CPT Anne M. Montgomery, USMA 2008
R.I.P. 12 December 2011, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

Give God His Breath Back

I found this video today and tweeted it already but I had to post it here too. It makes me wonder about my ability to articulate the Gospel and my faith. The best line in the video? I've changed my mind four times today but I think this is it:

Sin brings death. Give God His breath back - you owe Him.

G.O.S.P.E.L. from Humble Beast Records on Vimeo.

Arch Linux Screenshots

Reposted from the Arch Linux forums, my March 2011 screenshot set:

Clean:


Busy:

FVWM Config
Conky Config
.Xdefaults
.bashrc

FVWM with xcompmgr; background from NASA. Conky, rxvt-unicode, and the usual*.


*It's a new usual. Yes, I've run Fedora for the last eight or so years, but I've just switched to Arch Linux in the last month or so and I love every minute of it.

Strong And Weak Ties

I found an article by Malcolm Gladwell this morning about Twitter, Facebook, and Social Activism. There are a lot of interesting points, but the best one is about the value of strong ties versus weak ones. Weak ties allow us to gain vast amounts of information very quickly - via Twitter, YouTube, or other means. What they do not lead to, Gladwell writes, is "high risk activism."

Is following Christ high risk activism? I think that's a fairly Biblical characterization. Mark 10:29-30 tells us that we will recieve many persecutions as a result of sacrificing our present lives for His glory. Sacrifice and suffering persecution sound like high-risk activities to me. And I'm not just talking about those who are practicing the Gospel in dark places; I'm talking about the difficulty of really living for Christ in the tolerance of the Western world.

In the same "strong ties" vein, I saw a video from the iGNiTe series last week that covered the influence your friends have on you and vice versa.

Though the speaker doesn't come out and say it, I don't think it's your Facebook friends who are making you fat, it's the RL (Real Life) ones. The ones to whom you have strong ties.

So what's the point? The point is that we are not going to become truly Christ-like just by following @jonacuff or watching discipletip videos. Those tools have their places and the internet is a great way to find new ideas, but they're not the most effective ways to change lives. If your twitter account is @howtofollowJesusChristbecauseHeistheonlywaytoheaven, that's great; if your daily life doesn't involve real, person-to-person fellowship and sharing lives, your impact is going to be minimal and probably won't inspire people to the difficult task of taking up their cross daily. Jesus didn't make his disciples through mass communication, even though he spoke to the masses on many occaisions. When He wanted to make disciples, He picked twelve dudes and spent every possible minute with them. Fellowshipping. Teaching. Laboring together. That's our model. Nothing against mass media - it definitely has its uses - but it's not the end-all-be-all.

Evidence

Seth Godin posted an interesting thought the other day. A lot of the time, it's impossible to persuade people of anything with just a bunch of evidence, no matter how concrete. Godin writes that in marketing, we should try a different tactic:

...Evidence isn't the only marketing tactic that is effective. In fact, it's often not the best tactic. What would change his mind, what would change the mind of many people resistant to evidence is a series of eager testimonials from other tribe members who have changed their minds.

What if we applied that to our Christian witness? Maybe, instead of trying to convince people to follow Christ based on moral arguements, or through scientific and historical study, or by statistics, we should just give them our honest, earnest testimony. Guess what? That's exactly what Christ asks of us. In Mark 5:1-20, we find the story of a man whom Jesus freed from a legion of demons...

As He was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed was imploring Him that he might accompany Him. And He did not let him, but He said to him, "Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you."

That's the first time Jesus goes to the Decapolis. He's met by a demon-possessed man and a few dudes herding swine. When Jesus goes back to the Decapolis, in Mark 7:31-37, he's met by a crowd who are bringing their sick to Jesus for healing. That's when He feeds of the four thousand (Matthew 15:29-38). What a difference one man's "eager testimonial" made!

1LT L. Larkin O'Hern, USMA 2008
W.I.A. 30 December 2010, Kandahar, Afghanistan

Net Neutrality Rider

The following post is an open letter which I submitted to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison after she submitted a bill barring the FCC from protecting net neutrality.

Ma'am,

I'm concerned about a bill you submitted on December 16th, a "rider" that would 'prohibit the FCC from using any appropriated funds to adopt, implement or otherwise litigate any network neutrality based rules, protocols or standards'.

I'm concerned about this bill firstly because I am in the military, and I find it unbelievable that military spending is so often used as a vehicle for other political aims. If military spending bills are to be nothing more than a way of passing less popular legislation, that says a lot about both our legislative system's flaws and about our nation's feelings towards the military - namely, that we are just a budget item.

I'm concerned about this bill secondly because I am a computer enthusiast - I received my B.S. in Computer Science from the Military Academy. I firmly believe net neutrality is essential to free and open use of the internet, which is to say that the internet would not be the amazing communications platform that it is today without the principle of neutrality. At the beginning of the internet, America Online (AOL) tried to create a content network that would retain their customers within that network, so that customers would only use AOL's services. The colossal failure of that company stemmed directly from that effort. Consumers should be able to access whatever they want on the internet; that is, in a nutshell, the beauty of the technology. Allowing providers to restrict users to only that company's content defeats the entire purpose of the internet.

Please rethink your position on net neutrality.

Thank you for your consideration.

Any thoughts?

Oh, and here's why I think net neutrality is a good thing.

---

Update: Below is Senator Hutchison's response.

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet at home or work. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce, supporting growth in content, devices, and applications.

Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the longstanding policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.

The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for a net neutrality regime since 2006, resulting in the 2007 FCC decision to cite Comcast Corporation for a violation of the agency’s open Internet principles. Comcast appealed this decision. On April 6, 2010, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled against the FCC, holding that the authority cited by the Commission was not sufficient to justify the Commission’s actions.

Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond to this court decision by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. This proceeding could result in the application of monopoly-era phone rules to a vibrant marketplace, which will stifle innovation and investment. Congress is considering approaches to clarify FCC authority over broadband technologies that do not result in the return of out-dated rules.

Should legislation be brought for consideration before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which I am the Ranking Member, you may be certain I will keep your views in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator