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.
29 September 2011
25 September 2011
Complaint #005: Affirmative Action
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.
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.)
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.
18 September 2011
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.
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.
11 September 2011
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) :)
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) :)
04 September 2011
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 3rd 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.
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 3rd 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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)