Proud & Hateful?

Last night I was playing around one one of those websites where you can take quizzes to see things like "which LOTR character are you?" or "what small Australian mammal do you most closely resemble?" (okay . . . I made that one up) and I came across one where you answer a bunch of questions and it tells you what theological point of view is most compatible with your beliefs.

I thought that it would be fun to see how accurate it was so I answered the 25 or so questions, hit the "submit" button, and got an interesting response. The quiz program informed me that I am a Calvinist . . . so far so good, though I don't necessarily consider myself to be a "five-pointer." It then went on to expound that I hate everyone who doesn't believe like I do, am "hateful and proud," and do not believe in evangelism because "God will take care of it without my help" . . . interesting description for someone who leads a Bible study where most of the attendees are Roman Catholic and who plans to be a missionary!

I think that a lot people who lean toward Calvinism don't hold that extreme of a view on evangelism and the lost (I don't think anyone that I know does) . While it is true that Calvinism emphasizes God's sovereignty, election, etc. (as taught in the Bible), that doesn't absolve us of doing our part in evangelism (also as taught in the Bible!) and God still holds the lost responsible for their failure to accept Christ (also as taught in the Bible!). How do those correlate? Don't ask me! Far smarter people than me have been debating that for centuries and I don't think we'll ever figure it out because God is so much higher and greater than us.

Anyway, I just found the whole "you are proud and hateful" and "hate everyone who doesn't believe like you" thing kind of funny (as well as kind of sad/ignorant) and it reminded me of a joke I head a while ago:

A man died and went to heaven. He was given a tour by one of the angels. They walked down a huge hallway with open doorways on either side. As they passed one door there was the sound of loud laughing, singing, and much shouting. The angel informed the man that this was the room where those who had been Pentecostals liked to hang out. They passed another doorway where the sound of tambourine music and the stomp of dancing feet could be heard. The angel informed the man that this was the room where those who had been Messianic Jews liked to get together. Likewise, they passed the doorways of various other groups, sometimes popping in to say "hi," until they angel motioned the man to a stop and whispered, "now, you have to be very quiet as we pass this next doorway. The Baptists are in there and they think that they're the only ones here."

Wanted: Good Fantasy Author

I grew up reading J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. I've read the Lord of the Rings trilogy (LOTR) and The Chronicles of Narnia series probably a dozen times each and most of their lesser known fiction at least once.

SIDE NOTE: you should really read The Chronicles of Narnia in the original order (1. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, 2. Prince Caspian, 3. Voyage of the Dawn Treader, 4. The Silver Chair, 5. The Horse and His Boy, 6. The Magicians Nephew, 7. The Last Battle), not the chronological order in which they are arranged in most newer collections (1. The Magicians Nephew, 2. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, 3. The Horse and His Boy, 4. Prince Caspian, 5. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, 6. The Silver Chair, 7. The Last Battle). . . The Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe really gives the best introduction of who Aslan is and what the land of Narnia is all about. The Magician's Nephew is much more enjoyable once you know a bit about Narnia, and The Horse and His Boy, while one of my favorites, tends to break up the flow of the human children's story if read in chronological order rather than in the original order. END OF RABBIT TRAIL

Anyway, because of those two authors, fantasy is one of my favorite fiction genres. However, I'm having a hard time finding any new fantasy authors that I really like. I suppose that's partly because I'm pretty picky about what I read. Following, are my criteria for what would make a good fantasy book (and you'll get some of my thoughts on Tolkien and Lewis too).

1. Clean: The characters don't run around sleeping with each other and/or using profanity


2. Well-written Plot: No plot holes/continuity problems, and there should actually be an ultimate point/goal to the story . . . not just characters wandering around and collecting treasure while fighting various random monsters and performing various "side quests" as they stumble upon them (a.k.a. it shouldn't just read like someone's latest D&D session).

Also, there should not be too many amazing coincidences that save the day in the nick of time. Sometimes I think that Tolkien may actually do this a little too often (especially in The Hobbit). On the other hand, one of his overriding themes in LOTR seems to be that there is a largely unnamed power that is directing all things so that the good will ultimately triumph (e.g. the conversation about how Bilbo was "meant to find the ring" and not by the ring, or the one about Gollum's part to play before the end because "not even the wise can see all ends")

3. Not Overly Derivative of J.R.R. Tolkien: Now, I know that most fantasy borrows heavily from Tolkien's characters since he basically created/popularized the archetypes (or stole them from Anglo-Saxon literature . . . especially the Rhinegold Saga), and that's fine. However, all too many authors copy not only the various races and cultures, but also the various storylines! It seems like two-thirds of the "quest" sub-genre fantasy books that I've read involve, at some point, a small group of adventurers making their way under the mountains by going through an abandoned dwarven mine/tunnel system which used to be beautiful but now houses some unspeakable evil. Come on! I absolutely love Tolkien's work, and if I want to re-read his storylines I'll just read LOTR again . . . he wrote it first and better, so come up with your own plots you bunch of lazy hacks! (sorry, got a little carried away there)

4. Well-written Heroes: The "good guys" should actually act like "good guys" . . . not that they're perfect, but their overall actions and motivations should be good. (an exception might be the sub-genre where the hero is more of a rogue with a good heart in the fine tradition of Han Solo, though he's sci-fi, not fantasy).

The hero should also be of at least average intelligence. It really annoys me when the hero spends most of his time befuddled by fairly normal events, walks into incredibly obvious traps, blindly falls for every deception of the enemy, and/or fails to figure something out until chapter 25 that he and the reader have all the clues to and the reader has figured out way back in chapter 3.

You should want the hero to "win." You shouldn't get so fed up with his/her self-serving, conniving manipulation or utter lack of thinking ability that you just want a dragon to step on him/her.

5. Not Overly Allegorical: I don't have a problem with some allegory/Biblical parallels. After all, I like Narnia, and Aslan is clearly a Christ figure, and Lewis clearly puts some of his theology (not all of it completely orthodox, unfortunately) into the Narnia series. However, Lewis viewed his books as a "supposition" not an "allegory." That is, the books were a "if there was another world, what would God/Jesus be like there?" not a "how can I make every aspect of my story reflect something about the Christian life." Too many Christian fantasy authors try to spiritualize their whole story and what they come up with may be a good allegory, but it's pretty lousy as far as fantasy goes.

Anyway, does anyone have a recommendation of a newer fantasy author that meets the above criteria (or at least comes close)? Or have I just been spoiled by Tolkien?

Authors I've tried already include (and some of these are okay-ish):

Terry Brooks Shanarra (Parts are very derivative of Tolkien and characters are flat . . . I only read the first couple . . . maybe his later books are better?)

Raymond Feist Riftwar saga (currently reading . . . so far too derivative of Tolkien and main character is a bit simple . . . maybe it gets better as you go along?)

Robin Hobb Farseer and Bingtown Traders trilogies (better than most, but in her more recent books some characters sleep around and swear too much, her male characters sometimes act/think too much like women)

Robert Don Hughes Pelman the Powershaper (Christian author . . . quite good, though his world is very simple and a bit contrived with three countries connected by one mountain pass guarded by a two-headed dragon . . . his sci-fi is also interesting if a bit poorly written: overuse of the word "snarled")

Robert Jordan Wheel of Time (an amazing fantasy author with a fairly-original ultra-complex storylines and an incredibly detailed world, surpassing even Tolkien's. However, as I read his series I grew to hate most of his heroes. Almost all of his female characters are manipulative, conniving shrews with anger-management problems, one of his male heroes will sleep with anything in a skirt, and another male hero is turning into some kind of polygamist with the full approval of the author . . . I haven't even bothered with the most recent book in the series)

Dennis McKiernan Mithgar (often VERY derivative of Tolkien, some heroes sleep around and get preachy about what a good idea divorce is)

Gilbert Morris Seven Sleepers (Christian author . . . massive continuity errors, plot holes, cheesy romance)

Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn (main character is dumb as a brick . . . however, his sci-fi series Otherland is quite good)

Maybe I'm going to have to give up on fantasy for a while like Art did on Christian fiction (see http://fuzzyface.wordpress.com/2007/07/13/i-think-i-need-to-stop-reading-christian-fiction/)

Anniversary and The Amish

A few months ago as I was looking for nice "wooden anniversary" gifts online I noticed that for only slightly more money than a wooden box of chocolates, wooden dozen roses, wooden Irish anniversary spoon, or wooden anniversary bonsai tree (I'm not making these up!) I could take Karen on a nice little trip to Lancaster County. Ever since we moved here to PA she's wanted to go see the Amish and their quilts, so what better time? Not a wooden gift, but who cares?! So here're some pictures from our trip followed by some ramblings about the Amish:

We stayed at a nice little bed and breakfast (http://www.countryviewpa.com/) run by a very nice Mennonite couple. They'd both been raised Amish, but later became Mennonites (who don't have a problem with electricity and modern conveniences so our room had air conditioning and a whirlpool tub). It was far enough outside town that it wasn't surrounded by noisy touristy things . . . just lots of Amish people going past in their buggies (I would highly recommend the place if you're ever vacationing in the area!).

We went out to eat at an old Inn that had been there since 1740. It was bought by President Buchanan in the mid 1800's for his brother, who was a pastor and his wife who was Stephen Foster's (writer of Oh Susanna, Old Kentucky Home, etc.) sister. So here are some pictures of Karen in front of it. Pretty,huh? Oh, and the building was nice too.

We went to a few quilt places for Karen (which she absolutely loved and I found moderately interesting for the first hour or so), but we weren't allowed to take pictures inside any of those, so here's a picture of Karen feeding a goat, instead:

We also went to a little museum that was very cool: The Military Edged Weaponry Museum. Since the Amish (and I think Mennonites) are pacifists I'm not sure how they feel about that museum being right in the center of town, but I thought it was very interesting. Here's I am in front of one of the display cases:
The weapons in this picture were mostly special forces stilettos. The display cases were packed in there too tightly to get a good picture in front of any of the cases with bayonets, sabers, cutlasses, pikes, etc.

One other thing that we found was a full-scale reproduction of the tabernacle. The tour guide (a Mennonite) was very knowledgeable, and pointed out the use/significance of the various tabernacle furnishings and priestly garments without succumbing to the temptation to over-spiritualize every aspect of the building (e.g. "the table of shewbread probably represented God's provision for his people" not "now there are # of boards in the walls which signifies . . . "). He also gave a very clear gospel presentation as a part of the tour. Seeing something like that always makes it easier to visualize/understand the biblical accounts about it. They wouldn't let anyone take pictures inside because "it's a holy place" (a.k.a. "we want you to buy our postcards instead of taking your own pictures"), but here's a picture of me in front of the mural they had there:

I don't really have any pictures of Amish people (other than that one of the buggy I got from the B&B website) because they don't like having their picture taken, so why offend them? It was pretty interesting seeing all the Amish people in the area. In a way you really have to admire their work ethic and commitment to living peaceably and not being influenced by materialism and the world.

On the other hand, they remind me an awful lot of the Pharisees from Jesus' day. They have SO many rules about things that the Bible itself says nothing about (e.g. width of your hat brim, whether or not you can have rubber tires on your buggy) but breaking one of them is just about as bad as breaking a biblical command! And in the more "liberal" communities (which is most of them now . . . I think there are very few "old order" Amish) a lot of it seems to by a case of following the letter of the law and not the spirit: no tractors in the field, but you can have small gasoline engine powered farm equipment as long as it can be pulled by horses (and you can even use tractors around the barnyard); no phones in the house, but it's okay to have one in a little box out by the road, etc. It just seems like a lot of legalistic "spirituality." Sometimes I think "Weird" Al Yankovic came pretty close to the heart of the matter in his parody song Amish Paradise with the lines: "Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? / Well I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art!"

On a slightly more respectful note, the Amish also remind me of something that one of my seminary professors (I don't remember which one) said in relation to conservative Christians in general. All too often, we find that it's too much work to show we're different from the world by living in a manner that is loving, compassionate, and pleasing to God, so we just settle for showing we're different from the world by being weird and behind the times.

Anyway, we had a great time on our mini-vacation/second honeymoon, and maybe in a year or so we'll take the girls down to see all the fun Lancaster County tourist junk.

Anniversary and Aragorn

As of last Friday, I've been married to my beautiful wife, Karen, for five wonderful years! She's a great wife and a wonderful mommy to our girls. Since this was our "wooden anniversary" (who comes up with these things?!), Karen got me two really cool J.R.R. Tolkien art prints with nice wooden frames. I really like them, so I decided to share them with you (and you'll have to put up with or skip over my prattling about Lord of the Rings because it's my favorite fiction).


The first print is of Aragorn who is my favorite character in the books. As much as I like the movies that Peter Jackson made a few years ago, he totally messed up on a few of the characters, including Aragorn (Faramir was by far the worst alteration made by PJ, but he doesn't come into this discussion). Aragorn, as written by J.R.R. Tolkien, was NOT some weenie who was "afraid to be king because what if I fail like Isildur because men are just so weak and I need other people to prod me along toward fulfilling my destiny because I'm a big pansy."


Though a couple times he doubts the wisdom of a decision he has made, Tolkien's Aragorn is not afraid of his lineage and right to rule. He is a king in exile, guarding the innocent from evil and waiting for the proper time to claim the throne that is rightfully his. This picture is of one of the times before his coronation that his lordship comes to the fore. It's called To the Stone of Erech, and is from the part of the story where Aragorn summons the armies of the dead who swore an oath to his ancestors (and then broke it and were cursed to be undead until they fulfilled it). And, unlike PJ's movie version, neither he nor the dead appear to have much doubt that this is Aragorn's right and he will be obeyed. (And, yes, I know he's just a fictional character, but he's my favorite one!) Anyway, here's the picture:

Here's a little bit closer look at it:

The other picture was of one of the Black Riders/Nazgul. I know they're the bad guys, but they're really cool bad guys. Here it is:


And here's a little bit closer look:


Anyway, I thought that they were great gifts and really show that Karen knows what I like. I was going to tell about our anniversary trip to Lancaster County PA and some of my thoughts on the Amish, but my Aragorn tangent went a little long, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow for "Anniversary and the Amish".

BRASIL!!!

And in much more important football (soccer) news . . .

BRASIL 3 X 0 ARGENTINA

Brasil is the champion of the Copa America! Not only did we win the title of best team in the Americas, but we got that title by absolutely destroying arch-rival Argentina in the finals!

By the way, Robinho got his start on my favorite team . . . SANTOS!!!

Pretend It Like Beckham

Normally I would be excited that the REAL football (soccer) has been in the news quite a bit recently. However, all the attention has been on David Bekham (of Bend It Like Beckham fame), who I can't stand. This quote from Pelé pretty much sums up David Beckham:

"The problem with Beckham is that he married the most famous Spice Girl and now he is more of a pop star than a soccer player."

Beckham gets way too much attention for the level of skill that he has. Because I can't afford cable TV and live here in the US where football (soccer) is never televized on network television, I haven't seen him play very much, but the times that I have seen him (mostly during the World Cup) I was NOT impressed. Basically any time that he had the ball and someone came near him he would flop on the ground and act like they fouled him and because he's the David Bekham he almost always got the call. True, he's got that neat little hook on his free kicks, but so do some other stars I've seen (would you consider someone a good basketball player if the only thing they did well was free throws?). Maybe there was a time in his career when he was good, but from what I've seen I think that time is long past, and Pelé hit the nail right on the head with the whole "popstar" thing.

Case in point: Just type David Beckham into the Google search engine and you'll get all these GQ/Calvin Klein type pictures . . . type in the name of some other football (soccer) star past or present (e.g. Ronaldinho, Romario, Zinedine Zidane, Roberto Baggio, etc.) and you'll get pictures of *gasp* them playing football (soccer) (or in Zidane's case, head-butting another player) or posing in their uniforms!

I guess the MLS (Major League Soccer) thinks that bringing over a "superstar" from Europe will increase their popularity. I think that even if Beckham were worth all the hype (which he's not, though as an average European player he should still be better than the average MLS player) it's going to take a lot more than one world-class player to make the MLS into a remotely respectable football (soccer) league. In my opinion, right now the MLS is on about the same level as the second division (that's like the triple-A teams for you baseball fans) of the European, or Latin American leagues. Well, if nothing else, maybe Mr. Pop star-pretending-to-be-a-soccer-player will increase the number of teenage girls watching the LA Galaxy games.

Nebo-Sarsekim

Here's a Bible trivia question for you: Who was Nebo-Sarsekim? If you know the answer without having read any of the recent news articles about him or using a concordance, I'm VERY impressed. I don't think I would have even recognized it as a name found in the Bible, but apparently Dr. Jursa, a scholar who reads cuneiform, did. He (Nebo-Sarsekim, not Dr. Jursa) was one of Nebuchadnezzar's high officials, present at the siege/conquest of Jerusalem and is mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3. (It's the most obvious in the NIV; the NASB divides the name incorrectly, and the KJV gives a very different spelling.) This news article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22055722-601,00.html
tells about Dr. Jursa finding independent historical record of this very minor character mentioned once in the Bible.

I love how the archaeological community is shocked whenever something they discover matches up with the Bible. This most recent discovery led one person to 'generously' concede that the Bible is not "altogether invented." This is by no means the first time something like this has happened. A couple of my favorites include:

"The Bible is stupid. There was never a race called the Hittites!" *Archaeological Discovery* "Oops . . . the Hittites did exist and were a fairly extensive civilization, and, Hey! a lot of the legal transactions recorded in the Torah/Pentateuch, including a huge chunk of the book of Deuteronomy, are in a very similar format to these Hittite documents we just found!"

"The Bible is stupid. There was never a Babylonian king called Belshazzar!" *Archaeological Discovery* "Oops . . . there was a vice-regent/co-ruler named Belshazzar who ruled as king of Babylon when his father was off to war at just about the same time that the Bible says he reigned!"

Another 'interesting' thing I've also noticed is the lack of coverage this is getting in the American media (I only found this reported in Australian, British, Indian, and Israeli press). And don't tell me it's because archaeology doesn't make for good news . . . the identification of Hatsheput's mummy sure made big enough news a couple weeks ago. Can we all say "liberal anti-conservative Christian bias"? Oh well, I John 1:13.

Anyway, I thought that this was a pretty cool little discovery. Even though "we walk by faith not by sight" our faith is rooted in events that occurred in history and it's always cool when a piece of that history turns up.

"The time has come," the pontiff said, "to talk of other things..."

And now it's time for another not PC post. As you may know if you read my blog on a regular (or semi-regular) basis, a lot of my posts are prompted by things that I read and think are interesting. Well, yesterday I ran across an interesting article on cnn.com that gave me an idea for not just a post, but a short poem. Here's the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html?iref=newssearch.
And here's the poem (I may expand it later . . . though probably not . . . since the poem I'm ripping off, The Walrus and the Carpenter, is quite long):

With Apologies to Lewis Carroll
The time has come the pontiff said
To talk of other things
Of how the Orthodox have wounds
Because I'm not their king
And if the Protestants are saved
They're lacking many things

The reason I think the article is interesting is that it looks like this pope is not going to be as lovey-dovey with other Christian (used in it's broadest sense) denominations as his predecessor. He seems to be interpreting Vatican II more conservatively than John Paul II what with the restoration of the Latin mass, the changing of how a pope is selected back to the old way, and now this proclamation that the Orthodox churches are "wounded" for not accepting him as supreme and that Protestant churches are even more seriously "wounded". In a way it's almost nice that he's no longer pretending that there's little or no difference between Catholics and Protestants. He is still giving lip service to ecumenical endeavors, but I'm wondering if that will continue throughout his reign (or whatever you call the time that a pope is "in office").

I just think it's dishonest that the ecumenical Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars/authorities ignore things like the Catholic Council of Trent, which was never rescinded or disavowed. Just look at some of these canons from Session VI on justification. The majority of Protestant Evangelicals (Evangelicals being broadly defined as those who believe the Bible is the authoritative, inerrant Word of God and interpret it literally . . . I'm not including "neo-evangelicals" who are all for softening the message so we can "all just get along") fall into these categories of people who are "anathemetized". I've paraphrased these, but if you're interested in reading them in full to be sure I haven't misrepresented them, here's the link: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

CANON IX.- If you believe in justification by faith alone you are anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If you believe that good works are merely fruits of justification, and not the actual means of attaining your justification you are anathema
CANON XXVII.-If you believe that you cannot lose your salvation for anything other than denying Christ you are anathema
CANON XXX.-If you believe that your sins are completely forgiven so that you don't have to suffer for them on earth and in purgatory before you can get into heaven you are anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If you don't believe that the good works you perform make you deserving of increased favor and eternal life you are anathema.
CANON XXXIII.-If you don't believe in this council's definition of justification you are anathema.

Just in case you didn't know, anathema is a fancy word for cursed/condemned to hell. Doesn't sound like much of a basis for us to just forget our differences and all come together in the name of love.

WARNING - RABBIT TRAIL BEGINS: Here's how I would answer/refute those canons from Scripture.
CANON IX: John 3:16, Acts 16:31, Ephesians 2:8-9
CANON XXIV: Ephesians 2:8-10
CANON XXVII: John 10:27-29, Romans 8:38-39
CANON XXX: I John 1:9, II Corinthians 5:6-8
CANON XXXII: Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:8-9
CANON XXXIII: Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you , let him be accursed"

I just don't see how anyone can say there is no difference and we should "just get along." Yes, we have a lot in common, BUT we disagree on the most important thing of all: How does one get to heaven? As you can see from the verses I've listed above, the Bible teaches that salvation is "not of works" (the sacraments are "works"!), our works aren't good enough and we all "fall short of the glory of God," so Jesus did ALL that was necessary so that "whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life," and "If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." A forgiven/saved person then lives his life in a way that includes "good works" but his salvation is "not of works" and cannot be lost by the acts of "death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature." I'm pretty sure that that list covers everything . . . including the Christian himself and any "mortal" sins he might commit. We are kept by God's power, not our own and Jesus tells us that "no one is able to pluck them from my hand."
RABBIT TRAIL ENDED

Another blow to the ecumenical "Catholics and Protestants should just forget their differences and come together in the name of love" mindset is statements made by various popes that if you are not a Roman Catholic you cannot be saved. Here's a sampling pulled from a Catholic source:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

And since when a pope speaks ex cathedra and/or issues a Bull (what a terrible name for an official pronouncement!) it is viewed as inerrant and authoritative, these statements still hold weight for the Catholic church today! All that to say, I think it'll be interesting to see how long, and to what extent, the current pope (who's definitely more conservative than his predecessor) tries to push forward the whole ecumenical agenda.

By the way, don't you just love the slightly demented looking picture that CNN has on the article? I think they might not like the new pope.

Oh Canada . . . And Other Vacation Adventures

Well, almost 2,000 miles later (to Caro and back, and side trips to Cedar Point, Frankenmuth, DeWitt, and Niagara Falls), we're back from vacationing in Michigan. Even with all that time in the car it was great! I'm sure Karen will post pictures on the photo blog later, but for now you'll have to put up with (or ignore) my list o' interesting, not-so-interesting, and useless things I learned on this vacation. In order of our trip, they are:


1. My odometer is not very accurate. It's off by 3-5 miles for every 100. This made my neatly laid out odometer-coded-so-navigator-Karen-can-find-our-spot-on-the-map-easier directions a little less helpful, but we didn't get lost so it was okay.


2. Canadians are every bit as rude and greedy as Americans. I'd always thought of Canadians as nicer and more polite (if a bit stranger...I think all that cold must do something to you) than the average American. Apparently not! At least not when it comes to border crossings. We were stuck for 2 HOURS in traffic at the border largely because a lot of the Canadians would jump onto the shoulder, race past a bunch of cars and then be let back into line by a fellow Canadian. Seriously! We saw quite a few of them do it and later found out from several people who cross the border on a regular basis that it's a pretty common problem. And don't even get me started on the greedy merchants with their "exchange rate" of CA$1 to US$1 (or US$1.02 if you were lucky), and I've never seen so many gas stations with "Restrooms are for paying customers only" signs.


3. Karen just doesn't get amusement parks. Would you believe that Karen doesn't understand why Nathan, Marcus, and I think that a great way to spend the day is to stand in lines for 1-2 hours per ride at Cedar Point to ride roller coasters that last for somewhere between 20 seconds and 2 minutes?! She and the girls stayed home with Grandma while Marcus used his security guard perks to get us into the park for free (and an hour before official opening at that).


4. The Millennium Force is still the best coaster at Cedar Point. The Top Thrill Dragster has it beat for height (400 ft), speed (120mph), and acceleration (0-120mph in about 3 seconds), and the Raptor is better for loops and spins (invert track . . . upside down 7 times), but for an overall rollercoaster you just can't beat an initial 310 foot drop at 97mph and an 80 degree angle with over a mile of track, several other huge hills, overbanked turns, and about 2 minutes of ride time!

5. Don't ride the Maverick (the newest coaster) with your hands in the air the whole time. It's a great ride, weaving in and out of obstacles at high speed with a nice 15-to-70-mph-in-2-seconds burst of speed at one point, but the harness are poorly designed. They seem to be made for people that are 50-100 pounds overweight so if you're not that heavy and don't hold on to the harness you rattle around a lot and get nice big bruises on your arms . . . I speak from experience.

6. Don't trust the navigator if he's not looking at a map when he's giving you directions. We took a nice "scenic detour" on the way back from Cedar Point when our navigator thought he knew a "better way" back. It wasn't a total loss though, we did see Faust Cemetery as we were wandering about the back roads of Ohio. . . why on earth would you name a cemetery after the guy who's known for selling his soul to the devil?!

7. Katie and Abby like shiny things as much as Karen does. When we went to Bronners (giant Christmas store) in Frankenmuth, I've never seen the girls so big-eyed and quiet . . . so many sparkly, shiny things to look at (and try to grab)!

8. 311 peanuts fit in a Chug-a-lug Cherry Soda bottle. That was one of the contests at the family reunion we went to . . . I was 14 off . . . so close! We did win prizes for coming from the farthest away (PA), youngest person there (Abby at 11 months), and most recently married (not quite 5 years). Anyway, the reunion was pretty fun and we got to talk to a bunch of people who we didn't really know (and a few that we knew).

9. The Canadian side of Niagara Falls is a whole lot nicer than the American side. Well, I actually already knew that, which is why we stopped on the Canadian side. Anyway, Katie loved all the "water falling down" and the stores full of cheap tourist junk (yes, we bought a few things).

10. When you pig out on delicious Grandma cooking for a week you gain a bit of weight. It was SO worth it!

And this post is way to long, so that's it for now.