Make your own Wiki

Here is a pretty cool thing.

My online course for Fall term includes a course Wiki (sort of a group document where all can contribute and edit stuff). As an intro on how Wikis work, the instructor included a link to a YouTube video which is really well done. And at the end of the clip he gives some websites where you can host a wiki of your own. So like if you were planning a surprise party for someone, you could do it on a wiki, and collaborate from a distance, but in private so the person to be partied over would never know. Nice.

The same guy does one for Twitter, too. Simple. Clever.

Birthday Week

Not mine, you understand; that comes in another month. Nonetheless, this week was still packed with fun stuff to do, and all ostensibly birthday-related. Pretty thin excuse on my part to do for someone else's birthday a bunch of things which I also like, but it seemed to be well received, so... :)

Let's see, to start it was dinner at my favor... oops, I mean the birthday girl's favorite local restaurant,



complete with French cafe' music. Aww... how nice.



Later in the week, it was time to host some single college students for dinner again. A new academic year is officially launched with dinner! For my contribution, I converted rutabagas



to a suitable lower-carb starch dish (via an apricot glaze),



and farmers' market cucumbers to refrigerator pickles. Both went well with the pot roast, I think. Choice of blackberry sorbet (mine) and apple crisp (not mine) for dessert.



The next night, just to mix things up, dinner at a local biker bar.





followed by a show at the club next door.



We sat next to the merch table, where the warm-up acts



hawked their wares and schmoozed with fans.



And in fact, it was really one of the warm-up acts that I came to see: Kate Havnevik, an indie singer/songwriter type from Norway, who's been around a while. We chatted after her set and she asked for recommendations for venues when she comes back in November as part of her own tour. I definitely had a couple of ideas for her. :)



But while the headliner, Owl City, had the biggest following (and for good reason. They were great), the other opener, Unicorn Kid, had the most traffic at the merch table. All of 19 or so, from Scotland, he wore a ridiculous looking lion hat with ear flaps but made pretty powerful electronic music. Teenage girls swarmed the table, buying t-shirts that he autographed, and getting their picture taken with his arm around them, after which much giggling and shrieking ensued.

Great show all around, though. Even though the average age of the crowd was barely 20, it was really good music. I think we might be in one of those cultural periods like right after WWII where multiple generations can enjoy a lot of what's currently popular in music.



The next morning after church, a local custom was on the menu:

Booya!

It's not just an expression, apparently. It's a food item. And a fund-raiser. And tasty, besides. :)

I guess it falls under the category of "mystery meat" (or rather, stew). When they make it, they toss whatever they have on hand for meat and veggies into these enormous kettles,



slow-cook it overnight, dish it up and sell it until it's gone. People come with pots and buckets from home and fill them up. Crazy.



The name is a generations-long bastardization of "bouillon" from the days of French trappers, they tell me, and this is a fall tradition around here. Sort of like a Octoberfest chili feed for Norwegians.



Then, after filling up on booya, it was off to the Metrodome for the VIkings home opener!



For weeks around here it's been all things Favre.



They even have car washes promoting number 4.



And in the stadium, there were Favre jerseys in several different colors, so I didn't feel out of place in my green & gold version. The 49er fans in evidence were grateful to see another "foreign" color being worn. At least one drunken guy waiting in line in the bathroom said so. :)

And, my goodness, there are are lot of jerseys being worn just in general. I don't think I've seen so much nylon mesh in one place.



Nor so much purple, either. Gave the stadium a purple tinge.








It was weird. After so many years as a Packer fan, I felt like a paratrooper dropped behind enemy lines, where everyone wore different uniforms than mine, and spoke a different (fan) language.

They actually have a fight song. A pro team with a fight song!?!?
V-I-K-I-N-G-S! SKOL, VIKINGS, LET'S GO! Aww, it's so cute. It would be adorable if it wasn't so... high school. Or grade school. Or.. preschool, I guess.



When the Vikings score, fireworks come out of the goal posts, and people run around the stadium with flags.



Then they sing their silly song again.



Even the beer is different. Grain Belt Premium. Which they call "primo". And I have to say... it's good. :) Skol, Vikings!

Subsidiarity

Much has been said and written lately on the subject of health care reform (or as the Democrats are reframing it: health insurance reform). The Catholic Church has not been silent on the matter, either. And with good reason: there are over 600 Catholic hospitals around the country who deliver health care, with nearly 93 million outpatient visits a year. They have a vested interest in the outcome.

A couple of articles in this week's edition of the local archdiocese newspaper raised good points. I'll start with a quote from the archbishop's weekly column:

I realized that I did not mention another essential Catholic principle that should have been included in my last column: subsidiarity, which posits that health care ought to be determined, administered and coordinated at the lowest level of society whenever possible.

In other words, those intermediary communities and associations that exist between the federal government and the individual must be strengthened and given greater control over policies and practices rather than being given less and less control.

To usurp this 'hierarchy of communities' is terribly damaging in the long run, both to society as a whole and the individual citizen (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1883, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, No. 185 ff).

Two quotes from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are instructive in this regard:

Pope John Paul II has written:

"By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending" (Pope John Paul II, “Centesimus Annus,” No. 48).

Pope Benedict writes:

"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person — every person — needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need . . . . In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) — a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human" (Pope Benedict XVI, “Deus Caritas Est,” No. 28).

To neglect the principle of subsidiarity inevitably leads to the excessive centralization of human services, which leads to higher costs, less personal responsibility for the individual and a lower quality of care.

They published what I think is a really helpful comparison document on the various proposals that are being debated in congress, annotated with the opinions of the Catholic Church, which are shaped by the US Conference of Bishops, who lay out eight criteria for health care reform, including respect for life from conception to natural death, priority concern for the poor, cost restraint, pursuing the common good while preserving pluralism, and universal access for every person living in the United States.

And, as usual, the Catholic Church's positions are neither liberal nor conservative. They often offend both sides equally. :) In fact, an editorial in this same newspaper tried to make the point that we need both viewpoints in the church, liberal and conservative.

But a reply posted at the bottom of the article made the point that no, we don't need both conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics... we just need folks who really ARE Catholic, and put their faith above their ideology.

I don't think that happens very often.

Populists vs Progressives

David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, has written another great little piece that gets at something I've been thinking about for a while. During my teens and twenties, race was a big deal in this country, and how you approached the topic in great measure revealed your ideology. It was one of several cultural divides along which the country broke, incl. religion & the role of government.

Now religion and race are not the sentinel issues they once were. We may still be a religious people (perhaps post-Christian in practice), but we clearly have a clearly secular state (albeit one informed by our Christian past). We also are no longer an explicitly segregated nation (though we still have ethnic neighborhoods). We have a great deal more racial/gender equality and are more diverse than ever.

But the role of government is still a sentinel issue, a polarizing divide. Ideology has become more & more divisive even as we have begun to abandon and work past the other divisive issues of a prior generation.

Brooks suggests, in his column, that the divide is between populists and progressives, between decentralization and centralization, between autonomy and collectivism. He discounts the old labels of "right wing / conservative" and 'left wing / liberal". I'm not sure I buy the argument completely, but I think he may be on to something.

Pleasure, Happiness and Joy

are not synonyms.

They are distinct, although they can overlap.

Pleasure, sustained over time without serious disappointment, can lead to Happiness, so long as Pleasure is not of a destructive type (such as addiction or promiscuity). Happiness, similarly sustained, can be satisfying, and can dull the longing for Joy, pushing it into the background. Joy, in turn, brings both Pleasure and Happiness, yet also leaves an ache at its passing (which it inevitably does, in this life).

Joy is not of this world. It sneaks up on us, surprises us. Joy arrives unexpectedly, caresses us until we tingle... and suddenly leaves, while we stand quivering in wonder over what brought that about and how to find it again?

But we can't. Joy... finds us. :)

C.S. Lewis, in Surprised By Joy, describes the intermittent and unpredictable experiences of Joy in his life as arrows shot at him by the Absolute. They serve as evidence of the existence of the Absolute, proofs of a world beyond our own experience. When they hit, it is with a sharp, bittersweet stab of pleasure: bringing both the complete satisfaction of a hitherto unknown desire... and an immediate, new, UNsatisfied longing for more of the same.

Even Stephen Colbert has a sign on his desk (per his recent Rolling Stone interview) that says: "Joy is the most infallible sign of the presence of God."

If we could manufacture Joy out of pleasure and happiness, we would. But it is not of this world. It is im-material.

Pleasure we CAN manufacture, repeatedly (though at a cost). Happiness is more slippery, but with wise choices (and good luck), also attainable and sustainable. Joy, however, is as elusive as a wood-nymph, but as delightful as a sudden stirring of the air on a hot, still day. And, like the spirit/breath of God, it goes where it pleases. We can see its effects, but not know where it's headed or where it came from. We cannot harness it and make it do our bidding. (John 3:8)

So Joy behaves much like the breath of God.

Well, then, maybe... hm.

Fall Coursework

This will be the first term where I am "doubling up" on classes. One of them is only a 2-credit class, the other one four. The two credit class is SP505, Foundations and Traditions. It's sort of a "getting your spiritual bearings while in Seminary" kind of class, meant to be taken in your very first term. I, of course, blew it off. :)

But now, there is nothing else in my list of required courses left to take that is also offered in the evening this Fall. Pfui. Guess I have to take this one now. Bleh. :( I wondered why it was only 2 credits, though, and still met just as often as 4-credit classes. And for the M.Div. students, it IS four credits. Hm. What's different for me? From an old syllabus, it looks like for the 2-credit version they just drop the research papers, but make you read everything and go to class. Okay... I guess.

And yet, I can't afford to take only two credits and still get done with my degree by May 2012, so.. I signed up for an on-line four credit course as well: GC505DE (DE for Distance Ed), Evangelism for Discipleship. Bleh. :( Hate that topic. But I'm stuck, gotta take it sometime, so... suck it up, mister. Might as well do it now.

Only problem is.. the reading load for both classes is 5 books. Each. Total ten, count 'em, ten books! Gaaaah... what did I do to myself?!? I am the slowest reader I know. Fast writer, but slow reader. Do you suppose I could just write some papers for SP505 instead of doing the reading and still get my two credits? Um... probably not. You'd have to know something to write about it, and that implies reading, so... pfui. Again.

Guess this will be a busy Fall. Good thing I have a lot of concerts built in to change the pace now and then. :)

The books for the hated evangelism topic actually look... good. Lots of stuff about post-modern thought and post-Christian culture. Rats. I really wanted to hate this class. Now I might have to like it.

First Fruits

In Leviticus 23, the Feast of Firstfruits was one of the cluster of Israel's 3 Spring feasts, the only one focused on the coming harvest season. It focused on the barley harvest, the first grain to ripen in Palestine. The priest would cut a sheaf of ripening barley and wave it before the LORD, thanking God in advance for the fuller harvest season to come.

Today I tasted the first fruits of my grapevines. :) Two little ripe berries, sweet and lush. Two. One for each year of the vines' age. Next year there will be much more, God willing.



So today I eat of my first fruits.. and thank God in advance for the promise of a fuller harvest to come.

L'Chaim!

Those Unreachable iGens?

Ever since the Baby Boomer generation got defined, sociologists (and the pop sociology found in the media) have had a field day trying to define, compare and contrast that generation with those on either side of it. Generation X, Generation Y (aka The Millennial Generation) have been analyzed to death (at least I think so), despite the fact that there's no solid agreement on when they begin and end.

The Boomers and their predecessors are at least a little better defined. I suppose that's the nature of the beast. It's hard to write history objectively when you're living in it. As time passes this kind of analysis will get easier.

Here's one listing, from the book "Generations" by Strauss & Howe:

Lost Generation (1883–1900)
Greatest Generation (1901–1924)
Silent Generation (1925–1942)
Baby Boomer (1943–1960)
Generation X (1961–1981)
Millennial Generation (1982–2001)
Generation Z (2001–)

But the other day I ran across a different take on the emerging generation(s) coming up behind us (or rather.. behind me, since some of my readers are young-ish). A religious studies professor wrote an article for a well-read magazine for pastors called "Leadership Journal". (The full article is here. The first link is a quick summary on a blog I routinely read.)

The author lumps together the current "emerging adults" under one clever name: iGen, the Internet Generation. He considers it bound by people currently 18-30, which would imply birth years of roughly 1980 through 1992. While the name he coins suggests that members of this generation did not know a world without the internet, I think he is mixing his metaphors.

Internet usage didn't take off until 1998 at the earliest. Witness the creation of ARIN, the clearinghouse for IP addresses in March of that year, and Amazon.com's IPO one year earlier. So surely, someone born in, oh say.. 1982.. remembers the world before the internet. How could you be 16 in 1998 and not be aware that society was beginning to connect digitally in a whole new way?

If "never knowing a web-less world" was the criteria that defined a generation's starting point, you'd have to say that a Kindergartener in 1998 would be the leading edge of that generation. So, I'd say the iGens are really those born since 1993, and would include all those presently unable to legally drink alcohol. They have truly grown up "plugged in", "wired", "connected", "online", choose your descriptor.

Everyone over 18 remembers a time when there was nothing to connect with or plug into, except your CD player. The Diamond Rio PMP300 debuted in 1998. Before that nobody had access to .mp3 files, or any other kind of digital compression. You had a Sony Walkman. That was it.

Now, I would say that "emerging adulthood" is a fair way to refer (currently) to those born between 1980 and 1992. They're between 18 and 30 now, and pretty much correspond with the first half of Gen Y. They watched the world go digital, right there in their hands.

iGens would be those in the second half of Gen Y, for whom the world always has been digital. Maybe Gen Y will be been in retrospect not a cohort at all. Perhaps Gen X should be shifted and stretched to include 1992, and let iGen define those born later.

Whatever is decided, the author of the article identifies five major characteristics of "emerging adulthood":

> They are exploring their own identities in love and work
> They are in an age of instability
> They are in a self-focused period of life
> They feel in between adolescence and adulthood, neither one nor the other
> They are driven by endless possibilities and are actively exploring them—jobs, travel, love, sex, identity, and location. This generation collects experiences more than money. While some may head off to Africa to change the world, at least as many (and probably more) head off to experience the world.

He argues that these are currently coupled with another defining characteristic of both Gen X and Gen Y: being raised in a culture of high self-esteem. Self-esteem has been the mantra from Mr. Rogers to Sesame Street to post-1970s public schools. Previous generations did not have this overarching sense of inherent self-worth. You had to earn it somehow. Self-worth was based on merit.

He says: "The typical emerging adult, if I can capture the trend in one expression, is a 'self in a castle.' That is to say, the 'self' is protected from the onslaughts of those who will attack it. I suspect that this is something unique in history. Never has a generation been more in tune with the self and more protective of the self."

He then quotes a researcher at San Diego State (who is an emerging adult herself) from her book Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—and More Miserable than Ever Before as saying: "The individual has always come first, and feeling good about yourself has always been a primary virtue. GenMe is not self-absorbed; we're self-important."

Oh. So that's what it is! :)

That book examines how this general conclusion emerges from her analysis of social trends when it comes to social etiquette, the centrality of "me," the belief that iGens can be anything they want to be, their experience with pre-marital sex, and their cynical disposition. This culture of self-esteem has also raised expectations of personal accomplishment, in some cases, so high that depression and anxiety accompany iGens like their iPods.

Well, what is the point of all this? It's this: traditional methods of evangelism (or "gospelizing" as the author puts it), which focus on sin and the need for forgiveness, fall on deaf ears with the current set of "emerging adults".

Because of their impervious sense of self-worth, they (generally speaking, with notable exceptions) do not have a clear picture of personal sin. Right & wrong, good & evil are relative and frequently fluctuating categories, rarely applied to personal behavior, especially their own.

Hence no need for forgiveness. You have to have actually done something wrong first, been found morally guilty. This idea of personal moral guilt is not something all that comprehensible to young post-moderns, unless they had it drilled into them in stern religious environments (which are disappearing fast).

They may be spiritual, but not religious - interested in the metaphysical, but without clear categories of right and wrong (even though they might wish to have them), and often are without a sense of sin & guilt. This is very consistent with postmodernism generally.

And that leads us to another topic... but... another time. :)

The One

Twelve year old Libby was an intuitive and thoughtful girl. Somehow she was aware that she was nearing the end of a quiet period of her life, aware that soon the frenzy of adolescence would fall upon her and grip her with an unknown but powerful fury. She also divined that when this came to pass, rational thought for her might be a thing of the past, so... she determined to understand a few things about what lay ahead, before the path she was walking turned slippery and treacherous (simultaneous with her own hormonally-induced loss of equilibrium.) She looked for an opportunity to talk with her grandmother alone, and when the day came, she asked:

"Gram," (as Libby always called her), "how did you know that Grandpa was 'the one'?"

"Oh, my dear girl!", Gram exclaimed, laughing a little. "Why Elizabeth, dear," (Gram always called her Elizabeth, just because she could), "He isn't 'the one'! He never has been."

Aghast, Libby stuttered: "H-he.. he's not? But... but then, who is?"

"No one, child", Gram said softly. "No one."

"Dear girl, many people, just like you, think it a lovely romantic idea that there is but 'one true love' out there for you, and if you play your cards right, or live a good life, or are lucky, or some such thing... you will surely find that person. But that idea really isn't even romantic at all! It has less to do with romanticism than it does with the 'meticulous' view of God's providence", explained Gram.

Libby frowned. "God's providence? What does that have to do with finding your 'one true love'? Does God send that person to you if you're good, and not if you're bad, or something like that?"

"Exactly!", Gram cried. "That's what people think. They think that God picks a certain someone for you to love, and if you don't find that 'special one', you'll miss out on God's plan for you... or maybe that God's making you wait (for, of course, a very good reason).

"These people worry about falling in love too soon, or even choosing to marry at all. They worry about choosing the wrong person, and then missing out on 'the one' God has planned for them, if only they had waited. So... they either wait for the lightning bolt to fall from Heaven... or just play around and never get serious. They're afraid, honey. Afraid of making a hash of it."

"But..", Libby started, "but Gram... if God hasn't chosen someone exactly right for you... then that means... oh, dear!"

"Right again, sweetheart. You get the privilege of choosing for yourself... AND with it, the responsibility to make good choices.

"You see, some people think that God has everything planned out for us, every little detail: where we are to live or go to school, what friends we should make, what career we are to choose, whom to marry, our future children, even when we'll die... and how."

"Well... isn't that so? Doesn't God know all these things?", asked Libby.

"Knowing ABOUT us, and choosing FOR us, are two very different things, dear", said Gram. "God may indeed send people across our path, cause circumstances to happen to influence us, even present us with challenges to meet and choices to make, but..." Gram paused, "... but ... I have never believed that God chose anything FOR me. No. God is there when I choose, guiding me, helping me know right from wrong, better from best, and 'good enough' from perfect. But I'm still the one who chooses."

"What if you choose badly?"

"Then I have consequences, don't I?"

"Yes." Libby thought a while. "I think I would rather have God choose."

"But if God did choose for you, dear... what if you didn't like God's choice? Many people are angry at God because they think that God has chosen a life for them that they never wanted.

"Really, though, it was their own choices that brought them the life they have. They're angry at God for what were actually their own choices. Not very fair of them, is it?"

"No. I suppose it's easier to blame God than blame yourself, though."

"Mmhmm", said Gram, "it sure is."

"Elizabeth, suppose I wanted a dog to keep me company as I get older. Let's say I got a new puppy, and trained him, fed him, loved him. And then one day a couple of years later I saw another puppy that was soooo much cuter, and maybe was a better size for me, or had a better personality, or didn't shed as much. Suppose I said 'that's the right puppy for me! That's the one God really meant for me to have, if I had only waited!' What if I then got rid of the first puppy... in order to have the nicer one. Would that be right?"

"No! Not at all!", said Libby animatedly. "It wasn't the first puppy's fault! You picked him, and you should keep him! It wouldn't be right to get rid of him and just get a new dog, because you think the new one looks better or is nicer. You can't say it's the puppy God wants for you, when you already have one to take care of... one you picked!"

"But some people do that, Elizabeth. They get lonely and choose a man or woman to keep them company for a while, and then leave them when they find one that seems better. And they say it's because they finally found 'the one' they were meant to have", said Gram.

"Oh. I see", Libby said, puzzling over this a bit. "So... if God really has only ONE person out there for us, we really must WAIT to choose until we actually find them. Or else it's not fair to all the others we loved that came along first. All it does is hurt them when we leave them for someone else."

"But then, if it really is OUR decision, and there isn't 'one true love' just waiting out there for us... then we can choose whoever we want, whenever we find someone nice!" Libby smiled at this. Then she thought, frowned, and asked: "But then we have to stick with that choice, right? And not blame God if it doesn't work out?"

"Right, dear", Gram said gently. "That's right. We can choose whomever we want, whenever we want, but we must choose wisely... because when we choose... we must keep. That's the right thing."

Libby nodded.

"And by the way, Elizabeth... your Grandpa? He was one of the very best choices I've ever made."

Libby grinned, and hugged her Gram.

(Gram was no Calvinist, no sir; a free-will theist was that old girl.)

U2 delivers!

Wow. What a spectacle! I've never seen anything like it.

For weeks, my appetite for spectacle has been whetted by pictures like these out on the web, making me wonder if the stage set is all hype, since it looks so fantastical.



Surely these pics had to be digitally enhanced. The stage looked like something from the movie "Transformers". You expect it to start walking around, crushing people.



Then this the other day from Google Earth, giving a satellite view of the stage footprint in Soldier Field.



But none of this prepared me for what I first saw upon emerging from the tunnel into the stadium. I just stood with my jaw open, gaping like a pathetic tourist. "God in heaven, what IS that thing?"



Yikes! I'm up here on the fourth deck and it's... AT EYE LEVEL! Parts of it are still above me!

Once in my actual seat it was a little less indimidating (since I was up another 32 rows - only 6 from going over the edge!), but still: it took a while before I stopped being all ga-ga over it. Chili cheese fries and beer helped. :)



Incredible is the proper word. I was truly incredulous at the sight. Shock and awe in peacetime: shock at the enormity of it, and awe of the engineering needed to design, build and transport this thing around the world and coast to coast. It takes the idea of being a "roadie" for a rock band to a whole new level, I'm guessing. :)

And the spectacle only got better as the night wore on. But before I elaborate, let me back up to "getting there", which was as much of an adventure as "being there", only not in the same way.

The tickets said "7PM". Checking online, I couldn't find any reference to when doors opened, so... figured it must be 7PM, then. So, opening act at 8, headliner at 9:30, show ends midnight, probably. Makes sense. Google Maps said 6.5 hours to the hotel in Palatine. 10AM departure it is, then. Check in, leave the hotel for the nearby train station at 5, take the 5:30 train in, arrive downtown 6:30, take a shuttle bus to Soldier Field 10 minutes away, be there by 7PM easy.



Hahahahaha. Real funny. No such luck, mister.

Between the train being delayed 45 minutes (which was good, since thanks to Google Maps not knowing East from West, we were late to the station!), and a 10-minute shuttle bus taking 45 minutes, we hit the stadium at 8:20 only to find out that doors had opened at 5, and we completely missed Snow Patrol, the opening act! :( Waaaaah. Oh well, guess I'll be forced to go see them when they're here in town. Go ahead, twist my arm. :)

Still, the train ride was cool. The Metra trains are all brushed aluminum (or steel... who can tell?) inside and out,



and have an upper and lower deck. They're pretty slick.



Definitely got a feel for the commuter experience. And for the first time I could remember, I actually could read on a moving train without getting seasick. Hm. Maybe I'm growing out of it, and can do that Alaska cruise after all.

So, as the scenery zipped along..



and different parts of the city swept by...




Eventually we reached the end of the line.



Later, on the way back, the passengers thinned out and what few remained were dozing off or talking in quiet pairs. All was quiet and it felt like one of those scenes in a foreign film where the lead character is on a train rolling to some as yet undetermined destination, and is lost in his/her thoughts, no one knowing or caring at all. Indie music is playing in the background as the character is thinking about everything that might have been, and of course the camera is focused not on the face directly, but only on a reflection in the glass, face turned away, eyes looking vacantly out the window, as Greg Laswell's "Days Go On" soundtracks the mood...



(sigh) Back to reality. :) Like Solider Field! (and that classic facade.)



After finding our seats (which were almost in high earth orbit), and finding ourselves with 20 minutes before U2 would appear, it was time for snacks. :) Brats, beer, chili cheese fries... after all, the venue was a football stadium! And just as we finished up, out they strode, and the place erupted, and rocked non-stop for 2 hours.



The moods in the stadium ranged from intimate (dark stage with cell phones the only lighting),



to explosive,



and everything in between. The stage was incredibly versatile and reflected the moods perfectly. Here are some of them:









This review captures the quality of the music and the experience. Extraordinary. I doubt very much that I'll see anything like it again in this life. Only in the next. ;)