Rush in Cincinnati - 2013 Edition

I saw my 9th Rush show on July 2, 2013 at Riverbend.  This was the third time I have seen Rush at Riverbend; the last time they were in Cincinnati was 2008.  Despite this being my 9th Rush concert, there were a couple of "firsts" involved: it was the first Rush show where I've had a cell phone that could actually take decent pictures and videos, and it was the first time I've not had to travel to see Rush.

That second one might need some explanation.  I lived in Lexington until 2009, and Rush has never played Lexington (at least not in the last 30+ years).  So I had no choice but to travel to see them up until that time.  Since moving to the Cincinnati area, Rush has not been here until now.  It was nice to leave after the concert and be home in 20 minutes.

I had decent seats by most people's standards (26th row), but by my own standards the seats were terrible.  For some reason, I always get bad seats at Riverbend.  I've seen them here three times now, and I've never been able to get closer than the second section of seats (rows 20-27).  I've also never gotten a center section; this time around, I was on the left wing of the pavilion, with part of the rear-stage screen blocked by the speaker system.  In 2007, I had seats very close to this same spot.  In other venues, I don't think I've ever been farther back than 15th row, and I've been as close as 8th.

The thing about this particular show is that when I was buying tickets on TicketBastard, I drew 18th row seats, front center section.  But, convinced I was going to be able to get something closer, I threw them back.  I actually drew that same seat two or three different times.  That turned out to be the closest I drew, and by the time I decided to stop trying, I ended up 10 rows farther back, in the second section, on the wing.  Stupid.

ANYWAY...this was the second time I had seen Rush on the Clockwork Angels tour.  The tour began last fall, and I saw them on that leg in Indianapolis.  I was sick at that show, and, to add insult to injury, my car wouldn't start after the show was over and I got stranded and had to rely on my aunt and uncle to come pick me up.  As a result, I was looking forward to seeing the show again and being able to enjoy it more this time around.

Photo by kjbird, posted at rushisaband.com 

As the name implies, Riverbend is a concert pavilion in Cincinnati that sits right at a bend of the Ohio River, just east of downtown.  You can literally see the river from the pavilion.

Tour buses and trucks parked in front of the river.  Wouldn't you love to see inside that RV?

I'm sad to say that Riverbend really isn't a very good concert venue.  I've seen several concerts here over the years, and I've always found the seating to be poorly designed and the sound to be distorted and full of reverberation.  There are a significant number of seats with restricted views of the stage, due to a relatively small stage that is inset between two enormous walls with speaker arrays mounted outward.  I don't know why the sound is always so bad there, but it must have something to do with the physical geography of the place, because other outdoor venues I've visited don't suffer the same problem.

The Lawn at Riverbend, which, as you can see, also has a greatly restricted view, thanks to those iron pylons.

This is a good view of those walls and speakers that are problematic if you are on the wings

With the show starting at roughly 7:45, there was daylight for virtually the entire first set.  That set consisted of a significant amount of music from Rush's 1980's repertoire.  Opening with the crowd-pleasing "Subdivisions," the set also included deep cuts like "Grand Designs," "Middletown Dreams," and "The Pass."  The set closed with "Far Cry," the only song they played from their 2007 album Snakes & Arrows.

Photo by kjbird, posted at rushisaband.com

After a brief intermission, the band returned to the stage with a 7- or 8-piece string ensemble, who accompanied them for the majority of the second set.

They immediately launched into a series of songs from their new album - 9 in all, played one right after the other.  I read somewhere that this is the most they've ever played from a new album.  With several songs that they rotate in and out night to night, I think they are performing all but two songs from Clockwork Angels on this tour.  I love this album, so it's great getting to hear the majority of its songs live.

As usual, the band used a lot of pyrotechnics in the show.  I managed to capture a brief video of one such display.  Yes, I realize my video quality is poor.  It was a camera phone.

Never fear, the stage didn't actually explode, although it appears as though it did!

After the string of Clockwork Angles songs, Rush returned to some old favorites, including "Red Sector A," "Spirit of Radio," and "YYZ."

During one bridge of "YYZ," drummer Neil Peart always does a very high drumstick toss.  Without meaning to, I managed to get this on video as well.  It's right at the beginning of the video.  Make sure you are watching the drum set.



After exiting the stage briefly, the band returned for an encore, which began with them throwing T-shirts to the crowd.  They then launched into "Tom Sawyer," followed up by the ever popular "2112," which included Overture, Temples of Syrinx, and Grand Finale.

Following the show, I was able to get out of the venue quickly, thanks to thinking ahead and parking right next to the exit.

I wish I could say this was a great Rush show.  In all honesty, it was one of the least memorable of the nine that I have seen.  I think there are three reasons for this.  First, as noted above, I'm not a big fan of the seating or the acoustics of Riverbend, and those were both issues in this show.

Second, having already seen this same setlist once made it less than exciting the second time around, particularly because a lot of the 80's songs they played are not among my favorites.  For me, there is no such thing as a bad Rush setlist, but I have to say that among the 9 shows I've seen across 4 tours over the last decade, the Clockwork Angels setlist is probably the weakest.

Finally, I hate to say it, but I didn't feel like Rush was really into this show.  They were more laid back than I've seen them before, and quite honestly, Geddy's voice didn't sound great.  Of course, he's getting ready to turn the big Six-Oh, and they've done over 60 shows since last autumn.  He's forgiven any voice strain.  Still, I can only say that the show was just "okay."

Of course, it won't stop me from going to see my 10th show at the first possible opportunity.

Photo by David Sorcher, posted at Cincinnati.com

Why Are You So Distant?

I've gotten this question, or some form of it, A LOT lately.  Friends, family members, even co-workers.

So for those of you wondering, let me try to explain.

To begin with, I feel apart from other people.  Like I'm now (because of my heart attack) in a different category than other people are in and so therefore somehow different than my friends and family.  I feel like it's harder to relate to others now, or like others view me differently.  Related to this is the fact that while I used to feel tired all the time, and used to joke about being old, I didn't really feel old, at least not emotionally.  Now I feel great - better than I have in years - but I feel like I have aged emotionally.  As a result, I no longer feel "young."  I feel middle-aged, with all the vulnerabilities that brings.

Secondly, I think a certain sense of embarrassment or shame is involved.  Those of you who know me know that I had no family history of heart disease.  Clearly I had a heart attack at 38 because I made a lot of bad lifestyle choices for many years.  Choices that were obvious to those who know me.  So it's embarrassing.  I'm getting what I asked for, publicly.  

Third, I don't really like talking about "how I'm doing," as if I'm an invalid or something.  So it's often easier to just avoid people.  Of course, I realize when people as how I'm doing it's because they care about me.

Fourth, because I have made such drastic lifestyle changes, I try to avoid situations that will tempt me to overeat, drink, or smoke.  Unfortunately, this means I don't go out with friends and family the way I used to.

Fifth, the drastic lifestyle changes I have made have not been easy.  I basically quit nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, fast food, sugary foods, and virtually all processed foods cold turkey literally overnight.  I also began a 7-day per week exercise routine and cut my daily caloric intake by more than half.  As those of you who follow my blog know, to date I've lost about 40 pounds in three months.  To make all these things happen, it has been necessary for me to develop a strict lifestyle routine.  I pretty much have the same routine every day, from the time I get up to the time I go to bed.  It's the only way for me to achieve what I need to achieve health-wise.

I am convinced that this strict routine is probably the biggest reason I have become distant from others: making phone calls, texting, hanging out with friends and family - those things aren't part of my routine.

So that's why I've been so distant.  My hope is that it won't last, that I'll eventually get back to normal and won't fear the temptations of smoking and drinking and overeating, and will get over my feeling of being different from others.  Please bear with me until then.    

10 Common Biblical Misconceptions

1. Jesus was born in a stable.

Only two biblical writers mention Jesus' birth, and one of those - the writer of Matthew - tells us that Jesus was born in a house.  This makes sense because for Matthew, Jesus and his family lived in Bethlehem.  It was only much later, according to Matthew, that the family moved to Nazareth.

Luke is the biblical author who tells us the family lived in Nazareth and only traveled to Bethlehem, where Jesus was ultimately born.

However, even Luke doesn't mention a stable.

Luke tells us only that Mary gave birth in Bethlehem, and because the guest houses were all full, she had to lay her newborn in a feeding trough.

This statement could imply a stable, but a brief study of historical setting suggests otherwise.  In 1st century urban Judea, animals would have been either tied along the street (where mangers were frequently erected), or kept in the courtyard of larger homes and buildings.  There wouldn't have actually been a stable - at least nothing like what our religious art, plays, and songs like to imagine.

2. Moses wrote the Torah

The Torah, also called the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, is made up of the first five books of the Old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

And Moses didn't write any of it.

Despite both Jewish and Christian tradition attributing these books to Moses, historians have actually identified at least four different authorial strands within these books, with each strand representing not just a different historical era, but even more than one author within each strand.  And none of the strands is as early as the life of the historical Moses, who probably lived three hundred years or more before the first word of the Torah was ever written.

3. The gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus

Although this is a common belief among Christians, even Christian tradition only attributes two of the four gospels to actual disciples of Jesus - Matthew and John.  The books of Mark and Luke have always been attributed to men who never knew Jesus: Mark, the one-time companion of Paul and later secretary of Peter, and Luke, a missionary companion of Paul and also his personal physician.

However, even the gospels of Matthew and John were not actually written by the disciples known as Matthew and John.

Historians date Matthew to sometime during the 80's CE, and John about a decade later, near the turn of the second century.  This means both gospels were written more than fifty years after Jesus died, with John closer to seventy years.  The likelihood that any of Jesus's companions were still alive and lucid enough to write deeply theologically-developed books in highly literate Greek is virtually non-existent.  In fact, the chances that any of Jesus's poor, rural disciples were literate at all, even in their own native language of Aramaic, is highly unlikely, much less in the Greek language in which the gospels were written.

4. The Third Commandment refers to using God's name as a curse word

In the familiar King James Version, the Third Commandment tells us not to "take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

Despite widespread belief that this verse is talking about the use of God's name as a swear or curse, it is actually referring to hypocrisy.

The original Hebrew phrase "take in vain" means to accept something falsely.  (Source: Biblical Hebrew Lexicon.)

Thus, the commandment warns against falsely accepting the name of God - that is, it warns against claiming to be Godly when you aren't really Godly.  It's a prohibition against hypocrisy.  It has nothing to do with speaking certain exclamations.

5. The Bible teaches that humans either go to heaven or hell when they die

In the Old Testament, hell does not exist at all, and heaven is simply the place where God and God's retinue live, not a place where humans go after death.  Instead, for these ancient Jewish writers, human beings simply enter the grave upon death.

In essence, there is no afterlife in the theology of the Old Testament.

By the time the New Testament was written, afterlife theology of heaven and hell had become common within Judaism, and these beliefs therefore made their way into early Christianity as well.  However, according to the various writers of the New Testament (especially Paul and the writers of 2 Peter and Revelation), heaven and hell await us not at death, but at the end of time.

At death, we humans simply go into the grave.  There we stay until the end of time, when we are resurrected into new life.  At that point, we either get cast into hell, or we are invited to live eternally on a renewed earth.  As such, humans don't actually go to heaven in New Testament theology either.  Instead, they are raised into new life to live in God's kingdom here on earth.  Essentially, heaven comes to earth instead of humans going to heaven.

6. God is judgmental and vindictive in the Old Testament, but loving and kind in the New

It may be true that "God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow," but human concepts of God are always changing, and that is as much true in the Bible as it is today.  The fact is, God is given both positive and negative attributes throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

For instance, in Psalm 86, God is described as "compassionate," "gracious," and "abounding in love."  In the prophetic writings of Hosea, God is said to "love freely."  In the book of 1 Chronicles, God's love is said to "endure forever."  In fact, throughout the Old Testament, God is routinely described as loving, faithful, merciful, and forgiving.  God does not banish anyone to hell, but instead is frequently portrayed as long-suffering and perpetually willing to overlook the failures and sins of his people.

In the New Testament, on the other hand, the gospel of Matthew refers multiple times to God damning sinners to hell, the book of Acts includes a scene where God strikes dead two Christians for withholding money from the Christian community, and the entire book of Revelation imagines God as an unspeakably angry deity of retribution and judgment.

7. In the Creation story, God created men first 

Actually, it depends on which creation story you read.  In the familiar creation story from the first chapter of Genesis, where God creates the world in six days, the writer simply tells us that God created "male and female" on the final day.  Neither gender is given priority over the other, and both are said to be created in God's own image.

It is not until the second chapter of Genesis, which consists of a completely different creation story written by a different person living in a different era, that "man" is said to have been created first, and "woman" created in man's image in order to be his "helper."

Scholars of the Bible have recognized for over a century that the account of creation found in the second chapter of Genesis (the story of Adam and Eve) is actually an earlier account than the one found in the first chapter (the six-day creation).  At some point in antiquity, the two stories were merged together onto the same scroll and became the first and second chapters of the books we call Genesis.

8. The Jews crucified Jesus

Though the gospels portray Jewish leaders in Jerusalem conniving to have Jesus arrested and crucified, it is an indisputable fact of history that only the Romans had the authority to detain, judge, sentence, and ultimately carry out the execution of criminals.  The gospels portray Jesus being arrested by Roman soldiers, tried before the Roman governor, sentenced by that same governor to death, and later executed in the Roman style on a Roman cross by Roman soldiers.

Even if one accepts the gospel portrayal of the scheming Jewish leaders as historically accurate (a point that is widely questioned by historians), the Jewish leaders hardly represent the entirety of the Jewish people.  In fact, the gospels portray the Jewish people as rallying around Jesus, following him throughout Galilee and into Jerusalem, and flocking to hear him teach.  Even when one crowd of Jewish people calls for Jesus' crucifixion, it is only because the Jewish leaders "stirred them up" (Mark 15).

Sadly, this misconception of Jews as "Christ-killers" has led to centuries of fierce antisemitism that continues unabated to this day.

9. The Vatican has all the original copies of the books of the New Testament 

No original manuscripts of any of the books of the New Testament still exist today.  With the exception of 2 Peter, the New Testament was written between 50 and 100 CE.  A few papyrus scraps of New Testament texts have turned up dated between 125 and 175 CE, but the oldest complete manuscript of a New Testament book goes back only to about the year 200, or more than a century after the original.  The oldest copy of a complete New Testament is the so-called Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to about 350 CE.

10. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute

Nowhere in the New Testament is Mary Magdalene ever said to have been a prostitute.  She and several other women are noted as followers of Jesus who "cared for his needs," and the writer of Luke states that Mary and the other women helped to finance his ministry.  

Luke also states that Jesus had cured Mary of demon possession, and this appears to be the basis for the belief that Mary was a prostitute.  This idea goes back a long way: Pope Gregory I, who became pope in 590 and is known as Saint Gregory the Great, seems to have been the first to make this suggestion, writing that Mary Magdalene is the unnamed "sinful woman" from the gospel of Luke who anoints Jesus prior to his arrest.  A similar story of anointing takes place in Mark, Matthew, and John as well, but only Luke implies that the woman was a prostitute.  Only John names this woman, and he gives her name as Mary.  This led Gregory to the rather spurious conclusion that the "sinful woman" and Mary Magdalene were one and the same.

Spurious or not, the idea persists.  

Notes from the Cave

I've started a new blog on Tumblr.  This new blog won't replace Serene Musings, because Tumblr really isn't a true alternative to Blogger.  For those not familiar with Tumblr, it's a bit like a cross between Twitter and a blog.  You follow people and they follow you, you have a news feed, and you can "re-blog" people (similar to retweeting), but you aren't limited to 140 characters.  Instead, you are making true blog posts, uploading pictures and videos, etc.  It's also highly usable in mobile format, and, in fact, has its own mobile app.

So, if you're interested, my Tumblr address is scottchristmas.tumblr.com.  What you find there will be, for the most part, different from what you read here, but don't be upset if occasionally I post the same thing to both sites.  The name of my Tumblr blog is Notes from the Cave.  That's right, I'm pretty limited when it comes to thinking of titles :)

I was 214.8 at my last weigh-in.  That's my lowest yet.  My parents were in town this weekend and I ate out four meals in a row.  To "recover" from that, I ate nothing but fruits and veggies yesterday.  It was significantly harder than I thought it would be, and I found myself more or less thinking about food all afternoon and evening.  But I managed to make it through, and the only "cheating" I did was a few handfuls of trail mix, which hardly counts as "cheating," especially since half of what's in it is dried fruit.

My last vacation of the year will be next week.  I'm seeing Rush here in Cincinnati on July 2, then plan on watching the new Lone Ranger movie on July 3.  We are also going to the lake for a few days.  Hopefully I'll be more relaxed on this trip than I was the last time we went.

Speaking of the Lone Ranger, I recently discovered a new Lego Lone Ranger line, obviously linked with the movie.  This is a dream come true for the 10-year-old in me.  When I was a kid, I went through a period where I was utterly obsessed with the Lone Ranger.  I guess I got out of it by the time I was 9 or 10, but certainly up until at least the age of 8 or so, I had a major Lone Ranger fetish.  I also had a major Lego fetish, which continued all the way up through high school (I SHOULD be embarrassed to admit that, but I'm not), and so to find a fusion of the Lone Ranger and Legos is the fulfillment of a lifelong ambition.

As a result (and I should ALSO be embarrassed to admit this, but I'm not), I have just made an Amazon purchase of a couple of Lego Lone Ranger sets.  :)

My plan is to get the whole series and put it on display in my man cave.  Yes, you read that right.  Legos in my man cave.

10 Must-Read Books

Every now and then, you read one of those books that captivates you so much, or educates you to such a degree, that you just can't help but think that everyone should read it.

It happens to me a lot.

So without further ado, and in no particular order of significance, here is a list of the ten books that have most impacted, entertained, educated, and/or influenced me, and which would make valuable additions to anyone's reading list.  I've included Amazon links to each book.

1) Liberating the Gospels by John Shelby Spong

John Shelby Spong is the retired Bishop of Newark in the Episcopal Church.  A widely-read scholar and theologian and a prominent voice for progressive Christianity, he is an outspoken critic of fundamentalism and traditional Christian theology.

I've read all of Spong's books and they are all recommendable, but the one that impacted me the most was undoubtedly "Liberating the Gospels," which is subtitled "Reading the Bible With Jewish Eyes."

That subtitle is important because the book demonstrates the importance of understanding the first century Jewish context in which the New Testament gospels were written - particularly Mark and Matthew, the first two gospels.  Modern Christians tend to approach the gospels - and indeed the whole Bible - as though they were written in a vacuum for modern sensibilities.  They weren't.  They were written by first century Jews practicing first century Judaism and incorporating their understanding of their Jewish teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, into their distinctly Jewish worldview, which was itself heavily influenced by the Jewish scriptures, laws, and customs.

Spong's book his highly readable and aimed at a general reading audience.  He explores the Jewish roots for the stories of the gospels and highlights how they were profoundly influenced by Jewish scriptures.  It may go without saying that his conclusions fly in the face of virtually everything you ever heard in church or Sunday school.  

At the risk of be hyperbolic, this book left me staggered.  It completely altered my view of how to understand the biblical stories of Jesus.  When people ask me to recommend a book on Christianity, this is always the first one I name.

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes

2) Sphere by Michael Crichton

Before his novels became a veiled political platform for anti-environmentalist claptrap, Michael Crichton was a exceptional thriller writer.  "Jurassic Park," of course, made him famous, but "Sphere," which was published in 1987, several years before "Jurassic Park," was easily one of the best scientific thrillers ever written.

The first time I read "Sphere," I read it in one sitting.  It reads like a movie and the pages just fly by.  I was captivated from practically the first sentence and every page riveted me.  I've since re-read the book four or five times.

Set mostly in an underwater laboratory in the Pacific Ocean, the book tells the story of a scientific investigation into an unknown spacecraft discovered buried under the ocean floor.  The narrative very quickly becomes a psychological thriller as it becomes more and more difficult to tell the difference between what is real and what is imagined.

"Sphere" is, quite simply, a brilliant thriller novel.

Sphere

3) Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett 

A massive, thousand page tome, "Pillars of the Earth" is British thriller writer Ken Follett's masterpiece.  In this book, which was published in the late 1980's, Follett diverged from his normal duties writing spy thrillers and embarked on a historical novel set in 12th century England and centered on the building of a cathedral.

A thousand pages about the construction of a cathedral in the 1100's sounds about as much fun as a root canal, but take my word for it: "Pillars of the Earth" is one of the best historical novels of the entire 20th century.  When I first read the book in 2005, I read it in about a week.  I simply could not put it down.  It is a sprawling saga of medieval England that draws you in with its rich descriptions, captivating characters, scheming intrigues, well-crafted suspense, and heart-wrenching romance.

If you like historical fiction and have not read "Pillars of the Earth," you need to buy or borrow it right this minute.

The Pillars of the Earth

4) Jesus by Marcus J. Borg

In the same way that "Liberating the Gospels" is the first book I always recommend when talking about Christian scholarship in general, the first book I recommend to anyone wanting to know more about the study of the historical Jesus is Marcus Borg's fantastic book "Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary."

Of all the books I've read on the historical Jesus - reconstructing his life and times, his purpose, his message - none is even in the same category with Borg's "Jesus."  It is simply the finest resource I am aware of on understanding who Jesus was, where he came from, and what his life and message was all about.  Like all the other books on this list, once started, it is difficult to put down.  You keep wanting to come back to it to learn more.  I practically devoured this book.

Borg is a well-respected Christian scholar and theologian and, like the aforementioned Spong, writes his books for a general reading audience.  He has spent a significant amount of his scholarly career focusing on the study of the historical Jesus, so he knows the subject intimately.  In this book, he argues convincingly that Jesus was a peasant healer, prophet, and voice for social change, working against the cultural norms and powers of his day, providing a radical reinterpretation of God and the Jewish scriptures, and offering a new way of life to his followers.

If you ever wanted to know what Jesus was really like, what his life and message was really all about, without all the theological pomp and circumstance that the Church has draped over him for 2,000 years, this is a book that you simply must read.

Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary

5) 1984 by George Orwell

"1984" has always been the book I traditionally say is my favorite novel.

I first read this book in a 10th grade English class and absolutely loved it.  I then had it assigned again for a 12th grade English class, and since I had liked it so much the first time, I went ahead and re-read it.  I enjoyed it so thoroughly the second time that as soon as I had finished it, I immediately started it again and read it for a third time.  By the time I was 25 years old or so, I had read it five or six times through.  

Even after 65 years, "1984" is still disturbingly relevant, with its dystopian view of an authoritarian government ruled by the seemingly omniscient Big Brother.  Stalin's communism (which inspired the novel) may have collapsed in Europe, but the major themes explored in this novel are still playing out in the modern world with disturbing frequency.  Of note is the novel's description of "doublethink," and the Party's revision of language, which is called "Newspeak" in the novel.

Orwell describes doublethink as "holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...[telling] deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them."

Orwell might as well have been talking about modern politicians, news media personalities, or fundamentalist religious figures.

1984

6) River God by Wilbur Smith

Wilbur Smith is my favorite novelist.  Born in Zambia in southern Africa during the waning days of British imperialism there, he has been publishing grand adventure novels consistently since the mid-1960's.  Every one of his more than 30 novels is set primarily in Africa, and the time period of his novels spans from the ancient world to the modern, with most set during the 19th and 20th centuries.

"River God," published in the early 1990's, was the first book of his that I read, and it captivated me from the very first sentence: "The river lay heavily upon the desert, bright as a spill of molten metal from a furnace."

Set during the so-called "Middle Kingdom" of ancient Egyptian history (roughly 1800 B.C.E.), the novel is a sweeping saga of adventure and romance, narrated in the first person by the slave and eunuch Taita, whose master is Lostris, daughter of the powerful Egyptian king.  Smith's strength is the richness of his prose, his vivid descriptions, and his ability to draw his reader into the world of his characters.

If you like historical fiction, and especially if you are fascinated, as I am, by all things ancient Egypt, this is a novel you absolutely, positively, must read.  Its sequels - "Warlock," "The Quest," and "The Seventh Scroll" - are fantastic too.

River God: A Novel of Ancient Egypt

7) Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman

It's a simple fact: every Christian should read this book.

Bart Ehrman is a UNC religion professor and a major voice in the world of modern New Testament scholarship.  A widely-published and highly-decorated scholar who writes books for both academic as well as general reading audiences, he has published more than twenty books and routinely appears on television.

I don't like the title of this book because it is intentionally sensational and also misleading: very little of the book has to do with the actual words of Jesus.  (If I recall correctly, Ehrman even notes in the book that the title was not his own, but was chosen by his publisher.)

In any case, the book discusses the textual history of the Bible.  In prose that is easy to follow, Ehrman takes a very complicated subject (papyrology, linguistics, and the general study of ancient texts) and makes it not just easy to understand, but actually fascinating.  Specifically, he focuses on how and why the actual words of the Bible were changed over the centuries by scribes who copied the texts during the Middle Ages, before the advent of the printing press.  Most people don't often consider the fact that for the first 1400 years of Christian history, no Bible was ever produced without it being hand-copied.  This copying naturally resulted in countless mistakes and slips of the pen, as well as a number of changes to the texts that could only have been intentional, motivated by theological perspectives.

Ehrman catalogues a number of major variations among existing ancient manuscripts of various New Testament books, and discusses the significance of these variations on major points of commonly-accepted theology.

"Misquoting Jesus" totally changed my perspective on the Bible, how it came to be the book it is today, why it says what it says, and why anyone who suggests that it is "infallible" is simply ignorant of the Good Book's own history.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

8) 11/22/63 by Stephen King

This is the "newest" book on my list, published in late 2011.  I only just read it in January and it immediately went onto my list of favorite novels.  I simply could not put this book down.  It is the first and only book I've ever read by Stephen King that I absolutely loved.

I've always had a turbulent relationship with the King of Horror.  I've read roughly half a dozen of his books (which is, admittedly, not very many), and with the exception of his non-fiction book on the art of writing, I've always been mostly dissatisfied.  "11/22/63," however, grabbed me from the start and I practically swallowed it whole.

As the title indicates, this is a novel about the Kennedy assassination.  Starting out in the present day, the main character, Jake, discovers a time travel portal inside an old diner that always takes its traveler back to 11:58 a.m. on September 9, 1958.  No matter how long a traveler stays in the past, once he returns through the portal, only two minutes have passed in the present.  Jake eventually decides to use the portal to stop the Kennedy assassination, and thus alter the course of history for the better (so he believes).

The Kennedy assassination has always been a popular topic among modern Americans, and who doesn't love a time travel story?  This book is a perfect blend of both, and has a healthy amount of suspense to keep you turning the pages.  The characters feel like your best friends, there's an underlying love story that provides a nice romantic counterbalance to the suspense, and (unlike many King novels that I've read) the ending is actually satisfying.

11/22/63: A Novel

9) The Wolf's Hour by Robert McCammon 

One of my absolute favorite thriller novels of all time, I almost never read "The Wolf's Hour," and when I finally did, it was on a whim.

My sister had loaned me this book, telling me it was really fantastic.  Based on the cover, I could see that it was a horror/thriller novel about a werewolf who doubled as a World War II British spy.  I thought it sounded silly and nothing at all like what I would typically read.  Not wanting to hurt my sister's feelings, I took the book and stuck it on my shelf and subsequently ignored it for about two years.

One day I was browsing my bookshelves, looking for something to read.  I had gotten caught up on all my "to-be-read" books and was thinking about re-reading something.  My eye caught the tattered, 15-year-old copy of "The Wolf's Hour" that my sister had loaned me several years before, and I decided that, since I didn't have anything else better to read, I'd give it a whirl.  I figured I'd read a chapter or two and probably end up abandoning it.

I was blown away.

This book hooked me from page one and I was stunned by just how much I loved it.  If you like spy novels or thrillers, and especially if you enjoy those kinds of novels against a backdrop of World War II, you should move this book high up on your "to-be-read" list.  I enjoyed this novel so much it led me to check out the rest of McCammon's bibliography, and he has become one of my absolute favorite novelists, right up there with Mr. Smith and Mr. Orwell.        

The Wolf's Hour

10) The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman

This book is a bit more "academic" than the other non-fiction books I have recommended, but it is still written for a general reading audience.  Freeman is a British historian of ancient Greece and Rome, and this book details how the pursuit of knowledge and reason, championed during the height of the Greco-Roman period, was supplanted in late antiquity by superstition and ultimately led Europe into a centuries-long dark age.

Freeman talks extensively about the influence of Christianity on this social move away from reason and knowledge.  Once the Catholic Church took control of the Roman Empire in the early 4th century, there was an intentional and systematic war waged against science, technology, reason, medicine, and even literature and history.  While these subjects flourished in the East under Muslim rule, the West decayed and the Roman empire crumbled, leading to the so-called "Dark Ages," where western Europeans suffered for centuries with a standard of living significantly lower than that enjoyed by their ancestors several hundred years earlier.

This book will educate you and will challenge some of your preconceived notions about where we come from and why we believe the things we believe.  It left me with an overwhelming sense of "what might have been" if not for the intentional suppression of knowledge that was carried out in the name of God and power by the early Christian church.        

The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason

Notes from the Cave

As I mentioned in my last report, I went to see my cardiologist a few weeks ago as a follow-up to an ER visit I made due to heart palpitations.  Everything checked out fine and both my cardiologist and my primary care doctor agreed that the palpitations were normal and benign.  That doesn't necessarily make them any less alarming when they occur, but I am learning to deal with them.  There is absolutely no question that stress and worrying about them make them worse.

In addition to that, my cardiologist decided to cut my two heart medicines in half.  I take a so-called ACE Inhibitor, which reduces the stress on the heart, and a beta blocker, which helps lower blood pressure.  During my appointment, my pulse was in the 50's and my blood pressure was also low, so that, apparently, indicates that I no longer need the higher doses of these two medicines.  I can only assume this is due to the fact that I have been eating so healthy, losing weight, and getting a lot of exercise.  My heart is getting stronger and healthier.  So this is very good news.

He also has taken me off of my blood thinner.  He had originally told me I would need to take it until the beginning of June, so this was essentially a planned move.  I hated taking that medicine because it caused me to bruise easily and also caused me to bleed endlessly from minor scrapes and scratches.  I felt like a walking murder victim half the time because the slightest scrape on the arm, or picking at the cuticles, would bleed like a stab wound.  I once unknowingly scraped my forearm and it was bleeding without me knowing it.  I then brushed my arm across a door at work to push it open and I left behind a huge swath of blood that freaked out all my co-workers.

Despite this, I was very uneasy about going off the drug.  I felt vulnerable without it because it helps reduce the risk of a blood clot forming in the stent.  This can happen while the stent is still healing and growing into the heart tissue.  Apparently, based on the type of stent I have, this becomes less of a risk after the first few months.  Also, my particular stent is the widest possible because I have large arteries, and my cardiologist said he doesn't remember anyone ever coming back to the ER with a blood clot in this size stent.

So....after angsting over it for a week, and getting a second opinion from a heart surgeon I happen to know, I went off the medicine a few days ago.  So far so good. I'm almost eager to cut myself so I can see if I bleed normally again.

I've also continued to lose weight.  In my last update, about two weeks ago, I said I was 226.  Yesterday, I weighed in at 218.  Last weekend, we went to the lake for Memorial Day and I didn't exactly eat the way I would have in past years, but I also didn't stick religiously to my new normal eating habits.  I came back Monday expecting to have gained a pound or two, and instead had lost a few.  Not sure how that happened, but I have dropped another couple of pounds since then.  I think I've lost 5 pounds in just the last week or so.  It would seem, perhaps, that my metabolism is starting to increase.  Either that, or this is just one of the normal patterns of ebb and flow when it comes to weight loss.  You just creep along for weeks, half a pound at a time, and then suddenly, without changing anything, the weight starts to come off more quickly.  Who knows.

I hate that all my Notes from the Cave lately have been almost exclusively about my health and eating habits, but it seems like that is the only thing of significance to really talk about.
 

Notes from the Cave

A lot of people have asked me in recent weeks about my cholesterol before my heart attack.  I've been telling people that when I had it checked in 2005 it was high, but I had not had it checked since then.  I couldn't remember what the number actually was.

Last night, I was skimming through my journal and discovered that I had actually written about it back when I had it checked.

To begin with, it was in 2006, not 2005, so it was seven years before my heart attack.  Ironically enough, I had the blood drawn March 20, 2006, and got the results "a few days later," which means that I may have learned about my high cholesterol seven years to the exact day before my heart attack (which was March 23, 2013).

Anyway, I didn't record the individual components (HDL/LDL/triglycerides) but my total number was 268.  Under 200 is the recommended healthy level, and anything over 240 is considered "high cholesterol."  According to the American Heart Association, anyone with cholesterol over 240 is more than twice as likely to develop coronary artery disease than people under 200.

For six weeks after that test, I altered my eating habits, reduced my drinking (actually quit drinking all together because my liver enzymes were high too), and started generally watching what I ate.  I remember the doctor specifically said that, because of my high liver enzymes, he didn't want to put me on cholesterol medicine because it can be hard on the liver.  

I was re-tested in early May of that year and the liver enzymes were back to normal, and my cholesterol had dropped 26 points.  I didn't record the conversation with my doctor, but apparently he was satisfied that my cholesterol was dropping and probably encouraged me to keep eating healthy and to get the cholesterol re-checked the following year.  As far as I remember, no discussion was had again of putting me on cholesterol medicine.

For the next seven years, I never had my cholesterol checked again.  During that period, my eating habits went downhill dramatically and became the nightmare I have previously described, I gained about 40 pounds, I had a second child, I started full time night classes while still working full time during the day, I began smoking, and I developed sleep disturbances, including mild sleep apnea, with abnormal sleep patterns.

I'll never know for sure what my cholesterol was by the time I had my heart attack, but there's little reason to believe it was anything other than through the roof.  If it was nearly 270 in 2006, it was probably 350 by 2013.  Even if it was still "just" 270ish, that's still very high.

I'll be having my cholesterol checked in about a month, and I'm very interested to see what it will be after three months of the healthiest living I've ever done as an adult, plus a high-dose cholesterol medicine.

In other news, I was off yesterday and today because this is my weekend to work.  I'll be going in a 10:30 tonight.  My third shifts are different now that I am healthier and don't smoke.  I used to have no trouble sleeping all day and therefore being alert and ready to go for an all night shift, and it helped that I took a lot of smoke breaks.  I usually also ate a very large meal in the cafeteria.  Now I sleep like a normal person, which means I have trouble sleeping during the day before a third shift, which results in being super tired all night, and of course I don't smoke anymore so I don't have that stimulant to keep me awake.  I also don't consume caffeine or sugary drinks anymore.

The result is that I tend to dread my third shifts now, instead of looking forward to them like I used to, because I know I'll be tired and lethargic.

Last weekend I went to the ER because I was having heart palpitations.  I've had them all along since my heart attack, but it alarmed me because I was having more than usual, and they felt more "intense," so I went to the ER as a precaution.  Blood work and EKG were both fine, but they put me on a 48-hour heart monitor just to be sure.  I wore it until Monday night and returned it Tuesday.  I'm going today to see my cardiologist to get the results.  I didn't really feel like I had many, if any, palpitations while I was on the monitor, so I'm curious to see if I had them and just didn't know it.

At my last weigh-in, which was Wednesday, my weight was down to 226.  That's nearly 30 pounds from my pre-heart attack weight.  Another 30 or so and I'll have reached my goal.

Call Me Nostradamus

In February of 2003, just before the start of the Iraq War, a Gallup poll showed that 93% of Americans believed it was either "certain" or "likely" that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction.  You may recall, of course, that the existence of these WMD's (as they are called) was the primary justification for invading Iraq in the first place.  Unless you live under a rock, you probably also know that, when it was all said and done, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

The Iraq War officially began on March 20, 2003.  On March 28, 2003, I wrote a very lengthy entry in my journal, hashing out all my feelings after the first week of the war and talking specifically about the very widespread (at 93%, it was almost universal) belief at the time that Iraq had those pesky WMD's.   

Here's what I wrote: 

Why do I feel like the lone voice of reason in a vacuum of insanity?  Is the whole world insane, or am I the one who is crazy?  It’s an interesting question, and with each passing day, I get further away from knowing the answer...I mean, clearly, there are plenty of anti-war people out there who would agree with every word I've written tonight, but they are a small few.  Is it possible that the vast majority of Americans are just wrong on this count?

Deep down, I believe yes.  And I believe time will back me up on this.  This war is wrong, our reasons for being involved in it our wrong, our justification for it is wrong, and I believe history will show it to have been a big mistake for this country.  I do not believe much, if any, good will come from this war.  Sure, we will probably get rid of Saddam.  But you can’t bomb people into democracy... 

I guess we’ll see in another ten years whether you should call me Nostradamus.  

I don't want to say "I told you so," but....

:)

10 Fun Facts About James Madison

James Madison, the 4th President of the United States

1. The oldest of twelve children, James Madison was born in 1751 in Virginia, the son of a prominent and wealthy plantation owner.  Called "Jemmie" by those who knew him, Madison's parents provided him with a classical education from a very young age, and Madison was fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.

2. Graduating in 1771 from Princeton University, Madison studied law and theology for another year before returning to his home in Virginia and becoming active in politics.   He became closely allied with Thomas Jefferson and served in the Virginia state legislature in the late 1770's, where he helped author Virginia's laws on religious freedom.  He also served in the Continental Congress during the 1780's.

3. Madison was instrumental in arranging for the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and his so-called "Virginia Plan," which he wrote shortly before the start of the convention, became the basis for the U.S. Constitution.  Among other things, Madison's plan called for three branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial - two houses of congress, and a system of checks and balances among the branches.

4. Following the Constitutional Convention, Madison played a key role in ensuring its ratification by the states by helping to the author the so-called "Federalist Papers."  These papers were actually a series of articles published in major newspapers addressing questions about the Constitution and how it would work if put into place.

5. After the Constitution was ratified and the new government put into place in early 1789, Madison was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served until 1797.  During his first few months in office, Madison proposed a slate of amendments to the Constitution which became the Bill of Rights.

6. Madison did not marry until the mid-1790's, when he was 43 years old.  His wife, Dolley Payne Todd, was a widow whose first husband and youngest son had died in a Yellow Fever epidemic.  James and Dolley married in 1794.  Despite the fact that Dolley was only in her early 20's at the time of the marriage, and already had given birth twice, she and James never had children.  Dolley's sister was married to a nephew of George Washington.

7. Madison briefly retired from politics at the end of Washington's second term in office, returning to oversee the affairs of his plantation.  When his friend and political colleague Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801, however, Madison returned to Washington, D.C., and became Jefferson's Secretary of State.  In that position, he was instrumental in securing the Louisiana Purchase from France and maintaining neutrality in the Napoleonic Wars that were raging in Europe.

8. Madison was the obvious choice to succeed Jefferson to the presidency in 1808.  With the old Federalist Party of Washington and Adams in ruins, Madison won easily, winning nearly 65% of the popular vote.  His presidency was marked primarily by a growing economy, unity in politics, and the War of 1812, in which Madison and his cabinet was forced to flee Washington from the invading British.  Madison's vice-presidents did not fare well: his first, George Clinton, died in office in 1812, while his second, Elbridge Gerry, died in office in 1814.

9. Madison left office in 1817 and retired to his plantation of Montpelier.  His plantation, however, was in decline and Madison suffered financial troubles for the remainder of his life.  He also became obsessed with his own legacy, going so far as to edit and modify letters, papers, and diaries from earlier in his life, worried about how future generations might view him.

10. Almost 80 years old in 1829, Madison served as a representative to a Virginia convention aimed at amending Virginia's constitution.  It would be his last official duty in politics, though he would continue to publish political papers and support certain causes.  A slave-owner his whole life, he became a supporter of the movement to provide a homeland in Africa for former slaves.  He died at age 85 in 1836, the last of the Founding Fathers.

10 Fun Facts About John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, the 6th President of the United States

1. John Quincy Adams was born in Massachusetts in 1767, the son of John and Abigail Adams.  His namesake and maternal great-grandfather was John Quincy, a colonial British politician and military officer.  Adams' middle name was pronounced "Quinzy."

2. Adams spent much of his childhood in Europe with his father, earning a degree from Leiden University, in the Netherlands, when he was only 14 years old.  After his return to the United States in the mid-1780's, he studied law at Harvard and opened a practice in Boston in 1791.  He was fluent in most of the languages of Europe.

3. Though he initially resisted the urge to follow his father into a life of public service, he reluctantly agreed to serve in several overseas diplomatic posts during the Washington administration, and following those services, he remained in politics for the rest of his life.  Under Washington, he served first as the minister to the Netherlands, and later to Portugal.  During his father's administration in the late 1790's, he served as minister to Prussia.

4. While serving in his father's administration, Adams married Louisa Catherine Johnson.  Louisa's father was an American diplomat in London, and her mother was British.  Louisa and her siblings were all born in Great Britain, making Louisa Adams the only First Lady in U.S. history who was born and raised in a foreign country.  Together they had four children; in 1848, their youngest son, Charles Francis Adams, would run for vice-president with former president Martin Van Buren on the ticket of the Free Soil Party.

5. After his father lost his re-election bid to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Adams returned from Europe and began practicing law again.  He ran for Congress in 1802 and lost.  Following this, however, the Massachusetts legislature elected him to the U.S. Senate (direct election, by popular vote, of U.S. Senators would not occur until the 17th Amendment was passed in the early 20th century).  Following his term in the Senate, Adams returned again to diplomacy, serving under James Madison as the minister to Russia and later Great Britain.

6. In 1817, Adams became Secretary of State for James Monroe, serving until 1825.  In that office, Adams was instrumental in obtaining Florida from the Spanish, establishing the modern border between Canada and the United States (in the Treaty of 1818), and authoring the influential Monroe Doctrine, which asserted U.S. interests in North and South America against European influence.

7. Adams was nominated for president in 1824, running against three other candidates in an election that is among the most controversial in U.S. history.  When the votes were counted, Andrew Jackson had the most popular votes and electoral votes, but not enough electoral votes to win the presidency (the Constitution requires the winning candidate to have a clear majority of the electoral votes).  As a result, the election was sent to the House of Representatives for a Constitutionally-required run-off election.  Speaker of the House Henry Clay was an opponent of Andrew Jackson and used his influence to sway the House to support Adams.  They elected him on the first ballot and Adams immediately rewarded Clay by making him the new Secretary of State.

8. Andrew Jackson was, needless to say, displeased with the result of the House run-off and accused Adams and Clay of corruption and backroom dealing.  With virtually no electoral mandate to speak of, and the enmity of Jackson's supporters in Congress, Adams' presidency was doomed almost from the start.  He served only one term before being decisively defeated in a rematch against Jackson in 1828.  The two men had become such bitter enemies that Jackson refused to pay the traditional courtesy call to Adams in the final weeks of Adams' term, and Adams did not attend Jackson's inauguration.  

9. Following his term as president, Adams became a respected elder statesman and, in 1830, was elected to the House of Representatives, serving 17 years.  He is the only U.S. president to serve in the House after his presidency.  In 1843, he had a series of photographs taken, making him the earliest-serving president to be photographed.  During his last term in Congress, he served alongside Illinois representative Abraham Lincoln, making him possibly the only man in U.S. history who personally knew George Washington and the other prominent Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln.  

10. Adams collapsed on the floor of Congress during a debate in February 1848 of an apparent stroke.  He died two days later in a room inside the Capitol building.  He was buried next to his parents in Quincy, Massachusetts. 

Notes from the Cave

This is my weekend to work, so I am off today.  I always enjoy these middle-of-the-week days off, but unfortunately they always lead to an unpleasant succession of work days; this time around, it will be Thursday through the following Friday - nine days.

Since my heart attack one month ago, I have made some pretty radical changes in my lifestyle.  Ironically, most of them are changes I have been wanting to make for a long time, but felt overwhelmed with facing.  I had tried to make headway with a few of them in recent months/years, but had never really gotten anywhere on a long-term basis.

In short (and literally overnight), I have given up caffeine, nicotine, junk food/processed foods, and virtually all meat.  I have also begun going to bed at a normal hour, rising at a normal hour in the morning, and exercising on a regular basis.

At my weigh-in last Saturday, I was down about 20 pounds from my pre-heart attack weight of 250 pounds. I haven't been in the low 230's since about the time I started radiography school in 2007.  My doctor has advised me to "get below 200 pounds," so I still have a long way to go.  I haven't been below 200 pounds since college.

Me, in October 1995, age 20, weight probably 180.

A run-down of the changes I've made:

Caffeine: I have replaced coffee and all soft drinks, diet or otherwise, with Perrier.  Perrier and tap water, in fact, are pretty much all I drink, except for an occasional glass of vanilla soy milk.  I've found that Perrier is a fantastic substitute for soft drinks, mimicking the fizz, but not containing the caffeine and chemicals.

Nicotine: I had quit smoking tobacco in late December, but had replaced tobacco with e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine in a vapor mist.  Though I was no longer inhaling the carcinogens and other toxins associated with cigarette smoke, I was still ingesting and remaining addicted to nicotine, and was probably using nicotine even more heavily, because I used the e-cigarette more often than I ever smoked real cigarettes.  My cardiologist advised me that even without the cigarette smoke, the nicotine was harmful for my heart, so I gave up e-cigarettes as well.

In the case of both caffeine and nicotine, I gave both vices up cold turkey.  Strangely, with the exception of a brief period of severe irritability about 48 hours after my last cigarette, I never missed smoking and have never had even a moment of temptation to indulge.  I did crave a cold can of Coke almost the entire time I was in the hospital, but by the time I got home, I was over the caffeine as well.

Meat: I have always liked the idea of vegetarianism and have "flirted" with it for a few weeks at a time in the past, but I had never been able to make it stick.  I think I made it three months in 2010, and actually lost quite a bit of weight, but then I ended up falling off the wagon.  In any case, I have not gone to total vegetarianism in the wake of my heart attack, but what I like to call "virtual vegetarianism."  I am eating heart-healthy fish twice a week, and on a couple of occasions over the last month I have eaten small portions of grilled chicken, but I have given up pork and beef completely.  I'm not saying I'll never eat pork or beef again, but my intention is to make it a very rare indulgence.  There is simply too much sodium, saturated fat, calories, and cholesterol in most red meat products.

Junk food/processed food: Anyone who knows me knows that I ate a lot of crap in the past.  Not just unhealthy foods, but large quantities of them.  I was, in fact, pretty much a binge eater.  Pizza, fast food, chips, ice cream, cookies, sugary soft drinks, microwave snacks - these were all regular, staple foods for me.  In fact, many of them had become (without me even quite realizing it) comfort foods.  I especially enjoyed coming home from work in the late evenings, stopping for 12 dollars' worth of Taco Bell, or fixing myself three cheese covered, frozen burritos at home with a side of half-a-box of Cheez-Its, pounding away a few thousand calories, washing it down with a Mt. Dew, and topping it off with four or five cigarettes on the porch.  Obviously I can't do that anymore if I want to stay healthy and alive.

Giving these things up was, and continues to be, significantly more difficult than quitting smoking.

I can't say that I have completely and totally given up all junk food all the time, but - like meat - I have made it something that I only eat in small portions on infrequent occasions.  For instance, I might eat some Cheez-Its or pretzels when I come home from work.  But for the most part, I either eat no junk food or processed food at all, or I buy "healthy" junk food.  For instance, I have been buying low fat, low sodium popcorn or kettle chips, whole grain cookies from the organic aisle, or sweet potato and radish chips.  A few weeks ago, when the family went to LaRosa's, I ordered the "skinny" pizza with veggie toppings - only 100 calories per slice or something.

What it boils down to is that I have started making fruits and vegetables, either eaten whole or juiced/blended, as well as whole grains and nuts, the main substance of my daily diet.

I've been using this Breville juicer to increase my daily intake of fruits and vegetables.  The resulting juice is pretty good as long as you use enough fruit to sweeten it.  It's also very densely packed with nutrients.

I have dramatically increased my fiber intake, as well as lowering my sodium and increasing my vitamins, minerals, and heart-healthy nutrients.  I have lowered my overall caloric intake, and (with the exception of heart-healthy fish) I have made meat and junk food a very rare indulgence.  Some things - like fast food, processed baked goods (think of Little Debbie or Hostess), soft drinks, ice cream, and most chip brands - I have given up entirely.  I have also stopped my very, very bad habit of not eating breakfast or lunch, and then eating very large dinners and very large late-night meals.  I now eat three square meals with healthy snacks in between.

Exercise: I had been trying to turn over a new leaf on the exercise front since the beginning of the year; hence, the reason I was biking just before I had my heart attack.  Since the heart attack, I have not yet had the courage to get back on my bike, but I have resumed doing push-ups and sit-ups, which I had been doing earlier in the year, and I have also started walking on a daily basis.  I have been doing brisk, 45-minute walks through my very hilly neighborhood.  I have been thinking about the possibility of buying a treadmill and free weights as well, or perhaps joining the gym at the hospital where I work.

Sleeping: As with eating, anyone who knows me knows I had terrible sleep habits.  Working second shift, I routinely stayed up until 3 or 4 in the morning, then would frequently sleep sitting  on the chair in the family room, stay sleeping until noon or later, before finally getting up, taking a shower, and going to work.  On weekends or when I had the following day off, I might stay up until dawn and sleep until the afternoon.  I took naps all the time.

I now go to bed within an hour (usually less) from the time I get home in the evenings.  I set my alarm every morning for 9:00 (which gives me well more than eight hours of sleep).  I have taken maybe two naps since getting out of the hospital.  Together with the dietary changes and the exercise, this normal sleeping habit is now easy for me to do and I sleep well at night.  I haven't slept a single night on the chair or couch.

As a result of all of this - diet, exercise, and sleep - I feel better now, one month removed from a completely unexpected heart attack at age 38, than I have felt in years.  I have more energy, I feel better about myself, I feel more motivated, and I feel less stressed out.  I feel that my mood and demeanor is much more stable and less up and down.  In addition to losing weight and feeling physically and emotionally better, I have noticed that my infamously shaky hands are not nearly as shaky as they used to be.  When I was observing my hands the other night at work, even my coworkers agreed that I have not been shaky like in the past.  I don't know if this is the result of better nutrition, less stress, or better sleep - or all three - but it's a pleasant surprise because I have always been embarrassed by what my doctor had said was a "benign tremor" in my hands (not to be confused with a "benign tumor").

As I have noted before, I had started trying to change some of my bad habits back in January.  Motivated by having quit cigarettes in late December, I decided to start packing my lunch more often and to begin doing push-ups and sit-ups at home.  I fell off the wagon with the push-ups and sit-ups by mid-February, but was managing to pack my lunch at least two or three days per week up until my heart attack.  As a tool of motivation, I took three pictures of myself shirtless when I first started my work-out routine in January.  I wanted to be able to track the changes in my body.  I did lose some weight in January and February, but had gained it all back by mid-March, right before my heart attack.  The day I went biking, in fact, was my attempt to get "back on the wagon."

Anyway, I still have those "before" pictures, and maybe once I get down to my target weight in the 190's, I'll post some before and after shots.  I'll only be able to suffer the embarrassment of those "before" pictures if I have the "after" pictures to brag about.