Disqus - Latest Comments for danielklotz

Re: Why I Miss the Suburbs - Jen Kalaidis - The Atlantic Cities

danielklotz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 06:40:17 -0000

I was going to say the same basic thing. NYC is a metropolis more than it is a city. The city itself is too huge to be in any way "sustainable," which is why there are only a few cities so beyond human scale.

I moved out of New York seven years ago in search of affordability and a more enjoyable place to live. I wound up, to my surprise, here in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a city of sixty thousand, I have all the things Ms. Kalaidis mentions, including a yard that is large enough to be a chore to mow during the spring and summer.

City schools look worse than suburban schools when you look at the averages of student performance, but that's simply because they have larger, more diverse student bodies. The best students at a city school stack up to the best students at a school in suburbia any day.

As for affordability, here in Lancaster, as is the case in most small metro areas in the United States, the city is more affordable than the suburbs. That's why cities draw the poor like a magnet and suburbs do not.

I suggest Ms. Kalaidis do what I did -- leave New York on some weekend trips, find a small city to fall in love with, and move there.

Re: Can You Trust Anything Mashable Says

danielklotz — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:12:53 -0000

It seems to me that Mashable still has a lot of room (and a great need) for improvement in its role as a "provider of news and information." Most days, they seem to post stories on anything and everything that smells vaguely of digital media. Their reporting standards could be much higher, and their filter for newsworthiness could be much more refined. If they start publishing content they have been paid to publish, they ipso facto lose credibility as a journalistic source.

Re: Amtrak station called key to Lancaster's revival

danielklotz — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:07:14 -0000

The fundamental difference between Lancaster and Richmond isn't the infrastructure. It's the people. Compare education levels, career choices, public engagement levels. Invest in a city's people and you create new demand for infrastructure. Create new infrastructure and you create new demand for nothing. You just look shinier.

Re: Amtrak station called key to Lancaster's revival

danielklotz — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:04:37 -0000

The article has it right. "Millennials" refers to to those of us who came of age around the turn of the millennium. The term relates to when we became adults, not when we were born.

Re: Amtrak station called key to Lancaster's revival

danielklotz — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:03:06 -0000

Cities don't create the poor, they attract the poor. Better to be poor in Lancaster city than in the outskirts of Quarryville. A poor family in the city has access to a much larger network of support and many more resources than does a poor family in the country.

Re: Amtrak station called key to Lancaster's revival

danielklotz — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:00:58 -0000

I would agree if a city's success was built on infrastructure. It's not. It's built on people. If we want a better city, we should put more effort into improving education and into increasing public engagement, rather than into making the physical shell of the city look prettier.

Re: Glimpse of Fulton's future

danielklotz — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:43:41 -0000

I believe the side of the Subway building is actually somewhat diagonal, so that may be what makes the perspective look wacky.

Re: Why You Should Say 'Hello' to Strangers on the Street

danielklotz — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:25:23 -0000

Inspiring article, thank you. The question that has been bothering me for years is, what is the appropriate time/distance to acknowledge another pedestrian? I have an automatic sense of how far to stand from someone when we're talking, but I don't have that same sense for greeting others on the street. What's the culturally accepted distance? 30 feet? 5? I'd like to see a study on that. Because I don't want to stare at someone from the time they're 50 feet away until after they pass me.

Re: http://klotzy.tumblr.com/post/7577403955

danielklotz — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:12:38 -0000

This is an example comment.

Re: You Don’t Pay for Social Media Consultants

danielklotz — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:51:40 -0000

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I'll be back to read more posts, and I'm glad Jay linked to you.

I readily admit I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to talk of "social media strategy." I believe that if what a company is executing isn't a broad, intentionally designed plan, it's not a strategy. Instead, it's just busy work. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it leaves you right where you started, only poor and exhausted. It's a service to our industry whenever anyone helps organization leaders recognize what strategy really is.

Re: You Don’t Pay for Social Media Consultants

danielklotz — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:21:01 -0000

Hi Doug, I came here following a link from Jay's blog post. The first thing I notice is that he gives you a straight-up keyword-rich link and your reciprocal link is to his post with your frame around it.

The second thing I notice is that none of the options in the poll are actually strategies. They're actions, tactics, and sets of actions. Using free third-party social media tools isn't a strategy. It's a way of executing a strategy.

Likewise, paying a social media consultant isn't a strategy. You pay a social media consultant to help you develop, deploy, and adjust a strategy.

The final thing I notice is that you're spot-on that unless you have metrics that map back to your strategic objectives, you're still a n00b, and you need the expert guidance of a qualified Internet marketing consultant. Props for saying so.

Re: The Shame of College Sports - Magazine - The Atlantic

danielklotz — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:20:49 -0000

It should also be noted that even in an unpaid internship, workers compensation regulations apply. That's clearly not the case with college athletics.

Re: The “New” Flowtown

danielklotz — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:03:14 -0000

Thanks, Dan, but no need. You already sent me a beta invite, which is what prompted my praise. Again, props on this.

Re: The “New” Flowtown

danielklotz — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:45:46 -0000

I absolutely love this. I've been saying for a long time that contests aren't social. Giving gifts, often out of the blue, to loyal fans, is a much better way to strengthen real relationships. The new Flowtown makes doing that SO easy. Can't wait to start trying it with clients! Thanks!

Re: Facebook Apps’ New Access to Contact Information Concerns Security Experts

danielklotz — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:32:07 -0000

I completely agree that Facebook users need to be given granular control of app permissions.

Re: Wikipedia Celebrates 10 Years, But Will It Survive Another Decade?

danielklotz — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:13:54 -0000

Did this post really need the juvenile, sensationalized headline?

Re: Episode 17: Summer Sucks

danielklotz — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:26:12 -0000

"A movie is a sermon with pictures." -Mark Driscoll (spoken adamantly)

And there you have it. Driscoll doesn't understand art. That's OK, he's got plenty of company in the American church.

Re: Episode 16: The Rock That Makes Us Roll

danielklotz — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:13:40 -0000

Justin, your reply to my message in this episode was great. Thank you. You spoke my language, and that allows me to understand your open questions so much better. Thank you for taking the trouble to do that. It's fantastic because, while speaking in terms I'm comfortable and familiar with, you reached a level I haven't. Your questions are really good, and genuine, and completely reasonable, and I don't know the answers to them. That's awesome. Instead of putting me on the defensive, it encourages me to learn and discover more about my faith, and to deal with these big questions in a positive way, rather than in a setting where I'm trying to learn just so I can hold up my side of a debate.

My "cornerstone" albums, by year in which I think I discovered them:

1987 - White Heart, "Don't Wait for the Movie"
1989 - Steven Curtis Chapman, "More to This Life"
1994 - Led Zeppelin, "IV"/Zoso - discovered awesomeness
1995 - Pearl Jam, "Vs." - fell in love with grunge
1996 - Pearl Jam, "No Code" - saw the emptiness of grunge
1998 - U2, "The Joshua Tree"
1999 - Counting Crows, "This Desert Life" - poetry and music merged for me
2002 - Bruce Springsteen, "The Rising" - music capable of speaking to a post-9/11 world
2004 - Bob Dylan, "The Basement Tapes" - "Blind Willie McTell" shows me that there is awesome music that doesn't see the light of day
2006 - Nas, "Illmatic"- I discover that hip-hop can be brilliant
2010 - Sufjan Stevens, "All Delighted People" - it's possible to push beyond traditional song forms and still be a blast to listen to

Re: Episode 16: The Rock That Makes Us Roll

danielklotz — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:48:20 -0000

Chris, I agree it's time to end the discussion on worship theology for now. I'm sure they would have played my audio in episode if I had gotten it to them in time, so I'll take the blame for stretching out the conversion. Justin and Stephen, thanks for inviting me to offer the response I did, and for playing and commenting on it.

Re: Episode 15: When Facebook Attacks

danielklotz — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:24:40 -0000

Best closing ever.

Re: Episode 14: Dear Ted Haggard

danielklotz — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:19:24 -0000

"I hate having a beeoid! It hoits! My beeoid hoits!"

Thanks for the recommendation of the Zach Galafalkdjalkjvaies show. Amanda and I were dying. He makes me want to be an older, shorter, fatter version of myself so I can imitate his humor.

Re: Episode 13: Whiskey Roundtable 1, War Ships

danielklotz — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 20:13:46 -0000

Justin, you write: "What hermeneutic leads you to believe that a fallen mankind could possibly know what brings God glory apart from Scripture and furthermore that they have any sort of right to corporately worship God in that manner?"

That gets right to the heart of that I'm trying to say, so this is good. I don't believe any of those things. I am with you in my belief that a fallen humankind (there's my gender-inclusive ELCA language coming out) cannot know what brings God glory apart from what has been revealed in scripture, and I believe that it is not proper for us to corporately worship God apart from that.

And yet I don't hold to the regulative principle of worship.

And there you have it.

Beyond this, I'm not going to be much help. I see that we have a genuine disagreement, and that's totally cool. "Staying within the bounds of scripture" means different things in your tradition than it does within mine. I've definitely learned a lot from this discussion, and I appreciate it.

I'm inadequate to explain my tradition any further on this particular topic. If you're ever interested in continuing to hear the side of the story that I've feebly tried to present, you'll need to read the writings of people more educated and intelligent than me, who believe that corporate worship does not need to be regulative to be biblical. Those writings exist. It seems to be a centuries-long discussion.

Stephen, I'm definitely interested to hear the new episode! I can certainly tell that you have understanding that exceeds your ability to articulate it. I tend to be a bit of the opposite, which is a fault--I have the ability to articulate more than I understand! I respect where you are right now, and there's definitely no need to talk in theological terms in order to talk about your faith and your journey closer to Christ. I hope you never stop talking about that.

Re: Episode 13: Whiskey Roundtable 1, War Ships

danielklotz — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:16:41 -0000

Thanks for this discussion, guys. Justin and Stephen, I'm going to take you up on your offer to record a short bit of audio trying to explain my main point. I'll make sure you have that before you record episode 16 (I hope).

In the meantime, maybe this little bit will help. Stephen writes (above), "regulative, a word which only says your worship should be bible based." I don't think that's correct. To quote Matthew McMahon, "Simply the Regulative Principle States this: True worship is only commanded by God; false worship is anything not [explicitly] commanded."

Lutherans, like Presbyterians, believe in "sola scriptura." We, like you, don't believe anything belongs in corporate worship that is not clearly grounded in the Bible. It's just that we read the Bible a bit differently. We believe that our worship is Bible-based and simultaneously non-Regulative. (Here is one example of someone who argues rather coherently that worship can be Biblical without being Regulative.)

My main point is NOT, "It's not so black and white." I'm saying that it's kind of mean to paint yourselves white and all the rest of us black. You're choosing the terminology here, not us. And frankly, it hurts. To turn the tables, would you like it if we Lutherans decided (using made-up words) to declare our worship "Biblicohistorical" and EVERYONE else's worship (including Reformed, non-denominational, UCC, Charismatic) "Oppressive"?

That's what I heard you doing in this episode. It feels to me like you're calling your form of worship (which represents let's say 5% of Christian worship) "Regulative" and all other forms of worship (let's say the other 95%) "Normative." Here's the thing: We don't call our own worship "Normative." We don't have a word for it. (When we do use the word "normative," it's simply for the sake of discussion and in reaction to the term "regulative" that the Reformed tradition invented.) What we DO say is that our worship is rooted in scripture, with inspiration from tradition that has been tested against scripture. That's not true of the rest of the entire 95% that's non-Regulative.

All I'm saying is that I think "Regulative" vs. "Normative" doesn't give us the whole picture, and that those of us who are "not regulative" think it's unfair. I think what you're really talking about is simply "Regulative" vs. "non-Regulative."

You're free to believe that the Reformed tradition knows the ONE right way to read the Bible faithfully and to interpret it into a theology of worship. Just don't say that because we read and interpret the Bible differently, we've developed a theology of worship that is not anchored solely in the Bible.

It's not that your worship is biblical and ours isn't. It's that you believe your worship to be biblical in a different way than we believe our worship to be biblical.

Re: Episode 13: Whiskey Roundtable 1, War Ships

danielklotz — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:39:38 -0000

Oh, and bringing up the Divine Drama... awesome. That concept is a great addition to the discussion.

Re: Episode 13: Whiskey Roundtable 1, War Ships

danielklotz — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:38:09 -0000

Andy, thanks for your responses. I agree that it's great being able to have a conversation that explores our common ground... of which there is a lot.

In the interest of full clarity, I am in fact ELCA, and I've never had the opportunity to so much as set foot in a Missouri Synod church, so I cannot claim to represent their viewpoint much at all.

Luther definitely carried over Roman Catholic traditions, and in fact in the past few decades there has been a significant resurgence in the Lutheran church of rediscovering those traditions and bringing them into our services. Making the sign of the cross would be one good example. It's true that we put a little more stake in tradition than I understand you do. Scripture is still paramount, but we're comfortable considering tradition to be a "close second."

The reason I think regulative vs. normative is a false dichotomy is that it doesn't follow the rules of fair discourse that is so important in ecumenical discussions. I think it's imperative that for us to understand each other, we hold ourselves to the standard of articulating differing viewpoints in a way that the people who hold those viewpoints agree with.

I simply believe that there is no way to split contemporary beliefs on worship into only two main categories. Regulative vs. normative is really saying "regulative vs. all the rest," and the same is true for sola scriptura--it's "sola scriptura vs. all the rest."

In other words, to me the breakdown of "either A or B" is too simplistic. That is always going to really mean, "either A or something else." It's got to be something more like "either A or B or C or D or E" if it's to be fair and accurate (fair and balanced?).

As a final thought, both Luther and Calvin were wrong about a lot of stuff, and thoughtful Christians over time have had to correct, clarify, and amend what they said and did. On a personal level, I find that Luther has needed a lot more of that revising than Calvin has. So when I read Luther, I don't approach it with the mindset that he's going to be articulating what I believe. I read it with the mindset that he was a key inspiration that others developed into my set of beliefs. For what it's worth.