Glib titles aside, I can see some validity to the argument that computers are becoming more and more ever-present in modern life, and there’s something to be said for understanding how they function. On an at least rudimentary level, you should understand enough so that you don’t see them as “magic boxes” that you must run away from if anything unexpected happens.

But everyone learning to code seems wrong-headed to me.

The people urging everyone to learn to program because it’s an “utterly necessary life skill” are, by and large, programmers themselves. It’s easy to get caught in a hall of mirrors where the thing you do all day seems like the most important skill that anyone could ever have. But there are things called aptitudes. Not everyone has an aptitude for programming. It’s a very specific technical skill and without the right mindset it can seem incredibly tedious, frustrating and even soul crushing.

However, the same can be said for plumbing, or woodworking, or playing a musical instrument, or pretty much any other skill that, while very useful and pleasurable to those to whom it appeals, is uninteresting at best and repellent at worst to people who are simply not wired for it.

The key here is not for everyone on the planet to learn any one skill, but rather that it’s generally a net positive for a person to learn some kind of skill. Choose something that interests you, and that you like doing as a hobby anyway.

Just learn how to do something, anything, other than sit around and passively consume.

The accumulated knowledge of humanity is available at the fingertips of anyone with an internet connection. Use that information. Stay curious. Stay engaged. Get your brain working. Get your blood flowing. Try something you’ve never done before.

Next time your faucet starts leaking or your brakes start squeaking or your computer starts freaking out, take a few minutes to research the problem and how to fix it. There are tons of websites with free tutorials and walk-through videos that will show you how to do it.

Try doing it yourself, even if you can afford to have someone do it for you. Take a class. Be willing to make a mess. You can always call in the pros later.

Political cartoon idea: redraw the above image but label the fountains “Marriage” and “Civil Unions”

As you’ve probably heard by now, President Obama publicly announced his support for gay marriage yesterday. To me, this is akin to the Lyndon Johnson calling for the abolishment of the Jim Crow laws in the 1964 State of the Union address. Future generations will look back at our generation with the same kind of scoffing disbelief that we today have toward segregation.

Why would anybody have thought that black people didn’t deserve the same rights as white people? What difference does the color of your skin make on what drinking fountain you can use? How could that ever be the majority’s viewpoint? It all seems rather absurd to our “enlightened” sensibilities today, and we like to pat ourselves on the back for being so egalitarian compared to previous generations.

Similarly, our children will surely ask us “Why did straight people care if two gay people got married? What difference did it make to them? Why did society allow it to be outlawed for so long?”

The fact of the matter is that any legal restriction as to who can marry who beyond each person being a consenting adult is to use the government to enforce religious law, which is a direct violation of the first ammendment.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By passing laws that say that marriage can only be between one man and one woman, whose justification is invariably that “the bible tells me so,” what we are really saying is that there shall be no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion as long as that religion is my religion.

All animals are created equal, except some are more equal than others.

All men are created equal, as long as they are white, male, heterosexual, land-owning Christians.

If you belong to a religion that says every gay person who has ever lived is going to burn in hell for all eternity I’d say you’re being pretty judgmental, but belonging to that religion is your constitutional right. If you belong to a religion that says that being gay is totally awesome then that is also your constitutionally granted right. Don’t belong to any religion at all? Again, your constitutional right.

However, you can’t have one and not the others. Either we have freedom from religious persecution through the separation of church and state, or we don’t.

The word “toward” can be used as one of two parts of speech.

to·ward

preposition Also, to·wards .

1. in the direction of: to walk toward the river.
2. with a view to obtaining or having; for: They’re saving money toward a new house.
3. in the area or vicinity of; near: Our cabin is toward the top of the hill.
4. turned to; facing: Her back was toward me.
5. shortly before; close to: toward midnight.

adjective

1. about to come soon; imminent.
2. going on; in progress; afoot: There is work toward.
3. propitious; favorable.

And yet, people insist on using it as a verb. A couple weeks ago at work I got an e-mail with the subject line Towards a Digital Curriculum Approval Process for the Campus, and now today Google created a blog post about some updates to Google+ titled Toward a simpler, more beautiful Google.

You cannot, however, towards something. You can move towards something. You can run or skip or jump or sidle or crawl towards something. Towards does not mean “in regards to.” Regarding means “in regards to.”

The thing that irritates me about this is that the use of the word toward in these titles is neither grammatically correct, nor does it actually convey anything. It’s simply the writer trying to sound fancy and important.

A better title for the e-mail would have been simply Digital Curriculum Approval Process or maybe Digital Curriculum Approval Proposal, as it was a request from the graduate studies department on campus to meet with the web team about building a web application to handle the approval process for new or changed classes (which must be reviewed and signed off on by approximately four hundred and fifty thousand people, in a very specific order).

The Google post could have simply been called A simpler, more beautiful Google. Omitting meaningless decorative elements from your communications? Hey, that’s a good way to make something simpler!

I’m all for the evolution of language and whatnot, but this kind of “hey lets word things awkwardly so that we sound like we know what we’re talking about” smacks of corporate management having dialogues where they utilize resources, instead of talking with people about getting stuff done.

Here are some more good examples of this phenomenon, from “The Old New Thing” by Raymond Chen.

Hey bro, it’s above forty degrees for the first time! Let’s get out and play some bags! Strip off that pastel polo shirt (which you are totally pulling off despite the traditionally feminine color), grab some cheap beer, and let them beans fly.

Hope you got that chest waxed, broseph!

The backyard? Rookie mistake, man. I’ll let this one slide though, no worries. The front yard is definitely the primo place to peep and attract the ladyfolk. Get a couple Keystones in ‘em and they might agree to up the ante. Strip bags, yo! You’ll thank me when you’re down to your hemp necklace, jockeys  and ankle socks versus a DTF hottie.

Oh and since this is your first time tossing with us, it’s on you to bring a boom box. Just make sure its totally blown out so our ironic hip hop sounds really awful and indecipherable.

Besides, it’s too nice to go to class anyway. And don’t forget your Ray Bans, bro!

Leviticus, Chapter 12

The purification of women after childbirth.

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers. 3 And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised: 4 But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification. She shall touch no holy thing, neither shall she enter into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification be fulfilled. 5 But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, according to the custom of her monthly courses, and she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

6 And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin, and shall deliver them to the priest: 7Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child. 8 And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.

Relevant, practical stuff! Let’s all abide by it extremely literally, every day. Or perhaps this passage, from one chapter later:

Leviticus, Chapter 19

Divers ordinances, partly moral, partly ceremonial or judicial.

26 You shall not eat with blood. You shall not divine nor observe dreams. 27 Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise: nor shave your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord. 29 Make not thy daughter a common strumpet, lest the land be defiled, and filled with wickedness. 30 Keep ye my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary. I am the Lord.

So, if you’ve ever shaved your beard, or “cut your hair roundwise,” you’re not allowed to quote Leviticus as though it still holds up. Not to mention the fact that the entirety of Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice fulfills all the Old Testament preconditions and establishes a new covenant.

Hebrews, Chapter 8

More of the excellence of the priesthood of Christ and of the New Testament.

1 Now of the things we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the havens, 2 A minister of the holies, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that he also should have some thing to offer. 4 If then he were on earth, he would not be a priest: seeing that there would be others to offer gifts according to the law, 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. As it was answered to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shewn thee on the mount. 6 But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises.

7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: 9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: 12Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: 12Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.

So, the new testament says that Jesus’ new covenant is “a better ministry,” and “a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises,” than the one passed down to Moses in the Old Testament.

It also says the very fact that Jesus came to establish a new covenent implies that “if the former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second,” or, basically, that Jesus wouldn’t have come at all if there weren’t problems with the laws established in the Old Testament that he was sent to rectify.

So, not only is being homophobic make you a bigoted, judgmental jerk, it also means you are directly defying your own (supposed) Christianity by citing a passage from the bible that Jesus himself makes obsolete.

Great job! St. Peter probably can’t wait to pat you on the back up at the old pearly gates.

All passages from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.

This is the new Web Team area. It’s much bigger and sunnier than our old spot, which was in the most remote, forgotten bowel of the building.

This is my office. There are no windows, but the lighting is actually surprisingly natural, and leaving the door open lets in copious amounts of sunlight from the main area.

The view from my desk. I still need to hang pictures and maybe get a plant to make it seem less spartan, but overall it’s much nicer than I expected. I feel like now I really need to earn my space by being extra productive.

That’s my favorite part about working at UW-Whitewater. I might not be making as much money as I could be in the private sector, but I feel much more valued and respected than I would if I were working in cubicle farm.

Plus, the work I do helps students find out information about classes and more easily manage their education. At the end of the day, I’d rather be able to say I spent my time doing that, than hacking away at some line-of-business software for a giant financial institution or something.

In the last 12 months, I did the following:

• Took my first “real” full-time job at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
• Adopted two dogs
• Bought a house
• Got married
• Drove to Tennessee for two weeks for my honeymoon
• Printed my band’s first “real” album that you can buy
• Was the best man in my best friend’s wedding

I think it’s going to be a while before I beat 2011 on the eventfulness front. That’s why, as you’ve heard so many sports coaches do before me, I’m declaring this a rebuilding year.

What I mean is that, while Mary and I want to start our family sooner rather than later (since we’d like to be less than a million years old when our kids graduate high school), we’re barely scraping by as it is due to student loan payments and paying back money we spent on stuff for the wedding.

So, this year is a rebuilding year. We’re going to keep our heads down and pay off as much as we can so that, at some point, we might be able to actually keep some of our money rather than have it all immediately spoken for in loan and credit card payments.

There’s nothing wrong with a rebuilding year, everybody needs them once in a while. It will actually be nice to just spend time with Mary and the dogs and do projects around the house and “pay our dues.”

Your fondest memories are usually of the times you were just goofing around at home with your loved ones.

We got some good prospects. Who knows, maybe next year we’ll win the pennant!

We’re living in a time in our country where every issue is completely divisive and polarizing. You’re either for us or against us, and many people vote entirely on single issues, regardless of the actual policies enforced by their leaders.

What I have to say is this: whether you’re a conservative or a liberal, a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, take a moment to ask yourself whether you want to be seen by future generations as a hero or a villain.

We need heroes to ensure we have good schools and healthcare for our children and our neighbors children. We need heroes who have the empathy it takes to give up some of what they have when their neighbor doesn’t have enough.

A villain pulls his neighbor down with him, arguing that if he can’t have some, nobody should. A villain looks at his neighbor not to make sure that she has enough, but to make sure she doesn’t have more than he does.

No movie has ever had a hero who cut jobs, increased tax breaks for the wealthy, and made drastic cuts to education. We all want to be George Bailey, nobody wants to grow up to be Mr. Potter. So why do we vote for politicians and policies that hurt our communities? Why do we ruin our children’s futures and let our homes and cities slide into decay just to save a few dollars in taxes?

When future generations are dealing with the long-term effects of the policies and laws we enact today, do you want them to think of you as a hero, or a villain? Do you want them to inherit a government bereft of empathy and hope, that denies your fellow man the bootstraps he needs to pull himself up?

So, no matter what your politics, next time you’re at the polls just think: Am I really voting in my and my neighbors’ best interest? Will this vote do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people? Does this vote make me a hero? Or a villain?

I was excited, but also trepidatious, when I heard they were making a new Muppet movie. I love the first two movies, The Muppet Movie and The Great Muppet Caper — the former has been my answer to “What’s your favorite movie?” for a couple decades now, and the latter has the distinction of being perhaps the most worn-out VHS tape in my parents’ basement. Additionally, the Muppet Christmas Carol is still my favorite (and, if you ask me, the most true to the novel) version of A Christmas Carol, and I own all the (released) DVDs of The Muppet Show.

So, I have a reputation as “the guy who likes the Muppets” among family, friends and co-workers. Naturally, I was asked by essentially everyone who knows me whether I was excited about the new movie. I was, because I heard Jason Segel was writing it, and if you’ve seen the finale of his Forgetting Sarah Marshall, you know he gets the sense of humor that makes the Muppets so inherently funny and enduring.

I also heard that Bret McKenzie from Flight of the Conchords was writing the songs, which was another point in the movie’s favor. The Flight of the Conchords (and their excellent TV series) have a cartoonish “anything can and will happen” sensibility that has a lot in common with that of the Muppets.

I was excited, but with reservations. My skepticism was not due to the major names attached to the project, but rather a result of letdowns by the more recent post-Jim Henson era Muppets outings. Muppet Treasure Island wasn’t awful, but was forgettable, and had way too much of that effeminate kid singing. Muppets From Space was funnier, but got Gonzo’s personality completely wrong.

It seemed like each successive outing focused more and more on new characters introduced on Muppets Tonight, while the personalities of the foundational characters were allowed to drift farther and farther from what made them universal, identifiable and, most of all, funny.

Why was Gonzo suddenly a whiny sad-sack who looked like he raided Mr. Rogers’ wardrobe? Why was Fozzie no longer a comedian? They all live in a big house now? What happened to The Muppet Show? Or even Muppets Tonight? They are, at their core, supposed to be a troupe of performers, right?

The biggest thing The Muppets gets right is that the characters have all been restored to their Henson-era personalities and proclivities. Gonzo is once again a chicken loving, thrill-seeking performance artist who doesn’t give a damn what he “is”– he’s a Muppet, damn it. Fozzie is a needy cornball comedian. Miss Piggy is a drama queen and a singer. Kermit is the commitment-phobic ringleader with the singular ability to rally this collection of misfits together to put on a show.

The odd thing with the movie is, as this article states, it is essentially a work of fan fiction. The fan (Jason Segel) has inserted himself in a major “Mary Sue” role (with a Mary Sue Muppet brother to boot), making himself the catalyst for getting the old gang back together. The Muppets apparently could never have done it themselves, for reasons which are never explained.

Kermit and friends, at several points throughout the movie, reminisce about the old days and how long it’s been since they’ve all seen each other, seemingly ignoring everything that came “post-Henson,” like the 2005 Muppets Wizard of Oz, and 2002′s It’s a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie. Not that either of those are particularly great, but it’s still odd that this new film essentially positions itself as canon while sweeping those under the rug. It’s similar to the odd way that Brian Singer’s Superman Returns took place after the Christopher Reeves-starring Superman II, thus supplanting the story lines of the Reeves-era Superman III and IV with its own events. Why?

If you’re going to do that, why not just go for a full-on reboot? Why have characters reminisce about how great it was in the old days while simultaneously pretending the more recent days never happened? Rather than inserting yourself into and trying to “fix” the old version you loved as a kid, why not just make a new one? It’s like George Lucas’ neverending “upgrades” to the original Star Wars trilogy. When is enough enough? Can’t new generations be trusted to find the things we love about our pop-cultural touchstones without someone pointing them out and commenting on it the whole time?

I don’t know the answer, and don’t get me wrong: The Muppets is very good. It does its best to earn a place among the rightfully-vaunted Jim Henson era Muppets films. There are great songs and a lot of laugh out loud moments. It’s the out-and-out funniest Muppet show since The Great Muppet Caper.

I’d recommend it to anyone with any interest in seeing it. It’s very funny and well-done, especially if you’re a longtime Muppet fan. But it’s definitely been made with longtime Muppet fans in mind. It’s a celebration of the Muppets and a pat on the back to everyone who’s kept up with them over the years rather than just being its own, original Muppet story.

My hope is that now that they’ve done the throat-clearing “let’s bring the old gang back” film, they’ll get the same crew to continue to make more movies this funny and well done while the iron’s still warmed up, and that they will be able to forge ahead with new, original stories rather than continue to look back with longing at days gone by.