"Thank You"

I work at a Christian bookstore (no, I won't tell you which one).  Last night, a customer came in (like they do).  One of my co-workers answered all her questions, was very polite and helpful, and in doing so was even staying after her shift should have ended to help us get ready for closing.  The lady made her purchases, and then asked my co-worker "Now what do you say?"  There were several of us behind the counter, and we didn't understand what the woman wanted.  With all of us having failed her little test, she proceeded to launch into a vicious and angry tirade about how no one says thank you, questioning my co-worker's decency as a human being for failing to do so, and saying that "God wants you to say it." 

Rarely in my life do I feel the desire to slap little old ladies, but I felt it pretty strongly last night.  I know retail is a tough place to work, and these sorts of things happen all the time (with Christian businesses and non-Christian businesses alike).  But they shouldn't.  Being in a position of power over someone doesn't give you the right to treat them like they're less than human, and I wish that as a society we could understand that.

Back to the Beginning for the Man of Steel

Starting with the release of Justice League #1 on August 31st, DC Comics has begun a line-wide reboot: all previous titles cancelled, and 52 new series beginning at issue #1. This is certainly a big change up for The Man of Tomorrow, whose Action and Superman titles were numbering in the 900s and 700s, respectively. Yesterday saw the release of a new Action Comics #1, the relaunch of the series that began the superhero explosion of the late 30s with the introduction of Superman.

The Superman we originally saw in Action Comics #1 in 1938 was very different from the Superman known and loved worldwide today. If you never have, I'd encourage you to follow that link and read the first Superman story ever, only twelve pages long, but worth roughly a million dollars today. The Superman of 1938 couldn't fly, was raised in an orphanage, and showed little regard for law and order. Ignoring the introductory origin page, which heralds Superman as "Champion of the oppressed, the physical marvel who had sworn to devote his existence to helping those in need," it takes a page and a half before we can even tell if Superman is the hero, with him committing the crimes of kidnapping, assault, and breaking and entering (albeit in order to save an innocent woman from execution)!

It's hard to imagine the modern Superman assaulting a sleeping Governor in his mansion, even to save a woman's life. But, for this reinterpretation of Superman for a new generation, superstar comic book writer Grant Morrison has spoken of his intention of bringing the character back to his roots as a crusading champion of the oppressed, more concerned with justice and equality than with law and order. And, with Action Comics #1, Morrison delivers.

Reminiscent of the original Action Comics #1, Morrison drops us into the middle of a story already in progress. We open on business men in suits celebrating a deal with a drink. Superman burst onto the scene, calls them rats with money and guns, and tells them he's their worst nightmare. The police are in hot pursuit of the Man of Steel, and when they arrive on the scene, he's dangling a man over a precipice, refusing to put him down until he makes a full confession to "someone who still believes the law works the same for the rich and the poor alike. Because that ain't Superman." Already, in the first five pages of this issue, Morrison has introduced us to a Superman who looks a lot more like Christopher Nolan's Batman with his guttural growls and vigilante justice than he does like Christopher Reeve's Superman who doles out advice with a gentle tone and a smile.

Superman then leaps off the building, villain in tow, and carries them both down to earth, where the concrete cracks, and the man confesses to the use of illegal labor, no safety standards, the bribing of city officials, and lying to everyone. Superman then proclaims to his witnesses, "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me." Then, after taunting the police, he dashes off into the night.

Then, we're reintroduced to two characters Superman fans know well: General Sam Lane, father of Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor, arch-nemesis of Superman. We find out that Superman appeared in Metropolis six months ago, and he (although they refer to Superman as an "it," common for the xenophobia typical of both characters' portrayal through recent years) has been getting progressively faster and stronger. Luthor has been hired by the Army as a consultant to help capture Superman, showing his typical disdain for the Man of Steel and raging ego.

Luthor's foot soldiers chase Superman into a tenement slum scheduled for demolition but not yet entirely uninhabited, naming it the "ideal inescapable trap." Superman takes blow after blow protecting these poor people from the soldiers after him, and, after the tanks knock the wind out of him, they step forward to protect Superman, saying "Enough! This guy just saved our lives! My kids! What the hell is wrong with you people?!" They protect Superman as he flees, but not before he tells them if they need him, he'll be around.

Escaping from his pursuers, Superman changes back into Clark Kent on the roof of his own run-down tenement building, where we're treated to a wonderfully humanizing scene between Clark and his landlady, as well as finding out that Superman himself lacks anything resembling financial security. Clark then calls his best friend Jimmy Olsen (sporting a truly horrible bowl cut) who's out on assignment with Lois Lane. We find out more back story here, as Lois tells us that Clark Kent works for the Daily Planet's rival newspaper (not named, but presumably the Daily Star). They chase a criminal enforcer (who works for the same man Superman accosted earlier) onto what becomes a runaway train. Superman stops the train and saves the day, but at the cost of his freedom, with issue #2 promising "Superman in Chains."

There's a lot to like about this issue. While I think the artwork could have been better, and the character designs (especially clothing and Jimmy's hair cut) left something to be desired, I think this issue is a great introduction to Superman for the new millennium. Everything about this issue, from his refusal to work within the bounds of a corrupt legal system to his blue jeans and t-shirt costume, shows us that Superman is here to stand up for the rights of the people who aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves.

Superman is not here to fight for law and order; he's here to be a champion for the oppressed, even if that means winding up on the wrong side of the law. Sure, he's not the beacon of hope and humility that I know and love, but I'm genuinely excited to read more about these earlier adventures of Superman as he learns what it means to be a hero, which isn't something I've been able to say about the ongoing Superman titles in a while. While I don't necessarily think Justice League #1 was all it could (or should) have been, I think that Action Comics #1 is a book that does a phenomenal job of reintroducing you to a classic character, giving you enough to be intrigued, but still leaving you wanting more.

The Social Network & 2 Samuel 12: Reinterpreting History

A few weeks ago, I finally saw the social network, the story of how Mark Zuckerburg founded facebook, screwing over many friends in the process. An interesting movie, to be sure, but not an entirely true account of how things really happened.

There is a lot of truth in the story, however, and it ties into something that has been happening with the lives of the rich and powerful, be they internet company CEOs or ancient Hebrew kings: the reinterpreting of history to create an understanding of events that is more favorable to they way you want things to be understood. Watching the movie reminded about reading I had done in Word Biblical Commentary when I was researching a paper about 2 Samuel 12.

2 Samuel 11-12 is the account of King David's adulterous relationship with Bathsheba, a women he saw bathing, slept with, and got pregnant. To try and cover this up, David brought Bathsheba's husband home from the battlefield, but when he refused to go into his house and spend the night with his wife as long as the battle continued, David had him killed and took Bathsheba as his wife. Because God was angry with David, the child died, but then God bless David & Bathsheba's second son, Solomon, who succeeded David as king.

The interesting thing about this section of scripture in regards to the social network takes place in 2 Samuel 11:27b-12:15a (the section Nathan Condemns David in the link). In this section, God sends a prophet named Nathan to David who tells him a story about a rich man and a poor man who loses a prized lamb because of the rich man's greed and selfishness. David is outraged, and then Nathan tells him that he's the rich man. David is mortified and repents, so Nathan tells him that God has spared his life, but the child is still going to die.

So what does any of this have to do with the social network? Well, click on that link in the last paragraph again, and you'll notice that if you skip the section Nathan Condemns David, the story still makes sense without it. Some scholars (including the author of the commentary I mentioned) think that this is because this section is a later addition to the story:

"It is possible that the narrative contained in chaps. 11-12 was part of the Solomonic apologia or propaganda. To be possible it did not have to lie or distort facts; rather it had to appeal to what was already known or believed. At the same time, it had to reshape and supplement the shared information, beliefs and hopes. Thus the inherently detrimental David-Bathsheba-Uriah story could not be disregarded for it would not go away. However, it could be retold in less critical manner and it could be rendered innocuous by the addition of David's repentance, Yahweh's forgiveness and the punishment imposed. Thus the way was open for a future reversal of fortunes. Vv 24-25, in particular, contain an implicit promise of better things to come: Yahweh loved Solomon!" (Word Biblical Commentary vol. 11, pg. 166, emphasis my own)

Those in support of Solomon's kingship couldn't change the fact that David's mistakes were public knowledge. However, they could add to how those mistakes played out the story of David's repentance and the knowledge that God has forgiven the line of David for the sins committed.

Making a movie about a quiet nerd who worked hard to develop a website and then left friends who weren't making the best decision or all that invested in the company's future (as well as paying out a few hefty settlements here and there) would be kind of boring. And it wouldn't do much for Mark Zuckerburg's image.

But, if you make a movie about an underdog nerd billionaire with a sharp wit that hides a sensitive soul that just wants a girl back, you've done something: you've reinterpreted everything: he's not a guy who can be a jerk who just happened to nurture great idea into a billionaire dollar website; he's a tortured soul fighting the pretentious snobs who just wants to be loved.

Shameless Self-Promotion, Part Deux

In my continuing effort to conquer the internets, I did some more guest blogging for those misogynists over at Rules to Date Girls By. Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-check it out!

A Logical Proof Against Either The Pledge of Allegiance or The Declaration of Independence

I've been thinking a lot lately about The Pledge of Allegiance, and have decided that it is irreconcilable with the ideals upon which the United States of America was founded as set forth in The Declaration of Independence. Consider the following:

1. Either the United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance or The United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Declaration of Independence.
2. If The United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance, then The Declaration of Independence is un-American, since the ideals of The Declaration of Independence are in direct contradiction with the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance.
3. If the United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Declaration of Independence, then The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American, since the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance are in direct contradiction with the ideals of The Declaration of Independence.
4. Therefore, either The Declaration of Independence is un-American, or The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American.

You might be asking yourselves, what is it about this pledge and this document that make them mutually exclusive? The answer is that one supports unequivocal loyalty and support to a system of a government, while the other does not.

The ideals upon which The Declaration of Independence are based do not support blind devotion to one's government. According to the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," as well as "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [mankind's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." All of these quotes say the same thing: governments are based upon their ability to provide for the rights of the governed, and any government which does not provide for the rights of the governed should be abolished.

Conversely, The Pledge of Allegiance offers no such qualifications as to what kind of government it is to which we pledge. We are merely expected to pledge our loyalty to our flag and government, which stands indivisible (regardless of whether there have been any of the abuses and usurpations of which the Declaration speaks).

VH1 Makes New List of Top 100 Greatest Artists of All Time

Back in 1998, VH1 (then VH-1) made a list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, as voted on by musicians both young and old of various genres. They decided to do a re-vote, and this week unveiled the new list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, once again as voted on by musicians both young and old of various genres. I was curious about the differences between the two lists, so after some comparing and contrasting, I've created a side-by-side analysis of the 1998 version and the 2010 version listing the 1998 version on the left, with DFNL (Dropped From New List) next to the names of the artists who didn't make the cut this time around and the 2010 version on the right, with how far the artist rose or fell (or whether they're new to the countdown all together) noted next to their name (I had the lists all nice and spaced apart, but it didn't stay that way because blogger hates me):

1998 ---------------------------------------------------- 2010

1. The Beatles ----------------------------------- 1. The Beatles (same)
2. The Rolling Stones -------------------------- 2. Michael Jackson (+38)
3. Jimi Hendrix ----------------------------------- 3. Led Zeppelin (+1)
4. Led Zeppelin ----------------------------------- 4. Rolling Stones (-2)
5. Bob Dylan -------------------------------------- 5. Bob Dylan (same)
6. James Brown ---------------------------------- 6. Jimi Hendrix (-3)
7. David Bowie ------------------------------------ 7. Prince (+11)
8. Elvis Presley ----------------------------------- 8. Elvis Presley (same)
9. The Who --------------------------------------- 9. James Brown (-3)
10. The Police ----------------------------------- 10. Stevie Wonder (+1)
11. Stevie Wonder ------------------------------- 11. Bob Marley (+13)
12. Ray Charles ---------------------------------- 12. David Bowie
 (-5)
13. The Beach Boys ------------------------------ 13. The Who 
(-4)
14. Marvin Gaye --------------------------------- 14. Nirvana 
(+28)
15. Eric Clapton (DFNL) ---------------------- 15. The Beach Boys (-2)

16. John Lennon -------------------------------- 16. Madonna
 (+70)
17. Elton John ----------------------------------- 17. Queen
 (+16)
18. Prince ---------------------------------------- 18. Pink Floyd
 (+1)
19. Pink Floyd ----------------------------------- 19. U2
 (+10)
20. The Doors ----------------------------------- 20. Marvin Gaye (-6)

21. Aretha Franklin ----------------------------- 21. Bruce Springsteen (+6)

22. Fleetwood Mac ----------------------------- 22. The Clash 
(+9)
23. The Eagles (DFNL) ----------------------- 23. AC/DC
 (New to List)
24. Bob Marley --------------------------- 24. The Velvet Underground (+50)

25. Van Morrison ------------------------------- 25. Chuck Berry
 (+1)
26. Chuck Berry --------------------------------- 26. Neil Young
 (+4)
27. Bruce Springsteen -------------------------- 27. Aretha Franklin 
(-6)
28. Sly & the Family Stone --------------------- 28. Elton John 
(-11)
29. U2 -------------------------------------------- 29. Radiohead 
(New to List)
30. Neil Young ---------------------------------- 30. Aerosmith (+49)
31. The Clash ------------------------------------ 31. John Lennon (-15)
32. Joni Mitchell ---------------------------- 32. Black Sabbath 
(New to List)
33. Queen ------------------------------------ 33. Guns N’ Roses 
(New to List)
34. Buddy Holly (DFNL) ---------------------- 34. Tina Turner 
(+46)
35. Otis Redding -------------------------------- 35. Johnny Cash
 (+54)
36. Little Richard ------------------------------- 36. Paul McCartney
 (+26)
37. Al Green ------------------------------------- 37. Fleetwood Mac 
(-15)
38. Elvis Costello -------------------------- 38. Sly & The Family Stone (-10)
39. Miles Davis (DFNL) ---------------------- 39. The Kinks
 (+17)
40. Michael Jackson ---------------------------- 40. The Police 
(-30)
41. Janis Joplin ---------------------------------- 41. Van Halen
 (+7)
42. Nirvana -------------------------------------- 42. Metallica
 (New to List)
43. Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers ----------- 43. Ray Charles
 (-31)
44. The Jackson 5 (DFNL) -------------------- 44. Joni Mitchell (-12)
45. Crosby, Stills & Nash (DFNL) ------------ 45. Al Green 
(-8)
46. The Sex Pistols (DFNL) ------------------- 46. Ramones 
(+42)
47. Creedence Clearwater Revival (DFNL) ------- 47. Jay-Z
 (New to List)
48. Van Halen ------------------ 48. Rage Against the Machine 
(New to List)
49. Roy Orbison (DFNL) ------------------ 49. Parliament-Funkadelic
 (+50)
50. R.E.M. ---------------------------------------- 50. Sade 
(New to List)
51. B.B. King (DFNL) -------------------------- 51. Billy Joel
 (+27)
52. Cream ---------------------------------------- 52. Beyonce 
(New to List)
53. Peter Gabriel --------------------------------- 53. Little Richard 
(-17)
54. The Grateful Dead (DFNL) ----------- 54. Public Enemy
 (New to List)
55. The Byrds (DFNL) ------------------------- 55. Peter Gabriel
 (-2)
56. The Kinks ------------------------------------ 56. KISS
 (+11)
57. Steely Dan ------------------------------------ 57. Iggy & the Stooges 
(+26)
58. Sam Cooke (DFNL) -------------------- 58. Cheap Trick
 (New to List)
59. Bo Diddley (DFNL) -------- 59. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
 (-16)
60. Earth, Wind & Fire --------------- 60. Whitney Houston 
(New to List)
61. Smokey Robinson (DFNL) ---------------- 61. Cream
 (-9)
62. Paul McCartney ----------------------------- 62. Genesis
 (New to List)
63. Sting (DFNL) ----------------------- 63. Notorious B.I.G.
 (New to List)
64. Frank Zappa (DFNL) ---------------------- 64. Talking Heads (+2)

65. James Taylor (DFNL) --------------------- 65. The Doors
 (-45)
66. Talking Heads ---------------------- 66. Justin Timberlake
 (New to List)
67. Kiss -------------------------------------------- 67. Coldplay
 (New to List)
68. The Allman Brothers (DFNL) ------------ 68. Otis Redding
 (-33)
69. Pretenders ------------------------------- 69. Tupac Shakur 
(New to List)
70. Stevie Ray Vaughan (DFNL) ----------- 70. Def Leppard 
(New to List)
71. Rod Stewart (DFNL) ----------------------- 71. R.E.M. 
(-21)
72. Simon & Garfunkel (DFNL) -------------- 72. Janis Joplin 
(-31)
73. Muddy Waters (DFNL) -------------------- 73. Van Morrison
 (-48)
74. The Velvet Underground ------------------- 74. The Cure
 (New to List)
75. Curtis Mayfield (DFNL) ------------------- 75. Rush
 (New to List)
76. The Bee Gees --------------------------------- 76. Run-DMC 
(New to List)
77. John Coltrane (DFNL) --------------------- 77. Lynyrd Skynyrd 
(+19)
78. Billy Joel ---------------------------------- 78. Judas Priest
 (New to List)
79. Aerosmith ------------------------------------- 79. Eminem 
(New to List)
80. Tina Turner ------------------------------ 80. Mary J. Blige
 (New to List)
81. The Band ------------------------------------- 81. ABBA (New to List)
82. Devo (DFNL) ------------------------------- 82. Steely Dan 
(-25)
83. Iggy Pop -------------------------------------- 83. Earth, Wind, & Fire
 (-23)
84. T. Rex (DFNL) ----------------------------- 84. Curtis Mayfield 
(-9)
85. Carole King (DFNL) ----------------------- 85. The Band
 (-4)
86. Madonna ------------------------------------- 86. N.W.A. (New to List)
87. Santana (DFNL) --------------------- 87. George Michael (New to List)
88. Ramones ------------------------------------- 88. Bee Gees (-12)
89. Johnny Cash ------------------------------ 89. Beastie Boys (New to List)
90. Tom Waits (DFNL) ------------------------ 90. Elvis Costello (-52)
91. Gladys Knight & the Pips (DFNL)--------- 91. Green Day (New to List)
92. The Temptations (DFNL) ----------------- 92. LL Cool J (New to List)
93. The Four Tops (DFNL) -------------------- 93. Pearl Jam (New to List)
94. Diana Ross & the Supremes (DFNL) - 94. Mariah Carey (New to List)
95. Robert Johnson (DFNL) ------------------ 95. OutKast (New to List)
96. Lynyrd Skynyrd ----------------------------- 96. Journey (New to List)
97. Fats Domino (DFNL) ---------------------- 97. Pretenders (-28)
98. Traffic (DFNL) ----------------------- 98. Depeche Mode (New to List)
99. Parliament/Funkadelic ------------------ 99. Hall & Oates (New to List)
100. Paul Simon (DFNL) --------------------- 100. Alicia Keys (New to List)

(DFNL) = Dropped from New List

I’ll avoid stating my own personal feelings about the changes in the list, but I will provide you with some statistical analysis:

37 Artists new to list, highest spot 23 (AC/DC, Radiohead, Black Sabbath, Guns ‘N Roses, Metallica, Jay-Z, Rage Against the Machine, Sade, Beyonce, Public Enemy, Cheap Trick, Whitney Houston, Genesis, Notorious B.I.G., Justin Timberlake, Coldplay, Tupac Shakur, Def Leppard, The Cure, Rush, Run-DMC, Judas Priest, Eminem, Mary J. Blige, ABBA, N.W.A., George Michael, Beastie Boys, Green Day, LL Cool J, Pearl Jam, Mariah Carey, OutKast, Journey, Depeche Mode, Hall & Oates, Alicia Keys)

37 Artists dropped from list, highest spot 15 (Eric Clapton, The Eagles, Buddy Holly, Miles Davis, Jackson Five; Crosby, Still, & Nash; Sex Pistols, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Roy Orbison, B.B. King, Grateful Dead, The Byrds, Sam Cooke, Bo Diddley, Smokey Robison, Sting, Frank Zappa, James Taylor, The Allman Brothers, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Rod Stewart, Simon & Garfunkel, Muddy Waters, John Coltrane, Devo, T. Rex, Carole King, Santana, Tom Waits, Gladys Knight & The Pips, The Temptations, The Four Tops, Diana Ross & The Supremes, Robert Johnson, Fats Domino, Traffic, Paul Simon

Highest rise: Madonna (up from 86 to 16)

Biggest fall: Elvis Costello (down from 38 to 90)

Artists who climbed 25 or more spots: Michael Jackson, Nirvana, Madonna, Velvet Underground, Aerosmith, Tina Turner, Johnny Cash, Paul McCartney, Ramones, Parliament-Funkadelic, Billy Joel, Iggy & The Stooges

Artists who fell 25 or more spots: The Police, Ray Charles, The Doors, Otis Redding, Janis Joplin, Van Morrison, Steely Dan, Elvis Costello, Pretenders

Shameless Self-Promotion

I did a little guest blogging for some friends of mine. You should totally check it out!

My Review of the Free Comic Book Day Preview of Fame: Lady Gaga OR As I Like To Call It, One Man's Descent Into Madness

Every first Saturday in May, there's an international event known as Free Comic Book Day, where comic book stores, libraries, and other locations across the globe give away comics in order to help promote literacy. The comic book shop I frequent has a big sale, and it's always a really good time. This year, however, I picked up this free comic:


I know what you're thinking. "Josh, you're the coolest guy around! You read awesome superhero comics, zombie comics, and other cool stuff! Why would you want to read a comic book about Lady Gaga?" And the answer is morbid curiosity. When you read comics from a company who made a biographical comic book about Stephenie Meyer narrated by Dracula, it's like a train wreck. You can't look away. And, I must say, this preview (only the first seven pages were about Lady Gaga; the rest was a preview of a Taylor Swift comic and a preview of a kid's book called the Puppy Sister) both amused me and terrified me to my very core.

The preview didn't center itself around Lady Gaga. We are instead introduced to our titular everyman character, Lester Bangs:


Freshman year creative writing class indeed, sir. Lester apparently spends his days wishing his music had more "pizazz" and "glam", just like every other red-blooded American male. And the life Lester lives certainly is glamorous: what with his taped in remote control batteries, his taped up ragged recliner, and his "babe" who looks like she's his mother.

Lester then bemoans the fact that musicians today aren't any fun, they aren't willing to take risks, and (a sentiment I'm fine with) wishes music was more like David Bowie, Queen, and Blondie:


As much as I love Lester's gut hanging out of what appears to be a Nietzsche t-shirt (although I doubt it's supposed to be) and his (and everyone else's) giant gorilla hands, those people behind him cannot be David Bowie, Queen, and Blondie. I'll give you the fact that the man on the left could function as a crude representation of Ziggy Stardust:


I'll even give you the fact that those Asians standing behind the woman with a mean case of man face and confused gaze might look Blondie if I squint:


But as for those "men" in the middle, nothing could convince me that they are Queen. I can't even tell which one is supposed to be Freddie Mercury:


Anyways, I digress. After this horrid attempt at homage, Lester continues to ignore his "babe" as she pleads with him to take out the trash, whilst something new on MTV catches his eye, and we see our first glimpse of Lady Gaga:


There are so many questions this image raises, I'm not even sure where to begin: Is her mask made of ice and it's melting? Is she made of ice and she's melting? Does the artist think that when people sweat their faces melt? If someone gets impaled on one of Lady Gaga's shoulder spikes, is it murder or manslaughter? What happened to her left nipple? How can she see anything with hair in her mask's eye holes? Does she always have chipmunk cheeks, or did she have some sort of dental work done? How do I get my shoulder spikes to glisten like that in the noonday sun? And so on.

Mr. Bangs, intrigued by this "Lady...Something" heads to his local record store, where, not even in her own comic book do they bother to get the name of her album right:


I don't think Lester even has a niece. There's so much wrong with this next page, I couldn't even pick one issue to point out, so I had to present it in its entirety:

Get your groove on? First of all, I doubt these kids know anything about David Bowie. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of his work, but he's not exactly a pop culture icon. Maybe they've seen Labyrinth, or know him from his cameo in Zoolander, but I doubt these kids would even recognize the name David Bowie. Second, I hate to keep harping on the artist, but look at panel two: that is not what a human arm looks like. Did the artist get their start drawing Popeye? I showed this to my wife, and she said: "It looks like the rest of him shrunk and his arm stayed the same size." Third, I think I'd probably be losing my mind too if the ghost of Lady Gaga was following me around. She's not even dead. Why does she have a ghost?

The final panel on this page is what cinches the deal, however. Not only does the man become flustered because he's being mocked by middle schoolers, he's sweating profusely. Dehydration in a matter of moments level of sweat here, people. Also, Menudo? These kids could be any older than 13. That means they were born in 1997 or later. I doubt they've heard of 80's Latin boy band Menudo (okay, so they were still around in 1997, and got back together and lasted until 2007. But I'm still doubtful of these kids having any idea who Menudo were).

Oversized hands abound on the next page as Lester walks home talking to his wife on his cellphone, while her pleas go unheard as he becomes distracted by a Lady Gaga t-shirt. Distracted to the point of knocking a helpless young woman down on the sidewalk. This is not a healthy man, folks.

Finally, Lester picks up some McDonald's on the way home, and his descent into madness is complete:Pray for Lester, folks. He needs help.

Do NOT Eat the KFC Double Down

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself, he obviously did not live in a world where an acceptable substitute for bread in a bacon and cheese sandwich is fried chicken. Today, I had such a monstrosity for lunch. Motivated by morbid curiosity and reckless abandon with the natural flow of my arteries, I went to KFC and ordered this so-called "sandwich".

My Double Down "sandwich" alone was a whopping 540 calories, 32 grams of fat, and 1380 milligrams of sodium. But, since I ordered the combo meal, I also received some potato wedges and a medium Dr. Pepper, for a grand total of 1080 calories, 45 grams of fat, and 2190 milligrams of sodium, which is more than half the daily recommended amount of calories, about 2/3 of the daily recommended amount of fat, and 210 milligrams shy of an entire day's recommended serving of sodium (values taken, respectively, from KFC's website and from the USDA website).

I cannot remember the last time I had a meal as gross as my Double Down combo meal. I was somewhat disappointed not to immediately drop dead of a heart attack by merely gazing upon its grim visage, and equal surprised my heart didn't stop after the first bite. In fact, my heart was much less disturbed by the experience than my stomach, and, when it comes to the stomach, the KFC Double Down is the gift that keeps on giving.

For the rest of the afternoon, my stomach was a quivering mass of unrest, with constant burping reminding me of the fowl abomination I had ingested as it attempted to escape its acidic tomb. As a personal apology to my stomach, for dinner I ate merely steamed rice and boiled vegetables, hoping that this peace offering would be enough to appease my stomach into making the Double Down's passage into the watery beyond as easy as possible.

Do NOT eat the KFC Double Down. There is no need to challenge yourself against this ghoulish hellbeast. This is no challenge to your masculinity or some childish dare to tempt you into making the same mistake I have. For your sake, I beg you: eat something else.

The Prodigal Blogger Returns

It's been awhile. Partially because of my daily responsibilities on the rule blog, partially because of a busy schedule, but mostly just because I couldn't think of anything interesting to write about. That is until now.

For those of you who know me, you know that I'm an avid fan of comic books. And I think about them a lot. And, as I sit here at my computer instead of in bed next to my lovely wife, it is because I have just perceived what I see to be a flawed understanding of the entire comic book medium. This has nothing particular to do with the source material per-say, but is rather a realization of a misunderstanding as to the closest analogy comic books have with other media.

Most people assume that comic books are just like books, but with more pictures. For some forms of comic books, such as graphic novels*, this would certainly be true, but for monthly based issues of comic books, it seems less clear. Others would say that comic books are like movies that don't move. This might also be true, but it falls under the same difficulty as the argument for books.

Movies and books, although commonly having sequels, are, for the most part, stand-alone works. When one watches a movie or reads a book, one is presented with a story that has a definitive beginning, middle, and end. Even books or movies that have sequels usually have some sort of story progression in mind. Comic books do not function this way.

When writers of a comic book begin the project, they have no idea how long it is going to last. A new comic book could last for 70 years, or it could last for 70 days. Often times comic books continue far beyond the plot; that is to say, that they continue even after they've run out of ideas. Sometimes comic books are cancelled even with a loyal burgeoning fan base and promising story-telling. What other medium does this sound like?

Oh, that's right. Television. Much like television, comic books are subject to the whims of periodic survival. If someone is in the middle of a movie with a confusing plot, they are more likely to give the movie time to develop and elucidate, since it will only be a few hours and they have already invested time and money into beginning to watch. Comic books and television, however, are judged not as a whole endeavor but by the bits and pieces we see on a regular basis. Until the recent advent of seasons on DVD, it wasn't even possible to watch a whole TV series beginning to end in one, fluid perception.

Much the same with comic books. Most either suffer from not explaining enough what's been happening or instead waste half of the issue catching the reader up on the story. And, much like TV, comics are not given as much time to develop story without readers losing interest. We are often left, then, with two equally bad kinds of story telling: what I will call "Gilligan's Island" comic books and "Lost" comic books.

With "Gilligan's Island" comic books, there is little opportunity to lose sense of the story. Although there are overarching themes (such as being stranded on an island, or Batman fights crime), issues have little interconnection of story-telling. Instead, they tend to function as isolated units that are hampered by all the constraints of single-issue storytelling.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, "Lost" comic books certainly have a central plot. The only problem is, by the time the story ends things have become so convoluted that you're not always sure what exactly it is you're reading about anymore. When little changes in the plot between issues 1-19, and then the reader is suddenly expected to remember (without help from the writer) a minor detail of issue 4 that is suddenly vitally important, this can often become frustrating.

So next time you watch Adam West dance the batusi, remember how hard comic book (and television) writers have it.

*I use the term "comic book" generally to apply to pictures with words interpreting them. I know some do not consider graphic novels to be comic books, but for the sake of argument, just go with me.

"The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness."

Death Be Ye Not Proud

With Halloween fast approaching, I've been contemplating humanity's obsession with death. Regardless of the era, culture, or ethnicity, part of what makes us human is our ability to ponder future states of affairs. Rather than simply living on base instinct that drives our day-to-day decision making processes, human beings are capable of reason, and, as such, have often wondered what really happens when we shuffle off this mortal coil, so to speak.

Some cultures employ a shadowy agent of the grave, who comes and gathers or transports souls to the world beyond. Some stipulate a resurrection, whether in a positive light, such as the Christian heaven or the Hindu reincarnation, others in a more ghoulish light, such as vampirism or zombification. Some believe that there is no life beyond this life and that when we die we simply cease to exist.

In many ways, death is the driving force of life. The thought that our time is short makes us accomplish more, in the hopes that our dreams will be fulfilled before we are dust. It seems that without death, life would be fairly meaningless. Death and life have a sort of co-eternally necessary descriptory nature, similar to light and dark, cold and hot, or right and wrong. All of these words require at least knowledge of the other word in order to be fully understood. It would make no sense to say that it is dark if we didn't know it could be other than dark, and cold is not something we can fully understand if we've never felt heat. To say that it was right to do something would mean nothing if there were not things that it would have been wrong to do.

In an odd way, death teaches us a lot about what life means. There are few things as formative in the life of a child as realizing for the first time that nothing lives forever. Death can be a comfort for some, while others struggle to delay it for as long as possible. And yet, ultimately, death becomes the great equalizer: no matter your social status, no matter your ethnicity, no matter how beloved you are, no matter how many people despise you, no matter whether or not you've lived a "good" life, death claims us all, from the mightiest emperor to the lowliest beggar on earth. When it comes, the best you can hope for is a chance to say goodbye and look back on your life without too many regrets.

"The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness."

Loves Like A Hurricane, I Am A Tree Revisited

Back in January, I heard a song. A song that I blogged about. Since then, this song has spread at near-viral speed, sweeping the airwaves, and even being recorded by David Crowder Band. A lot of people weren't very happy with the way I viewed the song. Some thought that it was wrong of me as a Christian to critique worship music, others lauded the song and spoke of how deeply it moved them. Others implied that God would somehow punish me for my disdain. I write this to say, despite the song's increasing popularity, I'm still not interested. And, I figured with how many people are listening to this song now, I might take a moment to better explain why by examining a few of the songs metaphors:

Loves like a hurricane, I am a tree
Bending beneath the weight of His wind and mercy

Now, I'm from Oklahoma, and we don't have hurricanes. But, I am aware of what hurricanes are capable of doing, and I'm very uncomfortable comparing God's love to a hurricane. Hurricanes are highly destructive forces that have the potential to obliterate almost anything in their paths. Especially trees. Trees don't gently bend and sway in hurricanes; hurricanes snap trees in half, which means we seem to be implying that God's love is going to snap us in half and send us hurtling through the air, killing anything in our path. I don't even want to think about the "weight of his wind".

If grace is an ocean we're all sinking

Again, being from Oklahoma, we don't have oceans either, but, unless wearing scuba gear, it is rarely the intention of people in the ocean to sink. Drowning in the grace of God seems to imply the same sort of abrasive, violent love from the last hurricane line.

heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss
and my heart turns violently inside of my chest

Heaven meets earth like a sloppy wet kiss. I don't know that I particularly need images of teenagers making out in the backseat of mom's car to be associated with the way Heaven and Earth interact. And, again, apparently God's love is out to get us, creating physical situations similar to a heart attack.

So, assuming God's love doesn't break you in half, drown you, or send you in to cardiac arrest, enjoy it.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Unlearning the Half-Truths of Sunday School, Pt. 1

There are a lot of stories in the Bible, that, when we talk about them in church, we seem to entirely change their meaning and intended message. In an attempt to undo some of this damage, I'd like to take a look at some of these stories, and talk about what they're actually trying to say, beginning with Jonah.

Jonah is one of my absolute favorite stories in the entire bible. However, if you think the story of Jonah is about a fish (or a whale), then you are sorely mistaken.

Usually, when people hear the story of Jonah, they only hear about the first two out of four chapters. The first two chapters cover the part of the story that most people are familiar with: God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh, Jonah runs in the opposite direction, God makes a storm, Jonah convinces the sailors he is with to throw him overboard, and a fish swallows him. After spending three days in the fish, it coughs him up on the shore, and Jonah goes to do what God tells him.

If the story were to stop here, then you would probably say that the story of Jonah is about having the courage to do what God tells us. And, while this is part of the message of Jonah, this is by no means what the story of Jonah is really about. To figure that out, we have to look at the last two chapters.

In chapter three, Jonah goes and tells the people of Nineveh that in forty days God will destroy Nineveh. Without any sort of call to repentance or assurance that this will stop God's wrath, Nineveh repents, and God decides not to destroy the city. Again, if it were to stop here, you might say that this is a story about how obedience to the will of God brings about good things. however, the real meat of the story of Jonah is in chapter four.

At the beginning of chapter four, Jonah is furious. He prays this prayer to God, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live."

At this point, we could probably uses some context to explain why Jonah is so upset. To understand his rage, you need to understand who Jonah is, and who the Assyrians are. The Assyrians (whose capital city was Nineveh) were some of the most brutal, vicious, and violent conquerors to ever rule the Middle East. Some common practices of the Assyrians to inflict upon their captives were to skin their prisoners alive, cut off various body parts to inspire terror in their enemies, pull out tongues, and display mounds of human skulls. And, in the eight century BCE, The Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel. So, in all likelihood, they skinned Israelites alive, maimed and dismembered them, and proudly displayed their skulls for all to see before dragging them off to the four corners of their empire, never to return. The Assyrians are solely responsible for the decimation of ten of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now, one would think that the opportunity to bring tidings of destruction and wrath against the city responsible for the deaths of countless Hebrews would be a joyful task for Jonah. However, Jonah runs away because he knows God. He knows that if he goes and delivers this message, the people will have a chance to repent and be saved. The fact that this is the absolute last thing that Jonah wants is the exact reason he runs in the first place.

After Jonah tells God how he feels, God asks him if he has any right to be angry. Jonah (conspicuously lacking a response to God's question) leaves the city and goes to see what will happen to it, probably hoping that God will change his mind again and Sodom and Gomorrah it to the ground. While he waits, God provides a vine for shade. However, a worm eats the vine, it gets hot, and Jonah is again furious. So furious, in fact, that he states death would be preferable to his current situation.

And then, in verses 9-11, the last verses of the last chapter of the book, we find the true meaning of the book of Jonah. "But God said to Jonah, 'Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?' 'I do', he said. 'I am angry enough to die.' But the LORD said, 'You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?'"

This is the heart of the message of the story of Jonah: forgiveness, even to the point of being able to forgive those who have wrong us in unspeakable ways. I hope you understand how profound Jonah's ability to forgive in order to forgive the Assyrians would have to be. Jonah forgive the Assyrians would be like Jews forgiving Nazis. It would be like the Tutsis forgiving the Hutu. Forgiveness on that level is rarely seen in our world.

The book of Jonah ends unresolved. We don't know from this book if Jonah ever forgave the Assyrians; we don't know from this book how long Nineveh's repentance lasted. All we do know is that God cares about all peoples, even those we might call monsters, and that God is willing to forgive all peoples, even those we might not think deserve forgiveness.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

The Indominable Will To Survive

I've been thinking a lot lately about human nature. Specifically, how well we adapt to changing situations. When faced with tragedy or loss or other situations that profoundly affect the way in which we live our lives, we have learned that either we can adapt our own personal outlook to the changing situations, what could be vernacularized as "rolling with the punches", or, we can shut down.

Now, unless we are fortunate enough to have loved ones around us willing to care for us through difficult circumstances, we will not be likely to have the option of shutting down. So, we, as human beings, do what we have done for all of human history: we adapt, and we thrive.

The human condition, while occasionally terrible and horrifying in it's inhumanity, can also be quite awe-inspiring. No other species we know of has both the mental capacity to understand tragedy and loss and the ability to move beyond it.

During our brief and tumultuous reign as the dominate species on the planet, we have teeter on the edge of extinction multiple times, dealing with Ice Ages, plagues, genocides, and natural disasters, and yet, due to our ability to understand and adapt to our environment, we have survived. But, maybe we're just to stubborn as species to give up and let someone else take over our planet.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Open Letter To Atheists, Agnostics, And All Others Who Fall Into The Category of Non-Religious

Dear Friends,

I'm so sorry. I'm sorry that those who claim to believe in the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ so often fail to look anything like him, and I'm sorry that because of this cynicism toward the religious establishment is often the only recourse. I'm sorry that people who picket abortion clinics and constantly harass homosexuals and other members of the counterculture do so with an understanding that it's "what God would want". And, because I too have often failed to live up to the name I have taken upon myself, I apologize for myself.

To those of you hurt by suffering and heartache, I'm sorry that you feel as if God has abandoned you, and that we are alone in a cold and uncaring universe. I'm sorry that circumstances conspiring against you and others have made it so that you find it absurd to believe in a God who is in any way benevolent. I'm sorry that so often your questions seem to fall on deaf ears.

And, sorry as I might be, I cannot promise that it won't happen again. I wish I could, but I would honestly be better off predicting that it will happen again and again, and is probably happening somewhere even as I type. But, two things I can promise: friendship, without agenda or qualification, and my personal attempts to live a life more in line with my adopted father's name.

Humbly yours,
The Wanderer

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

The Nature of Suffering and Grief; Does God Even Care?

My great grandma (my dad's grandma) died on Sunday. She was 105, and while that was a long and full life, she did suffer quite a bit before she died, having trouble breathing and wasting away to what looked like a skeleton with skin. My mom's dad has Alzheimer's disease, and while he struggled with it at first, he has now been reduced to little more than an infant in his mid 80's, and now my mom languishes over why this happened to her father. Her mother has dementia, and loses more and more of her mind everyday. I do not consider any of these people to be bad people. As a matter of fact, they are some of the best people I have ever known.

I have often heard it asked (and occasionally wondered myself) "If there is a benevolent God behind creation, why is there so much pain and suffering?" "If God is all powerful, and he wants good things for us, then why do bad things happen to good people?" Let me preface my examination of these subjects with a disclaimer: I do not know of an answer to these questions that will satisfy anyone and everyone. I also do not believe that this is the sort of problem to which you can simply be told the answer. Like most of life's important questions, I think you have to find the answer for yourself.

As I am a devout theist of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, I am committed to the following three axioms: (1) There is a God. (2) This God is Maximally Powerful (by which I mean that all things which are logically possible and consistent with God's character, God can do), and (3) This God is benevolent. Were I to negotiate any one of these principles, the answer would be simple. Without principle 1, principles 2 & 3 no longer apply, and we are left to our own devices in a cold and indifferent universe. Without principle 2, we have a God who is benevolent and wishes to help, but simply lacks the power to do so. And, without principle 3, we have a God who is entirely capable of helping, but lacks the compassion to desire to do so.

So, how do I reconcile a God who has the power to stop suffering, desire an end to suffering, yet still refuses to bring this end about? Well, there is first a question to be dealt with, and that is to what extent God desires the independence of human beings. And, since God is a God who deals almost exclusively in secret, desiring faith without physical evidence, it would seem that God does not want us to simply have all of our problems solved for us, so, God chooses not to act when God could.

At this point, one might object that even if God doesn't act all of the time, there are times when God should. This leads to a philosophical conundrum known as the Problem of the Pile. I drop a grain of sand on the table. This is not a pile. I repeat with two grains, three grains, four grains, etc., and there is no magical number at which it ceases to be individual grains of sand and becomes a pile. The analogy here is that there is no magically quantity at which the interaction of God becomes too little or too much. Perhaps God chooses simply to err on the side of caution.

Another possible explanation for the seeming inactivity of God is that God is acting, all the time, yet God acts in such minute and imperceptible ways upon the infintecimally complex calculus of existence, that we are simply ignorant of God's constant intervention.

However, of all the ways in which it is possible to interpret suffering, there are some which I deem to be vastly inappropriate, as they are directly inconsistent with the nature and character of God. God does not kill people because he needs more angels in heaven. Nor does God rain down punishment upon the wicked, hoping that they will confess of some secret sin. If anything, our suffering causes God just as much pain as it causes us. I'll leave you with a quote from one of my favorite books on suffering, Lament For a Son, by Nicholas Wolterstorff.

"God is not only the God of the sufferers but the God who suffers. The pain and fallenness of humanity have entered into his heart. Through the prism of my tears I have seen a suffering God. It is said of God that no one can behold his face and live. I always thought this meant that no one could see his splendor and live. A friend said that perhaps it meant that no one could see his sorrow and live. Or perhaps his sorrow is splendor."

P.S. shameless plug: If you have yet to do so, check out my other blog, Rules to Live Your Life By, and my newest blog, Syllabic Restraints.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Adulthood

Well, I've been graduated for a week and a half. I have a job, I have my own apartment, and I have bills to pay. And yet, I still don't feel like an adult. I'm not really sure when that feeling comes. Is it something I'll just wake up one day and have? Will I never feel like an adult? Will it come when I get married? Have kids?

And, then there's the question of whether or not a distinction ought to be drawn between being an adult and being responsible. If so, I don't know if really know many adults. If not, then is responsibility an essential part of adulthood? I would like to think so, but I'm not really sure. In the interest of quantification of data, here is a list of things that count for and against my alleged adulthood.

For:

1. I have two jobs.

2. I have an apartment.

3. I pay bills.

4. I fulfill domestic responsibilities (for the most part).

Against:

1. I own hundreds of comic books.

2. I own several action figures.

3. My parents still pay some of my bills.

4. I don't have health insurance.

Perhaps the jury is still out on whether or not I qualify as an adulthood.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Graduate's Poems Concerning His Future Life: Undergrad No More.

I would like to express my feelings regarding graduation with a series of haikus:

College Graduate.
Difficult to work these days.
The Economy.

So much left undone:
Spent last four years wanting out,
Now I want to stay.

Don't want to do work,
Don't want to take any tests,
Just want to relax.

Stress, stress, stress, stress, stress,
Stress, stress, stress, stress, stress, stress, stress,
Stress, stress, stress, stress, stress.

Should be sleeping now,
Or at least doing homework.
But instead: I blog.

*Bonus Haiku*: This blog title.