plato and a platypus

I have long wondered why books, lectures, and the such designed for serious learning rarely do a good job of making the learning entertaining. It is a lot easier to understand a new concept when it is presented in an enjoyable fashion. This is part of the idea of the last book that I completed, Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.

The book itself is only meant to give a high-level summary of historical philosophical beliefs and thought structures. So, while it is not nearly detailed enough to be a textbook, it presents a lot of concepts very concisely. The jokes are generally used to illustrate concepts or perspectives.

The following joke is used to illustrate the concept of ding an sich, which means "thing in itself," and is supposed to describe an object as it is rather than how our senses perceive it.

Secretary: "Doctor, there's an invisible man in the waiting room."
Doctor: "Tell him I can't see him."

Another joke illustrates relativity of time.

A snail was mugged by two turtles. When the police asked him what happened, he said, "I don't know. It all happened so fast."

A final joke provides a rationale for why it is important to understand the purpose of law.

A judge calls the opposing lawyers into his chambers, and says, "The reason we're here is that both of you have given me a bribe." Both lawyers squirm in their seats. "You, Alan, have given me $15,000. Phil, you gave me $10,000."

The judge hands Alan a check for $5,000 and says, "Now you're even, and I'm going to decide this case solely on its merits."

The only reason that I would hold back in recommending this book to anyone with a sense of humor is that it does contain some blue humor, though I do not think it is excessive. Other than that one thing, this book is perfect for anyone wanting to read up on serious philosophical ideas with a punchline.

da da

For a long while, NJ was not too interested in spending time with me and by far preferred to be with Golden. Over the last few weeks he has changed pretty significantly to the point where he frequently gets upset when I leave for work in the morning and he gets very excited when I walk through the front door in the evening. He will even sometimes want me to hold him rather than Golden, though he still usually prefers her.

It is possible that this is just due to him growing out of the phase where he only favors his mom, but I think it is actually because I have been able to spend more time with him in the last few weeks than I was before that. I have been out of class for a month, so I have had a bit more freedom to spend quality time with NJ. I think this improves his perspective of me from someone who occasionally competes with him for his mother's attention to someone to hang out with.

I never really thought much about this element of parenthood. I have to say, though, that there are few things that I enjoy more than coming home to NJ smiling and shouting, "Da Da!" That can get me through any rough day.

risky business

I am not going to post about our entire Thanksgiving break because most of what I would have to say would be unfortunately boring. Golden may say something about our vacation on her blog, though.

On Thursday we did visit both Golden's and my family. While we were at my aunt's house a few of them got into a discussion of the things my dad did when he was younger. No one really wanted to tell stories about themselves. Most people would not assume this if they met him today, but he was actually the most reckless of all his siblings growing up.

I realized recently that, at least in this respect, I am the antithesis of my dad. The things that I have done in my life that I consider reckless weren't really reckless. I have always been the voice of caution when there is discussion of doing anything that is even just potentially dangerous.

While I am not currently and have never been a risk taker in a cautious person's body, when I hear these stories I wonder if I should have been a little more daring as a kid. Did I hold back more than was necessary? I think most men want to have some things in common with their dads, and to be as different as we are in this area is a bit weird.

Based on my observations of NJ, I could see him as being very cautious or very risky when he gets older. As a sixteen-month-old He can be fearless and he can be timid depending on his mood. Whichever he is, I hope I can relate.

thankful

This is in a similar vein to my "good grief" post, but it isn't the same.

I really am not thankful enough for my lot in life. I have never doubted that, but this has not really made me more thankful. I also always thought listing the things I am thankful for was a little hokey because most items on the list, while important, are the same for a lot of people (family, friends, health, freedom, etc). There is one thing that I have to be thankful for that most people would not think to be thankful for, and that is how everything always seems to work out for me.

Seriously, pretty much every bad situation or potentially bad situation I have ever gotten into ended well. I have procrastinated on many things from schoolwork to yard work throughout my life, but I almost always complete my tasks immediately before they absolutely need to be completed. I have been in many financially tough situations, but everything always worked out. Even my meeting Golden at the time of my life that I did was one of those things that was very fortunate to work out, because we are perfectly suited for each other.

It could be that things just work out for a lot of other people who don't even notice it. Since I notice it, though, I must be thankful.

new cue lar

I remember back in the 2000 presidential election (Motto: "Whoever you elect, it's still a four-letter word") the big deal about Gore was his lack of a personality and the big deal about Bush was his lack of speaking ability. My joke at the time was that my problem is that I have Gore's personality and Bush's speaking ability.

On that topic, Bush has taken some flak for pronouncing the word nuclear wrong with some frequency. To me, this begs the question at what point is the incorrect usage correct. Since I was a kid I always pronounced the word the same as Bush does, though lately I have bowed to convention and pronounced it like it is spelled. It is not that I haven't known that the word is pronounced "new clear." It is that I think "new cue lar" just sounds cooler.

I am not alone. A lot of people besides me and Dubya have used this pronunciation, including Presidents Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton. The editors for Merriam-Webster actually have a prewritten official letter that they send in response to people who write in to gripe that the dictionary dares to list this colloquial pronunciation as a common usage.

There are a lot of words in the English language that have multiple accepted pronunciations, so it confuses me why we care about specific mispronounciations and not others. Why are we willing to agree with Louis Armstrong about tomato and potato but not about nuclear? I say let's call the whole thing off, because I want to go back to pronouncing it the way I like.

on a tangent about sin

One of the podcasts I listen to is just two guys who record an hour-and-a-half fantasy football conversation out of their living room in Philadelphia. Usually, this podcast makes me think more about what quarterbacks I want on one of my teams than about spiritual issues, but last week was a little different.

One of the guys noted that he had offered a wager to a Dallas Cowboys fan regarding the next Cowboys/Eagles match-up. The response he got from the Dallas fan was that he didn't gamble due to religious reasons. This started a conversation in the podcast over whether gambling is officially a sin. A quote that stuck with me was, "Why is God against everything I think is fun?"

Something that really annoys me is that I often feel forced to either take a position for works or against works. Either I have to be the judgmental person who sees just about everything as a sin, or I have to be the permissive person who can't make the judgment that anything is wrong. On this blog I have picked on the judgmental perspective more, but both options are equally frustrating to me.

If someone asked me why everything they wanted to do was a sin, I would probably have a hard time responding because my conception of sin would likely be different from that person's conception of sin. I don't think that God is waiting to automatically strike down everyone who commits some specific action that a lot of people consider a sin, but anything that a person considers fun has the potential to come between that person and God. Things that may appear to be sins aren't and things that may not appear to be sins are.

When Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, I do not think he was exaggerating. It would make sense that the man who has more money and the trappings that go with it (power, security, popularity) simply has more things that can get between him and God. Having those things is not sin, but being unwilling to give them up is.

So, for the moment, I think that just about everything can be a sin. Whether you put it before God and let it become sin is another story.

important day

There are two notable things about today.

First, I asked Golden out for our first date ten years ago today. We celebrated last night with dinner and a movie. It was nice to have a night when we didn't need to worry about NJ, so we greatly appreciate our sitter giving us so much time.

It's hard to believe that it was ten years ago that I left a note with Golden telling her I was interested in her and asking if she was too. Kind of a high school thing to do, but I was eighteen.

Just about everyone I have mentioned this to has responded with, "You still keep track of when you started dating?" I don't usually feel like a sentimental fool.

Also, this is my sister's birthday. It was not on purpose that I asked Golden out on my sister's birthday so I would remember the date better, but it did work out conveniently. I should probably call my sister to wish her well shortly.

Happy birthday, Miss Carisma, and happy ten years, Golden!

natural disaster risk

Long before Katrina hit New Orleans I determined that there was no chance that I would ever move there. It is not like there was much chance of me ever moving to the Bayou, but even if I would consider moving that far south, the idea of living in a city along the gulf coast below sea level just sounded unsafe.

Now everyone knows the dangers of living in New Orleans. Even so, many people have decided to move back to the city, and the federal government has committed to rebuilding the city. While this may represent some bravery, to me it is just a little ludicrous as well. There is no question whether another Katrina will happen. The question is whether the next Katrina happens in one year or in four hundred years. Add to that the potential of rising sea levels, and I start to question the sanity of the people who are willing to take the risk of living there, and the sanity of a government who will have to bail out the city again when that occurs.

I think it is hilarious to be around people who did not grow up in the Midwest when tornado and thunderstorm season starts up. I remember one person from Taiwan who I was doing a group project with at KU a couple of years ago pointed out that tornadoes were much scarier than typhoons. Truthfully, there are few places in the United States that I would feel safer than in the Midwest because anyone who has lived here long knows that, while it is tornado alley, a four-hundred-mile wide hurricane is a bit larger than the typical tornado, and much more difficult to avoid.

Last year, SustainLane.com ranked fifty United States cities on economic, environmental, health, and social sustainability risks due to natural disasters. Actually, Miami ranked worse than New Orleans. Even if I intended to move any time in the near future, I can guarantee that I would avoid the cities I have already mentioned as well as the entire California coast. A simple life in Kansas City is better than a homeless one in San Francisco.

no gossip allowed

Most people know what it is like to deal with gossips. Whether at work, church, or anywhere else, they can be beyond annoying.

Now for my about-face. I would assume that other people have gossiped about me at some point, but it has not directly impacted me in any way of which I am aware. I cannot think of many instances when I found out that people were talking about me, and I cannot think of any instances when I cared. Maybe I am too boring to be the subject of an inventive story. That is probably a blessing, since gossips can ruin other people's reputations, livelihoods, and friendships.

I recently read that at least one company has a no gossipping rule that can result in termination. In another example, four people in New Hampshire were fired from a city government office for gossipping about two people they errantly thought were having an affair. In theory, I think banning gossip is a great idea. Even ignoring the ethical issues involved, gossip damages morale and distracts workers. I can't imagine how implementing such a rule is practical, though.

More businesses should probably have gossip policies, but how would such a policy appropriately define gossip? Is any talk about others behind their backs, even if it appears benign, gossip? How bad does a juicy piece of information need to be before it triggers the policy? Should there be stricter rules in place for some workplaces (like churches) than others (like gossip magazine offices)? Is it actually possible to regulate gossip?

november news

I haven't done a top ten list in a while, and with Letterman's writers on strike I figure a few people might be going through withdrawal. So, here are the top ten news stories so far this month.

10. Britney Spears succeeds in making Kevin Federline the most fit parent available for their children.

9. Fans of "Survivor", "The Amazing Race", "Dancing with the Stars", et al fail to notice the Writer's Guild of America strike.

8. Dennis Kucinich and Duncan Hunter both put up a strong fight to be the most irrelevant remaining Presidential candidate.

7. The Mormon Church edits the Book of Mormon to modify the religion's assertions of the Native American genealogy and to make Reebok the official sports shoe of Mormonism.

6. Iraqi Kurds detain soldiers from Turkey who were part of a Turkish attack on Kurdish territory in Iraq. This reminds millions of Americans to add both poultry and cheese to their Thanksgiving shopping lists.

5. A senate investigation into questionably extravagant purchases by mega-ministry leaders causes Pastor James Shorm of Rochester First Baptist in Minnesota to stop using premium gas to fill up the church van, just to be on the safe side.

4. Gas prices skyrocket, dramatically increasing the income of nations in the Middle East and the smugness of the typical Prius owner.

3. Mattel announces that the company has plans to enter the nuclear arms shipping container industry since it has a lot of excess lead lying around.

2. Denver Broncos running back Travis Henry appeals his marijuana usage conviction with the rationalization that everyone in Denver plays a mile high and on grass.

1. An unnamed blogger who is short on ideas decides to post a completely unfunny top ten list and, furthermore, expects his audience to read it.

orthodox quaker

Recently, one of the guys at work found a "What Religion am I?" quiz, and some of us took it. It is not entirely detailed or overly accurate. A couple of the questions are not worded well enough, such as one that asks if works are necessary for salvation. I am always intrigued by where I might my beliefs tend to fall along doctrinal scales.

According to the test I should be an Orthodox Quaker. This doesn't totally wash since I am not a pacifist and I don't like oatmeal, but some of my beliefs do appear to overlap. I did seriously consider attending a Quaker university in Ohio at one point, so maybe the test is onto something.

As could be predicted, my top five results are all from Christian traditions. I can't see myself as a Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon, though. The test isn't perfect.

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Eastern Orthodox (99%)
3. Roman Catholic (99%)
4. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (96%)
5. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (95%)

So, what are you?

compensation

Sometimes I am able to be incredibly organized and sometimes I feel in disarray. Until recently I thought that I was just naturally an organized person, or that it had something to do with OCD. I have determined recently that I am probably compensating for something when I am being organized.

A good example of this is my inability to find anything. If Golden asks for me to help her find NJ's pacifier I will almost certainly look right at it at some point without seeing it. I think this is because something in my brain cannot process everything I am seeing. I long ago got in the habit of always placing loose objects in one of a few different locations to compensate for my inability to find things. If I can't find my keys I have about five places I can check and they will almost always be in one of those five places.

Likewise, I tend to do well if I have all of the information that I need centralized, so I centralize it. This is because if I keep on having to look up stuff I will invariably lose information or forget that I need to remember it. If I am not careful to take note of all of the information that I need or of everything that I need to accomplish, I will almost certainly forget something important that I am supposed to do.

I wonder if other people have elements of their personalities that exist to compensate for them naturally being the exact opposite of the personality quirks in question. Are some people who are outwardly confident only portraying that because it effectively hides the fact that they are clueless? Are some people standoffish because they have learned that being needy doesn't get them the affection they desire? Are some people musical or stylish or well-read simply because it is actually their natural weakness? I have to think so.

the best do-diddly jobberino

In the past couple of weeks I have recorded a few movies on the DVR to watch. Something that I always enjoy when watching a movie that has been edited for content on television is the creative way the TV version is modified to be less crude. Good edits are impossible to catch if you're not looking for them, but bad edits are a lot more entertaining.

It's always funny to hear a character go to cuss someone out then that character's voice changes for a moment when a cleaner word or phrase is substituted. If the comments don't match the character's lip movements that is even better. Some of the words and phrases I catch in these scenarios I have never heard in that sort of context, and so they show quite a bit of creativity.

I think that rewriting cuss words out of movies has got to be one of the most entertaining jobs in existence. Getting to make the choice to either replace the censored phrases with something serious or something ridiculous would be a blast. How do you get that job?

blood money

I was up the other night with the television on when I noticed that an infomercial was on the channel that I had been watching. In my observation there are two different types of infomercials. The first is the kind where physical products are sold at a markup of what they are probably worth. I don't really have too much problem with this type of infomercial because the customer actually gets the product that is advertised. The second is the kind where untold riches are promised for people who just sign up for an expensive, but supposedly worthwhile, moneymaking scheme. The infomercial I noticed fell into this second category.

I will not dwell too long on the content of the actual infomercial other than to say that it was obviously a scam. I won't link to the website of the product itself, but the concept was matching buyers and sellers of notes of debt. Some user complaints of the service, which can cost up to $30,000 dollars, are at this web page.

What bothers me is that this scam would not be possible without the assistance of people and organizations who are otherwise purported to be on the up and up. For example, Gary Collins, whose face is at least recognizable to most people, was a host for the infomercial. His role appeared to be that of establishing the service as legitimate.

More important to me, though, is that the people who run the television stations that host infomercials like this willingly take the money the scammers are wringing from their victims so that the scammers get more air time and suck in more victims. Somehow, running the following text across the screen for five seconds before a half-hour-long program designed to take money from people without actually providing the advertised service removes the station's legal liability.

The program you are watching is a paid program or advertisement. All claims and representations made in the program are the sole responsibility of the advertiser.

Imagine for a moment if a hate group purchased time on a station to advocate violence against a specific person or group of people. Imagine if Michael Vick had an infomercial advertising dog fighting equipment. Would displaying text like that above really remove the station's responsibility for deciding to air such trash? Should the responsibility really be any different for fraud than for violent crimes? Especially since this form of fraud tends to target people who are already struggling financially.

So, even though I am usually a person who is sickened by the level of litigation that occurs in the United States, I would completely get behind victims of these scams taking the TV stations to court if they decided to do so. How you interpret my position on this issue and all representations you make of my opinion are your sole responsibility.

lost in store

Most of the time I pride myself on having a reasonable sense of direction. While there are exceptions, I generally have an idea of where I am and where I need to be. One huge exception to this is in a department store.

Today, Golden and I visited the local mall. After we picked up some shoes for me, she looked at clothes for herself and I decided to walk around the mall with NJ to keep him occupied. I was quickly reminded of one of the reasons why I feel so out of place in a mall department store. all I could see was a sea of clothes and it took me a good three to five minutes (an eternity in a department store) to find the entry to the rest of the mall.

I think my problem is that navigation within a department store relies on being able to identify that such and such side of the store is the junior's section and such and such part of the store is the formal section and so forth. I don't pay much attention to the clothes, so I don't usually know where I am. All I really know is that the perfume and cheap jewelry is usually near the mall entrance, and that is where I want to be.

this halloween

Yesterday was NJ's first Halloween in a costume. Golden had picked a cow costume for him. He even had a cowbell (so, no, he didn't need more cowbell). He didn't really like wearing the costume, but he did look good in it.
I debated whether to recycle a costume to wear at work for a while. I finally decided on putting together a "royal flush" costume that consisted of a purple robe, a scepter, a crown (with a toilet handle), and a toilet seat. Generally, in judging a costume for an adult I think there are three things to consider.

1. Cleverness/Originality
2. Appearance
3. Nerdiness/Obscurity of Subject Matter

As is usually the case, I think my costume was relatively strong in originality, but was a little weaker in appearance and was a bit nerdy. Fortunately, in my office originality is more valued than appearance or avoiding nerdy subject matters.

I used spray paint to make my crown and scepter gold. I should have thought twice before doing this. I had a splitting headache all day and I am convinced it is from being in my office throughout the day with those two items.

Also, I carved a pumpkin. As should be obvious, it is a pumpkin inside a pumpkin inside a pumpkin. I though it was an original idea, but my understanding is that this was discussed last year, so it must have soaked into my subconsciousness. Regardless, this is the result.
While it was a fun enough Halloween, I am always content to have completed the holiday.