d day

Today is the 75th anniversary of D-Day.

One of the most jarring scenes in any movie for me is in Saving Private Ryan. The camera takes the view of a soldier toward the back of a Higgins boat, the nerves of the young men in the boat are worked up, the front of the boat opens up for them to get out and approach to the beach, and the entire boat of soldiers falls victim to machine gun fire.  As an uninformed civilian, that scene sums up my view of the sacrifice of the D-Day invasion.  So many men who certainly would have preferred to be taking a different role than that on that day were forced into a meat grinder out of necessity.  Some survived and some did not.  However, for all of their efforts, Europe and the world are better places today.

There are a lot of battles through history that overwhelm the mind when I try to imagine myself in the shoes of someone who was there.  I don't know that any battle in history compares to this one in my mind, though.

Today, my mood is thankfulness for those who have served and sacrificed for the freedoms.  They're a privilege purchased at a high cost.

texting woes

It's amazing that in the last ten years smart phones have gone from something only early-adopters use to something that basically every adult uses and understands.  This has had almost as great a fundamental shift in my everyday life as gaining regular access to the Internet in the mid to late nineties.  I have run up against a couple of personal limitations in using mobile devices to text that I'd like to present.

First, I've been slow to adopt emojis.  This isn't because I think I'm above using emojis.  I like how you can distill a much larger thought into a simple image.  The problem is that I'm not always adept at identifying what emotion or idea a specific emoji is supposed to convey.  I brought this up with a friend a while ago, and took a look at the emojis I have used on my personal phone at that time.  As you can see from the image below, it's not a lot.  I just frequently figure it's safer not to guess on what a specific emoji is supposed to mean.

Second, the combination of auto-correct and my clumsy thumbs has conspired to make me look like an illiterate dunderhead to those I am texting or messaging.  I'm constantly seeing misspellings or entirely wrong words in the messages I send out after they're sent.  Some of this is that I need an editor for my communications on a good day.  At least some of it has to be that my phone enjoys making me look like an idiot, however.

I know a lot of people typo things on their phones.  I seem to be far worse than the average, however.  It's to the point where I'm sure I've lost a few notches of respect from a handful of people who have to think, "That's the wrong 'their' for the third time in a row!"

The trade-offs of emojis creating an ambiguous message and me making me sound like a toddler mashing keys on a keyboard are worth the benefits I get from my phone.  It's just not all cupcakes and unicorns.

fruits and vegetables

I know I have to be getting irritating to those around me all I talk about food nowadays, but the last year has represented a huge shift in how I think about food so it's frequently on my mind.  Believe it or not, this is keeping my thoughts on the matter short.

I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.

Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced.  Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.

I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.

I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.

unthinkable

I'm frequently guarded about the standards I use to determine whether a movie is appropriate to watch or not.  Most things that make a movie appropriate or inappropriate are inherently subjective.  So, if I refuse to watch something that doesn't mean that I condemn others who watch it.  Likewise, I don't want others to condemn me for deeming something acceptable that they personally find inappropriate to watch.

On-screen violence is one issue that a lot of people find inappropriate.  This is difficult because while I genuinely dislike seeing violence in movies--I never watch a movie excited to see realistic violence--it is often necessary to make the point of the movie.  One oft-cited example is The Passion of the Christ.  Another example that I want to consider here today because it touches on a topic currently in the news is a movie called Unthinkable.

The reason for my lead-in to this is that I'm hesitant to acknowledge that I've watched Unthinkable or to recommend it to others because it's violent in a genuinely disturbing way.  Much like The Passion of the Christ, it is not enjoyable to watch, but it is important in the issue and questions it presents.  I have no desire to re-watch either of these movies, though I consider both to be extremely important works that have affected me in a positive way.

The protagonist in the movie is an FBI agent played by Carrie-Anne Moss, and she is told to oversee the work of an interrogator played by Samuel L. Jackson.  He's attempting to extract information from a terrorist who claims to have planted bombs in major cities.  We're meant to work through the moral trade-offs involved with enhanced interrogation through the decisions that Moss' character is forced to make.  Throughout the movie, she constantly has to decide whether to allow the torture we're witnessing to continue and escalate further or potentially allow thousands to millions to die in a nuclear incident.  Some of the questions forced on the audience follow.

• Is there a way to weigh the moral values of torture against the life that would be lost without it?
• Is a little bit of torture okay if it saves lives?
• Is more extreme torture okay if it saves lives?
• Is there ever a point where the actions necessary to save lives are so unthinkable (hence the movie's name) that it's preferable not to take them?
• *Spoiler (highlight to reveal)* Is it acceptable to torture an innocent if that could save lives? *Spoiler*

Based on the above bullets, suffice to say this isn't a date movie.

The reason I "like" (not enjoy) this movie is that I didn't believe it forced the audience to believe one way or the other on torture.  Where 24* or Zero Dark Thirty* may extol the effectiveness of torture, or where Rendition* may present it as something that will be abused, my take on Unthinkable was that the movie intended for audiences to simply understand the trade-off for taking either a pro- or anti-torture position**.  I didn't finish the movie believing that being for or against torture was an easy choice.  I finished the movie believing that every option in such situations is a bad option, and the real question is determine which the least bad option is***.

So, I'm sort of recommending the movie without recommending it in the same way I would do so with The Passion of the Christ.  If you're not up to watching a violent and disturbing movie don't watch this.  If you could stomach Mel Gibson's movie, though, and want to see a movie that handles the subject of torture against terrorism in an unflinching and honest light, it is worth a consideration.

* I actually have only watched a little bit of 24, and none of Zero Dark Thirty or Rendition.  You can discredit my opinion related to those movies if you like, since I'm only going off second-hand information.

** Full disclosure, I have been anti-torture for a few years now after having believed for a while that it was an acceptable trade-off to stopping acts of terrorism.  This being said, I am genuinely torn on some of the moral conundrums certain scenarios present.

*** I do also think I should acknowledge that one criticism I've seen of the movie is  that it may actually be slanted pro-torture. There is real dispute as to whether torture is effective in getting accurate information from individuals, and while this is somewhat addressed in the movie, the audience may still walk away thinking that torture is more effective than it is.

totality

By I, Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

I have long been interested in solar eclipses.  When I was fourteen an annular eclipse cut across the United States, and I remember being disappointed that my entire experience with it was through a pinhole projector.

When I found out last year that an eclipse was going to be going through the area, I almost immediately told Golden that I wanted to see it, and I wanted the kids to experience it too.  This led to me researching for months the best possible place to see the eclipse.  We ended up going with one of Golden's friends, and bringing the kids she watches during the day, so this significantly affected which locations would be ideal.

I bought our eclipse glasses early, and we planned a trip to a park in Liberty, Missouri.  The morning of, we checked the weather forecast, and I steeled my nerves for disappointment as the weather did not look promising there, but it looked better than most of the other places I had been scouting out.

When we got to the park we had to sit in the car for 45 minutes while we waited out a rainstorm.  Then, just as the eclipse started, the clouds parted.  We got to watch the entirety of the eclipse from start to totality without any clouds blocking our view.  Then, within five minutes of viewing totality the sun was hidden behind clouds.

Totality was spectacular, and a completely different experience from watching the eclipse through eclipse glasses.  It's hard to describe, but the entire world sort of changes, and the thing in the sky looks completely different than we're used to.  Adding to the experience is the crowd around you getting excited as well.

I know several people who made a good-faith attempt to see totality, but missed out due to clouds.  And so, I feel just a little guilty and a lot fortunate to have been able to have this experience.  It's definitely been a bucket list item for me, and so I feel very privileged that at least this once I was able to experience this with the rest of my family.

out of place

A lot of the time corners must be cut in television shows, movies, and other forms of entertainment due to budget.  To an extent I understand that, as I believe that most people do.  Some of the cost savers bother me more than others, though.  The biggest may be having someone who is very obviously not from a certain area of the world portray a character from that area of the world.  In this case I am talking about when this is blatant.

An example of what I am not talking about is having Apu in The Simpsons voiced by Hank Azaria or Kahn  Sr. in King of the Hill voiced by Toby Huss.  In both of these cases the characters are presented as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and there's at least a hint of what seems like it should be the right accent in their voices.  I am also not talking about the fact that ancient Roman, Greek, and Hebrew individuals are frequently presented with a British accent.  I don't know how people are supposed to have sounded like in those regions a few centuries back, so it isn't as offputting as it might otherwise be.

Three examples of what I am thinking about spring to mind.

The first example is more significant to me than it would be to others since I had some childhood experience living on and around reservations.  Native Americans have historically been portrayed by non-Native actors who do not talk a bit like any Native Americans I have met and whose facial features were very Caucasian.

This has gotten better in more recent decades than it used to be. I remember talk about relatives of a Native family I knew actually holding a short part in Dances with Wolves when it was filming in the area so some Natives have found roles. My bar for acceptability here is pretty low.  All I am really ask for is someone with a believable accent and who looks Native American to play Native American characters.

As an aside, Dances with Wolves was a pretentious and poorly paced movie if ever there was one. 

The second example is from a movie I rewatched several months back: Around the World in Eighty Days.  One of the main characters is Princess Aouda who is presented as an Indian (from India) princess who the protagonist rescues from a cult that is trying to sacrifice her.  She is played by Shirley MacLaine in this movie.  In case you are wondering how not Indian Shirley MacLaine looked in 1956, the below image from the movie should give a hint.

Shirley MacLaine playing an "Indian" princess

She made no attempt to adopt even a mild accent during the movie, so the entire time that character was on the screen I was thinking, "Had anyone associated with this film ever met someone from India?" Now I know that I am asking a lot for a movie released fifty-eight years ago, but I also know a lot of people from India.  No film holding a Best Picture Oscar should have been allowed to pass off Shirley MacLaine as Indian.

Finally, I spent some time last month playing a game on the Wii called Secret Files: Tunguska.  It's largely a puzzle game where you are supposed to pick items up around a playing area and figure out how to combine them to work toward a specific end goal.  The storyline for the game has German characters traveling on a Russian train, in an Irish pub, and through a Cuban psych ward.  At no time did any speaking character in the game come close to having even a fake German, Russian, Irish, or Cuban accent.  Ultimately, since this was a puzzle game the storyline did not matter so much, but it was jarring hearing "German" and "Russian" characters who sounded like they were from the American Midwest interact.

All of this being said, throw the flimsiest of Sci-Fi plots my direction and I will eat it up.  Perhaps I am not as discerning as I am portraying myself here.

pumpkin season

Photo by: Danielle Scott

One of the primary seasonal flavors of October and November is pumpkin.  Not only do pumpkin pies appear, but everything from ice cream to bread to coffee is sold with pumpkin flavoring.

I wouldn't say I don't like pumpkin and the things made from pumpkins.  I actually do.  For example, a properly made pumpkin pie can be quite good.  I would say that I have never had anything with pumpkin flavoring that wouldn't taste better with a more traditional and less seasonal flavoring, though.

For example, I think pumpkin bread is perfectly fine.  I'd actually prefer banana bread or zucchini bread, though.  Note that this comes from someone who does not like bananas or zucchinis.  Pumpkin flavored ice cream is okay, but even in autumn I'd prefer vanilla.  I can definitely enjoy a slice of pumpkin pie, but I like most other types of pie far better with a few very specific exceptions.  Give me apple, cherry, or blueberry over pumpkin any day.

I understand that a big part of the appeal is the same sort of appeal that certain foods have at Christmas time.  It's not necessarily the flavor that is desirable, but rather the atmosphere that it creates.  It's a way for a person to get their mind into the season, and it can be more pleasurable for the person who loves autumn.  Even so, I'm always a little perplexed with the excitement that pumpkin flavored things garners with a lot of people.  Pumpkin just isn't a flavor I can get excited about.

So, I'm interested.  Do your tastes align with mine, or do you get excited about pumpkin season?  If you get excited about pumpkin season is it more about the flavor or about the season itself?

900

Sandro Botticelli's Chart of Hell

This is my 900th post, and I have a tradition of posting something somewhat related to the number on round number posts like this.  The last time I posted on 800 area code phone numbers and the concept of "free."  While the obvious choice would be to post on 900 numbers this time around I am going to take a different, more convoluted, and slightly more serious direction with this post.

About twelve years ago I read a translation of Dante Alighieri's Inferno, which was his depiction of Hell, as well as his Purgatorio (Purgatory) and Paradiso (Heaven or Paradise).  The way this is tenuously related to 900 is that Dante's depiction of Hell was that it was a gigantic hole in the ground, and that there were nine (not nine hundred, but I already said this was tenuous) rings that formed the hole, and the closer to the center rings you got the deeper into the hole you were.  Each ring was devoted to specific types of sinners, and so the less bad sinners were tormented on the outer rings while the serious sinners were tormented worse in the inner rings.

I have had a lot of contemplations about Inferno ever since I read it, but I never took the opportunity fully articulate them until now, so this is my chance.

The first thing a person notices when reading Inferno is that Dante had enemies and he enjoyed imagining them suffer.  He fills his Hell with people he personally knew, or who were opposed in some way to Dante (or his city-state), and details in what way those people will suffer that is related to the way they sinned.  He also fills his Hell with historical figures that most people agreed were deserving of punishment (the worst reserved for Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot).  If Dante had a beef with you there was a pretty good chance you were going to end up somewhere in his literary torture fantasy.

The second thing that sticks out to me is how appealing a depiction, woefully inaccurate or not, of Hell is.  Put bluntly, Purgatorio and Paradiso were boring.  Inferno was interesting if only for the creativity with which Dante imagined people's eternal demise.  On further thought, isn't a perfect reflection of human nature?  The idea of being perfected and moving toward Paradise makes for a boring read, but detail how sinners are justly tortured and I can't put the book down.

The third thing that sticks out to me is how damaging the book is to a real belief in Hell.  I have heard multiple people say the opposite.  Interest in Inferno will make people wonder if there really is a Hell, I've heard.  To me, the stories are so specific yet so limited within a human mindset that it feels (and is) contrived.  Hell is real, but it is not something that we can conceive of more than we can conceive of Heaven.  To force a detailed depiction that makes some physical sense to our feeble minds is to make it sound more like a fairy tale than reality.  I couldn't believe that Hell was real if I were forced to accept even 10% of the depiction that Dante presents.

Finally, this trilogy of books is absolute proof that people did not believe the earth was flat in the years prior to Columbus' initial voyage to the Americas.  Typically, when people correctly note that people in Medieval times did not believe that the earth was flat, they point to the writings of the ancient Greeks which note that a flat earth would not allow for ships to sink into the horizon to disappear, and that they would instead just disappear into a tiny speck at a large distance away.  If the 500 B.C. Greeks knew, the 1492 A.D. Portuguese did as well.  I look to Dante instead, who lived about two hundred years before Columbus' voyages.

The reason that Dante presented Hell as a hole in the ground was that he imagined that Hell would be a void in the earth left when Satan was cast down from God's presence and struck the earth like a massive high-speed asteroid.  Dante further surmised that on the other side of the world would be a huge mountain created by land upended from the creation of the hole that was Hell.  This mountain would be Purgatory, and it would rise up into the heavens and be the gateway into Paradise.

So, in summary, Dante's Hell is a hole in the ground caused by Satan striking the earth with incredible force. Also, Purgatory is a mountain on the other side of the earth, which was created by that same force.  This is not a story conceived by someone who believes in a flat earth.  It is a story conceived by someone without a great deal of knowledge of physics or astronomy, however, so there is that.  I just believe that we need to remember that not every belief from an earlier time period is completely ridiculous.  I may have brought harm to that point by mentioning Dante's description of Purgatory as a mountain leading to Paradise, though.

love at first sight

I watched Warm Bodies this past weekend.  I did not love or hate the movie.  It was interesting enough.  The movie was a love-conquers-all zombie flick regarding the transformation of zombies back into something more resembling living humans.  That's not really a spoiler, as that's the selling point of the movie's trailer.  Also, the plot is directly influenced by Romeo and Juliet to the point that the main characters are named, "R," and, "Julie."

The storyline relies more on the power of relational love than most other movies with a romantic bent that I have seen.  It's love that drives the zombies' change after all (also in the trailer).  Part of that relational love thing was something that annoys me in most love-conquers-all stories—that initial romantic puppy love is the powerful love that conquers all.  In the movie it is not only puppy love that drives the change, but the main plot follows what I consider a puppy love relationship.

I know it seems only lightly related, but as long as I can remember a common question in movies and TV shows has been whether a character believes in love at first sight.  Frequently, some character's arc then sends them through a love-at-first-sight scenario.  In Warm Bodies, there is a love-at-first-sight scenario, but the writers built in some rules for how zombies work to make it not really love at first sight even though it totally is.

I have long wondered at the appeal of love at first sight for two reasons.

1. It seems like a lot to throw into a (potential) relationship way too early.  Love—real love—is wonderful, but also burdensome.  Real love involves willingness to sacrifice even when sacrifice is not reciprocated.  It is selfless.  That's a huge deal.  People are human, and being in a real romantic love situation before you have any idea what that person's strengths, weaknesses, quirks, and flaws are is a recipe for pain and disillusionment.  Will you choose to sacrificially love someone if you find that your life goals and priorities conflict?  Is that willingness something you want based solely on initial physical attraction?
2. Since loving at first sight implies severely limited knowledge of the other person does this mean that the person who idealizes love at first sight is attracted to people who make impulsive and unwise relationship decisions?

My guess is that the people who dream of love at first sight are not actually thinking about love when they dream.  I suspect that most people who long for love at first sight fall into one of the two following categories.

1. They want a serious relationship rather than a casual one so bad that they dream of someone skipping the important initial stages of the relationship.  Those initial stages of the relationship are the part where each person finds out about the good and the bad things about the other before putting their heart on the line.  Maybe this person does not figure that he or she will get past that stage if it is not short-circuited?
2. They want the self-esteem boost that comes from the knowledge that they are so hot they can cause someone else to stop thinking rationally.

Now, there are things that I do believe in at first sight.  I think strong physical attraction (mutual or otherwise) can appear at first sight.  Disgust or disdain can occur at first sight.  Intrigue frequently occurs at first sight.  Most frequently, I believe that indifference occurs at first sight.  One thing that I do not believe ever occurs at first sight, however, is true love.

unique as a snowflake

Any time anyone wants to talk about how important or unique each person is there is one metaphor and one metaphor only that is utilized to make the point. Of all of the trillions and trillions of snowflakes that have ever formed, all of them are unique. If they're unique, aren't you as well? There is one thing about that whole discussion that always bothered me, though.  How did they know for sure?  No one has compared anywhere near enough snowflakes to know that two are not identical.  Sure, at the molecular level it would make sense that no two snowflakes are identical, but on a molecular level no two of anything big enough for humans to see with the naked eye is identical.

Recently, I started getting curious about this metaphor and went searching, sort of expecting this to be more of a legend than truth.  It was in that search that I came across an article in National Geographic that indicated that it is probably true that no snowflakes are or have been alike.  There is obviously no real way to prove this, but there are enough factors at play that it is unlikely that two flakes ever formed enough in the same way to create two identical snowflakes.

The question I have, though, is why does this metaphor matter so much.  Why is the relative uniqueness of miniature bits of frozen water mean anything to our own uniqueness?  Why does the fact that a snowflake freezes in different ways under different factors make me as a person any more valuable or special?  Ultimately, why do we care?

The answer is probably that people are grasping at what we all hope for.  We want to be important, special, significant, one-of-a-kind.  If God created each snowflake differently, that same process must be at work in us.

Truth be told, though, it does not matter.  We are not snowflakes.  While we are unique, that is not what makes us significant.  While a person's uniqueness may make him or her feel more significant, I do not see that this truly does make them more significant.  If I had a twin that was identical to me in every way, would that make me less valuable as a person?

Really, any significance we have comes from our Creator rather than whatever about us happens to be different from the norm.  So maybe I am a unique snowflake.  Maybe I'm not.  In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter very much.

chuckles the car

For about a month the image below is part of what I have seen from my office.

What has stuck out to me is that white vehicle in the middle of the photo.While the driver of that vehicle has not been parked facing my office like this in the last few weeks, for several weeks he or she parked backed into the space so that the car constantly caught my eye due to a similarity my mind cannot ignore.

As I mentioned a while back, I have seen Toy Story 3 many times in the last two years, as it is one of our kids' favorites.  One of the characters is a clown toy named Chuckles.  All I can think about when I see this car from a distance is how much it reminds me of Chuckles.

Are there similar things that show up in your everyday life that constantly reminds you of something or someone else?

animal maps

Today's post is just a couple of simple geographic observations I made as a kid that I never really heard anyone else make. I lived within a few hundred yards of Lake Superior between the years when I was five and when I was seven and I have always had a strong interest in maps. As a result, I have seen images of the Great Lakes quite frequently throughout my life. As long as I can remember I have seen some sort of cross between a shark with arms and a genii. I have heard people refer to Lake Superior as a wolf head, but it looks more like a genii/shark hybrid head to me.Just like the animal I have seen in the shape of the Great Lakes, I have always seen an elephant in the shape of the lower forty-eight states of the United States. New England is the trunk, Florida is a front leg, Texas is the back leg, and it is in the process of simultaneously sitting down and raising its trunk.So, what do you think? What do you see in these maps? Am I nuts for seeing what I see? Am I deaf for not ever hearing anyone make that observation before? Am I a nerd to get such a kick out of this?

tracking

Next year is mine and Golden's ten year anniversary. We are considering a vacation somewhere sunny that summer, but nothing is written in stone yet. Whether Golden is comfortable being away from the kids for that long or whether we decide that we have the money available to do this is still up in the air. However, I have been investigating places in the Caribbean lately so can I know what kind of prices and experiences we would be considering.

One key point in this whole process is that we would need to leave the kids somewhere. The logical thing to do is to leave them with my parents because they do not get enough time with their grandkids anyway. If we did this, we would fly from Pittsburgh to wherever we decided to go, and I have taken this into account in my searching.

Because of this, I was a little taken aback a few days ago when I was on Snopes. A Travelocity banner ad specifically targeted me based on a search I had performed previously. I know this because this is the only way the ad would know that I would want to fly from Pittsburgh. I understand the technology behind the ad (it simply stored my search in a cookie in my browser), but in my experience it marks the beginning of something that will become much more prevalent in the near future.

What is really surprising is that this may be the first time that I have been able to identify an ad targeted directly to me rather than to the demographic of people targeted by the content that I am accessing. For example, I have seen ads for the Mythbusters TV show on Snopes before, but I am pretty sure that was targeted more to the general Snopes audience rather than to me personally. I would have expected that, by now, I would have seen more advertising that targets me personally, especially from Google ads.

I am not entirely convinced that Google stock is worth the premium that it goes for in the market. Even so, it has a compelling advertising business model if it can be implemented properly. Why is Google willing to host so many useful services essentially for free? Google Earth can't be bringing in much revenue. Neither can Gmail. However, the information that Google can eventually collect about all of its users through the different applications that it hosts will eventually be incredibly valuable to its targeted advertising.

I think that the feasibility of using the Internet to host a large volume of proprietary content for free depends on this targeted marketing. Many content producers are going out of business or having a tough time finding realistic revenue streams (think newspapers). At some point those who produce high-quality content will demand a higher price or get out of the business. Since targeted ads can command better revenue, it makes sense that such ads could be the savior of much of the content online. If it isn't, look forward to a lot of content going away or ceasing to be free.

gmail spam

I think most of the people who read this have a Gmail account, but for those who don't there is a small bar along the top of the screen that contains a link relevant to the content of the email. As an example, when I viewed an email with mortgage payment information in it this morning, the link in that bar was for "10 Ways to Start Living the Frugal Life."

Something that I have noticed pretty much since I first got my Gmail account is that when I go to my "Spam" folder I invariably get a link to some Spam recipe. If I refresh a different Spam recipe is presented, so I have to assume that there are a lot of recipes online that call for Spam. I also assume that I can't possibly be the only person who has noticed this. I keep expecting the Spam recipe links to get replaced by something more targeted to me based on the contents of my actual emails.

Am I the only one who has noticed this? Do you think this has been intentionally left this way for laughs? Does creamy Spam broccoli casserole sound appetizing at all?

the new ranch

The last few months Golden has been writing up the grocery list and I have been doing the shopping because it is easier for me to get out and about. As a result, I have gotten quite used to the details of most of the items that we tend to buy in our house. Some of the ones that we don't purchase very often are still a bit complicated, though. One example is ranch dressing.

I am pretty certain that we have generally purchased Kraft ranch dressing more than other brands rather consistently in the past. Regardless, I always kind of thought of ranch dressing as something that has been relatively standardized. The only real flavor dangers should be in either buying some strange ranch variant (like garlic ranch) or fat-free ranch (which I think tastes a bit like plastic). I have learned that I was wrong.

A few weeks ago I picked up a container of Kraft ranch dressing on the weekly grocery run. I noticed that the bottle looked different, but I was careful to check that it was the plain ranch dressing and was not a fat-free variation. When it came time to use the dressing I found that it had more in common with Elmer's glue than with the ranch dressing that I am used to. After considering for a while whether I just got a bad bottle I came across this website and this website where others describe running into the same issue that I did. Apparently, Kraft changed the recipe for a few of its dressings and this ranch dressing is but one example.

This leads me to some obvious thoughts. First, Kraft apparently didn't learn from the New Coke that changing up flavors is not always a positive thing. Sticking with the old formula would definitely have been a better move in both cases. Second, does Kraft not do reliable market testing? This sort of thing should get caught in test markets rather than in nationwide releases. Third, is there anyone who actually liked this version? I can't imagine anyone really going for it. The best I can conjure in my mind is someone who doesn't absolutely hate it. Finally, what do I do with it? Is it stupid to toss a nearly completely unused container of ranch dressing? Does anyone else want a sample before I toss it?

baby girl

It has taken a bit longer to post this than I would have liked. A combination of issues conspired to keep me from bothering with this until now, not the least of which was the fact that the baby's pictures were already posted on Facebook, which drained some of my motivation. Also, I am not sure what blog name we are giving to our baby girl at this point.

Golden started having contractions late Sunday night two weeks ago (the sixteenth). We headed to the hospital a little after midnight for monitoring after consulting with the doctor. I remember thinking that this was going to make for a very bad Monday if the baby did not actually come out.

Around 3 AM the doctor told the hospital to move Golden into a delivery room so she could break her water at the break of dawn. Apparently, we have different notions of what the break of dawn is, because the doctor showed up around 8:30 AM, which was about an hour-and-a-half later than what I understood the break of dawn to be.

During delivery, the doctor noted that she had never seen a baby wriggle so much at that stage, so she commented that we have a feisty baby on our hands. With two weeks experience, I do not disagree with this assessment. Our healthy baby (six pounds, thirteen ounces) was born at 1:31 PM that afternoon. This is notable because it was on my sister's birthday and on the anniversary of when I asked Golden on our first date.

With NJ I spent almost all of my time at the hospital. Since Golden's mom was at the house taking care of NJ, I did spend a couple of hours every day at the house, and I had a few more errands that I had to run between the house and the hospital. That broke the day up nicely for me, though it probably made things a tad more boring for Golden.

We found out right before we left the hospital that a kidney issue that had been found on our sonograms had cleared up. It was one of those things that the doctor told us usually does heal itself by the time the baby is born. It still feels like a bit of a miracle, and is quite a relief.

Tomorrow we have to go in for the latest in a series of weight checks that the doctor ordered on our daughter. She lost a lot of weight in her first four days, but has gained back pretty regularly since. Both Golden and I think it is a bit ridiculous that we have to go in for this specific weight check because this one is just because she didn't technically reach her birth weight in the last weight check. They should have enough data to see she is growing very rapidly.

Anyway, I have been meaning to get to this and now I have. Hopefully, I can get on a regular schedule shortly now.

blogging

When I saw this new Despair.com demotivator I knew I had to post on it. I didn't even know what I was going say, but as the poster indicates, the quality of my content is quite irrelevant.

I always figured that I was well suited for a career in journalism. I did not necessarily intend to go into a career in journalism, though. I like writing things that are to the point (no, really, I actually do), and I am interested in finding out what the truth about situations is. I also maintained a three-page monthly newspaper for a couple of years when I was fourteen and fifteen. While keeping a deadline was annoying, the whole process of writing, editing, and layout was a blast. For some reason, though, other careers were always more appealing.

That mild interest in journalism has carried over to this blog. Like with the family newspaper, my circulation is about ten to fifteen people. In both situations I have kept a pretty tight schedule (which I horribly violated today).

Really, I don't have much more to say than that. I'm just prattling on a lot about a little to a small number of people.

lion down

Since I was living in the upper peninsula of Michigan when I first became interested in sports as a kid, I have been a Lions and a Tigers fan. This is not an easy proposition if you know anything about the records of both teams over the last twenty years, but as I have noted before, I take some pride in pulling for my team even when things are bad. This also diminishes my patience for bandwagon fans.

While the Tigers were horrible for a while, they have at least been an average team over the last three years. The Lions, however, have genuinely stunk for the entirety of this decade. They stunk in the 1980s as well, and they were an average team in the 1990s only because they had Barry Sanders. They constantly battle to just stay out of last place, not just of their division, but of the entire NFL. Part of the appeal of fantasy football is that I can watch football games and pay attention to something other than the score of the Lions game. At least I have some control over how good my fantasy team is. It's a way for me to be emotionally detached from my team until some day in my fifties when they have a winning season again.

Just how bad are the Lions? They have a 31-84 record and have never in that time finished in higher than third place in a four-team division under the leadership of the current team president Matt Millen, which has spanned about seven years. This year they have already been blown out by two teams, the Atlanta Falcons and the San Francisco 49ers, that were among the laughingstocks of the league last year. The Lions have only won one playoff game since 1957 in a league where twelve teams every year advance to the playoffs.

I have heard many commentators express the opinion that Millen is the worst team president in the history of the NFL. It is now common at Lions games for the crowd to chant, "Fire Millen," as the team makes yet another opponent look brilliant. Even so, Millen still has the full support of William Clay Ford, Sr., who owns the team. The fans, however, don't have the same warm feelings or patience for Millen. The opinions of most fans can be summarized by the thoughts in this letter from a former fan and this bit of opinion from an ESPN contributor. Even Bill Ford, Jr. has issued an opinion that Millen should leave the team.

Normally, I am not a person who wants to see someone else lose his job. I really have to make an exception for Millen, though. By now he shouldn't need the money, and all indications are that he is not suited for the job. Part of the human experience is learning to accept that you cannot be good at everything. So, in helping him understand this part of the human experience, and to help the Lions actually have a winning season sometime this century (I wish that were hyperbole), Millen has to go. It would be nice to see the Fords sell the team to someone who understands football as well, but I can only hope for so much.

In this spirit, I have considered rooting against the Lions this year in the hopes that a lousy season will force Millen's ouster. It goes against my nature, and I suspect at this point that Millen wouldn't get fired if the team went 0-16 for the next three years, but it is all I have to hold on to at the moment. That, and my mediocre fantasy football squads.

men and church

A couple of weeks ago I finished reading the book Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. I have wanted to post some thoughts on it for a while, but I have not taken the time until now to type them out. Some of this is a rehash of an earlier post, but I think it is worth the rehash.

I have made it no secret that, throughout my life, church has often felt like it wasn't really designed for me. I definitely see great value in church and I am not looking for a reason to skip. I just want to better understand why I feel this way. My rationale goes that if I can gain this understanding I will be able to figure out how to make the experience more enjoyable and worthwhile for myself and others who may be experiencing the same thing.

One thing that I should note is that I really like my church. A lot of the masculinity problems that plague a lot of churches do not exist in my church. I think this can be credited to my pastor.

Probably the most discussed point in the book is that church appeals to older folks and women more than younger folks and men because it offers security rather than challenge. Someone who values security values stability, predictability, nurturing, and support, all of which one can find at a typical church. Someone who values challenge values risk, variety, competition, and independence. These are not adjectives that describe most churches. Women and the elderly are statistically more likely to desire security, and men and the young are statistically more likely to desire challenge. This pattern is evidenced in the typical church pews, where there are many more female and elderly parishioners than male and younger ones.

Some of the other sticking points that the book mentions are as follows. (This is a bit long, so don't feel bad for skipping it.)

• Men have short attention spans during lecture formats. This makes Sunday School and sermon lectures especially ineffective. The author recommends limiting the number of points in the lesson or sermon (unlike this post), taking breaks, and going heavy on the visual aids. I know that I operate better in a conversational environment than in a lecture so that is how I teach. I am sure there are people for whom this does not work, though.
• Most men are not comfortable with passive-aggressive conflict. Almost all church conflict is passive-aggressive. The author's recommendation is to encourage being more direct in conflict in the church so long as the point is to clear the air and move on.
• Women are generally better readers than men. Since a lot of what happens in a church service or Sunday School class relies on reading, this is uncomfortable for a lot of men. This is actually one which isn't really a big deal to me as should be evidenced by this wordy post.
• When women are stressed they are more likely to want to get support and talk about their problems with friends at a setting like church. Men are more likely to want to work out the problems for themselves, which leads to fewer men than women in church during rough times.
• Churches are full of programs and not projects. Programs do not tend to provide the goals that men usually need to work toward. Most men work much better in projects where there is a beginning, an end, and success is clearly defined. The book encourages structuring ministries around individual projects to encourage more men to participate.
• Many men view church as less than masculine. The book makes a major generalization here that I agree with, and I am usually pretty careful around generalizations. Masculinity is far more important to almost all straight men than femininity is to almost all straight women. It is far more challenging for a man to take a woman's role than vice versa. I can elaborate in as much detail as needed for anyone who has questions about this, but it can be illustrated with the following question. How willing are you to wear clothes obviously designed for the opposite sex in public?
• Men hate feeling incompetent, and there are a lot of opportunities for that in a church service. Most men do not excel at a lot of the things that they may be expected to do at church, so some avoid it altogether.
• There is absolutely nothing appealing to a man about becoming Ned Flanders.
• One point that is important to me is that many men, myself included, often feel that they cannot openly challenge things they may disagree with at church. This goes back to the contrast between security and challenge. People who strongly value security view expressions of disagreement negatively. I frankly stink at toeing the line. There are many times that Golden has to hear me explain why I disagreed with something someone said on the drive home from church because I am kicking myself for not devising a way of making my opinions known in an acceptable way.
• Themes and word choices in church tend to be feminine, stressing weakness, relationships, support, and feelings. The loaded phrases of "relationship" and "intimacy" with God are also used a lot. Most straight men are a little uncomfortable with the idea of seeking an intimate relationship with another man, even if he is named "Jesus." An example that the author mentions of a particularly unwise Christian book title can be found here.
• Music in church tends to focus on a relationship with Jesus that can be frankly read as mildly erotic. Since Jesus was a man, that makes the music seem homoerotic to some men.
• Men's ministry is essentially women's ministry for men because the focus is generally on socialization and lecture. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure how that can be changed, because it needs to be. I would not be averse to doing more things with the men's ministry at my church if it were fun and/or purposeful.
• Femininity defines holiness in church. I have discussed this before. Basically, I believe that the Godliness that is pushed by most conservative churches is designed to make the congregation into proper ladies. There really is not much room for masculinity in most church definitions of holiness.

If there was something that I wish all ministry leaders read in this book it is the following list. The author details a top ten list of spiritual questions that men ask. Note that the majority are rarely addressed and I have never heard the top two adequately addressed. If a church said that they were going to meaningfully address and discuss the ten questions below in a series of men's meetings, I would bet on a packed house.

1. What is true manliness?
2. What is true success?
3. How do I deal with guilt feelings?
4. Is purity possible for men?
5. How can we nurture family life?
6. What is Christian leadership?
7. What are the basic disciplines of a Christian man?
8. What ministry skills need to be developed?
9. What is biblical business conduct?
10. What is integrity?

I actually only listed stuff that I thought was very important and that resonated with me, so there is a lot in the book. It tries to propose some solutions for the issues that are raised, too, so it isn't without practical purpose.

I do believe that Murrow's book is a must read for anyone who is struggling to get a man into church as well as anyone who is in leadership within a church. It is especially important for women in leadership positions or seeking leadership positions in church, because the book notes that the disparity between men and women is the greatest in churches where women hold high positions. As unfair and sexist as it may seem, this implies that female ministry leaders have to compensate a little to have a healthy and balanced church.

How well the church is able to reach men will absolutely define the strength of the church in the next generation. The stakes could not be higher.

the past week

My sister visited this past week to spend some time with NJ, so I took the week off from work so we could more properly visit with family.

I picked my sister up at the airport in the late afternoon on Monday. Not much happened on that particular evening. We watched Nancy Drew. It was more or less what I expected.

We were supposed to have the gutters replaces on Monday as well. I was hoping they would be replaced by the time I got back from the airport. Eventually I got a phone call saying that the work would be postponed until Wednesday morning.

Tuesday, we went to the doctor to find out that we are having a girl (I know, we already announced that). Around supper time, we visited Legends. Now that we have been there a few times, the place actually feels kind of small. It didn't feel that way the first time I went there. That night we watched National Treasure 2, which I think is much better than the original.

Wednesday was NJ's birthday. We opened presents and had cake at lunch time.

We were planning to go to the pool around 3:30PM, but that is when the gutter guy showed up. It turned out that he was just there to make a final measurement and make the gutters rather than put them up, so he left in short order and we visited the pool. We spent quite a bit of time in the kiddie pool, then as we were walking into the big pool we heard thunder and the pool shut down. Bummer.

That night we watched Witness for the Prosecution, which is an old British movie based on a story that Agatha Christy wrote. Not a bad narrative, though it contained a lot of dialog, so it is not for people who don't like a lot of talking.

Thursday morning, the gutter guys showed up right as we were leaving. We visited my grandmother and great-grandmother who live a two hour drive away. Actually, that is two hours if you don't get sidetracked. I took a wrong turn and added a half hour to the trip.

NJ was especially fussy on Thursday. He screamed for the first half hour to hour that he was at his great-grandmother's house. I felt bad, but there was little we could do. From there we headed to Golden's family's house in the Springfield area.

Friday was the fourth. I celebrated by being lazy. NJ played in the back yard some. That night we set off some small fireworks. Nothing real noteworthy.

Saturday, we visited a nature center in Springfield, then traveled back to the OP. Sunday, I took my sister back to the airport.

Typically, the mark of a good break from work is when it feels like forever since I have been to the office. Since it feels like ages since I was at work, it must have been a good break.