I'm at That Age

when the only thing people think and talk about is marriage. I've come to accept that I won't be able to escape this oh-so-wonderful conversational topic for some time. Sigh.
Apparently, it's not exclusively an age-dependent phenomenon, either. It seems like the subject of marriage is popping up in the media with fresh rapidity for a multitude of reasons, i.e., the recent scandals of celebrities and politicians. Here is an excerpt from "Is There Hope for the American Marriage?", currently the most popular article on Time.com:

The fundamental question we must ask ourselves at the beginning of the century is this: What is the purpose of marriage? Is it — given the game-changing realities of birth control, female equality and the fact that motherhood outside of marriage is no longer stigmatized — simply an institution that has the capacity to increase the pleasure of the adults who enter into it? If so, we might as well hold the wake now: there probably aren't many people whose idea of 24-hour-a-day good times consists of being yoked to the same romantic partner, through bouts of stomach flu and depression, financial setbacks and emotional upsets, until after many a long decade, one or the other eventually dies in harness.
Or is marriage an institution that still hews to its old intention and function — to raise the next generation, to protect and teach it, to instill in it the habits of conduct and character that will ensure the generation's own safe passage into adulthood? Think of it this way: the current generation of children, the one watching commitments between adults snap like dry twigs and observing parents who simply can't be bothered to marry each other and who hence drift in and out of their children's lives — that's the generation who will be taking care of us when we are old.

Seriously. And on that note, Americans - and people in general - need to wake up and realize that just because a concept or institution might be deemed conservative does not mean that it is narrow-minded, dense, or wrong.

On a slightly different note, I think that, contrary to the statistics, college has made me more conservative. Perhaps "conservative" isn't the right word -- I still question everything. I just question everything differently; I question the other side of everything. It's weird. It's like... I used to be open, but now I just want to know.

Avoiding Destiny and Dreading Truth

My family rented "The International" last night. The movie was mediocre at best -- I think it was supposed to be an action-thriller, but, for the most part, it was a rather unsatisfying game of cat-and-mouse. Still, the underlying plot was pretty interesting, and the dialogue was surprisingly very quotable.
Take, for example, one of the main character's lines: "Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it." For someone who spends much of her spare time contemplating the future and attempting to find a balance between calling and free will, I found the essence of such a statement to strike a particular chord in me. "The International" is hardly a spiritual film, but, for me, this line speaks of mistakes and second chances and redemption, of making a path for yourself and, at the same time, of divine sovereignty. I think it's a great point to ponder, and I think it's also pretty neat that there exists a screenwriter or two out there who could so eloquently encompass quite a bit of depth in such a catchy quotation as that.
Here's another bit of dialogue from "The International" that stuck out to me (copied from the film's IMDB page):

Eleanor Whitman: We are just trying to get to the truth!
New York D.A.: I get it! But what you need to remember is that there's what people want to hear, there's what people want to believe, there's everything else, THEN there's the truth!
Eleanor Whitman: And since when is that OK? I can't even believe you are saying this to me! The truth means responsibility, Arnie!
New York D.A.: Exactly! Which is why everyone dreads it!

These lines resonate even more strongly with me than the first quotation I wrote about, especially when considered in the context of faith (even though, again, it was obviously not in that context in the movie). Whether you are a Christian or not, it's a well-known, though perhaps not as well-understood, fact that Christians are supposed to find truth in Jesus, and that they're supposed to practice truth in their lives. It's so well-known, in fact, that Christians, myself included, oftentimes seem to take it for granted and consequently forget the second half of it. The part about practicing, I mean.
We are saved by grace through faith alone, and yet faith without deeds is dead. Any belief worth its salt demands responsibility, which in turn must be translated into action. Therefore, if Christ is the ultimate truth, then the world should be witnessing the ultimate actions from Christians. But does it? I don't think so. We're too lazy and weak and scared. Instead of taking initiative and practicing stewardship, we'd rather be safe than sorry, and so we bury our coins in the ground. Instead of sacrificing and suffering, we'd rather be comfortable and take the easy route, and so we let our crosses fall. Instead of giving up our choices to commit to a cause, we'd rather keep our options open, and so we hold fast to our possessions, our careers, our lives. The truth, indeed, is dreadful (and offensive). It's a wonder that so many people call themselves a Christian in the first place.

So then, if truth is so dreadful, why do so many people call themselves a Christian? What does dreadful truth even mean? More importantly, does the dreadfulness of truth even matter when truth has the benefit of setting you free?

What do you think?

Beautiful Desert Future

Most people hope for a bright future; some would even claim to foresee one for themselves. But I, well, honestly, I don't. It's not that I foresee a dark future, it's that I simply don't see that very far at all. What I do see, at this point, is empty -- a blank slate, a vast expanse of nothingness. Destination, directions, are yet to be revealed. Perhaps they never will be. All I've got to rely on is a God-breathed Map that is a little difficult to understand and even more difficult to follow.

"What's your major?" someone somewhat-recently asked me. I normally hesitate before providing an answer, because, as the major is a fairly new and therefore generally unheard-of discipline, it usually requires quite an amount of explanation. And whenever I find myself explaining it, I feel as though I'm pressured to defend it as well, which is certainly not a feeling that resonates with optimism or confidence.
"Decision Science?" I finally said, more questioning than stated.
"Ah, yea, that's an awesome major," was the unsuspected response. But before it offered a taste of relief, it was followed by, "Too bad you're not going to find a job!"

I can pretty much guarantee that nobody ever wants hear such a comment, and I am no exception. Granted, I may know it to be untrue (C'mon, I'll have a Bachelor's Degree from a well reputed university; I should at least be able to get a job at a McDonald's if I really must), but it's a little nerve-wracking that, after only one more year of undergraduate education, I'm likely to find my future facing a desert, with no clear path to take, with no choice but to move forward and to walk steadily and to put my complete faith in God to save me, because nothing out there will.
It's a little nerve-wracking, and a little frightening, and a little exciting, too. I can't wait to see how God's gonna ruin my life. It doesn't have to be bright, but I hope it'll be beautiful.

Reactivating Facebook. Again.

Blogspot. Facebook. Twitter. Networking tools? More like procrastination and vanity tools. And if you have all three, you're a tool.
Just kidding, of course. Although, admittedly, at some point I did use to hold such a belief.
Back in January, I deleted my Faceboook account, and for almost an entire semester, I firmly believed that I would never again reactivate it. After all, it was a waste of time, and I didn't even enjoy using it to the extent that most others do.
Then I started missing out on invitations to birthday parties.
Then I started fading out of touch with a few friends.
Then I met a girl and had a brief discussion with her about God. She requested my e-mail address so that she could ask me more questions. "I'll friend you on Facebook or something," she said. "Oh, well, I don't have a Facebook. Just feel free to shoot me an e-mail." I never heard from her again. Frankly, missed opportunities suck.
I have always preferred other modes of communication, but it seems that virtually everyone else these days are more comfortable with "networking tools" like Facebook. As reluctant as I am to resurrect my profile, I guess it is, in a sense, a necessary evil.

Don't conform to the world, but don't seclude yourself from it, either.

I realize that I first signed up for Facebook for the wrong reasons. Then I continued to use it for the wrong reasons. Then I eventually deactivated it for the wrong reasons. Hopefully, now, I have the right reasons. "Whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God." How cool would it be if everyone decided to utilize something as silly as Facebook for God's glory?

Bestsellers are the Devil!

When it comes to such things as music, movies, or television shows, I know that I have peculiar taste. I have no problem admitting that I enjoy some band, film, or series for some stupid reason. However, when it comes to books, I am, to some degree, a snob. If you try to convince me that Dan Brown is a talented writer, for example, I will in turn try really hard not to judge you.
I may be a harsh critic, but I do realize that there are differences between literature and pure entertainment, between writing and storytelling, between an opinion and an argument, and so I do try to remain fair when I assess the pros and cons of a particular book. As picky as I may be, I do love books; I love reading and exploring and learning and thinking, and I believe that there is at least some worth in just about every book I've ever read, even if said worth is considered trivial. So, yes, I do think that books are important and valuable, bestsellers included.
That said, I also think that books are dangerous. There's a lot of hype and paranoia surrounding the dangerous influence of movies and video games that overtly portray violence, sex, and drugs. Meanwhile, books slip under the radar. Why is that?
Currently, I'm reading Steven D. Levitt's "Freakonomics", a New York Times Bestseller that claims to explore "the hidden side of everything". While it introduces a number of interesting, insightful ideas, and while its primary message - to think not only differently, but deeper when analyzing some given observation - is a valid one, many of its conclusions are not only shallowly considered, but flawed.
Here's an example. In the very beginning of "Freakonomics", Levitt explains that, despite predictions that crime rate will continue to increase, there was a sharp, unexpected drop in crime rate in the '90s. Experts speculated that the drop was due to a boom in economy, or increased police regulation and gun control. Nevertheless, Levitt correctly points out that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, as anyone with any knowledge of statistics should understand. Where Levitt goes wrong, however, is when he attempts to argue that the "real" reason behind the drop in crime rate is attributed to the legalization of abortion around thirty years earlier, which would then lead to a decrease in the number of people born into poor economic situations - people who would have likely grown up to become criminals by the time the '90s came around.
Levitt's reasoning is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it strikes me as hypocritical that Levitt stresses the difference between correlation and causation, and yet, in the same breath, he suggests that legalizing abortion caused the drop in crime rate. There is no reason, especially in this case, to accept one correlation as the cause over any other correlation, however strong they may be. Secondly, it strikes me as shallow that Levitt would say that there exists a "hidden side" to the drop in crime rate, and yet he fails to see that there may be a hidden side in abortion rates, as well. How did birth rates change for each socioeconomic group post- Roe v. Wade? Did other economic-related regulations have an effect on abortion rate, or crime rate? You cannot deny the possibility of other hidden variables existing. Finally, who's to say that a correlation existed in the first place? It would be silly to assume that there were no illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade; just because they weren't recorded and available for statistical analysis doesn't mean that those unknown numbers are irrelevant in composing such a theory as the one Levitt presents. His speculation is certainly interesting, but it should be explained as simply that -- speculation.
There is a Chinese proverb that suggests that a person who completely accepts a book is worse off than a person with no book at all. How ironic would it be if the masses were to believe everything they read in this book when the whole purpose of it is to encourage people not to take everything they hear at face value? And, how dangerous would that be? My spiel up to this point may seem inconsequential, but imagine if this weren't "Freakonomics". Imagine if this were some National Bestseller written by some witty author with some kind of political agenda, and it subtly swayed half the country to vote a certain way. That's powerful. Imagine if the author had some worse motive. That's, well, dangerous.
Truth: most people are stupid, gullible, and lazy. That is not a comment meant to elevate myself - I am often guilty of being stupid, gullible, lazy, and more - but, honestly, most people would not read a book like "Freakonomics" and bother to think outside the box, even when the author repeatedly tells the reader to do so.

More thoughts on this topic for another time.

Hospitality

My mother is so hospitable; her willingness to make newcomers feel not only welcome, but feel at home, and feel loved, is something that I've always admired and hoped to emulate.  I say this as guests are streaming into our house for the umpteenth day in a row.

I'm sure she feels exhausted at the end of each night, after so much cooking and cleaning and chatting with people she has only just met, but I'd bet that she sleeps very, very well.

Well.  Time for me to go out and mingle.  No, not mingle.  

Love.

Hammotime

I have a thing for robots and cartoons.  I appreciate petty vandalism.  And, weirdly enough, I find cheese graters highly amusing (ask anyone who's ever heard me narrate Mafia games).  So, naturally, when I found this artist, I fell in love.

This is totally my kind of thing.  Love the robots, the monsters, the little boy and girl characters.  Love the wreaking-havoc-on-cities / end-of-the-world themes, the bizarre creepy-meets-cute-ness.  Love the mix of curvy lines and blocky shapes, the bright happy colors.  Love the digital art, the painted murals, the silly paste ups.  Love love love.

Just thought I'd share.

What cool things have you stumbled upon lately?