A fellow blogger and friend (Hi, Lisa) writes about her dream journalling. I’ve done that, too. I keep a quote journal as well, and just now I was looking back through mine for a quote from Anne Lamott on grief, and instead I opened to this one, from W.H. Auden.  Seems fitting.

“We would rather be ruined than changed; We would rather die in our dread than climb the cross of the moment and let our illusions die.”

Part of what I have to grieve is the death of illusions. But, dear Lord, I fear the lack of change more than the ruin, so let’s have at the truth.

Then last weekend I found a video on YouTube of Tim Keller speaking on the subject at UC-Berkeley. followed by questions from the audience and his replies. It’s worth the 90 minutes it will take you to watch. Actually, I knit through it all. That works, too. You might want to check it out.

Too often we are satisfied with a steady diet of fluff. This is not fluff. It exercises the think muscles. But then, that’s a good thing, isn’t it? I need it — I don’t know about you.

A wise person once said, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Tim Keller does this very well. Truth and love and grace — it seems to be a package deal.

Given the fact that my husband died in December, it feels weird and yet wonderful to say that. Today for the first time in I don’t know how long, I began the day by answering “I’m fantastic!” when people asked how I was. Joy comes in the morning, even after the darkest nights of our souls.

Still, sorrow does sweep in sometimes. Today I also had to say goodby to the development associate who has graced my working days for the last eight months and who is moving on to attend seminary. Her name is Anna Ruth and I honestly don’t know what I will do without her strengths and without the light and warmth and — Anna Ruth-ness — that she’s shed abroad in our office. But the pain of goodbys is also part of being fully alive. It’s part of the deal.

So, onward.

What if Congress were not allowed to vote on an appropriations bill without first publishing a detailed list of what it would fund? I’m not talking about in the Congressional Record, or even on the back page of the classifieds. No, the American people, who after all sent those people to Congress to manage our money — what you pay in taxes is still your money — deserve a full accounting. We should be able to read, in plain English, a line-item spreadsheet of who would get what amount, for what purpose, before the vote is taken. Then we can tell our representatives and senators exactly how we feel.

Would this ever happen? Would the majority of American voters take the time to read it? I don’t know, but I’m learning to never say never. Seems like a good step to me. Oh, I know bills are hundreds if not thousands of pages long. All I want to see is the budget — who gets what, to do what.

I heard John McCain say in Friday’s debate that he would not sign bills with earmarks. If Congress won’t fess up to the public, maybe the next president could say, “Well, they’ve sent me this bill. Here’s the list of who gets what. [and be comprehensive] What do you think? Would you sign it?”

They work for us. Lock up their credit cards.

He also states, “We are currently preparing students for jobs and technologies that don’t yet exist. . . in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.” I’m sure that’s true. So what are the most important things to teach them? How does this affect businesses and our economic strength?

Take a look at the video: Did You Know 2.0. Then comment here and join the discussion. What do you think?

For a long time I’ve been saying we need for normal people to actually have a chance at high office. Not someone with a personal fortune, not a media darling, not a party-line player. Sarah Palin is it, from what I hear. That alone makes my day.

Then I hear that she is into reform, that she’s challenged programs of both major parties, that she and her husband have 5 children, the youngest with Down Syndrome, that she takes the baby to the office with her when necessary. She’s a gutsy woman, old enough to know her own strength and not afraid to use it.

Yes, I need to learn more about her, but so far I’m pumped. No matter how the election turns out, I think the country needs Gov. Palin’s freshness on the scene.

The next few months will be quite a ride.

Gone are the days of suspense as we watched the delegates’ rollcall vote. The whole world already knows that Barack Obama and John McCain will vie for the presidency. It looks like Obama may even announce his running mate before the convention. We used to learn that the night after the president was nominated. So what’s the convention all about? The party platform? Obama’s been telling us where he stands on the issues for a whole year already. And now he needs a special venue for his acceptance speech to rehearse it all again. Can’t do it inside. Needs a football stadium. Needs a second set up, second security plan, second everything.

Not that the Republicans will be lowkey, mind you. The Democrats just flash on the screen first.

Does anyone but me think all this money could be better spent where it could make a difference in people’s lives? Who does this serve? Not us. (Well, I guess it makes a difference in Denver hotel and restaurant owners’ and employees’ lives. Ruby Tuesday, for instance is catering at least part of the convention events. Quite a bonanza.)

Does anyone but me think a month or so of campaigning would give us ample time to learn all we need to know about the candidates? How about a cap on spending and time?

Nowhere is it written that it has to be done this way. The fact is, our television coverage probably warped the convention process. Eric Appelman’s article for Democracy in Action makes that point and offers more background into how conventions have changed from real decision-making bodies in the past to what we see today. He also reminds us that a lot happens behind the scenes, during the day, etc. Maybe that’s what the press should show us, then.

By the way, this is Denver’s second political party national convention of the season. The Libertarians met there back in May. Anybody hear about that one?

Here’s how it went down: It’s an HR department that has consisted of one director and one admin assistant, both full time, and one student assistant, very part-time. The new structure adds an “assistant director” (not sure of the actual title), eliminates the full-time admin assistant, keeps the student assistant, and adds a part-time person just for payroll.

I don’t know if the rationale for the restructuring is supposed to be cost-saving, but adding people doesn’t seem a way to save money to me.

A year or so ago we knew someone else who lost his job through “restructuring.” Thing is, before too long that organization decided it might need to start looking for someone new whose job description would look remarkably like the one that had been eliminated. Sigh.

This practice seems less than honest to me. Why not work up the courage to tell someone the real reason you don’t want them around any more? And say it in a tactful, helpful way. Maybe because a person can’t be let go because, well, someone else just doesn’t like you. Or because you’re just not our kind of people.

The result is that the organization looks spineless and manipulative, and the person who loses his or her job gets screwed.

Living by sight makes for a dried up existence. The most unattractive character in the movie is the totally pragmatic brother, who  thinks he is doing his sister a favor to tell her she is plain and no man will ever want her. He is a critical parent if ever there was one, even to his father. It’s ironic that his name is Noah, because in the Bible Noah believed, against all odds and popular opinion, that rain would come because God had said it would, even when no one around him believed it.

Lancaster’s character, Starbuck, talked fast to convince himself as much as anyone else that he had a gift. The rain he brought was metaphorical as well as physical, faith and hope to answer the drought of spirit.

Faith and sight. When is a dream foolish, and when it is faith? What does living by faith  look like?

The Biblical Noah lived by faith for a lot of years, acting on something very eccentric that God had told him to do. What would you have thought if your neighbor started building a huge boat, saying it was going to rain so much it would flood the earth? You’d think he’d lost his mind. But it happened.

Moses led the Israelites into the desert on the promise that God would lead and provide for all of them, the widow gave Elijah her last bit of food on the promise that he’d multiply it, Abraham believed in the promise of God that from his son would come God’s chosen people, Esther believed that her husband the king would not kill her if she went to see him uninvited — the Bible is crammed with people who did what must have looked pretty foolish and whom most observers would have called unrealistic, dreamers. But they are the examples for a life of faith.

So how can you tell if you’re acting on faith or if you’re being foolish? I don’t have all the answers to this question yet. I struggle sometimes to trust my own judgment. I don’t want to live in a fantasy land — well, from time to time maybe I do — but I don’t want to be faithless, either, and I can’t live in the arid land of the purely realistic. It’s an illusion that that’s the most responsible route.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.”

When and how do you live by faith? Faith in what?