Memories

Once more inspired by Sarah Brown , I thought it was time for a random memory post. Hope you enjoy!

It’s Christmas morning. I am 9 years old and my brother and I share a room (the girls got their own rooms; apparently it’s better for the boys to share a room than the girls). We know Santa doesn’t exist; but that doesn’t curb our enthusiasm for the upcoming spectacle. It’s family tradition to head to the kitchen the morning of, and have a big glass of orange juice (coffee for the adults) before we head into the living room for present opening. 6am hits and I am wide awake. “Chad,” I whisper, “do you think the presents are there?” “Yeah,” he responds, hiding his excitement (for it’s a little kid thing to get so excited about presents…he’s too cool), “but we’re not supposed to look yet.” “Yeah,” I reply; and then I get up, sneak down the hall, and look down at the Christmas tree from the second-story balcony. In the early morning glow the tree is a beautiful silhouette and the presents glisten temptingly, hiding names on tags, hinting at untold glories ready to be unfurled upon anxious souls. No matter how good the gifts were, the waiting was always more fulfilling than anything that could come after.

I’m not particularly liked or disliked…but it’s junior year in high school and every glance and comment implies love or hate in my mind. I’m a theatre-nerd and a film-kid and my peers see me as “that guy.” Nobody loves me beyond all others, and only a few hate me (but that's a whole new story). Theatre is, oddly enough, a very respected extracurricular activity at my school, and I have a lead in the Senior-produced play. Our color-scheme is sepia, and my blonde hair doesn’t work well with said scheme. Rather than wigging up every night, I choose to use dye to solve the problem (even for my facial hair grown especially for said play). My goth-mentor (also in the play) buys some black hair dye and we sneak into the theatre after everyone has gone home. We go into the theatre restroom and I apply the dye to my hair, eyebrows, and facial hair. Since heat makes dye grab hold quicker I put a wig on over my plastic-bagged head. The wig is from a recent play, The Lark, and belonged to the lead girl (Joan of Arc) who had a boyish haircut. My friend and I spend a solid hour in the mostly dark and totally empty theatre acting out our favorite movie/film scenes on stage. The cleaners show up and stumble upon me, on stage, in a shaggy and choppy wig, pretending I am a Monty Python character who is ‘not dead yet.’ We laugh it off before washing out the dye and standing speechless looking at my now strikingly affected hair, eyebrows, and facial hair.

It’s Thanksgiving time and I am home with the family. I head out on Thanksgiving night with one of my all-time best friends. During high school we loved getting McFlurries from McDonalds. There’s something about that cheap ice cream and chopped up candy at 1am that blows all other desserts out of the water. During high school our favorite was always Butterfinger®. We hit up the local McD’s and through the crappy drive-through speaker requested two Butterfinger® McFlurries. We were promptly informed that the Butterfinger® variety of our favorite tasty treat is no longer an available option. Dejected and broken-hearted, we ordered plain vanilla McFlurries. I had a plan. We hit up an all-night grocery store and bought two Butterfinger® bars and headed back to my house. With a well–implemented meat-mallet and some ingenuity we had ourselves some genuinely delicious Butterfinger® McFlurries (take that McDonalds). The lesson learned: don't accept defeat...an all-night grocery might just have the answer to your dilemma.

I've been getting e-mails from some dating website and thought it was just spam. I decided to unsubscribe from a list I never actually subscribed to when I was brought to a profile page for a fellow "greenmoose." Here's a grab from the page:

And some more:

Now I'm pretty sure nobody would go through these lengths for a joke that only I would see. I guess this Hitler-loving Brit accidentally put my e-mail address in as his own and I'm getting his notifications.

Whatever the case, I guess this proves that not everyone who chooses "greenmoose" as a screen name shares similarities.

No, Really, Who Does Watch the Watchmen?
Or:
A Fanboy's Dilemma

Quick side-note (or pre-note, or whatever): Even if you don't give a damn about the Watchmen phenomenon, skip to the end of this post where I critique a strange Asian alcohol ad.

Megan and I went and saw Watchmen today on a brand new Imax screen in a beautiful building with an incredible sound system and super-comfy chairs. If you have a chance to see a film at the Garden Walk in Anaheim, do it. I want you to know that I've never been huge into comics or graphic novels, have never read anything else by Alan Moore, and have never even been big into comic-to-movie adaptations. A friend from work lent me the book to read after I told him how great the trailer looked. I was, at the time, totally unaware of the massive following and cult-like love of this work. I plowed through the book (yeah, I'm calling it a book. Without going into detail, the amount of work that went into this work of art rivals many novels written today) in 2 days and was, at that point, even more excited for the movie.

If you haven't read Watchmen, you would be doing yourself a favor to do so. Even if you're not into graphic novels and have never picked one up in your life. Looking passed the exceptional art, the amazing writing, and all the costumed heroes is a story of an alternate history that our country could easily have gone through with a few simple (and even feasible) changes (ok, fine, aside from Dr. Manhattan). Moore creates a world in which all moral and ethical lines are blurred, metaphysics and our understanding of time and creation are brought into question, and art and real life imitate each other in ways that are creepily relatable to our actual world today. Somewhere in the midst of stories-within-stories, real life issues (such as impotence), and love and fraternity fraught with peril and deception, I lost myself in a make believe world that I grew to love.

Don't worry, all this setup is going somewhere.

The film, in my opinion, did an incredible job at taking amazingly dense material and turning it into a film that captured almost every necessary aspect of the story as possible. This is a feat which would scare me senseless if I were the one put to the task. The film pulled no punches, respected the original work to a worship-like degree, and captured the spirit of what Moore wanted to say (once more, this is all in my opinion. Many would disagree with me).

As I tried to understand the disparity in opinions (RottenTomatoes currently has the film at a meager 65%), I came to a conclusion: the subjective opinion of the film is directly related to the viewer's expectations. Hold on, don't laugh and control-q this post yet. Hear me out. This movie is somewhat unique in the "expectation" theory I just began explaining. If I am going to see The Dark Knight I have certain expectations: Batman should be similar in most respects to the actual character; there should be some amazing action; there should be some sort of moral choice that tests Batman; and the world of Batman should stay at least somewhat canon (e.g. Batman shouldn't suddenly and unexplainably have the gift of non-technologically-aided flight). Most everyone knows what they are getting into before going to see a Batman movie. If all those points are met, then the argument of whether the film is "good" will come down to artistic merit, acting skill, music choice, editing, etc, etc. Since nobody (hopefully) goes in to a Batman movie with the expectation of a feel-good romantic comedy full of personal redemption and maybe a goofy character to lighten things up with fart jokes and physical comedy, nobody walks out with their base expectations shattered.

Watchmen is a whole different consideration. Many people (in fact, I would say at least half, if not more) are going to see this movie based on the trailer alone. The trailer is pretty amazing...and if I were basing my expectations for the movie on the trailer, I would go in expecting a kick-ass action film full of awesome superheroes and mass amounts of mindless violence. If that was your expectation heading in to the film, Watchmen would be a major disappointment. I'm not trying to belittle the average action-film movie-goer; but if Transformers or any of the Riddick films are your cup of tea, metaphysical discussions, major human flaws, and governmental dealings with rogue vigilantes might not fulfill that deep desire for blood and guts.

I've talked to every person who I know who has seen the film; and questions lead to one of two outcomes:

Me: So, what did you think of Watchmen?
P1: It was amazing, I was totally blown away.
Me: Have you read the book?
P1: Yeah, I loved it.

Or...

Me: So, what did you think of Watchmen?
P2: Um, it was ok. I was kinda disappointed.
Me: Have you read the book?
P2: No.

Seriously, without fail, those who loved the movie have read the book, and those who were less than impressed have not. But wait, my point is not that those who have not read the book can't like the film, or that they are not capable of liking the film, or even that their not having read it invalidates their opinion. This realization has brought me to an interesting, if not confusing, crossroads:

Is a piece of art that seemingly cannot be appropriately enjoyed by those who do not have some sort of previous knowledge of the art-piece good art?

For example, Donnie Darko is one of my favorite films. It was from the start. But the more I delved into the online information of the film, the more I stumbled across extra material put out there by the director. Fake books "written" by characters from the film. Puzzles to solve that explained some of the mysteries. In the end, I had this amazing understanding of the intricacies of the film that few had. Many claimed that the film was partially incoherent and therefore unenjoyable. I tried to explain what I had found; but the common response was, "If the movie itself doesn't tell me all I need to know, it failed in its message." And trust me, I see that point of view.

But with Watchmen I am sympathetic. There is simply so much to the original book that this attempt seems epic and amazing to me on every level. And I can't help but think that with even a cursory reading of the original material, the movie would be enjoyed that much more. At the same time, there is something to be said about making something accessible to everyone whether or not they have previously read the source material.

Last example, and then a conclusion (before a really fun/funny Asian ad): If I go to an art museum and look at a painting, I can have multiple experiences. For example, I look at a Lochener painting like this:

I can have two reactions. The first is the uninformed reaction of like or dislike (usually based on color, or topic, or the artist's talent). The other reaction is the educated reaction that puts aside those aesthetic considerations to admire the use of the golden ratio, the triangle, the pentagram, the symbolism of the placement of the angels and how focus is drawn to the Christ-child, etc. After that admiration, those other considerations (color, talent, etc) can be incorporated into the decision of whether or not the piece is a great work of art or not. Neither approach is better than the other; and neither approach is necessary to viewing the painting. But each method results in drastically differing outcomes of personal enjoyment of the piece.

So my conclusion, what I've been trying to get at, is that Watchmen is a complicated piece of art. Few would say that the pacing, acting, timing, or visual effects are sub-par. In fact, most would say that the film is really amazing on those levels (if not other levels). This makes me think that if a greater understanding of the piece was had, that the intellectual value of the film, paired with the more obvious merits, makes this film something pretty special. I'm not going to judge Dostoevsky's Brother's Karamazov based on how fun it was to read; and I think that Watchmen should be approached from a view more elevated (read: intellectual) than that of the average action film.

::
::

On THAT note...I ended up at a Korean BBQ joint at 4am the other night. It's a long story. Ask me sometime. Anyway, the place-mats had an ad for some kind of fruit-flavored alcohol that I found absolutely hilarious. Here are the pictures in sequential form (sorry for the lack of quality, I'm lacking a scanner):
Man stalks sealion on beach. Notice his Bear Gryll's like tactic of blending in by imitating the stalked animal.

Oh no! The sealion has spotted him. The only choice is to hold his ground and imply ferociousness!

FIGHT!

Exhausted, the enemies lay in the sand, contemplating their next moves.

Next move? Take shots with the enemy! We all know that fights between males always end in hugs, alcohol, and slurred comments like, "Nothing personal, man...I love you, man!"

Seriously, we might find Japanese ads to be strange; but good lord do they have the upper-hand when it comes to something memorable. A man fights a sealion and ends up doing shots of some strange, fruity alcohol with it? Count me in!

The Things We Call Normal

We all do it. There's no denying it. Men and women alike. We fall victim to primal urges and can't do anything about it. But there's no reason to be ashamed. It's natural...though some of us are more "out there" than others. So the next time someone asks you, "Do you do that, or am I just a freak?, you can respond, "Well, I might not do that, but trust me, I do things you would never consider."

Of course I am talking about idiosyncratic behavior. Wait, what did you think I was talking about? Oh...that...you're sick.

Anyway, I thought I would expose one of my behavioral "tics" (if you will excuse the loose definition of the term). I hate certain foods under certain conditions; but love those same foods under other conditions. Time for a bulleted list (I am particularly fond of bullets)! A prefix of "H" denotes hatred and a prefix of "L" denotes love:

Tomatoes
H: Whole tomatoes; large chunks of tomato; slices of tomato
L: Salsa with small chunks of tomato; ketchup; tomato sauce

Onions
H: Whole onions; slices of onion; chunks of onion (e.g. in salsa)
L: Onion rings; shallots cooked into cheese fondue; caramelized onions chopped finely

Peppers
H: Whole peppers; chunks of peppers
L: Appropriate dishes cooked with peppers that are then removed (leaving only the taste)

Mushrooms
H: Mushrooms in, well, just about any form
L: Non-mushroom-based broths with whole mushrooms that do not need to be eaten in order to consume the broth or items cooked in the broth

Blue cheese
H: Blue cheese dressing
L: Blue cheese in crumbled or whole form on just about anything

Cherries
H: Maraschino cherries; cherry-flavored candy; cherry-flavored drinks
L: Whole cherries (along the line of Bing cherries)

Pickles
H: Cucumbers; sliced pickles on any sort of sandwich, relish on anything
L: Pickle spears (whether sweet or sour)

Anyway, you get the idea. And analyzing it makes me realize something...I like the essence of items better than the item itself. This doesn't apply to everything. For example, I like bacon in it's whole, unadulterated, greasy, fatty form...but I wouldn't rather have essence of bacon in an omelet. So, since my theory of "essence over whole-form" doesn't apply across the board (by any means), there must be some other reason. My best guess is the item's texture.

Mouthfeel (a term often used with things like wine) is important to me. When I bite into a burger, the bun, sauce, and meat are all soft. The lettuce is a bit crunchy; but gives way rather easily and is rather tasteless (I could care less if lettuce is on a burger). But if you put a slice of tomato on my burger, there's the juicy, squishyness of the overripe or overcooked tomato competing with the other textures. Grilled onion is a super-crunchy and often taste-overloading addition. Pickles have a unique crunch and burst of salty-bitter flavor that isn't cohesive. I like food like burgers to be a united flavor and texture. The lettuce is a bit confusing; but I'd say it's more crisp than overwhelmingly crunchy; and it doesn't distract one from the burgery-goodness being enjoyed.

This textural take on why I like some foods some ways but not others seems so be applicable to all my weird likes/dislikes (other than, say, blue-cheese dressing; which I can't, for the life of me, explain). Tomatoes are either too gooey or too crunchy and watery; onions are either too crunchy, or too overpoweringly flavorful; peppers are the same as onions; mushrooms are too slick and mushy (not to mention the pungent flavor I can't ignore); cherries, in anything but natural form, taste acidic and medicine-like to me (Maraschino cherries taste like the fluoride-treatments I grew up hating); and pickles are too crunchy and have too much concentrated flavor.

I know, I know...I'm being picky. But at least I can eat most foods in some form. Sure, a raw tomato with the skin on is full of antioxidants due to the lycopenes; but better some tomato than no tomato...right?

In other words...I'm weird. I know that, and I accept that. My willingness to eat a huge chunk of onion if it's wrapped in fried batter is no weirder than your rule about not drinking any fluids while eating; having to face south to sleep soundly; or having to pump your hand up and down three times (exactly) while shaking hands. We all do strange things, and we all have our own (conscious or unconscious) reasons for doing so. But it's definitely fun every now and then to look at the things we do all the time and ask, "Um, why the heck do I do that?"

::
::

Stop reading here if this was uninteresting. Otherwise, it just gets worse from here on out.

Bonus Blog!!1

Here are some extra idiosyncrasies particular to me:

-I do things in symmetrical fours (e.g. If I'm walking down a hall and there are ridges on the wooden paneling and I tap one of said ridges with my right hand, I will then tap three more of said ridges; or (more strange and incriminating) if I run my tongue against my molars on the right side of my mouth, I will then do so on the left side, then the right side, and then finally on the left side again). Some might call this OCD, I call it...um, well, OCD.

-When I have a set number of things to do, I will often lay out the list in my head in bulleted or numbered form (e.g. "Ok, so seven more things before I go to sleep...grab my chapstick *grabs chapstick*, turn off the light *turns off light*, get in bed *gets in bed*, drink some water so I don't wake up dehydrated *drinks some water*, put on chapstick after drinking water so as not to compromise chapstick application *puts on chapstick*, turn off light *turns off light*, go to sleep *lays down and attempts to sleep*.) I'm not kidding.

No, I don't think everyone has such defined (or particularly strange) habits; but I do think that if we examine our lives, we often find mostly unexplainable actions that are regular (if not essential). For all I know, my love of symmetry (especially things in fours) goes back to 2nd grade where my teacher taught me that odd numbers are more difficult to reduce using division. Or maybe I'm just strange. Either way, analyzing our personal habits is a great way to delve into psychology (or just delve into the uniqueness of the human brain).

Anyway...I have 7 more things to do before I go to sleep, and I only swished my mouthwash on three sides of my mouth (so I need to swish once more). Sleep well oh internets, and remember, bizarre habits are what differentiate us, so carry on with your actions that nobody else will ever fully understand.

Weddings - Soul-Sucking Leeches or Fantasy-Realizations

First, a quick note: apparently I'm a totally abnormal fiance. The more shows I watch and books I read, the more I understand that men either don't care about wedding planning or have horribly bad ideas that their obsessive bride-to-be shoots down while belittling every aspect of their future husband. I, however, don't find this wedding planning stuff to be avoidance-inducing-poison. Plus, Megan and I have such similar tastes that our ideas almost always coincide. This, apparently, is not common. Case in point...a recent conversation at work:

Me: So we're going to a Crate & Barrel registry thing tomorrow.
Co-Worker 1: (Said sarcastically) Ugh...I'm sure that will be fun.
Co-Worker 2: Seriously.
Me: Um, well, I'm looking forward to it. It's all kinda fun.
Co-Worker 1: (Said to Co-Worker 2) Woah, who is this guy, it can't be Grant we're talking to.

Anyway, I've been warned time and again that planning a wedding will stress you out to the point where you simply want to crawl into a hole and hide 'til it's all over. And yeah, I can see that point of view. This past weekend I drove to and from Redlands to visit a venue (before having to work that night), to and from Pomona for a wedding expo, to and from Riverside to meet a photographer, and to and from Irvine to meet a videographer. An entire tank of gas and a lot of missed sleep later, I'm done. I never want to do that much wedding work in a 3-day period ever again.

The word "budget" is now my biggest enemy, and trying to find cost-effective solutions to one of the most expensive days I will ever participate in is maddening. There are literally hundreds of minute details that have to work perfectly together to make this upcoming day possible. The word "thousand" (as in $1,000) gets thrown around like it's no big deal. Suddenly eloping sounds like a wonderful option.

Megan and I don't get a lot of time together in the first place due to completely conflicting work schedules and a 45-minute drive between us. Now, instead of just getting to hang out every once in a while, we are spending almost all our limited and precious time together going over wedding details.

But...on the other hand, thinking of this day that is now 1 year and 3 months away, is completely joy-inducing. Putting together small pieces that will eventually equal a complete day is like doing a puzzle that I can't wait to see completed. Considering my future with Megan, the thing this day will officialize, makes me wish that it was happening tomorrow. Going through all the trials and difficulties of planning seems like a minuscule task when compared to the end result.

So in the end, weddings are both a worthy adversary, and a welcome friend. So far I wouldn't change anything. I know that no matter how hard things get, or how difficult things feel, in the end it will all be worth it. I simply can't wait to be Megan's husband.

Just something I want to say...

I have recently had some really amazing conversations with people that delved into the area of religion. I love talking about religious ideas. Let me reiterate. I absolutely love getting into deep conversations about "religious" issues. My love, however, is not the stereotypical Bible-thumping, ideal-force-feeding that most people are used to.

And in all truthfulness I feel horrible that I have to make the distinction between amazing conversation/debate and personal-ideal-bashing.

Many, many Christians today are all about luring people into conversation about the sin-nature of humanity only to end up debasing, devaluing, and undermining another's opinions. I find such actions despicable (especially when one's intentions are to get another to such a point where such actions are an option).

There is a difference in attempting to get one into conversation so that both parties can be edified and attempting to get one into conversation with the sole desire to prove the other party wrong at any cost.

So, my point (since I meant for this to be a short and to the point post): I implore you to ignore all the ignorant and stupidly-stubborn Christians out there and to find the educated religious people out there. I will gladly engage in philosophic, religious, scientific conversation with anybody. Yeah, I have religious beliefs; but that does not mean, by any means, that I am willing to ignore reason/logic/truth.

The Christians that most people are aware of are those portrayed by news stations. The ones who show up to the funeral of a gay soldier and scream, "Your son is going to hell!" through a megaphone. That makes me indescribably sad since the true meaning behind what I believe is not (in any way, shape, or form) understood.

For example: If a car company makes a car that I think is unsafe, I have two ways of going about telling people my beliefs. 1) I can stand on a street corner and scream and shout. I can confront people and belittle them for their belief that said car is safe. I can be bold and upfront and (seemingly) crazy about this car's lack of safety. Or 2) I can study, do my research, and come up with indisputable facts. I can then talk to people and show them my findings. If those people have counter-examples, I can take them into account and see if they hold any truth and then inform said people about how they have been fed misinformation.

This is just like the religious debates that happen today. Whether the topic is homosexuality, abortion, gun-control, pornography, health-care, etc, there should be a debate (read: discussion) about the issue. Life is not black and white, and neither is the religious view of these issues (though many would like you to think that it is).

In other words, I apologize on behalf of all the crazies out there. SO many people give religious belief a bad name, and I want to correct that. I realize that this is a losing battle. And I realize that no matter how many people out there are reasonable in their debate methods, there will always be a thousand more willing to ignore reason and stupidly argue for unprovable truths. But...I am still willing to fight to inform people that not every religious person is so ignorant. My end goal? If all the incredibly smart, incredibly logical people out there are willing to have meaningful discussions with the (equally incredibly smart) religious people out there, the end result will be more knowledge and understanding than we had in the first place.

And if knowledge is the end goal, I am all for it.

Recession-Proof Industries and Why We Love Them

Something that has been on my mind lately (and surely has been on many minds) is the recession we are currently facing. While contemplating how I am going to pay for this month's bills (as well as other unforeseen costs like the 4 brand new tires I bought today (as well as saving for enormous costs like, well, that wedding I'm going to be in not too far from now)) I began wondering about the so-called "recession-proof" industries. My basic question is, "why, despite a recession reminiscent of the Great Depression (though economic analysts are pointing out that we are in much better shape than the impossible times of 1929) are some industries booming?"

So I thought I'd look at some of these recession-proof industries to figure out why the American public is willing to fuel some businesses and not others. Here's a brief look at some of these industries:

Pet and Supply Stores
These businesses boom despite economic hardship, and the reason seems simple: Those who already have pets are going to continue to take care of them; and those who don't are still willing to buy a loving friend who will make them feel better despite hard times in all other areas.

Hollywood
I would have named this one "movies," but that is a bit too narrow. "Hollywood" incorporates theater-released films, DVDs, etc. Why does entertainment continue to flourish? People need an escape. A family might be struggling to pay the bills and feed hungry mouths; but the best way to forget that things are hard is to head to the theater and delve into a fantasy world of fun and imagination. The price might be high (I remember paying $5.00 for a film); but it is apparently worth it to get away from harsh reality.

Video Games
So person X is eating top-ramen and only driving to necessary locations due to gas prices, yet X is willing to buy a $60 video game. Why? The "Hollywood" example fits the bill. Escaping into an alternate reality is the best way to ignore how bad things are. Plus, $60 doesn't seem like so much when it affords one so many hours of entertainment. $10 buys one a movie ticket which gives 1-3 hours of escape; but a good video game offers 10-100 hours of escape. Economically, this is a great way to still get away from the current economic situation and still save some dough.

Porn
It is well documented how well the pornographic industries do no matter how the world's economics are panning out. This one is a no brainer...even in times where money is lacking, people are willing to pay just about anything to get off. Making porn doesn't cost much at all, and buying it allows a sexual release. Yeah, the porn industry is asking for a bail out; but trust me, they don't need it.

Drugs
Ok, so this isn't really an "industry" in the normal sense of the word, but there are many, many people who make their income from it. Just like movies, video games, and porn...drugs are an escape. And apparently people are willing to pay for something to get away from the truth.

I could go on and on; but the trend is already clear. People are willing to pay for just about anything to forget their troubles. It's almost as if a recession is good for these industries.

Oh, wait...there's one more group that a recession is good for. But this one is tricky. It's good for the rich. If I have a lot of money and a recession hits, I have a great opportunity...buying property, businesses, etc, is easy if you have the money because people need to offload extra houses, failing business, and the like. If you have the money to buy these commodities off of the less fortunate, and have the time to wait til the economy rises again, the money that can be made from re-selling these commodities at a high price is absurd.

I'm not sure if I even have a point here. I guess my point is that understanding human psychology is key to surviving such a crisis. That, or being rich in the first place. It's funny...despite understanding these trends, I am still seeing movies, buying video games, and never even considering getting rid of my dog...even though each of said actions hurts my chances of making it through this time in a decent state.

And even though humans are predictable, and capital can be made from them (through possibly conniving methods), I don't find this to be a bad thing. Anything that gives hope (even "false hope") and allows people to fight through hardship has some merit to it.

In other words...I'm glad that I have movies and games and pets to help me ignore thoughts of crawling into bed and sleeping through deep states of depression. Even though people make money off of our misery, there actually is a silver-lining to the cloud. We, as humans, have figured out a way to ignore crippling defeat. If resilience is brought about only by means of entertainment and ignoring of the hard truth, then I am all for the recession-proof industries.

A Reason To Fight

There are many reasons to have faith. There are many reasons to believe in the improvable. There are many reasons to devote oneself to religion. And many of those reasons are ridiculous.

Blind faith is a way to reject the obviously true (e.g. "I don't care that science has shown the earth to be billions of years old, I have faith that evolution is false and the earth is less than 5,000 years old). Following a holy text to the ends of the earth, even when taken horribly out of context, is a way to justify atrocious actions. And all religious experiences are an easy catch-all (due to their improvability).

But even with all the ignorance and stupidity, there is reason to follow what modern man has termed religion.

There's an amazing song by the band Air called "Biological" which gives credence to one of the many reasons I am a Christian. The basic premise of the song is a man declaring his "love" for another. Following a purely physicalist worldview, the best (read: only) reason he can come up with for his attraction is this:

Biological
I don't know why I feel that way with you
Biological
I need your DNA

You can find the rest of the lyrics here (and I definitely recommend checking the band out if you don't already know of them).

So, a man loves a woman. He can't live without her. His very breath depends on her existence. Why? His DNA necessitates his attraction to her. Take Darwinism to the extreme and you have the meaning of this song. A male has a biological need to propagate his line. A female has a biological desire to have offspring. And in some cases, the DNA of the two fits in such a way that the firing of synapses and physiological responses form a stronger bond than is common. This is what we call "love."

But wait, (you might say) I love my girlfriend...and it's way more than electricity running through a warm body! Well, there is where I would agree with you. And there is where the common physicalist has little else to say.

If you deny the supernatural/metaphysical/spiritual, then you deny the existence of love. Let's take this a step further. If you deny the existence of a creative God, then love is merely a physiological response and is, in all respects, nothing special. For the purely scientific and purely scientific-method-provable types out there, love is a means to and end (i.e. propagation).

Let's take it even further. If you believe in spirituality (but not religion), love is some vague force that binds individuals together for some unknown reason. No, you "spiritual but not religious" people out there cannot say that it is 1) to make us happy, or 2) to give us a reason to exist, or even 3) simply because. Why? Well, 1) has firm roots in eudaimonism which feeds directly into Christianity (or Judaism or Islamic culture if you are being picky); 2) is incomprehensible because a reason for existence requires forethought and planning (something that the "let's tap into the spiritual but never admit to God" crew cannot accept). If there is a reason we are on this celestial orb, there had to be someone (or something) behind said reason; and 3) (the "brute fact" approach) is as lazy and undefendible [made-up word of the day] as the right-wing Christians who say, "It just is! Ok?!?".

I happen to follow the Christian worldview. This worldview is not the modern day understanding of Christianity. If that confuses you, ask me, I'll explain it in depth. I also happen to want to believe that love is more than some chemicals in my brain. Following Occam's Razor, the easiest solution to my desire to find love to be something substantial, Christianity fits the bill. If a omnibenevolent being created this earth (and us with it), it is not far fetched to believe that this being wants us humans to feel what it feels. Since this being is (or so argues Christianity) omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all other ultimate-good traits, it can choose to create if it so wishes (by the way, I'm using "it" so as not to offend the feminists, race advocates, etc). If this being creates, the creatures it creates will not be as perfect as it is (argument being [simplified]: a god could not create a perfectly analoguous god). Being all good, all loving (etc), this being would obviously want to create said creatures with the ability to communicate, love, desire, (fill in this blank with any good thing...the list is almost endless) just like it does.

Now here comes the specifically Christian part. Since God is triune (you know, the trinity), there is communion and love be†ween the triune godhead. If God (sorry, I switched from "being" to "God," trust me, it will all make sense...hopefully) is perfect in every way, the love and communion between the three parts of the trinity is perfect. Since we (God's creation) are created as inferior beings (out of logical necessity), the best we can hope for is to strive to gain as close an analog to God's traits as possible. If this is the case, our feelings of love, gratitude, hopefulness, etc (once more, the list goes on and on) are directly related to a perfect example that we can only hope to live up to.

This fits in directly with Aristotle's idea of perfection. He argued that the only reason we humans have any conception of perfection in the first place is due to God's perfection. For example: if humans never had eyes (as in, ocular senses never exited), we would never wonder what it would be like to see. In the same sense, the only reason we strive for perfection is because we have an innate sense of perfection (due to the God that created us). In other words, if there is no such thing as a perfect being, how could we even conceive of perfection?

Wow, um, that was a lot more than I intended to say. So what's the bottom line? When I tell Megan that I love her, I want to believe that my words are not simply references to biological (and thusly meaningless (at least in a grand perspective)) imperatives. I want my words to convey what I actually mean: that I reflect the perfection of the God that created me, that God's love, when I say, "I love you." If I give up my faith, my beliefs, my love loses all meaning.

And that is one of the myriad reasons I follow a religion.