Being somewhat pragmatic, I feel very strongly about this issue. Ok, that’s an understatement – I get very emotional about this issue. Just over 3,000 American civilians have died in the past decade due to terrorism, the overwhelming majority of those on 9/11. We lose that many to cancer EVERY 48 HOURS. That’s right – the threat from two days of cancer equals ten years of terrorism. Moreover, the death loss to three days of cancer matches our nation’s entire history of loss to terrorism.

Which do you think is the bigger threat?

Hypothetically speaking, I know if China or Russia launched a nuclear attack on the US (what else could cause such catostrophic death rates – 550,000 killed EVERY year?), we would be out of Iraq in a heartbeat. There would be no debate, as we would unanimously point to the numbers and agree our priorities lie elsewhere. Is it about time we give the same objective view to cancer?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Bush-basher or a nay-sayer; for me, this is much more about the war on cancer than it is about the war on terrorism. True, terrorism is a monster to deal with; but while terrorism is nipping at the heal, cancer has entirely consumed the other leg.


NEWSWEEK: A 'Surge' in the War on Cancer?
by Jonathan Alter

Aug. 27, 2007 - Presidential campaigns are not just about winning, they’re about putting big ideas on the national agenda. Even though some candidates were elsewhere, that happened Monday at Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

The four Democrats who showed up (the Republicans come Tuesday) all committed themselves to at least doubling the $5 billion spent annually for cancer research—in other words, to backing a “surge” in the long-neglected war on cancer. Considering that cancer kills 550,000 Americans a year (that’s 1,500 a day—the leading cause of death for those under 85), it’s about time. As Bill Richardson said, “it's pathetic” that we now spend the same in two weeks in Iraq as we spend all year fighting cancer.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich were also convincing in explaining how they would use the power of the presidency to change national priorities. “That money needs to come home,” Clinton said, and end the “stalemate” in the war on cancer. “It’s a moral obligation.” Edwards took note of the millions of people with cancer who don’t have the advantages he and his wife Elizabeth enjoy. They lose all their money, he said, on top of getting sick. But even the Edwardses cannot read their incomprehensible medical bills. And Edwards, along with the other candidates, believes that insurance companies often limit necessary treatment. He also noted that only two in 10 proposals for cancer research get funded these days. This is driving young reseachers out of oncology toward other fields, dramatically slowing the search for cures. Until recently, when cancer budgets were cut by President Bush, it was five of 10.

There was a passion to the event that will no doubt be obliterated by the news about Alberto Gonzales. That’s too bad. But Armstrong, who co-moderated with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, can take comfort in the fact that the marker has been laid down. Every candidate will now be asked: Do you favor doubling the funding for cancer research? And if not, to what better use would you put that money?

Ultimately, politicians are forced to deal with the real issues in people’s lives. With cancer touching every family in the country, we may be seeing the beginning of new priorities in the big tent of American politics.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

The Lord was with him...

We're all familiar with the story of Joseph, the original Cinderella, who endured so much in Egypt until he was elevated to the palace (Genesis 37-42). But the one thing that always disappointed me about that story was the absence of any communication from God to Joseph. At least, we have no record of it. To think of all the hardship that Joseph endured above his peers and forefathers, to be sold as a slave, then cast wrongfully into prison, all the while keeping the faith: and yet God never rewarded him with direct communication? This struck me as so odd.
Then I heard my pastor this Sunday morning raise up a great point about Joseph's story: each of his times of great trial (when he was a slave and when he was in prison) start the same way: "And the Lord was with Joseph" (Gen 39:2 & 39:21)

Stop the tape. That's it. I don't know what all that implied, if it meant a daily conversation with the Almighty, a visible manifestation, or what, but I do know this: during those terrible times, Joseph had what we all so greatly long for, to experience the presence of God Himself. How wonderful. During those times when we and the rest of the world looked down on him and shook our heads with pity, he was at the height of human experience. The LORD was with him. With him. While mopping floors, while cleaning horse dung, and while cleaning up messes in the prison. God was with him. How wonderful.

But that raises the question: what would we give up to be with the LORD? If given the choice of living in wealth and comfort, without the Lord, or living in poverty and neglect, with HIS presence, what would we choose?

Most of us would struggle with that, and in honesty, probably give an answer that would leave us with a lifetime of questioning and regret. "Where is God when I need Him?" "Why do I feel so alone, so dry?" Perhaps, it is because God is back in that prison, back mopping those floors.

Now I'm not saying anyone should sell their homes or cars, but it's still a challenging thought: what do we value more, God's presence or our comfort?

I am reading through John Eldredge's book "The Way of the Wild Heart", and the farther I get into it, the more it grabs a hold of my soul. Extending on his book "Wild at Heart", Eldredge digs farther into the male heart, laying it all out bare as I've never seen before. He writes to fathers learning how to lead their sons into classic manhood, at the same time explaining how to find for ourselves the manhood that so few of us were led into. It's an fascinating topic, that completely shatters the visage of overgrown Peter Pan boys you see on TV, and that we are so readily led to believe.

I just finished a chapter talking about the "Vision Quest" year he led his 13-year-old son through, a time of growth and initiation into manhood, ending with a ceremony. The ceremony, like the year leading up to it, involves a group of men, close friends, with whom the boy has seen adventure and learned lessons of true manhood, speaking encouragement and conviction into his heart & soul.

His narrative just thrills my soul, as I think of the adventure to come with raising my own son, pouring into his life and teaching him what manhood is about. This concept, of intentionally teaching your son about manhood, is something I never had growing up, and wish I had learned years ago. But I am so excited to be learning about this while Josh is still young. So much to learn, so much to do. The adventure of life just keeps getting better.

One common thread through this, which rings true with the lessons I've had to learn the hard way, is that good parenting is more about investing, than molding. Invest in the child, pour into them, rather than focusing on just behavior or forcing them into a mold of what you envision. God's vision is so much bigger than ours.

Night Fishing

Silent Bugs

One of the hardest bugs to fix in software is the "silent" bug: a bug that produces the wrong results, but does not provide any information about exactly *where* things went wrong in the code. And in most business applications, that leaves you with thousands of lines of code to sift through; the veritable "needle in a haystack". But it does not need to be that way: a simple coding technique is to wrap each function with something we call a "try/catch" block, which allows the function encountering the problem to tell the world, "Hey! It's me! Look here! I'm the guy with the problem!" That little technique makes a world of difference in tracking down bugs.

Now, if you are not a software geek, you're probably wondering what the significance of that is. Well, I'm finding more and more of life is like that. When we do not anticipate the problems in life (the ones we KNOW will come), we don't tend to handle them well. We bury them, hide them, and/or just ignore them. HOPING they will somehow just "go away". And like a software developer, a simple philosophy goes a long way to dealing with that: "Yeah, I know problems are going to happen, so here is how I will handle them when they do."

We see the same issue played out on the national level. How did the U.S. do so much better than the Soviet Union? Both started out with revolutionary concepts that, on paper, sounded good, but had yet to be fully played out on the national level. And, as history books show us, one went on to be the leading world superpower, while the other struggled with corruption and fundamental flaws throughout it's existence. What's the difference? I'm sure historians could give lots of answers, but I would propose one major factor: American forefathers *anticipated* things going wrong, of corruption and tyranny. In fact, it horrified them. Hence, the balance of powers, written into the fabric of our government (congress vs. executive vs. judicial). They did not know who would lead the country 200 years after them, but they wanted to make sure that person could not be a tyrant. On the other hand, the communists were fully optimistic that their system would bring out the best in people. Few, if any, safeguards were written into their system. They simply did not anticipate tyranny...and that is just what they got. Had they PLANNED for things to go wrong (i.e. power corruption), and planned for ways to deal with that (balance of power), who knows how different the world would be today.

Now bring it back down to the personal level: we men, like programs and nations, are subject to flaws. And unfortunately, we are often the last to realize it. After all, we make our choices, and who wants to go second-guessing their every move? That's fine, but we also need to be cognizant both of our flaws, and our own tendency to overlook them. That's why it is important to be sensitive when red flags are raised by objective parties. And who does that better for us married men, than our wives. They may have their own flaws, but they also have an uncanny ability to see ours a mile away. With incredible accuracy, too.

Or maybe for you that person is a friend, or a parent, or a brother. Regardless of who it is, we all need to be aware and cognizant of our own humanity. We need to be very cautious before disregarding the warnings of those around us who care for our wellbeing. That little change in viewpoint can make a world of difference in how you handle problems when they arise, whether they are quickly dealt with, or if they become long-term bugs in our system.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye
and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother,
'Let me take the speck out of your eye,'
when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly to remove
the speck from your brother's eye."

Matthew 7:3-5 (NIV)

The conflict in Iraq is more than just a thorn in the side of our country, it is a struggle in the soul and moral conscience of our nation. We have been faced with what may be the most intractible question of our century. As a democracy, we are a community that debates issues and takes sides. But I think we perhaps go too far: we pick a corner (hawk or dove) and defend our points vigorously...but we would be better served to keep questioning the issues, and our stance on them. We learn more by considering the arguments of our opponent, than by debating them.

Some questions to consider:

Is this a conflict that can be won by force?

What are the conditions that we will leave Iraq?

What would become of the millions of western-supporting Iraquis if we left?

What would become of the Christians in Iraq if we left?

Is this a conflict that can be won by the military? If not, what is the purpose of the military?

Is this a conflict that can be won at all?

How do we define success?

At what point would we say the cost is not worth it?

If we leave, what will fill the vacuum?

If we left, could the militant radicals build a government, or are they merely agents of chaos and intimidation?

Sadam Hussein was able to keep them at bay with an iron fist. Could another strong ruler/tyrant (i.e. another Sadam Hussein) fill in that void?

If we had to choose, what would be worse - tyrrany or chaos?

Is there anything that would be worth the ongoing cost of American blood? Is there anything our generation feels that strong about?

How many Iraquis lives are worth one American life?

Tough questions...

Today is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life

And so it begins. God has been so good to me, giving me a new life, forming a new family from the brokenness & pain of loss, and bringing healing and laughter to our home. In light of these life changes, I thought it would only be appropriate for me to start a new blog.

I'm afraid I won't be able to update it as often as I did in the past (having a family of six under the roof keeps one busy), but I do get restless on occasion to scratch down some thoughts from time to time.

That's all for now - God bless!

Wayne