Complaint #017: Tim Tebow

Look, I love Tim Tebow. I love him as a brother in Christ; I love him as a role model; I love him as a human being; I love him as a leader; I love him as an inspiration; I love him as a winner. Do you want to know what I don't love him as? Sure you do; you wouldn't be reading this if you didn't. I don't love him as a headline. That is to say, I don't like him as the only headline.

I'll offer you a little window into my pathetic personal life (well, I like to think it isn't that pathetic): I listen to three podcasts daily: Mike and Mike in the Morning, The Thundering Herd (Colin Cowherd), and PTI. For those who are unfamiliar, these are all sports podcasts. Yes, I realize I spend too much time listening to sports news (although I can afford it while I code eight hours per day), but my addiction to my iPod is not the subject on the table right now. Increasingly over the past few weeks, Tim Tebow has become the center of attention. It came to the point this week where I think he was mentioned every day (and I didn't keep track, but probably every podcast each day). So this means on Wednesday, while we're three days removed from his previous game and four from his next game, he still made the news. It's not even the playoffs, yet! (Additional note: I will be rooting for him every game until he plays the Steelers in the playoffs (which is likely the first round), but I'm not looking forward to having to hear about him every day) And I understand why he is talked about; it pulls in listeners, so the broadcasters have to talk about him, but I've gotten tired of Tebow.

That's the real tragedy. I've grown tired of Tebow. He's probably the greatest role model in sports of all time (that I can think of; I may be overstating it) and I've gotten tired of hearing about him. Of what I've seen, he takes no credit for his success, but gives it all to God which is what we all need to do (at least, I know I need to do this better). What makes this tragedy even more tragic is the fact that he shouldn't be an exception. Tebow shouldn't be the only strong leader in faith in the NFL. I realize that there are other followers of Christ in the NFL, but Tebow seems to be the only one that genuinely loves God more than football. This is likely the fault of incessant media coverage of him and not others (distorting my view of a true representation of athletes today), but I hope that more people like this are going to be covered more in the future (assuming these people exist, which I pray is the case).

As a final note, I do realize that by writing this blog post I'm only giving the man more coverage, but I wouldn't be human if I weren't a bit hypocritical.

Complaint #016: Hold Music

I know, I know, I know; this is an incredibly cliché subject about which to complain, but I figure I would tackle something easy after last week. And what an easy subject this is. Let me start out by saying that I don't mind having to wait on a call (for a reasonable amount of time). If your business doesn't have the manpower to maintain customer service for immediate help to all who call in, I must realize that the money saved in not hiring more personnel is probably (maybe, hopefully) used to reduce my bills. I don't necessarily think it's a great business model, but I'm not a businessman so my opinion is probably as useful as a sword in a gunfight (Indiana Jones fans will be familiar with how useless this is).

I am most offended by what I am forced hear while I am on hold. Again, I don't want to get into an argument concerning musical taste, so I'll just point out a few things that can be objectively measured. That being said, I don't think I've ever heard hold music that I actually recognized. Usually it's some obscure classical or whiny pop-folk (both genres of music of which I have song/compositions that I enjoy). This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that the music can be heard, which, more often than should be, is not the case. Again assuming that the music can be heard, the quality is never good. That is an understatement. Let me illustrate how terrible the recording quality is: I notice it. For those who need context, let me explain that despite the enormous amount of music to which I listen, I am fairly deaf to compression quality. I couldn't tell that difference between 128 kbit/s MP3 and FLAC (or 24/96 WAV for that matter).

Main point: Companies should just put me on silent hold while they transfer my call around. I would be less likely to jam pencils in my earholes while waiting.

Complaint #015: Christian Music

Well this post has been a long time coming. First off, I want to reiterate that the purpose of this blog is to improve something through the act of constructive criticism (well, that's what it's supposed to be most of the time...) I want it to be constructive (for the posts about which I actually care) because I want these area to improve; to be better than they already are. Christian music is an area that deserves a lot of criticism. I'm willing to make an enormous generalization here: Christians don't want to hear that; they think we have to support anything and everything that has a Jesus fish slapped on it. I refuse to do that. I think every Sunday School teacher had that one lesson on not lying that ended with explaining that even "little white lies" aren't to be tolerated. To show that I learned something that week (many moons ago) I am taking a stand today and starting off this post by saying that the vast, vast, vast majority of Christian music is terrible.

Let's start off in the home arena: the church building. I'll start off this topic by explaining that I realize that a church that would play the kind of music I would want it to play would not survive. You couldn't get enough people in the same area that would attend a church that plays Five Iron Frenzy and Demon Hunter. This is despite the fact that the lyrics of those two bands are about 4000× better than your average "Jesus, Jesus/Life is lollipops and unicorns/I love Jesus/Hallelujah" song (this song would, of course, have that chorus repeated about 87 times as its conclusion (and upon the fifth time I'd start jamming the corner of the bulletin in my eye so I can keep my mind off the pain of singing it again)). All I ask for is some variety. I actually genuinely enjoy when my church plays a good, old hymn such as "It Is Well with My Soul" (soooooooo good) or "Holy, Holy, Holy", and also when they play some of the classics from my youth, like "Awesome God", "He Is Exalted", or "Shine Jesus Shine". Instead, I'm stuck with Hillsong's "new" song "Generic CCM Song Title That Probably Contains the Word 'Hope' or 'Righteous'" (now I put quotes around new because we all know it sounds just like their classic "Generic CCM Song 2" (and who could forget "Generic CCM Song 3"?))

The music played in churches today is much like candy corn: it's nice to experience two or three, but as soon as you get any more the emesis starts rising in your throat (I used the medical term so it would be less offensive, you're welcome). Speaking of throats, is anyone else as bad at singing as I am? You, too, probably hate not only the fact that your voice is on display(?) in public, but also that you can't hit the notes you'd really like to (and also it's really annoying when the singer adds a little melisma (I do believe that is the term) to a note for the final chorus and then you're thrown off and then your voice tries to correct itself by matching and it never quite sounds right). This is assuming (incorrectly) that you can hear yourself which, at least in my case, is a necessary part of being on key at any point in the song.

As far as the real world music industry goes, Christian music still sucks (maybe even more than at church). Now, I truly believe musical taste/quality is something against which I cannot complain. It is almost entirely subjective, so I'll try to stick to the objective. The big problem is the fact that there is no "real world music industry" for Christian music. Most Christian music is holed into a secluded corner of the music industry as a whole. The few bands that do break out are usually scolded for selling out or, most offensively, being too secular (I'm sorry, I didn't realize we weren't supposed to be reaching the secular community. When Jesus said "Go into all the world" he was just kidding.) Because of this, the secular community assumes that all Christian music is Chris Tomlin and Hillsong (which makes me sick to my stomach).

To try to combat this, I'm going to include a few links of great songs that I find worshipful (what's sad is that I think I feel more worshipful listening to these songs than I do when I am forced to sing those that are played in a church building). Now, I realize none of you are going to listen to these, but at least I tried...

• Five Iron Frenzy's "Every New Day"
• Demon Hunter's "Fading Away" (Don't worry pansies, it's the acoustic version, although his voice sounds a lot better when it's in its natural habitat (example))
• Disciple's "After the World" (Again, acoustic version)
• dc Talk's "In the Light"
• Burlap to Cashmere's "Anybody Out There"
• P.O.D.'s "Alive"
• Brave Saint Saturn's "Under Bridges"
• Family Force 5's "Love Addict"
• Showbread's "A Man with a Hammer" (OK, we could never do the verses in a church, but the chorus is the entire essence of the gospel. Also, this one's legitimately free kiddos)

Complaint #014: Fear

FDR may have said it best when he said, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". It has taken me some time, but I think I truthfully grasp this and believe it. I will also make the claim that if you are a Christian you need to do the same. I have come to the point where I hate fear.

I'll put down a little definition of what type of fear I am talking about: fear is a feeling of danger causing anxiety. There is no part of that definition that I would want to have (I mean how terrible is that word "of", ugh disgusting). Let's unpack it. Fear is a feeling. You guys are reading the writings of a very robot-like person; I assume if you've ever met me, you know this, so the following statements won't be terribly surprising. Feelings are façades for the mind. Feelings have some impact on what you do/how you act, but it is the doing and the acting that truly matters. People don't care if you feel sympathetic, they care when you show sympathy by giving your time for cause (for instance).

Fear is a feeling a danger. Let me first look at the danger about which most people have fear: uncertain futures. People mostly fear not having enough money next month, being injured by various animals, heights, rejection, the dark, flying, or the thought of public speaking. This type of fear is incredibly irrational. There is no reason to actually have fear of something that may never happen, or there is a significant amount of time before the object of fear being realized. Let us then look at the things that are staring you in the face. This is where I may have to only call out Christians. Jesus' speech on not worrying (Matthew 6) refers to more of the first type of fear, but the message is applicable to all fear. If we truly trust God, we must believe that, even despite ourselves, God will choose the best path for our lives.

This is why I have never understood the fear of death (most especially for Christians). Let us first look at a surprising statistic: 100% of people die (OK, as Christians we know that Enoch and Elijah didn't, but we'll round up. Also, I wouldn't hold my breath for being carried up to Heaven in a chariot of fire). I may take it a little far, but I can't wait for death. I won't have to deal with this life any more. I'll be whisked away to paradise. I'll see my savior, my redeemer, face to face. Sure, death will probably be a bit painful, but I think it'll be worth it.

OK, back to the definition of fear: Fear is a feeling of danger causing anxiety. This is where the irrationality of fear makes its impact. If fear had no effect, it would matter if we feared or not. The problem comes when fear negatively affects us. We waste our time, our energy, our efforts on combatting fear. This is the problem. We need to focus that time, energy, and effort on something positive, not something irrational and unhelpful.

Like many things, fear is not something we ever truly overcome. There will always be areas of our life where we fear. Even I have fears of which I cannot seem to rid myself. The growth comes in continuing to fight it, not in ignoring it.

Complaint #013: Hiccups

Whether you spell them "hiccups" or "hiccoughs", these things are annoying. I don't really have anything else more to say, other than, if we could find a way to weaponize them, we could do away with waterboarding, bamboo chutes under fingernails, and any other form of torture. All we would need to do is cause someone to hiccup and we'd get all the information we want.

Here's a classic video to add some more content to this post:


This hastily written post was inspired by a bout of the hiccups I endured this evening

Complaint #012: College Football

I'll admit it, I'm a bit lazy on Saturdays. I feel like I've earned it after a grueling week at work (where I sit in a chair and type away at a computer all day (grueling, ain't it?)). Either way, I don't do terribly much on that day of the week, maybe a little grocery shopping, maybe go out on a run, most probably some music listenin', and some TV watchin'. This is where the problems come in. Sometimes I'll watch a movie, but I always end up turning on some good ol' American cable television (though not necessarily a cable television channel). I'm a football fan, and at this point in the year, it is only natural to turn on some football. Saturday, however, only offers college football, the red-headed stepchild of real football (not that "red heads" and stepchildren are any worse than non-"red headed" humans or non-stepchildren, but it is the cliché phrase I'm choosing).

I'll get the oft complained-about aspects out of the way first. I watched a majority of the LSU-Alabama game yesterday. For those who are unaware, currently LSU is ranked #1 in the country and Alabama is #2. The game made it incredibly clear that these two teams are fantastically evenly matched. The progression of scores in the game was 0-0, 0-3 Alabama, 3-3, 3-6 Alabama, 6-6 (end of regulation), 9-6 LSU (in overtime). Does anyone think these two teams aren't as equal as two teams can be? If one hundred games were played between them, the probability distribution of games won by either team would be normal. However, even though LSU was ranked #1 and Alabama was ranked #2 and Alabama played as close to LSU as possible, Alabama, simply because they have a loss on their record, will not be ranked #2 when the new rankings come out this week. Likely it will go to OSU or Stanford (or if we're feeling really crazy, Boise State). I don't want to detract from what those teams have done, but Alabama is clearly still the second best team in the country. They're in the SEC (the Michael Jordan/pre-Thanksgiving-Incident Tiger Woods/Jimmie Johnson/Yankees conference of college football) and they've recorded one game where they didn't win by at least two full touchdowns (and by "full" I mean touchdowns with two point conversions tacked on the end). Obviously, that one game they didn't win by at least sixteen was that LSU game yesterday. Anyone who thinks they aren't number two (hehe, number two (whoa, that's incredibly immature, shame on me)) can write his/her congress(wo)man because I don't want to hear it.

But enough of my Alabama lovefest up there (I was actually rooting for LSU, I'm just defending Alabama because they deserve it), the other big problem we have is the Championship Game. I'll ignore the fact that it changes its name every year (annoying) and focus on what everyone who has ever seen a sporting event has been saying for years: we need a playoff system for college football. It is very likely that Alabama (again, despite being the second-best college team) will not be able to compete for the championship. Boise State will likely go undefeated through the entire year and will not be able to compete for the trophy. The sensible American way of determining the best football team in the country is a set number of one-off games with elimination on the line in every one. These games must ultimately culminate in a game involving two teams, that have not lost in the playoff, playing for a championship. (Also, this elimination tournament must begin with greater than two teams) Every team must be able to control their own destiny from the beginning of the season. Who knows if the 2008 Utah Utes were better than the Gators? Who knows if Boise State could beat LSU in a championship game this year? It's only fair to give everyone that shot (assuming they can put together a fairly decent regular season record (at the very least, undefeated should be good enough to have a try at the championship)).

OK, let's get down to the on-the-field problems, the ones that tick me off when I'm watching on an arbitrary Saturday. The first issue I run into is finding a game that matters. Normally there are two choices of games to watch on Saturday: the Northern Central Wyoming Bricklayers vs. the Alaska Bull Worms or Wisconsin vs. Greg State's Flying Pillowcases. Occasionally I happen upon a game with two teams that matter.

I say "teams that matter", but it is only with respect to other college football teams. And I say "football", but that's only because it is referred to as such in our culture, not because it is similar to the real football played in the NFL. Where I come from, football is referred to as a game (I just used the phrase "referred to" in two consecutive sentences). Games are supposed to be good-natured and fun. College football referees (along with the rules put in place by college football authorities) are placed on the field to suck as much fun out of the game as possible. Case in point: touchdown celebrations. Provided that it isn't obnoxiously gaudy, it is kosher in the NFL. However, in college football, if you enjoy the fact that you scored a touchdown, it's a penalty (if you want proof, view this video of LSU's Brad Wing not getting a touchdown).

But, let us assume that "taunting" before a touchdown somehow gives an unfair advantage to the celebrating team, and let us focus on the pansy rules of college. First is the one-foot rule. In the arbitrary definition of body parts that constitute being down in the field of play in the NFL, there exists one element in that set that is universally pertinent in every out-of-bounds play: a pair of feet. Two feet. Humans are born with two feet (well, the vast majority of them (unfortunately not all)) therefore it makes sense that two feet must be downed in the field of play, as they are our main contact points with the ground. In college, only one foot is required to land in bounds for an in-bounds play.

Personally, the more frustrating rule difference is the any-contact-with-the-ground-constitutes-a-dead-ball rule. I assume this is the name of the rule and I assume it is a real rule because recently I've seen a number of plays involving it. Football is a game of attaining goals/defending goals from being attained. The goal is to take a token (the ball) into a specified region of the field with a specified set of moves under certain conditions within the field of play. Let's say you're Indiana Jones trying to take some artifact to the outside of a cave à la Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you contact the ground, but are not caught, should you not be able to get up and continue to scurry to the safe outdoors? It makes sense that you should, much like in the NFL. However, in college football, at least I've seen this happen a few times in the past few weeks, if you catch a pass/catch an interception/gain the handling responsibilities of the token in some way and go to the ground afterwards, whether a defender of the goal catches you or not, you are down.

If anyone can explain the purpose of these rules, or tell me anything else that would relieve my pain of watching college football, please do so below.

Complaint #011: Running

For those of you who know me and care (probably too much), you know I ran my first half-marathon this past weekend, and for those of you who didn't know, I just told you. Because of this very fact, it seems apropos to list the complaints I have concerning running. Now, I realize my audience (assuming you're a reasonable facsimile of society as a whole) doesn't care about running, but I do, and I'll risk losing you for a week to talk about it.

Let me first point out that I absolutely love running. If you can get your legs and your lungs in running shape, there is nothing that can compete with the feeling of a run. You feel the adrenaline swimming in your blood, making it surge through your arteries. Various endorphins trick your weak human body into feeling some kind of high. And I won't mention the subjective awesomeness of completing a challenge you have set in front of yourself.

There are, however and unfortunately, a number of drawbacks to running. The first is easy: we, as humans, are weak creatures. Every part of this bag of meat that we are tries to reject this action of running. Let me use my run from this weekend to paint a wide generalization as to why my previous statement is true (because every runner and each run is identical to my race on Saturday). The run actually went fantastically until about 1.5 miles left, at which point, my body (yes, the incredibly well-oiled well-trained machine that it is) wanted me to give up. It started with my right LCL (I assume that's the outside ligament on my right knee, if my great Wikipedia searching and reading abilities are worth anything) screaming at me. Ligaments don't have mouths, so it yells at me by sending a piercing pain through my leg. That's not terrible; it's just pain. Every runner has to come to terms with pain on every run (if you're doing it correctly). Luckily, you're running, so there's something more important on which to keep your mind focused. What's worse is when, with about one hundred yards left and the finish line in sight, your calf starts seizing/cramping up on you. You can't just distract yourself from this one because it's a part of your body not working when you need it to work. Luckily, unlike the time this happened when you were crossing a four-lane highway, it doesn't completely lock up, so you cross the finish line in stride and in style.

That's when the real pain starts. What I assume is swelling in my genetically terrible knees makes it feel like someone is driving a spike into my kneecap. My lungs, despite training, are regretting the extra level of speed I pulled out for the last tenth of a mile or so. Your mind is no longer focused on running, so it now realizes that every single muscle of your legs is sore and continue to be for the next few days. Also, your ankles ache and the blisters on your feet don't exactly feel pleasant...every step you take in the following days. This list doesn't include, through some random miracle, the pain in your shins that can only be accurately compared (though cliché) to Kathy Bates' sledgehammer scene in Misery.

There is one part of our frail bodies I have neglected to mention to this point: the stomach. Our bodies require fuel in order to function, especially when performing physically intensive activities. The stomach, however, hates holding any solid matter (and it isn't fond of much liquid matter either). The best you can do is fill your stomach with pure carbohydrates beforehand and just hope it all stays down. And what's a better food made of pure carbohydrates than mashed potatoes? The problem comes when you wake up at 5:00 AM and have mashed potatoes for breakfast before your 8 o'clock run. Mashed potatoes and Gatorade is not a desired taste combination in a breakfast meal.

On top of the fact that your body hates you for doing something that theoretically keeps it healthier, you also must sacrifice things from the other aspects in your life. The biggest problem is that it takes a lot of time out of your life to run. Let's say you're training for a half-marathon: training by running one takes approximately two hours. On top of that, you need the hour before to get your stomach right by eating mashed potatoes and getting yourself in the right mindset. Also, you need the hour after the run to contemplate suicide cool down and take a shower. You also spent $70 to run this event and you start to realize you spent $70 to have someone time your run, give you a cheesy medal, and feed you at the end (although, in Wisconsin, you get a beer with that meal, so it's almost worth the money).

Despite all of these things, I still love running. This should help prove the fact that all runners are crazy. No, literally, we are all insane and probably should be committed.

Complaint #010: The Problem of Pain

In order for this post to make sense for those who are unaware or unfamiliar with the problem of pain, I'll spend this first segment explaining it. The problem of pain refers to the paradox/proof that a purely benevolent, omnipotent God cannot exist because evil exists. I'll break down that statement: if God is all-good and all-powerful, He would use His ultimate power to prohibit evil from occurring. Evil exists in our world; ergo, the aforementioned God cannot exist. Fairly simple proof and fairly logical, and therein lies the problem (for a logic-driven Christian, such as myself).

For those who didn't know, this very problem sidelined me (spiritually) for a good year and a half. I finally got to a place where I could ignore the above proof and just say to myself that He is a mysterious God that none of us will understand Him fully. There's a lot more to it, but it essentially boils down to that. It's at this point that I'll make my (inevitable) plug to Donald Miller and his book Blue Like Jazz (available for $4.00 (incl. shipping) on Amazon) for pointing out that, much like love, God cannot be placed into a formula, He cannot be explained, He just is Himself. But that just isn't a good conclusion to this story. As great as Miller is, he really only taught me a good way to ignore the problem (a perfectly good solution because we can't really solve this problem with our human minds anyway). This wasn't really good enough for me, but the problem was gone for a bit.

Fast forward to today: this problem was discussed at church today (if you're ever in Madison, WI some day, join me at Blackhawk Church downtown (also, I'll take any excuse to promote anything I enjoy in my life)). For some reason, I feel like I got it. Plenty of people probably tried to explain it to me (maybe in the exact same way), but I never really pieced it together until today. So, let's start at the beginning (there is no beginning, but we'll start before our universe is created) and we'll take this God and give Him the power to create animals which have sovereignty to make their own decisions (whatever that means and however that happens) (this kind of leads to a reduction of His power, but if His desire is to create animals with this ability, then it is within His power to do so somehow). Inherent in that previous assertion is the ability for these animals to choose an action which is not in line with the benevolent, omnipotent God. With that, evil can occur. However, despite this, God still has the power to redeem these animal creatures from the beds they've made for themselves (probably with straw and ropes rather than with memory foam). This isn't exactly a logical proof, but it seems to at least try to reconcile the all-goodness and all-powerfulness with the existence of evil in a realistic way.

There's still much more to wrestle with when considering the implications of such a problem. I'm not done tackling the issue, but I'm starting to make progress. I think the next step is reading C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain. I don't think I'll ever be able to fully understand even this small aspect in the infinite ocean of attributes that is God, but any closer I can get is better than nothing.

Complaint #009: Tipping

No, Tipping is not a city in China (at least that I could find, and even if it is, it doesn't matter) and cow tipping really only seems funny in that scene from Tommy Boy^* (one of the funniest movies of all time; if you haven't seen it yet, I'm sorry for your life). Back on topic: I don't know of any other references I can make about tipping other than the point I want to make: paying a gratuity on top of the charge for a service. Listen, I get it; I understand that waiters/waitresses get like $2.50 an hour and make most of their income through tips. I tip them, and I do my best to tip them well, because they aren't paid enough and a lot of people are complete jerks and don't tip well. Bartenders are kind of the same thing. They have to deal with (what's an appropriate word here that also conveys what I'm trying to say? hmm I'll just go with "jerks" again, but that has a lot less weight than what I was thinking when I first started writing this sentence (also, I'm writing too much fluff to make sure even the most simple-minded reader could catch my drift)) jerks all shift which become jerkier as the shift goes on. They probably don't make enough to support much of a good living situation. So, yeah I'll give them a tip.

Anything much past that, I don't really get. I have no idea whether there are other vocations that pay at a (legal) sub-minimum wage with the expectation of making up the difference with tips. Here's a case in point, but first a little background: I am a man of simple needs. I have gotten my hair cut by people outside of my family only a handful of times. That was the case until I moved to college and didn't see my family for, like, four months (no one wants to see my hair uncut after four months...again (but that's a completely separate story)). Anyway, I went to get my hair cut at a SuperCuts^* (or similar hair cutting joint (again, a man of simple needs)). I got my hair cut, paid for it at the price the "menu" said, and went on my merry way (that's kind of disturbing to hear from me, I'm not ever really "merry"). By this point, you've probably figured out what I neglected to do: pay the tip. Not knowing a tip was expected, I was in that "ignorance is bliss" state until I returned to my dorm and was talking with my roommate (I think, it was one of my friends freshman year) and he mentioned that tipping was expected for hairdressers. Well, needless to say, I felt like a(n) (what was that word I was talking about above?). It wasn't that I didn't want to tip the hairdresser, I just didn't know. I kind of get that one: I'm trusting them with the way my hair looks (and most people care about the way their hair looks) and I should pay them as well as I believe they've handled the job.

Next comes taxis. I don't think I was the first to pay for a cab ride of which I partook (it was a shared business thing, people aren't giving me free cab rides for no reason). The payer added a tip to the bill. I have since Googled^* (yes, I'm a nerd, I know) and realize, apparently, that cab drivers expect tips.

That's all I know. I don't understand or see what similarities waiters, hairdressers, and cabbies have. I don't know who else should get tipped. Maybe you guys can comment and tell me.

Last point: why do only waiters get the tips. I really don't care much about their service (as long as it doesn't suck), I'm more concerned about how my food tastes. I should tip the cook. Not to mention the fact that busboys (or busgirls) have to deal with my dirty dishes and napkins and table crumbs (maybe not mine, but the general public's table crumbs (I try to keep my area relatively clean, out of respect for them)).

Also, and this has nothing to do with anything I think, but it's interesting to ponder: I remember a Colin Cowherd^* (funniest/smartest man in sports radio) bit about the fact that we should tip the waiters/waitresses and cooks before, not after, the meal. If I want great service, I should give them the motivation beforehand, rather than making them wonder whether I'm going to be that (word from above) and not tip well.

^* Apparently, this post is brought to you by Tommy Boy, SuperCuts, Google, and Colin Cowherd.

Complaint #008: The English Language and Other Related Topics, Part I: Homophones and Homographs

I love the English language (without it, I wouldn't be able to write these magnificent blog posts), in general, but there are a few things that should be fixed. And, of course, the first things that need to go are homographs and homophones. Let's take a little time to understand why.

I'll start off with the good: there is a good reason for homographs and homophones to exist: Puns. "Q: A man walks into a bar. What does he say? A: 'Ouch!'" This is a classic joke, but I'll give it up if we can get rid of these homo-words (I use this in a way to group homophones and homographs, and not as some sort of political statement). Along with that, we also need to give up some clever rap lyrics, such as "Like a sprained ankle, boy, I ain't nothing to play with", and despite my guilty pleasure of enjoying some of the worst rap on the planet (it's just so bad, it's hilarious, and I like that), we have to sacrifice, for the sake of humanity (I mean, Drake ended that line with a preposition. C'mon man. (After saying that, I'll probably do the same about 48 times by the end of this post))

Now, let us explore some reasons we need to get rid of the homo-words. Actually, it's really only two examples and they boil down to the same problem: confusion. And actually it's the same reason just applied to the two groups of words. I am simply filling up space by writing worthless sentences to build up suspense. Alrighty, back on topic: homophones. Homophones are words that sound the same, but they have different meanings. Let me set up the situation: I'm sitting, listening to someone give a talk and the speaker starts a sentence with "For physicians...", and there was a slight pause, leaving me a bit confused. Did she say "For physicians" or "Four physicians"? So my brain panics for the milliseconds it takes the speaker to finish "this will lead to a marked improvement in documentation" (OK, I made up that last part, it was probably something along those lines). Had this not been such a simple word to figure out the two different meanings, I would have had to expend brain energy going back and switching what I thought the speaker said at first. Take, for example, "sent". Is the speaker saying "sent", "cent", or "scent"? "Two", "to", or "too"? "By", "bye", or "buy"? Sometimes, one has to wait for the context to come before the specific word can be determined, and this isn't efficient.

This also leads to the following (omnipresent) problem: because people write by how they speak, people often incorrectly spell homophones. It's the reason stupid people write "Your stupid!" in an attempt to insult someone, but really they're insulting themselves (or the American educational system). By far the most frustrating to read is "should of" or "could of" or the like. People, it's supposed to be "should have" and "could have".

The same applies to homographs (words that have the same spelling, but different meaning (for reference, homonyms are both homophones and homographs)). When I read the title "Gone with the Wind", I don't want to sound like an idiot if I accidentally read it as "Gone with the /waɪnd/".

And I don't want to be the guy who complains and doesn't offer a solution, so here it is (however completely impractical and absurd): assign a unique identifying ID to every meaning for every word we need to define. If necessary (although, as a computer scientist I don't understand why), we can assign them string IDs. What do you think?

Complaint #007: Travel

Having been traveling the past nine days (something I'll likely never have to do again as a software developer), I feel qualified (even though I'm not) to complain about the things I don't enjoy about travel. I actually did enjoy the travel, but the following would have made it a bit better.

I'm not sure if these count as complaints, but rather more as tips or observations.

In the Car

• Try to get in a carpool of people with similar musical taste (or at least share it with the driver). You don't want to get stuck in a car listening to the 24-hour Pearl Jam station and you definitely don't need to hear both the Wisconsin and California version of Lady GaGa's "Yoü and I" on the same trip
• Yes, all of the other people chuckle at you when you're the first to fall asleep (especially if you snore, and even if the rest of them also fall asleep on the trip (although, hopefully not the driver))

At the Airport

• Contrary to what you would expect, they do not provide you with a rape kit after the security check
• Every airport has twelve Starbucks and no Dunkin' Donuts
• You either arrive at your gate two hours early or fifteen minutes after boarding starts (six minutes before takeoff); never can you arrive at a reasonable time

On the plane

• The passenger next to you will be bigger than you, so give up the leg room to him/her
• If you're going to drink a large iced coffee before you get on the plane, make sure you visit the bathroom before you board, also
• No, there is no comfortable position to sleep (but, then again, there are no comfortable positions on the plane at all)
• That thin curtain that separates you from first class does give them the authority to be pretentious drunkards

At the hotel

• Yes, every hotel's gym/health center is 85° and 95% humidity so that you work up a sweat by the time you reach the treadmill (I think they're trying to convince you subconsciously that you're working out really hard, but it's not very helpful when you still have five miles left to run)
• Despite how helpful it would be, your hotel room number is not on your hotel room keycard
• A Residence Inn room is meant to be an entire residence, making it unnecessary to stay there for one night
• Even though it has a front desk, the hotel restaurant expects you to seat yourself (if you don't know this, it's OK to wander around aimlessly as if you're looking for your friend, no one thinks you're an idiot)
• As we all know, placing your towel on the floor means the housekeeping person will replace it and leaving it on the rack means they won't. What they don't tell you is that if you leave the bathmat sized towel on the floor, they'll replace all of the towels.

Back Home

• Yes, the mailman (or mailwoman) was trying to see how much mail he (or she) can cram into your mailbox

In writing this I felt like a bad comedian ("And what's the deal with airline food?"), but I hope you enjoyed it or feel my pain or find these tips helpful for your next trip.

Complaint #006: 12 o'clock

This is just a quick little complaint. I hope this will hold you people (wow, "you people" sounds so horrible, how about "my beloved blog readers"?) over the weekend as I probably won't have the time to post.

Enough for unnecessary introductions, I hate when people write a time for something and it is specified as 12 A.M. or 12 P.M. Which one means which? (OK, I realize PM is noon and AM is midnight, but let's look at some reasons why I shouldn't know) I was always told that at exactly midnight and exactly noon, it is actually flipped: exactly noon is AM and exactly midnight is PM (with any iota of time (such as a Planck time) past being the opposite), but upon further research (looking at Wikipedia) neither is correct. Ante meridiem (A.M.) literally means before midday and post meridiem (P.M.) means after midday. Therefore, A.M. and P.M. do not apply to noon as it is neither before or after midday. Midnight, on the other hand is both before and after midday, so both apply. From this moment forward, I should assume both 12 A.M. and 12 P.M. mean midnight of the day specified (I can use A.M. or P.M. to determine which day it applies to (e.g. 12 P.M. on Sept. 29 is 12 hours past midday on Sept 29, so most people would label that midnight of Sept. 30 (or at least midnight between Sept. 29th and 30th)))

The simple solution to this problem (other than the obvious one of expecting (or commanding) people to write 12 noon or 12 midnight, rather than 12 P.M. or 12 A.M.) is to move to the 24 hour clock. We'll still convert it in our heads (at least I know I do, even when I set my watch to 24 hour time for months), but we'll never have the issue of being confused by someone writing 12 P.M. and meaning noon (OK, no one but me is confused, but we should still do it). It's as simple as moving to the metric system and we did that so successfully in the 1970s.

Complaint #005: Affirmative Action

Prologue
That's right: It's about to get political up in this bish...
I realize I am going to get zero support for my view here, but this needs¹ to be said. I am not racist (although I don't know how one can prove such a statement these days. "I have black friends" isn't acceptable.), but I'm likely to be accused as such, and I'm willing to accept that (despite the fact that my very writing below proves otherwise). I do realize that I am a white male aged 18 to 32, so as the majority my words mean absolutely nothing.

Logue
Let us first take a look at a definition of racism: making decisions, or otherwise acting in a different manner based on the race of another individual. Fairly reasonable definition. All men (and women) were created equal and each is equal in the eyes of God, so to act any differently because one man has darker skin than another is despicable.

You probably already know where I'm going with this, but I'll spell the entire thing out for the sake of completeness. Let me use a concrete illustration so that everyone can mentally visualize the situation: there are one thousand available openings on a college campus (Let's call it Baltic State University). One thousand and one people apply: Seven hundred fifty one from a group of people that randomly have genetic attribute A. The other two hundred fifty have genetic attribute B. These genetic attributes have no affect on the person in a learning capacity. Affirmative action laws dictate that at least one quarter of all invitations to attend BSU must go to those with genetic attribute B (for some strange reason). Let us also assume person #751 from group with genetic attribute A earned an entrance exam score of 88% (or got 1810 on his/her SAT or graduated in the top 12% of his/her class in high school). As the final point of set up, person #250 of the group with genetic attribute B earned a score of 87% on the same entrance exam (or got 1800 on his/her SAT or graduated with a class rank just after person A-751 and they went to the same high school and took the exact same class with the exact same instructors²). Mull over this problem and write down your answer as to who should receive an extension of invitation to attend BSU in the last open position: A-751 or B-250 (Assume all other attributes not mentioned in the scenario are equal to both people).

Do you have your answer? Well the correct answer is: B-250. "Wait, Will, how is that so?" I'll answer that by pointing out that I slyly added a key detail in the middle of the scenario, you may have missed it: "Affirmative action laws dictate that at least one quarter of all invitations to attend BSU must go to those with genetic attribute B (for some strange reason)." Had it not been for this illogical statement, we would all surely have put A-751 and been correct.

Now, let's take a look into the reasons affirmative action laws exist (at least in our good ol' United States³): historical society of this country said it was OK for certain men with certain genetic traits to own certain men with different genetic traits (yes, this is a horrible thing to have happened, thankfully we've done a fairly decent job of eradicating it from our own country). Following that, the society of this country thought it was still OK for a the former group to remain superior in public over the latter group (again, horrible, but so far as government has the power, it has eliminated this). There are, most assuredly, more reasons, but these are the biggies.

Today, people receive unequal benefit because of this (I guess to even the score). So, let me get this straight: people with genetic attribute B should be more apt to receive invitation to attend some school because their great-great-great grandfather may have been one of the people that was owned by a person with genetic attribute A at or more than 150 years ago. Or possibly their grandmother was told to sit in a separate, albeit worse, part of a restaurant fifty years ago.

Not only this, but the government, who feels the need to give them this benefit, wasn't the one inflicting the unequal treatment (in fairness, they may have contributed some, but I contend that the vast majority was inflicted by Joe Farmer of South Carolina), they simply did not stop such actions. Should all victims (and their ancestors) of internet identity theft receive unequal benefits from post-secondary schools or places of employment, if the damage was inflicted before the government enacted a law forbidding it?

In all of this, I've almost forgotten my biggest point: these laws are set in place because people were racist. Now we've enacted laws that counter this previous racism by giving unequal benefits to people simply because they are of a certain race (racism). Seems illogical (but I guess it's government, so I shouldn't be surprised that something is illogical.)

Epilogue
I really just put this section here for completeness. Also, the (unfunny) joke of using a section called "Logue" wouldn't be as obvious without an epilogue.

Notes
¹ "Need" is such a strong word. Of course this doesn't need to be said, but rather I feel strongly about it and greatly want to express that.
² Obviously, in real world scenarios, nothing is this equal, opening up the possibility for even more disparity, so the very fact that this situation could happen is egregious.
³ "Good", in this context, is being used sarcastically, in case the inflection didn't come out and punch you in the face hard enough.

Complaint #004: Pharisees

Let me first point out that the Pharisees are not simply a group of people from biblical times, but, rather, Pharisaic thought continues to plague people even into the present, and it may lurking in places that we wouldn't have expected it.

If there's one thing you learn about Pharisees in church, it's that Jesus wasn't really a fan. Now Jesus is a pretty smart dude, so he probably had a good reason for this. So, let's investigate: Matthew 23:2-3a - Jesus says, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you…" Apparently, the Pharisees were incredibly religiously intelligent people. And you say "But Will, you just told me that Jesus was less than supportive of the Pharisees. He's praising them!" which is why I made sure to add the ellipsis at the end of that quote. If you've been to any significant amount of church services, you probably know why. Well, let's dig a little deeper: Matthew 23:3b - "…But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." Ahh, there it is: they're hypocrites. If you read around, you get a sense of the Pharisees' lifestyle: they are religious in public and make themselves known because of it and they ridicule anyone who doesn't live this way. So what we should take away from this is that we should not act like a Pharisee (even if you do heed their spoken advice on how to live).

But you didn't come here to let me give you a (less than fulfilling) Bible lesson. No, you're here because you saw my post on Facebook or Twitter or something, know how awesome my posts have been in the past, and decided to waste time reading this rather than doing something more constructive. Ok, the second part probably isn't entirely accurate, but I digress. You came here to hear me complain, and so I will. Smart Christian people should know pretty much everything I stated in my previous paragraph. Therefore, no smart Christian people should act like Pharisees, right? Now, I'm not qualified to judge the intelligence of the Christian community, so I'm going to assume there are enough intelligent people in the societal Christian church to make my point valid. (I should probably take this moment to address the fact that I make a good number of remarks about "the societal Christian church". Yes, I am making wide generalizations, but as we all know, wide generalizations are almost always accurate to the group as a whole and only have problems when applied to individuals or small groups within the larger group. I'll play the percentages and make a wide generalization. Also, please note that a majority of the real Christians I know are not part of the societal Christian church, but rather only a part of the true Christian church. Unfortunately, the societal church is what society sees as the Christian church.)

OK, back on topic: Christians shouldn't act like Pharisees. This will be shocking: I am complaining because they do. I think the very fact that I can refer to the "societal Christian church" and you know what I am talking about speaks to the fact that it is too loud in acting religious and not being religious. This, however, is not my main contention. If people want to hurt themselves, I'll warn against it, but I get angry when people try to negatively affect others. This is where I'm going to get the angry comments, from both sides. And I say, bring it on! But please do read the entire post before yelling at me.

There is a hierarchy of sins in the church (not in the Bible, just in the church). For some reason, committing homosexual acts is right near the top, maybe just under rape and murder. Abortion is tied with murder. Pride and using the LORD's name in vain are pretty low. Some acts, that aren't sins intrinsically like using certain four-letter words or sleeping in the same house (maybe even the same bed) as someone who isn't your spouse, somehow make the list. The first point regarding this needs to be that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. All sins separate us from God. Look at it this way: it's kind of like points in a football game. In the eyes of humans you either lost the game by three points (for pride) or 45 points (for rape). In the eyes of God, you lost the game. Luckily, He provides us with a infinite-point opportunity to win the game, if we just accept it.

One thing Christians should know is that all people sin. It is in our nature. For some reason, we, as humans, act like humans and we sin. I do believe that the following are sinful acts: murder, rape, pride, using God's name in vain, abortion, homosexual acts, using those four-letter words in a hurtful way (admittedly, this is often the case), sleeping with that person who isn't your spouse if it causes either of you to struggle sexually (admittedly, this is often the case). The interesting point, however, is that the above point system apparently applies to heaven or the church building. If you're losing by more than ten points, there's no way you make it to heaven and we don't like you stepping into our church building. It's for nice, quietly sinful people. You know, on the level of pride. This is all well and good in the human point system. Heck, it's downright logical. But the viewpoint that counts is God's. He just sees everyone as sinful and accepts those who love Him despite themselves.

This comes as a shock to some Christians. There are gays and murderers and rapists in heaven. This comes as a shock because apparently these people don't read their Bibles. Paul, who wrote like half of the New Testament, murdered Christians because they were Christians. He is in heaven (or I'm hedging my bets that he is). David, who had sex with another man's wife and then killed said man to cover his own steps, is in heaven. Rahab, a prostitute, is in heaven. Another prostitute, the woman of the passage Luke 7:36-50, is told by Jesus that she is saved. And with whom is He sitting? A Pharisee. A Pharisee who He says may be forgiven, but is filled with little love.

It is because of this, I believe, we are told not to judge. Not only do we have no authority, but we'd get it wrong. The murderers and prostitutes would go to hell and the people with little love would go to heaven, and they'd all be arguing who is more righteous and what everyone else was doing incorrectly. That being said, I'll leave the job up to God.

Complaint #003: Fantasy Football

Given that today is the first full day of football, I thought this subject would be apropos. A subject of great contention lately (and I may have already complained about it a bit), so I thought I would flesh out all of my issues with it. My focus is going to be on fantasy football, but you can feel free to apply my complaints to any fantasy sport.

First off, football, in and of itself, is exciting enough. Fantasy players always argue that fantasy makes football exciting and packs every game with meaning. I'm sorry, I may be crazy, but what games have you been watching? There is nothing that can compete with Sundays in the fall, and I contend, nothing that can make them more special (as far as football goes). I would argue that, if you can't find excitement in football, you're taking it for granted. But, seeing that excitement is an intangible, subjective quality I will refrain from counting this one against the fantasy players.

But there's plenty more! Fantasy may or may not affect the intrinsic excitement value of a football game, but it certainly can take away the excitement of a game. I won't even refer to the sadness that comes directly from receiving a disappointing performance by a fantasy player on your team. No, for this point, I'll complain about the people who have a fantasy foot ball team. This past week I was talking with someone who had a few friends over to watch the opening game. All of these people were Packers fans, so they should have all been happy that the Packers won the game, right? Um, that would be a "no". It's a "no" because two of these "friends" (I'm putting them in quotes now, because they'd definitely lose some friend points from me) had competing fantasy players: Drew Brees and the Packers defense. That meant that there was someone complaining on every New Orleans offensive play. Not only that, but another "friend" elected to not play Jordy Nelson and so every pass he caught apparently warranted a complaint. Because of this, the person I was talking with, who, as a smart man, does not play fantasy football, had a less than pleasant time watching the game. Let me reiterate: all of these people were Packers fans, the Packers won the game, and no one had a great time.

That brings up another point: the need to cheer for bitter rivals. I'm currently watching the Steelers getting their rears handed to them by the Ravens. The amount of pure, passionate rage that is filling my being right now is overwhelming (luckily, nothing makes you have a good workout run than rage). I would be disgusted at myself if I ever cheered for a Raven to do well. I want them to lose every single game by a million points. I wish poor play on so many teams: the other division rivals: Bengals and Browns, the Patriots, the Raiders, the Jets, the Eagles, the Cowboys, and I'm sure there are many others. As for the other teams, I almost never wish them well as it means the relative quality compared to the Steelers is compromised. I find it disturbing that a Cowboys fan would be happy that he (or she) was able to draft Michael Vick, a Jets fan finds pleasure in getting to draft Tom Brady, a Colts fan would gladly draft Arian Foster, and the list continues.

This also leads to the following situation: cheering for a player of whom your favorite team is facing. Again, I wish the Steelers would win every single game in a thousand-point shutout victory. I would not ever want to give a single yard to an opposing player. Switch over to someone who plays fantasy: "I hope my team (let's say the Packers) wins like 48-42 and Calvin Johnson gets six touchdowns." Certain four-letter words come to mind (and a few others of varying length). And you want to know what I hope? I hope Calvin Johnson does get those six touchdowns and your Packers lose 42-0.

The most questionable aspect of fantasy football doesn't even have to do with the people who choose to participate in it (as much as I question their intelligence and commitment to the integrity of football). What I don't understand the most is the fact that fantasy points are a poor representation of a good football player. From what I hear, Michael Vick had the most fantasy points last season. That I find laughable. I wouldn't have been surprised if Tom Brady, who did phenomenally last year, also had a great fantasy point value last year. And yet, I bet you each of them would, in a heartbeat, trade positions with Aaron Rodgers, heck probably even Ben Roethlisberger. Let me take another few sentences to beat up on Mike Vick: Sure, he had a few impressive performances last season, but the man is not a great QB. First off, he only plays about 11.5 games a year because his bones are apparently made of peanut brittle (that, and the fact that he runs around the field (admittedly, better than any other QB (probably)) risking getting pummeled by Demarcus Ware too many times (also, can you tell that I like stacking parenthetical comments?)). Not only that, but if you do manage to contain him, you can have your way with the Eagles. The Vikings, led by Joe freaking Webb, proved that last season. But enough Vick bashing. He gets more than enough of that from people who are unable of forgiving a man of his sins even after his time has been served, he has apologized, and, so far as we know, he has given up such practices. Fantasy lumps together an entire team's defense, and defense, as we know, is more important than offense (cliché "Offense wins games, defense wins championships" quote here). James Harrison deserves more fantasy points by himself than, I don't know, Rob Bironas (or, insert some other football player here). On top of this, a clutch player gets no recognition. Aaron and Ben, for the postseason they each had, should have gotten mad fantasy points, except fantasy ends just when the season starts to matter. This is probably a good thing, as it would likely ruin an even greater thing than football itself: playoff football.

So excuse me if I don't participate in fantasy football. Excuse me if I have a little less respect for you if you tell me you play fantasy football. I'll just sit back, relax, and enjoy my football. You have fun with your aggravating, incredibly inaccurate representation of the game, but don't come talking to me about it. Also, please don't take me too seriously, I still love you guys (I think) :)

Complaint #002: Birthdays

As much as I'd like to write about topics as pertinent as last week's, it simply isn't feasible. I'd burn out in about three and a half weeks. So, this week I'm taking an easy one; something easy to complain about, but something with which we'll definitely have a little fun.

Disclaimer: This post isn't recommended to those with low levels of maturity or weak stomachs.

I've come to really resent birthdays. I think it's normal for a person, as they mature, to become less and less excited with their own birthday (receiving new shirts and pants, though practical, can't replace the thrill of getting Hot Wheels and a Charizard card), but I've come to hate all birthdays: yours, mine, that guy across the street's (actually I really have never cared about his). I think, more than any other factor, Facebook is the reason for this enlightenment. I wouldn't say Facebook is the cause, but rather the lens which revealed the truth of why I shouldn't like birthdays.

I'm too lazy or uncreative to make my point in paragraph form, so here is a list of reasons I don't like birthdays:

1. Obligation: Facebook, because of it's notification of every friend's birthday, opens up an obligation to wish each of them "Happy Birthday!" (or similar) when the date rolls around every year. I know people who do wish each "friend" good tidings on their specified date every year, whether this person has communicated otherwise the entirety of the three hundred sixty four days previous. I'm sick of it. The act has lost all sentiment and has become an empty gesture of acknowledgement. This is why I don't do it. I feel no guilt of obligation to do it anymore and I don't think I've posted an actual message wishing someone "Happy Birthday!" (or similar) in quite some time. Ahh, it's such a feeling of freedom to not do it.

2. Remembrance: This one kind of is all Facebook's fault. When you receive a wall post from someone wishing you "Happy Birthday!" (or similar), you instantly question whether this person actually knew yesterday that it was your birthday today. Other than a select few, I assume everyone wishes me a happy day on May 3^rd every year because Facebook told them it was my birthday. I'll be honest: I know about twelve peoples' birthdays, and five of those are my nuclear family (although, this post should convince you I'm not the typical person regarding those days, so other (normal) people probably know more). So, if there was any sentiment left in that "Happy Birthday!" (or similar) message, it's now gone. If I do wish someone a happy day on their birthday, it is almost assuredly on the phone or in person (Facebook still probably told me, but at least the interaction seems somewhat personal)

3. Meaning: What does a birthday mean? Let's break it down to its most raw form: A birthday is an anniversary of the day when your biological mother spent several hours in excruciating pain expelling you from her vagina (I told you I didn't recommend you, with your weak stomach, to read this). Why are we celebrating this? Honestly, I cannot figure out why we do this. Also, once you get to the age when you realize this, you don't want to be reminded every year that you're one year closer to your death (unless, of course, you find pleasure in knowing this). I prefer to focus on the present, not the past, not the future, but the right now, where I'm living.

4. Alternative: You say, "But Will, a birth is such a beautiful moment. We should be celebrating it (and its subsequent anniversaries)." I'm sorry, but I say, "Nay!" Have you ever seen a birth? I think I had to watch one for ninth grade Health class; it really isn't beautiful. You want to know what is beautiful? (And I don't want to think much past the surface of this) The act that occurred approximately nine months prior to your birth. That was a beautiful moment (I told you I didn't recommend you, with your low maturity level, to read this (although, that brings in to question how I'm qualified to write this)). Anyway, back on topic: Sexual intercourse was a great action of love bestowed upon us from God (Book recommendation: Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality by Rob Bell). How much less beautiful would it be if you had budded off of one of your parents? Not only was this a more beautiful act than your birth; it also represents the moment of your creation. Granted, you were nothing more than a cell that eventually split into a ball of cells, and then into some freaky fish-looking thing, and then into a human-looking fetus, but the act of sex started your creation. So to this I say: We should be celebrating Conception Day (or Approximate Conception Day for those who can't narrow it down enough).

So, to those who are sensible, stop celebrating these wretched days (wow, that's a bit overreactive) or tell me why I'm wrong below. Otherwise, enjoy your day and if you take anything away from this (other than the fact that I'm incredibly odd), it is that we should examine the acts we do out of habit. What is the action's purpose? If the answer is obligation, conformity, or there doesn't seem to be one, then stop what you're doing. Saves a lot of time and, admit it, you caused a little personal growth by doing it.

Complaint #001: Prayer

I'm starting this blog off with a bang. I've recently realized that I'm not a fan of the term "prayer" and how, in general, the Christian community handles it.

A little background: At its core, Christianity is a lifestyle centered on creating a relationship with the one, true God. It's not merely a set of rules and regulations to obey for the reward of getting to heaven. Life is meant to be the journey of creating and building a relationship with God.

It is because of this that I have come to dislike the term "prayer". Denoting an action as "prayer" automatically makes it a separate entity from other, more relationship-oriented words: "conversing", "speaking", "discussing".

However, we're all smart people; we know what synonyms are, so why is prayer any different than the other words? So maybe the actual word "prayer" isn't to blame, but rather, how we use it. Herein lies the issue: the general public uses the verb "pray" and most often associates it with the preposition "to". We pray to God. We pray to Jesus. This is problem. We need to fix our mindset and turn it from "to" to "with". "to" denotes a single direction; "with" creates mutual interaction. How much better do you feel, how much more do you feel appreciated, when you're "talked with" rather than "talked to"? The term "relationship" is predicated on the fact that there are two parties and they are both involved.

On top of this, we need to make our prayer like our conversations with others. Do you pray in the same manner that you talk to the people you love? How much more loving should your conversation with God be when it's compared with your conversations with other humans? If I had a spouse to whom I spent all of my communication (or any significant portion) setting out my list of problems and asking her to fix them, I don't think she'd feel too loved. Don't get me wrong, praying for things we want to see happen through the work of God is an important part of prayer (heck, this blog is centered on making worthwhile complaints), but our focus should be on the love and appreciation of Him and refining our relationship with him (unfortunately, I don't think I'm qualified to write a blog on love, at least one that will be of any use to anyone).

So, pray/talk/speak/converse with God. Focus on the relationship, not on your problem list (and by shifting your focus, notice how many of your problems go away/don't matter). Listen for His responses (this takes good discernment). Grow.