Little Red Planet, Big Waste of Money

If you haven't already, it won't be long until you hear about Phoenix, the latest NASA probe to land on Mars. I've already read claims that Phoenix has sent back historic photographs, which apparently give us much more information about the Martian surface than previous photographs relayed back to Earth from the 2004 Mars Exploration Rover Mission. I'm no expert, but they don't really seem to be radically different from the original Viking images that we first saw in the late '70s. From all the images I've seen and things I've read, Mars can be summed up pretty quickly:

Mars is cold, redish-brown, dusty, and has small rocks in some places, large rocks in others. Some regions are relatively flat, others are cratered and mountainous. There is very little water, and what water there is tends to exist as ice. There are no signs of life.

So far NASA has sent seven landers (probes that actually land on the planet's surface), six of which have been successful. Additionally, NASA over the years has sent eleven orbiters to Mars, of which seven have been successful. Of the seven landers, Phoenix is being heralded as being the most economical at the low, low price of $420 million. That's right, for just $420 million, you too can have a Mars lander that not only lands safely on Mars (probably), but also takes uninspiring pictures of rock-strewn plains, and cooks soil samples to look for evidence of microbial life. Oh, and did I mention that, because its landing site was planned to be further north than previous missions, it is only expected to remain operational for three months (before the dark Martian winter sets in, at which time its solar panels will be rendered useless)? Yes, NASA has really spent the taxpayer's dollar wisely!

Unfortunately, the billions of dollars spent on the exploration of Mars is just the tip of the iceberg, when you start considering the ever-growing annual NASA budget of $16.8 billion. Sure, some good things have come out of NASA's research (Tang and Astronaut Ice Cream come to mind), but I believe too much time, effort, and money is being spent to entertain the Star-Trek fantasies of NASA employees. We've seen a bunch of cool pictures and compiled some interesting data concerning God's universe, but we still haven't found any signs of life outside of our little blue and green planet.

Phoenix won't find life, but that won't keep NASA from sending yet another probe to Mars in search of it. Maybe someday we'll come to the realization that not only is Mars barren; but that we are alone in this beautiful universe, and that our Creator intended it to be that way!

And this little piggy went, "Wii, Wii, Wii!" all the way home.

I've realized something about myself lately, so there are a few things I have to say.

Hello, my name is Todd... and I'm a Wiiaholic. You may be thinking, "Wiiaholic isn't a word, and besides, are you saying, Todd, that you're addicted to Wiiahol? That's not a real thing either, moron!" You're right, but the fact remains: I have a problem, and I believe I need to admit it. That's the first step, you know.

Ever since we've gotten a Wii, too much of my time has been spent doing silly things in the name of entertainment. I've created a rather shabby on-screen approximation of myself (a Mii), played virtual tennis and bowling (in which I display much more competence than in their real-world counterparts), guided Italian plumbers around unconventional racetracks, and slashed at large man-eating plants with a sword-wielding elf in a green nightcap. I've been having fun, yes, but it has got to stop. It's not to say that I was any more productive pre-Wii, but it seems like my free time had a little more variety. I used to read more, write more, listen to new and interesting music, climb mountains, save small countries from impending doom, meet with world leaders, and direct award-winning movies. Okay, some of those things were not done in my leisure time. Instead, more than the socially acceptable amount of time is spent finding additional heart containers and perfecting my virtual backhand.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one detrimentally affected by the little, cute, affordable, time-wasting, brain-frying, white box of evil from Japan, known by the nonsensical name, "Wii". With Americans buying these things as fast as they hit the shelves, it's just a matter of time before western society as we know it totally falls apart. Terrorism, rising oil prices, falling dollar value, bird flu, weapons of mass destruction, global warming hysteria, steroid-crazed athletes, party politics, and American Idol -- each of these things pose a legitimate threat to national security and our way of life, yet none of them are as insidious or as infectious as the apparently harmless Wii. It's not just fun; it's too fun. I'm sure that's what "they" intended...

Anyone wanna play?

Get Rich, Quick(ly)!

I find it humorous, in this age of The Rising Cost of Everything, that it seems that everyone has a solution for everybody else's financial woes. Everyone has some innovation, some process, that will build almost-sudden wealth when properly applied. Don't misunderstand me; there are valid ways to become financially independent through hard work and discipline (e.g. the kind of advice given by Clark Howard, Dave Ramsey, etc.). I am amused, though, by the other golden nuggets of financial "wisdom" that are handed down from the ivory towers of those who attained wealth without a life-long regimen of working hard and controlled spending. The loving condescension they show to the average Joe is sometimes laughable.

Take, for example, the advice that I heard several weeks ago on talk radio. The host said, "The best thing to do in this economy [bad economy is implied], is to get out of debt. If you currently have debt, pay it off." Wow! Really?! That is the most amazing, life-changing thing I've ever heard! Finally, I know what to do with that huge pile of cash in the spare room! Sure, becoming debt-free is a goal of mine, but it's not something that I can accomplish tomorrow, next year, or probably even ten years from now. I'm sure, though, that it is easy for those that have national television and/or radio programs who have huge ad revenue checks coming in the door every day, but that isn't me. I mean, have you seen me or heard me talk?

I've also been instructed to "Buy gold, because that's the only sure way to protect your money" and "Invest in foreign currencies and various commodities, like oil and grain." Epiphany! Manna from Heaven! Seriously, how much gold should I buy to protect myself? Last time I checked, gold was around a thousand dollars an ounce. Hmm... That means that I might be able to comfortably buy, uh, two ounces. Short of total economic failure, this option isn't going to do me any good. Even if things got that bad (imagine a Mad Max-like scenario), how valuable will a couple ounces of shiny metal be? As far as the foreign currencies, oil, and grain are concerned, I'd have to buy an awful lot, and the price would have to skyrocket for me to make any significant financial gains.

It's after hearing all of this expert counsel, that I have come to the following conclusion. There are only three proven ways to become rich quickly:

1. Win the lottery. If you do this, please watch out for the lightning bolts and space junk headed your way. Also, don't ever fly on an airplane again.
2. Become famous. How you go about this is up to you, but once you get there, the money never runs out. If you're ever again strapped for cash, you can always be on Hollywood Squares, Celebrity Apprentice, The Surreal Life, or write a scandalous tell-all book. Which leads me to...
3. Write a book, or star in a DVD series, about how to build instant wealth. The actual money-making method that you preach isn't important. It's not about your followers becoming rich; you're getting rich on their hopes of quick, no-risk, gargantuan profits.

No thank you, I'll just keep making money the old-fashioned way. Come to think of it, there may be a fourth way to build wealth. Why don't you send me a small, one-time payment of $999 to my PayPal account? If you do, I'll tell you the secret to becoming obscenely rich in just two days! That's right, two days!

And thus saith Windu to Sidius...

I read an interesting news story today, concerning a man dressed as Darth Vader attacking the founding members of Church of Jediism. Yes, the Church of Jediism is exactly what it sounds like: people that apparently cannot find identity in any of the thousands of other existing religions, and have established a church of their own based on the Star Wars mythology. Interestingly, massive numbers of people in New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain have recently declared themselves as belonging to the Jedi or Jedi Knight religion, in a concerted, humorous effort to skew their respective country's census data. Most of the people making the claim are assumed to be Christian or nonreligious, but like anything else, there are surely an astounding (and disturbing) number of "true believers". The "true Jediists" are probably a little resentful of the people who only claim to be followers of the Jedi Code, saying to themselves, "They're making a joke out of our beliefs! It would really be great to know how many of us Jedis there truly are." So, in an effort to give legitimacy to these "true Jediists", I have the following questions:

1. Which are considered canonical: the movies, or the books based on the movies?
2. Is George Lucas a prophet, and if so, then how do the Indiana Jones movies, THX 1138, and American Graffiti fit in to the Jedi theology?
3. Do Jedi have holidays? What day was Master Yoda born?
4. There aren't many women in the Church of Jediism, are there? Don't you think you should add "A Jedi Showers Often" to your Code?
5. Is it okay to use the Jedi Mind Trick to make others say embarrassing things in public, or is that frowned upon?
6. Is it possible that most of the people reporting themselves as Jedi in the census are, in fact, Sith? Does that concern you?
7. Are there Jedi missionaries? When can I expect them at my door?

Love

What is love? Well, one definition I've heard is that, "Love means never having to say you're sorry." Really? Who comes up with schmaltzy garbage like this? I guess we're supposed to accept this sappy statement as true, without scrutinizing the underlying logic. I would think the opposite would be more accurate, "Love means always having to say you're sorry." If the original statement was true, then you would probably hear yourself occasionally say something like, "I just love you so much, that I understand why you felt it necessary to cut my arm off and feed it to the dog... and I'm okay with that. No apology necessary." I mean, relationships can already be confusing and frustrating on occasion, even with the vital "I'm sorry" component still in place. Imagine what chaos would result from the removal of accountability to the other person in the relationship, "Well she says she loves me, but she's always trying to poison me... Still, I love her, so I'll continue to eat whatever she gives me. I'm sure she has a good reason." Hopefully it's clear that love doesn't mean never saying you're sorry; though admittedly in the aforementioned example, hearing "I'm sorry, honey. I poisoned you," doesn't really make things much better, either.

There was a popular song from my childhood that said, "Love is a battlefield" (I just looked it up, it's from Pat Benatar, 1983). Are we referring to a Napoleonic battlefield, with cavalry, cannons, and such; or are we talking about a World War I battlefield with trenches, poison gas, and a no-man's-land? I don't know what kind of love she's singing about, but I haven't ever been concerned about having to move my heavy artillery to the rear of the relationship to avoid getting flanked by my wife's tank battalion. So, obviously this definition is just silly.

So, again, what is love? Some fellow Sunday school attendees would probably quote that "God is love" (1 John 4:16). Logically, one could substitute "love" for "God" in the statement above, and end up with the equation: love = love. Hmmm... That really doesn't get us anywhere, does it?

Maybe instead of trying to define love, we should examine its qualities. The Beatles sang, "All you need is love... Love is all you need," but apparently they weren't considering other essentials like oxygen, water, and food. You've undoubtedly heard "Love is a many-splendored thing" (which somehow was the title of a novel, two songs, a film, and a TV show), but the meaning of that statement isn't immediately obvious. According to a quick investigation into the definition of "splendored", it appears that it isn't a real word. Strike one. The real word is "splendorous". The meaning of splendorous is "having great luster or brilliance, shiny, or excellent". So, love is a many-shiny thing, or love is a many-excellent thing? Strike two. Let's rephrase it and say that "Love is a very beautiful, magnificent thing". Well, that is true, but it doesn't exactly define it or set it apart from say, a pretty sunset over the ocean or a well-crafted sandwich. You're out!

Perhaps we should try to define love by a word that seems to always be associated with love, "unrequited". "Unrequited" apparently can't go anywhere without "love" in tow. Unrequited means "not reciprocated or returned in kind". It seems like "unrequited" could and should apply to other things, too, since very few words in the English language have only one application. For instance, have you ever bought a nice dinner for a friend, only to be repaid later with an overcooked, gas-station-hotdog-like substance on a stale bun? You just experienced unrequited food. Yep, "unrequited" is usually synonymous with "bad".

When it comes to love, though, "unrequited" is not necessarily a bad thing. Yeah, there was probably at least one time in your life when you loved someone who didn't love you back, and it hurt. Truth is, that "love" was probably just a crush or an obsession. True love, on the other hand, is a conscious, unconditional commitment to a person. True love is caring for those who don't love us. True love persists when it's not convenient, exciting, or comfortable. True love is giving even when we are certain that what we receive in return won't measure up. God constantly shows us true love, and gets little in return. He experiences unrequited love constantly, yet He keeps dishing out the real thing in abundance. You see, without unrequited love, we wouldn't be able to see the magnitude of God's love for us. We should strive to follow His Example!