Don't look now, but the Wittmanns are going green. Well, sort of greenish, anyway. For some inexplicable reason, I've had an incredible urge to grow things this spring. I think it started when I aerated the yard and put some grass seed down. After that I re-potted a couple of plants (with mixed results, I should add), decided to grow a garden, and even kicked around the idea of building a window garden in our dining room so we can have fresh "greens" for dinner all winter long.
I think maybe it goes back to some sort of subconscious connection with my childhood, where I vaguely remember my dad dragging me out to the garden to help pick tomatoes, or weeds, or whatever. Now that I've got my own little helper in tow, I kind of like the idea of dragging him out there to participate in all the micro-agricultural fun.
There also seems to be something deeply therapeutic about growing plants. Sure, there's always something you can do to help them along (watering, weeding, etc.), but there's no way to rush them. The tomatoes will be ready when they're ready. Deal with it. When everything else in our lives continues to gain speed, this stubborn refusal to be rushed is kind of refreshing.
So, now I have a 6'x12' garden behind my garage. I turned it all over with a shovel, and then ran a small tiller through it to get it broken up nice and fine (or sliced up, which is more accurate when referring to the clay content of the soil back there). So far all I have planted are a couple of tomato plants, but we're planning on growing peppers, carrots, and cucumbers from seeds.
We've also been saving leftover fruits, vegetables, peels, egg shells, and coffee grounds to mix into the garden somewhere along the way. Once I start mowing our lawn, I plan on bagging the grass and using it as mulch around the various botanical exhibits in the garden. I've even got a nifty little rain collection system built (more on that later) so I can conserve water this summer and still keep the garden a-growin'.
Now, don't go and tell Al Gore about his latest convert just yet. I'm still not buying into the whole anthropocentric global warming hoopla, and all the asinine (and dangerous) solutions being proposed by our environmental high priests. Still, it does make sense to me to conserve wherever possible, to reuse whatever we can, and to even produce some of our own food along the way. I think the key is to remember that we serve the Creator, not the creation, and that He put it here for our use. If you keep those things in their right places, I think you're doing OK. Once those get flipped, you're bound to end up somewhere a little screwy.
Amanda and I love babies. Especially our own. So, we usually end up with a new one about every two years. This spacing is a little closer together than what, as far as I can tell, is culturally acceptable. So, we invariably get the "Was this, um, expected?" question each time we announce our big news. It comes in a few different flavors, but the underlying message is basically, "You couldn't possibly want this many kids, this close together, so something in the family planning department must have gone horribly awry. Right?"
Normally I just respond with a polite something or other about how we're richly blessed, but I think with the next go round1 I'll likely go on the offensive. "Oh, did you mean to have more than one TV?" I'll ask. "I mean, they're so expensive, and they can take up so much of your time. I guess I can see why you'd like to have one around, but why would you want to have another one?"
I mean, seriously. Anyone in their right mind would gladly take a house full of children over a house full of TVs, right?
Footnotes:
No, we don't have news. Grandparents, settle down! [back]
In an unintentional trip through most of the 2008 Best Picture nominees, I've seen There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, and Juno, in that order, over the past few weeks. Yes, please applaud my cinematic hipness, however delayed it may be.
Out of the three, Juno is the one that I enjoyed the most. It is one of a recent string of films depicting pregnant women deciding what to do about their, um, problem. In each of these films, the mother eventually decides not to terminate her pregnancy. In Juno, the title character explains that, "Well, you know, I was thinking I'd just nip it in the bud, before it gets worse, because they were talking about it in health class, how pregnancy, it can often lead to… an infant." She makes her way to the abortion clinic, only to change her mind after a protesting fellow-classmate informs her that the baby has fingernails. While the film certainly is not overtly or dogmatically pro-life1, it seems worth noting that this teenage mother chose not to abort the baby.
Last night's Grey's Anatomy offered up another example of this on-screen pregnancy pirouette. After receiving confirmation that she's pregnant, the HIV-positive mother-to-be asks to schedule an abortion. By the end of the episode, Izzy (played by Katherine Heigl of Knocked Up) confronts the mother, informing her that her baby would have a 98% chance of being born without the disease. The mom, relieved by this news, begins to cry and decides not to abort her baby.
So, here's what I don't get. It's no secret that an overwhelming majority of our film-making friends on the Left Coast are stridently pro-choice (and pro-everything that's not traditional, moral, or religious). So, why can't any of them pull the trigger? Why would they present us with multiple examples of women contemplating abortion, only to be won over based on, of all things, medical facts? If it really is just a lump of tissue, and if women really do have "reproductive freedom," why not show us this perfectly normal, valid choice on screen?
One hunch is that it just wouldn't make for a good story. I can see that, to a point, but if these folks really believe what they keep telling us they believe, why not tell the courageous story of a young, pregnant mother defying all odds and making a triumphant choice that's "right for her"? My guess is that, despite all the rhetoric, no sane human being can truly bring himself to see things this way. We know better, and we won't buy (or tell) a story that ignores this intrinsically understood truth.
Footnotes:
The producer, Lianne Halfon, says that it is more about the "internal debate" that takes place, not the external, competing agendas of either side of the debate. [back]
Doug Wilson, on the Westminister Confession's statement that our interest (i.e. stake) in Christ, along with the benefits thereby implied, is confirmed in the sacraments:
Some might say that if you have the faith, then that is sufficient–you can go off by yourself, you and your faith, and do all your confirming of interest away from God's people. The bread and wine are entirely optional if faith is sufficient, right? But if God said to meet Him here in the … Read the rest of this post…
1. What exactly are they trying to communicate here?
2. Can you imagine a helpless, frustrated Jesus standing on the sidelines like this?
3. Why is "Christian drama" usually this bad, or worse?
4. Why does Jesus look like Justin Timberlake in a purple and white bathrobe?
RSS 2.0
