Andy's Blog

I think Capital One just made me the President of the United States. Take that John McCain - it's my week now sucker! I would like to thank my beautiful wife I don't have for her amazing support. My wonderful children I don't have for their letting me ignore them during the campaign. Of course I have to thank the big man, the only one James Dobson listens to, Karl Rove for all the great advice. God bless each of you, and God bless America.

Ok, that might be a bit far, but I seriously think George Washington is pissed.

Think about it. He took on the British. Forged the Patomic in freezing temperatures. Lead a new country in her infancy that in only 200 years grew to the superpower of the world. What is his reward for all this? He gets his face on every $1 bill.

It isn't just Washington though. Through out ages past, the only people that had their face on money were the rulers of the world. Queen Elizabeth. Caesar. Lincoln. And rightfully so.

But then some geniuses (*read self-indulged pricks*) in some (probably) New York marketing firm decided to take George and friend's glory from them when they realized Americans are self-centered and would love the ability to put their face on their money.

So sure enough, I saw an add during the Capital One Game with Michigan & Florida and knew I just had to go for it. After all, I am sure I am exactly the self-centered American those genius pricks were thinking of.

But I have to say I love it. Being the creative, pop-culture (*read loser*) person that I am, it is exactly how I want to pay for my Chick-Fil-A Chicken Sandwich. I don't even sign the back. If anybody questions if it is my card, I am like...uhh look at the front dude!

But what does this say about our culture? Is this just that we are creative people and want to express that when we spend money? Or is it deeper? Does this have larger implications? Does this mean we think we are more important than our leaders? Or maybe that our money (*read economy*), is more important than true leadership.

We want CEOs that make the most money, not lead the best companies. We want Presidents that help our economy the most, not lead our country to greatness. One might argue they are one in the same thing, but when push comes to shove, which do you want? I think Capital One's marketing shows, to quote Jerry McGuire, "show me the money."

While Washington might be pissed I stole his glory, I think he would be saddened to see how his country evolved in her greed.

But I guess the only solace George Washington can take is that even though I am on MY money, I am not on YOUR money. So he still wins. But if you want to kick Washington in the balls, just go ahead and put my face on your new Capital One credit card.

On Friday night we had a "Tiffany turns 27" / "Andy bought a house in November" party. At one point there were about 35 people there. This surprised me because a.) I didn't think 35 people could fit it my tiny townhome, and b.) it took until 10:30 before somebody showed up that I didn't know.

It got me thinking though. It got me thinking about the movie trailer I saw in 2004 for Crash. I loved that movie. It was a movie about LA and racism. It was unique and brilliant. But it is a line from the trailer, which had relatively little to do with race, that had me hooked. The line was, "In LA, nobody touches you...I think we miss that touch so much that we crash into each other just that we can feel something." I lived in LA. I know this to be true. But it isn't just LA - it's everywhere.

In September I downloaded a song called Car Crash by Matt Nathanson out of the iTunes free single of the week section. I don't normally do this because the music usually sucks, but this one sparked my interest for some reason. It's lyrics are thoughtful. The chorus in particular:

I wanna feel the car crash
I wanna feel the capsize
I wanna feel the bomb drop, the earth stop
'Til I'm satisfied
I wanna feel the car crash
'Cause I'm dyin' on the inside
I wanna let go and know
That I'll be alright, alright

I think it is fitting given the recent Duke University study that says we have fewer friends and confidants than Americans did 20-30 years ago. We are wealthier than we have ever been. We are more in control of our lives than we have ever been. We know more than we have ever known. We are more connected then we have ever been. Yet we are lonely. We miss that touch. Why? Why are we lonely?

I am a huge Scrubs fan. I have 134 of the 145 episodes on my DVR. I am not going to go into why I love the show so much. I am just going to show you one scene (it's worth the 2 minutes):

When I first saw this in January, I sent the link to my friend CJ and told him:

I wish you watched Scrubs so you would get this and not think it is weird/gay/ridiculous, but since [my girlfriend at the time] calls you my gay lover and [your wife] calls our friendship "special," I dedicate this video to you

Let's be honest. I would be JD because I am nerdy, quirky, and can't seem to stabilize a relationship. And CJ would be Turk because he's as cool and smooth as a black guy, and married with a kid.

My & CJ's friendship reminds me of David and Jonathan's in the Bible. I would probably be David because I am the one most likely to do something immoral sexually and then murder someone to cover it up. But the Bible says that at the news of Jonathan's death David said, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Jonathan died before David had an affair with Bathsheba and then murdered Uriah to cover it up, only to be outed by Nathan. But I have a feeling that if Jonathan was alive, it wouldn't have changed anything. CJ knows I am not perfect. And not just in a generic, "we all sinners" kind of way. He knows I am not perfect. And inversely, I know he isn't perfect. But it doesn't change anything. If anything, it is why I love him more.

David and Jonathan weren't living in a "Crash" world. And as wealthy, and knowledgeable, and connected, and in-control my life gets, it is the guy love and connectedness I find with CJ (and others) that makes this life satisfying and full.

I logged into Facebook the other day and came across an interesting news feed. Apparently, even though my Aunt & Uncle had a wedding more than 20 years ago, it wasn't official until December 26, 2007; at least according to Facebook. I hope their first year of marriage is a good one. Finally their bastard children (Julia you better be laughing) have been vindicated. I think I found this all the more ironic because of what happened to me four days earlier...

My (ex-)girlfriend and I broke up three days or so before Christmas. This is now the 9th time in life I have gone through the infamous "breakup conversation" - it's never fun. But two things happened in this breakup that never happened in any other: she changed her Facebook status in the middle of the (2.5 hour!) conversation¹. The most fascinating thing happened because of this: before she even left my house, I had 13 text messages, phone calls, e-mails, or Facebook messages.

All this got me thinking about communication and how it is changing. Out of the 13 communiques, the best by far was where person A saw on Facebook I was "no longer in a relationship." He proceeded to text message person B, who was driving with her sister to South Carolina. Person B then proceeded to text message person C. Person C then left me a voicemail. I was unable to pick up the call due to the fact that all this happened within 10 minutes of the Facebook "change," and as it turned out, I still had about an hour left to the conversation.

But this isn't about breakups, this is about communication, and how it is changing. I came across an article on Newsvine about how computers are writing financial news stories. Why? Because they can publish within .3 seconds of companies' initial post to NYSE & NASDAQ!! This is a huge advantage to hedge traders.

This also makes me reflect on a conversation I was having with a radio friend the other day about how churches and pastors miss the point in communication. Whether good or bad, Americans have about a 7-minute attention span before it "wants" a break². This is largely due to the fact that most TV shows are 21 minutes long and have 9 minutes of advertising per half hour. Yet pastors wonder why when they get up to speak for 30 minutes (which is actually short for most pastors) people are bored and uninterested.

Communication fails to be communication if it doesn't communicate. I know profound! But seriously, think about that. It's a simple point, but often missed in the communication fields. Pastors fail to communicate by failing to change styles because their arrogance makes them think of course people want to listen to them talk for 45 minutes, they are brilliant. It doesn't take Steve Jobs to tell us that newspapers and book are dying off because people aren't reading. Radio is slowly dying as well.

None of these communication forms will ever die off completely. They will just continue to become less relevant unless they change. The challenge for the next wave of ministers and communicators is to look for ways to communicate in a way that is Facebook official.

When I was a junior in high school, the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" came out and was all the rage. I read it, objectively, and grabbed some good principals, but overall "rejected" the basic premise. Sometime later that year, a rebuttal, but less popular book came out called "I Gave Dating a Chance." I liked it better, but still rejected most of the premise, because frankly it was mostly the same as "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." One called dating courtship, and the other called it, well, dating. I'll get back to this later.

If you have read this blog for more than 10 minutes you know I am usually not satisfied with Christian music or books. Why? Because they aren't about life. They aren't real. They give the same cheesy, bullet pointed responses which don't communicate effectively. When done, I always feel like I just drove a Porsche but kept it in 1st gear.

From what I heard from others, Rob Bell's writing promised to be different. So needless to say I was excited to read his new book "Sex God," because we all know the official topic of this blog is sex¹. We also know that my favorite writer is Chuck Klosterman - sure I might not agree with some of his lifestyle choices, but he is brilliant when it comes to culture. I was expecting Rob Bell to be the "Christian" version of Chuck Klosterman. He's not. If Chuck Klosterman is a Porsche reaching 4th gear², Rob Bell is a Porsche in 2nd gear³

I could probably write a 5,000 word blog on this book. I am going to try not to. Here are my three main issues with the book.

One, he quotes from Song of Solomon (which is good) but fails to acknowledge that a.) Solomon had hundreds of sexual partners, and b.) the Song of Solomon text implies that the "beloved and lover" were not married yet.

Now, I am not looking for a book to justify pre-marital / extra-marital sexual activity. Why? Because I still think a case can be made for sexual "purity". But Bell fails to communicate his point because he refuses to acknowledge, in full disclosure, the entire sexual narrative of the Bible.

Two, he continues the Christian myth that women aren't interested in sex as a pleasurable act, but only use it to attain other relational perks (i.e. feeling love, feeling beautiful, etc...)

I can't speak for generations past, but from my extensive conversation on the topic and cultural insight, I just don't believe that to be true (anymore?). Women are (almost?) just as interested in a sexual relationship as men.

Three, Bell fails to recognize that God is the Creator of sex as something creative and fun.

"Sex God" continues to portray marital sexuality as boring and vanilla. It still makes the ambiguous statement that "sex is good" and leaves it at that. I have written about this before, so I am not going into detail (one | two).

I know this is a shock, but according to research (I can't believe it took research to know this) the #1 reason people have sex is because it feels good. While there are 237 other reasons, because it feels good is the number one reason we enjoy and/or tempted to have sex. Sex God fails to acknowledge this with any sort of depth or genuineness.

Here is at least what I liked about the book. On page 105 Bell states:

If you have ever given yourself to someone and had your heart broken, you know how God feels.

Bell acknowledges that God never intends for life to be easy. He never intended for life to be pain-free. Which brings me back to I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

My ultimate problem with "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is that it was a lesson in "avoidance theology." God can't possibly want us to have pain, therefore, we should avoid that which potentially causes pain (in this case: dating). That is a crappy way to live life and I at least respect Bell for standing up against that.

Their is one other reason this brings me back to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "I Gave Dating a Chance". I was hoping when I read this book, it was going to be so good, that I could take writing a sex book off the list of books I am going to write.⁴ That turned out to be false. Now I still feel the Christian arsenal is missing a good book on sexual practical theology, so it looks like I should start working on a rebuttal⁵.

It has now been two weeks since the Virginia Tech shooting (I refuse to call it a massacre like the sensationalized press). I, like every other blogger on the web, of course was tempted to blog about this the second after this happened. But I, unlike every other blogger on the web, decided to wait two weeks. Why? Because what I am about to say was probably too emotionally charged to say the minute after it happened, but now seems a little more realistic (although still probably somewhat extreme). The Virginia Tech shooting is a non-event.

WOAH! You have got to be kidding me. You are nuts. You are so insensitive. You are ridiculous! Are those pretty much your thoughts? Well, give me a second and maybe I will make some sense. If I don't, you are welcome to think I am ridiculous.

Before I go further, I do not want to minimize the pain of those that were personally affected by this event. The families, direct friends, and students deserve our prayers and our sympathy. But the sensationalism the media, and if we are honest, ourselves, had/have turned that event into is almost just as much of a tragedy because it lacks perspective. And why do we lack perspective? Because we are self-centered and we all either are going to college, are in college, went to college, or have kids going to college.

Let's take a look at perspective for a second.

• In 2000 there were 850,293 abortions in the US. That's 2,329 deaths each day, or 77x as many deaths per day as the VTech shootings. Ok, so now you think I am a crazy right-wing nut job. Well hold on.
• In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS, which is 7,900 per day (or 264x that of VTech). 1,041 of those 7,900 deaths per day are innocent children.
• Every year 15 million children die of hunger, or 41,095 per day - that's 1370x that of VTech.
• So just out of those three statistics, we see that 51,324 people die per day that are reasonably treatable and I consider a "tragic death."

Now some of you are probably on the same page with me; others still think I am a nut job. One more thing. I think the American culture proves that VTech is a non-event. Why? Because just two weeks later we have pretty much forgotten about this. It no longer graces the front pages of MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com and CNN.com. In addition to that, how many of us remember the Amish School shooting back in November. Or better yet, that there have been 36 school shootings since 1996. In a month, this will be completely a non-event.

So why is this a non-event? Because we are self-centered. We only care about what we think will happen to us or our family. This is why we don't really care about the alarming statistics of unnecessary death around the world. It is also why at first we appear to care about things like VTech more than anything else, but in the end, we retreat back to our realization that we are really quite safe, our college students are safe, and we've got life pretty good. So since our Darwinian instinct of survival is back in tact, we put these memories into our past as tragic, but essentially incurious.

I love Corona commercials. But I have to tell you, they don't make me want to drink a beer. They make me want to travel to a beach, sit in a hammock, with my smoking-hot girlfriend/wife (which I don't have), and forget about all of the worlds problems.

I should state for the record that I am not anti-drinking. I see nothing wrong with adults using alcohol in moderation as long as they don't become addicted to it, and as long as it isn't a coping mechanism to escape the realities of life. Other than that, go to down. But I digress.

I love Brad Paisley's song Alcohol. Part of the chorus includes, "You've had some of the best times, you'll never remember with me...Alcohol." This is one of the most profound statements in all of country music (I know, that's not really saying much).

It is this statement that ultimately brings me to the reason why Corona doesn't make me want to drink but to go sit on a beach. Living life to the fullest takes remembering what you have done and enjoying every second of it in complete enrapture of the moment.

I have sat on many beaches like those in the Corona commercials: Antigua, Honduras, Hawaii, Australia just to name a few. I can still feel the warmth of the setting sun over Honduras. I can still see the blue-ness of the water in Antigua. And it wasn't just nature that makes these memories fond in my heart. It was the state of my being in these memories. I wasn't stressed. I wasn't worried. I was at peace with me in the world. And no buzz or alcohol can create a beach moment better than that.

This past week I worked a 79.5-hour week. And instead of being wiped out like a normal person, I found myself so rejuvenated that I laid awake at 2:30 in the morning on Saturday night (Sunday morning?). So what did I do? What else but turned on my TV and watched VH1’s Behind the Music: The Nick Lachey Story. It is at precisely 2:37 am that I am writing this, and it is at this moment I have decided that fame sucks!

I should add this disclaimer that I want to be famous. I don’t just want to be pop star famous, because that is too fleeting. I want to be president of the United States famous. And not just any POTUS, but like George Washington POTUS so that my legacy will last beyond my death (I know. I am self-centered. Although I sincerely want to be famous so that I can influence the masses for the kingdom of God, you know, like C.S. Lewis But I digress).

As I watched the Nick Lachey story, and watched the footage from their wedding, I felt overwhelmed by the fact that he truly loved Jessica. Seeing him practically heave to death at the first sight of her as she walked down the aisle almost made me cry. Seeing the amount of love he had for her, was inspiring in a land filled the ridiculous standard of love being set by the Cruise/Holmes relationship. I don’t think it was faked. I don’t feel like it was a show.

But life happens – even more so when you are famous. I don’t know if he cheated. I don’t know if she cheated. I am not excusing any personal decisions made in private. But I do feel that they were in love in the beginning and it was torn apart simply by the pressures of fame.

Now I am not pulling the whole “poor” celebrities thing here. In more ways than not, they are blessed beyond belief, especially in light of billions of people starving in this world. But if love truly is the greatest blessing in life, and the ultimate ascension of humanity. It seems that love is the only thing fame can’t buy, and maybe not even possible to sustain. And if that is the cost of fame, fame sucks!

It has happened. The second most dangerous man in the world, according to the US government, has been killed. And here in America we are singing the praises of the American military. This post really doesn't have much of a point. I am glad Al-Qaeda has been disabled. However, I don't think Al-Zaqarwi's death means evil is any less prevelant in the world. As long as their is sin in the world, their will be evil. But I digress. This post has one point: always strive to look at all sides of an issue, even the obvious ones.

Studying in Israel my junior year taught me how powerful our news outlets really are. Why? Because I was right there. I knew what happened, not because of what people have told me, but because I witnessed it with my own eyes. For example, one night, I heard a loud "thud" while laying in bed. Sure enough, 1/4 of a mile from my bed, a suicide bomber blew up a restaurant. The next day of course this was covered by CNN, but I was amazed how much information was left out of their story. This got me in the habit of checking out Aljazeera for news information (a practice I continue now that I am back in the States). It surprised me how even in a "fact-based" news story, slant can be applied so easily on both sides of the argument.

My point is this. CNN's articles about yesterday’s killing quoted Army generals, Ambassadors, Tony Blair, and more of the like. Aljazeera's articles about yesterday’s killing quoted Al-Zarqawi’s uncle, people from his home town, and even included a conspiracy theory about the timing of Al-Zarqawi’s death and the rise of the new Prime Minister of Iraq (which CNN left out).

But here's where I am going to get in trouble. Why? Because neither news outlet is wrong. They both are reporting factual information based on the opinions of those in which they are interviewing. Why is Tony Blair's opinion anymore important than towns people from Al-Zarqawi (and yes, that's the name of the city he was from and his last name). Ultimately, we should recognize that all of today's news is really just opinion wrapped in the presentation of fact and it is up to us to decipher what is and is not absolute truth in any given situation. If you take the spoon-fed version of the news you're just going to get opinions, to which I say: death to opinions.

Ok, I need to say right off the bat that I do not support child molesters, nor do I support using the internet to solicit underage girls (or boys) for sexual activity. Remember that.

Last night, Dateline did another segment of what seems like the never ending "To Catch a Predator.” If you don't know what I am talking about, flip on NBC on any random night and you should be able to find it. Anyways, the premise of the show is they act like teenagers and solicit older men to meet them in person. When this event takes place, Dateline guy pops out, lambastes them for their actions, and then lets the person go. Only, once they get outside, the police take them down (violently I might add) and haul their butt off to jail.

Now, while still keeping in mind what I said at first, I have to say, I think the real criminal here is NBC (not that the others aren't criminals, but in this instance, it is NBC). The last time I looked entrapment was defined as, "agents of the government inducing a person to commit a crime he or she otherwise would not have committed." Now I know their are two things someone will say right away. 1.) Dateline is not the government and 2.) these people would commit these crimes anyway, therefore its not entrapment.

First of all, the government is using Dateline, so therefore, Dateline is a tool of the government. So that response is invalid. And to point number two. How do we know these people would have committed these crimes had they not been solicited by Dateline. Maybe it was a one time thing. Maybe it was the beginning of a downward lifestyle pattern that the individual would never recover from. Either way, it is Dateline’s fault. Also, I personally know how hard it is to resist the temptation to talk to someone online that is "eager to meet new people" and then turns it into something else. Now I am not saying I ever followed through with anything. In fact, when that conversation turned south, I would leave. But nevertheless, to say that someone would do it otherwise, just because they did it now, is not valid logic.

All I can say is, I hope Dateline never decides something I do is especially heinous for society. Because I imagine I'll fall into that trap easily and then it will be my face on Dateline, sitting across from Scuba-mcgee saying, gee, I don't know what I was thinking.

I am pretty sure hell has frozen over. Where do I get this profound theological revelation from. The Colbert Report. The other night, Ted Daeschler of the Center for Systematic Biology & Evolution was Stephen's guest. Now Mr. Daeschler seemed like a nice guy, in fact, he seemed like a genius. Very smart, definitely knew what he was talking about. Except about halfway through his conversation he made a startling comment at passing regarding the fact of evolution.

Now I should take a moment here to say that I am not anti-evolution. I am not totally sure I buy it as it was spoon fed in high school, however, I have no faith dilemma with the concept of evolution. God could have very easily decided to create the world over billions of years through the process of evolution. Genesis should hardly be seen as a scientific explanation of creation, which in my mind leaves the door open for possible scientific explanations to show us the majesty of God the Creator.

But here's my problem. Evolution is not a fact. It isn't even a law. It is a theory. Now theories are based on facts, which is what separates it from a hypothesis. However, theories, by definition are not facts, or else, we would call them facts.

So you might be asking, ok Andy, why has hell frozen over? People have been claiming the truth about evolution for years. Right, but it hit me while watching The Colbert Report that I think scientists have more faith than Christians. Sure, it isn't a faith in Jesus Christ, but it is a faith nonetheless. Faith is defined as being certain of what we do not see. Now I know many Christians who profess to have faith, but their belief in God hardly has an unfailing certainty day after day (and that's ok, God lets us doubt). But when you look at the facts and the "gaps" that make up the theory of evolution, there is far more uncertainty than certainty. Yet, scientists like Mr. (Dr.?) Daeschler speak with absolute certainty in the factual belief that evolution is true, thus it has led me to believe that science is more faithful than religion.

My new favorite word is truthiness, which I have to also give credit to Stephen Colbert for inventing (despite attempts of the liberal media to take the credit away from him ;-). But Stephen defines truthiness (and I am paraphrasing) as the disregard of fact for what "feels" true. And that is why Mr. Daeschler's statements speak to the truthiness of evolution.