Perfect

The Results are In...

...And they are fascinating. i'm sure most, if not all of you who ever read this had time to read/participate in the semi-scientific poll on the right column of this blog that has been up for a few months now. i did take Statistics in high school, so i'm aware that it's not the most unbiased random sample, though i have quite a conglomerate of vastly different associates and many of them had friends take it whom i do not know. It'll serve our purposes.

i start the apologies here:

If you disagree that it moderately represents our country, that's fine. However, i think the conclusions largely hold true, regardless of the exact numbers. i also apologize if the following conclusions grossly misrepresent you if you took the poll or if it bothers you to realize some of things i'm about to point out. This is possibly inflammatory. The following is intended to incite discussion, not conclude it...


Now. As to be perfectly clear, i will take you through each question and the conclusions. Questions:

Should marriage be legislated by moral constraints in the US?
What is the best way to determine who should be able to marry?
Should first cousins be allowed to marry in the US?
Should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry in the US?
Should Aunts/Uncles be able to marry their blood-related nieces/nephews in the US?
Should parents be able to marry their blood-related offspring in the US?
Should men/women be able to marry more than one person in the US (polygamy)?
Should same sex marriage be legal in the US?

With the exception of question 2, each question provided the options of:

Yes
No
State Issue- In my state, Yes
State Issue- In my state, No


If you read current research on the topic, you'll find that first cousins can marry and produce healthy offspring. This is why many states allow it. Additionally, it has been argued by many that sex is not the only reason to get married, and in fact no current laws require it or monitor it. Many have argued that couples have less sex after marriage, and there are certainly people who cannot have sex due to health or handicap concerns. All of the questions were about marriage laws, and not sex laws, which maybe should be discussed later.

This brings me to my first major point: every instance in questions 3 through 8 discuss whether or not to allow the marriage of one or more persons to another. All of them are strictly moral decisions. You're welcome to argue the point, but each and every one of them, whether you believe yea or nay, in this country or your state, it's a moral judgment call.

Why so interesting? In question 1, only 38% of the people said they think marriage should be legislated by moral constraints. However, a no answer on any of the questions that followed was a moral constraint. Guess what percentage would ban marriage based on moral constraints for the following groups:

First cousins: 84%
Brothers and sisters: 96%
Aunts/uncles and blood-related nieces nephews: 99%
Parents and blood-related offspring: 92%
Polygamy: 74%
and...
Same sex: 26%

So, the 72% who say no to moral constraints on marriage in the legal system? There's been a lot of talk in the media about "legislating morality." My suspicion for quite some time has been that many more people are comfortable with doing just that than will readily admit or even realize.

Aside from the final question on same sex marriage (which like it or not falls into the same category as the other questions as a moral decision), the majority of people who don't want the government going around legislating morality when it comes to marriage, are willing to say, "well, except here and here, and maybe over there. What? Gay marriage, no leave that one alone. i don't like forcing people to legally conform to my morals or someone else's."

i'm not passing judgment here. i'm merely asking everyone to stop and think about what it means to say one thing over here, and the opposite over there.

On top of all this, i find it fascinating that so many people are down on the cousin lovin' (84% oppose) and that more people are opposed to aunts marrying their nephews (99%) than parents marrying their own offspring (92%). This compared to the 26% ready to throw a parade for the polygamists and 74% for same sex marriage. Again, my opinion isn't relevant or nearly as interesting as those numbers.

Question 2, about the best way to determine who should be able to get married has its own fun intricacies. The options were:

Only an age requirement: 66% in favor
Parental consent: 6%
Psychological evaluation: 6%
No requirement: 24%

Side-stepping the issue of the moral judgments involved in psychology, 72% were in favor of deciding this on the basis of age or parental consent, both moral constraints. Some societies believe 12 is the age of reason, others 16 or 18. In the US, you are able to reasonably choose a political candidate or go to war at the age of 18, but cannot reasonably choose to consume or not consume alcohol until the age of 21. Again, the 72% in favor of moral constraints here in qeustion 2 is nearly twice that of those who said they believed the opposite in qestion 1. This is fascinating.

Additionally, while the age varies from state to state, between 14 and 18, and most states allow younger with parental consent, what makes this age magical? It can be argued that many people over the age of 18 do not posses the mental faculties that prepare them for marriage, or perhaps parenthood. Mentally handicapped people and people with psychological problems can legally marry. And apparently, you are more prepared to get married if your parents (who may or may not be trained psychologists, the law is quite nonprejudicial here) say so. The state often decides on a case by case basis (and psychologists are always part of this process) whether to try children as adults for crimes. Why not for marriage? Because age is not a magical number that automatically presents a person with reason and cognitive ability.

Maybe these were too many issues to tackle and maybe my conclusions are entirely erroneous, but my hope is that you can look at both these numbers and your own beliefs, as well as the beliefs of your friends and begin to tackle these questions in a new way. If you took this poll and are completely satisfied with your answers with no struggle or hesitation, i won't hesitate to say that you have a lot of work to do. Even i struggled with this poll and i wrote it.

Please feel free to respond to this in part or in whole. My sincere thanks to the people who participated, both in the poll and in the process of critically thinking about these topics.

Rules of Acquisition...

It has been said that there are five stages to acquisition: infatuation, justification, appropriation, obsession and resale. i think this is extraordinarily true in this culture. We see items we can't live without, we rationalize why we need
them, we acquire them, we enjoy them, telling ourselves what a wise purchase it was (of course this period is shorter with food, drink, drugs, etc), and then we often regret owning them, or more often that we have spent money that we can't spend on the next infatuation.

Now, while this was meant to describe merchandise, i think that in our culture, we extend the stages to other things, hobbies for instance, or interests. My dad jumps from one hobby to another, exhausting everything there is to know and perfect, and then drops it. Some stick around much longer than others, but only one at a time gets full interest. i do the same thing sometimes with books and television shows. My sporadic intensity with working out over the past 5 years and then lapsing as i get busy with something else is evidence of this.

i also think people in our culture frequently go through these stages in relationships. This is not to say that we're not capable of having long term monogamy, but how many people in this country marry the first person they date or have all the same friends they did in childhood? Think about it. We become interested in someone. At some point, there is a higher threshold to holding onto this person than our average peer and we want to keep them, so we try harder or work at a relationship or give of ourselves, our time, our money, etc. We justify it by deciding we get as much out of the relationship or more than we put into it. Through this process we actually appropriate the friend or significant other. At this point, we revel in it. We rely on this person, confide in, and love them. At some point, we tire of them or don't want to put in the same effort or regret having to apply so much effort to what used to be easier or yield more satisfaction and regret we can't spend our resources elsewhere.

This is probably part of why half of all marriages end in divorce, and i suspect that this is why in our culture, friendships die at such a high rate. i would be incredibly curious to see the numbers on "friendship divorce." i think that the friendships and marriages that last are when people get to the resale stage and reinvest. They decide that the best use of their resources is to apply them where they initially began. This reinvestment may cost more than going elsewhere, but they also know more about what they'll gain from it. In some ways, it's a safer bet. In some ways, it's a very brave thing because if both parties aren't interested in this reinvestment, it goes badly.

i dislike thinking about human relationships in monetary terms or investment strategies, but i think that may be why i often don't understand why people give up on relationships. We live in a world and society where investment is a more comprehensible idea than love. Investments change from day to day. Love is unchanging. It is unselfish each day.

Well, as the bumper sticker says:

Apples to... chickens?

It's one thing to compare apples to oranges, but what about apples, carrots, and tomatoes to... chicken. McDonald's is running a commercial touting their super healthy... deep-fried chicken nuggets. They're ALL WHITE MEAT! The commercial is full of various fruits and veggies... oh! Aaaaand a quick glimpse of the all-white meat chicken nugget. Seriously? Do we take this kind of advertising for granted these days? Would you bat an eye?

Decisions, decisions...

Reason- a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.

Excuse- an explanation offered as a reason for being excused; a plea offered in extenuation of a fault or for release from an obligation, promise, etc.

Forgiveness- the act of excusing a mistake or offense

Punishment- a penalty, imposed for a crime, fault etc.

As part of a society, we have police officers, prison guards, judges, and prosecutors who represent us, as much as possible, without passion or prejudice. Their job is to be the mechanism that investigates, sentences, and punishes those who harm part or all of society. They are not usually directly involved with the case or one of the victims and the system is designed to try and prevent that. Because of this, they institute punishments against people who have not personally wronged them. Though they might not like the criminal, they do not have to have any feelings at all to carry out the punishment. One does not have to harbor malice or ill will toward someone to punish them or want to punish them. Why is this important?

Many people will argue that forgiveness automatically implies cessation of the desire or need to punish someone. An excuse or mitigating circumstances may remit the necessity for a punishment, but a reason does not.

A man who downs 10 or 12 beers and plows into a pedestrian on the sidewalk has a reason for his actions, but a man who has a seizure suddenly and does the same thing has an excuse.

All of this to discuss something in the news that has come up on Law & Order. Specific genes have been identified that are linked to violent behavior and rape. The lawyer on the show made a good case. There's a gene that causes cystic fibrosis. If both parents are carriers, the child is 100% likely to develop the disorder. What about "violent" genes? Well, they say other factors come into play. The old nature v. nurture or the mix of the two. Again, a "violence" gene may even be a reason, but not an excuse. A bad childhood might also be a reason, but is it an excuse? i guess that's up to you. Who knows what a jury will decide.

Update

Out of the anti-itch stuff and going crazy.

Desperate for the morning when i can start my steroid pills and call for more of the itch stuff!!!!!

Also, NOT by me...

When someone else says it better...

Setting aside the scandal caused by His Messianic claims and His reputation as a political firebrand, only two accusations of personal depravity seem to have been brought against Jesus of Nazareth. First, that He was a Sabbath-breaker. Secondly, that He was "a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners"--or (to draw aside the veil of Elizabethan English that makes it sound so much more respectable) that He ate too heartily, drank too freely, and kept very disreputable company, including grafters of the lowest type and ladies who were no better than they should be. For nineteen and a half centuries, the Christian Churches have labored, not without success, to remove this unfortunate impression made by their Lord and Master. They have hustled the Magdalens from the Communion-table, founded Total Abstinence Societies in the name of Him who made the water wine, and added improvements of their own, such as various bans and anathemas upon dancing and theatre-going. They have transferred the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and, feeling that the original commandment "Thou shalt not work" was rather half-hearted, have added to it the new commandment, "Thou shalt not play."

-Dorothy Leigh Sayers (1893-1957), Unpopular Opinions [1946]

Playing House

Ashley and I took these tests to see how good we'd be as a...

1930's Husband...

126 As a 1930s husband, I am Very Superior Take the test!

1930's Wife...

54 As a 1930s wife, I am Average Take the test!

Extra! Extra!

Yes, lots of posts today to make up for the lack over the past week whilst Olympics reign supreme in my "free" time. i will not be qualifying for any Olympic teams this week as per my visit to the doctor today. Yup, you guessed it, i'm pregnant.

Kidding, mom. No, i have been battling poison oak for a week, which has only gotten worse, despite some fantastic home remedies Ashley concocted. The Doctor walked in and i propped up my legs and said, "i think it's poison oak. It's itchy, not weepy, it's getting worse and it's all over our backyard and now mine."

She looked at me with her hands in her pockets, "Yep. i'm gonna give you a steroid pack and steroid creme. Want that now?"

i also asked her about the ear popping thing i've told a bunch of you about. She looked in my ear and said, "Yep, you're right. Fluid. Got Sudafed at home? Take it. Clear ya right up." And apparently all my self-diagnosis and jargon got her curious because she asked, "You got any physicians in the family?"

i said, "Yes, my sister is a nurse and i watch a lot of House." She laughed and said that sounded about right and good luck. So now i am much less itchy and i start my roids tomorrow. Woot!

Reach, throw, row... ooops, no show...

Gotta feel for the Chinese about now. One of their rowing athletes got confused about the time of an event and failed to show up for his single rowing match. This not only disqualified him for the singles, but also for his double match later. Poor guy.

As i was flipping over to the Olympics this evening, i caught the tail end of a show about Hybrid vehicles. As a present for the guest on the show, they ended by giving him a hybrid Ford Escape. This wasn't just any hybrid vehicle though, they explained. This car had calf-skin leather seats and had been "pimped out" with chrome spinners...

(let that sink in)

In case you were wondering, you reduce the eco-friendliness of a vehicle when you add metals to it, especially when you add heavy ones that will reduce the hybrid's improved (only slightly) gas mileage. This is to say nothing of the genuine leather seats or the fact that they are made from baby cows...

My New Hobby

Given the number of friends and family i've had in marching band, this seems like an ideal choice for a new hobby...

Thoughts on Faith

An Inconvenient Truth

i saw a segment on the ever-spiraling downward Daily Show today. They were interviewing this engineer who has dedicated himself to living a petroleum-free life. Not just not driving a car or heating a home, but not using any products that are supported, made, or transported by something that requires petroleum.

This man lives in the woods in a hut. This is a man who makes no sense, for a number of reasons. For one thing, this guy uses the tried and retired method of rubbing two sticks together to make a fire. i can see that using a lighter would be against his principles, but flint has been around for hundreds of years. Seriously. The only reason not to use flint and steel is to make your own life harder.

In addition to this stupidity, he gets a lot of his food from dumpsters and road kill. Now, i could be wrong, but my suspicion is that much of the food that ends up in the Trader Joe dumpster (his dumpster of choice because of its lack of maggots), despite being largely organic, might have arrived by trucks powered by petroleum fuel. i also suspect that much of the road kill is created by cars that might in fact be powered by petroleum too.

What do you prefer to be called?

i saw this posted on Post Secret today and it got me thinking. i've always thought that both the race and gender boxes on surveys and applications should be done away with. i don't think any racial equality will appear until people are forced to make decisions that aren't based on their preconceptions.

Race is a fairly ludicrous idea in and of itself. While certain traits and diseases are more prevalent in groups from specific geographic areas, nothing distinguishes race on the genetic level. A sample of a person's blood will not reveal their "race." It's a human and societal construction.

Race labeling has always been a complicated and often nearly arbitrary practice. Black? African-American? Colored? What about for "whites?" While some people are pretty pasty, "white" people can range from dental white to olive dark, just as "blacks" can range from dark of night to the lightest caramel. People come in a variety of beautiful colors.

So how have we labeled "whites?" Well, "white" is a popular one found on forms, but so is "Caucasian" and "Anglo-Saxon." If you are "white," have you ever stopped to consider why you would be named for a group of people from the mountains of Georgia in Eastern Europe? One German scientist in the 19th Century decided that German skulls resembled one skull from the slopes of a mountain in the Caucuses and concluded that, "I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind."

Does this sound like any basis to call all people who fall into the "white-ish" skin tone range Caucasian?

How about Anglo-Saxon? Interestingly, Webster's New World Dictionary that touts itself as "defining American English for fifty years," as well as being the official dictionary of the Associated Press and containing over 12,000 "Americanisms," does not contain an entry that describes this term as applying to all "white people" or anything even close. Wikipedia's dictionary lists 4 definitions and the first several match up with Webster in describing it as a term that refers to a language or the people who originally inhabited Germany. Wikipedia does include an entry that indicates it could refer to someone of British or Northern European descent or a "white" person, but indicates this is only true in the US. i know many people of purely Irish descent or Spanish or Italian or Portuguese would not include themselves in this category.

i think if more people understood the nature of race, or maybe i should say, the mythology of it, and how labels are derived, i'm not sure anyone would identify with a race, or a skin color.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that he dreamed of a day when his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. As long as race and skin color judgments are included on job and college applications and the US Census, we'll be lucky to see that dream come true for his grandchildren.

Grrrrr!

i just read an infuriating article. i was reading a Libertarian news website and came across an article that sounded like my dad wrote it. i'm not sure when this suspicion started, perhaps in the 60's, but somewhere along the line a group of conservatives got together and decided to be anti-environment for the hay of it.

They got together and said, "ok, some of these environmentalists (yack) are commies! They don't want to save the planet! They just wanna hurt my bottom line! They want industry to crash and destitution to rise! They want us to be overrun by other super powers!"

Well, at some point, someone pointed out, "hey, saving the environment is often cost effective! When you don't run your water the entire time you brush your teeth, you save money! When you buy local food that isn't shipped as far, you can save money! When you bike to the local CVS instead of drive your SUV when gas is 4 dollars a gallon, you save money! When you use a Compact Fluorescent energy-saving light bulb or appliance that uses 23% as much energy, you save money!"

At this point, these -- we''l call them capitalists instead of pig heads because it's what they prefer to be called -- stuck their collective thumbs in their ears and went "nnnnuh nuuuuh nuhhhhh, we can't hear you!"

This actually caused many rational people in the conservative camps and many moderates to jump into the ultra liberal boat and head for the shores of a land less polluted and more likely to support life forms known as grandchildren.

"Radicalism in your camp destroys moderatism in mine." This applies to politics, religion, and environmental policy. You want to affect change? Do it wisely and rationally and make a real case for it.

The article i read lambasted what my father calls "greenies" for being anti-capitalist. Think about this for a moment. If we pollute our country and the planet long enough and waste our money and energy resources and employ stop-gap measures for oil problems, we have to send more of our troops to places we get oil from, destroy our national parks, and spend more money than we have to. Seems to me that if you want to destroy capitalism and America, the best way to do it is to ignore environmentalists altogether...

Mean, green, reading machine...

If you read the previous blog and were interested in the Green Lantern, i compiled a list of articles that may pique your interest...

All of these have lots of links and charts if you question how they arrive at particular conclusions

Rolling down the Windows v. Using the A/C in the car

Hand washing v. Using the Dishwasher

Being green on st. Patty's: Cans v. Bottles

Obama v. Clinton v. McCain on Environmental plans (least biased article i've read on all the candidates)

CFL's v. Incandescent Bulbs (by far the best article i've read on the green bulbs, read THIS one if no other article) i'll blog on this later for sure.

If any of these spark you or you have your own question, ask the Green Lantern:

ask.the.lantern@gmail.com

The best 40 minutes in news television...

...are the last 10 minutes of the Daily Show and the whole thirty minutes of the Colbert Report. i stopped watching the Daily show after about sophomore year in college. John Stewart got a long ride on 4 years of Bushisms and it was gloriously funny. Then Bush won again in 2004 and John turned bitter. His only opening jokes were all about Bush. And he had clearly pulled them out of the trash from the previous 4 years. Nothing new. And this time, way less funny. Eight years of "Bush is stupid," just doesn't cut it. He kept up with great guests though on the show.

Last night, John did something unusual. Two things that were completely out of character. One, he deffended a politician (without being sarcastic, although impuning another politician to do it). And two, he stepped into line with rest of the mainstream news world. GASP! What caused this? Obama. Anyone surprised? John's opening TEN MINUTE tirade began and ended as a defense of Obama by attacking McCain.

i'm concerned. One reason obviously is that there's so much good material in making fun of Obama. However, my other big reason is what will poor Johnny do come November if Obama wins? Retire? If he keeps pulling punches on Obama, he'll have no one to make fun of or his jokes will lose their bite in favor of gumming Obama around the edges.

Brian Williams was his guest last night and he was fantastic. The dude is funny. Seriously, funny. He looked John in the eye and told him he was from Jersey and he would open a can of whoop-ass on him if he had to. Didn't bat an eye.

Colbert had a great guest in the middle of the show. This guy who writes for the Green Lantern (click on the link to see an article comparing the envrionmental benefits of soy v. milk) on environmental issues came on to talk about things people try to decide on. Nothing i hadn't heard before, but most people may not have and it made me want to read his column. He discussed how there's so much more to being green than just surface level considerations. Paper or plastic? Well, on the surface, paper, right? Plastic never bio-degrades, strangles sea turtles, etc. Well, yes and no. First off, while paper can be recycled, it often isn't and depletes our forests. It also takes more energy in production to make a paper bag than a plastic one and more energy and fuel are expelled in transporting paper bags (which weigh more) to stores.

Now, he didn't discuss your own reusable bags like the one Ashley made and our canvas sacks, but he had about 3 minutes on the show. He also gave a good rule of thumb that i need to pass on to my misguided eco-cousin, Katie. i've told Ashley before that for gas mileage in the summer, she should put the windows down around town, but it improves it on the highway to put them up and use the A/C. This seems common sense to Ashley and i. The wind resistance on the highway is too high to leave the windows down and lower gas mileage means bad for the environment. The rule of thumb is 45mph. Anything over that and you save by rolling up the windows and turning on that A/C. Anything under and you might as well go for the windows.

He wrapped up by talking about CFL's, the cute little enrgy efficient bulbs my dad was hating on for so long. Everyone is screaming about mercury. He said your only real concern is if you break one and then lick it. But Steven put him in his place and said, "well it's hard not to want to! They look like soft-serve ice cream!"

Wherever you hang your hat...

My blog used to be called "wherever you hang your hat," after the phrase, "home is where you hang your hat." i liked that phrase because it always meant to me that home is wherever i decide it is, where i feel at home. A large part of what makes you feel at home is how you're welcomed there.

i haven't particularly felt welcome at Union outside of the cafeteria in a long time, but that's ok because i have a home off campus and the dog is always happy to see me... when i come home with my wife.

i went back to my folks' house last weekend and was warmly greeted by my sister, "what are you doing here?" Granted, it was a surprise and my parents hadn't informed her, but still. She coulda asked it whilst hugging me. ;-) When i walked into the room a few weeks ago where all the PBB alum had gathered, they didn't all know i was coming and i walked in to, "Yay! Brian!" and hugs and warm greetings. It was great. It felt a lot like home.

Today, i was sitting at my desk and the office assistant at the office here saw me and said, "what are you doing here?" There was confusion as to when my internship ended apparently. My chair had already been relocated.

Oh well. This week is less about returns though. It's about goodbyes. Ashley's supervisor since she started at Richmond Habitat is headed overseas to work, retiring from Habitat. One of the few administration members here that i am really tight with and truly admire and respect is leaving his position in admissions to take an Associate Pastor of Youth position in SC.

And one of my best and few really close friends, Victor, is heading home to Burma. Victor has been a dear friend for two years now. He is young and his wife and little girl have been apart ffrom him for the two years he's been studying here in the states. Victor has labored to give me cultural understanding of Burma and marriage and fatherhood and i've indoctrinated him with movies and culture and editted many of his papers. He heads home to start a school, and maybe some day soon, a teaching program for teachers. The military government there in Burma and the recent Typhoon have destroyed the educational infrastructure and Victor hopes to do his part to rebuild it and bring good news to those who need it most. He's a man i admire. He's a man i hope to be more like. And i will miss him.

Life's a Beach... or not...

We had plans to go to the beach for the day on Saturday, but they fell through. Luckily, i had already made back up plans to surprise Ashley. On the downside, when i told her to wear jeans she put on capri jeans, but on the upside, i brought three pairs of jeans just in case she did that and she now knows to follow my instructions on surprise outings more carefully. ;-)

We went ice skating! It was tons of fun. i hadn't been since college with PCM and before that was middle school. i think it had been since childhood for Ashley. When we first got out there, we looked like 5 year olds. i got my footing after the first 10 or 15 minutes and we skated around and had fun for a couple of hours. We got some Hokie mom on the side with the same camera as Ashley to take a few pictures of us together.

Sunday, i headed over to a church i am helping this summer to sit in on their mission committee meeting. Was really helpful to have Ashley there to talk about Habitat locally and what they could plug into.

Then we broke out our bikes for our first ride and headed over to the CVS. It has come to my attention that not everyone knows what CVS is. It's a drugstore chain that stretches from NY to Florida and i don't know how far west, but obviously not as far as Nebraska or Kansas. It's like Eckerds or Walgreens. And if you don't have those, think McDonald's or Wendy's, yeah? Groovy.

The World's Fair

My whole life, i grew up hearing my dad talk about the World's Fair and the things that blew him away or stunned his child's mind. Whenever he talks about it, his eyes light up and he looks up a little like he's suddenly shorter again, a kid.

i grew up in a world that not only has all those amazing technologies and wonders, but has programmed me to expect new ones every day with less than awe and wonder. Very little impresses me or fills me with awe. So when something does...

When i was in high school, i went to the movies. It was the Delta 6 movie theater on Harris Blvd in Charlotte with a couple of friends from church. i don't remember what movie it was, but the preview was drilled in my head forever.

It was a preview for the firs Final Fantasy movie. It was the first movie to tackle the CGI world and focus on people characters that looked like people and not cartoons. Toy Story had already produced a full length CGI movie with "people," but they looked like robots or toys. This was different. It was close to realistic as i had ever seen. It didn't look like computer game, but a real-life movie. The characters were so life-like. They zoomed in on one man and the wrinkles surrounding his eyes and the skin blemishes were so real, i couldn't tell if it was or not.

i remember thinking, "this will change movies forever." And it did.

i saw a preview before the Dark Knight last week and it was the first time since then that i saw something equally mind blowing. The first Matrix movie came close when i saw it for the first time, and its preview was pretty mind-warping. However, the preview for Watchmen, a movie that will release next March, stopped me dead in my tracks. The kind of cinematography and art blended with science fiction super hero laid over an industrial track of Billy Corgan was, well... riveting. Check it out.

Apples and oranges

I watched a good chunk of that new CNN mini-series: Black in America. It was intriguing. It was also not very contextual. It's been said that statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. This is true in sports, politics, and in our society at large.

Last year, Time magazine chose a statistician as one of its 100 most influential people of the year. What is his area of expertise? Baseball. That’s right. Why would he be chosen for a top 100 list of most influential folk? Certainly there are people making a bigger splash. His contributions in baseball have not only revolutionized how the sport is analyzed and who is recruited, and ultimately who wins more, but how we think about collecting relevant data.

Most people are well aware that a batting average has something to do with how often you hit the ball when it’s pitched to you. People who have never held a bat will refer to “batting a thousand.” However, this statistic is not meaningful all by itself. All sorts of other factors come in to play. How often does he get up to bat? The more often a batter is up, the better he gets. Who were the pitchers he faced? If he faced a string of good pitchers every game he batted, and another batter faced a bunch of weak pitchers, is his lower average indicative of his lesser skill or of chance? How do you measure that? Those are the kinds of questions Bill James began asking.

Now what if that’s applied to census statistics, both those collected by the US Government and CNN? Is it wise to compare all of the whites in America to all of the blacks and on no other basis? Is that even possible? The percentage of people claiming “other” on the US census as their race or ethnicity has climbed in recent decades. Even more people who identify themselves as one race or ethnicity are 1/16th or 1/4th or even half another race or ethnicity. Polls and census forms don’t dig into that. If you claim to be white, you get to be white. If you claim to be Hispanic, congratulations, you are!

This brings me to my next point. This program had lots of statistics comparing blacks to whites. Absent were any statistics that compared blacks to other minorities. If your goal is to investigate gaps in income and opportunities, as well as differences in cultural norms, might it be of benefit to examine the same categories for other minorities? This seems like a logical step to me.

Why not compare blacks to Japanese or Indians (immigrants from India) or Hispanics and Latinos? Blacks were not entirely liberated from slavery until 1865, and Jim Crow laws and civil rights were a slow process. But is it not helpful to acknowledge that as recently as the 1940’s, the US Government was placing Japanese American citizens in internment camps? Perhaps a look at the struggles faced by the Japanese in America over the last 60 years could be at least as beneficial as comparing blacks to whites over the last 60 years. What is the rate of unwed mothers in the Japanese community? At what rate do Japanese men and women attend college? What is the life expectancy of Japanese in America? What percentage of Japanese men are incarcerated? These questions may reveal just as much about racial disparity, but more importantly, may reveal how best to overcome it or move forward.

This brings me to my next point. Statistics do not speak for themselves. That’s why we employ people and not just calculators to determine their meaning. If I told you that 87% of the people that graduate from my Presbyterian seminary leave and work for Presbyterian churches, would you assume this school turns people into Presbyterians or would you assume most of them were Presbyterian before they came here?

Take a statistic like the one offered in Black in America last night: there are nearly twice as many black women in college as black men. Wow. That says a lot about black men in America, right? Maybe not. At the college I attended, and most [co-ed] colleges in America are following this trend more and more, there were almost twice as many females (of all races) as males. This statistic is far less indicative of a problem with black males than with the education and culture of all males in America. Some statistics are helpful, and some can be dismissed almost out of hand with a simple phrase I learned in middle school… duh.

One of the Harvard professors on the program last night, a young black man, offered his own theory that many scientists and academics ascribe to currently. Studies show that blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites in America. One of the possible contributing factors is due to salt retention. Those men that searched for and captured Africans to bring them over on rat-infested slave ships didn’t want human cargo that would use up all their water. The saltiness of your skin can tell you how well you retain water. If you retain water well, you’re more likely to need less of it and survive the ocean voyage. This is good news for your chances of living longer on a ship without water. However, this same genetic trait makes you more likely to develop hypertensive problems, heart-related health problems, which blacks die of more frequently than whites in America. The same trait that was essential to survival may well be one of the many reasons blacks do not live as long now.

Other traits that were valued in slaves may also have contributed to problems later on. In any species, including humans, if you mate for any other reason than scent, you lose advantages in resistance to disease and immunity. If you mate for one reason only (i.e. royal blood, money, fast cars, strength, large biceps or butt), you run even greater risk of health problems. This has to be taken into consideration.

This brings me to my final point. It’s been suggested that many genetic health problems would diminish if interracial dating and marriage were more widely practiced. This is, of course, yet unproven. However, the segment last night ended with discussion on the difficulty that black women face in finding black men to date. It was pointed out that 1 million more black women are employed than black men. Any woman who wants to date a man with a job is automatically at a disadvantage. There are also a dramatically high number of black men in incarceration or who were. The stigma of dating outside the racial or ethnic community is certainly strong. It remains strong particularly in Asian culture, religious Jewish culture, and is certainly not gone from white culture, although more prevalent in some communities.

However, maybe one of the first steps towards narrowing the “gaps” between races in test scores, incarceration rates, mortality, housing, and so forth may be to embrace interracial dialog and dating.

In 1967 Sydney Poitier starred in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. In 2005 Ashton Kutcher starred in a remake. The exact same tension and problems exist 38 years later. That’s not a statistic, but maybe it’s just as telling…

Weirdo

So one of my favorite bad guy actors is Brad Dourif. You won't recognize the name, but he's in TONS of stuff as the creepo. He really takes the cake. He's been in over 100 films and TV shows since the mid 1970's, as a bad guy in almost all of them (and a super creepy one at that) such as...

Law and Order (2008)
Deadwood (2004-2006)
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King- creepy sidekick to that king (2003)
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
SNL- as Chucky (1998)
Bride of Chucky- voice of Chucky (1998)
Urban Legend- creepy gas station guy
Alien: Resurrection (1997)
Star Trek: Voyager- serial killer crew member in 3 episodes (1996)
Babylon 5- a monk who was a serial killer before being reprogrammed with new memories (1995)
Escape to Witch Mountain- a chauffeur [it was Disney, first time i ever saw him] (1995)
The X-Files- serial killer that channeled the dead [most recent thing i saw him in and for which he received an Emmy nomination] (1994)
The Exorcist III- the Gemini killer (1990)
Murder, She Wrote- [episode called: Fire Burn, Cauldron Bubble- i.e. only truly creepy episode of the 70 year old Jessica Lansbury series] (1989)
Miami Vice (1987)
Moonlighting- as Father McDonovan [has a thing for creepy and priesthood] (1986)
Spenser: for Hire (1986)
Dune (1984)
Rag Time (1981)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest- Billy Bibbit [Golden Globe] (1975)

Also, he was apparently cast as the Scarecrow for Batman Forever when Tim Burton was attached to the film and was replaced by Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carey as Two-Face and the Riddler. And we all know how that turned out...

But Dourif has other skills outside screen and stage. He appeared in the music video Stranger in Town by Toto. Also, he plays the didgeridoo and is on a CD called: Eating Jello With a Heated Fork

Paper, Rock, Scissors

Paper, rock, scissors. i think this should be the new security policy of the United States airlines. Explain, you say?

Simple: Everyone boarding a plane should be given a paper bag with a rock and a pair of scissors. This way, anyone causing a ruckus or trying to take hostages, etc, will be immediately incapacitated, or discouraged altogether.

Told you, simple.

Your thoughts? Our lines are open.

Ointerjecting

Straight from the Richmond Times-Dispatch this weekend...

There is a lot of talk these days about "how far we've come" with regard to potentially having either a woman or a black man as our new president. The irony is that if we have in fact come so far, then our primary concern should be who is the best person to be president, and gender or race should be an irrelevant topic.
-Lisa Raum

Purity Police

This a subject that i find fascinating. It's one of the few subjects that i take a stand on more for secular reasons than faith or Biblical reasons. The ramifications of casual sex, both emotionally and physically or medically, are the most logical and verifiable to discuss with kids and teens. You can restrict your sex talk to: "the Bible says ____" or "Mommy and Daddy believe ____," but when they encounter someone more persuasive who says something contrary, it may or may not hold. It's gotta be more comprehensive.

Frankly, if you confront a kid with the percentages of those who get STD's from their partners and the average number of partners that sexually active teenagers have, they will never encounter a more persuasive statistic. Tell a girl that she's twice as likely to graduate from college if she remains a virgin until she graduates from high school (true), and she may be more likely to abstain than if you say, "well i did it and the Bible says so."

i finished reading an article on Purity Balls for young girls to attend with their fathers and promise that they will let their fathers be the guardians and protectors of their hearts until their husband comes along. i was appalled. This happened on two levels...

First, as someone who finds this misogynistic and takes note that not all families have a father figure, or a good one, or a Christian one, this is backwards Medieval attempt to put women in their place.

Secondly, this is NOT a Biblical concept. As a Christian, i absolutely shudder at Christians peddling this notion. You are NOT to trust in earthly powers to protect you, but only God in heaven. It is also most definitely NOT a Biblical precept that you should or have to marry. In fact, Paul encourages you to stay single if you can manage it. And in none of his letters on the subject does he say that your father should protect you from men your whole life if you do not marry.

Fathers should of course take care of their daughters, but they should be taught to trust in God for protection or "purity," not their earthly father, if they have one present.

What i most appreciated was the end to the article. It balances the conservative and liberal viewpoints on this in a level-headed way i can totally get on board with.

"If you listen long enough, you wonder if there us really such a profound disagreement about what parents want for their children. Culture war by its nature pours salt in wounds, finds divisions where there could be common purpose. Purity is certainly a loaded word- but is there anyone who thinks it's a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? ...On the one hand, for all the conservative outcry, there is no evidence that giving kids complete and accurate information about sex and contraception encourages promiscuity. On the other, a purity pledge basically says that sex is serious. That it's not to be entered into recklessly. To deny kids information, whether about contraception or chastity, is irresponsible; to mock or dismiss as an unrealistic goal of personal responsibility in all its forms may suit the culture, but it gives kids too little power, too little control over their decisions, as though they're incaple of making good ones. The research suggests they may be more capable of high standards than parents are."

This Just In

Lots of people are buzzing about the New Yorker's latest cover. As i designed my own recent New Yorker cover, i was curious. James Poniewozik of Time wrote this week's Tuned In article on the matter. i don't always agree with the man, and i do agree that there are times for restraint. However, i do have to agree with him. When we live in a world that is surprised that the Daily Show or the New Yorker will indeed take a shot at our politicians, we live in a naive world.

I'd like to quote Poniewozik here, "Comedy, good comedy, is not just unsafe; it's uncontrollable- satire most of all. Satire takes a real position and exaggerates it to the point of absurdity. By nature, it is, if it is any good, subject to interpretation. The knock on the New Yorker cover was like the old critique of Archie Bunker: that some idiot bigot somewhere might take it literally and enjoy it... Satirists don't make crystal clear how you're supposed to read their work. They don't give you a road map to correct thinking, because a joke explained is neither funny nor persuasive."

It seems to me that a politician running an ad that included this as some sort of smear campaign would be inappropriate, but people tune in to SNL and the Daily Show and read the New Yorker for satire of those they hate AND those they love. It's an American tradition. But someone will always be offended, and that's part of the reason it continues. It's hardly satire if someone isn't, especially a politician or electoral candidate.

To quote Samuel Clemens, "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

One Dark Knight

Victor and Tiny and I headed to see The Dark Knight last night at midnight. It was absolutely worth the hype. It was sold out for 5 showings at our theater. We couldn't all sit together and we were relatively early.

Excepting Liam Neeson, all the big names were back and then some. Christian Bale returned, Morgan Freeman, Michael Cain, and Gary Oldman. They gave the movie another boost by replacing Katie Homes with Maggie Gyllenhal, who was a much more believable feisty ADA. In addition, Aaron Eckhart (Thank You For Smoking) entered as Harvey Dent, the Gotham DA. He was phenomenal, an exceptional choice for the role.

As many people probably went to see Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker, i doubt anyone left disappointed. He was totally unrecognizable and an absolutely deliciously demonic adversary. He took the film to another level of scariness, tragedy, pain, and hatred that the character was meant to embody. It was astounding. There's nothing that induces fear and hatred of a character like a truly believable villain. Ledger will go down in film history for this.

In addition to a superb cast, that also drew a tremendous number of character actors, the story was exceptional. It indeed picked up where the other had left off and covered a lot of the essential story of Batman. It didn't neglect the lore and storyline in favor of action, and yet was one of the most action-packed movies i've ever seen. It covered the topic of vigilante copy-cats, the rise of Commissioner Gordon and the friendship of Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne. It addressed the limits of Batman's power and justice within the bounds of the criminal justice system. It broke other boundaries, as Batman traveled to Hong Kong in the film.

As an action film, it does not disappoint, even for a moment. The gadgets are more intense and sexier than the first film. The action sequences are mind-blowing. You could tell how surprised people were in the packed theater. As a person with a real concept for "this isn't real," and never being surprised or scared by movies, i jumped a number of times in shock and surprise last night, a rare delight. Do not take your mother to see this. It was intense, dark, scary, and gut-wrenching. i give it five stars, and that goes to only maybe 3 movies i've seen the past 5 years.

Go see it.

No scene after the credits.

Super tempting preview: Christian Bale, next summer, Terminator

Weddings and Funerals

For those of you here in Richmond, you know that one of our community went missing last weekend. On Monday, she was found, a drowning victim in the James River. Her husband is a PhD student here at Union and was one of my TA's for Old Testament. He's a really nice, mild-mannered man and his wife Rosa was incredibly sweet. In lieu of flowers, the family is asking for donations to a group that helps the street children of Lima, Peru, a ministry she was passionate about.

But in every week of bad news and tragedy, there is a celebration of good news and life. Today, for the first time at Union-PSCE, a wedding was held during a Chapel Service. Our Chaplain, Edna Banes gave a meditation, and Sygman Rhee presided over the vows. My polity professor, Dr Ken McFadden was married to my friend and coworker, PhD student, Narola. I didn't realize it was happening until today, but it was open to the community. It was also a neat multi-cultural experience as Dr Rhee is a defector from North Korea originally and Narola wore her traditionally styled Indian white dress and wrap. Ken even more a traditional sash over his shoulder with his suit. The best man is another man i worked with, Mungistu, from West Africa.

Show me the Money

If you haven't seen Jerry McGuire, no biggie. There's a Facebook petition currently to ban the "sexual" advertisements that are generated in the left column. i was sort of surprised. i've never seen anything i would consider offensive. i've seen shirtless guys and girls in t-shirts and bathing suits, but um, don't you see the same thing at the YMCA (that's young men's christian association for those of you who don't know)?

The person who started the petition seems to think that facebook should be a "safe Haven," which i was convinced was not the goal when they allowed everyone in high school and then the entire world to join, just like myspace. That's like saying you thought a public beach was supposed to be a safe haven and suddenly people are showing up in bikini's. And to be perfectly honest, i love the girls in t-shirt ads. They're always cute and the t-shirts are usually pretty funny. Besides, it's not like you can get back to some sort of innocent yesteryear. This ad is from a 1955 Newspaper.

My immediate reaction though was not, "what's so offensive," but "are you serious? Do you really think this is gonna stop facebook?" Frankly, i think the millions in advertising outweighs any amount of mullah these kids (or their parents) are cranking into the database. i just don't see them buckling to overprotective naivety. Not seeing it.

It reminded me of what David LaMotte said this weekend at his concert (folk singer rock star for those of you not in the know). He thanked us for being there. He said that he knew millions of dollars had been spent to persuade us to be in front of our TV's on that Saturday night and that we were true rebels fighting the system. We laughed. But like most things, we laughed at it's sheer and sad truth. Money makes the world go round and sometimes people find a way to stop it from turning with mere words or actions. So i say "march on," to the facebook petitioners, although i don't foresee much hope for them...

PBB CD for the Alum

This year, i made a new CD for the returning Project Burning Bush 2007 crew that returned to share their mentored projects. This is the list...

POD - Youth of a Nation

Joan Baez – One Tin Soldier

The Flobots – Handlebars

Billy Joel (as sung by Cass Dillon) – Christmas in Fallujah

Kanye West – Jesus Walks

Everclear – Father of Mine

David M. Bailey – Rome

Weezer – Pork and Beans

Woody Gutherie (sung by Arlo Gutherie & Hoyt Axton) – Deportees