Christmas Eve Eve

People love Christmas, right?  They're all about it.  At this point I wonder why I'm using the third person -- I love it too.  We merrily sing "it's the most wonderful time of the year," and I don't ever find myself scratching my head and thinking, "I prefer March."

There are many reasons why people from all backgrounds love the Christmas season, but the tangent we are about to take isn't ambitious enough to tackle them all.  Without any further adieu, let's just get on with it: I think that along with the remembrance of Jesus' birth and the rampant giving and receiving of presents, one of the things that tugs at our heart at Christmas is Tradition.

The word "tradition" has lost some of its former glory.  Things, people, and institutions that are "traditional" seem to be boring, stuffy, or old-fashioned.  But at Christmas, Tradition steps back into the spotlight.  We appreciate its nostalgia, its familiarity, and its comfort.  And, if we're lucky, we may even have the chance to start new Christmas traditions...


The greatest Christmas tradition ever

It was 5 or 6 years ago (the record is unclear).  For some reason, my two friends (Zach and Chris) and I had the house to ourselves on December 23.  So we started to do what was somewhat common for us back then -- play games well into the night, then go to sleep in my room.

• [Tangent-within-a-tangent: I had bunk beds -- yes, when I went home to my Mom's house during college, I slept in a bunk bed.  It was funny when I'd have two friends stay over, which happened a lot.  I'd always sleep in the bottom bunk, and one guy would get the top one and the other would be on the floor.  I never really bothered to think about how they always worked it out, but I'm sure it was a moral dilemma that, if studied, would be quite fascinating.]

So it was probably around 2am when we settled into the bunk bed/floor setup.  But of course we talked once there, and our conversation was particularly lively that night.  Eventually, since spirits were high and none of us was close to falling asleep, one of the other two (the record is again surprisingly unclear; I'm guessing Chris) spoke these fateful words:

"I have an idea.  You can shoot it down if you want.  But what if we go back downstairs, and just play games... ALL.. NIGHT.. LONG?!"

A long pause.

Zach (if my memory is to be believed): I'm not going to be able to sleep tomorrow, I have family stuff, but... Let's do it!!  I'm in!!

This next part makes very little sense.  We got up and ran downstairs in a frenzy, and in the process the other two guys took off their shirts so they could run around like tribal warriors or something.  This is the opposite of everything I stand for (I guess I stand mainly for clothedness and civility), but in the chaos of the moment I had to go along with it.

Anyway, we played games until 6am and then went to McDonald's for Christmas Eve breakfast.  And thus, the tradition of Christmas Eve Eve was born.


My tradition, your traditions

The cast of characters for Christmas Eve Eve changes each year.  Chris and I are the only people who have been to every one (his absence from CEE in Orlando last year has been stricken from the record, since I stole the event and took it to Florida).  But every year we play games all night long on December 23 and, if there's a McDonald's nearby, we get breakfast there.

• You're invited!  Seriously, if you read this blog, you are qualified to take part in the festivities.  Let me know if you're interested and I'll get you the details.  You're not required to stay all night and get breakfast, but I don't think you'll want to leave once you've experienced the fun of CEE.
• What Christmas traditions do you love??

                                                         Jon

(a CEE favorite)

art (it seems more artsy to use all lower case)

Of all the words out there that can mean a million different things, "art" might be the shortest.  With just three letters, the tiny word carries so much on its back... it reminds me of an "ant".  Sorry, the words are so similar, I had to do it.

But seriously, I think everyone is an artist in one way or another.  Today I thought we could take a few mini-tangents to various media of creativity.  I just decided that they'll all be Christmas related:

Poetry -- Christmas haiku

• [Tangent-within-a-tangent: Did you know wikipedia claims haiku poems have lines of 5-7-5 moras, not syllables??  We've been making haiku wrong our whole lives!  Whatever, I'm sticking with what I know.]

Snow covers the road
My Corolla makes it home:
Christmas miracle
***
No room at the inn
The couple found a trough
The Word became flesh
***
One thing I don't get
About Rudolph the reindeer:
Why does his nose glow?

Visual art -- Whimsy4Windows

For whatever reason (the three main candidates are lack of talent, lack of interest, and a traumatic experience with an elementary school art teacher), I never really got into creating visual art.  But little did I know, all along my mom has been great at it!

She recently began an endeavor to create and sell "windows."  These are framed creations of faux stain glass that you hang in a window.  They look really cool as the sunlight goes through them.  Check them out here at her Etsy site. 

While it doesn't go with the Christmas theme, please note that the following window (which is sadly no longer listed on Etsy) is officially titled "Cowboy Bob."  Not Cowboy... Cowboy Bob.

Music (video) -- Sara Bareilles, all day every day

Okay, my obsession with Sara Bareilles is growing.  She has two winter-themed songs you can listen to for free on her site, and they're AMAZING.  Seriously, I would be willing to make one of those extreme movie-commercial stataments:

If you listen to one new winter-themed song this season, make it Winter Song by Sara Bareilles and Ingrid Michaelson.  (Sorry for the commercial you'll probably have to watch first, but it's well worth it!  This video is really awesome.)

Your art and/or your favorite art

1. Write a Christmas haiku or two and share as a comment
2. Share links to whatever art is moving you right now

Jon

Christian-ese 101

There are many benefits to being part of a subculture.  I won't take the time to list them.  But I will draw your attention to one: lingo.  I of course intend that to mean "jargon," not the game show hosted by Chuck Woolery (though if your subculture allows you to guess 5-letter words for money, I want in on that).

Certain words and phrases are only used, or only used to mean a certain thing, in specific groups of people.  This not only allows for precise and specified communication, but it opens the door for a plethora of inside jokes.  And blog posts.

So, for today's tangent, we explore some of the lingo of American Christianity, circa 1990-2010.  Here are some of the ones I most like to make fun of:

to bathe [something] in prayer
-verb
1. to pray earnestly and often for something (usually a person, place, or event)
The concert starts at 8:00, but please show up at 7:15; we really just want to bathe the whole night in prayer.
[Notes: People, places, and events must be inherently stained by sin, but a good dose of prayer can scrub that away.  It takes about 45 minutes to prayer-bathe a night.]

traveling mercies
-noun
1. that divine act of God by which He graciously allows someone to be safely transported somewhere else
2. an expedient way to summarize a request for that divine act
Do you have any prayer requests?
Just traveling mercies for this weekend as we go to Indianapolis.
[Notes: I suppose there's nothing wrong with this phrase, per se.  It does seem to nicely acknowledge God's sovereignty.  But if you say it, you better be at least 45 years old and wearing a fanny pack.]

to lead [someone] to the throne
-verb
1. to help someone experience and worship God (typically through musical worship)
Let's thank Karen again for leading us in worship.  She really does a great job of leading us to the throne, doesn't she?
[Notes: Many other people help us experience and worship God through teaching, preaching, prayer, and conversation, but only those with keyboards or guitars are given keys to the throne room.]

to covet [someone's] prayers
-verb
1. to eagerly desire that someone pray for you
(Body of letter)
I covet your prayers.
In Christ,
Jon
[Notes: This one, like many of these, has fallen largely into disuse.  What a shame!  Isn't it hilarious?  We take a word with a strongly negative spiritual connotation -- covet -- and use it to express the innocent, pure desire for people to pray for us.  How about "Let's lust after righteousness," or "My small group last night was spiritually debaucherous."]

Apart from the general subculture that is American Christianity, each church is its own sub-subculture.  They not only inherit the lingo above (and much more), but they inevitably create their own.  Here are a few of my favorites from my church (which I love, for the record):

lean in / lean into
-verb
1. to attempt to meditate on or experience a particular truth
We just heard Pastor X talk about joy.  Right now we really want you to lean into that.

create a space / create some space
-verb
1. to intentionally set apart a time for some purpose (almost always leaning into something)
We just heard Pastor Y talk about God's forgiveness.  Right now we really want to create some space for you to lean into that.

posture
-noun
1. an attitude of the heart
2. a physical position that reflects and communicates that attitude
We just heard Pastor Z talk about surrender.  Right now we really want to create some space for you to lean into that.  Sometimes a posture before God can help symbolize that, so if you're comfortable, maybe hold out your hands like this.

Just like a car runs on gasoline and the Serenity is powered by something called a radion accelerator core, my desire and energy to blog is powered by your interaction.  So:

What classic Christian lingo have I forgotten?

What unique phrases does your church use?

Do you have any fun jargon from your job?

Jon

How to deal with online rejection

I really think fear of rejection is one of the leading causes of being lame.  It's why people don't pursue their dreams, why Christians don't evangelize, and why it takes an almost otherworldly adrenaline rush for me to ask out a girl.

The reality, though, is that the "worst case scenario" -- rejection -- is almost never actually as painful or embarrassing as we fear.  Painful and embarrassing, sure.  But the crippling, dizzying, catastrophic, life-ending shame we envisioned?  Not even close.

And yet there's one specific form of rejection that my roommate and I have experienced that requires a special coping mechanism.  And even if you can't at all relate, I'm sure you can enjoy laughing at me and my roommate.


Rejection via abrupt, absolute withdrawal of communication

You may be wondering how that's even a possible rejection method.  Well, you're right, it's not really possible... unless the entire operation is over the internet.

• [Tangent-within-a-tangent: Not necessarily!  I once had a girlfriend in high school who tried to break up with me by totally ignoring me.  Um, hello?!  We both go to school here.]

Meeting people online is an embarrassing topic to many, myself included [note: it's so embarrassing that I feel compelled to blurt out that neither my roommate nor I have used online dating in a long time, and only briefly then].  But some tangents head to embarrassing places:

Suppose you meet someone online.  The initial contact will lead to emailing, which will in turn lead to use of the telephone.  Using the latter technology, you typically will ultimately set up a time and place to meet in person.

That's how the thing works, ideally.  However, what if somewhere along the way one of the people decides (s)he wants to go no further?  She (let's be honest, I'm not the one ending this thing) has two options:

1. Be a human being.  Simply send an email explaining that it's not going to work out for whatever reason.  Bid the person a pleasant adieu.
2. Be some sort of hybrid human-Ursula-Cruella-Wicked Witch of the West monster.  Simply cut off all communication with no warning or explanation.

Every reaction to tragedy has a cycle (my favorite stage in the grief cycle has always been bargaining, because it sounds cool).  When a person morphs into Urs-ella of the West and employs Tactic #2 above, the rejected person goes through these stages:

Excitement (to receive the next email)
Concern (about the longer-than-expected wait)
The first four stages of grief (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression)
The final stage of grief -- Acceptance

But of what??  What is it we accept at the end of the Online Rejection via Silence Grief cycle?  We are forced to accept one of two things:

1. We are defective, ugly, witless, and unlovable.
2. The other person died in a freak gasoline-fight accident.

My roommate and I were both forced to accept the latter conclusion.  And so it's with a heavy heart that I dedicate this post to our former internet correspondents; may you rest in peace.

Jon

P.S.

Anyone else have any fun stories relating to rejection, internet dating, or gasoline fights? 

NFLopoly - "Steal from James Harrison" Edition

For all you non-sports fans

Not all of you are sports fans, I realize.  So I'm expanding the appeal of this post by making use of an extended Monopoly metaphor.  Conveniently, the metaphor doubles as an actual business idea, so if any of you is an entrepeneur...

Imagine an NFL Monopoly board game.  This probably actually exists, so if you've played it, feel free to imagine the real NFL Monopoly board game.  Instead of street properties from Atlantic City, you would buy football team franchises as you make your way around the board.

For a very low fee you could buy the brown properties right after Go, like... the Browns.  Eventually you would make it all the way to the blue properties, where teams like the Colts and Steelers would await you.

There would still be Chance cards, but Community Chests would be swapped out for fun cards called "Take James Harrison's Money."  Each card would have something like this:

• James leads with the crown of his helmet -- collect 25K
• James throws QB to ground unnecessarily -- collect 20K
• Repeat offender! -- collect 10j thousand dollars from James Harrison's bank, where j is the number of Take James Harrison's Money cards that have been revealed so far

The real issue -- comparing fines

I'm not mad that the NFL is cracking down on hits that unnecessarily endanger other players.  What I'm mad about is the total lack of sense in meting out these (seemingly arbitrary) punishments.  For instance, here are Harrison's 2010 fines to date, along with the other major fines this year:

Harrison awesomely does what is essentially a WWE move on Vince Young: 5K

Harrison blindsides Massaquoi: 75K

Harrison late-hits Brees: 20K

Harrison blows up Fitzpatrick: 25K

Richard Seymour punches Big Ben in facemask: 25K

Cortland "terrible human being" Finnegan starts fight after play: 25K
Andre Johnson destroys Finnegan in retaliation: 25K

I need hardly make an argument that this is unfair, because it pretty much speaks for itself.  Harrison has been penalized for playing football.  A few of his plays have been deemed overly aggressive/reckless (and I agree the hit on Massaquoi was scary).  In my opinion, which admittedly counts for nothing (not even 2 NFLopoly cents), the hit on Fitzpatrick was perfectly legal and worthy of football praise. 

But the other players were penalized for being outright violent -- while not playing the actual game.  I mean, seriously -- one player is playing football too hard/dangerously, and the others are punching people's faces between plays.


A tangent for one is lonely

What do you think?  Part A: Are the fines and penalties (which I didn't even mention!) on Harrison fair?

What do you think?  Part B: Thoughts on Monopoly?  Fun, too long, too many cheaters?  Also, what's the best version of Monopoly you've ever played or dreamt of?

Jon

Thanksgiving comes but once a year

It's funny to me how big a deal we make about Thanksgiving.  I suppose a few perfectly timed factors help add to the excitement, e.g. the accumulation of rivalry and other important college football matchups, and the sense that once this holiday's out of the way, Christmas cheer and decorations can unashamedly run rampant in our lives.

But the main components of the celebration -- family, food, and being thankful -- can pretty much be staples of our lives if we want them to be.  And while most of us will by necessity have our share of family and food whether we want them or not, I don't think gratitude made it onto Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

And so, I offer you a thanksgiving post, strategically timed the week after Thanksgiving.  May this remind us that being thankful is a daily discipline, not an annual act.  A continual conduct, not an autumn anomaly... and I'm gonna cut myself off there.

Things for which I'm thankful (in no meaningful order)

1. Beauty

I've been driving a lot lately.  I don't like to drive alone, because I get fidgety.  So, much to my mom's chagrin, I often call people while I'm on the road.  But occasionally (when I happen to be driving at dusk or sundown), no phone call is needed because the beauty of the sky overtakes me.  Now that I'm typing it out, this doesn't necessarily sound safe, being overtaken and all while I'm driving.

Anyway, two things up there really threaten to take my breath from me while I drive: sunsets and sunlight breaking through clouds.  I'm always tempted to take a picture of these things when I see them, but A. I'm driving, and B. I don't have a camera.  So here's a free stock photo I found online:

(The sky isn't the only thing I find beautiful, but in the interest of time...)

2. Truth

It's interesting that a person's field of work seems to weigh heavily on one's view of truth (what I really mean to say is epistemology, I think).  Teachers tend to view truth as real and important, because their job is to teach true things to people.  Artists, however, might view it in more relativistic terms, as the meaning and value of their own work might be different to different readers.  Et cetera.

As a would-be mathematician, my view of truth was always absolute and certain.  After all, I made it my job to understand and discover how quantities really work, in order to ultimately understand the physical reality around us.  That's not to say that this view is unanimous among mathletes, but I think it's a pretty overwhelming majority.  And now as a missionary... well, there may not be a more absolute truth oriented profession on the planet.

Anyway, I'm thankful that things are true.  That we can discover real, reliable facts and properties about people, places, and things.  That we can be wrong, and not have the eternal silver bullet of excuses, "I was just stating what is true to me."  Two and two will never add to five, brah.

Because along with truth come meaning and purpose.  Learning what's true and sharing it with others is important and satisfying.

3. International readership

Blogger tells me I've had readers from Italy, Bahrain, India, Greece, the UK, and a bunch of other countries.  Thanks for stopping by!  (I can only imagine how many mistakes led people here... people probably wanted to download When Harry Met Sally, which seems to appear in every entry I write.) 

Who are you, mysterious faraway readers?  I'll be even more thankful for you if you let me know who you are and how you got here.  That's right, I'm bribing you with gratitude.

4. God, family, and friends

This is a blog of ideas, not a personal journal.  So I'll leave number 4 at that.  But I thought I'd mention them, since they are what I'm most thankful for.

What about you?

I'd love to hear what you're most thankful for right now, whether an "obvious" thing like family or something obscure like Shaun Suisham or your favorite memory.

Jon

Can a man and a woman be friends?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: the rest of this post.

In 1989, when I was busy scoring goals in the wrong net for my indoor soccer team, a wonderful chick flick called When Harry Met Sally hit theaters.  Years later, I would see the movie many times and marvel at its awesome dialogue.

In the film, Harry claims that "men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way."  Now, I'm assuming that many of my readers come from the same place as me culturally -- the Christian subculture -- so you can feel free to delete the sex part.  With this edit in mind, I present to you my thesis:


Men and women can't be friends because the [physical attraction/desire to date] part always gets in the way.

Interestingly, just as Sally in the movie vehemently refutes Harry's claim, most women reject it when I make it.  But I'm not as mean or daring as Harry, so the conversation never takes the same direction that it did in the film:

Harry: ...men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally: That's not true.  I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry: No you don't.
Sally: Yes I do.
Harry: No you don't.
Sally: Yes I do.
Harry: You only think you do.

Bam!  Harry tells it like it is, leaving tact back at the beginning of their road trip.  But is he right?  I say that he is, and for the same reason he ultimately gives -- the various types of attraction that make opposite-sex friendships appealing ultimately doom them.

Suppose John and Jane meet.  What will inspire them to begin a romantic relationship?  Mutual physical and personality (including values, interests) attraction.  What will inspire them to begin a friendship?  Mutual personality attraction.  So, for a guy-girl platonic friendship, without a one-sided romantic pining to exist, we would need a man and woman who are attracted to each other's personality, but not their appearance.

What I'm basically saying is that this doesn't exist.  Most people are attracted to a great host of people, so good luck finding a guy and girl pairing in which neither is physically attracted to the other.  Even if you DID find this, there's the principle that "the more you get to know and appreciate someone's personality, the more physically attractive the person becomes to you."  So, as a friendship deepens over time, romantic feelings inevitably develop (see When Harry Met Sally's plot).


Many unfortunate consequences

You might be thinking (especially if you're a woman) that this isn't true.  You might even be thinking of examples of opposite-sex friendships from your own life.  But let's return to Harry and Sally:

Harry: You only think you do [have men friends]... what I'm saying is, they all WANT to [have a romantic relationship with] you.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.

If nothing else, you have to admire the characters' advanced debate techniques.

This is the tragic part of the above thesis... let's call it the Cursed Corollary: in every meaningful man-woman friendship, at least one of the people has romantic feelings for the other.

The wheels are probably starting to turn in your mind... yeah, that guy you are really good friends with totally platonically?  He likes you.  That girl you're always getting coffee with?  Admit it dude, you like her.  (It IS usually the guy who likes the girl, too, fyi.  We are just easily attracted, and you are very pretty.)

If any of you happens to be female and my friend... um.. please don't take this too much to heart.


Exceptions to every rule

I admit, there are some exceptions.  We have only been talking about single people so far, because it's too complicated to talk about people who are in relationships with other people.  So that could present some exceptions.  But the major exceptions are what I'm going to call "wedges," things that have wedged themselves between two people romantically.

A revised thesis, then, would read: Men and women without a sufficient wedge between them can't be friends, because the [romantic attraction] part always gets in the way.

What would these wedges be?  Anything that makes it abundantly clear to both parties that nothing romantic is going to happen between them.  The best example I can think of is the wedge named Chris between me and my long-time friend Amanda.  Chris and Amanda dated off-and-on for seven years, during which time Chris was my best friend. 

Even in their "off" times, it was very clear to me and Amanda that nothing would ever happen between us because of Chris's role in my life.  And, with that wedge firmly in place, we were able to have a fun, meaningful friendship during her stretches of singleness.

Other potential wedges: a vow of celibacy, a close blood relation, a huge age gap, a twisted social web of distrust/broken hearts/bitterness...


Let the comments fly

What do you think?  Can men and women be friends?

Jon

A Dude's Guide to Chick Flicks

There are other blogs out there dedicated to movie reviews, like this one by a colleague of mine.  I call him a colleague because we work for the same organization that employs over 27,000 people.  I've met him once.

Anyway, I don't have the time, inclination, or expertise to make a meaningful contribution to the field of cinema critique.  But there seems to be a lack of guys who are willing to stand up and call it like it is... in the world of chick flicks.

I've already written about my thoughts on the genre itself, so I will just stick to sharing my opinions about the best and the worst "rom coms" from a guy's perspective.  I will even have the audacity to speak to the entire male gender in the process.

The Top Five Chick Flicks for Dudes
(or, My Five Favorite Chick Flicks)


5. What Women Want

There are tons of reasons this makes the top 5:

• All guys have dreamed of being able to read women's minds, or for that matter, to understand them in any way.
• It reminds us of brighter days for Mel Gibson, who was once very cool.
• It juggles about 3 or 4 storylines at once, thus escaping the boring, predictable simplicity of most chick flicks.
• The movie is ultimately about Nick Marshall's growth, not their relationship.

4. You've Got Mail

You've Got Mail is by far the most typical movie on this list.  That's its biggest weakness -- a very typical, linear, predictable, yet unpleasantly unrealistic plot.  However, the great performances by Hanks and Ryan allow it to still be great, and then these drawbacks become a strength.  By virtue of its being a "typical chick flick," chicks like this flick.  Meaning you can enjoy it alongside a lady, should you be so lucky.


3. Forget Paris

As you'll see, the top 3 of this list share a lot in common.  Specifically, nonlinear plots and unpredictability.  Forget Paris is an excellent example of that, plus you get the bonus of Billy Cystal's awesomeness.  He plays an NBA ref, which is also sweet.  There are great interview snippets with old married couples throughout, a plot that jumps back and forth from past to present, and a great story of love's endurance.


2. (500) Days of Summer

This movie has pretty much everything going for it.  An awesome cast (seriously, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is rising toward the top of my man-crush list... I don't keep an actual list..), a great soundtrack, wonderful animation themes, a plot that skips around through time, but more than anything else, it is raw and honest.  This is what is missing from most rom coms, and the reason I think most guys hate them -- their picture of emotions and romance doesn't line up with our actual experiences.  But in this movie, it does.


1. When Harry Met Sally

This movie contains most of the features that I mentioned for the other 4 films.  On top of all those things, WHMS just contains awesome dialogue.  Any dude can be drawn into those conversations, particularly the debate about whether or not a man and woman can be friends.  And, for the record, the answer to that question is, "No."  [Perhaps than can get its own entry!]

Dishonorable Mention
(or, the Some of the Worst Chick Flicks for Dudes)

Sweet Home Alabama - tacky, predictable
A Walk to Remember - sad; too sad
The Notebook - I hate this movie on too many levels to describe briefly
Something's Gotta Give - don't EVER see this; naked old people
Mona Lisa Smile - by women, for women, about women

Men, I hope this is helpful.  Women, I hope this helps you understand how what we think about movies typically made for you...

What do you think about chick flicks?

Jon

 

Can't read my, can't read my, can't read my poker face

I'm going to a bachelor party this weekend, and we're going to be playing Texas Hold 'Em.  If you've never played this game,

1. I recommend it.
2. What hole have you been living in for the last 8 years?

Anyway, in anticipation of losing money, my mind has begun to toss around some phrases from the game as I go about everyday tasks and conversations.  It got me to thinking that Texas Hold 'Em has a lot of great phrases that can carry over into non-poker life.  Here are some of the most prominent/cool examples:


Already used outside poker

All in
Meaning in poker:  Having put all one's chips into the pot for the current round.
Meaning outside poker:  Having put all one's hope or trust into something.
Examples: 
(in football)
The Bengals went all in on that blitz, allowing Mike Wallace to burn the single coverage deep.
(in dating)
My heart was broken because I was all in on that relationship.

Bad beat
Meaning in poker:  When a player has bet well, but loses the hand anyway, often because the river card is one of the very few cards that would cause the opponent to win.
Meaning outside poker:  When a person does something well, but loses anyway due to an unlikely scenario playing out that causes the defeat.

• [Tangent-within-a-tangent: Game Theory is a branch of mathematics that I know very little about, but it's so fascinating that I talk a lot about it anyway.  One of the central statements of this field is that games with "perfect knowledge" always have a winning strategy (or, if a tie is possible, a non-losing strategy).  Perfect knowledge means that each player can see all the factors influencing the game (pieces, cards, dice rolls, etc.); so in chess, Connect Four, and tic-tac-toe, players have perfect knowledge, but in Stratego, Risk, poker, and Monopoly, players do not.  Using our poker terminology, this statement could be rephrased to "Games with perfect knowledge do not have bad beats."  This is probably clear if you've been able to follow this embedded tangent; if the game features a winning strategy, you can't blame a "bad beat" for your loss... just your inferior strategy.]

Examples: 
(football)
We won the field position battle and got into position for a game-winning field goal when a torrential downpour suddenly overtook the field.  What a bad beat.
(dating)
Despite all my charm, humor, and rugged good looks, and the fact that what Juliet and I shared was real and beautiful, it turned out to be a bad beat as Romeo opened up a bottle of Love Potion Number 9.


Ready to crack into the real world

Pay to see the flop
Meaning in poker:  To match the bet of the player in the "big blind" seat in order to be a part of the hand.
Meaning outside poker:  To satisfy one's curiosity by paying some price to be a part of something that's about to happen.
Examples:
(football)
"Yeah, so why did the Lions draft 3 WRs in the first round in a 4-year span?"  "Great question.  They always pay to see the flop."
(futility)
After being badgered so long by my neighbor to go out with her single female friend, I finally paid to see the flop and gave her a call.


I'm sure I've forgotten some great ones, since the game seems to be filled with awesome jargon.  Let me know your ideas!

Jon



The worst smell in the world

Dudes,

There are a lot of bad smells in the world.  Among them, some have attained "legendary status": skunk, any kind of crap, limburger cheese (seriously, how could anyone eat that stuff?)...

But I've smelled something far worse.  No matter how many sewage plants or dead animals I drive by, there will always be one odorous memory that haunts me more than any other.  I could give you 1,000 guesses, and there's no way you'd get it (unless you glanced down and saw the picture below).

Yeah, the worst smell in the world is an orange peel.

You are probably in squinting your eyes, shaking your head, thinking, "Jon is an idiot."  And that last part may be true, but I assure you, the picture above represents one of the worst smells, nay experiences, of my life.  Here's the story:

I spent some time in "East Asia" (pardon the secrecy) about 5 years ago.  My roommate while there was an old friend of mine, Greg Del Moro.

• [Tangent-within-a-tangent: As you might have already realized, the name Greg Del Moro is extremely similar to the name Gregor Mendel.  So we usually called Greg by the name Gregor Mendel-moro or just "the father of genetics".]

The first day that Gregor and I entered our dorm room was the worst day of our lives.  We unpacked and were checking out the facilities, which included a mini-fridge in our room.  We opened the fridge door and were physically knocked back by a freight train of stench.  Putrid, invisible coils of decayed citrus death punched me in the stomach and clawed at my neck.

Apparently the people of that part of the world find that orange peels help keep a fridge or room fresh and pleasant?  And while this might be true of a peel that's one or two days old (I wouldn't know, I've never dared experiment with such a monstrous power), the one in our fridge must have been rotting for months.

If you google "orange peel uses" or "orange peel scent", you will actually find tips for how orange peels can freshen the air -- while they're being boiled.  And I can attest to this, as just tonight my roomate boiled some orange peels while making cider.  Yeah, my roommate makes cider.

Questions for you to ponder/answer:

1. Do you have any stories of something that smelled surprisingly awful?
2. Do you have any friends with sweet nicknames like "the father of genetics"? 

Yours,
Jon



NFL's best logos

Friends, enemies, people I've never met:

Sorry for the hiatus!  I had a conference in Georgia that sort of threw off my whole rhythm.  My last post was really serious (in some sense of the word), and so I thought we should explore something fun.  Since it's NFL season and my Steelers are looking good, I thought we could talk about football.  But since many of you might be "uninterested in the actual game of football" (read: "girls"), I thought we could talk about pretty shapes and colors.

And so, I announce the 5 best team logos in the NFL.  And then a raging, passionate debate can ensue.


Number 5: Carolina Panthers

I saw some article online that ranked this, like, 27th in the NFL.  The reason they gave is that it looks like the panther is "yawning".  Yeah, either yawning or in the process of biting your face off.  Not to mention that black and blue is a b.a. color combination.


Number 4: Tennessee Titans alternate logo

I don't even know if other teams have alternate logos.  I think this one appears on the sleeve of the Titans' jerseys.  It's cooler than their main logo because the T-shaped object is more obviously a sword.  And swords are cool.

[Editor's note: Several other teams have alternate logos.  They're pretty lame.]


Number 3: St. Louis Rams

Yes, a ram is technically a sheep.  So theoretically, not very intimidating.  But look at this logo.  Just gaze at it, and notice the rising combination of awe, terror, and aesthetic joy in your soul.  The colors, the horns... it's a big win for sheep.


Number 2: Denver Broncos 

Ok, so I clearly like logos of violent-looking mammals with their heads pointing to the right.  Two things set the Bronco ahead of his peers: his tiny, evil orange eye and the fact that his two colors -- orange and navy blue -- look fantastic together and make for the best uniforms in the NFL.


Number 1: Houston Texans

I can't really explain this.  But I'll try: it's unique.  The colors make for great uniforms.  It overcomes an impossible team nickname like "Texans" with a cool intimidating cattle head with a star for an eye.  And amazingly, it's really simple.  If you're not artistically gifted, good luck drawing any of the other animal heads above.  But a small child could draw this accurately with shis eyes closed.  And yet it still looks awesome.


Worst logos: Giants, Saints, Vikings, Dolphins, Browns (no logo)


Tell me who got snubbed, or try to defend one of these basement-dwellers.  Let me know what you think!

Jon

To infinity and beyond

The nerd inside me was clamoring for a chance to write.  And while we'll certainly be flying over Nerd Mountain, I'll try to keep us at a safe enough distance that everyone can understand the topic and take part in a hopefully fun discussion.

Infinity in mathematics

This will be the trickiest part to talk about in a way that can hold the attention of the moderately cool person.  I'll do my best.

The concept of infinity is so intuitive that I don't think I need to say anything about it.  It's actually kind of hard to give it a good definition without specifiying what type of thing we're calling infinite (i.e., an infinitely long span of time and infinitely many Blu-Rays of LOST season 6 are two different beasts -- though related, since the show is so addicting you could probably watch it for eternity).  So I'm just going to assume that when I say "infinity," you roughly know what I'm talking about.

But I will point out that in mathematics, the concept of infinity is extremely important.  In grad school, we literally talked about infinity every single day in class.  It played many different roles -- the limit of a function, the number of elements (e.g. numbers) in a set, etc.  I sense I'm losing most of you, so just suffice it to say that literally every day as a math grad student, you use infinite things to understand mathematics.

A few examples of infinity:

• The set of all natural (or "counting") numbers is infinite in size: {0, 1, 2, 3,...}
• The set of all real numbers is infinite in size, and in fact is more infinite.  I won't go into this, but it's really interesting to you if you're legendary in your nerdiness.
• One of the first proofs you learn as an undergrad math major is how to show that there are infinitely many prime numbers.
• The limit of the graph of f(x)=1/x as x approaches 0 from the right is positive infinity:

Infinity in our imaginations

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, we have this intuition about infinite things.  The author of Tuck Everlasting didn't have to explain what eternal life is -- we can all imagine living forever.  Most of us naturally assume the universe is infinitely large, that space just "goes on forever."  Science fiction (and many an actual scientist) posits that there are infinitely many universes.

But the crazy thing is -- and this will serve as our punchline --

We haven't discovered anything infinite in nature.

Yeah, that's right. 

The number of atoms in the universe:  less than 4 x 10^81

The age of the universe:  less than 14 billion years

The number of mudslinging Senator commercials:  somehow less than 70% of all Senate commercials, which is itself (surprisingly) a finite number

The three things you would most naturally guess to be infinite turn out to be finite.  Part of the reason we don't find actual infinites anywhere is that it would be impossible to measure one.  Think about it: if something had infinite weight, it would exceed the capacity of any scale we could build.  We'd just keep building bigger scales, and it would break every one.  And the same is true for length, age, etc. -- our ability to observe/measure will always be finite, so we could never conclusively say that anything is actually infinite.

But it's more than just a measurement problem.  We know the age of the universe and number of total atoms are finite. 

There are two possibilities for infinitude in our natural universe, I think -- black holes' density and the overall volume of the universe.  The latter is still an "open question" in cosmology, and we don't know yet the overall structure or size of the universe.  And the thing about density is that it's sort of a pretend quality -- you take two measurable things (mass and volume) and divide them.  So a black hole gets its infinite density since its volume is zero, and when you divide by zero you (sort of) get infinity.  If the only way to get an infinite thing in reality is to divide by zero, I think the point still stands.

Why is this true?

Recap: we all intuitively understand and can easily call upon the idea of infinity, and yet we don't know of any actual instances of infinity in the natural world.

Why?  What does this tell us about the world?  About ourselves?

I don't know.  That's why it's written in question form.  Please tell me what you think.

I'll give you my one initial thought on this mystery -- we're a bunch of beings who are finite in every way, surrounded by finitely many things that are each finitely sized and finitely old, and yet we think and dream of infinity.  To me, it seems like it could be an innate comprehension of and yearning for something or someone infinite, outside our universe and its finiteness.

Abraham Lincoln thought the same thing: “Surely God would not have created such a being as man, with an ability to grasp the infinite, to exist only for a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.”

Sorry this was so long.  But imagine if it had been infinitely long...

Please feel free to take a stab at the above questions or any other thoughts, comments, questions, or ideas you have.  Thanks!

Jon

Singleness Manifesto

Preamble

I'm not sure this will qualify as a manifesto.  But ever since learning about "manifest destiny" in fifth grade, I've attempted to use "manifest" and all its variations as much as possible in conversation and writing.

Some of you may wonder why singleness would need a defense/justification/encouragement.  Can't we all just be content with our lot in life, enjoying whatever season we're in and patiently waiting for whatever's next?  No.  If you're wondering that, I'm guessing you got married when you were 20-22 or have never come up to breathe between relationships.   Patience and contentment are possible in theory, but when you're alone on a Friday night eating ice cream and watching a Golden Girls marathon, they seem just a little out of reach.

And so, it is with the memories of many nights spent watching Blanche and Rose, and with a strong desire to sleep peacefully at night, that I present to you the 5 Pillars of Singleness.

Pillar 1: Self-actualization

We each have so many passions.  Maybe you're cool and want to make rock 'n roll music, or play in a sports league, or learn to dance or cook.  Maybe you're less cool and want to analyze Lord of the Rings, or study beekeeping, or master a dice-rolling baseball board game.  There are things out there that you love -- some of them that you've never tried.  The time you have being single (that you wouldn't have if you were married or in a "serious relationship") is calling out to be used for these things.

But that time has even better uses possible than interests and hobbies.  There are deep, important questions to answer about why you're here on Earth and what will make your life meaningful to you.  There is no time like... single time?... to investigate, answer, and pursue these mysteries.

For instance, one of the hallmarks of my life is a desire to bring honor to God.  I figured this out in the context of personal study and prayer, not on a date with a woman.  And what style of life best lends itself to bringing God honor?  In general, it's a lifestyle of singleness; as the apostle Paul said, "One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but the one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided."

The above principle obviously doesn't just apply to my particular bent toward pleasing God; once you've found a mission, goal, or calling that brings your life meaning, being single lends a single-mindedness to your efforts in that area.

Pillar 2: Availability to others

Here is a grand mystery -- most of my friends are married/engaged/etc. (e.g. my closest 9 guy friends of the last 7 years of my life are ALL in this broad category), and yet I spend time socially much more with the few single friends I have.

But it's not really that mysterious.  When you're serious with someone, you spend a serious amount of time with shim (I refuse to say "them" or "him or her").  When you're not, you have a serious amount of time to spend with whomever.  It's strange that "serious" can mean "considerable in consequence", as in its uses above, in addition to "without humor," which sadly is probably true of this paragraph.

Pillar 3: Finding real self-value

One of the reasons we pine for romantic relationships, I think, is that while in them we feel more valuable.  And of course we do, because the person values us and goes to lengths to express that.

And yet, I'm pretty sure our worth is entirely God-given (if you prefer, read: intrinsic).  But we're so messed up that we sometimes require feeling valued in order to believe that we have value.  If you've ever fallen into this rut, then stretches of datelessness can be rough because you feel pretty worthless. 

But singleness is the only real context in which you can remedy this correctly.  When you're in a relationship, the lightbulb of your true worth (apart from any other person's opinion) is probably not going to go off for the first time.

Pillar 4: Struggle is good

The difficult times shape who we are.  They bring resolve, perseverance, and maturity.  So, stretches of loneliness and relationship envy -- when fought through with faith, hope, and love -- make us better people.

Pillar 5: Setting the stage for a good Decision

I think I wrote about this in my old Xanga days.  My position hasn't changed much.  When the time comes to decide if you want to spend the rest of your life with a specific person, I think you want to enter into that decision with wisdom and experience.  Part of that experience will be past relationships and what you learned from them (what you want in a spouse, what you don't want, how you relate to different types of people).  Part of it will be what you've learned about yourself.

My experience has been that I learn the most about myself when I'm single... when I'm single I spend more time with myself.

Plus, if you're single now, that means you'll make that Decision when you're older than you are now.  Odds are that Future You will be wiser and a better decision-maker than You are.

Epilogue

"And this is not to say
there never comes a day
I'll take my chances and start again.

And when I look behind
on all my younger times,
I'll have to thank the wrongs
that led me to a love so strong."

--John Mayer, from "Perfectly Lonely"


Keep fighting, singletons.

Jon

Stephen Hawking vs. God

Well-known physicist Stephen Hawking just co-wrote a book called The Grand Design.  In this pop-science best-seller, he and his pal make the argument that we need not call upon God to explain the origins of the universe, because the theory of multiple universes is satisfactory.  I will now attempt to summarize and criticize/debunk this brilliant scientist's work, which I've never read.

You might be thinking, "Jon, you're pretty smart, but you're no Stephen Hawking."  Agreed.  Your next thought might amount to, "You haven't even read the book."  Correct.  But what I have done is pretty significant -- my friend scanned a couple chapters and summarized them for me, and I read the book's wikipedia page.  I rest my case.

No, no, I'm not qualified to talk about cosmology or physics.  But I have a brain, and it usually works, so I'm qualified to talk about my thoughts.

My first thought is that this argument is ooooold, but by leaking to the press that the book would denounce God and using the ethos of Hawking's name, Bantam Books and Hawking were able to recycle it and make tons of money.

Secondly, I'm thinking his argument doesn't give us any more explanatory power than a creation hypothesis.  One classical argument for God's existence is as follows:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause (or complex series of causes).
2. The great host of physicists agrees there was a "Big Bang," an actual event that occurred a certain number of years ago, at which point matter and time first came into being.  In other words, our universe  had a beginning.
3. Therefore, our universe had a cause outside of our universe -- something or someone that made matter and time emerge from nothing.

Hawking basically agrees with this argument, but says that "m-theory" (the latest version of string theory that identifies 11 dimensions in our universe) with an understanding that our universe is just one of many, provides a valid alternate hypothesis to the idea that God is the universe's cause.  Hawking specifically states that the properties of gravity would make the spontaneous generation of our universe possible.

But what gravity does he mean?  It can't be the gravity of our universe and its 11 dimensions.  That property didn't exist until after the Big Bang, like all other physical properties in our universe.  So Hawking must be referring to a "supernatural" (i.e. "outside of our nature or universe") gravity.  This is a gravity in one of those other many universes that we've never seen, felt, or experimented on.  Sounds pretty... unscientific.

My third thought is an attempt to understand the idea fully.  We can study our gravity.  We learn its properties and infer how a gravitational force might operate in a completely different universe.  We make some prediction, and (this is the point in the book at which Hawking humorously says there is ample scientific evidence to support the theory) we find that yes siree, if the gravity of another universe were such-and-such a force, it could cause an entirely new universe to form.

Fourthly, I ask myself the many, many questions that stem from this line of reasoning:

• Why is it more reasonable/scientific to assume there is some other universe out there completely separate from ours that somehow -- via pure gravitation -- gave birth to ours (but remained completely separate from us), than to believe there is intelligence outside our universe that caused it to exist?
• What caused that universe to exist?  Another universe with the same sort of gravity?  What about that one?  If we never trace back to an uncaused cause, we eventually have an infinitely old chain of infinitely many universes.  But since all of these apparently have different sets of natural laws (and Hawking admits only a very few could conceivably support life, let alone intelligent life), what laws dictate which universes will have which properties?  Wouldn't you need some over-arching "meta-laws" that are unchanging and eternal that determine this infinite chain of universe-spawning?  And -- hammerstroke -- where do these meta-laws come from?
• How is any of this testable?  Provable?  It's nice that you predicted that a parent universe would have a certain gravity, and then coincidentally those properties theoretically would allow the generation of a new cosmos.  But it sounds, to me, a lot like the natural theologian's exercise of predicting (from nature, human experience) what a Parent Deity would be like, and then coincidentally it's precisely that kind of Deity who would create a universe that supports intelligent life.

The fifth thing going through my mind is how many critics of The Grand Design -- including many who are in no way sympathetic to creation hypotheses -- have shared my first four thoughts (you can make the case that this is no surprise, since I already read their thoughts before writing this post.  Touche.).

One Columbia physics professor said a few weeks ago, "I'm in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you're the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me."

The Economist -- deciding to review a pop physics book? -- slammed it as well, pointing out that "the authors’ interpretations and extrapolations of [m-theory] have not been subjected to any decisive tests, and it is not clear that they ever could be. Once upon a time it was the province of philosophy to propose ambitious and outlandish theories in advance of any concrete evidence for them. Perhaps science, as Professor Hawking and Mr. Mlodinow practice it in their airier moments, has indeed changed places with philosophy, though probably not quite in the way that they think."

Renowned scientific journalist John Horgan said that if we believe the book's claims that we've reached a trustworthy explanation of the universe's origins, "the joke's on us."

Sixthly (<-- nice), I'm realizing how tired I am.  I really need to get some sleep.  So I'll move on to thought seven:

Stephen Hawking is a brilliant man.  Maybe the most brilliant man in the world when it comes to physics and math.  I'm sure I couldn't ever grasp the full breadth of most ideas in his book, and that what I've done above is almost certainly attacking a straw man.  But I can't help but wonder about his motives -- or others', like Dawkins -- for coming out with a public attack on God's existence.

Of course there are the typical reasons you could imagine.  They simply don't believe, and they want others to see the world the way they do.  Sure.  Maybe they see a lot of hypocrisy, or even evil, done in God's name, and since they don't even believe in Him, it seems like the world would be better if no one else did.  Okay.  Or the grandest of them all -- perhaps they are so convinced of atheism that, in the spirit of the world being educated and knowledgeable, it would only be right for the world to be enlightened and atheistic as well.

But why, then, are their attacks so full of anger and based on bad logic?  Dawkins is almost unreadable to me because he is so full of condescension and underlying rage toward anyone who's a theist.  Even Hawking is willing to imagine this multi-verse universe-popping scheme and then claim that it's supported by empirical evidence!

I guess I just suspect that in many cases, the crusade to refute God is not an educational or purely intellectual one, but a deeply personal and emotional one.  Or possibly a greedy one (the book in question hit #1 on Amazon the day it was released).

I don't know how to best generate conversation about this, except that I would love to hear any and all thoughts regarding the book (if you've read it... or skimmed wikipedia), the existence of God, and the above arguments for and against God's existence.