Gooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

A while back, I was listening to the sports radio station here in Calgary, and the issue of whether or not the Flames goalie was being overworked was raised. The DJ on the station scoffed at the notion and said 'it seems like every year at this time this question is raised at this time' (not actually an exact quote, just a paraphrase), and that he always seemed to answer the critics. Later that day on TSN, they were also talking about the Flames goalie and they showed an interesting graphic. A few years ago when the Flames almost won the Stanley Cup, Kipper (their goalie) only played 40 games or so during the regular season as he came over in a trade half way through the season and taking over the starting job. The next three years, he played 74, 74, and 76 games, and they lost each season in the first round. So basically, when he didn't play a whole lot and was fresh, he got an eighth place team to within a goal of winning the whole thing. When he played most of a season (there are only 82 games), he can't steal the first round when they were playing, at least some of the time, a team that did worse in the regular season. Is it just me or is that not a telling statistic?
I think the Calgary sports media needs to actually examine these things before they lift their players to near god-like status.
I have no idea why I thought of that today, but there it is. Speaking of today, I updated Grasp the Nettle again. and here it is.

Programming note

Yesterday on TV I saw a very serious commercial. The tag line of the ad was "Not every suicide note..." and I didn't catch the rest of the line (I was at work, so it's not like I could just stand there and watch). I did catch that it was for a organisation that is trying to raise awareness about and to stop eating disorders (so the ad was saying that people, especially teenaged women, are killing themselves with the disease, as opposed to other 'more conventional' forms of suicide). It was a bit creepy and slightly disturbing, but in the way that makes a person think about what they've seen and remember.
The very next commercial started with a close up of a woman trying to get her jeans on, but not being able to do up the button because she was too 'fat'. Her friend then tells her about Special K and how it will help her get skinny enough to wear the jeans.
So basically, the TV told people that eating disorders are bad, but being fat is bad too, and the woman in the second commercial was by no means fat. She was no stick, but she didn't even look like she was overweight. I couldn't believe I saw that.

On a more cooler note, check this out. Picture 8 is the coolest.

And finally, it's a bit late, but here's the next installment of Thunderfunk the Superchicken.

1-2-3

I was watching wrestling today and suddenly I forgot it wasn't real. I was so confused because I couldn't figure out why the wrestlers were acting like they were. They should have been much angrier than they were and much more confrontational. It took me a while to remember that it is scripted, which is half of the fun. The other half is watching the true athleticism of these people. It is impressive.
Anyway, I updated Grasp the Nettle.
Me so sleepy.

A comercial success? Not exactly.

There is an ad out right now for a credit card that gives cash back on all purchases. The commercial starts with two women buying some groceries at the supermarket. One pays with cash, the other with her credit card. The cash woman is slightly skeptical about the the benefit of getting cash back on the card. "What did you get, two dollars?" she asks somewhat dismissively. "Yeah," replies her friend, "what did you get?" She then walks off screen (possibly getting hit by a vehicle in the parking lot as retribution for her attitude of superiority...that's left somewhat vague and ambiguous) while her friend looks surprised.
There are a couple of things about the ad that I notice. First of all, much of the 'conflict' of the ad revolves around the fact that the cash woman is surprised by the other woman using her credit card. The groceries she bought had to equal twenty to thirty dollars at least. In my experience, it is not surprising at all to see people use their credit card for purchases much smaller than that. It is possible that there is a back story here to which we are not privy - perhaps the credit card woman had problems with overspending on credit cards in the past and had vowed to never use a credit card again, and that is why the cash lady is surprised. But it really seems to be set up as though the cash lady is surprised that anyone would use their credit card for such a small purchase.
The second thing I notice is that the woman who uses the credit card is white, while the person who uses the cash is not. She seems to be of East Indian origin, or perhaps more middle eastern. I can't remember exactly at the moment, but whatever she is, she is not white. It is perhaps an indication of the times that I would even notice that. I'm not saying I'm offended by it, because I'm not. But I am very aware of it. Anytime there is a part played by a 'minority', I can't help but critique the role on the basis of its racial-nicity. That's a good word.
All that to say, I'm not against the card, seems like a good idea, but I don't really like the ad.

Musically Inclined

When I was in high school, I remember being involved in a conversation about secular music vs christian music. Someone made the point that secular music can still have a grain of truth and another person wondered why anyone would want a grain of truth when they could have the whole thing in christian music.
I didn't say anything at the time, and I'm not even sure if I thought of any sort of answer to that question right then, but the question has been with me ever since, and that was over ten years ago. At some point a thought struck me - when someone trains to be a doctor, his first day of schooling does not involve performing open heart surgery at the local hospital. When babies are born they don't start eating steak and potatoes (unless they're Chuck Norris). Kindergarten is naps, snacks and sand boxes, not calculus, quantum physics and detailed analysis of King Lear. Sometimes, a kernel of truth is all that a person can handle, and all that a person is ready for. An oak tree comes from planting a tiny seed.
And along the way, another thought struck me. Christianity does not hold the exclusive rights to the truth. The truth is out there and it is possible for people to see it, and artists are especially adept at looking at the world and questioning it. When you question the world, sometimes the truth pops out, even when the questions don't necessary lead to God. I heard a song once about how women should respect themselves and how men need to start respecting women and not treating them like mere objects of fantasy and lust. Other songs by that band were extreme foul, crude, loud, angry and basically any other adjective for bad you can think of. Yet somehow they stumbled across this little piece of truth and put it out for the world to hear. It seemed odd, but that didn't make it any less true.

Once Again

As promised, I have updated Thunderfunk the Superchicken yet again. You should check it out. It involves sock puppets.

Woof!

Dogs can be frightening. I'm not talking about the big, angry dogs that charge a person, snarling and barking, only to be brought up short at the massive chain welded around their massive necks. I'm talking about all dogs at different times.
The big dogs can be intimidating when they get all angry, sure, but that is to be expected. What's really unsettling is when they watch a person walking by. They don't snarl, bare their teeth, bark, or anything like that - they just watch. They don't blink, they don't get angry, they just watch. It's the confidence they exude, a confidence that comes from knowing that they are able to destroy whoever they are looking at whenever they want. It's unsettling.
But the little dogs can be unnerving as well. They realise that they aren't imposing physically. But between yapping incessantly and generally acting as dumb as doorknobs, they have pauses. Pauses where they watch what's going on, perhaps with a little too much intensity. They are plotting something. I think that they know their limitations when alone, but have determined the value of working together. They know that if they can unite enough of them, they will be a force to be reckoned with. Can you imagine a pack of small dogs rolling down the street? It would be like a plague of locusts, leaving nothing but twitching dry bones in their wake. And dogs eat, or at least chew on, anything they can fit in their mouths, so you know nothing is safe.
And to top it off, if the small dogs make their bid to take over the word first, the big dogs are going to play along. Eventually there will be a clash between the two factions for final supremecy of the planet, but by then the time of humanity will already have long been at an end.
And that will be too bad, because it's going to be some sort of battle worth seeing.

Fun word of the day: Poppycock!

The will of God. These are ominous words for many people (and by many people, I mean me, and so I assume there are others out there as well). I think it is the word 'the'. 'The' implies one thing, and only one thing. If you say "He is the best driver, you mean no one can drive better than him. You don't say 'he is the good driver'. There are many good drivers. If you say 'the', then it means the one and only. Try it out. The chair means that one chair you are indicating - all other chairs are excluded. 'The group' means that particular group. There may be other groups roaming about, setting fire to random buildings, cars, and slow people, but you are not talking about them. You are talking about one particular group.
Now, back on topic - the will of God. What is it? That is the question that is so difficult to answer, especially in relation to work and big life decisions (aka love). When people are faced with deciding what they want to do in life and they wonder what the will of God is for their life, it seems to me that often they get bogged down in finding that one perfect thing that they should be doing. It doesn't help that from an early age we are told to get a good education so we can get a good (read: high paying (because that is apparently the only thing that makes a job 'good')) job, and that we should be doing something we love. No one wants to work at a job they don't like, and when it happens it feels like we must not be following God's will.
Alternatively, some people want to find a career that they don't enjoy too much because they want to follow God's will instead. They think that God wants them to sacrifice, and so the things they love must be of the world and not to be chased after as a career, so they turn to what they feel is more dignified or spiritually impactful or 'deep' as a career so that they can be following 'The Will Of God' (read that with an echo-y voice).
Both options can leave a person not following God's will, but both can leave a person right smack dab in the middle of God's will.
And don't get me started on love (what's that? It's too late? Well, I guess I must continue then). Hollywood talks about love like it is: a) sex, and b) a mystical thing that 'you will just know when it happens', and will lead immediately to sex. Churches aren't much better (though replace the word 'sex' with 'marriage'). The view of love I have always gotten from the church as I have grown up is that God has a person picked out for me and that when I meet her we will fall in love and I am only unmarried because I haven't found 'the one' yet. There are all sorts of implications about free will vs destiny I could get into here, but I won't (at least not thoroughly), not today. In relation to 'The Will of God', it seems that getting married to 'the one' that God has picked out for you is the obvious choice and it is a bit odd (though only whispered when the person is not around) for someone, especially a woman, to be in the church and unmarried. And heaven forbid they ever express the desire to remain unmarried.
I'm straying a bit from the point. The point is, when people wonder about love and 'the will of God', the assumption is that there is someone who is 'the one' for everyone out there and that you 'will just know when it happens'. Or, to sum it all up in one word: Poppycock! I'll say it again, but only because it is a fun word to say: Poppycock!
So what is the will of God? It is not a point. It is not a singular thing, a sole direction, a lone path to take. When I leave work, I can go down Ranchlands Blvd to John Laurie, get off at fourteenth, go down a few side streets and arrive home. Or I can go down Crowchild to 16th ave, follow that to Centre street and end up at home. Or I could down down Nosehill to Country Hills, turning off at Beddington, follow that to Deerfoot, turn off at 32nd, follow some side streets and end up at home. All three get me where I need to be (cuz I'm a hungry boy at quittin' time!), and none can be said to be wrong. Some take longer than others and take me past different places and people. That is the will of God - a journey.
I saw an illustration that helped me understand this concept. The will of God is represented by a large circle, and there is a smaller circle within it is a smaller circle that is labled "area of freedom and responsibility". Area, not point. God's will is not a single thing that you must be doing to the exclusion of all others - a woman you must love, and only that woman; a job you must do and only that job. It is much broader than that.
I'd say that in the most broadest of broad terms, God's will is to love Him and love others. As long as the woman you love does not prevent you from doing that, then you are loving the right woman. As long as the career you have chosen is not preventing you from doing that, then you have chosen the right career. I recently thought of an analogy that I have been finding very intriguing: imagine that you are somewhere and are told you can have one piece of pie (there are other people there and only enough pie for one piece each). Your options are apple pie and peach pie (or any two pies you like). You like both pies equally, so it is completely a matter of picking a piece of pie and eating it. This is where people like me really struggle - I know that I like both pies and I want to make sure I pick the 'right' pie. But there is no right pie. They're both the same and I will enjoy either pie equally. The real key is to pick a pie and enjoy it fully. If I pick the peach pie, I cannot eat it while thinking about the apple pie and how good it might have been. If I do that, then not only am I regretting not having the apple pie, but my enjoyment of the peach pie is diminished as well.
In this analogy, God's will is not the pie. God's will is the party that is serving the pies. The only way to get the pies is to be at the party, just like the only way to be getting the choices that God wants for your life is to be living in His will. But there may be choices that pop up in your life that are equally appealing. There isn't necessarily one that is wrong and one that is right. There may be one that is better, but better and worse are not the same as wrong and right. Two billion dollars is better than one billion dollars. One billion dollars is still good to have and a great deal of money.
There is a saying: Love God and follow your heart. That seems in contradiction to what I have grown up hearing: Deny your heart and follow God. It may not have been said quite so blatantly (it was sometimes that explicit) but that is the sentiment I am used to hearing. The problem is, God puts these desires on our hearts when we follow Him, so why should we ignore them. As I said, as long as your desire doesn't get in the way of loving God and loving others, it should be fine to follow.
I think part of the problem is that we forget, or have trouble grasping, that God is different from us on a deep and fundamental level. God is not a human and is not bound by human limitations such as time. But what about Jesus, you say? He was, is, and ever will be fully human. But he is still God. The trinity is confusing, and that is okay. For purposes of this discussion, suffice it to say that, even though he was perfectly human and completely human when he lived on earth, he was and is still God. And God does not live in time the same way we do. In the movie (and comic series) The Watchmen, there is a character that, through a freak accident, has superhuman powers, including the ability to see time differently than people. He can be said to be in all times at the same time. Thus, he can tell someone the results of a conversation between himself and another character that has not yet happened. That does not mean he controls what happens and that there is only one possible outcome. It just means that he has already seen the outcome of the choices that are yet to be made. I think it is similar with God - He has granted us free will and we can choose what we do and the choices we need to make. But because He exists beyond time (or out of time or time exists within Him or however you want to say it) He has already seen the results of our choices. I think that is why there seems to be a contradiction in the Bible of people having free will and yet God clearly saying He knows what you are going to do and the path that you will take. He is not forcing you into anything and you have the choice; He just knows the result of said choice.
As a side note, there is at least one verse (I think) that talks about the path that God has chosen for us, or something that He has chosen for us that almost contradicts the whole 'given us free will idea'. But just because He has chosen a path for us does not mean we have to walk it. Ask any parent who has chosen an outfit for a young child, only to choose another when the child refuses to wear said first outfit. Of course, I may be wrong about that verse or misinterpreting/misrepresenting the context/meaning of said verse. If you know the verse (or verses) to which I am alluding and I am way off base, then ignore the preceding paragraph. It wasn't central to the argument in any case.
The whole reason for this long missive is that I am trying to settle questions, fears and doubts in my own heart. These are things that I have thought about and believe strongly in my head. But I am a feeler, not a thinker. I had a conversation with my friend Peter recently where the 'Myers-Briggs' personality test was referenced. He asked if I had taken it and whether I was a thinker or a feeler. I said I was a thinker, and he contradicted me, saying that he believed I was a feeler. The more that I have thought about it, the more I realised he was right. Plus, now that I think about it more, when I took the test I'm pretty sure I was an INFP, with the F being 'feeler' as opposed to being a T for 'thinker'. (The N may have been an S, but it has been a long time since I took the test, so I don't remember exactly). Either way, I have thought through the will of God question a great deal and it makes sense in my head, but it goes against what I have heard all of my life and it is still a battle to make my heart actually believe what my head knows to be true. I guess I'd say that it feels true, but doesn't yet feel right in the sense of natural and intuitive. What I said earlier about people struggling with denying what they enjoy to live a life that is 'deeper' and more 'spiritual' really applies to me. I struggle with that whenever I think about what I want to do with life. I want to do something that 'matters', that is 'significant', but I don't think I know what I mean when I say that, and I don't know why I feel the way I do. In the end, I want my motives for what I do to be the right ones (fortune and fame! oh wait...), and if those are right, then I am following the will of God no matter what I do.
And that's no poppycock!

All the Side Effects, None of the Relief

We have five gallon (20 litre) pails of paint at work, which makes sense because it would be awfully annoying to need twenty gallons of paint if they all had to be single gallon pails. These 'fivers', as we call them, tend to be rather heavy. On Thursday we got our order in and there were ten 'fivers' of our most common paint. In order to ensure that no paint gets too old, we are supposed to rotate the stock to make sure the older paint is used first. To do this required me to move approximately forty pails of paint, half of it in a space that does not allow me to stand up fully. As I finished that job, I stood up and realised that I had tweaked my back.
It was a little sore, but I have tweaked my back like this before, so it was nothing alarming. I was being careful, making sure to lift properly and not be twisting or moving to rapidly. Today (Saturday) at work I felt pretty good. There was a little bit of soreness, but it was more like a half-remembered ache from an old injury than it was actual pain. I get through my entire day and make it to closing time. I do my cash out and am putting the money in the safe, lifting the door (which can't weigh more than five pounds), and as I do that, I suddenly realise that there is shooting pain radiating up and down my back, settling in the lower lumbar region (aka, the small of my back).
Now my back is more sore than it was before, and to top it off, I am discovering how much of a pain it can be to be over six feet tall. I went to wash my hands after using the washroom and briefly considered not bothering because I could reach the taps without bending over, but the water was tantilizingly out of reach, just beyond my outstretched fingertips. However, since not washing your hands after using the washroom is GROSS(!!!!)(!!) I had to crouch down slightly, my knees bent to 150 degrees, maybe even just to 160 - so barely bent at all, but enough that my calf muscles lodged an official protest, threatening to walk off the job. I finished up quickly (but not too quickly, because if you're going to wash your hands, you should do it right)(because not washing your hands after using the washroom is GROSS!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!(!)!!!!!) and then realised I had to take out my contacts. I reached out to pick up my contacts case and found that the countertop was just too low for me to get without bending over. With knees quivering and my calves walking little circuits, carrying signs in protest yet again, I got my contacts out and glasses on.
It's times like this I wish I was four inches shorter. I've taken some Robaxacet (the generic version, with the exact same picture on front (actually, it looks like it's the picture taken one second before the one on the Robaxacet box, like the guy's hands aren't quite in position yet)), and I've noticed the difference. My back still hurts, but now I feel a bit shivery and woozy. Very nice, generic Robaxacet. Way to give me the side effects without helping my symptoms. Thank you very much.
I'm going to take it easy for the next couple of days - take some ibuprofen (which I also had to buy) and ice it to see if it gets better. Hopefully it will.
Also, I noticed that I forgot to update Thunderfunk the Superchicken on whatever day I normally do that. This means I am also going to skip Fools of us All on Tuesday because, to make things somewhat easier on myself, I want to keep them on the same chapter count. So use this time to catch up on what you may have missed.
The moral of the story is: WASH YOUR HANDS. Because if you don't, it's GROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ouch

Last night I tried to navigate the distance between my bedroom and my bathroom and back again without the lights on. I made it there, but on the way back I kicked the vacuum hard enough that it split my toenail and started my toe bleeding. Since I was going to bed and tired, I wrapped a kleenex around it to stop the bleeding and went to sleep. Today at work I was limping a bit because my toe was sore and a little swollen. Halfway through the day I managed to stub my toe on one of my co-worker's steel toed boots. I checked my sock a little later and it had evidence of fresh bleeding. Later, upon returning home from my small group, I kicked the vacuum again. Luckily this time it was more of a straight on kick so the blunt force trauma was spread out over most of my toes instead of concentrated on the one toe.
I moved the vacuum.

That is All

Grasp the Nettle.

I Guess It Leaned Too Far

I just watched this clip and it made me cringe. I had trouble watching to the end of it because I knew what was going to happen. All I could think of was 'what if I was the one who did that'? What could I do or say? Or what if I was the one to whom it happened? How devastated would I be? My insides just curled up into a ball, crawled to a corner and wept.
On the other hand, it is kinda funny.

On a completely related note, I just came up with a reason for why the futuristic gadgets of Star Trek seem to be bulkier and less slick and advanced than what we already have. Simply put, because smaller things are doing larger jobs. The tricorders, for example, are able to do what every piece of medical scanning equipment can do, but it is just one little box. It has to be bulky because there is so much just squished in there. Same with the communicators - the cell phones we have now are less bulky, but they aren't as advanced or refined. You can't just flip open your cell phone and start talking to whoever you want just by saying their name. You have to select and wait for a response somehow. The communicators have streamlined that somehow, so they need a few extra layers of computer chips or however they do it.
See, makes perfect sense.

It Doesn't Recognise 'Dictionary' either...

My writing program on my computer recognises 'yong' as a legitimate word (which it isn't), but refuses to recognise buttling as a real word (which it is)(the act of performing the duties of a butler). Why do I know this? Because both words somehow came up during the course of writing the latest chapter of Thunderfunk the Superchicken.
Enjoy.

Paradigm Shift

I had a thought today - for the first time in a long time, the church is no longer the prevailing moral authority in Western culture. The U.S. claims to be a Christian country, as does Canada, but the truth is that it is hard to be too pro anything at the risk of leaving something else out. It used to be that even though there was plenty of not 'christian' things happening, the majority of people actually went to church and that was the guiding force behind the ethical and moral decisions of the majority. To be fair, that didn't mean everyone who went to church actually believed in God - it was almost more of a social thing. This can be seen in shows like the Simpsons when they attend church regularly and are considered members of the congregation even though they obviously don't really hold to any of the teachings.
But nowadays, it seems like, though freedom of speech and religion is touted, it is difficult to espouse christian ideals and morals without being viewed as narrow minded and backwards. People believe in science and in nothing beyond what they can see. Being good is preferable, of course, but don't knock yourself out or take it too far. Relax a bit and let everyone make their own choices for what is right by them.
The problem is that the church doesn't seem ready to acknowledge this. I feel like the response that the church has to things like homosexuality and sex and marriage and divorce and other moral issues is still coming from a position of power, a position that does not exist. It is though the church is acting like the world is a child and we are the parents who must come in and scold the child and tell them what is wrong and they will change. I don't think the world works like that anymore. Truth be told, I'm not sure the world ever actually worked that way, but now people aren't willing to go along with the charade anymore.
That is not to say that the church is no longer relevant, that the message of God doesn't need to be presented. The gospel is probably more important now than it ever was. But I do think that the message may need a new method of presentation. The church can't fall back on being the moral authority anymore. People won't accept that. But they will accept love and caring and understanding that doesn't come from a mighty high horse. It's almost subversive, but not quite because God's love is genuine. People still want that. We just need to figure out how to show it to them.

Jigga-what?

Watch this. And then watch this. And then try to tell me that you aren't freaked out, or at least weirded out. You can't, can you.

Senseless

There are a few things that I don't understand. Actually, there are many, many, many things that I don't understand. But here are a few.
First, why do banks still have business days? I understand being closed on Sundays and shortened hours on Saturdays. The paint store where I work is like that, as are most businesses. But what I don't get is why the things that aren't done in person still don't happen on a weekend. For instance - I have some payments come out of my account on the first day of the month. On the last day of the month the fees and interest are charged to my accounts and loans. This last weekend, February 28th was a Saturday and March 1st was a Sunday, so those payments and fees and interest did not happen until Monday. My question is why? I don't go in to do any of that, it happens automatically. Computers run the payments and have to be programmed. Why can't they be programmed to take the money out on the last day of the month, regardless of what day of the week it is? There should be no problem with that, right? Does it really matter that it happens on a Sunday? When I transfer some funds online from one account to another, why does the official date of the transfer have to be changed to the next business day? I could understand if someone had to actually do those things manually by punching in the information by hand, but that's not how it works. It's a computer program. It happens automatically. That means someone had to program the computer to take my money on the first of the month, and then they had to program it more to stop it from taking the money if the first of the month happened on a certain day. It would have been easier to program it to take out the money on the first of the month and that is it. No qualifications, just take the money on {month} first and program is done.
Speaking of computers, how have fax machines not become completely obsolete? Computers were supposed to make life almost paperless, but it's not working. We have a fax machine at work that is constantly in use. This is the first time in my life I have had to fax things regularly. How does that make sense. Basically the fax machine scans the document and sends it to the recipient. Why not have a scanner scan the document and email it to the recipient. Same concept, completely possible, and cuts down on paper by a huge amount. At least, until someone decides that the email needs to be printed out. But even then, the faxes that we get and just throw out (recycle) wouldn't have to be printed out at all, so it still saves on paper.
Speaking of faxes and things that don't make sense, I feel like I had a Dilbert-esque moment at work today. We get our orders from Vancouver - the paint and the supplies and everything. It gets packed onto pallets and shipped to our store. That means we always have pallets at the store. We get charged for the pallets we are sent, but when the truck drops off the full pallets, they pick up the empty pallets and we get a credit for the ones we send back. I imagine they do this so that we aren't just tossing away perfectly good pallets. The way we get creditted is by having the driver sign a piece of paper that has the number of pallets he is taking written on it. The paper has three rows - the first row has a spot for the number of pallets, the second row is the driver's name, the third row is the driver's signature. He signs it, we fax it in, head office credits us for the pallets. Easy as pie. Today, we got a fax (seriously, emails would save on paper) saying they had a new procedure to follow that would make life easier for everyone. Now, we have to make a delivery bill for the driver, the kind of bill we make to ship products out of our store. Then we have to to go into our computers and complete a transfer that tells the computer we are transferring our pallets back to the warehouse. We have to fax that transfer, and one other piece of information that I'm not remembering at the moment, to the head office. Basically they took what was two simple steps (get signature, fax paper) into four less easy steps (make bill, make transfer, something I can't remember, fax two papers). How does that make my life easier. Especially considering the fact that the computer system we use at work is a pain in the butt.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm missing something that makes these sorts of things make sense.

Also, I updated Grasp the Nettle.