Sunday, August 26, 2012

Neil Armstrong - One Small Step for [a] Man


 
August 25, 2012 (August 26 in the Philippines)--Today, Neil A. Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon, passed away. He was 82 years old.

I grew up in the latter part of the Space Age. Just as the big thing now in the Information Age are computers and the Internet, the big thing back then is outer space and space flight. Science fiction reflected this zeitgeist: television programs like Star Trek and movies like Star Wars. My brother and I used to watch reruns of Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) in the 80's; as well as the Star Trek movies (The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, In Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, and The Final Frontier). Then in the 90's, we became enthusiasts of Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) as well as its feature films (Generations, First Contact, Insurrection--we did not see Nemesis). We also became a fan of Star Wars, both the original trilogy (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi) and the prequel trilogy (The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith).

I wish we had this when I was a kid. Photo courtesy of the Lego Wiki.

When I was growing up, I had a lot of books on outer space and space flight. My brother and I built toy spaceships out of Lego. I remember that I used to have a poster of the Solar System by my bed. I would buy National Geographic magazines that featured space missions--I became a fan of the Space Shuttle. I would read about American and Soviet space flights, manned and unmanned. By the third grade, I wanted to be an astronaut. Yes, that's how big a nerd I am.


Obviously, I still wasn't around when the Apollo 11 astronauts went to the moon in July 1969. My mother said that that year she just graduated from college and she was at her first job when she listened to the moon landing over the radio. (This was also the same month and year went Gloria Diaz won the Miss Universe 1969 pageant.) But my brother and I was able to watch it on television during an anniversary of the mission. I also remember reading about the Apollo 11 mission on Reader's Digest: Buzz Aldrin had Communion on the moon; and when they broke the switch that arms the ascent engine of the Lunar Module, they used a fountain pen to push the switch.

I once bought a book entitled Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to Earth by Andrew Smith (HarperCollins, 2005). When I heard of the death of Neil Armstrong, I immediately took out the book and read the chapter on the first man on the moon. It tells of how the Soviets beat the US into space by launching Sputnik I. Thus, President Dwight D. Eisenhower converted a then-obscure government agency into NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Then President John F. Kennedy declared that before the 60's was out, NASA will have placed a man on the moon and returned him safely back to Earth. Thus, the Space Race, a manifestation of the Cold War, was on.

The book portrays Armstrong as a reserved, tight-lipped, but very intelligent person. It relates of how he grew up in Wapakoneta, Ohio; of how joined the US Navy and flew combat missions in the Korean War; of how he joined NASA on the second cadre of astronauts; of how he flew the supersonic X-15 planes, which were launched from under the wings of B-52 bombers; of how he went up on the Gemini 8 mission with David Scott, where they demonstrated how a spacecraft can dock with another vehicle in space; and of how he was providentially chosen to be the commander of the first mission that would land man on another celestial body. It also tells of after returning to Earth, he became a college professor, teaching aeronautics engineering at the University of Cincinatti. (How would you like to have a professor who was a spaceman?) It also tells of a rare appearance of the great man at a reunion dinner where the author was able to have a word with him.
The Space Shuttle Atlantis being welcomed home on its final mission. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

When Neil Armstrong died, I was saddened; not just because of the loss of a great man, but because of the seeming apathy about space in general. Nobody seems to care about space anymore. Perhaps because the space program is seen as a superfluous, frivolous, and expensive enterprise. When the Space Shuttle was retired, nobody gave a hoot. Maybe people thought, with all of the problems here on Earth, why should we throw time, people, and money to outer space?


In the movie Star Trek: First Contact, an evil race of alien cyborgs called the Borg travels back in time (from the 24th century) to 21st century Earth, just after the Third World War. Their mission: to keep Zefran Cochrane (James Cromwell), the inventor of warp drive (an engine that enables spaceships to travel faster than light) from making his historic space flight, which paved the way for contact with the Vulcans--an event called First Contact. It is up for the crew of the Enterprise-E, led by Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Steward) to stop the Borg and to ensure First Contact would happen. In one part of the movie, Lily Sloane, an assistant of Cochrane, had to be taken up to the Enterprise for medical treatment. She asked the captain how much money did it take to construct such a huge starship. Captain Picard answers:

"The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century... The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."

Perhaps it's time for humankind to look to the heavens once more.

Requiescat in pace, Neil A. Armstrong. I'll be honoring your memory by watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon (which features the real  Buzz Aldrin; and has the Apollo astronauts secretly explore a lost Autobot spaceship--really cool) and Star Trek: First Contact.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Kodak 66x 'Instamatic' Camera

One of the reasons I started a blog is so that I could post reviews on one of my favorite things: gadgets. For my first tech review, I feature ‘vintage tech’: my late father’s Kodak 66x ‘Instamatic’ Camera.

Specs:
- Produced between 1973-1977
- Lens : f/11
- Shutter 1/60
- Film type : 126 cartridge
- Picture size - 28mm x 28mm
 
This was prompted when one of my former students, Kimberly Daco, posted a picture of herself wearing retro clothing. But the big nerd that I am, I noticed what was hanging on her neck: a vintage camera.


 Photo courtesy of Kim Daco.
Kim, who is studying Mass Communication, told me that she and her classmates rented a manual camera for their photography course. I suddenly remembered the camera we would use to take pictures when I was small. After a short search, I found, still in its original leather case, my father’s old camera.



My father’s old camera is the Kodak 66x ‘Instamatic’ Camera. According to my research on the Interwebz, this model was made from 1973 to 1977. (According to my mother, my father bought this camera around the time my older brother was a little; so it fits the time frame.) The Instamatic series was a line of affordable cameras made by Kodak.

Here is the article from Wikipedia:



Here is a blog entry of a guy who is selling his Kodak 66x:

 


Our camera was made of lightweight but durable black plastic. On top was a slot where disposable flashbulbs were inserted. I remember when I was little when Papa would buy a box of flashbulbs. Each bulb had four sides. When a picture was shot, the slot would rotate the bulb for the next picture. How’s that for high tech!



On the top right of the back of the camera, was a plastic lever. This advanced the film and cocked the shutter. I tried it a few times, and to my surprise, the camera is still working!



I posted pictures of my father’s camera on the Internet and I was surprised that so many people liked it! Another former student, Nadine Destura, commented, perhaps with a hint of envy, that she finds vintage tech cool. Miss Jilliann Pagcaliwagan, a nurse who took care of my father during his last days, relates that one time she and my mother had a conversation about this camera. Of course, Kim was excited about this camera and asked if it still worked. It still works!



I really wanted to buy a roll of film and go around the campus snapping pictures on my father’s old camera. But my heart sank when I find out that the film size for this camera is 126, (not 135 as I expected). According to my research, this type of film ceased production in 2008 (that recent!) and many film developers would no longer process the film. Too bad!

Cameras were made to capture fleeting moments so that they would become permanent memories. As Optimus Prime said in the closing lines of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, “It is through these memories, we live on.” So here a few pictures of me and my late Papa, when I was little. (I posted one of these to commemorate my father on Father’s  Day.) 
 



  It is through these memories, he lives on.


To Whom Shall We Go?

John 6:59-69
13th Sunday after Pentecost (Kingdomtide) B, 2012


We are about to finish a series on Jesus' "Bread of Life" discourse in John 6. How does this all end?

I. "This is a hard saying" (v. 60)

The people were saying, "This is a hard saying; who can accept it?" (Literally, "hard saying" is Σκληρός...λόγος sklēros logos, a 'hard [or difficult] word' and "accept" is ακουειν, akouein, "hear".) The teaching of Jesus that he is "the Bread of Life" is a "hard word" or a "difficult teaching". For many people, Christian teaching is a "hard teaching". Now it is not because Christian doctrine is impossibly hard to understand; it's because people choose not to believe it. "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it" (John 1:5)

Yes, there are points of Christian doctrine which are hard to understand. For one, there are doctrines which are mysteries, like the mystery of the Holy Trinity. We do need to fully "explain away" these mysteries or "dumb down" Christian doctrine. A religion without mystery is a religion without wonder. But then there are other Christian teachings which are difficult to accept because they run against what we want. That is why we find it difficult to follow Jesus' teaching to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, and bless those who curse us. For us Protestants, it may be difficult to accept that we need to partake of Communion every Sunday because it ruins our style!

Now, to us, is the teaching of Jesus that he is "the Bread of Life" difficult to understand or difficult to accept? Do we accept that we need to frequently partake his Body and Blood so that we can abide in him, and he with us (6:56)?

There are two ways to accept a "hard teaching": to reject it or to believe in it.

II. Does this offend you? (v. 61)

Jesus said, "Does this offend you?" The word "offend" here is σκανδαλίζω skandalidzō, literally meaning, 'to put a stumbling-block' or 'to cause to stumble'. Are we "scandalized" or "offended" by the teachings of Jesus? The teachings of Jesus are offensive because they run counter to our beliefs. Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh accounts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you, they are spirit and they are life" (v. 67). "The mind of a person (literally, a "soulish/mind-ful" [read: self-opinionated, full of one's own ideas] person) cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know it, because it is spiritually discerned" (I Corinthians 1:14).

The result is that many of his followers "turned back and no longer walked with (or followed) him" (v. 66). This has to be one of the saddest passages of Scripture. Why did they turn away from Jesus? Remember, they were looking for Jesus not because of the miracle he performed (the Feeding of the Five Thousand) but because they ate the loaves and were filled (6:26). They even wanted Jesus to give them bread everyday, just as Moses gave the Israelites manna everyday to eat in the desert (6:30-31). I can't help but thinking of those who believe in the "prosperity Gospel" who only believe because of promises of health or wealth. I can help but thinking of those who go to worship just because the music and the message entertains them. I can't help but thinking of those who use violent means but promise change in society and in the government. I can't help but thinking of those who just go to church because there is food, there are dole-outs. But when the food, the dole-outs, the fun are gone, they are also gone.

Jesus asked his disciples, and he asks us too: "Do you want to leave too?" (v. 67)

III. To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life (v. 68)

Simon Peter, in a moment of inspiration, answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Here, we can see the importance of Scripture in the life of the Christian. We remember when Jesus had fasted for forty days and forty nights, he was tempted by Satan: Turn these stones into bread! Jesus answered, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but from every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). We do not live by bread, by material things alone; but we live by the Word of God. The Word of God is God is Spirit and life; it is the Word that gives eternal life.

But also Simon Peter said, "We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God" (v. 69). So the Christian does not concentrate on teaching alone, lest it just becomes head-knowledge. Many who call themselves "Christian" but take pride how much of the Bible they know. We must never forget the Teacher himself, who gave us his Body and Blood so that we may live. And this is why in The United Methodist Church, the church is where "the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance..." (Articles of Religion, XIII).

To whom shall we go? To Jesus, who gave us his Word and his Body and Blood that we may have eternal life.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Real Food, Real Drink, Real Life!

12th Sunday after Pentecost (Kingdomtide) B 2012
John 6:51-58


In today's Gospel, Jesus continues his discourse of he being "the Bread of Life". Verse 51 has Jesus saying that he is "the living bread which came down from heaven". (The Tagalog Magandang Balita Bible [Good News Bible] translates this as "pagkaing nagbibigay-buhay", 'food that gives life' instead of "tinapay na buháy", 'living bread'.) The word "living" here is the Greek word ζάω zaō, related to ζωή zōē, meaning 'life'. The same word used in John 10:10, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." According to Thayer, this is "life real and genuine, a life active and vigorous, devoted to God, blessed, in the portion even in this world of those who put their trust in Christ, but after the resurrection to be consummated by new accessions (among them a more perfect body), and to last for ever." And by thsis "bread", Jesus means his flesh (and, by extension, also his blood--v. 53) which he will give for "the life of world".

I. The things of this world do not give this life. (v. 53)

Jesus said that the ancestors of the Israelites ate manna in the wilderness, and yet they died (v. 58; cf. v. 48). The things of this world are not eternal; therefore they cannot give us eternal life!

II. Jesus is real food and real drink that gives real life. (vv. 54)

A. How do we eat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ (v. 52)? Here, Jesus is talking of Holy Communion, or the Eucharist (v. 53). It is through the Eucharist we eat and drink of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now, the Eucharist itself does not give eternal life, but it is Jesus himself, symbolized by the bread and cup, who gives us eternal life.

B. It is through Holy Communion that Jesus "abides in us", the same word that Jesus used in John 15:5 in the discourse of himself as the True Vine: "I am the vine, you are the branches: those who abide (μένω menō, 'to abide') in me, and I in him, bring forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing." This why Jesus said, "Drink this, as often (oσάκις hosakis, a "multiple adverb") as you do this, in remembrance of me."

Addendum: Here is one of the sermons of John Wesley himself, entitled, "The Duty of Constant Communion" from the website of the UMC General Board of Discipleship. A downloadable PDF version is available here.