Hiking Boots
Do I really need three pair of hiking boots?
The oldest pair have more memories attached to them. The park ranger my husband and I worked for at Bryce Canyon National Park told us when we first arrived there that by no means could we make it through the summer with only tennis shoes on our feet, even very good tennis shoes. We bought boots right away that day, and oh! the places we went and the things we did in our boots!
My job often involved hiking up and down somewhat steep slopes, and the bottoms of the hiking boots I acquired have lugs that clutch the terrain. Hiking in those boots gave me confidence to tackle many challenging trails, and I found myself getting in much better physical shape. I also lost some weight!
Which brings me to the second pair of boots. At some point during those ten summers out west, it became imperative that I lose quite a bit more weight because of a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes. For those of you who don’t know, there is a person who makes the rounds selling shoes that are especially good for diabetic feet. That year, in the shoes on offer, there was a pair of hiking boots that could be slipped on without the necessity of tying laces. While I was well able to lace and tie my boots, those slip-on boots looked like something I might enjoy, so I bought them. Back at Bryce, I normally wore my original boots to work, but one day, I thought I would try working in the new ones.
Some days, my job was to hike any trail I liked and to chat with visitors who were also hiking there - if they had questions about the rocks, or other trails in the park, or places to eat after their hike, or just about where I was from - stuff like that. That day, when I wore the new diabetic boots, I chose to ride the bus to the highest lookout in the park and to hike back along a path that followed the rim of the canyon down past several overlooks to a lower one. As I neared my lowest destination, there was a rocky area to traverse, and the diabetic boots started to slip across it because they don’t have the same type of lugs as the other boots. I didn’t fall, but after that, those boots stayed home.
During our final sojourn to Utah before Covid hit, my first pair of boots started to come apart! That necessitated a trip to the local Ace hardware store to buy new boots. Now you might say, “Why did you go to the hardware store for boots?” The answer is that we had found that almost anything that we needed that wasn’t food could be found there. These boots were just as wonderful as my first boots, and I wore them with joy.
So, my quandary is to decide which boots to leave in my closet and which should go to the thrift store. The first pair of boots, now repaired, are not necessary in order for me to remember those good times that I treasure, and I probably won’t be climbing any more mountains with the new hardware store boots either, though I would like to. Sigh. So, really, the only boots that need to stay are the diabetic boots for walking around our acreage.
Does anyone else have trouble letting go of objects that symbolize special places in the heart? There is probably a spiritual lesson here, but I will have to think a bit to get it figured out.
Helen Hill
Sermon Glossary
What does unpack, land the plane, campus, and a command to stand to worship have to do with a sermon? In simplest terms, they are phrases or words which describe different portions of a worship service. Each generation has their own set of buzz words. Not too long ago, "it does not take a rocket scientist," was used extensively, and who can forget the elderly lady saying, "where's the beef?'
Unpack makes me think of a suitcase and traveling. Careful attention in packing your bags avoids a lot of doom and gloom. Unpacking a passage in the Bible just means turning to the selected scripture and listening as the pastor reads, explains, and tells how it can be applied to your life. 2nd Timothy 2:15 KJV tells us to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." In essence then, we as laity, have the same command to study the Bible as does the pastor, so we should study the word not only in church but at home as well.
Landing the plane makes me think of a huge jet descending onto a runway coasting to a stop which can be the scariest part of flying. When one hears that we are about to land the plane, it just means that the service is nearing the end. Then one thinks about exiting the building and heading home.
Campus replaced church grounds in today's lingo. Memories of a college campus often come to mind when this is mentioned. A call to stand to worship just means that the song service is about to begin.
The new terminology is in tune with how the younger generation communicates. The same goals exist for the church as they did in previous generations. The worship service helps the believer to grow in sanctification as expressed in John 17:17, and it helps the unbeliever to be put under conviction by the Holy Spirit that they might accept the gospel which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Written by Jimmy Williamson
Addressing a letter to the editor
In Dana Gwin’s Star Herald letter of November 6, 2025, he deploys a flood of MAGA logorrhea to proclaim that the Emmerich newspaper chain and in particular Joseph McCain, the Star Herald publisher and editor, are “stochastic terrorists.” In the process though, using the very definition which he himself provides, Gwin aptly displays that he himself deserves the same label. He also claims an Archimedean eureka like moment in having just recently discovered the concept of stochastic terrorism itself. One wonders what bathtub he has been submerged in for two decades.
The concept of stochastic terrorism has existed since 2002 when, after 9/11 in 2001, the insurance business lost the equivalent of $59 billion dollars, at that time the greatest such loss in history. The need arose to accurately model and thus hopefully predict the locations where international terrorists might next strike. In 2002, an insurance risk analyst mathematically concluded that so many random factors had to be incorporated into any such model that he coined the term “stochastic terrorism.” Stochastic describes any process which is random or even characterized by guesswork. An example is the unpredictability or guessing in a 50-50 heads or tails coin toss (although now known scientifically to be 51-49).
Since 2002, the term stochastic terrorism did languish in use somewhat until it recently went mainstream as its definitions and applications evolved. This was fueled in part by relation to Donald Trump and probably is what belatedly brought it to the attention of MAGA minds such as Gwin. Stochastic terrorism from its origins embodied two axioms as well as an assumption. One is that in the post 9/11 world it is highly predictable that future acts of terrorism will occur. The other is that it is impossible to predict the specifics of when, where, how, or by whom such acts might occur. Both axioms now extend to international and domestic terrorism. Up until recently the label “terrorist” applied to just the person actually committing the violence, regardless of whether someone else inspired it. The burgeoning influence of social and mass media, however, changed this assessment.
Mass media reach large numbers of people, all having varying ideologies of varying intensities, ranging from rabid to nonchalant. These individuals also have different personalities, varying in degrees of mental stability, rational thinking, intelligence, common sense, and impulse control. In line with stochastic terrorism analysis, it is thus highly predictable or probable that an act of violence or terrorism will ensue, due solely to the broad numeric reach of mass media. It still remains impossible, however, to predict exactly who an individual terrorist might be, or when or where violence might be demonstrated. This accounts for the abiding fear of lone wolf actors, who predictably might appear. but be unpredictable as to who and when.
Given the reach of mass media, using stochastic terrorism models, the definition of terrorist expanded. The terrorist is no longer just the actual person committing violence. One current definition of a stochastic terrorist, although not the one articulated by Gwin, is anyone who demonizes persons in such a way that the likelihood of violence against such persons is raised and even justified. Thus anyone using mass media in an ideological way to demonize others and thus increase the probability of violence against them is now considered a “terrorist” as well. Trump’s rhetoric since entering politics around 2012 has fueled application of the label to him, a fact Gwin ignores. This label was especially applicable regarding Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021 in which he refused to accept election defeat, leading to an attack on the U.S. Capital and declarations to hang Mike Pence and shoot Nancy Pelosi. In May 2024, Mother Jones, albeit not a popular right-wing periodical stated, “If you’re not familiar with the term “stochastic terrorism,” now is a good time to bone up, for the leading Republican candidate is a stochastic terrorist.” The retaliatory vindictiveness reflected in Trump’s communications since being re-elected in 2024 has only enhanced this characterization.
Gwin’s definition of stochastic terrorism, although reading as if possibly generated by AI is this: “Stochastic Terrorism refers to the process where hostile public rhetoric, often amplified through media, increases the likelihood of ideologically motivated violence by individuals acting independently, without direct coordination. The concept highlights how certain speech can create a statistical risk of violence against targeted groups or individuals.” Was Gwin’s letter itself “hostile public rhetoric.” Yes, clearly. Did it identify and even name specific targets? Yes, clearly. Were his ideological thoughts “amplified through media?” Yes, to the extent anyone reads the Star Herald, his letter was magnified extremist MAGA. Did he increase the “likelihood of ideologically motivated violence by independently acting individuals?” Possibly so.
How did Gwin possibly motivate ideological violence. Consider an incident downtown during the last Natchez Trace festival. A young male sporting a red hat apparently “acted independently” and “without direct coordination” to violently jerk out of the hands of a young biracial boy a “Myles for Mayor” sign. He then tossed the torn up pieces back at the boy’s face before skedaddling off. It is not possible to know for certain whether mass media influenced his actions, but that is nevertheless a possibility. What if he, or someone else with an impulsively violent mentality, learns from Gwin’s letter that the Star Herald and the “entire Emmerich propaganda machine” is responsible for “two assassination attempts of President Trump and the assassination of Charlie Kirk,” known idols of young males. Furthermore, he finds from Gwin that all No Kings protesters should be considered as “irrelevant and inconsequential,” comical and pathetic, being among other things Communists, Black Supremacists, and Marxists, with a majority having serious mental issues. What if he, or someone with similar impulses, then decides to do something else with his free time besides cruise around Sonic for diversion. A stochastic terrorist employing mass media has a broad numeric reach, but inspiring only one out of many into action creates another terrorist. Factual analysis such as newspapers strive to achieve, even in editorials, is not stochastic terrorism, whether or not it makes certain people mad or angry. Ranting lies and the exaggeration of untruths such as Gwin's more accurately fit the definition.
Beverly E. Johnson
