Not that bloggy...really.

Oh, my dear wife. What are you trying to do to me?

First, I fall prey to the AI blogging epidemic. Now pyramid-scheme blogging with rules? What next?!?!

Alas, here are the rules imposed upon such hapless victims as myself:
1. Write the title to your own memoir using 6 words.
2. Post it on your blog.
3. Link to the person that tagged you.
4. Tag five more blogs.

Drum roll please...

Either way is fine by me.

There it is. I know what you're thinking: profound, daring, poignant. Well, maybe I come across as a little opinionated, but I'm willing to take that risk.

Now the problem--I don't really have any blogging associates. Unless I count my wife's. So, I'll just tag her back 5 times (I love you Sweetie!), and let her pass along another 5 tags.

I'm succumbing

Yes, this is me, blogging about American Idol.

There aren't nearly enough blog posts editorializing the AI goings-on scattered across the blogoverse.

So here's mine.

I'll keep it short (I can do that pretty well).

Natasha Bettef...... didn't sound like she had a pocket full of sunshine. In fact she was quite shouty in the middle of the song. Like maybe she had a pocket full of angry fists. Fists that are dry and cracked, and that desperately need Calgon.

Take me away!

It's after my bedtime.
_________________________

I was soooo done. I even gave EEEEMommy the old "I should be sleeping now" line (which usually elicits a deep sigh from my dear night owl).

But then, they did it. The brass section and the background vocalists. They completely ruined any serious "personal" and "intimate" vibe good ole' Neil was shooting for in his "Pretty Amazing Grace" number.

The brass guys were grooving a little too much. I don't even remember seeing them play their instruments. Perhaps they did, and I was just too distracted by the crazy, octopus-like swaying/waving/pointing/walk-like-an-Egyptian/chicken dance hand motions from the background singers.

Good thing they didn't show much of the "mosh" pit! The mental distraction that would have caused would definitely require therapy.

All-nighters used to be so fun!

Now I have a family, and a house, and a job, and a yard, and have to behave responsibly pretty much every day (even on vacation, although I'm not sure I did a great job of that last week--thanks for hanging in there with me EEEEMommy!).

But if I do give up sleep for a night, there are a few qualifying reasons in my book:
- sick child(ren)
- sick spouse
- sick me
- talking and playing games with good friends (making for even better friends)
- being in a tent (or just under the stars)
- New Year's Eve

I think that's about it. Maybe I'll think of a few more, but I'm sure that "fixing e-mail servers that got broken in the course of applying patches for a project with an overly-aggressive schedule" won't be on it.

Blah!

Weird Science?

When is the "scientific" community not really the scientific community? Quite often. Certainly, recognition of who is/isn't qualified to make scientific assertions has fallen into the hands of the media. And it's doing nothing to bolster the notion of journalistic integrity.

Consider Exhibit A: http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN0444950920080304

The referenced article (titled "High on Mount Sinai?") outlines a new theory to explain, sans Divine intervention, the happenings on Mount Sinai when Moses received the Ten Commandments from God. What you can infer at this point, even without reading the brief article, is that the new theory hypothesizes that all of the people of the nation of Israel were, at that time, under the influence of a "hallucinogenic brew," causing them to imagine the events recorded in Exodus 19.

Hmmmm...

Following this idea to its logical conclusion, I guess you'd have to chalk up the rest of the congruous events recorded in the book of Exodus to similar inebriation...were the Israelites merely a bunch of drugged-up hippies gathered around Mt. Woodstock?

But back to my point--who is this "scientist" proposing this as a reasonable explanation of historically-recorded events?

The article notes that he is a "psychology professor." How interesting! I myself have some credentials in the psychology field (see #4), but certainly don't consider myself qualified to suggest alternate readings of historical documents.

Okay, so I'm definitely snide in my opinion of the psychology field. But psychologist aren't the only "scientists" who have felt qualified to wax eloquent on topics outside of their expertise. Thespians continue to consider themselves eminently qualified to offer their expert opinions regarding foreign military operations. And more to the point, many cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, etc. strive daily to develop theories regarding the origin of the universe, using currently-observable behaviors of anything from electrically-stimulated gases to buried fragments of bones to offer proof of those theories.

However, in the end, those theories must, in the strict sense of the word "theory," remain just that. They should never be considered "proven," at least until a time-travel machine is really invented, which would allow historical events to be observed.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not writing off the value of scientific hypotheses and proper application of the sciencific method. Science is of great value, but only when it doesn't try to become history. And for that matter, acting does offer some value to society, but certainly not at the head of arguably the most advanced military force in the present-day world (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be so willing to put my life on the line under the command of someone who gets paid to be someone else).

In the end, I echo wholehearted agreement with the synopsis of the orthodox rabbi: "The Bible is trying to convey a very profound event. We have to fear not for the fate of the biblical Moses, but for the fate of science."