can’t do it because you care about him and need to be honest with him about the situation.

Wish I had better news, but I hope this helps.

20