While my parents are here they are doing a lot of things around the house. We have already cut down a few small trees along the house and bagged them, refloored the entryway from the garage, created a platform to put over the stairway to keep NJ from falling, and installed a sink, faucet, and garbage disposal. As a result, we have been to Home Depot a lot in the last few days.
During one of our trips, Golden and I brought a sample of the color scheme for our daughter-to-be's room to determine what paint color we will need to purchase. There is a machine there that scans objects and identifies what the color is. Our scheme will center around a color called Ballerina Gown. As it is a shade of pink, it is a color that I have a difficult time differentiating from other similar colors.
This trip reminded me of something that has always irritated me. Why must all paint colors aim for evoking an emotion rather than describing the color? As someone who is colorblind, "Ballerina Gown," does not tell me what the color actually is. How does it differ from Cupid Arrow, Poetic Princess, or Scented Valenti? Maybe they could keep the current names, but also have more practical names for colorblind people. I would be better off with a name like, "Just a Bit too Pink to Be Off White." That would tell me something.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
666
"This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."- Revelation 13:18This is my six hundred and sixty-sixth post. I already had a spoof news story on the mark of the beast, I discussed my opinions in a monologue on eschatology, and I used it as the reason to do a post on mankind. I really haven't provided any thoughts on the mark of the beast, though.
As should be obvious to anyone who has read my take on eschatology, I believe that far too much importance has been placed on interpreting Revelation. It would make sense, then, that I don't tend to introduce the topic of the number of the beast in everyday conversation much.
I read The Book of General Ignorance earlier this month. It claimed that the number of the beast was actually supposed to be 616. Supposedly, the oldest known copy of the book of Revelation uses 616, and not 666, to denote the number of the beast. I don't know which of the numbers really is the number of the beast, but it doesn't matter much to me anyway.
Throughout history, different people have been purported to be the Antichrist because their names somehow added up to 666. Some people take these accusations seriously, but they are fortunately the vast minority. A sampling of the people believed to be the Antichrist can be found at the Rapture Ready website.
When I worked as a cashier, if someone's purchase total came to $6.66 they would very frequently note that this was sign enough to play those numbers in the lottery that day. I never figured out how this was any different than any other total, like $9.37 for example.
For years I have been hearing that the mark of the beast will be a microchip placed in the hand or forehead. This is a popular enough belief that I know there will be an outcry if some company starts implanting identification chips into people. I am not looking forward to the inevitable people who will preach that any microchip in your body represents accepting the mark of the beast.
In 2003, a highway in the American southwest was renumbered from "666" to "491." This was not just due to it's correspondence with the number of the beast by my understanding, though. I remember hearing that a local Navajo belief was that the process of writing three consecutive sixes caused an evil hand motion.
Some people believe that "666" has been encoded into the UPC barcode system. If this is the case, the Antichrist had better get on the ball with somehow taking advantage of this. With the advent of RFID, UPC's days are numbered. I wouldn't be surprised if RFID has effectively replaced UPC in ten to twenty years.
Finally, this Catholic website has a humorous list of other beast numbers. My favorite is "668," which is the neighbor of the beast. I'd bet the Antichrist parties all night and keeps his neighbors up until the early morning. That's just a guess, though. I don't know for sure.
Friday, July 25, 2008
parents visiting
My parents are visiting this upcoming week. As usual, there are things that my dad will probably be doing on the house. As usual, there really isn't much of a plan as to what is happening when. As usual, the most important thing is that NJ's grandparents get to spend quality time with him.
Golden has been a little stressed trying to get the house prepared while NJ has been busy getting it unprepared. Golden has done a good job, though. It's not easy keeping this place clean with a two-year-old whose purpose it is to make the house messy.
The biggest issue that we run across when having people over is figuring out what to prepare for meals and snacks. I grew up with my parents and I cannot remember half of what they like to eat. I should have paid closer attention when I was growing up I guess.
They were talking like they would be getting in late Saturday night, but they are leaving from Columbus, Ohio, in the morning, and I cannot imagine that trip taking more than ten hours. Maybe it could take twelve hours if there was a lot of construction.
Hopefully the trip goes well and NJ enjoys the time with his grandparents, since that's the entire purpose of the trip anyway.
Golden has been a little stressed trying to get the house prepared while NJ has been busy getting it unprepared. Golden has done a good job, though. It's not easy keeping this place clean with a two-year-old whose purpose it is to make the house messy.
The biggest issue that we run across when having people over is figuring out what to prepare for meals and snacks. I grew up with my parents and I cannot remember half of what they like to eat. I should have paid closer attention when I was growing up I guess.
They were talking like they would be getting in late Saturday night, but they are leaving from Columbus, Ohio, in the morning, and I cannot imagine that trip taking more than ten hours. Maybe it could take twelve hours if there was a lot of construction.
Hopefully the trip goes well and NJ enjoys the time with his grandparents, since that's the entire purpose of the trip anyway.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
odd tastes
There are certain foods that I simply do not like. Of the foods that I do not like, most do not fit into the category of foods that I do not like due to some repressed memory that manifests itself in a gag reflex. Most I genuinely distaste because of the flavor, texture, or some combination of the two. These include most forms of fish, squash, and liver, among other things. Why it is that I naturally don't like the foods while there are people who absolutely crave them, though, I don't know.
Why is it that food tastes are not universal? I like tastes such as coffee, dill pickles, and spinach but many other people do not. In my mind it would make more sense if everyone in the world had roughly the same tastes rather than the wide variety of tastes that exist. I assume that the human tongue and nose are pretty standard in how they operate, so I would think this would lead to stronger standards as to what foods taste good or bad.
I think most people also have foods that they have disliked for psychological reasons at one time or another as well. This makes sense to me. I just do not understand the difference between the physical repulsion and craving that different people can have for the same foods.
If I were somehow transported into someone else's body would I acquire that person's tastes? Do different food flavors taste different to different people? Do certain cravings indicate a lack of specific nutrients?
I have said in the past that I eat because I am hungry rather than for a food experience. This is mostly true, but not completely. There are foods that seem to release more endorphins in me than others, like a Chipotle fajita or one of those miniature chocolate doughnuts. Does everyone have a list of foods that essentially performs the same function?
Now that I have typed this and started thinking about the foods I like, I can't think too clearly. All I can think about is that I'm getting hungry.
Why is it that food tastes are not universal? I like tastes such as coffee, dill pickles, and spinach but many other people do not. In my mind it would make more sense if everyone in the world had roughly the same tastes rather than the wide variety of tastes that exist. I assume that the human tongue and nose are pretty standard in how they operate, so I would think this would lead to stronger standards as to what foods taste good or bad.
I think most people also have foods that they have disliked for psychological reasons at one time or another as well. This makes sense to me. I just do not understand the difference between the physical repulsion and craving that different people can have for the same foods.
If I were somehow transported into someone else's body would I acquire that person's tastes? Do different food flavors taste different to different people? Do certain cravings indicate a lack of specific nutrients?
I have said in the past that I eat because I am hungry rather than for a food experience. This is mostly true, but not completely. There are foods that seem to release more endorphins in me than others, like a Chipotle fajita or one of those miniature chocolate doughnuts. Does everyone have a list of foods that essentially performs the same function?
Now that I have typed this and started thinking about the foods I like, I can't think too clearly. All I can think about is that I'm getting hungry.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
unmasking batman
Gotham Citizens Hope to Unmask Batman
GOTHAM CITY, July 22, 2008 (OTB) — Citizens of Gotham City have been worked into a frenzy in the last few days trying to decipher the precise identity of Batman, otherwise known as the Dark Knight. While the populace does not deny the good that Batman has done they also point to the death and destruction that has followed in his wake. "Things were bad before Batman," acknowledged local shop owner Benji Schazman, "but they were never as bad as they are now." Schazman's large delicatessen window has been shattered by the vehicles of villains fleeing Batman on no less than three occasions. "My insurance premiums are through the roof," complained Schazman. "It would be cheaper just to pay off the local crime boss."
*** Warning: Minor Spoilers Begin ***
Just who Batman is has proven to be elusive. The entire city at one point believed Harvey Dent, Gotham's District Attorney, was the Caped Crusader. That proved to be a ruse to distract from Batman's true identity, though. It was a clever one at that. Many, including Schazman, are not convinced Dent is not Batman. "I've never seen the two in the same room," noted Schazman, though he later admitted to never seeing even one of them in any room.
*** Minor Spoilers End ***
A few people have already been eliminated as suspects of being Batman. It is not believed that Police Commissioner Gordon can possibly be Batman since he has a mustache, which is widely accepted to be difficult to fake. Most of the rest of the men in the city have been eliminated because they are not attractive enough. Christy Jordan, public relations representative for the GPD, had this to say. "We may not know who Batman is, but we certainly know who he isn't. I can't even imagine my grody uncle Charley trying to fit into Batman's outfit." This statement drew chills from the audience as they presumably all knew people who matched as Jordan's description of her uncle.
One attractive citizen, local billionaire Bruce Wayne, has also been eliminated by the police as a suspect. Stated Jordan, "Sure, Mr. Wayne is the right build and complexion to be Batman, is athletic enough, has a voice similar to Batman's, has never been seen in the same room as Batman, and is the only person in the city to be able to afford to build the military-grade machinery that Batman uses. If you've met Bruce, though, you'd know that he can't possibly be Batman." This explanation effectively silenced all questions that had arisen about Wayne's possible affiliation with Batman.
The current list of suspects is not without holes. Most people questioned by police have solid alibis concurrent with at least one confirmed Batman sighting. Almost no one whom the police have questioned can afford to by a Prius outright, let alone the car/tank hybrid with detachable motorcycle that the Dark Knight has been seen driving. "We suspect it must be a drifter having what he thinks are cheap thrills or maybe even a disillusioned postal worker," noted Jordan. "Whomever it is must have stolen the vehicle that he or she has been using." Police are poring through old reports to see if there have been any complaints about stolen experimental military vehicles in the last few years. So far, nothing has shown up.
"If there is one thing the emergence of Batman has proven it is this," scolded Jordan. "Lock your doors when leaving your small tank unattended—even if for a minute. You never know what drifter is going to walk by, take advantage of your carelessness, and start a wave of vigilantism against the city's organized criminals. It just isn't worth the risk."
GOTHAM CITY, July 22, 2008 (OTB) — Citizens of Gotham City have been worked into a frenzy in the last few days trying to decipher the precise identity of Batman, otherwise known as the Dark Knight. While the populace does not deny the good that Batman has done they also point to the death and destruction that has followed in his wake. "Things were bad before Batman," acknowledged local shop owner Benji Schazman, "but they were never as bad as they are now." Schazman's large delicatessen window has been shattered by the vehicles of villains fleeing Batman on no less than three occasions. "My insurance premiums are through the roof," complained Schazman. "It would be cheaper just to pay off the local crime boss."
*** Warning: Minor Spoilers Begin ***
Just who Batman is has proven to be elusive. The entire city at one point believed Harvey Dent, Gotham's District Attorney, was the Caped Crusader. That proved to be a ruse to distract from Batman's true identity, though. It was a clever one at that. Many, including Schazman, are not convinced Dent is not Batman. "I've never seen the two in the same room," noted Schazman, though he later admitted to never seeing even one of them in any room.
*** Minor Spoilers End ***
A few people have already been eliminated as suspects of being Batman. It is not believed that Police Commissioner Gordon can possibly be Batman since he has a mustache, which is widely accepted to be difficult to fake. Most of the rest of the men in the city have been eliminated because they are not attractive enough. Christy Jordan, public relations representative for the GPD, had this to say. "We may not know who Batman is, but we certainly know who he isn't. I can't even imagine my grody uncle Charley trying to fit into Batman's outfit." This statement drew chills from the audience as they presumably all knew people who matched as Jordan's description of her uncle.
One attractive citizen, local billionaire Bruce Wayne, has also been eliminated by the police as a suspect. Stated Jordan, "Sure, Mr. Wayne is the right build and complexion to be Batman, is athletic enough, has a voice similar to Batman's, has never been seen in the same room as Batman, and is the only person in the city to be able to afford to build the military-grade machinery that Batman uses. If you've met Bruce, though, you'd know that he can't possibly be Batman." This explanation effectively silenced all questions that had arisen about Wayne's possible affiliation with Batman.
The current list of suspects is not without holes. Most people questioned by police have solid alibis concurrent with at least one confirmed Batman sighting. Almost no one whom the police have questioned can afford to by a Prius outright, let alone the car/tank hybrid with detachable motorcycle that the Dark Knight has been seen driving. "We suspect it must be a drifter having what he thinks are cheap thrills or maybe even a disillusioned postal worker," noted Jordan. "Whomever it is must have stolen the vehicle that he or she has been using." Police are poring through old reports to see if there have been any complaints about stolen experimental military vehicles in the last few years. So far, nothing has shown up.
"If there is one thing the emergence of Batman has proven it is this," scolded Jordan. "Lock your doors when leaving your small tank unattended—even if for a minute. You never know what drifter is going to walk by, take advantage of your carelessness, and start a wave of vigilantism against the city's organized criminals. It just isn't worth the risk."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
jokers wild
I'm going to see The Dark Knight tonight. When I originally heard about the movie I questioned the purpose of it. Batman already faced off against the Joker in 1989. Did it need to be rehashed? I always intended to watch it, and I know I will enjoy it, but I still have my questions about its purpose.
Now that Heath Ledger passed away, and after a pretty strong marketing blitz, it sounds like theaters have been and will be packed. I don't know how much of this is due to people wanting to watch the movie and how much is due to the morbid thrill of watching someone who just died in his final role.
The marketing for the movie does seem to be trying to capitalize on Ledger. The commercials and trailers I have seen can be summarized as follows.
Now that Heath Ledger passed away, and after a pretty strong marketing blitz, it sounds like theaters have been and will be packed. I don't know how much of this is due to people wanting to watch the movie and how much is due to the morbid thrill of watching someone who just died in his final role.
The marketing for the movie does seem to be trying to capitalize on Ledger. The commercials and trailers I have seen can be summarized as follows.
Heath Ledger is the Joker!You would think that trailers for a movie called The Dark Knight would actually focus on the title character.
Heath Ledger as the Joker is a devious criminal mind who takes control of all criminal activity in Gotham City!
Heath Ledger looks kind of ghoulish in this movie!
Oh yeah, Christian Bale is Batman and there are a few no name actors in there as well (Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman). Forget about them, though, because this movie stars...
Heath Ledger!
Thursday, July 17, 2008
on responsibility
I am a generally responsible person. I am sure that I have my lapses and my personal issues, but I think that I am responsible when it comes to most things. Perhaps the word "responsible" sounds a bit egotistical, but in this post I am not necessarily approaching it as a positive.
I think that my tendency toward this trait stems most specifically from my dad (though no one would ever say that my mom is irresponsible). He has felt an obligation to take care of my mom's parents, and now his mom, even though other relatives are also available to assist. They have done this to their own detriment out of a sense of duty.
I have gone through different phases with how I felt about responsibility. For a while I felt somewhat superior for being more dutiful than others. I am sure that at that time I seemed like a trumped up twerp to those I worked with. In retrospect, this was probably painfully evident in one specific job I had in high school.
In another phase of my life that wasn't so long ago I had some resentment about my responsibilities. I would see irresponsible people and wish I had the freedom to be irresponsible too, if even for a short while. This came down to the fact that I felt at the time I was never really given the choice to not be responsible. The likely negative impact of irresponsibility was greater for me than most other people. I do not think that I resent responsibility like I used to now, but I do sometimes daydream about being irresponsible.
Somewhere in there I developed a rather severe opinion of people who are irresponsible in life. I feel for the downtrodden who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own, but I have little sympathy for those who had every opportunity that I have had and simply made stupid or selfish decisions. That probably comes a little from disbelief that someone could be that way and a little from wanting to be a bit irresponsible myself.
Lately, I have been more philosophical about the responsibilities of life. I'm not asking what it all means, but rather how responsible are we supposed to be? I always operated under the assumption that responsibility is next to godliness (far moreso than cleanliness). I want to know how true that is. Golden sometimes says that she is like Martha from Luke 10:40. I never correct her, but Martha was probably more like me than her.
A common theme in narratives is that the regimented and responsible person needs to become more of a free spirit (it is interesting how it rarely works the other way around). I can buy that to some degree, but I don't know where the line should be. Everyone seems to have a different idea of where that line is, too.
I can't get rid of all responsibility. God, family, and work all deserve some duty from me. It can go overboard as well, though. At what point is doing something that is not incredibly responsible a good thing and at what point is it a bad thing?
I think that my tendency toward this trait stems most specifically from my dad (though no one would ever say that my mom is irresponsible). He has felt an obligation to take care of my mom's parents, and now his mom, even though other relatives are also available to assist. They have done this to their own detriment out of a sense of duty.
I have gone through different phases with how I felt about responsibility. For a while I felt somewhat superior for being more dutiful than others. I am sure that at that time I seemed like a trumped up twerp to those I worked with. In retrospect, this was probably painfully evident in one specific job I had in high school.
In another phase of my life that wasn't so long ago I had some resentment about my responsibilities. I would see irresponsible people and wish I had the freedom to be irresponsible too, if even for a short while. This came down to the fact that I felt at the time I was never really given the choice to not be responsible. The likely negative impact of irresponsibility was greater for me than most other people. I do not think that I resent responsibility like I used to now, but I do sometimes daydream about being irresponsible.
Somewhere in there I developed a rather severe opinion of people who are irresponsible in life. I feel for the downtrodden who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own, but I have little sympathy for those who had every opportunity that I have had and simply made stupid or selfish decisions. That probably comes a little from disbelief that someone could be that way and a little from wanting to be a bit irresponsible myself.
Lately, I have been more philosophical about the responsibilities of life. I'm not asking what it all means, but rather how responsible are we supposed to be? I always operated under the assumption that responsibility is next to godliness (far moreso than cleanliness). I want to know how true that is. Golden sometimes says that she is like Martha from Luke 10:40. I never correct her, but Martha was probably more like me than her.
A common theme in narratives is that the regimented and responsible person needs to become more of a free spirit (it is interesting how it rarely works the other way around). I can buy that to some degree, but I don't know where the line should be. Everyone seems to have a different idea of where that line is, too.
I can't get rid of all responsibility. God, family, and work all deserve some duty from me. It can go overboard as well, though. At what point is doing something that is not incredibly responsible a good thing and at what point is it a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
