Minecraft Perler Bead Grid Templates

My daughter has asked for a Minecraft-themed birthday party, and one of the activities we're planning is creating your own Minecraft character face in Perler beads. Here are some png files I created based on the real texturemaps and then tried to simplify the number of colors.

Characters

 

Helmets

   

 Character face grids

 

 Objects 

CA 2010 Democratic/Progressive Proposition Guide

Ok, this isn't necessarily a down-the-line Democratic/Progressive proposition guide, it's how I'm voting on the propositions. I'll do my best, however, to explain why I'm voting the way I am, so hopefully it'll end up being pretty transparent.

Prop 19: Legalize Marijuana. Yes.
I've never smoked marijuana, but seriously, come on. Being illegal isn't stopping anyone from getting it. Tax it, quit locking people up, and let's get on with the damn future.

Prop 20: Citizen Panel for Redistricting. Yes.
Previously, voters ok'd a citizen panel to handle redistricting for state offices. this approves a citizen panel for federal offices. Without a citizen panel, you have legislators gerrymandering the place for their individual and party benefit, at the expense of the people. I don't care what your party affiliation is, you gotta believe that everyone's voice should be heard.

Prop 21: $18 Surcharge for State Parks. No.
When the budget crunch came, folks got upset that the state would have to close parks. Thing is, parks hardly cost anything, and the legislators did it to try to get people's attention, which they did. But taking the parks out of the budget so citizens can bury their heads about the hard choices of budgeting? No thanks.

Prop 22: State Can't Borrow Local Funds. No.
It's hard enough as is to get a budget passed, this just makes everything more complicated. Also, there is powerful political pressure to minimize the state taking from local governments already.

Prop 23: Suspend Greenhouse Gas Law until Unemployment below 5.5%. No.
This effectively kills CA's attempts to turn away from fossil fuels and become a center for next-gen energy. Will some companies turn away from CA? They already have. Will new companies with great growth potential arrive? Perhaps not in gross numbers as large, but yes. Mostly, I'm just tired of people throwing up roadblocks for trying to deal with global warming.

Prop 24: Repeal Business Tax Breaks from Legislature. No.
On principle, I'm against propositions. Especially propositions to overturn things the legislature has done. It's not about whether I'm for the tax breaks, the fact is, I don't really know the impact of these tax breaks and I gotta trust my legislators to figure it out. If we would get rid of propositions entirely, I'd be perfectly happy.

Prop 25: Pass a budget with Simple Majority instead of Two-Thirds. Yes.
It's a democracy, folks. The most basic thing -- passing a budget -- and we can't just have a damn majority to take care of it. You may fear the tyrrany of the middle, but that's a lot less of a problem than the tyrrany of the minority.

Prop 26: Fees Require 2/3 approval. No.
This is an attempt to choke off spending. Do we have too much spending? Perhaps. Should we tie our hands to make it impossible to raise taxes? I'm for the process, and this throws a giant wrench in that process.

Prop 27: Put Legislators Back in Charge of Redistricting. No.
This one is the opposite of 20 -- it returns gerrymandering power to legislators. Screw that.

CA 2010 Progressive Democratic Voter Guide

I was deciding how to vote in the upcoming California election, and I had a pretty easy time until I got down into the details of some of the lower-profile races. What the hell are all of these judges doing on my ballot?

Basically, the governor appoints judges, who must be approved by the voters. Those that get approved serve 12-year terms and then have to go back on the ballot.

I started hunting around for information about the judges, and the first place I landed was the very helpful www.judgevoterguide.com. It's a conservative site that opposes "actvist" judges and supports "constructionist" judges.

I kept looking around but couldn't find anything that amounted to a progressive/liberal voting guide. I read some other articles on the three Supreme Court judges, but it's pretty slim pickings for the rest. I came to learn that all of the district judges I would be voting on had been appointed by Republican governors. I also came to learn that the GOP has a nationwide effort to get conservative judges in the courts.

So, I don't have infinite time, and I wish I were much better informed. So what am I doing? Voting the opposite of www.judgevoterguide.com. If they rate the judge as a '4' or less, I'm voting for them. Otherwise, I'm voting no.

Perhaps I should just not vote, perhaps that is a more moral thing to do. But I've decided to go all partisan and shit and here goes:

Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. She's a moderate Republican, but no one seems to have a big problem with her. You can also vote 'No' if you think Jerry Brown will win and appoint someone more progressive.

Ming Chin: No. Voted in support of the constitutionality of Prop 8. On the whole, a very conservative judge.

Carlos Moreno: Yes. He's the only identifiably progressive judge on the whole list, and he was in consideration to replace SCOTUS Justice Souter last year.

Kathleen Banke: No
Robert Dondero: No
James Lambden: No (another commenter -- see below -- votes Yes)
Martin Jenkins: No
Peter Siggins: Yes
Timothy Reardon: No
Henry Needham, Jr.: No
Terence Bruiniers: No

A Tea Party Test

The issue of financial reform is finally making its way onto the legislature's docket. I think this will make for an interesting test of the fundamental values of the new Tea Party movement.

With financial reform, I expect that the Democrats will put forth a bill that has new regulations intended to minimize the chances of Wall Street triggering another financial panic. I also expect that the Republicans will oppose the bill because it goes too far, fearing that the unintended consequences and market distortions stemming from the regulations will reduce growth and prosperity more than the regulations will protect the economy from a new disaster.

The Tea Party is a populist movement; almost by definition, populist movements don't like the elites who control power. But the finance issue pits two major elites against each other: a distrust of the rich elite (Wall Street) and a distrust of the government elite (the current elites, at least).

Will there be any debate in the Tea Party movement? If the Democratic reform agenda is really just Republican-lite, it will be easy to cast both the Democrats and Republicans as being snugly in bed with Wall Street, in which case, the Tea Partiers would likely side with the Republicans.

I believe that the presence of active debate within the movement will indicate whether the Tea Party is just an element of the Republican party or whether it is a movement unto itself.

Pro-Life or Pro-Punishment?

Opposition to abortion exists under the title, "Pro-Life." But I think that this slogan, like most slogans, fails to express the full complexity of what it represents.

Taking the slogan at face value, pro-choice believers are often confused by an apparent contradiction: How can someone be "pro-life" yet pro-capital punishment?

I believe this contradiction is an illusion, and the term "pro-life" is the reason for the confusion. Opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment can both stem from a natural philosophy: Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. On this issue of capital punishment, this belief can be very clear -- when someone is guilty of a heinous sin, society metes out the ultimate punishment, death.

How does this same philosophy lead us to oppose abortion? If you believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, then it should be punished. "Protect the innocent, punish the guilty" becomes "Protect the innocent child, punish the guilty mother." As part of the mother's punishment, she must reap what she has sown -- an unintended child.

This philosophical connection exists consciously for some people, though not for everyone. For example, ThePillKills.com, a group strongly opposed to abortion and birth control, offers prayers to "the many uninformed patrons who come asking the staff of Planned Parenthood to provide chemicals, hormones, and sex-education as an answer to their problems with the natural consequences of abuse of sex."

For many who oppose abortion, however, I believe a legacy of this philosophy does exist, though it has largely been buried beneath an acceptance of birth control as a part of modern life, and the debate has shifted from a focus on "punishing the guilty" to "protecting the innocent."

The entire abortion debate cannot simplify down to this one difference in beliefs, but I do believe it is an important part of the philosophical split that exists today. I only hope that in investigating why we believe what we believe, we can better understand those we disagree with.

Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire

If you aren't familiar with the logline of this movie, I'd summarize it as a dramatic and comic fable of a kid from the Bombay slums whom Fate leads to become an unlikely contestant on India's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"

I was blown away by how deftly the director (Danny Boyle, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later) balances levity with gut-wrenching tragedy. It has some scenes so charged that my wife considered leaving the theater. As to life in the Bombay slums, "Just because it's a movie doesn't mean this hasn't actually happened to someone." But the epic journey of the characters, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood (played for each character by three different actors), is an incredible ride.

For at least the first half of the movie, I was in a state of tension -- the music, the moments, everything about the movie, just kept me pulling for these characters, especially as kids. But in comparison, the second half of the movie, though also fantastic, wasn't able to maintain the intensity of the first -- once the characters do grow older, I begin to forgive them less (as one would expect), and their flaws began to make me fall out of love with them just a bit. The epic sweep is part of what makes this movie so amazing, but it also stops it a little short from being a total 5-star movie. The acting is at times transcendental, at times just ok, but it never detracted from the movie for me.

I'd recommend that everyone see this, but be warned that it is a brutal movie.

Babe factor: There's a reason everybody is in love with Latika.
Beer factor: None. Then, afterwards, enjoy some hard alcohol to celebrate/drown your sorrows.

Little Obama

There's a lot of consternation in the liberal community that Barack Obama isn't making the most liberal of choices as he populates his cabinet and plans his inauguration. My friend Lucia has a great article that spawned me to think:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/is-there-method-to-this-r_b_152189.html

I don't think the concerns are invalid, but I think maybe people need to think differently about their relationship to the President-Elect.

Rather than thinking of him as someone you'd hired to redo your kitchen, and now you're pissed because he put in the wrong tile and scratched up your sink, I think it might be more apt to think about him as your son.

We put our everything into our children, our love, our dreams, our time, but when it is time for them to become grown-ups, we have to let them follow their own path and make their own choices, even if they cause us pain. We can (and should) let them know how we feel, but we have to support them and trust that we did our best and made the right choices in preparing them for the big show.

So feel free to let Obama know how you feel, but maybe try to have a little patience to let him live his life and do what he thinks needs to be done. If you voted for Obama, you gave him a vote of confidence. Let's keep that confidence as long as we can.

Lamenting Xmas Glitz?

Several of my friends who are practicing Christians were lamenting the commercialism and materialism of Christmas. But I think that without those elements, Christmas wouldn't be the major holiday that it is.

It's a complicated holiday -- when the early Christians first celebrated Jesus' birth, they appropriated the Roman Saturnalia (more similar to Carnival/Mardi Gras), though the two had nothing in common -- it was a marketing ploy to get the pagans to join.

Then you throw in Santa Claus, St. Nicholas, who is the patron saint of pawn shops -- the three balls represent three bags of gold that he anonymously gave to a man so the man wouldn't have to sell his three daughters -- whose day was celebrated by giving gifts, and became part of the Christmas celebration when the Catholic Church was trying to woo his worshipers into joining them.

So the Christmas we have today is popular because it was designed to be popular. Maybe as a Christian, the best way to think about it is that its incarnation (glitz and all) is a way to get people excited about the season and interest them in the story of Jesus' birth and his teachings.

The Tribes

The Freakonomics blog asked "When is it ok to vote for your own race?" I thought that was a question that didn't get to the reality of the problem.

The word “racist” is so toxic that it’s preventing us from confronting the basic fact as humans, we are tribal in nature. I don’t want “tribal” to become an excuse for racist behavior, but I think it helps explain our affinities and voting behavior.

My favorite new word from this election cycle is “white ethnic”, which was a term coined to explain why working-class whites were not voting for Obama in the democratic primaries.

It’s my belief that one way to split the American demographic is into “ethnic” groups and the “mainstream.”

If you’re part of an “ethnic” group, be it black, white, latino, whatever, you are less likely to vote for someone from another ethnic group. They aren’t part of your “tribe,” and they’re perhaps even from a competing tribe (re: black factory workers cheering as their latino co-workers are rounded up by INS).

However, Barack Obama isn’t really part of the “black ethnic” voting group — he’s part of the
“mainstream.” And if you’re a “mainstream” voter, you don’t care that he’s black. However, if you’re an ethnic voter, you do — and if you’re black, you’ll vote for him; if you’re not, you might not.

The flip side of this is that a “mainstream” voter does not want to vote for an “ethnic” candidate. While Barack Obama is part of the mainstream, Al Sharpton, for example, is a "black ethnic" candidate. Most mainstream voters (especially non-blacks) won’t vote for Sharpton. The mainstream voter can be effectively just as “tribal” as the ethnic voter — it’s just that because it’s not drawn on color lines, it doesn’t come under the banner of “racism”.

Here's a proposal for some new definitions:

. If you are an "ethnic" voter but would not vote for a "mainstream" candidate with a different ethnicity, that could be termed "racism."
. If you are a "mainstream" voter but would not vote for an "ethnic" candidate of your own ethnicity, that could be termed "elitism."
. If you are mainstream or ethnic and would not vote for an "ethnic" candidate different from your own ethnicity, that could be termed "human."

Is John McCain a "white ethnic" candidate? I don't think he is. But Sarah Palin is definitely a "white ethnic" candidate, which ups McCain's "white ethnic" connection through his choice. So in choosing Palin, McCain had to do the calculus that she would help him with the "white ethnic" vote and probably hurt him with both the mainstream and the other ethnic votes. And I'm sure the polls would reflect this fact exactly. Question is, is the net help greater than the net hurt? We'll find out.

Palin, Palin, Baby

My friend Jason Preston thinks Sarah Palin is the Vanilla Ice of politics. In ten years you'll be embarrassed to admit you listened to her...

INT. The White House, Spring 2009:

McCain: Sarah, we can't get to an agreement with the damn Europeans... What say you?

Palin: All right, stop. Collaborate and listen.

McCain: Of course. And while I have you, the Iranians are threatening our carrier group in the Gulf...

Palin: Light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle.

McCain: Good to hear you say it. I've been wanting to try out our new two-hundred-megatonners, too.

Palin: You better hit bullseye, the kid don't play.

McCain: Oh, they have the latest guidance systems. Plus, two hundred fucking megatons, how can you miss?

Palin: Cookin' MCs like a pound of bacon.

McCain: You know how to hit a Muslim where it hurts.

Palin: If there was a problem, yo, I'll solve it.

McCain: Sarah, will you marry me?

Palin: Word to your mother, let's get out of here.

60 seconds

Random thought I had last night:

We count years starting with 1 AD, January is month 1, and the first day of the month is 1.

The first hour of the day is 12.

The first minute of the hour is 0, as is the first second.

I expect Wikipedia can answer why this all is. The years/months/days is almost surely related to the fact that Arab mathematicians first introduced the concept of '0' -- before that, there was just I. II. III, IV, etc.

But what's up with the hours? When was the hour first introduced? And minutes and seconds? Before or after we had mechanical clocks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour

I knew that the Mayans had a base-60 numeric system, but I didn't know the Babylonians did as well -- this is what Wikipedia credits with our 60 seconds to a minute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system#Sixty

Base sixty is awesome, in my opinion, though it might make arithmetic tricky. Why so cool? Because you can divide sixty by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 -- so if you need to split stuff between people, 60 is a good number to divide. 10 sucks. 2 and 5. 12 would be better -- 2, 3, 4, 6. Interesting how prevalent 12 is, yet 10 managed to win out as a counting system. Guess it's easier to just count fingers than to count fingers plus your feet.

Monday boozin'

It was a little chilly this morning, so I put a couple of dark Hefs in the fridge; by lunch, it was hot as usual outside. Alas.

First up: Kapuziner Schwarz-Weizen. Pretty good dark beer, would drink it again. But felt like it was missing a little something, reminded me a little of drinking Guinness in the US instead of Ireland -- not quite the richness you'd like.

Also, the monk on this bottle isn't quite as old-school as the one on the other. Kinda looks like he came out of a comic book bible for drunk kids.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/412/17140


Aventinus -- excellent dark hefeweizen, great flavor -- this was the clear favorite today, definitely will drink again. If you like hefeweizens and you like dark beers, definitely give this a try.

Also, the monkish fellow is old-school sepia style. Maybe early Gutenberg days.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/72/224

Avalanche o' Beer

Man, it's a beer party! No, we didn't taste these all in the same day -- a little behind, this is over the span of a couple of weeks, plus a bonus brew from Ben Chess (the official team photographer).

Hacker-Pschorr Weisse. Ok weisse, wasn't blown away by the flavor.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/76/873









Hopf Helle Weisen. The Hopf Bock was a champ before, and this Hopf is another champ as well. Very solid wheat flavor, clear and classic. Drink me!

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1357/4852







Tucher Hefeweizen. Ok, taste, we drank it too cold. Not necessarily needing to write home about it.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/129/371









Traquair House, that is from a night out at Monk's Kettle. Special guest beer from Ben!

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/24/36








Lindeman's Framoise Lambic. If you haven't tried this one, it's not to be missed. It's the king/queen of girlie drinks -- yes, it's a beer, but it tastes more like a raspberry sorbet. My one regret with serving it is that we didn't have a big bottle, just this little one. I won't make that mistake again.

And gentlemen, don't think you won't like this one just because Mark Colbert, King of the Girlie Beers, does. It's just awesome.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/187/599


Framboise Boon Lambic. I picked this one up to taste it vs. the Lindeman's above. No competition. I guess it's possible that maybe this one is more "traditional" or something, but we're not historic beer drinkers -- we like what's good today. And sadly, this isn't.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/47/2427






Hofbrau Munchner Weisse. Ben has fond memories of visiting this brew hall in Munich -- the site of Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch that kicked off his rise to power. Salacious history aside, an excellent and tasty beer.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/4686/3836







Schneider Weisse. Solid hefeweizen, relatively traditional if I recall. Very good.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/72/3280








Ayinger Ur-Weisse. Brought this one back for a second tasting as a "control" to make sure we weren't nuts to like it so much the first time. Holds up well, still king of the Dunkles Weisses.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/39/135

Beer Tastings

I'm a big lover of beverages, and though my in-laws are far more gifted win-os than I am, I think I far outpace them when it comes to sodas, mixed drinks, and beer. My lunch buddies at work have started a beer tasting tradition at lunch -- it's perfect, because no one drinks enough beer that it kills our afternoon, but it's just the thing to spice up last night's leftovers. Anyhow, I'll start posting our reviews here.

I went to BevMo this weekend and bought most every German hefe-weizen, dark and otherwise, that they had in stock. It was foggy this morning, so I thought it might be chilly for lunch, so I thought we should try the dark beers -- turns out, it warmed up; didn't matter, we drank inside anyhow.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Hefeweizen.

Here's what we had:

Bamberger Der Weisse Bock

I liked this beer, it was dark and quite rich, more akin to a porter than our other tastings today. One fellow liked this one the best. I don't know if I'd go out of my way to buy it again, but it was pretty good.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/8346/41805





Hopf Weisser Bock

This was definitely today's champion. It was more similar to a traditional Hefeweizen -- "bock" indicates a strong, dark beer; it was strong, but it wasn't as dark as our other two samples. I'd like to stand this up against our reigning champion, the Ayinger Hefeweizen.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/1357/3673




Weihenstephaner Korbinian

This bad boy is super-malty; it's actually listed as a malt liquor, though its alcohol level was in the range of the other two. Just drinking at lunch, it was too malty for everyone -- but I could imagine it as a fun food pairing.

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/252/779

Part of the pack

For several years I worked as a writers' assistant on TV shows. Basically the primary job is to type on a computer (which has a screen that all of the writers in the room can watch), either taking story notes or taking directions to edit a script.

One morning while I sat at the computer in the writers' room, the writers were chatting away, chatting which, as an assistant, you're pretty much supposed to stay out of -- but you still have to listen, as at any moment one of the writers might say the funniest line the world has ever heard or come up with a genius story twist or idea and if you don't capture it verbatim, you have failed at your job.

For me, that was one of the hardest things about working as an assistant -- there's no such thing as excelling as an assistant. If you do everything right, if you go above and beyond, you're just doing your job. The paradox is that most people who are entertainment assistants actually want to be doing a creative job, and the assistant job is a way to make contacts and build experience to make the leap to the creative job -- but if you are a really great assistant, instead of giving you that chance to get ahead, you boss is likely instead to thwart you because hell, you're a good assistant, and he doesn't want to have to hire another. So the target? Be a good assistant, but not too good.

Anyhow, back to that morning. The writers are prattling on, and then one of them starts talking about their child's upcoming and very important upcoming preschool interview.

I've always felt that people put way too much emphasis on their little kids getting in to the "right" school. I grew up in a small town, went to that small town public school system (with a 50% drop out rate, by the way) for K-12, and then went on to an Ivy League school. I feel confident that no matter what school I'd gone to, I still could/would have ended up at the same college. I went to Whatever preschool, what's with the freaking out over a preschool interview?

Yet here I was, highly educated and skilled American worker, smarter than anyone else in the room (though there are many very academically smart writers I've worked with, but not on this particular day), and I was working as a less-than-gruntled assistant. What the hell?

Well, it was then that I realized something. That writer's kid is likely pretty average, ok, benefit of the doubt, above-average, but not someone whose toddler brilliance will make your jaw drop. But their parents have very high hopes for them; and the best way to make sure those dreams come true is to make sure that they give their child absolutely every possible advantage, build them the best resume you can imagine, hire tutors and trainers and take them to museums and buy them books and basically hustle their asses off, anything to make them stand out from the pack so they can get into an Ivy League college.

I was in the same boat as that kid.

I was working as a writers' assistant because I wanted to be a writer. I made the somewhat Faustian bargain to work as an assistant in exchange for connections and exposure and the chance to make the leap to writer. But there are many working writers who didn't take that path -- they wrote some great samples, got an agent, got a job, and were off and running.

But although I had been an academic superstar, I wasn't a writing superstar. I was average, hey, benefit of the doubt, above average. But I didn't drop jaws. And just like that kid, I was going to have to use every connection, hustle every moment, build the best resume I could, because now I was just part of the pack.

I should quit typing and schedule my daughter's preschool interview...

Make Canadian $$$$!

Yes, it's prime time for us southern gringos to get off our lazy asses and go to where the real money's being made -- Canada!

The whole illegal immigration issue (it doesn't ever actually rise to the level of a "debate," unfortunately) and Americans' tribalistic "Mexicans are ruining America" complaints are a bunch of bullshit. I don't think Americans have the perspective they need to understand what's actually going on.

Let's say you can't find work as a web developer -- the way the economy is, that's not really much of a stretch -- but if you could, you'd make $75,000 a year. Not a bad deal, assuming you live somewhere where a starter house isn't tipping the million-dollar scale.

But you have a friend who has a great lead for you -- in fact, has a job already lined up for you -- and all you have to do is go up to Canada and start working. Problem is, the Canadians have made it illegal for you to take this job right now. They say they already have plenty of native Canadian web developers to do the work.

But it's clear there are tons of web developer jobs in Canada, and none of those Canadians are taking them -- they like ice-skating too much, and they can't bear to be cramped up in front of a computer when they could be out zipping around the frozen ice. And here's the kicker:

...They'll pay you $600,000 a year.

You go up there and work, and send the money back to your family in the US -- can you imagine the stuff you could own? The houses? The cars? No worries about paying for college, or even for retiring -- hell, you could retire plenty early!

And there are already ten million Americans working illegally up there, raking in a half-mil a year! What the hell are you doing unemployed in America? Sure, they're talking about building a wall, but how high does that wall have to be to keep you away from $600,000?! And if they catch you, they'll just send you back home to your family (or dump you in Montana), no big deal.

See you in Ottawa!


$600,000? Really? Well, in 2005, a Whirlpool exec told the NYT that "We may pay $23 an hour in Clyde, including benefits, versus $3 in Mexico versus $1 in China". So take your $75K and multiply it by 8, and there you go.

Americans have a problem with Latin American immigrants for one fundamental reason. They're different. Americans have had problems with every group of people who've come to this country; the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, the Latin Americans. Did those waves of immigrants sink the country? No, they made it the incredible place that it is today.

I believe that if you want to come to this country to find a better life, if you want to work, and you're willing to do whatever job we'll throw at you, damn it, you have a right to be here. So, hope to see you all soon! That includes you, Canada.

The Lucky Charms

One morning in my college dining hall, I had a Revelation. Yes, with a captial 'R'. I was reared in a non-religious home, had been to church with friends, but certainly had never taken communion. Or had I?

As I ate my bowl of Lucky Charms cereal, I thought about how the marshmallow "Lucky Charms" had changed over the years, introducing new "marbits" such as the Purple Horseshoe and oddly a-lucky Red Balloon. But then I noticed something I'd never thought about before: sitting there amid the brightly colored Yellow Moons and Green Clover was a little innocuous piece of grain cereal... in the shape of the lowercase Greek "alpha".

Weird. Who'd choose that for a cereal shape? Not that it was any more incongruous than a balloon, though clearly more challenging to manufacture than a round thing. I started looking through the other cereal pieces, and I discovered:

a cross
a bell
a tree
a three-leafed clover
an alpha

What did all of these pieces have in common?

a cross: the Crucifix
a bell: a church bell
a tree: a Christmas tree
a three-leafed clover: St. Patrick's symbol of the father, son, and holy ghost
an alpha: the symbol of early Christians, a fish shape, now seen most often on the trunks of cars.

Then came the Revelation: the marshmallows weren't the "lucky charms" -- the cereal bits were.

Cloaked in the simple mythology of "charms," symbols of the moon, star, four-leafed clover, diamond, and horse shoe, were Christian "charms".

I don't know specifics about the person who designed the cereal bits while the marketing department was testing out all of their different marshmallow shapes, but in reading the wikipedia article, I have a theory:

Originally, Lucky Charms was prototyped as having grain cereal with uniform white marshmallows. Only after some testing did they determine that (they could create, and that) people really wanted colored marshmallows in fun shapes. So I believe what happened is that Lucky Charms was, in fact, designed with the grain shapes as being the actual charms. But these Christian charms were eclipsed by the more popular (and non-sectarian) marshmallow shapes. However, they didn't change the grain shapes to uniform pieces -- so Lucky Charms has always retained its Christian, and generally overlooked, roots.

In this sense, Lucky Charms has followed the same path as many holidays -- St. Patrick's Day is a celebration of St. Patrick, the man who Christianized Celtic Ireland -- but nowadays, we just pinch people not wearing green and get drunk. Same fate for Christmas and Easter -- Santa and the Easter Bunny are the marketing marshmallows that steal the spotlight from Jesus' whole-grain goodness.

the political extremes

I just finished Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope." His politics seem liberal, but with an expressed understanding of why people disagree with him. Reading his book made me reconsider some of my own political views -- views that fall into the category of "culture war."

Obama believes that although church and state are separated by our constitution, it should not have to mean that the two are completely severed. If Alcoholics Anonymous is the most successful way of treating alcoholism, even though it requires surrendering yourself to a higher power -- shouldn't the government consider supporting it? Or if all of the public schools in an area are failing their students, yet the local Catholic school is succeeding, are vouchers for private parochial education really a bad idea for those students?

These issues that hinge on constitutional interpretation -- separation of church and state, the right to an abortion, the right to bear arms -- have greatly polarized our political society. The reason? I believe it's because our constitution is the fundamental guide to our government, yet as a living document, it is always being reinterpreted in the courts. And because of the power of legal precedent, not to mention the focused power of the Supreme Court, each side of a constitutional argument is fighting tooth and nail not to give any ground, for fear of a landslide and a complete erosion of their position.

Virtually no one wants late-term abortions. If you've already spent six months carrying a baby and now you decide you want an abortion, it's really too late. But the legal argument makes abortion advocates afraid to support such a ban.

The NRA vehemently opposes any piece of legislation, however sensible, that restricts access to guns. Again, in defending a principle, they refuse to give any ground.

People have a right to their own beliefs and their own principles. Let's say you like Thai food. Great. But if every time you get together with your three friends and you demand that you all go out for Thai food, even though Brendan is vegan and they put fish sauce in everything, and if your friends don't go out for Thai, you just ditch them and go reheat yesterday's panang curry, you're just being a phenomenal pain in the ass.

But forget your three friends -- we live in a society of three hundred million people. Try getting them all to eat Thai for every meal.

Helping other Americans is more important than defending your principles to the death. I know you know in your heart that you're right, and you probably are. But acknowledging that your principles can't fix every situation will go further towards making the country better in the end.

Your Crazy Family

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." - Joe Ancis

One of my favorite quotes, and one which may start other future articles.

And true, with one exception:

Your crazy family.

Now, if your family is truly crazy, then you may have become aware of the fact at a very young age. But if you're lucky enough to have a standard-grade crazy family, it may not be until you get married or close to it that you realize the truth. Your family is crazy.

It's not your fault. The part of your brain that hears the word "Sprite" and thinks immediately of the soft drink, not the little fairy it's named after, is the same part that doesn't even blink your eyes when your mom ducks as she walks past the microwave because she doesn't want to get exposed to death rays.

You grew up with these crazy people, and for all you know, they're just normal. Then you bring your new significant other home to meet your family. And then they tell you the truth.

And then you realize, gee, it is kinda crazy that your mom never actually says what she wants but always seems to somehow get it. Or that your dad has never stopped cleaning his gun.

Or that (if you're a man) you've never used someone's toilet standing up because your mom would not approve of the (potential) mess.

Or that (if you're a woman) you've never flushed a tampon because your mom (why is it always mom?) didn't want it to get clogged in the pipes, because then dad would have to crawl under the house to open the pipes, and what would come splashing out onto him but your used tampon, now is that what you want to have happen, Miss I-flush-my-tampons-into-my-father's-face?!

See? No need to worry. You're just as crazy as they are.

The Religion Gene

In "What We Believe but Cannot Prove," edited by John Brockman, the essay by U Mich psych professor Randolph M. Neese, M.D. begins:

"I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure that people gain a selective advantage from believing in things they can't prove."

Religion is an inherently human trait. Even for the most committed rational thinker, the axiom that "There are no atheists in foxholes" still applies. This faith, the belief that we cannot fail because God is on our side, or that we do not need to fear death because we will be cared for in the afterlife, enables acts of great bravery and comforts us in times of great need.

While the universe of human understanding continues to grow, aiding the atheist's argument with each passing year, atheists will always be in the minority. Scientists will never disprove the existence of supernatural force -- precisely because it is just that, super-natural, outside the purvey of the science of nature.

Humans will always find strength and perseverence through faith. Do you agree?