Why My Family is Awesome

My Mom coordinated the whole thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-164xh7UOk&feature=player_embedded

My Logic is Undeniable

The older I get, the more I realize that people's minds are seldom swayed by even the best logic. I used to take great pride in defeated people with logical conundrums, until I realized that they usually just walked away feeling A) annoyed and B) like I was a smartass. It didn't help anything.

I wonder if all reason is not, at some level, a justification. Obviously, some justifications are much better than others, but ultimately do they all exist simply to reinforce our preexisting beliefs? It's tricky, because I do believe in an objective, absolute Truth, which I'm not too shy to say is God. Perhaps Truth simply transcends both Reason and Emotion. They are, after all, both human products.

Words of Wisdom

Teach a man to fish and he'll put all his eggs in one basket.

A watched pot never cries over spilled milk.

Two is company, three is like fish, after three days they begin to stink.

An ounce of prevention is worth a stitch in time.

Never put off till tomorrow what you can't always get what you want.

Never shave your duck.
Seriously.
Don't.

So...

What does a Muslim suicide bomber do on his 73rd night in paradise?

Allegory in The Lord of the Rings

It's a comparatively well-known fact that J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were good friends and often exchanged notes on their progressing written works. Both writers, as Christians, worked allegory into their most famous tales, though Lewis often criticized Tolkien for being too subtle with his allegory, while Tolkien said Lewis was to blatant and up-front with it. Regardless, while Lewis's allegory is for the most part pretty self-explanatory, I'm having more difficulty in figuring out Tolkien's. Here's what I have:

Gandalf is a Jesus figure. That one's easy enough. Dies fighting the king demon, is resurrected and goes on to orchestrate the events in Gondor which enable Frodo and Sam to cross Mordor. He is a self-identified emissary of the Valar (gods) and protects the entire fellowship.

Elves and Orcs are Angels and Demons. Just as demons are fallen, twisted angels, orcs are fallen and twisted elves. This explains both the elves' beautiful physical appearance as well as their rather inactivity in the books. We rarely see angels and they rarely affect our lives, at least as far as we perceive. Similarly, the elves don't affect much in the books, beyond occasionally sheltering, and Legolas's part (Legolas as a guardian angel seems plausible enough to me, he's alone and helps Frodo as long as possible).

The Ring is Free Will. We assume that the entire story centers around Frodo. The Ring, for him, is everything. What he does with it will decide whether the world lives or dies. If he takes it for himself, the world falls, either by him being taken by the dark lord or becoming the dark lord. Similarly, if we refuse to surrender our own wills, and never give them to God, we also fall, either falling to our worst fears or becoming them. If Frodo gives up The Ring, the world is saved and evil is defeated. Similarly, if we take our free will and give it to God, he can save us. This one I'm actually pretty sure of. The Ring is Free Will, one of the most important questions humans have.

Gollum is Guilt? This one I'm not so sure about. Gollum haunts Frodo from the beginning of the story on. Sometimes he is productive, sometimes he is harmful. In the end, Gollum is ultimately instrumental in Frodo's throwing away the Ring. Perhaps Tolkien thought Guilt was the same way: it can hurt you if you're depressed, it can help you if you're proud, and ultimately it's one of God's surest but most painful ways to get you to repent and throw away the Ring.

Gondor is the Church? I mean, it plays much the same role in Frodo's journey. It opposes the Enemy to the best of it's ability, but ultimately it's made up only of men, and can't win the war. Similarly, the Church can't win our spiritual battles for us, but it can help us, and it does as much as it can when captained by fallen Stewards.

Regardless, LOTR is still awesome just as a story and movie. I need to watch and read it again, actually. Anyhoo, toodle-pip!

Something to Say

I think it's distinctly unfair that bloggers are supposed to come up with new things to say every day. I mean, come on, I'm only human. I got up this morning, went for a run, showered, ate, and am watching The Mummy. What is there fascinating about that? Why all these unreasonable expectations? Leave me alone! I'll go cry in a corner. Seriously I will. That reminds me!

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=9644

Ooooh!

So i just got on YouTube, and there was offer from them to monetize one of my videos! One of the very first videos I ever uploaded (me playing Halo with the song The Night Santa Went Crazy in the background) has got over 15,000 views, and YouTube offered to monetize it! Of course, when they actually review it and see that I used game footage and a Weird Al song they'll almost definitely reject the monetization offer, but oh well. For a brief moment, I almost had my entire retirement funded by YouTube. Or something. If I ever see so much a red cent from them, I will probably frame it. Seriously.

There is a fine line between genius and insanity.

I have erased that line and replaced it with a trout.

Atheistic Moral Relativism

Is definitely one of my favorite things ever to make fun of. It goes something like this:
Atheist: "How can you be a Christian? God is like, so so so mean! He, like, smites people with fire and stuff and junk!"
Me: "So?"
Atheist: "That's wrong!"
Me: "Who says?"
Atheist: "Wait, you mean killing people isn't wrong?"
Me: "No, I'm just saying by what standard are you calling killing people wrong? Older cultures practiced human sacrifice, some still practice tribal warfare. They thought it was right. Why is it wrong?"
Atheist (unable to refer to Christian morality): "It hurts the human race as a whole!"
Me: "Who cares? I hate humans. Besides, it's just natural selection."
Atheist: "Wait, you hate humans?"
Me: "No. Calm down. I was making a point."
Atheist: "What point?"
Me: "That to a tiger, killing and eating a human might not only be right, but necessary to survive. Why shouldn't we kill people we don't like?"
Atheist: "Because they're PEOPLE!!! They're worth more than other people's likes and dislikes!"
Me: "Says who?"
...
...
This goes on.

The point is that you can't condemn a standard of morality unless you have a superior standard of morality. Atheists, therefore, imply that through a few hundred years of human reasoning and logic, they have developed a moral code which allows them to condemn or affirm the Creator of the Universe.



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Chess vs. Shougi

I've been considering the differences between chess and shogi (Japanese chess). I'm not a math person, so I don't know how this works out, but chess is played on an 8x8 board with 16 pieces per player, whereas shogi is played on a 9x9 board with 20 pieces per player. It shouldn't make that much of a difference, but I know that now when I look at a chess board it seems a good deal simpler. For comparison:

Political Underwear

Or rather, how your political affiliation, at least for guys, is rather like the kind of underwear you choose. Actually, the similarities are many. There are myriad designs, patterns, and makers of underwear, but the choice is ultimately boxers or briefs, as it has been since before time began (there are cave paintings concerning the boxer/brief controversy--trust me).

Choosing a big government is like choosing briefs. Both will give you added security and take away some of the risks associated with government/underwear. Unless it goes wrong. Which, in underwear looks like the briefs riding up (not fun) and which in government looks like totalitarianism (you always knew it was a pain in the butt). Both briefs and big government keep you nice and close, indeed restricting your freedom a little bit, though you're willing trade that for the benefits.

Small government, on the other hand, is like boxers. Boxers don't restrict you nearly as much, though your risk of accidents or embarrassment is admittedly greater. I suppose the risks associated with a small government is anarchy, or in the case of boxers, the loss of your underwear entirely (which usually doesn't happen if you're wearing pants...could pants represent human decency? Maybe this metaphor is going too far). Briefs and small government allow greater freedom, acknowledging that you are responsible for the risks.

I can't tell you definitively the answer to the boxer/brief controversy or the big/small government controversy. The choice is up to you.

Except that briefs decrease your sperm count.

Iron Man 2

Yes, I did go see the second installment in the Iron Man series. I have to say, after seeing both Iron Man movies as well as Holmes, I think whoever got Robert Downey Jr. clean should get a medal. The man is a fantastic actor. As for the movie itself, the story was decent, the action was excellent, the characters and dialog were fantastic. I must admit, my single favorite moment was probably Rhody in the weaponized iron man suit sawing a drone in half with a minigun. That pretty much made my day. I would recommend this film to anyone, especially because there's no sex shot like in the first, so even younger kids could probably see it without asking awkward questions. (I hate awkward questions; one time my aunt asked me if I thought I would marry my girlfriend (now ex-girlfriend)) Anyway, see Iron Man 2. Now I just need to see How To Tame Your Dragon.

Looking forward to talking with my Periwinkle Ninja tomorrow morning :)

NFS

I play the game Need For Speed 2 a fair amount, primarily to drive the Lambos, but that's another story. Anyway, playing the campaign, near end I began to notice a pattern in the other cars. Namely, the th car that would be out in front would be identical to my own. If I was driving a yellow Murcielago, the best AI driver also had a yellow Murcielago. If I was driving a green Aston Martin Vanquish, so was the leader. At first this trend irritated me, since I knew the person I was competing with had a car with stats identical to my own. But then I realized: they had given me an evil clone!

And that was just all kinds of cool. I mean, sure it's fun to beat the other drivers and get gold and all that, but if you beat your own evil clone then it just becomes epic. So, instead of being mad at NFS, I was appreciative. Very few game designers would be so considerate as to give me an evil clone to whomp, so thanks NFS2, I appreciate it.

The only problem arises when the clone wipes the track with me...

Tough Issues

I rarely let people know that I am, in fact, opposed to homosexuality, usually because they promptly give me look like I'm a dog-kicking child slayer directly after I do so. It's not at all popular to disapprove of homosexuality these days (especially in academia), and it's easy to see why. After all, homosexuals are people just like us, and don't deserve to be treated any differently, right? I wouldn't discriminate against a black person, so why would I then discriminate against a gay person? At this point in the conversation I have to interject, usually, that I disapprove of homosexuality in the same way I disapprove of stealing, lying, or cheating. It's a bad thing to do, but the person is no less deserving of my love and God's than I am. Lord knows I've stolen, lied, and cheated before (not in a big way, but God doesn't discriminate between sins), and I'll be the first to tell you I'm in desperate need of forgiveness.

At this point, people will usually interject to say that my dislike of homosexuality is based on outdated Judeo-Christian principles, which have no place in our government (or, if they're harsh, no place in our society). At this point, my real argument begins. Why don't we let people copulate in the streets? Why don't we approve of people cheating on their spouses? Both this law and this commonly held social belief have no logical basis outside of the Bible. Nothing beyond a modicum of stability is gained by our thinking that men should stay with their wives and vice versa. Nothing is gained by our not allowing people to copulate in the streets. We dislike both of these things why, then? They don't hurt us. They don't inconvenience us personally (well, the copulating couple might be a little difficult to walk around if they're in the street, but so's a mime). Why, then, do we dislike cheating on one's spouse or having sex in public?

The only answer that makes sense is the Bible. Most Americans, even if they don't really believe in God anymore, still hold on to the basic views of right and wrong in the Bible. Adultery is wrong. Sex is private. Alas, if you want to accept these, you must also accept the other, more commonly advertised tenet of the Bible: that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that anything else is a perversion of what God made us for.

Lastly, people often argue about a "gay gene" in the populace, that many people are homosexual simply because they don't have a choice. Now, the definition of "disease" in the Oxford English Dictionary reads thus: "A condition of the body, or of some part or organ of the body, in which its functions are disturbed or deranged." If a gene in the body prevents someone from using their genitalia for procreation, which is undoubtedly their function, then the gene is acting like a disease, and ought to thus be classified as a genetic disease, oughtn't it? If, on the other hand, the homosexual is not compelled by any genetic influence to be the way he or she is, then homosexuality is a choice, and thus falls much more easily into the realm of a moral question, rather than a scientific or political one.

Now, of the very few people who read this post, chances are they will probably be offended. Most Americans are when they see such blatant "homophobia" (I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I think what they do is wrong). I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings or offended anyone's sensibilities. I'm simply giving you my opinion, and offering what logic I have to back it up. Hmmm...I suddenly feel like I'm more likely in these modern times to be burned at the stake for opposing homosexuality, rather than being homosexual. Ah well, hate me if you wish. If you have a logical answer to anything I've said, leave a comment, please.

Follow the Rules

I think there's a problem with the behavior of Christian Conservatives. I remember in my own fairly short life many times when we as a family prayed for our leaders, and for wisdom in the government, but that was only, as far as I can remember, when there was a conservative in office. Doesn't the Bible say pray for your enemies (even political ones)? Also, if you think that the opposite party has wrong ideas about governing, don't they need wisdom all the more? It seems to me that Christian Conservatives should pray for our leaders all the more when they are liberal. Let's not be sullen, and be like "Well, I don't like him, so I hope he fails, so I won't pray for him." That's rather immature, in my opinion.