Randy Greenwald

Two and one-half hours.

That is how long our anniversary dinner took. And we did not mind one bit.

Perhaps Barb and I are simply not used to going to nice restaurants. Perhaps really nice restaurants serve you at a slower pace. We just wouldn’t know that. We don’t go out to dinner, and when we do, it’s likely to be to Cracker Barrel, or Outback if it is a special occasion.

In and out in one hour. Satisfied.

But thanks to the generosity of our two at-home daughters (offering money and babysitting) and thanks to a discounted certificate from Restaurant.com (you should check that out), we went to the Sarasota Melting Pot.

The Melting Pot is a fondue restaurant. Little chunks of food are brought to you. You stick them on a long fork, and put them in a hot pot on your table. The appetizer (cheese) and dessert (chocolate) is a dipping exercise. The main course involves actually cooking the meat in the pot.

Because of the process, dinner here takes quite a bit longer than a normal night out. And that is exactly what we want when on an anniversary date.

Thanks H and J!

If the government is going to help people who have lost jobs in aged or transitioning industries get back to work, how should they do so? This post suggests that the default answer is retraining. Makes sense on the surface. After all, if a metal worker can no longer work as a metal worker because all the metal worker jobs are gone, then we can help him by teaching him how to do something else. This is far better than simply shipping him a check for staying at home and doing nothing, thereby creating dependence and stealing his dignity.

The point the author makes, though, is that such training does not work. To train a parcel of workers for non-existent jobs only builds often crushed hope and does not actually solve the problem. Her suggestion is one of subsidizing companies with real work to hire and train people for real jobs. I can see problems with this as well, but it is an interesting discussion, one which Christians need to be a part of.

If you have a few seconds, watch the intro to this film clip and tell me: does Daniel Ratcliffe’s left eyebrow extend OVER his hair, or is that my imagination?

Public figures caught in the wrong normally are able to string together a few words which sound like an apology, but aren’t. To say, “I’m sorry if I let the public down” or “I’m sorry if anyone was offended” is not to take credit for an offense. To say, “I’m sorry if…” is to leave open the possibility that one did nothing offensive in the first place. Better far to say, “I’m sorry that I did this, and I ask your forgiveness for it.” That is to own it.

Frank Gehry is an architect who spoke recently at an event called the Aspen Ideas Festival. James Fallows who was in attendance at Gehry’s presentation commented publicly on Gehry’s response to a questioner, a response which seemed to be unseemly.

Gehry’s response to Fallows is printed here, and concludes with the line “I apologize for offending you.”

What do you think? Does this make the cut? Does it reflect the sense of humility and ‘owning wrong’ which is part and parcel of true sorrow for wrong?

If so, learn from it, and with your spouse, children, family, and friends, go and do likewise.