Complaint #030: Pittsburgh Penguins

Look, I am not a hockey fan. To me, the hockey season just started because the playoffs are the only thing that matter in an 82+ game season. I think Friday night was the first time I realized it was a penalty to clear the puck from your goal in hopes to run down the clock (icing, which seems like an idiotic penalty). But if there's one thing I know about hockey, it is this: I don't want to be a Penguins fan, or more appropriately: I don't want to be a Penguins fan if there's an option to be a Flyers fan. This really comes down to one reason: toughness.

Hockey is a contact sport. In fact, hockey is probably the contact sport. Hockey is more fast-paced than (American) football and has harder contact than basketball and soccer/football. Baseball has no real contact (one slide into home plate every 43 games doesn't count), and no other sport is popular enough to warrant mention. Hockey is also the only sport that allows fighting. Sure, you may get penalized for engaging in the timeless art of fisticuffs, but there's a good chance you're not getting ejected and suspended for a quarter of the season (and if you're an NFL player, you'd probably have to go to a six-week seminar on concussion education and if your name is James Harrison you'd get fined $400,000 (OK, now I'm just complaining)). It's for those reasons I mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph that I'm going to root for one of the (if not, the) toughest team(s) in the league (Hey, it works for the NFL, why shouldn't it work for a tougher sport?)

Now, I'll make a concession here. I can't continue to be a Steelers fan (and maintain my belief that they've become the greatest franchise in the NFL) and tell you that the Flyers are a better franchise than the Penguins. It cannot be true because the Penguins have more Stanley Cup victories than the Flyers (and all of them more recently than the Flyers' last one). So the Penguins franchise may be a better franchise now than the Flyers (and it's been true for a number of years), but they certainly are less respectable as a franchise.

Why do they deserve less respect? It's because of toughness. No one questions the toughness of the Philadelphia Flyers. Everyone is free to do so with the Penguins. Sure, a single Penguin (by the way, that's a fantastically fruity mascot if you ask me (although, to be honest, paper advertisements (Flyers) aren't too scary either)) player may accidentally be tough once (I mean, look at Malkin, he's an ugly Russian, I'll give them that), but the team is far from tough. Watching the playoff game now, I can see the Penguins with their playoff "beards"; they each look like they can grow a beard as well as I can (that's an insult to them, or it should be). The face of the franchise, Mr. Sidney Crosby (no surprise that he has a unisex name...), would probably lose a fight to a Care Bear. I think the only battle that co-owner and previous face of the franchise, Mario Lemieux, won was the battle to open his container of hair gel this morning. On the other hand, when you look at the Flyers, you get a group of guys with shovels as faces. I think the entire team combined has fewer teeth than I do. Bobby Clarke's image makes toddlers (and even some of the weaker adolescents) cry.

So Penguins fans, when you call us "Philthy", we take it as a compliment. Also, please stop pointing out small exceptions to the rule: just because a Penguin has a single tough moment, doesn't mean your franchise is tough. No one questions the toughness of the Broad Street Bullies. Well, no one has and lived to tell about it.

Complaint #029: Politics

I hold this truth to be self-evident: that all men (and women) were created equally. When we force an imbalance upon this, I think people don't know how to appropriately cope. Yet, we, as a society, feel the need to impose a hierarchy upon ourselves. Why we feel we need this, I'll never know, but we do. As if we needed confirmation on this, I'm going to give it to you: besides the fact that every major society in the world (that I know of) has some sort of governmental structure, let's look at the Israelites. Despite having a perfect leader (God) and a series of judges, after having been redeemed from an oppressive leadership, the Israelites demanded a king (if this notion is unfounded to you, try First Samuel 8).

The problem that arises when we elevate people into positions over us, is that we expect them to be better than us and forget that all men (and women) are created equal and none of us is perfect. Take a look at the American government: we put a singular man (ok, this time I don't have to say "or woman" yet) in a specific elevated position, demand him to solve unsolvable problems, and when he doesn't live up to our astronomical expectations and despite the 400-some-odd other men we elected in Washington, we kill him (not literally, of course, although some people who take politics wwwaaayyy too seriously, sadly, I'm sure would like to).

The problem with human leaders is that the people most qualified to lead are the same people smart enough to avoid being leaders. If you don't believe me, take in the following wise words:

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
– Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, "Be our king." But the olive tree answered, "Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?" Next, the trees said to the fig tree, "Come and be our king." But the fig tree replied, "Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?" Then the trees said to the vine, "Come and be our king." But the vine answered, "Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?"
Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, "Come and be our king."
– Judges 9:8-14

So let me get to the main reason that I hate politics (because mainly I don't give a crap and just ignore it/them (I'm not quite sure if "politics" is plural)). Here's politics in a nutshell: people argue about problems that can't be solved, and the best we can do falls into two categories and personal preferences/priorities define which option is better and then people just continue to try to push their preferences and priorities on others and they don't have the authority to do so (basically, politics is subjective and we treat it as objective).

People may find me stupid or inconsiderate, but that's the way I feel about it. So I find politics not only annoying, but mainly immaterial (or, at least, of lesser importance than I need to worry about). I don't inform myself and I'm pretty sure I'm giving it up all together (it's probably better for the uninformed to not vote anyway).

Let the boys play their games, I'll work on bettering my own world and focusing on the true leader of my life.

Complaint #028: Buses

Let me be honest with you for a little bit: I started this blog and consequently, the "Your Complaints" page, with the full intention of taking your complaints as inspirations for posts of mine. However, I haven't really gotten a suggestion about which I felt inspired enough to write an entire post (although I have touched on some of them). But Refining by Fire Hall of Fame reader and commenter Chelsea Gillus deserves to have at least one of her topics written about on here. So I'm going to write about one of her suggestions and it'll snowball into this full topic on buses.

Chelsea, at one point, said I should write about the other people on public buses. Now as a bus rider, by definition, I am one of those other people of the public bus, but I'd like to think I follow bus etiquette quite well. I imagine she (along with myself) is not fond of people who don't heed the following rules:

1. If anyone (besides the person that you are talking to) can hear you, be quieter
2. If anyone (besides yourself) can hear your iPod, make it quieter
3. Have your bus fare ready prior to boarding the bus
4. Bags/Purses/etc. are free to have a seat until critical mass is hit. Critical mass is defined as the point at which each person has a free seat next to them.
5. Be at the bus stop prior to the scheduled bus arrival time
6. Don't wave down the bus at a place that isn't a bus stop
7. If you requested to get off the bus and if possible, make attempts at being at the door prior to the bus stopping

Now I'll be even more honest with you guys and tell you that I feel insecure about how people perceive my transportation situation (the fact that I don't drive) and even though I shouldn't care what mere humans think of me (the only judgment I need be concerned with is that from above), I feel the need to prove that I am self-sufficient even without a driver's license (never mind the fact that ten months ago I moved a thousand miles away from any place I'd ever lived before which required the use of my parents' ability to drive). Because of this, I am reticent to complaint about buses at all, but I also feel the need to be honest, open, and realistic to everyone (in an overall and general sense, not just in the blogosphere), so here goes:

There is an inherent unfairness to the fact that if a person is late (or even sometimes on time) to a bus stop, he/she must wait for the next bus, but buses are free to be as late as they want. Or, in the rare case, they are early and screw over people who were just on time.

One thing I miss about the Pittsburgh bus system is that you could essentially get a bus from anywhere to anywhere whereas out here in Madison you often need to transfer once or twice to get where you need to go. Example: From the point I moved until this past Friday (I'll talk more about that later) I was taking three buses each way to and from work. One bus to the transfer point near my apartment, another to the transfer point across town (because the bus to work only took off from there), and then the last bus to work (and the reverse on the way home).

This stacked up to a whopping 75 minute trip each way which I will admit, is a bit ridiculous. Now, I feel the need to justify this "wasted time", so I will say that it was a great time to do some reading. Reading is one of those things I love to do, but only when it doesn't take away from my normal life activities. If I have the opportunity to watch a movie or waste time complaining on the internet to the fifteen people who will read it, those are the things I'm going to do rather than read. However, over the past ten months I've read probably more than my entire life up until that point (31 books since I moved, according to my count) which I think is great.

Fast forward to tomorrow: Madison Metro and my great employer, Epic, have heard the cries of their people (mainly Epic has heard the cries of losers like me that the bus is overcrowded, although I don't think I ever explicitly said anything) and have started a new bus route. It just so happens to go right near my apartment complex and looks like it'll save me about an hour a day in the morning, so I'm curious to see how well I spend the time I've "saved".

Complaint #027: Ice

Look, I enjoy a nice cold drink as much as the next guy, but only to a certain cost. That cost is something less than putting ice cubes in my drink. It just isn't worth all the toil and unpleasantness. However, there are some solutions that lessen the pain.

Problem number one: this isn't a huge issue, but when you place ice into a drink, you violate the integrity of the drink by watering it down. I wanted to drink lemonade, not 95% lemonade with water in it. This is probably the reason people don't put ice in their milk or orange juice. Wake up people, it's no different from throwing ice into Coke or the poorly named "iced tea" (which, obviously, I prefer without ice).

Problem number two: creating ice. Again, not a big deal, but a minor annoyance if you don't own one of those fancy dancy refrigerators that makes its own ice. Having to fill up ice cube trays every twelfth cube, balance the tray perfectly back to the fridge from the sink, and set it on a perfectly level surface in your freezer is a bit toilsome.

The big problem: ice floats. This causes enormous issues: the first of which is that the cubes bang against your lip and front teeth every time you try to take a sip of that delicious beverage. This is painful to those of us with sensitive teeth (I think, I don't really know, it's been so long since I've actually had a drink like this). Not only that, but the cubes get in the way of you gulping down that liquid delight and you end up sucking in about four milliliters after trying to drink for the past 85 seconds.

Simple solutions: I don't mind getting ice in my drink while I'm at a restaurant because they give you the magical ice-problem destroyer: the straw. It won't solve problem one, and problem two is on the restaurant management, but it definitely eradicates the big ice problem.

Also, I love iced coffee. This is probably because I have managed to burn myself on every hot cup of coffee from which I've ever had the displeasure of drinking. Also, most iced coffee comes with that fantastic invention mentioned above.

Final point: we need a good way to invent cold, non-floating ice capsules that do not water down drinks. C'mon scientists, you owe us this one.

Complaint #026: Kony 2012

If you have not seen this video yet, I'd rather you spend your time doing so than reading my little rant (although reading my post is a nice afterthought).



That being said, I do not want Joseph Kony brought to justice. You read that right, I do NOT want Joseph Kony brought to justice. Do I want his crimes to come to an end? Yes. But do I want him brought to justice? No. Before you get out your pitchforks and torches, let me explain why.

I'll first define what bringing him to justice means. I'm thinking it; you're thinking it; we're all thinking it, and even if someone weren't, I'll prove, to the best of my ability, that to bring justice upon him is to kill him. He deserves it right? I mean, he's killed and raped large numbers people, abducted tens of thousands of children and forced them to act as soldiers, and he has displaced millions from their homes. The only thing worth doing to him is ending his life, correct? The wages of sin is death therefore he deserves to die. The problem is that we all deserve to die. We have all chosen a path that leads to death: me, you, Joseph Kony, and yes, even Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. We have all chosen to sin and deserve death for that. We are all sinners to be stoned, and none of us is worthy to throw the first stone.

Take a look at your Bible. It's written by a bunch of murderers. Moses, who wrote the entire Torah, killed an Egyptian. David, a man after God's own heart, had an affair with a woman and had her husband killed to hide the resultant pregnancy (you could probably categorize his sexual intercourse with her as rape, as well). Paul, writer of much of the New Testament, was the leader of a group that hunted down and slaughtered Christians. Would you have brought these people to justice for their crimes? I'm pretty sure I would have, but it's not the mentality I should have.

No man is beyond redemption. This is why we should love the sinner (hate the sin? yes, but more importantly, love the sinner). This is why we are not worthy to cast the first stone. This is why an eye for an eye leads to the whole world going blind. This is why Atomic Opera, in their song "Justice", sung "I pray that I will never ask for justice". Yes, this does mean that Joseph Kony, Osama Bin Laden, Muammar Gaddafi, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler do not deserve justice served to them from fellow humans. Just because each treated others without regard to their humanity does not give us the excuse to act that way towards him. Justice comes from the King on High and He has already sent someone that redeemed all of us from our crimes.

So don't get me wrong, the video is fantastic. The plans it lays out are good, but let us focus on stopping these crimes for the sake of saving those being terrorized and not on bringing Joseph Kony to justice.

Complaint #025: Being Wrong

Being wrong publicly (and, by that, I mean saying something that is incorrect to someone) is probably the worst thing ever. Of all things that exist and of all states of being for all those things, the worst is myself when I'm wrong. At least, I think so. Perhaps you feel the same way about yourself when you are wrong (assuming this occurs).

There are a number of layers to this. The first of which is the fact that I was wrong. No one likes to be wrong, and I'm pretty sure I'm the person who dislikes it the most. Being wrong means that there was something that was in my mind that wasn't what it was supposed to be. I stored information in my brain and it was worthless, in fact worse than worthless, incorrect. Not only that, but I've made this incorrect information public and I've made my fallacy in front of others. I try to not care what people think about me, but this care seeps through all the time (what can I say, I'm human).

The next step is what my brain does to react: it immediately denies having said the wrong thing. This is, of course, the absolute worst thought to have, because it is inherently incorrect (and given enough time anyone can realize that this is a recursive function and I don't know what the maximum stack level for my brain is and what happens if I reach that (hehe computer science humor)). If we stay on the first level of the stack, I'll sometimes react to this initial feeling by denying what I said or trying to explain that I meant something different by what I said.

Hopefully, I spend more than 0.0002 seconds thinking about what I said before reacting to the fact that I said something incorrect because, luckily, my brain eventually copes with the fact that it is fallacious. However, it then spends its energy trying to remember why it had the original incorrect thought and tries to pour blame on that object. Whether it be Wikipedia, an old college roommate, or a misinformed author of an article I read, I blame it for making me give false information. This is, again, the wrong action to take. I must remember both parts of the famous, Ronald Reagan favored phrase: "Trust, but verify". I am the one ultimately responsible for what spews forth from my word hole.

So being wrong every once in a while becomes a good thing: it teaches me, first of all, to be humble, but it also reminds me that I am responsible for all that I do and say. However, if I could avoid the process of being wrong and dealing with that (but still learn these lessons), that would be great because I really do hate being wrong.

Complaint #024: Telephones

This is likely just a post to satisfy my own hatred for telephones, but maybe you as well have these issues and can assure me that I'm not a complete oddity.

I enjoy talking with people. I wouldn't characterize myself as a social person, but I wouldn't say I'm anti-social either. I enjoy discussing the things I am interested in with others, and, just in general, I enjoy keeping in touch with people's lives (for the few people who care to share it with me). This is true until I pick up the phone to talk to someone, and I'd like to logically explain why.

Written forms of communication are the best ways to communicate with others. When you are forced into an audible conversation with someone, the chances to mess up grow exponentially. When you write, you are given time to think through every response and you have the ability to delete anything that may not have the effect you intended (as long as you do so before you send it). I cannot count the times (and the number may be uncountable (haha, set theory joke)) that I have typed something and deleted it because I realized it would be the dumbest phrase ever uttered by a human. Of course, there is one caveat: You cannot relay tone in a written conversation.

Not every conversation can be carried out through text or email (unfortunately) so we are forced to audibly interact. I realize that, and, in fact, occasionally prefer it. A robot like me, you would suspect, always prefers to calculate the correct response in every conversation prior to responding, but personal conversations are much more appropriately handled in a personal manner (who'd have thought?). I recall several conversations I have had that I shook my head at the fact that they were being held over Facebook chat or text rather than in person. But I digress.

My main point I mean to make about face-to-face conversation is that it is one thousand times better than phone conversation. My main struggle is the fact that I am deaf. Not literally deaf as in cannot hear, but my ability to hear seems to be far below normal human levels (I can't absolutely know, because I can only hear as well as myself (also, I don't have one of those sweet elementary school hearing test machines or a person to test against myself)). This deafness is less of an issue in normal conversation for a few reasons: the person's voice is not being shoved into a wire and transmitted into outer space before reaching me, and I'm able to look at the lips of someone talking to me (look up the McGurk effect to see how much sight affects hearing (this video is pretty sweet too)). In this way I reduce the amount I ask "What?" from half of the time to one third of the time (another reason written communication is better: if you know how to read it is much more difficult to misunderstand what someone is saying).

Let me also point out that my brain is allergic to phones. I have recently learned this at my job as I've noticed a substantial drop in IQ whenever I pick up a phone. This is a personal problem, and likely doesn't relate to anyone else in the universe, but I felt the need to mention it. It may be linked to the fact that I am far from being spontaneous and talking on the phone requires an instant response to the caller's speech. However, if this were the case, I should be just as idiotic while speaking to someone in person. Other people can feel free to refute the following claim (they're likely more correct), but I don't think I'm much dumber in face-to-face conversation as compared to written communication.

There is, however, one person I must address before I conclude this topic, in the chance that she may be offended. Let me address her personally: Mother, I do look forward to my call to you every week. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be forced to use that hideous device to converse with you, but alas, it must be so. I hope you have a great week, and I look forward to speaking again next Sunday :)

Complaint #023: Romance

Single men should not listen to love songs. Occasionally, between the time that I'm watching football, drinking beer, stroking my enormous beard, hunting and slaughtering various animals (with my bare hands), and eating their roasted carcasses, I get the time to listen to music. Approximately 99.997% of music is about romantic love. So, when I was listening to some Beatles this past week, I realized single men should not listen to love songs.

Let me explain how my brain works (I don't know how others' brains work, so I'm putting this in my terms, feel free to reply below to tell me how crazy I am). I feel two levels of my brain working at a time: the higher level, logical brain function and the lower level, emotional brain function. I try to pride myself on being fairly dominated by the logical level of my brain. This level of my brain knows I should be content even in my singleness, and even though having a companion is desired, it is not necessary. My lower level brain function is dumber than a lemming. It continually craves companionship and cannot stop thinking about my previous romantic relationship opportunities and tries to figure out how to fix them. Just writing that makes me feel like a creeper, but I am unable to shut off this function of my brain. What makes this worse is that my higher brain level realizes anything that is forced, in the realm of romance, ruins the beauty of romance so it is content to just wait until love befalls me. The lower level brain function will have nothing to do with this and wants to create love out of anything.

I've scientifically determined that the time at which I have the highest probability of finding true romantic love is the instant I can convince my entire mind that I don't need it. This time, however, is likely off in the distant future. eBay (which I barely even use anymore) and Amazon feel the need to email me every day to remind me that I need to buy stuff for Valentine's Day. What am I going to buy and for whom? There isn't an "I'm a pathetic single, stop emailing me about Valentine's Day" button; I've checked. Valentine's Day is only a few days off, so that'll pass. Then I've got music. I can't not listen to music. No matter how hard I try, I can't avoid music that has a love theme. But let's say that I can, I still won't be able to avoid happy people. Happy couples are everywhere! Let me say something to all the happily-in-love people in my audience: your happiness fills us single people with the urge to drown puppies. You people should be instantly transported to a separate universe where people are happy and in love so all the single people can go through life being content with their single lives instead of being continually reminded of how pathetically single they are. The last thing I'll point out (and a submission for my candidacy as president of the tautology club) is that beautiful women are beautiful. Women shouldn't be so attractive so that I don't realize they're not dating me.

So what is my advice? How should I and others cope with this? Name the animals. I know, it isn't the advice you were expecting, but it's Biblical: Adam, before he ate some fruit and destroyed humanity, before sin had even entered the world, during the time where he could hang out with God any time he wanted, felt incomplete without a physical companion. When he brought this to God, what did God do? Did God create Eve? Nope. He told Adam to name all the animals. This actually makes sense, though, because he had to work to figure out what his perfect companion would be, and he realized it wasn't a zebra or a gecko. As such, we need to work to find who will be our perfect companion. What does this mean for me? What does it mean for you? I don't know, but when you feel you need a significant other, remind yourself that you first need to name the animals. That, and don't listen to love songs.

^*Let me give attribution to Donald Miller for that last paragraph which I essentially stole from him.

Complaint #022: Hell

I always hated books. I used to be allergic to reading. It was a more time-consuming way to get information or get entertainment than watching TV or using the internet. I used to cringe at the thought of cracking open a novel. This was largely true until I moved to Madison. As a loser that doesn't drive and takes the bus to and from work (well, really to and from almost anywhere), I get a lot of time that I can't just sit and watch TV or use the internet. As such, I've probably read more in the past eight months than I have the rest of my life.

Last week I read Rob Bell's Love Wins. For those of you that were living in a cave most of last year and aren't familiar with the concept of the book, I'm going to do the book a disservice and distill it down to one sentence (read the entire book before judging solely on this): Bell suggests, crazy as it may be, that God is a loving God and does not eternally damn every person who doesn't meet the five actions the church has defined saves you. It's a bit more complex than this, but Bell essentially denies the existence of Hell as we know it. Before I talk about Hell, let me give some background.

The Bible is a book about God redeeming people. It never mentions man redeeming himself (mainly because we aren't qualified). The death of Jesus atoned for each and every sin I will commit before I have the chance to commit it. Nothing I do can make them "more atoned for"; it has been done. God loves each of us as his children and endured the death of Himself/His son to save each of us. He has also revealed to us that a time is coming when He brings his dwelling (Heaven) to us (if this strikes you as odd, Heaven will be here, on Earth. Read your Bible.) We have some time to prepare and that is what living like Christ is about.

This is where Hell comes in. When the good Christians die and go to Heaven, everyone else is sifted out and thrown into an eternal pit of molten sulfur, experiencing torture for the rest of eternity. This seems like just punishment for a small time of disobedience on Earth. Of course not. What's enraging about this is the fact that, if Bell's book is to be believed (more on that later), this is largely unfounded in scripture. Humans have created Hell. This shouldn't be too surprising, we are human, but to be this evil is disgusting and disturbing, and I'm ashamed to say that I have been a part of it.

So what about all those passages that talk about fire and brimstone? I can't offer any insight on the aspect of eternity in relation to the Hell of the Bible (let Bell do that, read his book), but I will offer an explanation that I'm currently pondering: God's bringing Heaven here to us and He gave us the manual on how Heaven can exist even with humans in it (because, as we're all aware, we'd otherwise mess it up. Remember the Garden of Eden?) God sees each command in His word as a benefit for us to get closer to the people we need to be in Heaven. So what are the fires of Hell all about? Let's consider it a "refining by fire" (hey, that's the name of the blog!) so we become purified to exist in Heaven. So what's the point of being a Christian in our current existence? Well, I'm not sure if you remember what the refining process is, but it would be an incredibly painful process for humans to go through and, in the process, the impurities are removed. If someone didn't live like Christ, they would come out of this painful process and not much of themselves would be left. This is why God commands us to live apart from society, be more like Christ, and we can bring all of that to Heaven with us.

I'm not sure I articulated that in the most clear manner, and in the way I wanted to, but, rest assured it makes a bit of sense in my mind. You need to make your own conclusions about it. This is where I come back to whether I believe Bell's book, and the answer is a definitive, decisive "maybe". I'm currently reading through the scriptures and seeing them with a whole new perspective. If this new perspective lines up, there's no reason to not believe it as a possibility. It only affects the fate of every person who ever lived, so I shant take it lightly and neither should you.

Complaint #021: The Geico Cavemen

Without spending much time thinking about it, I'd say Geico has the most varied television commercials of any company. Case in point: here is a list of YouTube links for dogs chasing cats, a guinea-pig-powered computer, that announcer guy from the movies, a gecko with an English accent, inappropriately timed good news, and a commercial made in 15 minutes. For a company, this is a good thing. They're attacking the human public from many angles and therefore growing their audience. It won't affect losers who don't drive (me), but being varied is, ultimately, beneficial for business.

I did not include the Geico Cavemen commercials in that previous list because I find them absolutely abhorrent. There's a point at which a joke becomes tired; the Geico Cavemen joke, at this point, has not only become tired, but it has died of exhaustion and is decomposing before our very eyes. The newest atrocity is the series of commercials starring Washington Redskins' All-Pro linebacker Brian Orakpo (if you're a football fan, you've seen these commercials approximately 4,294,967,295 times). No one actually knows who Brian Orakpo is (or, at least, no one recognizes the man) because Geico feels the need to mention his name twelve times in each commercial in which he stars.

It is because of all of this that I've taken the liberty of scripting (hopefully the last) Geico Caveman commercial with Brian Orakpo (and, again hopefully, the last caveman commercial):

Setting: A room painted burgundy with the words "Brian Orakpo" painted in gold on it. A blinking neon sign with the words "Brian Orakpo" and an arrow pointing at Brian Orakpo is present. Standing next to Mr. Orakpo (obviously in his "Orakpo" shirt) is the Geico Caveman (in a shirt that says "I'm with Brian Orakpo ->" (à la "I'm with Stupid ->") with the arrow point at Mr. Orakpo).

Caveman: Brian Orakpo?
Brian: Yes, I'm Brian Orakpo.
Caveman: The Brian Orakpo?
Brian: Yes, The Brian Orakpo.
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Caveman: Brian Orakpo
Brian: Brian Orakpo
Announcer: Brian Orakpo, I mean Geico: Fifteen minutes could save you up to 15% on Brian Orakpo. I mean car insurance Orakpo.

Complaint #020: Fascination with Celebrities

[We're going to pretend that missing last week was my version of a SOPA/PIPA blackout, but I won't be complaining about SOPA/PIPA here.]

This post is likely going to be incredibly hypocritical because even I find myself fascinated with the lives of people who are more famous than I (read: pretty much anyone). I find people's fascination with celebrities fascinating....and depressing.

We, as humans, are given one life on this Earth (as a fleshy meatbag; we're going to have something a lot bigger on which to focus when we return as souls). The fact that we would spend any time entranced by someone else's is almost laughable. Let me first qualify by saying that our lives should be spent focused on others. This is not a contradiction: we need to be spending our lives making others' lives better, not sitting around looking at others.

Let me make a distinction as to what I mean: celebrities are people we don't know (to a large extent; some people actually know celebrities, but my focus is on people who are fascinated by people they've never met). I don't think anything positive can come out of focusing our time and energies on lives we cannot affect. We should be using those resources on positively affecting someone's life (or, secondly, our own). Kim Kardashian is not going to have a positive turn in her life because you watched the television show detailing her life. Spending that time to feed someone, fellowship (that's a nice word for "hang out") with someone, do work, worship, pray, etc. will definitely have a positive effect. It's no wonder that celebrities are often called "idols" because they certainly are idols in our lives.

What's worse is that contemporary celebrities are often famous because they simply exist. At one point in time, I'd like to think famous people were men and women of valor, courage, and determinism (by that I mean they are determined (focused on a goal), not that they enjoy probabilities of 1). When we look at people like the aforementioned Ms. Kardashian (whether she's "Miss" or "Mrs." is non-deterministic), we see a person who is famous simply because she exists (or because she had a sex tape, but do we not realize how many people have sex? (and sadly, how much of it is available to view?)).

We are living out our fantasies through these people. We subscribe to their twitter or facebook feeds (or Google+ if celebrities are on there and subscribable, I'm actually not sure). So I say, live out your own life and focus on making that as good as it can be; anything preventing you from doing this is not worth it. I think this is what we're scared of: that our life isn't what we want it to be.

Now please don't feel like this is a personal attack on you or even a specific group of people. It is a problem with all humankind. The person writing this blog watches Jersey Shore (funniest show on television) and spent a lot of his time, back in the day, playing The Sims (which is living out your fantasies in a digital life, even more pathetic). This is something we all need to work on.

Complaint #019: The English Language and Other Related Topics, Part II: "I Could Care Less"

This is meant to be more of an informative post, rather than a complaint (although I will complain because it is warranted). For those of you who fall victim to its grasp, consider this a friendly, informative post (or reminder) because I myself, yes I, was once in the same place as you and freeing myself has made my life exponentially better (OK, that was a bit overdramatic).

I, of course, am talking about the phrase "I could care less". Without exception, whenever someone says this phrase they actually mean "I couldn't care less" (you know, the exact opposite). I don't know who started the trend of dropping the "n't", but the phrase makes very little sense without it. If you haven't figured out why by this point, let me explain: when someone says they "could care less", they mean "I don't care at all". However, if they can care less, they have some amount of care (because there is some amount that can be subtracted from there care (could care less)). When people say the opposite of what they mean (and aren't being sarcastic), words start to have no meaning. This is why pancake unequivocal box fetter yesterday leader.

Alright, now it's time to complain: over the last week or two, I've heard this phrase several (hundred) times. The solution is not always as easy as informing the speaker of their mistake. Remember those podcasts I told you about two weeks ago when I complained about Tim Tebow (the headline)? You remember that I listen to three sports podcasts a day? The people on these podcasts are theoretically professional radio personalities. They most likely have a degree in Communications. These are the people that should have a better grasp on the English language than me. However, they seem to have some sort of infatuation with the phrase. I find this egregious.

So, yes, I could care less if you read this post and comment...because I do care (even if it's just a bit).

Complaint #018: Celebrating a New Year

The time surrounding the start of a new year is one filled with hope and enthusiasm for great things to come in the oncoming year. Hope and enthusiasm are great things. Celebrating a new year, however, is fairly irrational. I'm all for the looking ahead to a brighter future, but what does January 1st have to do with this?

Let us first look at the date itself. January 1st, so far as I know and having done absolutely no research, has no significance whatsoever. Sure, it begins a new month, and this particular month has been deemed the first of our Gregorian calendar. Save for that latter fact, I find January 1st no different from March 1st or July 1st or December 1st (and any of the other months I left out). So the only thing that makes this day special from eleven others is that some guys, thousands of years ago, said January was the first moth of the year. Also, the thing that sets these twelve apart from the other 353 days that appear in every other year seems to be the same: some dudes a long time ago wanted to divide up a solar year to twelve approximately equal parts (for easier tracking of days, I assume). I don't know about you, but I try not to listen to anyone older than fifty years old, so why should I listen to something people said thousands of years ago? I kid, of course, but it all seems incredibly random.

Now, I'm not one to complain and not offer solutions/alternatives (except for all those times I do). In this case, I will: if we are going to base our system of dates on how our planet travels around our sun, why not start the year on a day with significance in respect to that? What I am, of course, referring to are the equinoxes and solstices. Why does our year start twelve days after the winter solstice? Why can't the winter solstice be the first day of the year? It seems logical. Also, the length of sunlight each day would increase until the middle of the year and then would decrease as the year comes to an end (Unless you live in that magical upside-down world known as the "Southern Hemisphere"). (Somewhat related tangent: We should also throw the leap day at the end of the year (or the beginning) because there is no reason to randomly insert it into the middle of the year.)

The one good thing that New Year's Day has going for it is the way people respond to it. People feel a sense of hope for a brighter future in the coming year. They see it as a chance to better themselves. I love that people look forward to a better future and I love that people want to better themselves (and sometimes they actually do it), but why do we need an excuse to do this? Why do we need a special day to tell us to do this? We should have this attitude daily. There is a brighter future ahead; you should better yourself every day (I should, too). If we absolutely need a day in the year to remind us of this, we already have the perfect day: Easter. Easter is the celebration of new beginnings and a new creation (also, bunnies and hidden, brightly-colored eggs). This is the perfect representation of the things we try to attribute to that random day that starts our calendar year.

If you've also read my entry on birthdays, you may be sensing a bit of a theme. I don't like celebrations. This is true........for random, fairly meaningless events. And do you know why? We should be celebrating every day of our lives. Every day we get an opportunity at a brand new day to make our lives better than they were yesterday. When we accomplish this, we should find joy and happiness in that, not when we turn a page on a calendar.

Additional side note: New Year's celebrations also suck for single people who are fairly happy with their lives, but are taught to be miserable because they didn't kiss someone after some lighted sphere descended on a pole in New York City (I will not use the phrase "ball drop" so as to squelch any immature testicle jokes).

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.