But the people became impatient on the way

The lectionary this week includes passages from Numbers, 1 Corinthians, and John. The passages revolve around the story of the poisonous serpents among the Israelites in the desert being a punishment for disobedience, and the Israelites being saved when they look the bronze serpent that God tells Moses to make. It doesn’t always happen with lectionary readings, but this time around all the passages work together and build on the same theme and story. It has made for great devotional reading this week.

But each time I begin my reading online, the text starts with the Old Testament reading. And this is what I see.

Numbers 21:4b-9
21:4b but the people became impatient on the way.

They were impatient with being stuck in the wilderness. First they say “there is no food and water” but then they say “and we detest this miserable food.” They are impatient with struggle, for the basic needs. But they are impatient even with what they do get, because it’s boring and bland and old

This seems to sum up much of life. 

I feel this way often enough. The journey through life is long, and at times consists of working through one routine after the other. Where is the success? Where is the glory? Where is the time to sip mojitos on the beach? And even when I’m not being that materialistic, where is the clear sign of God that the path I’m on isn’t just mindless wandering in the desert? Where is the intervention to prevent struggle rather than just barely bailing me out? If you can make food fall from the sky, O Lord, why can’t you at least vary the menu?

I don’t think God sends poisonous serpents among us every time we complain. But perhaps the poison is there in our hearts already. If I’m complaining and impatient, I am not able to enjoy what I do have. I am not recognizing the blessings I have received. And I’m annoying everyone else around me in the process, poisoning their own day and our relationships

Part of the New Testament reading for the week, 1 Corinthians 1:18 Says “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” The ongoing tense, “being saved,” fascinates me. Looking to the cross, it is the power of God, and I am being saved. An ongoing thing. Some days I feel it more than others. And some days, I pray for patience.

In fact I do that so much, I’m starting to get impatient with it.

Love Does

I recently read a book called Love Does by Bob Goff. It is a collection of stories from his life, each told to teach a lesson about life, God, being Christian, Jesus, and so on. Overall it is pretty good, well written, and inspiring. It was hard to relate to some of the stories, but clearly the author "oozes" and "leaks" passion, love, and Christ.

One trajectory of the book is telling about his desire to make the world a better place, and how he is using his training as a lawyer to do so. He told a bit about his work in Uganda, doing lawyer stuff to get a bunch of kids released from prison. This story stuck with me. Prisons are on my mind a lot lately, because of the chaplains I am working with here in Malawi. I had mixed feelings about the story. On the one hand, clearly the work he and his fellow lawyers did was positive, helping people who were clearly in need of help, working within the existing legal system. On the other hand, while I do not know Goff at all, the story does smack some of "white savior complex," and I strive hard to avoid being "the one in comes in and does for others." I strive to work with, to build up from within, rather than from without.

Goff mentions that they work to enforce the laws on the books in various countries, in regards to children rights, trafficking, slavery, etc. The problem in Uganda was that the civil war had rendered certain areas unreachable. Kids in prison hadn't had their cases heard or processed because there were no lawyers or judges in the area. So Goff went in with lawyer friends, did all the paper work, and convinced a Ugandan judge to travel to the area to hear the cases. It worked. All but two of the kids were released!

But I couldn't help but think of another "well wisher" I know, who comes to Malawi regularly and helps in the prison setting. They work with the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP, our partner) chaplains, they visit prions, and they help by giving money and physical aid. Both Goff and this other family spend time with prisoners, listening, comforting, praying, bringing hope. I'm a big fan of that, since as a chaplain that's mostly what I do. But by handing out money, they manage to feed and cloth some people for now, but make no change in the system. The systems in Malawi largely rely on outside well wishers (mostly white people) to come in, give money, and keep the system afloat. In this way this visiting family is successfully keeping the broken and corrupt system in place.

Because both Goff and this other family fly in, do, and fly out, at first they felt similar to me. But as I pondered it further, I realize there's a big difference. Goff may not have fixed the system, but he showed how it can work: care, volunteer, do your job, enforce the laws, and so on. And the love and care he and his fellow lawyers brought with them, I think clearly had a large impact beyond just the legal skills they brought to bear. He made a difference in those prisons that lasted: one of them was empty! (He even stole the door!) This other family, though, is showing how the system doesn't work: the inmates will be hungry tomorrow when no one brings in foreign aid to feed them, they have not had cases heard, they have not had the laws on the books enforced in their favor. What if instead this family used their money to pressure local lawyers and judges to get to work in the prisons? What if they used their money to send the chaplains to training that would enable them to pressure people in the legal system? What if they used their money to set up farms, so that people could eat permanently?

Sometimes we can't help but come in from the outside. I mean, I'm not Malawian, I never will be, I will always being coming in to help from the outside. But I can do it in a way that is incarnational. Jesus literally walked in Jewish shoes for a mile (or thousand). Jesus had special skills and talents, after all, he created the world from scratch. And he used those at times when he performed miracles. But largely he worked within the existing systems, showing what they should be like, showing where they failed, and pressuring people to make changes. Maybe he's not the best example, since he did get killed for his efforts. But then again, maybe that's what Love Does: comes in, risks, gets dirty, and shows what change can look like.

How we talk about Cancer

This is not a post about how I haven't posted in forever. Or about wondering if there's anyone still listening to this thing. Although if there was dust on the internet there'd be a lot sitting on this site for sure!

I just read a news article about a scholarship being made to honor a Womanist Theologian who recently died. I'm being vague because I'm not interested in slamming that article in any way. But they said something in there that bothered me. When avoiding saying that she died, they said "she succumbed to leukemia."

I do get worked up sometimes about euphemisms regarding death. Maybe it is because I am a chaplain, often helping people work through their grief, but using words that avoid saying straight out what someone is suffering from annoys me. I have read other things debating how we talk about cancer. People talk a lot about "the fight against cancer." Like I can punch it in the nose and knock it out. This can be empowering, but the downside is, when someone "loses" the fight, it makes them, well, a loser. Weak. Failed, somehow.

This time, someone "succumbed" to cancer. So I guess people are learning not to say she lost the fight, but is succumbing any different?

 Going to our good friend Merriam-Webster, we can learn that succumb may mean:

1 : to yield to superior strength or force or overpowering appeal or desire

2 : to be brought to an end (such as death) by the effect of destructive or disruptive forces 

 For definition #1 it gives the example of "succumb to temptation." This definitely is a weakness, to succumb. It means the other force was stronger, that I failed somehow to overcome, that I lacked strength. Is this what it means to die of cancer? That I was weak? I failed?

  

Spoiler alert: we all die. It stinks, I know, but it is true. Might be cancer, might be a bus, might be heart weakening at the age of 142, but something will eventually result in your death. And, perhaps even worse, the death of those you love. If that means you are weak, then we are all weak together, and there isn't really any point in making it look like one person failed more than another in their quest to live forever.

Why not just say "She died from leukemia"? Or if you like making the disease the fault, "leukemia killed her." Or if you need another person to blame, "the doctors failed to come up with a cure because of research budget cuts so blame the president for her death." Or whatever you feel like. But be direct, and unless she died because she drank a big cup of leukemia and then ate a sandwich of weakness, do not say things that make it sound like her fault. Cause you might be next, anyways, and how would you like to be remembered? As weak and succumbing? Or as a human who led a good life?

An Ultimate Dichotomy

It seems popular to divide the world into dichotomies. This rings especially true when I think of people talking about forces at work: Good vs. Evil, light vs. dark, black vs. white. Though that last seems to have fallen out of favor in America due to racial tensions, those dichotomies are the common ones. Heaven vs Hell: how many stories pit these two forces against each other? Light side of the force vs. the dark side. It's common in so many stories.

Usually goes something like this: “There are two forces at work in the world, in competition, in constant struggle. Both trying to get the upper hand. You are needed!” Or the main character, or some random prophecy making you the dude/chick who will unbalance/save everything. There's a new wave of stories helping teens feel special. The teen in the stories is odd, stands out in a society of conformity. And they don't know why! Turns out, they are special! They are the special son of a Greek god. Or the only one who is not part of one group but all three. Or has a special taste for vampires. Or whatever. It puts them into the conflict: world vs. this group, and this group equals me. Makes me very important.

I digress.

Because it's not the teen stories that I'm thinking of, but the dichotomy. Good vs. evil, light vs. dark, cold vs. heat. But what is often said of these things? That one is in existence, and the other is a void. Evil is not an entity in and of itself, some say, because then we'd have a counter point to the Creator. Instead, Evil is an absence of Good. Just as cold does not exist on it's own, but rather is an absence of heat. And dark simply means there is no light there. You can't shine a dark light, or make a darkness, all you can do is block light. You don't make cold, you remove heat until things freeze. So it seems evil does not create, but rather is what happens when goodness goes away.

So what does it mean then to say that there are two forces at work in the world? If evil is just an absence of good, how can it be a side in the ultimate struggle of whatever? Perhaps we mean that on one side are those who are filled with good, and on the other are those who lack it. But then it is a spectrum, so how good or un-good do you need to be to be on a side?

Or perhaps we're wrong to say that evil/cold/dark do not exist on their own. Yes, we can only make them by removing good/heat/light, but we do measure those things. Light has lumen, heat has temperature. If we say it is only 1 kelvin, we are not saying we removed X kelvins of heat. Because there is no absolute heat or light or goodness measure. So how much have removed? Or how much have we prevented? Perhaps we can only conceive of these elements coming into existence by removal, but perhaps their existence is there already, since we measure them not as a removal, but on a scale.

Or perhaps we're thinking of the wrong dichotomy. If indeed each of these dichotomies exist of one thing, and the absence of that thing, then perhaps the ultimate This vs. That is Existence vs. Non-existence. Powered by entropy, shown itself in conflict. So the states of being could be measure as Tranquility vs. Conflict. We can measure both of these separately. The more tranquil, the less conflict. The more conflict, the less tranquil. But unlike light and dark, we can have both at the same time. I can be tranquil in my mind, as I ponder my wife and our relationship, while also stress and in conflict with the morons who are making me late for my flight home. I can have both.

I have heard it said often “peace is more than the absence of war.” War exists. It is not a lack of peace. For I can have lacks of peace that do not make war. Additionally lack of war does not make peace, for I can have an oppressive government, or people starving, or people struggling to live, even with no war.

Into the formless void, the Creator, who was ever in tranquil, peaceful communion and relationship with the triune self, spoke Stuff. Earth, water and land, stars, light and dark, sun and moon, night and day, animals, plants, people. Into the chaos of Entropy and the Nothing, the always existent Someone spoke and made Something. And the Nothing has been trying to get even ever sense, injecting conflict where there should be tranquility, motivating us to uncreate the creation.

Movie Thoughts: Monsters University

I have a soft spot for animated movies. Unfortunately, most of the ones in mainstream consumption are aimed at kids, and called "cartoons." This means usually they don't give much fodder for thought. Or the thoughts are pretty routine and obvious. Monsters University, however, dealt a bit of a different dish.

Not an entirely different dish, mind you. Pixar does make their films for a younger audience, though I think they are also catering to us older folks in a way that many other animated films do not. Yet, since they know kids are a major portion, there still tends to be a similar formula:
Main Character is some kind of outcast
Main Character rises against all odds
Main Character succeeds, no longer being outcast.

The general theme of many kids movies seems to be this: you don't have to fit in to be cool, everyone will love you anyways. And whatever it is you want to do, you will be great at it! Especially if you don't fit the mold of what we think great is!

And the Harry Potter books/movies highlighted another somewhat common element: it's ok for the Hero to break the rules. So since you are your own hero, and everyone is a hero, go ahead and break them! Dumbledore will make your team win by default, because after all, no one likes those snake guys. They are jerks, and jerks always lose!

SPOILERS AHEAD!

Monsters University deals up a nice change to that. Mike is clearly not a scary guy. And at the end of the movie, instead of turning out to be scary, he turns out to be, well, not scary. A total geek. In that brief moment where he digs deep, finds his inner monster.... Sully cheats. Mike doesn't actually scare anyone. And this is true to life: no matter how much you want to, there are some things you just can't do. Digging deep and believing in yourself just isn't always enough.

And Sully cheats, getting kicked out of the school. It doesn't matter that he meant well. It doesn't matter that he confessed, rules are rules. And when Mike breaks into the door lab, same thing: expulsion. Doesn't matter that he discovered a new way to do energy, he risked his own life, and that of everyone else (or at least that's what they believed since they thought kids were toxic). No Dumbledore to save them.

The last lines from the Dean are great: You both taught me something, and I will be open to new things in the future. My eyes have been opened! But that doesn't change your situation.

In the last words, however, is encouragement. Sully tells Mike, you might be a horrendous scarer, but you are far from ordinary. And Dean is telling them something as well: you might have failed here, but that doesn't mean you don't have greatness ahead.

Consider all the famous successful people who never completed major degrees. Consider the people who rose out of nothingness. While being a genius, or a stud, or filthy rich, or having a master's degree, sure does help most of us get by, it isn't the only way to do things. But rather than digging deep and believing you can do something you can't, and then judging yourself by the failure, find what you ARE good at. Mike was no good at scaring, and Sully was no good at making connections with normal folks, but with the two working together, they made an unstoppable team.

Don't rely on Dumbledore to come bail you out. Don't rely on everyone hating the jerks, and siding with you instead at the last second. Instead, find your own strength, and use it.

Kickstart 2013 Year Review

This year, I discovered Kickstarter! They recently made a page that shows the year in review. Some interesting stats!

Baby Journal: Day 175

Dear Diary,

My Caretakers seem to have lost their minds. Again.

I started noticing some time back that they would ask me the same questions, over and over. I would be letting them know that my diaper needed changing, and they would say, "Baby hungry? Are you hungry? Do you need to eat? Is the baby hungry? Hungry?"

Alright, first of all, no, I'm not hungry, I'm dirty! Pay attention. Secondly, I heard you the first time! Asking me a dozen different ways doesn't change the answer!

This has gone on for some time. They seem totally unable to grasp the concept that repeating the same thing to me ten ways doesn't change reality. If I don't want the elephant toy, I don't want it! That's why I keep throwing it to the side, you know?

Recently a new madness has unveiled itself. They have started making odd hand gestures with many of the words they say. I have noticed repetition here. Perhaps they have decided that verbal communication with me is something beyond their ability, and are trying a new form? Not sure yet. I will attempt repeating some of these silly motions back to them, and see what happens.

Baby Journal: Day 45

Dear Diary,

The Ceiling Fan continues to perplex me. It moves, and yet never moves! I can stare at it for hours, and it never leaves that spot on the ceiling. And yet, the blades never stop spinning! I want to look away, but they are just so mesmerizing, I cannot.

And then at other times, it is completely still. No matter how much I stare, it does nothing! It seems to function completely randomly.

I hope further study will reveal its secrets.

Baby Journal: Day 31

Dear Diary,

I am a month old! Hard to believe it's been that long already. Quite an exciting milestone.

To celebrate, my Caretakers finally brought me out of the house, and I made quite the amazing discovery. Whereas when they take me out of one room to another in the house, and I can still see the walls, outside the house I cannot see the walls! It's almost as if there are no walls!

In the same way, I cannot see the ceiling! I love staring at the fan and the lights on the ceiling. Outside, I can see the big light up on the big blue ceiling, or what my Caretakers are calling the sky, but I cannot see what it attaches to! It's as if it is just hanging there, far out of reach.

And it is sooo big outside, that people get in cars to drive around! I wish we had those inside the house. But the Caretakers don't have a big enough house, unfortunately.

It is a wondrous place outside the house, dear diary. I can't wait to explore it more, and hope very much that my Caretakers make our outings more frequently.

Baby Journal: Day 25

Dear Diary,

Today I had the most disturbing experience. I woke up in the afternoon, apparently I had fallen asleep for a nap. My Caretakers must have moved me into the bedroom, because I found myself in the crib. I let them know I was awake, but heard no response.

That is right, dear Diary, the worst had happened: While I slept, my Caretakers had ceased to exist! As I listened to the silence, I knew it was my fault. I had failed to watch them for too long. Since I was asleep, they were not needed, and because they were not needed, they ceased to exist.

Distraught, I raised my voice in lament, crying out against the cruelty of the universe, that would take my Caretakers from me on a whim. Suddenly, they reappeared! Just like that, called back into existence by my own voice, they were gathering me up and assuring me everything was OK. It was as if for them nothing had happened. To this day they seem unaware of their temporary non-existence.

But I will not make the same mistake again. From now on, I vow to not nap, or sleep at all. I will do my best to stay awake. And I will be sure to call out to them, whenever they are out of sight, so that they will never be unneeded for too long. I know they may not understand, but it is for their own good.

Baby Journal: Day 23

Dear Diary,

I am beginning to have some serious doubts about my Caretakers. For the most part, they are still very helpful and do what I want. But there is one area in particular where they are failing miserably to pick up on a very simple concept, and I am worried it may be a sign of a bigger problem.

I'm talking about bottle feeding, of course. Thankfully, this is not a regular occurrence. That plastic device is really not my preferred way of eating, but sometimes it just has to be done. I understand this. What I do not understand is why they have such a hard time giving me the proper amount of food.

When I'm hungry, I tell them, and I let them know how hungry I am. For example, let's say I want 4.2 ounces. I tell them this. They get the bottle, they feed me, but inevitably there's not 4.2 ounces, there's only 4.1! Unacceptable! I let them know this, every time, but they always seem confused.

"What's wrong?" "Is it your diaper?" "Do you not like the food?"

No I like it, but I'm hungry! I said 4.2 ounces, not 4.1! You don't see me serving you 4/5th's of a hamburger, do you??

If they just did it every time with no reaction, I would chalk it up to sick humor or something. But their confusion each time, I wonder if I have been saddled with Caretakers who have failed their basic training courses. Hopefully this is the worst of their flaws.

Baby Journal: Day 10

Dear Diary,

I am now ten days old. I'd like to think things are going well so far. I've got a good grasp on things, and am certain that soon I will be a master of everything, just as my Caretakers are.

In general, I am happy with my Caretakers. They respond quickly to my requests, and appear to genuinely care about me. I do have some concerns, however. They seem to make light of a few of the predicaments I have already encountered in my short existence.

Take, for example, the fact that my internal combustion engine seems to set off near-lethal explosions on a regular basis. A few times these explosions, which always originate near my bottom, have even woken me from deep slumber. As you can imagine, this is quite disturbing! I fear that if I do not get these explosions under control, they may do real harm. I'm worried that my bottom may blow clear off of me.

But my Caretakers, they do not share my concerns! In fact, they even laugh when it happens! Perhaps they do not care as much as I thought, and are just hoping that my defective system will soon spell an end for me. I will have to keep an eye on them.

Wish me luck, dear diary.

Fun with Labels

"Read the Labels" seems to be a great bit of wisdom these days. It particularly pertains to food. Want to know what you're eating? Read the label. Doing a diet? Read the label. Have allergies? Read the label.

The label can also help you figure out exactly what is meant by the front of the packaging. Take Swedish Fish, for example. I love them, one of my favorite candies since ever. The bag of them that I just finished says on the front, "A Fat Free Food."

Let's think about that for minute. What does food mean, in this case? The Label, which we are generally recommend to read, tells us that it is 140 calories per serving of 19 fish. It's pretty much all sugar. In fact, it says "Not a significant source of calories from fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron." I think this could also be stated as "Not a significant source of any real nutrition."

And yet they call it food. In my mind, food is something I would eat for a meal, and consider myself satisfied and at least remotely healthy when done (yes this means much of "fast food" also isn't food, by this definition. I admit it doesn't stop me from eating it, though). Thus, my beloved swedish fish is candy, not food. At least not to my mind. The Label is basically telling me that if I make a major diet out of this stuff, the results will not be beneficial to my health.

So I get a real kick that in highlight on the front it says it's a fat free food. The Label supports the fat free part at least, notice all the fats it wants to make clear are not in the "food." So I guess maybe this is a food because it has no fat? Not sure.

In any case, the stuff tastes good. Hmmm. Maybe I should tell my doctor to start a new diet fad: Swedish Fish! They are, after all, fat free food! And surely the company couldn't call them food if you shouldn't actually make them part of your dinner, right?

End Road Work!

As we near winter, we also near the end of construction season. Or so I thought. The ongoing construction sites, some of which have been up and running for months, suggests that perhaps the Season of Slowly Altering Roads will continue longer than I had thought. I have noticed however that there are perhaps other people frustrated with the road construction, something that has come to my awareness with the number of signs expressing a desire to "End Road Work"!

I couldn't agree more. End it! Well, maybe I'd regret that in the long term. Potholes and degraded roads do get frustrating, I'll admit. Though around here in Kentucky, it often seems that all Road Work does is turn the pot holes into pot bumps that erode quickly into pot holes once more. They've done work up and down our road for months, breaking up sidewalks. And once they've finished, the nice and shiny sidewalks get obstructed by the ongoing construction in a new and only slightly different location. I don't see much of an advantage here.

So I definitely share the sentiment to End Road Work.

What's that you say? Those rectangular orange signs are not actually political sentiments, but rather warning signs? Warning me of what exactly, that the people who are now driving slowly in front of me no longer have a valid excuse to do so? Well I guess that is a good warning, now I know they are senile and dangerous and I should just avoid them all together.

But your argument doesn't make much sense. After all, if the signs were telling me that I had come to the end of a construction zone, then logically they would appear only at the end of an active construction zone. But I see them all over the place. I'll enter an area that is arguably a construction zone. I say "arguably" because yes, there are orange signs, but there are no cones, and no trucks, and no people at work. In other words, other than randomly posted orange signs telling me things that are not true (such as "Left Lane Closed Ahead"), there is nothing to suggest that I was in a construction zone (except for the cars going 20 miles under the speed limit for no discern-able reason). And some time after all of those not very clear signs that I may have possibly been in a construction zone, suddenly I happen upon "End Road Work!"

I agree, it is most likely that those signs were placed for the purpose you suggest. However someone left them there, and I am inclined to think it was a like-minded person, who thinks Road Work should End. And the sooner the better!

After all, I have some speeding to do.

The real tragedy

There was a shooting in our apartment complex on Sunday. And by "in our complex" I mean in a unit that shares a wall with us.

Naturally, that means there's been news people around. I wasn't here when it happened, but I was back home this morning when they were fishing for follow up stuff. I brushed them off, but as I have been thinking about it, there are some things I wish I had said. Especially to the second guy, who had a camera man with him and a microphone and I'm sure would have been up for filming anyone who wanted.

(As a side note, you can see some of the news articles at various Louisville news sites, including WHAS 11 and WLKY. If you search enough you'll see articles from the day of, and some from later on. As another side note, this highlights how much the news speculates and is willing to put forth 'witness' speculation as fact, when in fact no one knew dirt.)

They asked some general questions, wanting to know if I knew my neighbor (which I do not). The first guy asked me how I felt, if I wasn't worried or upset that something like this would happen here, since "isn't this supposed to be a nice neighborhood?" The second guy asked me, "was the guy violent?"

The news around here seems to love reporting on violence. I think every shooting makes the news, no matter what. In the couple of articles I've seen on this one, they have been hitting the angle of "we're surprised this would happen here." But I think they've got the angle all wrong. It shouldn't be a surprise that it happened here. That shouldn't be what makes this tragic and notable. It should just be tragic that it happened at all.

And what really is tragic, is that the neighborhood matters to people. It shouldn't. My response is "well these things happen," which of course is true. But I don't think it's OK that I feel that way. We shouldn't just accept that these things happen. It shouldn't phase us more that it's in one neighborhood or another. Two people got shot last night, for whatever reason, and one of them is dead. Someone, somewhere, is crying over this.

Someone has lost a brother, or a son, or a husband, or a boyfriend, or a friend, or a coworker, or a cousin, or a nephew, or a grandson.

Someone else is worried about the health and survival and "what happens now" for a brother, or a son, or a husband, or a boyfriend, or a friend, or a coworker, or a cousin, or a nephew, or a grandson.

That should be tragic. That should always be tragic. That should always upset us. We shouldn't care because it's in this neighborhood and not another, because we shouldn't expect or accept this in any neighborhood. We shouldn't care whether or not the people were prone to violence, because we shouldn't accept violence as a solution to problems. The real tragedy is that the news cares more about where it happened, then about the fact that it happened at all.

On Vibram Fivefingers

Many people look at my feet, see my strange shoes, my Vibram Fivefingers, and ask "are those comfortable?"

I assume this is rhetorical, as I rarely wear uncomfortable things just for the sake of fashion. Though perhaps I am alone in this. Out of kindness, or social pressure, I answer them truthfully and simply: "Yes, I find them very comfortable!"

I'm thinking of adopting a new approach:

Actually, they are horrendous! Each toe is screaming in discomfort, and my feet hurt constantly the second I put them on. But I find the constant discomfort and pain helps keep my masochistic tendencies happy. If I wear normal, comfortable shoes, I end up hacking at myself with such self-destruction that I get admitted to psych wards. And I don't like that.

A this point I would lean in and add in a conspiratorial whisper: there are crazy people there!

Leaning back, an assuring nod and slightly raised eyebrows should assure them of my sincerity and the truth of that revelation.

And so, I would conclude, I wear these profoundly uncomfortable shoes.

Movie: The Amazing Spiderman

We are behind on our summer blockbuster viewing, and so only just caught The Amazing Spiderman at our local cheap/second-run theater. The verdict: I liked it! It had all the elements I like to see in a comic-book movie: fun, entertaining, good action scenes, good special effects, and generally holding to the feel of the comic characters (at least as far as I am familiar with them). There was all the youthful sarcasm and quips of Spiderman, plus a decent amount of romance. At first I had not been looking forward to seeing the movie, partly I think because the other trilogy is barely cold and already they are remaking Spiderman! Really! But this was a good version, with a different take on the characters than the other trilogy.

My primary annoyance with the movie is not the movie itself, but rather how it interacts with the trailer. The movie could be "The Amazing Spiderman: Don't Trust the Trailer." I'm aware that scenes from the theater version doesn't always make it to DVD, but I am always annoyed when there are scenes and lines in the trailers that don't make it to the theater! I can forgive the voice-over in the trailer that doesn't show up in the movie, but that's it. There are clearly lines that I don't recall ever seeing, and even a scene that is significantly different: the shadowy man who appears at the end questioning what Peter Parker knows about his dad is shown in more detail in the trailer than in the movie. In the trailer, we can actually see his face. In the movie, we barely see him at all, as he is hidden in shadows. The football field scene in the trailer also doesn't appear: we never see the coach talk to Peter at all.

The trailer also makes the movie very focused on Peter's parents, and the mystery surrounding it. The trailer would have us believe that everything Peter is doing, his entire conflict with the villain, involves getting information about his parents. This is not really true, however. Peter does meet the villain due to searching the past, and the past is a factor, but he seems more motivated by revenge for his uncle's death, and later by his need to protect innocent people, than by learning about his parents.

The movie was great, but it wasn't the film that the trailer advertised. This is something that happens from time to time, and it always irritates me. To me, a trailer should motivate me to watch the movie, but not by cheating and selling me a movie that doesn't exist.

For Charcoal

The other day my parents had to put our last cat, Charcoal (she was black, and liked to hide up the chimney when we practiced our instruments), to sleep. Her brother, Custard (he was orange and white) died a couple years ago of natural causes in the house, but she was lingering, and starting to suffer. She was the last cat that we owned from my childhood. I didn't fly home for the funeral (in fact there was no funeral), so instead I have written her this prayer/eulogy.

Almighty God, Creator of Heaven, and Earth,
Creator of all that is, including cats,
Thank you for Charcoal and her life.

Thank you for the joy she gave us, for the memories, for all the stories we have to share of her hairbrained escapades and her bizarre ditzy behavior, of her meowing constantly whenever we pet her, of her opening doors for her brother, and of her getting so involved in being pet that she fell over.

Thank you for being such a loving and creative God, and having so much creativity and power, that you bothered to make creatures that seem to exist largely just to keep us company and give us joy. Charcoal certainly did that, even if we did get frustrated with her fetish for dipping her paws in water glasses that were left on the table, and then knocking them over.

Thank you for her life, which was good and long and full of love. Forgive us (at least my brother and I) for tormenting her when we were young, but I hope she knew that we loved her. After all, I might have toyed with her by handing her empty cans of beans when she thought I was opening Tuna, but most of the time it was tuna, and seriously, what other cats ever got to lick tuna cans? Who drains tuna cans into bowls just so their cats can drink the juice? I mean, if she didn't know we loved her, I'm not sure what else we could do.

So thank you, God, for Charcoal, and for the memories, and all the joy and fun and love that she helped us share. May she rest in peace.

Amen.

Playing Alone Together

A concept I picked up from reading Jean Piaget is "playing alone together." The idea comes from child development, that at some point in their play, kids start playing together. They want to socialize. Early on, however, they still are making up their own rules, don't really get the idea of other people making rules, and so are playing alone. Piaget observed kids moving near each other to play together, but each still very clearly playing his or her own game, without including the other. Hence, playing alone, together.

Luta and I tease each other about this some times. There was one video game in particular that we would both play, at the same time, in the same room, but not together. Kind of like two people playing solitaire on their own computer, and talking to each other about it while doing it, but not playing the same game.

I've been going to a game store in Lexington that has open board game play on Saturdays. The last two games I've tried, Glen More and Trajan, have used concepts that were somewhat new to me. Both games involve collecting tiles, in various ways, to score points. Points are scored throughout game play and at the end of scoring rounds, and at the end of the game the player with the most points wins. Both games were fun. Both games at first sounded fairly complicated, then turned out to be fairly easy to pick up, and then I realized that the strategy of them would take some time to figure out (though I didn't come in last!).

And both games seem to be versions of "playing alone, together." My goal was to build up points. There were numerous ways to do this. And for the most part, other players only casually interfered with that. In Trajan especially I could almost not notice the other players were there, except cards would vanish from play limiting my choices. It reminded me more of a race than a directly competitive sport. In swimming, I'm mostly just trying to be fastest, and the other swimmers have little impact on me. Sure, there's some drag in the pool, and motivation seeing them nearby, but they don't reach over and grab at me to try and slow me down. On the other hand, in tennis I am directly competing with another opponent. Everything they do directly impacts me, and vice versa, and the only way to win is to "conquer" them, so to speak. These new games seem to be more of the "swimming" variety: I could beat my own time, even without other people there. The fact that other players are playing the game almost seems like a casual fact, and could easily be forgotten.

While the games were both fun, and I want to play them again, my initial reaction is that I would prefer to play a directly strategic game. Of course if one finds themselves being overly competitive and mean, perhaps this sort of game is better at keeping the emotions in check.

Valentine's Day

Happy Valentine's Day!

In honor of romance on this V-Day (and being inspired by xkcd.com), I want to offer some possible interpretations of what common gifts might mean today.

Flowers: 1) They are beautiful/smell good like you, and I thought of you, so I bought them for you! 2) You make the room smell, and these smell better, so I got them for you! 3) I don't think you're very pretty OR Your house/room is ugly, these will help brighten up the place.

Chocolate: 1) You're sweet, like chocolate! 2) Our love is sappy and cliche, like chocolate on Valentine's day! 3) I haven't been paying any attention to your complaints about your weight. Hush with it already 4) I think you're anorexic, here, put on some weight.

Home-made dinner: 1) Let's avoid crowds, and be alone. We don't even need to leave the house, if you get my hint. 2) I'm too cheap to buy you dinner, even on Valentine's Day. 3) I'm embarrassed to be seen with you. 4) I forgot about Valentine's Day, and there were no reservations left anywhere by the time I remembered.

Dinner out: 1) Our love is not inspiring at all, all I could come up with is going out to dinner, which we do all the time.

Jewelry: 1) I'm hoping to buy your love with this. Did it work? No? More?

Nothing: 1) I forgot. 2) I don't really care, I'm not a romantic. 3) I'm rebelling against "made up holidays." (never mind that every holiday was made up by someone at some point, I've decided to zero in on this one with psychotic intensity.)

There you go! Hope that helps you (over)think your gifts!