R.P. Nettelhorst's Blog, page 106

Communicating

If communication is going to work, the one speaking, and the listener must have something in common. That is, if I talk to you, it helps if we both communicate with the same language. That is a start, but not all that is involved, unless by language, we give a definition more specific than normally understood. That is, beyond having English in common, for instance, it helps if we both are from the same general local (say Southern California), are about the same age, and have the same basic interests and experiences. Then, we can be pretty certain that communication will occure with a minimum of misunderstanding. The less that these items exist between the two of us, the less likely unconfused communication will occur.

Octagonal red signs at the corners of streets with white lettering or an outline of a hand are meaningful to the denizens who are of age and drive cars here at the beginning of the twenty-first century. To those of another era, they would be meaningless puzzles. All communication involves such symbols, of one sort or another. When I say the word “water”, or write it on a piece of paper, that verbalization or those black marks on the white paper will not quench your thirst or clean your hands. The word, whether spoken or written, is a symbol for the object. The connection between the object and the symbol is pretty direct and easy in the case of something concrete like a noun; but the connection becomes more tenuous and hard to pin down when we start talking about “grace” or “liberty”. And then what are we to do with idioms, like “it’s raining cats and dogs” or metaphors like “his tongue was sharp as a sword”; even more difficult becomes parables, fables, or allegories (like Pilgrim’s Progress).

When one considers that the Bible is written in three different languages, over a period of about a thousand years, by perhaps upwards of sixty different people, in a pre-industrialized, non-Western, Semitic culture, and that the biblical materials encompass a wide range of literary styles and genres (ranging from prose to poetry, parable, allegory, proverb, wisdom literature and historical narrative), the difficulty in getting good communication, and the potential for great misunderstanding, becomes obvious. It would be helpful if more readers of the Bible understood this. It might reduce the prevalence of idiotic conclusions and bogus interpretations by those who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Given how easily we misunderstand people who live in the same world and culture as us, you’d think there’d be more recognition of how careful we must be when handling two thousand (or more) year old texts–and an acknowledgement of how frequently we probably misunderstand it.

The Bible and Slavery

Critics of the Bible are odd in their treatment of it, doing things with the text that they would not likely do with other works of literature. Moreover, they tend to read the Bible very naively, accepting the approach used by the most naïve and hateful of fundamentalists. I wonder why they expect the extremists of Christianity to offer them a reasonable look at scripture. Who’s more likely to give an accurate portrayal of Hinduism: Mahatma Gandhi or Hindu nationalists who blow of mosques and murder people? Who’s more likely to give you an accurate portrayal of Islam, a Sufi mystic or the Taliban? And yet, when it comes to the Bible, critics want to interpret it the way slave holders in the old South did, rather than the way the abolitionists or leaders of the civil rights movement approached it. It’s as if they look around at Christianity and decide “Let’s talk to members of Westborough “Baptist” “Church”; they must have the best handle on Christian theology.”

Which side seems more likely to have an accurate concept of the Bible: slavers or those who opposed slavery? Especially when one considers that slavery has been common throughout human history—and it was abolitionists motivated by their faith as Christians who spearheaded first the abolition of the slave trade (such as John Newton, former slaver trader who became a Christian and then Anglican minister, as well as the author of the well-known hymn, Amazing Grace and the MP William Wilberforce) and all the Christians who then sought to end slavery all together. The leaders of the later civil rights movement, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., who practiced peaceful civil disobedience, came out of the church as well.

Something else needs to be pointed out and stressed: the Bible never encourages people to own slaves. It does not tell people “thou shalt own slaves” and it doesn’t tell us that slavery is a good thing or that some people deserve to be slaves or that some people are better than others. Instead, on a regular basis it uses the image of slaves being freed as a metaphor for sinners being rescued from sin and guilt, and being forgiven by God. Consider the story of the Exodus (Israelites rescued from 400 years of slavery in Egypt) and the use of that story in the New Testament to picture redemption (and the common New Testament Greek word used for ‘redemption’ means “to buy from the slave market and set free.”) Consider the theological concept of “salvation history” applied to the story of Israel in the Old Testament (for instance, look at 1 Corinthians 10:1-14 for one of the places Paul made use of the events from the Exodus, comparing the Israelite’s passage through the Red Sea to baptism in verse 2). Consider the story of Hosea buying his wayward prostitute of a wife out of the slave market as a picture of God saving Israel from its bondage to idolatry (Hosea 3).

What the Bible does with slavery is what it does with so many less than good, or even evil things that human beings do: it first regulates it, and then rather consistently teaches—often through story rather than legislative fiat—that it’s wrong. What the Bible does is take people where they are, wherever they are, however awful they are, and then tries to nudge them toward a better place.

How Do You Do It?

Although I am a professional writer (I’ve actually made money at this. I know, surprising), people will on occasion ask me about the profession and how to do it. Today someone asked me how I decide what to write about, and how I overcome the doubts, such as “what’s the point?” and “Why would anyone want to read this?”

My reply was longwinded, but perhaps useful for other people thinking about writing, too.

So I said that I write about stuff that interests me. I figure that I’m a human being and if it’s something I like, then there will be other human beings that will like it too. It’s similar to my attitude about doing anything; I figure if it’s something humans can do, since I’m human, I can probably learn how to do it too.

The other thing I do is tell myself that “sure, this is lousy; I’ve forgotten how to write; I can’t write, this is no good”—but then I tell myself “but I can fix it all in the rewriting.” I just need to keep spewing it out and get it done. It doesn’t matter how bad it is. I can fix it later.

Surprisingly, first drafts are not as hideous as I imagine they are at the time I’m creating them. I’ve found that the key thing is to just keep at it and get it done. I never look back at what I’ve written, I don’t try to fix it, until I have finished it. Rewriting can fix anything, but only if I’ve actually written it. If I keep fiddling with it as I go, I’ll never get anywhere.

How did and do I decide what to write about? I just think about what I like, what I enjoy, what I think is interesting. I read a lot; I pay attention to the news; I watch people around me; I pay attention to my own life. Ideas will come to you once you start wanting ideas. You have ideas all the time, but until you need them, until you want them, you won’t really notice all the ideas that drift into your noggin. If you aren’t a writer desperate for topics and stories, you just don’t really pay attention.

Sometimes you can jog the creative juices just by scrawling out a list of stuff you think is interesting. Look at your bookshelves and see what books you have and what you enjoyed. Then write on that.

A good movie about writing is Finding Forrester. It stars Sean Connery as a J.D. Salinger sort.

A good book on writing is Stephen King’s On Writing. Both things can get you thinking and can be an encouragement. Since writing is such a solitary task with very limited positive feedback, you get encouragement wherever you can snatch it.

Another thing you can do to get yourself writing is to start a blog and tell yourself that you need to write, say, 250 words in it every day, no matter what. Don’t worry about whether it’s any good. Don’t worry about whether anyone will want to read it or care. I tell myself that “You’re doing this for you, for yourself, for your needs, to create the discipline of writing.” And think on this: if you write those 250 words every day, then in a year you will have written the number of words in an average book.

Writing a book is like eating a cow. You do it one hamburger at a time. So focus on today’s words and only on today’s words. Don’t think about tomorrow’s.

And experiment! Try writing in different places. Try writing on your computer; try writing on a legal pad with a pen, or with a pencil, or with a quill. Neal Stephenson, the science fiction writer responsible for Anathem, Snow Crash, and the three book Baroque Cycle which starts with Quicksilver (among others) writes his books with a fountain pen! It’s what works for him. It wouldn’t work for me. But that’s okay. If you want to write, see what works for you.

Whatever you do, try to create a habit. Set a daily goal of what is a reasonable amount of writing for you: whether it’s a single sentence or a certain number of words or a certain number of pages, or even just a certain number of minutes in front of your computer writing instead of playing Farmville.

Try writing at different times of the day. Try a variety of locations: try it alone in a library, alone at home, or at a coffee shop or in a park or on your porch or patio.

Try outlining what you want to write, and try doing it just as you go, by the seat of your pants. There’s no wrong or right way to write. Keep telling yourself “Whatever works for me.” And “Whatever gets words on paper or hard drive.”

If you want to get published, the key thing is perseverance. Those writers who get published are the ones who didn’t give up, who don’t come up with excuses, who don’t blame “the system” or editors. The writers who get published are professional, accept rejection, and keep on going anyhow. A thick skin and the ability to ignore those around you who tell you to quit is also important.

SpaceX Update

Once again SpaceX flew their Grasshopper in Texas. According to SpaceX CEO Elon Musk on Twitter, the goal of the test was to determine if the rocket could perform “hard lateral deviation, stabilize & hover, rapid descent back to pad.” On August 13, 2013 the Grasshopper flew about 850 feet high and then moved sideways for about 350 feet before returning to the center of the pad. SpaceX announced that the test demonstrated the vehicle’s ability to perform aggressive steering maneuvers.

The Grasshopper test vehicle is derived from a standard version 1.0 Falcon 9 first stage with one Merlin engine (instead of the normal 9 that it would have if it were flying into space). It stands about 106 feet tall. Learning how to maneuver such a vehicle has not been easy.

The current version one Grasshopper will eventually be replaced with a version 1.1, which will be based on the new version 1.1 Falcon 9, which is taller and more powerful. The current Grasshopper has rigid landing struts. The next version of the Grasshopper will have struts that are folded against the rocket on takeoff and then extend when it is time to land: just like the actual flight ready version of the Falcon 9 will have–starting in September. On September 5, 2013 SpaceX is scheduled to launch a Canadian satellite into polar orbit from Vandenberg AFB. It will be the first launch of the new version 1.1 Falcon 9 with the upgraded and more powerful Merlin engines. SpaceX will also perform the first test of the first stage landing system on that flight; it will happen over water, not land. SpaceX anticipates that it will take them a few attempts before they get the system to work on actual orbital launches.

Here is a video that SpaceX released in the last few days which shows the way the new Falcon 9 will look, as well as what SpaceX is up to:

And this is their ultimate goal as to reusability:

If they are successful, this will significantly reduce the cost of spaceflight. And it should be noted that SpaceX developed these systems mostly with their own privately raised funds; since it’s founding in 2002, SpaceX has spent about 1 billion dollars. Had NASA been in charge of this program, it has been estimated (by NASA itself) that it would have cost them at least five times as much.

At this time SpaceX has contracts for about 40 launches. SpaceX explains that “Our launch manifest is populated by a diverse customer base, including space station resupply missions, commercial satellite launch missions, and US government science and national security missions.” A full list of their upcoming launches can be found here.

Some critics of the Grasshopper have pointed out that between 1993 and 1996 McDonnell-Douglas did something similar with their DC-X project (later taken over by NASA); however, after the test vehicle was damaged in a landing incident, the program was cancelled. Furthermore, the DC-X was a bit smaller than Grasshopper: 39 feet tall versus 106 feet tall; and DC-X had different goals. For further information on DC-X check out the Wikipedia article: DC-X. And I’m not sure what point the critics are trying to make by showing that similar things have happened before.

Pulled from the Slush Pile

Over the weekend I got word from a publisher that they had snagged one of my novels out of their slush pile for “further consideration.” They also advised me to be patient.

Obviously, I appreciated the contributing editor letting me know what was going on. The book had been sitting on their slush pile since February, well within their predicted time-frame for a response according to their website. So I hadn’t been expecting to hear anything for awhile, anyhow.

It is unusual to get pulled from the slush pile, so I need to be pleased with this development. It’s certainly a step in the right direction. My odds of getting anything other than a quick rejection were high. Maybe one percent of the manuscripts in the slush pile make it out to move up the ladder toward other editors. So I’ve taken the first step.

The odds are still not in my favor. I’ve gotten further than this before on other projects. Five times I’ve had a book please editors enough for them to take it into a pub board meeting, only to see it shot down by the marketing people, despite the enthusiasm of the editor. Things happen. Of course, four times I’ve had books actually published, so it’s not all been bad.

The contributing editor, who pulled my manuscript from the slush pile, told me it would be awhile before I heard anything more, yay or nay. I don’t mind waiting. I’m kind of used to it now.

Betrayed

After Judas betrayed Jesus, Jesus was taken away to face a kangaroo court. Peter followed Jesus, perhaps thinking that somehow, someway he’d be able to rescue him. Peter had told Jesus earlier that very evening that even if everyone else forsook him, at least he would always remain loyal and always be there for him.

But Jesus warned Peter that he’d deny Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. And sure enough, as he snuck about outside the courtroom, three people confronted Peter and asked him, “weren’t you with Jesus?” And each time, Peter denied the facts, going so far as to curse about just how much he didn’t know Jesus. After his third denial, the the rooster crowed. Peter realized, despite whatever intentions he might have had, that he had in fact betrayed his friend, just as Jesus had warned him he would. He broke down in bitter tears. (see Matthew 26:34-75)

How do you handle it if you realize you’ve betrayed someone? Judas, who likewise betrayed Jesus, went and hanged himself. Peter, on the other hand, found a way to forgive himself, even as the one he had betrayed, Jesus, forgave him. Thus, two paths lead from any betrayal: one bound for destruction, one bound for reconstruction. In both cases, something has been destroyed utterly, and that destruction has to be recognized for what it is.

The Book of Job

Traditionally, Job has been dated to the time of the patriarchs, with some commentators arguing that it is the earliest book of the Bible. Those who argue this way offer the following reasons for their position:

1. Job’s sacrifices were according to the patriarchal pattern, with Job acting as the priest for his household.

2. Job lived to be nearly two hundred years old (cf. Abraham, who lived to be one hundred seventy-five).

3. There is no reference to Israel or the miracles accompanying the Exodus.

4. There is no reference to the Law of Moses.

Against this traditional argument, there are strong reasons to suspect that Job actually lived many years after the Exodus, well after the people of Israel had entered the Promised Land, and that the book of Job was, in fact, composed much, much later even than that.

1. The word Rahab (not to be confused with the prostitute in Jericho at the beginning of the book of Joshua; the spelling in Hebrew is different) occurs twice in the book of Job:

If he snatches away, who can stop him?

Who can say to him, “What are you doing?”

God does not restrain his anger;

even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet. (Job 9:12-13)

By his power he churned up the sea;

by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces.

By his breath the skies became fair;

his hand pierced the gliding serpent. (Job 26:12-13)

Those two passages in Job can be profitably compared with some other biblical passages:

to Egypt, whose help is utterly useless.

Therefore I call her Rahab the Do-Nothing. (Isaiah 30:7)

I will record Rahab and Babylon

among those who acknowledge me —

Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush —

and will say, “This one was born in Zion.” (Psalm 87:4)

You rule over the surging sea;

when its waves mount up, you still them.


You crushed Rahab like one of the slain;

with your strong arm you scattered your enemies. (Psalm 89:9-10)

Awake, awake! Clothe yourself with strength,

O arm of the Lord;

awake, as in days gone by,

as in generations of old.

Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces,

who pierced that monster through?

was it not you who dried up the sea,

the waters of the great deep,

who made a road in the depths of the sea

so that the redeemed might cross over? (Isaiah 51:9-10)

From these references, it seems clear that the word Rahab is a reference to Egypt; furthermore, it appears that it is used in Job to refer to the Israelite’s exodus from Egypt. Therefore, the book of Job had to have been written sometime after that event.

Psalm 87 was written by the sons of Korah, dating the Psalm to the time of David or Solomon, according to 1 Chronicles 6:22, 31-46. Psalm 89 was written by Ethen the Ezrahite, who lived close to the time of Solomon, too, since Solomon is favorably compared to him in 1 Kings 4:31. Isaiah lived many years after Solomon. Therefore, an educated date for the time of authorship of the book of Job would seem to place it sometime between the time of David and Isaiah.

But what about the time frame of Job himself? Since the words about Egypt and the exodus are put in his mouth, a time during the patriarchs is completely ruled out. However, if we compare Job’s behavior, in serving as priest to his house, with the time of the Judges, we find definite parallels, because then, too, sacrifice was not exclusively the work of priests in a central tabernacle or temple (see for instance Judges 2:5, 6:25- 27, 11:31, and 13:19-21; see also 1 Samuel 6:14 and 11:15).

Another reason for rejecting the idea that Job dates to the time of the patriarchs or is the earliest book of the Bible is the simple fact that God’s name Yahweh appears in it (see Job 1:6, 1:12, 2:2 etc.). According to Exodus 6:2-3, that name was not used before the time of Moses:

God also said to Moses, “I am the Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.

Truth to Power

“Speaking truth to power” is a phrase that gets overused. Mostly it comes from the lips of those who want to speak some popular, ill-conceived cliche to the politicians in a western, liberal democracy in order to get some attention for their “cause.” They march into a state legislature or the Congress and make an nuisance of themselves, create noise, shout slogans, and wave some signs because they’re “speaking truth to power.”

Unsurprisingly, I would be shocked to ever see such individuals traveling to Iran, organizing a group, and marching up to the presidential palace to protest the regular execution of gays and to demand that gays be granted freedom and equal rights. I have yet to see them standing before the king in Saudi Arabia and demanding that women be granted the right to get a job, walk the streets unaccompanied by a man, or drive an automobile. I would be flabbergasted if any protesters visited Saudi Arabia to insist that the Saudi kingdom grant Christians the freedom to practice their faith openly, build churches, and preach the Gospel to their neighbors. Heck, they don’t even stand in front of the Saudi or Iranian embassies and wave signs. Genuine injustice and mistreatment of people by the abominations of the world is mostly ignored by all the “truth speakers.”

It is only on the rarest of occasions that we actually find examples of people “speaking truth to power.”

In 2 Samuel 12:1-15 the prophet Nathan speaks the unpopular truth despite the personal risk.

David had committed adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of David’s “mighty men” who was off fighting a war for David. When she turned up pregnant, David tried to cover up the problem by recalling Uriah from battle so that he’d spend a night or two with his wife. Unfortunately for David, Uriah never slept with his wife, and so David resorted to getting Uriah killed. He sent word to his top general to put Uriah on the forefront of battle, then withdraw from him so that he’d be struck down and killed. David then married his widow and she gave birth to his son.

God was not pleased by David’s behavior and so he sent Nathan the prophet to talk to David. Nathan told a story about a man with a pet lamb, and how a wealthy neighbor had stolen it and butchered it for his guests to eat. Furious, David said that the man deserved to die, but he ordered the penalty given in Exodus, that the rich man pay his neighbor back four times for the stolen lamb.

Nathan then informed David that “you are the man.” David recognized his guilt, felt remorse, and repented. God forgave him, though he suffered much trouble for the rest of his life, including the rape of one of his daughters and the death of three of his sons (one of whom was the baby from the adulterous affair). Four lives destroyed in exchange for the one David took.

Nathan approached a powerful man to level criticism and bad news to him. The king of Israel was a man who could not just fire Nathan, but who could put him in the dungeon, or worse. It is not easy to actually speak the truth to power; it is far easier to speak what power wants to hear. Or to shout platitudes at those who can’t actually harm you. Those spouting popular rhetoric, like suck ups and the yes men of the world, seem to get ahead faster than those who don’t play politics quite so well. Really speak truth to power and see how well it turns out for you.

One must decide whether playing politics and getting ahead in the world is more important to you than being honorable and doing the right thing, because an awful lot of the time, those two are not at all compatible. In the New Testament, Jesus pointed out that you cannot serve both God and money (Luke 16:13). For most, the truth isn’t as important as they like to tell themselves it is; and what they take for truth, too often is not much more than an empty slogan.

Zeno’s Paradoxes

       I foretold the former things long ago,

       my mouth announced them and I made them known;

       then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass. (Isaiah 48:3)

One of the questions that theologians like to wrestle with is the question of God’s sovereignty versus human free will. The thought is expressed thusly: if God has determined the future and knows everything that will happen, then what’s the point? How can people really be free? Are we not reduced to mere meat robots, forced to follow our programming, fated to whatever end our programmer has decided and destined to suffer for our decisions over which we had no choice? Why do we get blamed for what we do, then? God made me do it!

Consider that you decide to plan a surprise anniversary party. You make the determination that it’s going to happen. You make all the preparations. And you pull it off and the couple are genuinely surprised. The reason the surprise party happened is because you intervened in the affairs of the world: you got helpers and made preparations. You ordered the food, arranged the venue, invited people and got them to RSVP; they arranged their schedules and put it on their calendars so that they would make it to the party on the day and hour you’d set. You found a way to get the couple to come to the place of the party on the right day at the right time without them figuring out that they were coming to their own anniversary party. They were pleasantly surprised and overwhelmed. Then people ate, had fun, talked, and celebrated. Gifts were given and received. Afterwards, the place was cleaned up, trash tossed out, extra food distributed and everyone went back home and returned to their own lives.

Question: did your sovereignty over the party mean that all who were involved had lost their free will? Was it all absolutely and completely “determined?” Were your celebrants all reduced to meat robots?

If we look at the passage in Isaiah (as an example), it suggests, I think that God goes about getting his way in much the same way we plan future events. He predicts the future, because it’s the future he wants, and the future happens the way he wants because, to paraphrase the fictional Jean-Luc Picard from Star Trek, he “makes it so.” But God “making it so” does not require turning people into zombie automatons, any more than you have to handcuff people to make them do what you’ve planned for an anniversary party. You can achieve your goals not because you are a dictator, but just because it’s a normal and ordinary part of everyday life to make plans and see them fulfilled, despite, as Ecclesiastes says, “time and chance happen to all.”

God’s “sovereignty” and his success in getting things done, does not require determinism. There’s a reason that the biblical authors and participants never seemed to feel the tension felt by modern theologians over the question of God’s sovereignty and human free will. Reality is different from theory and theory needs to adjust to it. The paradox theologians see between a powerful God and human free will remind me of Zeno’s paradoxes of motion: they seem reasonable and serious until you actually watch a race or see an arrow fly.

Bushy Tailed Creatures

There is a song that, I think, was originally played on Dr. Demento called “Squirrels.” As with all songs on Dr. Demento, it is a silly song: “Squirrels, all we really are is squirrels.” And it goes on to talk about how they are soft and furry and shouldn’t be getting shot.

I bring squirrels up because I once again recently found myself in Yosemite National Park. This happened by choice. I didn’t just wake up not knowing where I was or how I got there. I remember the drive. No one kidnapped me. My middle daughter’s boyfriend’s family invited us to go with them to a Thousand Trail’s camp just outside the national park. Thus, it cost us next to nothing to make the trip. This is an important consideration given the cutbacks in my wife’s paycheck thanks to the status of California’s education budget (my wife is a third grade public schoolteacher). This combines in a less than pleasant way with the unfortunate fact that I’m currently between book contracts and the indie publishing thing—while producing more money than the books were bringing me just sitting on my hard drive—is far from bringing me enough to buy a Tesla any time soon.

I enjoy camping out in tents. My wife enjoys camping in tents. My daughters, not so much. My daughter’s boyfriend’s parents have an RV and the children prefer staying in that. Assuming no five star hotels are available. But my wife and I prefer to be in a tent.

My enjoyment of camping goes back to my years of being in Boy Scouts. Thanks to the Boy Scouts I’m very comfortable out in the middle of nowhere. In a tent—or not. In the Order of the Arrow (a special group within the Boy Scouts) I slept under the stars, with no tent at all.

My wife prefers to have at least a tent. And she wants an air mattress. I’d be happy snoozing on the bare ground, even at my age. I have no back problems and I don’t mind bare dirt. Or grass. Preferably with a minimum of ants and other insects. But now I’m on an air mattress. It’s okay, but it seems like cheating.

Which brings me back to the squirrels.

I’ve been to Yosemite a few times now and the squirrels here are odd. Most squirrels are very skittish; they flick their tails; they scamper. They avoid people which they think are big and noisy and not good for their continued existence. The squirrel I saw in the seminary’s library a few years ago (which had eaten the philodendron in my office) ran away from me quite rapidly and had no interest in discussing Kierkegaard. But the squirrels in Yosemite are not like that. Instead, they are inordinately fond of human beings. They look at Yosemite visitors the way Congressmen look at taxpayers: pockets full of goodies. And while they might not discuss Kierkegaard, they’d be more than happy to discuss your willingness to make donations to their wilderness funds.

The first time I visited Yosemite I sat down once for a few moments in the middle of a twenty mile hike. Apparently I was a bit tuckered.

I soon discovered that I was not entirely alone—not that I was hiking alone—but generally, when one sits down on a rock, one is not sitting on top of someone else, and even if one is sharing the rock, the other folk making the trek with you are generally not sticking their hands in your pockets.

In other words, people who are not Congressmen do not behave in any way like the squirrels in Yosemite. Within moments of sitting, I felt something fiddling in my pocket. I turned and looked. A squirrel looked back at me; there was some disappointment in its eyes. It had failed to find anything that it would classify as a goodie in my pocket. It then turned its attention to my backpack and started fiddling with the zippers. It was about then that I decided I was done sitting.

Everywhere I went on the trails, everywhere I went in camp, from then on I saw squirrels. Squirrels looking at me with large brown eyes. Begging. Pawing at me. It would not have shocked me to see them holding small cups or hats out to me.

This year, the squirrels were much the same. I sat down on the top of Sentinel Dome and almost immediately, there was a squirrel sizing me up. It twitched its nose in my direction. It scampered around me. It patted my knee. My wife commented, “The other squirrels have been talking. They’ve told this one all about you.”

It wouldn’t surprise me.

There’s probably a prophecy: “One day the gray-bearded man will return. His pockets will be full.” I did return, but my pockets still do not have goodies in them. Not for squirrels. Not for congress critters.

I wonder. Are congressmen just large squirrels?