Beach Haven

​Protests seem to be a regular event here in DC. The issues that inspire people to take to the streets are many and varied. Some of the protests involve people with a specific perspective, some involve multiple groups with opposing perspectives. Recently I noticed a picture on the web of a person holding a protest sign. The sign says, “the [sic] most violent element in society is IGNORANCE.”

This sign struck me as a reminder of many conversations I’ve either heard or participated in. The topic could be political, religious, cultural, or any other hot button. The sentiment might be stated in any number of ways. “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “If you had to put up with what I do you’d understand.” “You’ve never had to deal with this.” “You are narrow minded.” I could keep going, but what seems to me is behind any of these variations on a theme is an idea that “I have information that you don’t. If you only knew what I do, you’d agree with me.”

I often hear the same sentiment being expressed by people holding opposing views on the same topic. It really doesn’t seem to strike me that either person in such a conversation has not heard what the other person has to say, meaning they both probably do have access to the same information. If ignorance is a lack of information, and presumably not a lack of intelligence, then neither side of such a debate is ignorant. They just genuinely disagree.

Any number of factors could cause disputing parties to stress some information and down play other information. There may be agendas involved. Either or both sides could be looking for a specific outcome so they argue the facts that support their goal. Values could differ. Depending on the atmosphere a person has lived in, words or ideals could be defined very differently from one person or group to another. For example if the disputants are considering some issue involving the word “freedom”, one side may be speaking of their freedom to… while the other may be speaking of their freedom from…

I take issue with people who take the stance that if someone does not agree with them it’s only because of their lack of information, their ignorance. It is just as likely that the person making such a claim has themselves an information shortage. It’s also just a likely that neither are making a decision in ignorance. The anger seems to well up when either or all sides of an issue begin to assume something even more sinister in a person’s motivation, or because either or all actually do have sinister motivations. Unfortunately, we humans don’t really know what a person is actually thinking or why they choose to do what they do. Likewise, to me, if a person assumes they know more than their opposition they may be part of a different destructive “element in society”; arrogance.

​Like many others these days, I listen to a selection of podcasts. One of my regulars by NPR is titled Hidden Brain by Shankar Vedantam. Recently he had an episode titled Creating God and featured an evolutionary scientist named Azim Shariff. In essence, the ideas the guest shared pointed to an evolutionary need in early human development for creating community. The result, says Shariff, was the invention of religion, the invention of God. Creating a belief system, goes the argument, helped small groups form a common ethos and a method of bonding. Toward the end of the episode Shariff affirmed he is an atheist. Here is the description of the episode on the Hidden Brain website:

If you've taken part in a religious service, have you ever stopped to think about how it all came to be? How did people become believers? Where did the rituals come from? And most of all, what purpose does it all serve? This week, we explore these questions with psychologist Azim Shariff, who argues that we can think of religion from a Darwinian perspective, as an innovation that helped human societies to survive and flourish.

https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain

I have made an argument many times about science and faith, but after listening to the podcast I feel a need to make it again. I firmly believe that human intellect has limits, and the amount of data available to human kind is limited as well. A limited reasoning ability coupled with a limited amount of information often leads to only a partial, or sometimes completely inaccurate, understanding of truth.

A few days after listening to the podcast I listened to a Ted Radio Hour that was focused on this issue of what science knows about truth. The episode is titled The Spirit of Inquiry. In particular, a recurring theme in the episode was about the trap of arrogance scientists often fall into by believing the conclusions science draws. Multiple presenters, scientists not religionists, spoke about how science really doesn’t prove anything, but gives us a reasonable framework to try to understand the world around us, and the worlds in the cosmos. Here is the description of the episode on the TED Radio Hour website:

The force behind scientific progress is the simple act of asking questions. This episode, TED speakers explore how a deeper and more humble style of inquiry may help achieve the next big breakthrough.

https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/archive

There is a danger in this approach as well. A follower of this line of thought can come to the conclusion that truth is not really knowable. In his epistle to Timothy, the apostle Paul describes people in the last days. One way he describes them (us?) is in 2 Timothy 3

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

When atheistic scientists remove the possibility of the existence of God, and accept completely the ideas of evolution, I can understand how they, like Azim Shariff, come to the conclusions they do. That said, if you assume one possibility should be completely ruled out (the actual existence of God for example), and you assume another possibility as the only description of reality, then how can someone really put stock in such a one-sided perspective? Isn’t that the same argument such scientists use to discredit those who claim a belief in God?

Personally I put little hope in any version of truth that relies only on the logic arguments of human kind, be they scientific or religious. By my own experience through prayer, and seeing results in the lives of those who choose to live the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find reason to view any idea through the lens of how it does or does not align with truth revealed through ancient and modern prophets. Coming to know truth requires more than thought. The Savior puts it this way in John 7

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

For me, faith is stronger than belief. Believing in something does not make it true, nor does belief imply action. Faith is doing His will (taking action). Doing His will increases faith. As faith increases, so does understanding. As understanding increases, a person comes closer to truth. As the scripture notes, doing His will discloses truth. Stated in the negative, if the doctrine is not from God, is not true, then doing the act will reveal to the doer it’s untruth, and faith does not increase.

I’m just fine that many do not accept my perspective. I’m also aware that when considering religion there is a great deal of variation and contradiction among belief systems. I wonder, though, how that is any different than the variation and contradiction among various scientific camps. Scientific evidence is just that, evidence. Scientific theory is just that, theory. So much of what gets represented as "fact" later proves not factual. Religions have come and gone throughout human history. So too have scientific theories.

The idea of progress as linked with the most recent version of the idea of technology implies change. It also implies that the change is supportive of the goals or preferences of whoever is designating the change as progress. In Modernity and Technology by Thomas J. Misa, the author argues that as some see modernity and technological advancement as progress, other philosophers see these ideas linked as a negative. Among his proposals the author states “Technology may be the truly distinctive feature of modernity” as proposal 2. Misa posits that those who argue for technological determinism of social norms (modernists), and those who prefer a focus on societal change independent of technology (post-modernists) are both thinking too macro. He argues, “To constructively confront technology and modernity, we must look more closely at individual technologies and inquire more carefully into social and cultural processes.”

As Misa offers “proposals” in his article, likewise Melvin Kranzberg offers “laws” in his article Technology and History: “Kranzberg’s Laws”. His sixth law states, “Technology is a very human activity – and so is the history of technology.” In this section of the article Kranzberg argues “man the thinker” is also simultaneously “man the maker.” In fact he is saying that what man the thinker is thinking about is what to make and how to make it. Like Misa, he questions the technological imperative. Although we often shape our lives around technology such as the clock or the automobile, “this does not necessarily mean that the ‘technological imperative’… necessarily directs all our thoughts and actions.” As Misa states that the concepts around technology should look more at the specifics, the micro instead of the macro, Kranzberg actually gives some specific examples. In speaking of “technical devices that would make life simpler or easier for us but which our social values and human sensibilities simply reject”, he shares how we, in America at least, do not accept the use of communal kitchens. “Our adherence to the concept of the home has made that technical solution unworkable,” he adds. Where some might take advantage of the shared benefit of a communal kitchen, including better equipment with pooled resources and less work in cleaning and maintaining through shared effort, American culture does not see the technical advantage as a form of progress.
​
The Misa writing helps to see some linkages between various aspects of technology that are not so obvious. For example under his proposal 4 comparing modernism and postmodernism he speaks to architecture as a technology. Modernists, he states, follow the idea that less is more, while postmodernists would argue less is bore. Another example of a strength is linking the concepts of reason and freedom. He shares both arguments of freedom through reason, and concern that it can lead to domination by reason, hence the opposite idea that reason usurps freedom. Similar examples through the work point to both the strength and weakness of the writing. Helping present multiple sides of the questions is helpful to arriving at a better understanding of the questions, but the author generally does not take a side. He frames the questions and shares the answers of others that disagree. He also generally only shares two sides to each of the posed questions. I am sure there are many more than two sides that could be understood.

This past Monday (20 August) was the day. Did you miss it like I did? Yesterday, a day late, I saw a posting about it and did a little quick looking up. I found a few interesting posts.

This one includes an audio clip from someone at WTOP:

https://wtop.com/life-style/2018/08/my-take-what-does-national-radio-day-mean-in-2018/

This one comes from someone calling himself a “radio survivor”:

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2018/08/20/happy-national-radio-day-2018/

This link is to a site that shows celebrated days all year for many different things. I note they remind us that 20 August was not only National Radio Day, but also National Chocolate Pecan Pie Day:

https://nationaldaycalendar.com/2018/08/19/august-20-2018-national-radio-day-national-chocolate-pecan-pie-day/

On the page is a “How To Observe” section:

To celebrate National Radio Day, listen to your favorite radio station and give special recognition to your local radio personalities. Use #NationalRadioDay to post on social media.

Educators, join the National Day Calendar Classroom to get your students involved in National Radio Day with crosswords puzzles, a podcast and more! Every week the classroom offers a variety of lessons and projects to keep children engaged and learning.

It turns out, National Radio Day even has its own Facebook page. Who Knew?

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=national%20radio%20day

To be sure not to miss it next year I dropped an annual recurring item into my Outlook calendar on 20 August. Radio is an important part of our society and has been for a very long time. We at NPR Distribution play a key role in helping radio stay strong and healthy as an industry. We do this as we help the greater public radio community share national content with local station listeners.

Maybe next year I’ll celebrate with a slice of chocolate pecan pie.

I had an interesting philosophical conversation recently with a family member. They shared with me a thread of logic I’ve heard before, and even supported myself once upon a time. The argument goes something like this. "If you think about all the things that have to happen just right to sustain life on our planet there is no way this could all just be a result of randomness."  This perspective is why my conversant felt God must exist. They went on to reason that the fact that we humans have yet to find another similar world that shows even more how rare such an existence is, and further shows how randomness could not have brought about planet earth and life. 
 
On the first point I agree with my family member. From the almost infinite number of combinations of processes such as physics, chemistry, electro-magnetics, etc. that are required, and all the inter-dependencies among these combinations, the probability of random life is infinitesimally small.  
 
From The Book of Mormon
Alma 30 
 
43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words. 
 
44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. 
 
The second idea from my fellow philosopher in the family is where we differ. Again the thought was that since life outside this planet has not been discovered yet by science then it must be truly rare. It is this rarity, says the argument, that proves randomness alone could not cause life or we’d see more of it.  
 
Here’s why I differ with this thought. Scientists rightfully argue that if a God we’re so engaged in creative activity, then why don’t we see more of it? Essentially these folks interpret the same data to an opposite conclusion. My family member thinks the scarcity of life evidence means God must be actively causing life. Much of the scientific world thinks the scarcity of life evidence means there is no God, and life is a result of random unplanned events.  
 
Perhaps both are reach differing conclusions based on the same data because they both assume the data is correct. The premise of both positions is that there is no evidence of life beyond earth. I say that human kind has not discovered life beyond earth. Non-discovered life is not the same as non-existent life. Our ability to peer into the cosmos has been enhanced in recent decades, to be sure. At the same time, astronomers will still tell us how little we can see beyond the immediacy of our own solar system. 
 
From The Pearl of Great Price
Moses 1 
 
26 And lo, I am with thee, even unto the end of thy days; for thou shalt deliver my people from bondage, even Israel my chosen. 
 
27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God. 
 
28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore. 
 
29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof. 
 
30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them? 
 
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 
 
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 
 
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 
 
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 
 
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. 
 
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content. 
 
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. 
 
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. 
 
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 
 
I believe that as our knowledge increases we will eventually find life in the cosmos either through technology, or because our "earth shall pass away... and another come". The low probability of random generation of life to me shows that life is created and not spontaneous. I also argue that an abundance of life in the cosmos would be more supportive of a purposeful creative God. Because the odds of randomness are so low that would bolster the argument that life should be rare without God. I believe life is abundant in the cosmos, but mankind has not been able to discover it yet through our advancing, but still limited technology. I believe the abundance of life is created by God. 
 ​

Last week was Father’s Day. It was nice to be able to speak with our children and grandchildren. In particular, one of adult children sent me a nice note. It was of the sort that makes parents feel they have done a good job. In particular the note was speaking about how the writer had learned the importance of service to others through my example. The note spoke about how I would likely point to God as the driving force to my part of our family’s service to others, but also pointed to the idea that my service was also about my own personal will and drive.

These intertwined ideas settled into my mind for the past week. Thinking, as I often do, in the form of a continuum, if we think about what drives us, one continuum could be bounded by complete inspiration (or God-guided) on one end, and by complete personal will (or agency) on the other. Each of us would fall somewhere along that line depending at some level on inspiration and at some level on agency.

I have often thought of this issue in the past like building a bridge. We are on one side of the intended span with some level of bridge-building supplies. These could be thought of as talents maybe. On the other end is the Savior with His supplies. He will dedicate for our bridge enough of His supplies (the Atonement) that it takes to cover the portion of the span where we will run out of supplies. If we do the work and use our talents as far as we can, then He completes the bridge. If we choose to not use all our talent then there will be a gap left in the end.

A few scriptures to consider:

From Doctrine and Covenants

D&C 58 
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. 
 
From The Book of Mormon

Alma 60 
11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain. 
 
Either 12 
27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. 
28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me--the fountain of all righteousness. 
 
From The Holy Bible

Hebrews 11 
This chapter gives a long list of many famous biblical stories that were accomplished “by faith”.

To me, just as “faith without works is dead,” so too are human efforts fleeting without God. 
​

As I write, it’s Monday evening, Memorial Day, and I’m sitting in the DCA airport getting something to eat before a flight to Atlanta. Michelle dropped me off on her way home after we had an enjoyable day in and around Baltimore.

I was struck by two things in particular as we toured a few sites.
 
The first happened while we were at Fort McHenry. I’m sure you will remember that this is the site where a battle of the War of 1812 took place that inspired Francis Scott Key to pen the words to The Star-Spangled Banner, our national anthem. Before walking out to the fort, there is a small museum where you pay to enter the park. Aside from some artifacts and murals to look at, there is a small theater where visitors are encouraged to watch a short historical film about the battle and anthem author that makes the fort so famous. As you might guess, the film ends with a stirring rendition of the national anthem. Per tradition, all 40 or so of us who were in attendance stood and put our hand over our heart. About half way through the music, the screen we were watching the video on rose to expose the actual fort through the glass behind the screen. In that moment the work had its effect. I felt a patriotic chill on the back of my neck, and my eyes watered. I then noticed that Michelle was similarly affected. She even reached into her purse for a tissue to wipe her eyes.

I had heard the story of Francis Scott Key before, but reviewing the history of the full battle made more sense of his experience. It feels clear to me that the man was inspired of Providence, stated in the vernacular of his day. Here we are, more than two centuries later, and his words set to music still inspire the rest of us. Though the rendition played in the film only shared the first verse, the one we are all most familiar with, I couldn’t help but think of a phrase from one of the later verses, “Let this be our motto, in God is our trust.” That phrase stuck in my head and heart as I walked around the battlements.
 
The second experience that struck me was when we were walking around on the USS Constellation. It was the last American Navy ship commissioned that used sail as it’s only propulsion. It is still a commissioned ship in the US Navy today. As Michelle and I walked around the different decks of the vessel we noted to each other some of the set up of the rigging, navigation systems, anchor and mooring systems, etc., that were similar to our own little sailboat. Of course the scale is hugely different. Michelle also asked me occasionally about how things worked as compared to the ship I was stationed on in the Navy back in the late 1980’s.

What stood out to me was how much of the human set up was the same. It was clear that the traditions of my days at sea were very similar to the traditions of those who sailed on the Constellation. Much of the equipment had the same names and uses. That is true. I was thinking more about how the ranks of men and the division of authority were real from both a responsibility perspective, and also in the physical layout of quarters, mess facilities, watch positions, battle positions and the like. It is clear that there is both a separation and an interdependence between the officer corps and enlisted ranks necessary to keep groups of people working together in a self-reliant and disciplined way. Without that organization and team approach to warfare, a ship like the Constellation, and later my ship the Duluth (LPD-6) could never successfully complete assigned missions.
 
On Memorial Day we remember those who died in war, who gave their life in service of our country. I never lost anyone I was personally close to during my short four years of service. I did participate in several operations where lives were lost. I did experience some of the fallout that comes in the immediate aftermath, and to a small degree the fallout that comes years after the fact.
 
When I think of these two experiences we had today, I hope that we can remember to keep God in our lives. I firmly believe that when we do personally, He will involve Himself with our personal lives. Likewise, so long as we in general stay close to our core values as a people, the same will be true for our nation. I also believe firmly if we distance ourselves from Him we are left more to our own recourses and the buffeting of an adversary that is firmly in our opposition regardless if we recognize it or not.
 
“He that seeketh his life shall lose it, but he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”

Whew! After a week of conferences in Seattle and Chicago, there was light at the end of the travel tunnel. Along with a few coworkers, I got out of the car in front of the Southwest Airline baggage curb check station. Awkwardly, I stepped forward with my check bag, carry-on backpack, and the box lunch the conference organizers had given us as we left the hotel.

“Your ID please, sir,” was the standard greeting I heard as I approached the baggage handler. “Where are you going today?”

I simply answered, “DC.”

“How many bags are you checking?” he asked.

“Just one.”

We then went through the standard dance as he handed me back my ID, typed in his terminal, printed the bag tag and boarding pass, then handed me my part of the paperwork. After he explained to me my gate number and the directions to the security check point, I handed him a simple $1 tip and said “Thank you.”

Next came the part of the standard dance that was new to me. In a loud deep voice he shouted, “Thank you for the tip, sir!”

I smiled, normal for me in most situations that feel awkward. I noticed as he shouted the thanks that he didn’t really look at me, but looked around, moving his head back and forth, projecting to the others in line behind me and at neighboring stations. At first I wondered if he was shaming me for the meager $1 tip. I noticed he had looked at it as I handed it to him. He was obviously checking out the denomination of the bill. It was only after looking the dollar over that he let out with his amplitudinous message of gratitude.

Was he shaming me for such a small tip? No, it quickly became clear he was future shaming the others approaching his station. He was using me as the example of the “good behavior” he wanted all the others to emulate.  These workers move hundreds of bags a shift, I’m sure. If everyone dropped them a buck per bag, that would add to their wages nicely.

I confess, when I take my bag inside to check I don’t give a tip. When I do check bags inside it seems I am doing most of the work. I move my bag to a kiosk. I enter all the data into the screen. In some cases I even print and attach the tag to the bag as well. After all that, I roll it to an attendant at an indoor station who looks at my ID, moves the bag about 3 feet to a conveyor belt, then sends me on my way. By comparison, the curb check people do everything for me. That’s how I justify giving a tip outside, but not inside. Likewise, I have never seen anybody else tip the inside people, even back in the day before the kiosks. From that perspective, I guess I’m culturally a conformist.

Commuting in and out of a busy city on the train every day, it seems like maybe I can become complacent when it comes to the interactions of humanity. It’s easy some days to think I’ve seen it all. Today I was reminded how wrong that sentiment can be. 

After an hour on the train, like any other day I made my way into and through Union Station in downtown DC. Amid the thronging crowds headed in every direction I passed a truly unique scene. Two men were communicating with each other. Of course there is nothing all that unusual in that statement. 

The two men might be unusual in some circumstances, but not for Union Station. The first was a policeman. He was fairly tall, muscly, white, probably approaching forty years old. He had a short haircut, Marine Corps style. He was a dog cop. The leash to his working dog was looped over his wrist as the dog laid lazily on the floor at his feet.

The other man looked to be pushing seventy. In his hand he carried the long white cane that marked him as blind. He was black, as was the companion next to him who was clearly acting in the role of a guide for him. He was short and thin. He was also clearly deaf.

“Now wait a minute,” you say. “How can you know he was deaf just by looking?” Well that gets to the heart of what made this interaction so noticeable to me. When the blind man spoke, he used his hands in the unmistakable motions of sigh language. When he finished, the police officer would take his hands by the wrist and move them to his own right hand. The blind man was then able to feel the hand motion as the policeman spoke in sign language back to him. The blind man’s companion stood near. All three men were smiling and laughing in a way that made you think the conversation was very jovial.

Part of me wished to take a photo of the interaction. What a lovely moment the view made for me as a simple passer-by. I thought about it for just a moment until my judgement got the better of me. It felt like that would be inappropriate in such a moment, so I’ll just have to keep this picture of real human communication in my head. Hopefully this poor little written attempt will give the reader a little glimpse too.

I think perhaps why I marked the positive of this small occurrence so well is it came just as I needed it. I read some news on the train that brought me some heaviness of heart. I expressed that sadness in prayer just before stepping off the train to enter the station. About a minute later I walked by the two speaking with each other in the way I described. I felt a renewal of my faith in people. Perhaps as these two were quietly communicating with each other, Heavenly Father was quietly communicating with me, and answering my prayer.

I recently finished reading the book The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. You may recognize his name. He was famous for writing a series of pamphlets encouraging American colonist to revolt against England in the late 18th century. His rhetoric was fiery and inspiring to the revolutionaries.

Unfortunately, the work in question does anything but inspire. In The Age of Reason he examined The Holy Bible and made an argument ostensibly against all religion, but really and specifically against all forms of Christianity. It is a very good example of arguments I’ve heard plenty of times over the years. One of the biggest mistakes, in my mind, is a shallow study of the text. He argued over and over that he was “proving” the error of the scriptures by just using the text as presented. In looking only at the text he was ignoring the aspect of context. Like so many others, both proponents of and detractors from the Bible, he read much of his criticism based on the context of his own day, not of the time in which the words were written.

For example he often pointed to the fact that many of the books of the Old and New Testaments could not have been written by the person that Christendom has traditionally ascribed them to. He pointed out information in the text that makes it “clear” that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses. Given that “fact” he argued that it stands to reason that they are a lie. He could be right. They were likely written by later historians. That doesn’t make them less true. For example, much of early history was passed from one generation to another through oral tradition and are written down much later than the actual events depicted. He also misses the point that the books of the Bible are likely a compilation as opposed to a historical record written contemporary with events. Earlier writings were likely compiled or restated by later writers, the identity of whom is unknown. For example, they often reference events or location names that were not known, or were different from the times they are describing.

Paine gave many examples similar to this one. He also sited places of inconsistency such as the differences in the stated lineage of Jesus in the gospels. Scholars have come to understand these lineages as two types. One is a show of the rights of kingship. The other the priesthood line of authority. Had Paine done more than just apply reason to the writing from his personal context he might have been able to gain more from the scriptures than a way to make the argument in favor of a perspective he likely already had.

There is another interesting line of reason he gave I’d like to consider. The author questioned spiritual experiences such as revelation and prophecy. I get where he was coming from. His point was that if he himself has not had the revelation then he should not accept the experience of others as true, or even that the record of the claimed experience was accurate. This is a reasonable thought to me. Unfortunately he missed the second part of the argument. In fact, he, and we, should do exactly that. We should seek for revelatory experience for ourselves. Instead Paine argues that God does not offer revelation to men.

Much of Paine’s argument was a comparison of what Christians of his day, and those since the days of Jesus (specifically Catholics and Protestants), have said about what is in the scripture. His arguments were as much about how the doctrines of those churches differ from, or make confused, information in the Bible. I also agree with those arguments. However, his perspective of how “reason” trumps these religionists falters. He argued that their reasoning fails because it is not based on evidence like science is. What it seems he is really saying is though they might be based on some evidence, they are not based on enough evidence to justify their reasoning. I could use the same argument in questioning Paine’s perspective by saying it is based on some evidence, but not enough evidence to justify his reasoning. In other words, I question the ability for human kind in general to come to any real understanding of truth through reasoning alone. The arguments of philosophers of science such as Kuhn and Popper point to the faultiness of human reasoning specifically when it comes to science. They would argue that scientific theory and discovery are not an explanation of how things actually are so much as a method for humans to shape a paradigm that explains what limited evidence is available. At some point as more and more evidence is gathered by science there is a fundamental shift in the basis of prevailing scientific theory to cause a new way of looking at the larger explanation of how things in the universe “truly are”. Some philosophers of science believe that is because we are getting closer to truth as more evidence mounts. Others point that there is no assurance that we are getting closer to truth, but are only getting closer to a different way of describing what the evidence means.

In Paine’s defense, much of these philosophical ideas came to light after he wrote The Age of Reason, as did the restoration of the gospel as viewed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In full disclosure, I belong to that particular organization. Our church teaches not to rely on reason, but not reason alone. We are to seek light from the source of all truth. We are taught to seek confirmation of the truth of our reasoning from God directly through prayer, with an expectation of receiving direct revelation. Paine doubted the existence or availability of revelation. So he is sort of offering self-fulfilling prophesy. Since he believed revelation from God is impossible he would neither seek it, nor believe it if it were given to him.

How sad this all is to me. I am somewhat familiar with the general perspectives of science and engineering that Paine espouses as the only true way to understand God. I have made a partial focus of my studies to be about the philosophical views of science. I am currently researching topics about the effects of science and technology have on society, and the effects of society on science and technology. Like the apostle Thomas, the assumption of most scientific practitioners is that if you can’t measure something then it does not exist. Thomas, the apostle, meant that he would not believe the Lord had resurrected without seeing for himself. Science says an experiment has to be replicable. I say receiving a testimony by way of the Holy Ghost is very replicable. Millions of people have run the experiment and received their own measurement of the truth of the Gospel. By leaving out the experiment of seeking, asking and receiving, Paine and others like him are ignoring some of the available evidence that would take them to more truth than they can get on the evidence they self-limit to. How fitting that the author of The Age of Reason shares the name of the apostle famous for doubting.

His name is John. The sign in the open guitar case where passers-by can drop him some cash gives him the title of Authentic Starving Artist. I see him most days on the sidewalk that runs along the wall marking the west boundary of Union Station in downtown Washington DC.

He plays and sings. His voice is a little gruff, but his fingers are very nimble. His repertoire consists mostly of popular rock tunes from the ‘60s and ‘70s. For you younger readers, that’s music from a time before cell phones, video games, or the ‘net. Back then our year didn’t start with a two.

I generally drop a buck or two into his guitar case maybe once a week. I finally took a minute to chat with John. I mentioned how I’ve noticed he is out there playing his songs even in the harshest heat or cold. A grin came across his face. His reply, “I’m just crazy that way.” He told me it’s important for him to keep his fingers in good shape. He looks to me to be a man in his late 60s. When it’s cold I notice he wears knit gloves with the finger tips cut out so he can play.

He said, “People tell me I make them smile.” I agree. Every time I pass by him, as so many do every morning, my steps feel a little lighter for his music and dedication. I told him so. “Then my job is done,” he quipped with an open smile. It’s his version of an honest day’s work. His rewards are a few dollars cast into his guitar case, and the smile people give him as they walk to their own work.

We shook hands and bid good day. I went on my way to my work. I doubt anyone’s steps feel any lighter while I’m in the office doing my version of an honest day’s work.
​

Last weekend about 10 Boy Scouts and 5 adult leaders from our church had a campout that culminated in a four-mile hike on Saturday. I would normally have been with them, but unfortunately I was traveling for work last weekend. The hike was at a nature reserve near our house called The Crow’s Nest.

Based on my experience and some debriefing with some of the adult leaders, the hike went something like this. They reached the trail-head by car. Then they all got out and checked that everyone had their gear, some water, and a little food for the trail. Next they opened up the topo maps and used a compass to figure out where they were and which of the various trails they were supposed to hike. Once they got all that out of the way then the head adult leader turned his face to the trail, said something like, “Let’s get going boys!” Then off they went down the trail.

Not long the head scout leader looked back. The 12- and 13-year-olds were headed more or less along the path, but were often swayed by nature’s distractions along the trail. “Oh! Look at that cool rock!” “Hey guys! There’s a funky looking mushroom!” At other times there was a line like, “I’m tired. I need to take a break. Can we stop?” Still another would say something like, “This is boring. I want to go home.” The other adult leaders would walk alongside the boys at different intervals and encourage them. Sometimes they might tease the boys, or cajole them, or commiserate. Other times they’d joke along with them. These adults made it easier for the main leader to concentrate on making sure the group as a whole didn’t get misdirected when different trails diverged from the path of choice.

How this is like us. We arrive at the trail-head when we join the church at baptism. We are given our map (the scriptures) to understand where we are and where we need to go to follow the path to our ultimate destination. The path is clear enough. The leader (the Savior) steps out in front and leads the way. As we walk, the Holy Ghost walks alongside us encouraging us to keep moving and get back on the path whenever we stray. We are distracted by the things of the world and occasionally wonder off the path and need to repent. These wanderings could represent sins of commission. Sometimes we tire of doing good and want to take a rest. This could be like sins of omission. Still Christ is ahead and calls us to keep moving. The Comforter is beside us and offers us encouragement.

​As the hike goes on, slowly but surely the Scouts become ever more focused on the path, especially on the return portion of the hike as they become more fixated on finishing the trek and getting home. We too get more and more likely to stay on the way as we learn from our mistakes from straying off the path. Like a funnel we continue in the right direction in general, but our trajectory narrows as we progress.

Eventually the boys arrived safely back at the trail-head where a warm car was awaiting them to return home to their parents and a nice warm home. As we work to be ever more true to the path the Savior leads us on, we too will more steadily approach our heavenly parents and home.

I’ve been writing opinion/observation articles for nearly 24 years now. It started when we decided to create our family newsletter called the Beach Haven Press (aka BHP). Just thinking about what’s in a “newspaper”, I thought there should be an editorial section. It was hoped back in the day that others would speak their mind on occasion. In truth there has been a few others write in that document, but they have been very few and far between. By and large The Last Word has been more like a personal platform. The picture at the opening of this post is the header that I've used for that section of the BHP for many years.

Making something easier for people can also cause it to be taken for granted. When we started with the BHP they were physically mailed. In those days an envelope arrived in the snail mail. A person had to open and read, or just toss it. That is a push model. Then we moved to email. A person had to click to read or click to delete. This is also a push model. Finally they were posted on the website. Now instead of the content arriving and a person deciding to do something with it, they had to decide to go get the content. This is a pull model. There is/was the option to set up an RSS feed to make it act more like a push model, but then a person has to know what an RSS feed is, then take the action to set it up once.

Readership definitely dropped off. There were few of us involved to begin with, but family members did actually file articles at first without a great deal of prodding. How do I know readership dropped with each lowering of the access bar? That’s easy. It has gotten more and more difficult to convince family members to put content in. Several have been staunch supporters, but some of those few even waiver a bit.

Along with that regular BHP editorial, at some point some years ago I started playing with this BLOG. I really doubt that anyone actually ever reads any of this stuff. There have been a very small number of these posts that related enough to work or some compelling topic of the day that I have linked them in other social media. In those contexts there were a few comments or “likes”. Interestingly, nobody then continues reading on this BLOG site and comments. I get it. I don't tend to add more sites beyond my limited social media footprint either. Some of my content starts as an internal posting at work where I do get direct feedback from colleagues. Which of these postings start in that way might seem more obvious to any would-be reader.

I imagine that if I were posting them on a popular BLOG site there might be a few people in the great big blog-o-sphere world that would find my drivel of some limited interest. So why not just post there, Mike? I guess it depends on what the author is looking to get out of the writing maybe. I definitely am not writing to have people notice me. I write mostly out of habit that began all the way back to June of 1982. That’s when I started my service as a missionary for the church. As part of that experience we were encouraged to do three things related to writing.  Write in a journal daily. Write to our parents weekly. Write to our mission president weekly.

These three forms of writing are very different. To the mission president I mostly wrote what might be thought of as a report. To my parents I wrote stories and ideas. To my journal (myself) I was often introspective. I tend not to review much of my journal because what little bit I have looked at through my now older eyes seems too judgmental of myself and others.

After graduating from college I started writing again, I mean non-academically. This time it was in the form of letters to my wife and children whenever the Navy caused long absences. Finally, a few years after the Navy we started the BHP. So in a way, my writing now, even though it’s likely nobody does or will read any of this, feels like a continuation of all of these other writings that started on my church mission. It's like a sort of habit.

This is where I document some of the stuff I think about. There are plenty of topics I think about that have never seen the light of day here, or anywhere. Some of them I consider too sacred to share and feel they are more personally revelatory for me, not necessarily meant to be shared. Much of it won’t get written because of time constraint. There is more to life than writing. I don’t know why or even how I pick what to write. I see a little window of time, come up with a small thought, and then expound a little on it. This post is a good example of that process.

If anyone is actually reading this, perhaps you need to think about what has driven you to stay with it this far, maybe even write about why. Chances are pretty good that the only “you” who is still reading is really just “me”. This thought is what led to the title at the top.

If you’ve read some of my past postings you would know that I often see the world in terms of continua. Recently I had a discussion with the young men I work with in church (the priests quorum) about what self-reliance means. We spoke in terms of temporal self-reliance (making a living) and spiritual self-reliance (building one’s faith). In the conversation it seemed like maybe a self-reliance scale might correlate with a pride scale.
​
The first scale might look like this:

​Realistically, nobody is on either end of this scale. The idea of being “self-sufficient” in my opinion is equivalent to the belief that someone can be completely independent. I would say there is no such thing. It is true that we can work and earn a living. We can cover all our needs by using the money we earn to buy what we need. That is still not completely self-sufficient. We have to buy stuff. We don’t make our own clothes. If we do make some of our own clothes we still would have to buy the cloth, or at least the raw materials to make the cloth. We don’t grow our own vegetables year around. We buy them, or most of them. We didn’t personally build our own homes. Even if we did, we didn’t create the materials needed to build the home. You get the point. We can be self-reliant in that we do all we can do, but in virtually every aspect of life we become dependent on someone else to provide something.

The greatest example of this interdependence issue would be on the spiritual side. Nobody receives salvation without the Savior. We cannot do it on our own. We show faith by doing all we can. Then we acknowledge where we fall short and depend on the Atonement of Jesus Christ to lift us the rest of the way.

I would argue our level of interdependence is simply a measure of how much we can do for ourselves in balance with how much we have to depend on others. Some people will have more challenges in life and be closer to the dependent side of the scale. Others might land towards the more independent side of the scale. I would also argue, regardless where we fall on this scale, so long as we do all within our power to sustain ourselves, however limited that might be, then we are being self-reliant. Self-reliance is less a measure of our independence so much as it is a measure of our effort to put ourselves as far to the right of this scale as we can, given our individual limitations. Nobody gets all the way to complete independence. We should do what we can to match our self-reliance efforts with our interdependence capability.

​The second scale might look like this:

​A correlation could exist between these two scales in several complicated ways.

A person could believe they have limitations beyond their control. This could lead them toward discouragement wishing they were not as limited, and more like “normal” people. It could also lead them to self-justify in self-limiting if the limit is perceived and not real. Low expectation has kept many from better levels of self-reliance.

A person could actually have limitations beyond their control (in fact we all do). As with perceived limitations, discouragement can be an outcome for the same reasons.

A person with either perceived or actual limitations who feel they are living up to that level are perhaps less likely to be discouraged to the degree that they accept the level of dependence they have.

There are exact opposing issues on the pride side of the confidence scale. To the degree a person recognizes or perceives their dependence, they might tend away from the extreme of the pride side of the scale.

Just like self-reliance requires both a true understanding of interdependence and an effort to do all in one’s power to do what they can to match efforts with ability, so to, having a true understanding of interdependence and effort level should lead to appropriate level of self-confidence. Getting too far out of balance leads towards discouragement or pride. Either could be the result of an unrealistic perspective of one’s level of interdependence on others and/or an unrealistic perspective of one’s level of effort toward true self-reliance.

I think the key to the relationship between the two scales is to recognize that there may be correlation and causation, or not. The cause of pride or discouragement is when the perceived interdependence does not match actual interdependence. If we believe there is less interdependence than there actually is, we might tend toward pride. If we believe there is more interdependence than there actually is, we might tend toward discouragement. If our level of interdependence correlates with our perception of interdependence, then we are being self-reliant and are more likely to have self-confidence. 

At work there has been some shakeup in upper management. One person exhibited bad behavior by apparently using his authority to sexually harass women in the workplace. Given these events involving the poor judgment of a single individual, I'm reminded how one person can cause so much affect, for the negative or the positive. We should all probably take a collective individual pause and consider how each of us help or implead people we interact with. A little personal introspection can be healthy now and then.

The news called to mind a very specific experience I had on a much smaller scale. One holiday season while serving in the Navy, my ship was in Subic Bay in the Philippines for one of many stops at that location. Back then it was a common place for Navy ships to get work done and prep up for the next portion of a western pacific deployment. At the mouth of Subic is a little island ironically called Grande Island. Back then it was owned by the Navy and used exclusively for R&R.

That Christmas day I spent my time with a few shipmates night diving on the channel side of the island. When it was time to head back to the ship, we joined others cramming into a gig to motor back from Grande Island to the main pier on the base. It was a pitch black night. We were sitting on benches that ringed the after portion of the gig, covered over by a canvas shade. I was sitting on the forward most seat looking aft. All I could see in the dark were the vague shapes of people sitting along either side of the boat. On the stern bench directly in front of me facing forward was a young sailor and a local girl. They were outlined by the dim starlight.

Everyone except the sailor seated astern was happily chit chatting about the day, Christmas, their families far away, the fun they had; that sort of stuff. All of a sudden the guy at the back of the boat started yelling epithets in colorful language euphemistically called "sailor's tongue." His speech was slurred slightly from the day's "grog." He was deriding everything and everyone associated with Christmas specifically, and the holidays in general. This went on for a minute or so before he seemed to run out of steam.

We all fell dead silent. Our silence went on for about the same amount of time as his tirade had. Finally, someone to my right shouted sarcastically, "Bah Humbug!" Everyone laughed, and the conversation turned back to the happy chattering it had been before the outburst.

I felt sad for the sailor on the stern. I felt sad for how easily we all allowed him to have a negative effect on us. I felt grateful to the one person brave enough to verbally dismiss the blowhard. I wished it had been me that had thought to do it. Then as now I was struck at just how much one person can turn a good moment into an ill one, and vice-versa.

A few weeks ago I attended a symposium on Media over IP hosted by the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA). As with many of these events the topics seemed mostly TV-centric, but there are usually some radio gems hidden in the flow. Many of the presentations discussed issues around implementation of a new SMPTE standard called ST-2110.

The point of ST-2110 is so that a TV station can pass all its content around inside their plant using IP. Most of our public radio stations have been doing this for years. Many have been using a Live Wire version of network. Others have been using Wheatnet as their primary IP system. The TV people by and large have not been IP based, but rather have used SDI or HD-SDI as their data format. In fact, HD-SDI is exactly the sort of system we put in during my time in Nebraska when we went from analog to digital TV. That was in the early 2000's.

One encouraging thing I heard in all this conversation was that the architects of the SMPTE ST-2110 standard decided to adopt AES67 as their format for managing audio. We at NPR use it at places in our system, and our recent RFP requires AES67 interoperability for the new IRD (satellite receiver) that will be placed at each station. Both Live Wire and Wheatnet claim some level of interoperability with the AES67 standard. This is good news for public radio stations that are dual licensees, meaning they are also a public television station. More than 70 of our interconnected stations are dual licensees. If both their radio plant and their television plant are using AES67 for moving audio around, it would help break down some technical silos/boundaries that often exist in these locations.

Here is a slide highlighting the main subdivisions of the new standard:

One advantage of the proposed standard is it eliminates one layer of data. In the current approach, the SDI transport stream contains the "essence" (meaning video, audio, metadata) wrapped in the SDI format. The SDI is then wrapped in the IP format. When a station wants to decode the video or audio they have to first unwrap the IP packets, then again the SDI format to get to the essence. Using ST-2110 means the essence is directly combined in the IP stream and there is no additional SDI layer.

Time will tell how quickly the TV folks catch up with us in their trek toward an IP-based station infrastructure. Public radio is not 100% either, but we are significantly closer than our TV cousins.

As you might already know, the public radio satellite system operates in the C-band. The downlink portion of that band is from 3.7GHz to 4.2GHz. A little over a year ago, terrestrial broadband services convinced the FCC to allow them to start offering data services in the extended C-band (just below 3.7GHz) within the U.S. NPR filed a formal argument against the idea, as did many others. Our arguments fell on deaf ears.

Fast forward to now. We are in the midst of an even bigger threat to our C-band operations in that the FCC has asked for comments on the idea of allowing terrestrial broadband providers to operate within the downlink band; the entire band (3.7 – 4.2). If the FCC allows this the result will be increased RF noise (interference) in those frequencies and lower performance at the downlinks located at many of our station customers.

As you might imagine we joined forces with a large number of other entities to fight this. The satellite owners such as Intelsat and SES submitted comments as did many satellite bandwidth users like NPR. We are analyzing all the filings, and reaching out to other constituencies. Industry associations such as the NAB, SIA and NABA also weighed in. 

It's hard to say how this will go. The C-band is already shared with fixed microwave systems. In that case if our antennas are registered, then new microwave systems have to not interfere. The broadband network proposals would make this less secure, even if they only win access for fixed systems (antennas that don't move). If they were to get all they want, to include mobile operations (read cell phones), then the interference will be random and unpredictable.

The broadband advocates are saying that satellite antennas could be licensed for specific frequencies at specific look angles instead of the full-band and full-arc as we often do now. That might lessen the potential interference, but it would also mean that every time a network changes transponders or satellites there would be another filing process with the FCC. If a network has to move due to a problem on the satellite, then that migration needs to happen quickly; an impossibility if filing with the feds becomes a requirement every time a change is needed.

There is also an economic consideration. If satellite antennas have access to less of the C-band frequency block, then the value of what is accessible will go up. Less bandwidth availability (supply) means increased value for the bandwidth. Increased value means increased cost.

​Here in Virginia our church has been participating in a food drive for S.E.R.V.E. It’s a local food pantry for Stafford County. The food drive has been going on this time of the year for a number of years, and it is part of our “day of service”. We do other things too. This year the goal was to raise 3000 pounds of food. We gathered close to 4000. This is all good for Stafford County families in need.

As part of the process I was able to witness an example of “the widow’s mites” in action. One version of the original story is in Mark 12:

41 ¶ And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Here is how my experience went. As a part of the food drive, we reached out to our neighborhood through the app that virtually every person living here is a member of. Our neighborhood is somewhat affluent. We sent the message to them asking them to put items from a specific list into a bag and leave it on their doorstep. We let them know that we’d go around the neighborhood that Saturday at a specific time to gather the bags and get them to S.H.A.R.E. There are about 30 homes in this subdivision. Only one of them (aside from us) left food out for us to pick up.

A few days later I got a note from Sister Shirley from our ward. The high school that her children attend had a food drive where they asked the kids to bring in food from a list. The school intended to share the food with students in need, but didn’t have a plan on how to distribute the food. The kids were not interested in carrying food home on the bus for other kids to see. Sister Shirley mentioned what our church was doing and asked me if the scouts could pick up the food at the school and drop it off at S.H.A.R.E. There really was no way to do that so my wife went and got it. She and I put it into bags, and put the bags into the collection box at our church building.

Here is where the widow’s mite comes in. As we were bagging things up I noticed that some young high schooler had added two individual packets of instant oatmeal. Think about that for a minute. Among all the cans and boxes of food there were these two individual packets. I could easily imagine that here was a kid who wanted to be part of the food drive, but probably had little enough food in their own family. Despite the tight family circumstance they did the one thing they could see to do, add this small amount to the collection.

I hope those in our neighborhood who are comfortable will be more open in the future. I’m sure that Heavenly Father is mindful of this meager donation given out of want. Our lesson this past Sunday in the Priest Quorum was about service. We read from Matthew 25:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

One of the things we noted in class was that the King didn’t focus on just that they were keeping the commandments, or that they prayed often. Rather he focused on the service they did. In other words it’s not enough to refrain from doing negatives, we must also actively do positives if we seek to be like him.

I am a runner (sort of).
If I can, I'd rather run in the woods than on the street.
If I can't, then I'd rather run on the street than on a treadmill.
If I can't, then I'd rather run on a treadmill than run in place.
If I can't, then I'd rather run in place than not run at all.
Whatever our current circumstance, let us thank God and make the best of it.

Earl Johnson, a work friend of mine, shared an interesting video with me a few weeks ago. Simon Sinek is speaking at Google on leadership. He couches it in terms of game theory. There are games that have an ending. Someone wins and the game is over. There are games that never end. Players come and go, but the game keeps happening. He links these kinds of gaming mentality to business concepts.

• Arbitrary (short term) wins v. values-based strategies
• Growth focus v. stability focus

The video is close to an hour long. It took me a few days to get through it. The bulk of the thesis is presented in the first 20 minutes. The rest is a Q&A where he brings out additional ideas and examples from politics, warfare, and corporate competition to support the basic argument. He also talks about the need to link both kinds of games. Short term growth is not bad so long as you know to what end. How  will growth support the vision? The examples seem pretty concrete.

Thanks, Earl. I found it worth the time.

Here’s the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_osKgFwKoDQ

My family had an interesting experience last week. We had a family reunion at Avon, NC which is located on the Outer Banks (OBX). We were there Saturday through Saturday. Early in the morning on Thursday I was woken up to our various phones and tablets lighting up and pinging the alert noise you get when it is either plugged in or unplugged. I quickly fell back asleep. An hour or so later I woke up, looked out the window of the upstairs bedroom and noticed that all the lights were out in the area except for one or two businesses across the highway. It was obvious we were in a power outage. Later that day we learned that the construction crew working on a new bridge north of our location had driven a footing pylon through the underwater electrical mains supplying power to the islands south of the bridge. Cell coverage was still up thanks to generators, as were a few key businesses. Our real estate management company kept us informed by email.

















Casa Del Mar (home we rented)

From the perspective of project management this event could make for an interesting study. I am led to ask some questions. What was the process to avoid the risk of electrical interruption? Was there a risk plan in place for how to respond to this sort of event? From the perspective of an uninformed vacationer (a stakeholder perhaps?) it would seem like these were lacking.

Aside from the obvious fact that the plan to not hit the cable while sinking the pylon (if there was a plan) was a failure, so too were the reaction and the communication afterward.

Let’s talk planning first. Was there only one electrical cable supply? The water where the bridge is going in is only maybe ten feet deep. Surely there could be a second cable in place. If there is a second cable, was it physically right next to the main? That could explain a single pylon knocking out both the main and back up. Twenty feet of separation between the main and secondary cable might have been enough to avoid the total loss of power and the long recovery time.

Now for the reaction. We were initially told it could take days to get the power fixed. Then we were told they were trucking in backup generators, but that different islands would be supplied by different generators. It was not clear which island would be served when. They told us they would move the generators around and supply different islands at different times. That never happened. Instead on early Friday afternoon the power suddenly came on, and stayed on for the rest of our time there (one day more). We were instructed in email to not turn on our air conditioning so as not to overload the generator. For us this was no big deal. The temperature outside was comfortable. We opened all the windows and used the downstairs bedrooms. We also spent more time outside, which is why we were on vacation in the first place. A trip to the store to pick up ice bags for the fridge and freezer, and we were fine even before we got power back.

Since it took so long to bring in generator trucks from wherever they came from, I am guessing they were not specifically planned for. Where and how to deploy them seemed confused at best.

There was also a perception issue on a smaller scale. At one point on Thursday afternoon, my daughter and her family decided to go swim at the community pool at the realty office. When they got there, it was closed. The reason given by the office for the closure was so as not to use electricity for the pumps. That made sense. Unfortunately, when my daughter walked into the realty office to ask, she quickly noticed that the office air conditioning system was on. The staff said they thought guests might like to come there to enjoy the cool air. Hmmm. To us, allowing guests to enjoy the cool water in the pool might make more sense. Even if their intentions were in the right place, this seemed like a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do sort of situation.

My PM brain questions the risk management to this project. Was the risk identified beforehand? Was there a mitigation plan? Was there a response plan? I’m sure now that there are all sorts of lawsuits happening by local businesses losing valuable revenue during the height of the busy season, others are asking similar questions. We weren’t told to evacuate (and probably wouldn’t have), but as we were driving north on Saturday morning there were temporary signs up along the highway leading to the bridge that said “Mandatory evacuation for non-residents.” Just north of the bridge there were law enforcement officers stopping southbound cars and turning them around. The week we were there was probably not too bad for the local businesses, but the week after (this week, now) would be disastrous.