I'm sorry, but where exactly did you say you were the Prince of?

Sometimes I question the purpose of wisdom. It's frustrating because we often have to go through crap stuff in order to acquire it, which is because we don't listen to those who have already gone through the crap stuff. Then we tell our kids not to do what we did, and they do it anyways. I don't know- maybe the whole purpose is to have a built-in "I told you so" card to play at any given time.

At least having kids provides chances to utilize wisdom...but not like you'd think. I'm not talking about 'birds and bees talk' type stuff, or 'don't run with sharp objects'...I'm talking about television entertainment- specifically with Disney movies.

See, before I had kids, I had this nostalgic romanticism about Disney movies. I still consider 1989-1994 to be the Golden Age of animated Disney movies. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King- I don't know what the numbers say (and quite frankly, I am not interested in looking because it might be devastating to my case), but these are the best, most successful Disney movies of all time. Great music, memorable characters, and excellent stories- or so I thought.

Watching these movies with my kids has opened my eyes to some discrepancies. Not discrepancies within the movie- I'm talking discrepancies with reality.

Exhibit A- As a parent and a person with marginal political awareness, I am okay with the idea that Beauty and the Beast takes place in 'a far away land'. That's sort of the fairy tale shtick. What I'm not fine with is their government structure and lack of parental responsibility.

First of all, if this is a royal family...what exactly are they the monarchy of? Isn't the whole point of a monarchy to provide the governmental structure of a particular group of people and land? I mean, if the prince was just a noble and turned into an animal, it's probably not a huge deal. But this was a prince- and his entire entourage.

I realize that this didn't take place in the Internet age, but surely someone in the kingdom would have noticed that their rulers had turned into walking/talking inanimate objects. Wouldn't that have raised at least some type of awareness that, hey, things have really gone to hell around here- where are our king and queen?

But where are mom and dad in this scenario? Who knows-they aren't even in the picture! The only thing we know about them is that they were bad parents- they raised a child who was spoiled, selfish, and unkind. Granted, part of that is probably just due to the fact that this kid is a prince and an only child- but come on- a royal family that lets their son answer the door? And don't forget that this was at nighttime, during the winter! Where the heck are the Far Away Land Child Protective Services?

Really, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the prince is a victim of poor parenting and circumstance. Surely you can't fault him for his sense of self-preservation. I mean, if your royal parents are making you answer the door during a winter's night, you're probably just thinking about getting back in your nice warm, comfy, royal bed. You aren't thinking about the condition of the love in your heart. And lo and behold, who is at the door? An ugly old hag with a rose. 'Oh sure, come on in, I'll take your rose and give you a place to stay'. Give me a break. It's freezing out, it's late, and there is no way in hell you are getting through this door.

I'm sorry, Obscure Metamorphing Magic User- this is not the time for life lessons. This is the time to be practical. It is cold out, it is late, and you really seem shady. You are not coming inside- I don't care if you have a dozen roses. You do realize that this kid should be in bed right now, not answering the door for you. This is more proof that not just anyone should be in charge of powerful magic, because sometimes people have really strong and twisted senses of right and wrong- and when they decide to act on those morals, they can really destroy other peoples lives.

And you know- it wasn't just Beauty and the Beast either. Take The Lion King, for instance. Mufasa let Simba go around with Zazu as his bodyguard. Letting a lion be guarded by a bird? I know that lions are the king of beasts- but you honestly believe that if crap goes down, Zazu is going to be able to handle some hyenas? And then there is obviously the entire ensemble of dancing, browsing herbivores- that situation doesn't scream obscene danger. Look, Mufasa is a great king, and a loving father- he was just prone to lapses in judgement.

Moving on to The Little Mermaid- what's up with Prince Eric? Another case of 'what are you actually the prince of', he is victim to negligence by his top adviser, Grimsby, who lets Prince Eric take mystery-girl Ariel on an all-day outing around the kingdom, climaxing with an evening rendezvous alone in a boat on a secluded lagoon. They didn't know it was Ariel, though, because she couldn't talk. So apparently they aren't adverse to just letting Prince Eric gallivant around with any girl that washes up on the shore. I know she was pretty, but come one- she washed up on the shore and she doesn't speak! Isn't that a little suspicious? I have news for you, Prince Eric- chicks can be dangerous ninja assassins too.

Aladdin is not immune either- the Sultan lets Jasmine go around with a pet tiger. A tiger? What, were all therabid bears taken? Ask Sigfriend and Roy- even friendly tigers can turn deadly.

So what does this all mean? Is Disney against parents? And if they are, is it because parents are stupid? We must be, if we keep subjecting our kids to movies that glorify stupid parenting and the triumph of their children in spite of it. Well, I have news for you Disney- I'm onto you. I am putting my wisdom to good use. I am going to shout from the rooftops about your shenanigans. And don't look for your movies to be played on my PS3- from now on I'm going to only subject my kids to moral bastions like Dora and Diego.

On second thought...what was I saying about wisdom?

Dexter just ripped my heart out (there will be spoilers)

I'm probably just pissing in my sour grape Cheerios (aside- remember when there just used to be Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios? Now half the cereal isle is dedicated to Cheerios. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sour grape Cheerio flavor), but we just got done watching the last episode of Season 4 of Dexter and I am pissed. The ending has rocked me to my core, probably much more than a mere television show should, and definitely more than any television show I've ever seen before has.

If you haven't seen the show, I highly recommend it- the first 3 seasons, that is. Dexter is a forensics blood spatter analyst who moonlights as a vigilante serial killer (that is, he kills killers). It is one of the deepest, quirkiest, funnest shows I've ever seen- the first 3 seasons, that is.

Season 4 takes a decided turn, and it wasn't until too late that I realized that the show wasn't a comedy dressed up as Seven- it was a full-on edge-of-your-seat thrill-drama. The last two nights we've powered through the last disc (4 episodes)...frantically getting pulled in to this race against the clock for Dexter to find Trinity (the big serial killer in Season 4). The laughs- were not really to be found.

I can't say I blame the show for evolving- in this business, you have to change, because stagnancy doesn't sell ad space. We're Generation Now- Season 3 was so Last Season ago. What have you done for me lately? That's where Dexter went in Season 4.

The reason why I am devoting a blog to this is because I want to call shenanigans on the way that Season 4 ended. See, Dexter Morgan ripped out my heart- and their will be spoilers.

See, the first 3 seasons ended nice and cozy- each season had some build-on from the others, too, but each season wrapped up with no carry over. There was no cliff hangers- it was a show that delved into dark subject matter with a light-hearted focus, and so I got to be comfortable with that.

Obviously, Season 4 was paced much, much differently. The dark subject matter was still there- but much of the frivolity that made the walking contradiction of Dexter the most polarizingly amazing character ever was left out. I suppose there were signs along the way that this season was going to be way different- Dexter's car accident, Deb and Lundy getting shot...but there's been intense moments before. This ending is different.

What my issue here is that the show Dexter established a set of unspoken rules that it was going to abide by. This is how we're going to move plots forward, this is how things will resolve, and in the end, Dexter will save the day, and everyone goes home happy. Season 4 almost ended like that. Almost.

Minutes away from Dexter leaving to get on a plane to meet up with his wife in the Keys, he comes upon a grizzly scene in his bathroom- his son, Harrison, covered in blood, as his wife Rita lies dead in the bathtub. Now, being a married father with young children, I have to admit that I might be emotionally too close to the subject material to really think about this objectively.

But still, you can't do that to an audience. That's just bad writing, looking for a gimmick to hook people in. We were strung along in that last episode, which was acting and looking like the last episode of the previous 3 seasons. And then- WHAM. COMPLETE pulling out of the floor underneath our feet.

I had someone on Facebook comment on a status of mine in regards to Dexter that his wife died. So I knew that was a possibility, and I kept trying to re-frame the events of the season in the context of his wife dying at some point- and you know what? Once he killed Trinity, then I felt like that was over. That it wasn't going to happen, and I could let down my guard a little. That Season 4 was going to finish, Dexter was going to have a romantic getaway with his wife, and voila- that was it.

Then she dies, and Dexter is not the only one left picking up the pieces. Maybe that's good writing- that I "knew" it was coming, and still didn't see it. But still, there was definitely a feeling of betrayal- that they set us up, doing things the way that they had always been done, and then at the last second, completely changing the rules on us.

I'm done with the show, done- finished. Impulsive decision? Probably (I suppose if you've paid any attention to my blog over the past couple years, you're well aware at my impulsivity). But it's not the first time we've realized it's time to move on. We left Lost. We left Prison Break. We even left The Office. Sara and I are pretty good at recognizing when a show has nothing left to offer us. We were tired of Lost piling more and more questions on top of us when we were still waiting for our first questions to be answered. When Michael Scofield was sent back to prison- we didn't go with him. And when Jim and Pam got together, we broke it off.

I really don't know what to say or how to end this. I realize it's probably stupid to get so involved emotionally with a television show- but really, to me Dexter is more than a television show. It's this ongoing commentary on the way that our society functions- the social structures that we take for granted, the rules and laws that keep things from "falling apart"- and the impact that those in our lives have on us, both in our past and our present- the struggle for who we are raised to be and who we want to be. It's a phenomenal show, I seriously recommend the first 3 seasons highly. But if you are the type of person who doesn't like to be lied to- then do yourself a favor. Don't watch Season 4.

First half report- My Fantasy Football Team (lame, I know...but aren't you even a little intrigued?)

Before I start this, you should know (if you don't already) that I have a serious case of the love-hate relationship with Fantasy Football. It's probably not a healthy thing. The fact that I am writing a detailed blog about my Fantasy Football team (and not for the first time) is probably a good indicator of the depth of my obsession. I spend every Sunday in agony at my latest misplay, every Monday morning lamenting my participation in this masochistic pursuit- and yet, the idea of walking away is basically a non-option.

I think there are some good things that come out of Fantasy Football. I think there is a lot of bad things that come out of Fantasy Football. I suppose that I have a chance to learn how to serenity to accept the things I can change, the courage to accept the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference.

And what of the situations where things I can change and cannot change go to the crapper? Common Sense, which I have some control over, has betrayed me, and The Experts, who I am basically a slave to, are just as clueless as I am about the NFL.

See, Common Sense is just about the only friend that a Fantasy Football player has (aside from the Experts). As amazing as the information age is, we're not privy to everything. We don't get to watch all the practices. We don't get entry into the pain receptors of each athlete to know how hurt they really are. So all we can do is look at each match-up and use our Common Sense to determine who is most likely to score the most points. And when our Common Sense doesn't lean either way, we call upon The Experts to give us a little nudge in the right direction.

When your Common Sense and The Experts are wrong? Then you are effed.

Look, I know there are things I can't control. Ryan Grant gets hurt in the 2nd quarter of game 1? Hey, I can't do anything about that. Jermichael Finley gets hurt on the 2nd play of a recent game? Jesus, please heal him, and stat...unless they put him on injured reserve, and then it can probably wait. But Fantasy Football is all about this control-illusion, and the things you think you control actually rely very heavily on things that you have no control over- and it doesn't matter how much wisdom you acquire when you lose the game because you started the wrong RB.

I wish that I could tell you that I have some sort of new revelation about how to approach Fantasy Football. That I've unlocked the Holy Grail that no longer requires Common Sense or The Experts. But I haven't. I'm still just as clueless as I was before.

And yet, I am not without hope. My Snow Flurries have (pardon the pun) weathered the storm, endured an 0-4 start, and are currently on a 3 game winning streak. I'm one bad play away from being 4-3, so I feel pretty good about my team (of course, this comes at a price- when I was 0-4, I was enjoying the Fantasy Football experience much more than I am now that I am on a winning streak). We're healthy, we're talented...and we lost another key player to a long-term injury. I have absolutely no idea how the second half of the season is going to go.

For now, I just want to summarize the first half. I wanted to wait until season was over and do it like that (a la the first year), but I figured this way it'd be more fresh- this pain, these emotions, this bleeding heart of mine- and it would give me a therapeutic outlet heading into the second half.

Here's how I done so far:

Week 1- Opening week. Divisional match. Against my brother. What a way to set the tone for the Snow Flurries triumphant march towards the title. Oops- a loss. 97-71, I fall to Team Doomsday. And Ryan Grant falls onto the IR list. And my season falls apart (or not...I suppose it's still on life support-or able to eat some Jell-o).
What went right- I had some solid performances- Tony Romo (17 points) and Ronnie Brown (14 points) each put up double digits, as did Mohammed Massaquoi (10 points), Darren McFadden (20 points) and the Bears D (23 points).
What went wrong- The last three names on that list were all on my bench. Basically I left 53 points on the bench. But that wasn't the worst part-the real stinger is that Ryan Grant, my top draft choice, was injured for the season. The only saving grace for this week was that Calvin Johnson dropped the winning TD against the Bears and Josh left Hakeem Nicks (25 points) on the bench in place of Roy Williams (2 points). And by 'saving grace', I literally mean grace- because I could have lost by much more than I did. Thanks bro- much love!
Bonehead move- When you lose by 20+ points, it's hard to think of any move as a "bonehead" move. I should have started the Bears D vs the Lions (I got sucked into the whole "hope" fiasco), and if I would have given McFadden a chance he would have paid off- but honestly, when you lose your top RB for the season less than 2 quarters into the first game, you can't expect too much. Right?

Week 2- The Snow Flurries, still reeling from the tragic death of Ryan Grant, forget to show up in week 2 and lost by 50- Team Fergy providing the 131-81 dismantling.
What went right- My bench outscored his bench 114-70. So suck it Fergy! On a more serious note, I had some super outings from my RBs- McFadden had 15 points, and Jason Snelling, subbing for an injured Michael Turner, exploded for 36 points.
What went wrong- When I say "subbing for an injured Michael Turner", it's a literary device I am using to purposefully mislead you. What I'm neglecting to mention is that Turner got hurt in the 2nd quarter (hmmm...must remember to pray more during the 2nd quarter), after I had already started him. So all those points that Snelling scored were useless for me, except for puffing up my bench (which at this point would be 2-0 and has outscored my starting line-up both games). Also, my starting receivers racked up a grand total of 7 points (which was less than every single player on Fergy's team except one guy- who had 7 points of his own). Suck it Snow Flurries!
Bonehead move- Surprisingly- none! Snellings outburst came after an unforeseen injury, so I made the logical (read: Common Sense) play, most of my bench points came from D's and QB's, and none of them could have been started with any noticeable effect on the final score. I could have started Dustin Keller (18 points) at TE over Finley (11 points)...but again, the gain would have been minimal.

Week 3- This is where my friends Common Sense and The Experts must have had some sort of secret Illuminatiesque conference and decided that they were going to screw me. That's the only logical explanation I have for dropping a 127-118 heartbreaker to Team War Machine.
What went right- My team dedicates the remainder of the season to the memory of Ryan Grant (I don't have the heart to tell them that he's really just hurt) and comes out with guns blazing. I have 7 double digit point getters, and Turner and McFadden combine for 37 points. War Machine starts Matt Forte (3 points) and the other Steve Smith (2 points) in place of Brandon Lloyd (23 points) and Jeremy Maclin (20 points). The stars are lining up in my favor.
What went wrong- It's hard to get too down on oneself for making misplays- because the other guy can often make them as well. The thing is that in Fantasy Football, you depend on your opponent making stupid moves while you are busy being brilliant. So while War Machine made a couple plays that benefited me, I saw what he was doing and decided to raise him. Because of "Common Sense", I decided to start the Ravens D against the Cleveland Browns instead of the Bears D against the Packers. Can you tell me if there is a universe where a real life coach would have rather played against the Packers instead of the Browns? Well apparently there is- and it's the Fantasy universe, because the Bears D scored 36 points while the Ravens tallied 14. I was beside myself- how can I continue to live in a world where crappy offenses give my Fantasy defenses more trouble than great offenses? But that's okay, because newly acquired Anquan Boldin registered 33 points at...wait- what's that? I sat him? Why did I sit him? Oh yeah- Because the ESPN Fantasy Forecasters predicted Tim Hightower would have more points than he did. And Hightower did have more points than Boldin did-negative 29 more points to be exact.
Bonehead move- Listening to others instead of taking control of my team and running it my way. I swore then and there to never let another man dictate my Fantasy Football decisions. Obviously that lasted about all of 4 weeks.

Week 4- My team is on the ropes- and Team Bullies delivers the knock-out blow in a 105-82 defeat, knocking us to 0-4.
What went right- Chad Henne threw 3 interceptions. His real team lost 41-14. And I was happy as heck to have him at QB this week. With Romo on a bye week, I needed a fill-in starter. and 19 points was an extremely serviceable outing from the young gunslinger.
What went wrong- McFadden hurts his hamstring in the 4th quarter. I'm having flashbacks to 2009. The worst part is, though, that there is literally no other roster play that I could have made to win this game. None. Zero. Zilch. I was just flat out defeated by a better team. And sometimes, that stings worse than woulda/coulda/shoulda/
Bonehead move- None- I'm speechless. This is the low point. 0-4...forget the playoffs, let's just win a game. But with my top running back in the after-life, and my new top running back nursing a sore hamstring, and my receivers producing more eggs than a Leghorn chicken. It might be time to throw in the towel.

Week 5- With nothing to lose, and a 4-0 team visiting Marquette, I tell the team that Ryan Grant is actually alive. They seem- relieved! They aren't even bothered by the fact that their coach (many of whom regard me as a father figure) lied to them- they can see that what I did, I did to protect them because I care deeply for them. Armed with a new-found sense of faith in themselves (and more importantly, their coach), the Snow Flurries rally to defeat Team El Diablo 113-92 for their (and more importantly, my) first win of the year.
What went right- Tony Romo and daaaaaa Bears. They combine for 69 points- 69! Also, a special shout out has to go to the KC Chiefs actual defense, which held Peyton Manning to 7 points.
What went wrong- Probably the weirdest win I've ever had. Aside from the aforementioned stinker by Manning, I had 3 players score 0 points. That's right- a full third of my lineup had no points. I literally do no know how that happened. What's even more amazing- there is literally no way that El Diablo could have beat me- his top scoring line-up of the week would have still lost to me by 3. Oh yeah, I lost Jermichael Finley for the season on the second play of his game.
Bonehead move- Peyton Manning scores only 7 points? I win despite 3 players on the NO SOUP FOR YOU column? I'm not going to try and evaluate any sort of decision making- this is obviously just one of those flukes of probability.

Week 6- Another week, another upset victory- this time over Team Moose, 116-99. My team is really starting to buy in. Being the master motivator that I am, I had T-shirts made for my team to wear under their game jerseys.

Really, we're one bad week away from being a .500 team (of course, we're four bad weeks away from being undefeated, and two good weeks away from being winless).
What went right- My former kicker (Lawrence Tynes) was a little tweaked, and it was thought that he might not play (I guess The Experts are not totally daft)- so I dropped him and picked up Sebastian Janikowski, who banged home 10 points for the Snow Flurries. Tony Romo threw 3 scoring passes for the Cowboys, none of them went to Miles Austin. Finally, the Bears D, which was not doing very well at all (against the Seahawks- WTH???) came through in a big way at the end of their game when Devin Hester returned a punt 89 yards for a score that quadrupled their fantasy production.
What went wrong- Well, if I want to get greedy, I could say that I could have played Michael Crabtree instead of Steve Smith and picked up an extra 4 points (11 vs. 7)- but again, because of the NFL schedule (half of Team Moose's bench was on a bye week), there was no possible configuration that my foe could have ran that would have made up the difference.
Bonehead move- None. Maybe I've figured this Fantasy Football thing out. It's possible that I am the Bill Belichick of Fantasy Football.

Week 7- Well it turns out that I am in fact Bill Belichick- only instead of being the nerves-of-steel 3-time Super Bowl champion version, I'm version 1.suck. I spent the 1:00 round of games freaking out because I played the Bears over the Ravens D, and then the 4:00 games tearing hair out because I played Chris Ivory instead of Darren McFadden. I'm still trying to process whether I am happy because I won (130-102 over Team Dennis) or mad because I am an idiot.
What went right- Turner and Bowe each had 20+ points. Steve Smith had 17 for me, and Anquan Boldin had 15. Dennis leaves Percy Harvin (16 points) and Kenny Britt (42 points) on the bench.
What went wrong- Well let's just put this out there right now. Sunday morning, I was checking my roster, and I had this small, tiny voice in my head telling me to put in the Bears D and Darren McFadden. Was it God? I don't know. If God intervenes in Super Bowls, then surely He would give a guy a small Fantasy Football nudge. And of course, if you have a choice between listening to an omnipotent deity or finite Common Sense, you listen to the deity right? But here's the thing. It's the Ravens- playing the Bills. And "The Experts" said that (direct quote) "McFadden should be available if you need him, but it is probably best to use another option if possible".

Dear Lord, I appreciate You providing me some insider information. At this time, I have decided to pursue my own insights into this weeks match-ups. I'm sorry God, but You're trying to tell me that playing the Bears against D-McNabb is better for me than the Ravens versus the Bills? And Ryan Fitzpatrick? Really? Thanks but no thanks.

(I do hope that you will consider giving me future insider tips, because I am not very good at this Fantasy Football thing.)Well, at least I didn't suffer any more injuries. Oh wait. I did. Romo fractured his collarbone during the first half against the Giants. Out for several weeks. Possibly the season.
Bonehead move- Yeah...McFadden had 28 points...in the first half. 44 for the game. I still won- but I wouldn't have had to spend most of Sunday kicking myself in the ass for the big benching. How many times do you have a player score 40+ points in Fantasy Football? Not many. As for the D situation? One advantage of giving up a bunch of points is that you get a bunch of chances to return kicks (and get points in our league), and the Ravens scored 24 points (versus the 29 that the Bears put up with). So it was a wash...NOT.

So four consecutive losses followed by three consecutive victories. Three players lost for the season. We have been down- but not out. And as Ryan Grant lives, so do the Snow Flurries. We shall endure. We may lose every game for the rest of the season, but I will not fail to keep updating my roster. Besides, all is not lost-after all, if the season ended today, I'd be in the playoffs. (At the rate that my players are dropping, I really wish that the season was going to end today).

How will this all play out? Tune in 6 or so weeks to find out how the second half of my season goes! (Or you could just follow my Sunday status updates on Facebook and get a general idea for how I'm doing).

Textbook Tuesday (but on a Thursday): Context

Textbook Tuesday (or Thursday, should I so deem it) is going to be a series on the things that make us who we are as human beings. The premise is that I will be reading textbooks on various sciences (biology, psychology, sociology, etc.) and breaking the information down into bite sized pieces. This week, I will be focusing on content from Chapter 1 of Counseling Diverse Clients by Jeanne M. Slattery.

Each and every person has their own unique story. They have had a series of events that are unique to them, with thoughts and perceptions that are their own. There is a degree of universality (in a sense) because of the shared bonds of language that tie together our understanding of aspects of the world, and yet as human beings we give our own spin to the meaning of words. Even something simple like "tree" can mean something completely different to those of us in the Upper Peninsula than it does to someone in the inner parts of Detroit.

The story of each of our lives can be defined as "context". It's who we are. It's where we live. It's who we hang out with. It's our families. It's our jobs. It's every part of our lives, and how those parts fit together to paint the complete portrait of who each of us is.

I started off with this particular book because of the importance of this concept. I have referred to it before, and I will refer to it again. It is extremely broad- something that I definitely won't tackle fully in this blog, and honestly will not be able to cover it in a million posts- because context is a shapeshifting ambiguity that is constantly changing. Of course, these changes impact each of us in different ways, and how we perceive the changes (both in ourselves and others) influences context as well.

Tying into this idea of change is a concept (I really need to get a thesaurus...I feel like I've used the word concept so much that it has lost its meaning as a word) that the book introduces is called the fundamental attribution error (page 2). According to Slattery, this basically means that "people recognize the external, unstable factors that contribute to their own behavior and attribute their problems to them" (page 2 again). So if we do something dumb, it's because God hates us (not a quote for theological debate, merely a hyperbole) and if someone else does something dumb, it is because they are, in fact, dumb.

Think about the last time that another driver did something stupid while the road. You probably thought all sorts of mean and nasty things about that person- maybe you even let lose with a 'Goll-darn-it!'. You probably didn't, as you did with the last time you did the exact same thing, try to justify their behavior as merely running late, or having to be someone very important...or having a lot on your mind. No, they forgot their turn signal because they are the stupidest driver on the face of the Earth.

That's why the idea of context is such an important one, and why understanding it (even a little bit) is absolutely essential if we are to really move into an ability to understand other people and start to solve problems on a broader scale. We have to be able (and willing) to think about other people in terms of the things that are a part of their story that might not be a part of ours. And we have to be willing to admit that we are not as good as we seem, and that others are not as bad.

Another part of context is the realization that the Earth is not populated by over 6 billion Jason Parks' (if it makes you feel better, you can insert your own name there instead. If that doesn't make you feel better, then you probably have some real problems- or you really really like me).

The human experience for me is completely different from that of every other person in the history of ever. I have to come to terms with the fact that not everyone grew up White, male, and Protestant- that some people are left handed, that there are people who grew up without siblings and even without parents. Not all of humanity did well in school. However many billions of people there are, that's how many unique combinations of biology, sociology, psychology, family, education, etc. that there are. So when I try to relate to another human being, I have to do so from a position that acknowledges that my own experiences can be (and often are) not going to help me understand this person- rather, they very well may hinder the process.

In my social work classes, Professor Simpson often talked to us about our clients being the experts of their lives, and this being one of the ideas that separated social work from other professions. It is this idea that I humbly submit to you. If you want to really get to know someone, or understand them, or even help them, you must first be willing to allow them to guide you. Because they are going to have parts of them that are completely foreign to you- even if the "Tale of the Tape" says you are the same.

A story that Slattery uses at the end of her first chapter (page 9) that really drives home this whole idea is the story about the three blind men who stumbled upon an elephant. The gist of the story is that each man fondles a different part of the elephant and comes away with a completely different idea about what the elephant really is. One man finds the leg- thinks it's a huge tree. Second man finds the ear, and determines it to be a palm tree. Third man finds the tail, and says it's a rope. Obviously they were all wrong- but even if they had called out the appropriate anatomy (leg, ear, tail), they would have still been wrong! All of the individual parts fit together to create a whole.

So if you take nothing else away from this, remember that every person you are interacting with is really a mish-mashed composite of intersecting components- and respond accordingly.

Tune in next....oh heck...I don't know...time? Yeah, time. Time works. Tune in next time as I dig deeper into the notion of context.

I got hit on by a missionary...and I liked it

This one actually comes from the vault- a blog that I fully intended to write, many months ago, that just kept getting pushed to the side for other, more lucrative ones (that, and I'm pretty lazy). But as our friends at Disney have proved time and time again, it is totally okay to brag about a secret "vault" and drag really old stuff out of it, and then pretend it's like this really big deal and charge people lots of money for it.

Anyways, this blog dates back to when I was working in one of the group homes, which is headed up by a couple that is LDS. For those of you who don't know, LDS is acronym for Latter Day Saint, or Mormon, as they are more often called.

One of the greatest things that I have taken away from the social work program at NMU is that I have a much greater appreciation for the diversity of humanity. I'm able to talk to people of different religions, political persuasions, and affectional orientations without automatically putting up the defense wall that usually went up before. I'm much more in tune with what we have in common than what separates us.

So the family would have local missionaries come over to their home for meals. I never asked, but I assume that this is sort of the way it works- the church body working together to provide some basic meals/socialization/ministry opportunities for their missionaries. It was pretty cool- they usually came over and kicked it with us on Friday nights, and then we'd see them Saturday mornings playing basketball at the church.

It was a pretty interesting experience, overall- getting to interact with these missionaries in a normal-type setting (as normal as a group home can get, I'd wager). Of course, they were always dressed up- but they never really "came on" to us as far as "religion" goes- they'd answer questions, but for the most part they were very chill.

Now, as I type this, I'm very aware of potential reactions that might be starting to rise to the surface. I believe this is so because I used to be in this manner. Religion is such a touchy subject. It's tough to approach in a manner that is mutually respectful- because people are so convinced of the truth and reality of their own beliefs, they can't see past those beliefs in their assessment of other human beings.

It's a lot like our taste receptors on our tongues. Our bodies respond to the tastes of certain foods- sometimes apathetically, sometimes passionately. And when someone does not share the same taste as we do- we can't handle it. We can't process it. Our minds are unable to wrap around the thought that this very concoction that is so so pleasing to our taste buds can be greeted with apathy or disgust by another person.

I feel that we respond to our beliefs in the same way- not just religion...I'm talking politics, child-rearing, sports teams- the things we hold to tightly, we are sometimes faultily loyal to. Michigan/Michigan State play this weekend. If you're a "football" fan, you're going to watch and view this game much differently than a U-M fan will- even though you're watching the same game. Your ability to be objective has been compromised by your emotional attachment and investment.

So I am very aware that my writing about a topic concerning religions, specifically my interaction with another religion, is potentially a hot-button issue. However, I think that there is a deep truth in what I am trying to convey that compels me to move past that.

So here is the story. If you are at all familiar with my ability to tell stories, you know that this is not going to be a story in the usual sense of the word; rather, there will be some words formulated into sentences, which hopefully come together to arrive at some sort of a conclusion.

One Saturday, a lunch was being prepared. The wife in the group home dyad was being assisted by one of the missionaries, and I was sort of hanging out between the kitchen and dining room. Somehow we started talking about God- I probably asked them some question about being a missionary or something. I really should have wrote this down- Disney doesn't have to remake 'Beauty and the Beast' because they just keep it in their vault. Obviously I suck at vaulting.

So the wife (we'll call her "Sandy") asks me about the possibility of Sara and I having missionaries over to our house. In the spiritual realm, this is akin to being a married man at a bar who gets hit on by the hot blond at the end of the table.

Hence the title of my blog.

It was a very surreal moment for me. I didn't faint, but that doesn't mean that my head wasn't spinning- and swimming- and all sorts of other things that heads do. I mean, this was a pretty violent intersection between the belief system that I had known and the belief system that I was coming in to. This sort of conflict between the idea of having these people come over and listening to what they had to say out of respect for their humanity and their beliefs versus the idea that they are deceived sinners heading to hell and my obligation to speak the "truth" to them.

One thing that I really got an appreciation for during my time in this home was the humanity of the LDS missionaries. Yes, they are always way overdressed. They couldn't watch movies. There were all sorts of things that they could and couldn't do. In a way, I thought it was very silly- such a futile exercise in "religious" activity. In another way, I admired their tenacity- their willingness to sacrifice parts of themselves, and their identity, for the good of others- and whether you believe that LDS (or any religion) is right or wrong, the fact is that they did this thing, and gave up all sorts of comforts and luxuries that I would legitimately have a difficult time giving up.

We never did invite any of the missionaries over, for a few reasons. Chief among them was that we were busy- it seems like we're always so busy, but this happened in the last semester of my undergrad career, so we were balls to the wall. The other reason is that I didn't want to "lead them on". That is, I love the idea of listening to other people's beliefs and thoughts on things- but not in that context. It's way different than having a casual conversation about religion.

The End (What, I told you I was a crappy story teller)

Well, I promised a deep truth, and while its tone has ran through this post, it has also been treading just beneath the surface. So I'll reach into the water and grab it before it slithers away, and then bring it up to the sunlight, its scales glistening in the sunlight. I learned this from a very wise woman, and have spent the past couple years imperfectly walking it out. The key (in my opinion) to any human interaction is to be humble enough to know you can learn something from somebody else, even if they are different from you in every way. You can't approach someone of a different religion/political stance/third thing in an arrogant fashion, or you will quickly lose the respect of your audience.

There is something to be said for being able to listen to another person's story, to their thoughts and their worldview- to have human interactions without an agenda, but just sharing a part of yourself with someone else, and them sharing a part of themselves with you- and maybe both of you go your separate ways and reject those parts. That's fine. But it's way better to get hit on by a missionary and go your separate ways than it is to kick that missionary in the balls and then have to run away from the cops (obviously I'm speaking metaphorically).