I went on vacation last week straight from the radio show, which meant that I didn't get to see The Simpsons (along with Family Guy on Sunday nights makes for an incredibly hilarious evening after working a typical 15 hour day on Sundays). Because of vacation, I just recently watched The Simpsons season finale last night (entitled Homer and Marge Turn a Couple Play). It never ceases to amaze me how The Simpsons can be funny, even after 17 years on the air!

About half way through the show, Tabitha (aka Fiona per Simpson's Episode guide) decides to sing a new song she wrote in honor of her marriage's rekindled love. The song is entitle "Sexy-Marriage Land" and includes a "Britney-spears-look-a-like" cartoon figure, dancing with a pole, with words like monogamy, and health benefits dancing in the background.

What strikes me is how easy it is for Hollywood to make marriage sex so unappetizing. Even with Bart's comment at the end, "something makes me want to give her five bucks," still doesn't do anything for the overall feeling at the end of the scene. That feeling is, man, "sexy-marriage land" is retarded. Who cares about health benefits in relation to sex.

This brings me back to a conversation I had while working at the Allen County Courthouse in Fort Wayne, IN when I was 18 years old. This conversation made me realize sex was like marshmallows (and brace yourself, this one might get long).

I should start off by saying that I am "technically" a 23-year old virgin (technically means that in past relationships I have "fooled around" but never had intercourse, I am not saying fooling around is acceptable, but at least now you know where I am coming from). Anyway, I know this means that half of the people reading this now feel I have absolutely no credit to talk about sex. But give me a second, and if you want a good read by the fireplace, check out my Senior Thesis on a Theology of the Erotic to prove I have at least spent a lot of time thinking about sex.

Now back to the good stuff. I worked at a crazy, but fun, office while at the courthouse. Most of the people there were under 25, most didn't have a college degree, and they still liked to party. It kind of had a "Sex in the City" feel to it, only instead of New York it was Fort Wayne, IN, and instead of Carrie and Samantha it was Sarah and Kimmy.

One day when the bosses were at a conference, and the day was wrapping up, we all gathered back in a corner of the office and started discussing a whole bunch of stuff. Somehow, it eventually got to the fact that I was a virgin and waiting for marriage to have sex. A girl named Kimmy heard this and looked me straight in the eye and with the most concerned look in her face said, "ohh honey, sex doesn't begin at marriage, sex ends at marriage."

Now I liked Kimmy a lot, she was cool. And I know she liked me a lot. So she was by no means trying to make fun of me or put me down. She seriously thought she was helping by informing me of this social revelation that sex ends at marriage. Now I put up an argument, but the day was ending rapidly and we were all walking out the door.

On the drive home, rethinking the conversation, I realized that sex was like marshmallows. I know, you're confused. But hold on (I told you this one would get long).

When I was like 10 I remember watching an Oprah show (no I am not a big fan of Oprah, but for some reason I was watching this day and it has stuck in my head ever since). Now Oprah was doing a show on how you can tell your two year old will be gifted.

The premise was this. A bunch of 2-year olds were given a marshmallow and told if they could hold off on eating the marshmallow for 20-minutes they would get a second marshmallow. Now some kids popped that sucker in their mouth right away. Others stared at the thing and somewhere between minute 1 and minute 19 they popped the thing in their mouth. A select few put the thing out of their sight and went on doing whatever else they were doing at the time.

Now think with me for a minute. Lets say 2 year old had the ability to taunt each other and think at a higher level. Lets say those that ate their marshmallow turned to the kids who hadn't eaten the marshmallow and told them how great their marshmallow was. It tasted so good. It was so much fun. I loved it. Nothing they said would be a lie. They could even continue by saying, why do you even think someone is coming back to give you a second one. You have no guarantees. You better eat your marshmallow now before it gets stale and nasty. Again, nothing they said would be a lie. And they are right, there was no guarantee that anybody was coming back with more marshmallows.

The point is this. For 20 minutes, the kids who hate their marshmallow got all the fun, while the kids who waited, which I am sure seemed like an eternity, had to tough it out. BUT, at that 20 minute mark, that is when the kids who ate their marshmallow stopped having all the fun, and the kids who didn't eat their marshmallow began having fun. And in addition to that, the kids who didn't eat their marshmallow got to experience a whole new level of fun the first group of kids wouldn't even understand (because they only had one marshmallow as appose to two).

So this all comes back to Kimmy. You see, she was probably right. Sex, when outside of God's will, probably doesn't begin at marriage but ends at marriage. But for those who can stick it out, they'll understand a more fulfilling and truly satisfying sex life that the first group couldn't ever understand.

Which brings me back to the Simpsons. You see, while "Sexy Marriage Land" was being sung, and words like monogamy and health benefits flashing in the background, the writers missed the point. Sure, there are things like health benefits, commitment, and security in "marriage-sex," but that doesn't mean their aren't words like hot, erotic, and nasty either. Sex was designed to be fun in a marriage by the Creator. And its about time society started enjoying "sexy-marriage land."

This week has been quite a week for the Dixie Chicks. Their new album is at the top of the charts, and two nights ago they were on Larry King Live talking about the past three years. I have to admit, I am one of the Americans (although we seem to be fleeting) that will probably never buy another Dixie Chicks song. This isn't because I hate them vehemently. They are probably great people and they sure as heck produce great music. But just like Barry Bonds for baseball, the Dixie Chicks will always have a sour taste in my mouth.

If you've read this blog before you know that I am pro-Iraq because ultimately I think life will be better for Iraqis once a stable government takes over. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen first hand the amount of oppression over there, and anything that removes oppressive regimes in my book is a noble feat. (This is not to say that I think this is why Bush went over there, nor do I feel we have been dealt with honestly, but that's another topic).

I also should state here that their is a part of me that truly respects the Dixie Chicks. I admire anyone who stands so strongly to their belief, especially when their careers are on the line. Principle is something America seems to have forgotten. I also respect the Dixie Chicks stance on the war, even if I do not agree with it. I have many friends that are against the war in Iraq, and for good reason. Anyone who can come to an educated, reasonable decision about their opinion of the war is respectable, and the Dixie Chicks appear to have that.

So Andy, gosh, what's the big deal. Why the sour taste. Here's why. I think the Dixie Chicks as their name alludes to are Chickens. The biggest problem I had with their sentiments back in 2003 was not what they said, not how they said it, but where they said it. London!

Now many have made the point that they weren't willing to say this in Dallas or Nashville or even New York, and I disagree with them. I think that they were willing to say it anywhere. However, where they chose to say it for the first time is of great importance. And the point is Dixie Chicks, you might be willing to say it anywhere, but the truth of the matter is you didn't.

I would have had no problem if they said what they said in New York (which would still probably agree with them) and then travel to London and say the same thing. But you don't backhand your country, even if you disagree with it, and even if a lot of people in your country would agree with you, on foreign soil for the first time. It is like a husband who tells all his buddies what he hates about his wife in hopes that somehow it will get back to his wife and his wife will change his ways. You just don't do that. Have the balls to look America in the eye, on American soil, and say, "America we are not right in our stance on the war, and I for one am ashamed that W. comes from Texas." That is a statement and a context that I would respect.

Since the statement made from London, they have apologized for how they said it, but to my recollection, not where they said it. So I hope 500,000 of you enjoy your Dixie Chickens CD, I for one, will not be buying it.

As I sit on my computer right now, I am staring at my AOL Buddy List and an ad for ONE.ORG begins to play. Basically what we have here is a bunch of celebrities snapping their fingers in order to show us how simple it can be to end poverty if we all just speak up!

Now this brings me back to the glorious summer of '05 and the Live 8 concert. Do you remember? For a week it seemed like we had every celebrity in the world, telling the 8 leaders from the 8 "great countries" that the world wants them to end poverty.

Before I get into what I feel about this, I should add the disclaimer that I am sure there are some truly amazing celebrities deeply concerned with the poverty issue. One case in point is Angelina Jolie. She has moved her family. Adopted her kids. And given tons of money and time in order to fight poverty all around the world, and for that I congratulate her. There are probably others (Bono, George Clooney maybe?).

However, here's my problem with this. If anybody in this world has the ability to do something about poverty it is celebrities. They have the money, and more importantly, the time to really do something about this issue if they wanted to. But instead, they settle for a concert once every 20 years (Live Aid = 1985, Live 8 = 2005), and very little in their own life changes. They are still pulling in millions of dollars and wasting it on their own greed and selfishness. Then they have the audacity to produce commercial telling us not even to help ourselves, but rather, just sign a petition so that others (i.e. governments) will step it up and help the situations in Africa. This is ridiculous.

I have spent my life trying to make the lives of others better. There are families in Mexico that have houses in part due to my effort. There is an orphanage in Honduras that has a gym do to work I have done. There are gardens in South Africa I have helped get started. Now I am not saying all this because I am prideful and want the glory. Far from it. What I want is for America and Celebrities in particular to recognize that poverty is not going to end just by snapping our fingers and signing a petition. Nor will it even end by wealthy countries canceling the debt of poorer countries (does that work on a personal level - does a poor person become rich because a bank cancel their mortgage?) Poverty will end when rich countries' citizens make sacrifices to share the wealth, and aid in the empowering of poor countries' citizens to empower themselves. Until we as a culture put away the idea that Hollywood sells us everyday that materialism brings us happiness, we will never make any grounds in helping impoverished countries. So celebrities out there, I will see you in about 20 years when you decide to throw another concert telling the world that you care, yet ignoring the fact that for the past 20 years you & poverty are at polar extremes of each other.

I am pretty sure hell has frozen over. Where do I get this profound theological revelation from. The Colbert Report. The other night, Ted Daeschler of the Center for Systematic Biology & Evolution was Stephen's guest. Now Mr. Daeschler seemed like a nice guy, in fact, he seemed like a genius. Very smart, definitely knew what he was talking about. Except about halfway through his conversation he made a startling comment at passing regarding the fact of evolution.

Now I should take a moment here to say that I am not anti-evolution. I am not totally sure I buy it as it was spoon fed in high school, however, I have no faith dilemma with the concept of evolution. God could have very easily decided to create the world over billions of years through the process of evolution. Genesis should hardly be seen as a scientific explanation of creation, which in my mind leaves the door open for possible scientific explanations to show us the majesty of God the Creator.

But here's my problem. Evolution is not a fact. It isn't even a law. It is a theory. Now theories are based on facts, which is what separates it from a hypothesis. However, theories, by definition are not facts, or else, we would call them facts.

So you might be asking, ok Andy, why has hell frozen over? People have been claiming the truth about evolution for years. Right, but it hit me while watching The Colbert Report that I think scientists have more faith than Christians. Sure, it isn't a faith in Jesus Christ, but it is a faith nonetheless. Faith is defined as being certain of what we do not see. Now I know many Christians who profess to have faith, but their belief in God hardly has an unfailing certainty day after day (and that's ok, God lets us doubt). But when you look at the facts and the "gaps" that make up the theory of evolution, there is far more uncertainty than certainty. Yet, scientists like Mr. (Dr.?) Daeschler speak with absolute certainty in the factual belief that evolution is true, thus it has led me to believe that science is more faithful than religion.

My new favorite word is truthiness, which I have to also give credit to Stephen Colbert for inventing (despite attempts of the liberal media to take the credit away from him ;-). But Stephen defines truthiness (and I am paraphrasing) as the disregard of fact for what "feels" true. And that is why Mr. Daeschler's statements speak to the truthiness of evolution.

Yesterday I was watching VH1. Which, on a side note, when did VH1 become cool? When I was in high school, VH1 was for all the 80s and early 90s music that no one listened to anymore. Now, they are usually at the cutting edge of releasing new, good music. But I digress(and fairly early in the post I might add).

Anyways, while watching VH1, they played four songs in a row (of which I might have the order confused). Nickelback's "Savin' Me," Natasha Bedingfield's "Single", Daniel Powter's "Bad Day," and then finally The All American Rejects "Move Along." It was after this that I realized, VH1 has become the station that speaks for the 20-somethings.

Why you ask? I think those four songs encapsulate what it feels like to be post-graduate, single and in your 20's. Bedingfield's music video was amazing. Why? Because in one attempt, she expressed lyrically how great it was to be single, and through the actual video itself, the emptiness with being single. In fact, it caught me off guard at first. I was sitting there thinking, does she like being single or not? And then it hit me, just like every other single, 20-year old, the answer to that question depends on the day.

Nickelback, like so much of its music, does a great job of reminding us all that life is short and we are all in need of saving.

Powter's "Bad Day" should be the theme song of the 20s (in fact I might create a blog just about that another day). I know I feel like I wake up every morning, whether good or bad, and there is just something about it that is lonely and missing. But this loneliness isn't like depressive loneliness that just consumes you. No, it is far more subtle. Like the video portrays. It seems like this loneliness is there simply because you miss something by a half hour each day. Its so close. Its just not there.

"Move Along" barely needs an explanation. It's that obvious. From the moment we're born to the moment we die, humanity is marked with this innate ability to just move along. Not thinking about what is going on. Not thinking about why I am longing for the next stage of life, but just merely running to that stage as fast as I possibly can. When I was in college, all I could think about was getting out in the real world and getting a job. Now that I am there, all i seem to be able to think about is buying a condo and starting a family.

John Eldredge's book "A Journey of Desire" speaks so clearly to this. We need to become people who are content with where we are at. As cheesy as it sounds, life isn't about the destination, but rather the journey, and Who we experienced that journey with. Yet most of us will go through life and reach the end of our countdown (Nickelback reference) and realize that we were so focused on the destinations, we missed what makes life worth living. So maybe VH1 isn't speaking for the 20-somethings, maybe VH1 is speaking for every stage in life (take that MTV!)

I love a good adventure. Although, unlike most people who like adventure, I hate walking. It's too slow. Most of my adventures come in a car. Sometimes they are quite calculated adventures, sometimes they are, lets say, slightly more random.

Yesterday I drove back from Hilton Head Island with my friends CJ & Andrea. What made this journey different, besides the baby being tagged along, was CJ's newest toy: a GPS mapping device. This thing was sweet. It could tell you anything you wanted to know: eating locations, altitude, speed, distance to destination, your future income (ok, not that). But what I realized on the way home is that it has the ability to take the fun out of life. Why? Because it negates the need to take a U-turn.

I don't take the standard way home from Hilton Head (which is US-278 straight out to I-95 and then on to I-16). Ever since we were younger we took a shortcut through local roads. However, I only make the trip to Hilton Head once every other year or so, so I don't always "remember the way". Usually this means I have to "turn around" at some point (thus negating the shortcut, but still adding to the adventure). So sure enough, this year, I didn't do the shortcut right, but instead of turning around we just let "Mary Magellan" (as we affectionally called her) reroute us and on we went. Now I didn't balk too much as this idea (in fact I kind of requested it) because life changes when you have a child with you and you value certainty more than adventure. But that is when it hit me, full lives require a willingness to make u-turns.

Sometimes u-turns aren't necessary. Sometimes God has the ability to re-route us to where we need to be with out the harshness of coming full circle back around to where we started. But sometimes, the only way to get on with life is by making a u-turn. Sometimes it is repenting from actions that shouldn't have been in our life to begin with. Sometimes it means treating people better than we've been treating them for years. And, sometimes it just means admitting decisions made were not the best, this doesn't mean they were "wrong", they just didn't yield to their expectation. It is these moments that one must take a hard look in the mirror and at one's surrounding and be willing to say, well, it's time I turn back around. But it is also these moments that should be seen as the adventure that we call everyday life. And being the adventure addict that I am, I am glad life takes a u-turn from time to time.

Today I traveled from the condo on Hilton Head Island to my Grandmother's place on Skidaway Island. According to the Great Circle Map, the distance from the condo to my Grandmother's is 19 miles as the bird flies (and yes I am a big enough geek to get the exact coordinates to figure that out). Yet, according to maps.google.com the travel distance is 56 miles and takes an hour and a half to drive (which it did).

So Andy's what's your point? Are you just complaining about the fact you had to go visit your grandma. Absolutely not! Visiting her was worth the journey. As I was driving along the local roads through South Carolina it hit me how bad the journey the Israelites made from Egypt to the "Promised Land" must have been. And you are probably thinking, wow, that point was lame. Thanks for wasting my time on the Blog. Britney being a good mom, sure, that was crazy, but at least you had a point (if you don't know what I am talking about read the next post).

But here's the real point. God still felt that making them go through that trip for 40 years was worth leaving the life they had in Egypt. And all along that trip, the recurring theme He had for them was remembrance. Everything was remember the way it was in Egypt, don't forget what happened to you, don't forget the oppression. And all they kept complaining about was the sun and the journey. Now I have been to the desert of their wandering and I can tell you, I couldn't last out there in an air conditioned bus, so I sympathize with their complaints. But the point is that God uses journeys like these because they constantly cause us to remember where He has taken us from. If the Israelites hopped right over to the Promised Land, they would just get on with life failing to reflect on what God has done for them. And frankly, with the high-pace life has on all of us, I think it would do us all a lot of good for us to have these journeys in our life. And while on the journey, it can be awfully frustrating, in the end, it is all about the journey of life...whether in the wilderness or on SC-170.

All right, I will let you take a second to swallow that. I know it might seem hard, but give me the benefit of the doubt for a second.

I just spent a week with the beautiful Jadyn Elise Mills. Ohh what fun we had! Playing on the beach and eating sand. Being dunked underwater in the pool. Waking up at 6 am, only because she wanted some attention, and after she was pulled into bed with me would just fall back asleep on my chest. This week of pseudo-parenting was, believe it or not, a nice break from my single 20s that have a tendency to be very self-centered and all about "my schedule."

But all this parenting has got me thinking, I don't think Britney is that bad of a mom. (Disclaimer: I am not the typical 20-year old male that before Britney had a child thought she was somewhat of a modern day goddess. For the most part, I don't like her music. I don't like her "image." And while I will admit she is very attractive, I don't think the way she flaunted that, especially for young girls, is very good for society. But I digress.) Now, of course, Britney doesn't hold a candle to the amazing mother Andrea is! But then again, who could? Some moms are coming to her defense and saying, sure she's not perfect, but cut her some slack. They all say, just as I learned this week, the mistakes we all make in parenting aren't getting critiqued everywhere we go. No press this week covered as a momentary lapse in my concentration allowed Jadyn to slam her face into the coffee table. Sure, I am not encouraging it, but she's a baby, things like that happen. If we all had the press in our face, CPS would be after all of us.

But I want to go a step further and applaud her. And this is where I know you are going to think I am crazy. Britney has not out-sourced parenting (at least not yet). I have never seen a celebrity mother photographed with her baby as much, and in the "mundane settings of life" (i.e. the grocery store) like Britney has been. And for that I congratulate her. She certainly has the money. She certainly has the "things to do" besides raising a child. Yet for the time being, she has turned from the temptation so many of her Hollywood cohorts, and a lot of American moms, have succumb to - which is ignoring their child and letting someone else raise them. For that, Britney, I say, thank you for setting a good example (maybe the first time) for parents everywhere. Despite your inequities, you have proven to be a good mom!

As we speak, I am watching the joint press conference between Bush and Blair. Bush has just made the comment that (and I am paraphrasing) that the insurgents in Iraq don't fight a conventional war and don't play by the rules. It was at this moment I wanted Bush to turn to Blair and say, "just like we did 225 years ago against the British."

Before I get further into this conversation, I need to give the disclaimer that I am a supporter of the Iraq war. I have been to the Middle East, I have seen the injustices done from the aristocracy, and Jesus challenges all of his followers to stick up for the oppressed. Any ruler who kills hundreds of thousands of his own people qualifies as an oppressor in my book and I am proud to be a part of a country who seeks justice in the world. I am not saying I think this is why Bush went, for all I know it was all about oil, but that doesn't change the fact that in the end Iraq will be a better place for Iraqi people, and for that I say the mission will be worth it.

But I digress. While there are many things I find despicable about the Middle East insurgency and terrorism, I can't say their methods are one of them. Why you ask? Becuase as an American, we invented the concept of unconventional warfare. Now I don't like the idea of women, children and civilians being targeted anymore than the next guy. But at the same time, logic will not allow for me to say that it is a barbaric act of war because to do so would mean I would have to admit that the American Revolution was a barbaric act of war. We were the ones who refused to line up on an open field to be slaughtered. We fought dirty by hiding in the woods, and by using our surroundings to our advantage. But ultimately, if it weren't for the American Revolution, the world would be a far different place. And for all of her faults, I believe America has brought 10 times (ok an expression) more good to the world. None of this would happen of course unless the Colonies took on an act of war that was not accepted at the time.

So thus, it isn't the methods of war that I feel make it barbaric - as war by definition is barbaric in all circumstances and in any method (but barbarism is sometimes necessary). Rather, what I feel makes the insurgents beyond barbaric is what they are fighting for. They are fighting for oppression. They would rather be led by a mad-man than an elected (still imperfect) government. It isn't even the rejection of democracy that bothers me, as I know some might find this as a shock, but democracy is not the answer for everybody (sorry W.). However, they are rejecting justice. Have a monarchy. Have a dictatorship. Have whatever works. But above all, have peace, justice, and love!

As CJ cries out "boring" and switches the channel to the NBA game, I find myself going back to a place every time I descend from the clouds after a long flight and touch ground in Frankfurt, Germany, or Amsterdam. It amazes me that 50 years ago, touching down at the exact same place would be the same as touching down in Baghdad today. But in such a short time, so much can change. In the same way, after 225 years, after a horribly bloody and unconventional war, Bush & Blair, America & England, stand united together at two podiums unified in the common cause of pursuing justice and eventual peace. For that I am proud, and for that I hope Iraq will one day be like the British.