The Naked Blog Entry

Over the past generation, I’ve noticed an increasing infatuation in our society with the word “naked,” and it has gotten worse over time. The Naked Gun. The Naked Chef. The re-released Beatles Album “Let it Be . . . Naked.” I remember an ad for a fitness company a few years back asking, “Do you want to look better naked?” Nickelodeon's teenage rock band "The Naked Brothers." Naked naked naked. I don’t remember the word being flung around so much when I was a kid. In fact, I think I was even reprimanded once for saying the word in an inappropriate setting.

Well, for me, the past few days have been the proverbial straw that has broken the camel’s back. After church on Sunday my family went to a restaurant where I encountered not one, not two, but three “nakeds” on the menu. There was “naked burritos.” There was “naked taco salads.” And then there was a beverage refrigerator labeled “Naked Juice.” Call me old-fashioned, call me a prude, but I’m just not very comfortable with the combination of “naked” and “food” in the same place, especially in a public restaurant.

Then, on Monday morning, I heard a D-J on the radio state that his nickname is “Naked.” Wow, how special is that? Of course, if you watched VH-1’s recent countdown show “50 Things That Guys Do That Make Them Undateable,” you’d immediately know where this guy falls.

But you might be saying to yourself, “Get your mind out of the gutter, Dave. The word naked doesn’t just mean ‘without clothing.’ It can also mean emotionally exposed and vulnerable, or even plain, simple, and stripped of all pretense.” Okay, I realize that the definition of the word has several nuances. The re-released “Let it Be” album was stripped of all of its (originally unintended) studio overdubs. The “naked burrito” comes without some of its normal ingredients. But this doesn’t account for every instance. After all, do you really think the fitness company wants me to exercise (with their equipment) and eat right (according to their nutritional plan) so that I can look better when I am emotionally vulnerable, exposed, and stripped of all pretense? I’m going to say, “No.”

Actually, I think that there are two interrelated circumstances going on here that help to explain the expansion of naked in our collective vocabulary.

The first is the ultra-competitive marketing that takes place in our ultra-consumeristic society. There are tons of companies, organizations, and people out there that want your money, and they need to grab your attention in order for you to buy what they’re selling. Part of this process entails the use of provocative or “interesting” words in their advertising. The word naked naturally causes people to turn their heads, and once they’ve got your attention, they hope you will investigate further and eventually buy their product. Some of you might be reading this blog entry because you read my “ad” on Facebook, saw the word naked, and were intrigued enough to click on over here. Another good example of this phenomenon, by the way, is the word “extreme.” How many products can you name, right off the bat, that are “extreme” in some way? Like, for some reason, my shoelaces have worked fine my whole life, but now all of a sudden I need to go out and spend my hard-earned money on X-LACES—Extreme Shoelaces. What’s up with that?

The second, and as I said, interrelated idea, is that there seems to be a continual quest, mostly through advertising and media, to introduce and proliferate the next naughty word, or “forbidden” act, or “taboo” topic (usually sexual in nature) into our collective consciousness. Some of it is on trashy television talk shows. Some is slowly introduced over time via commercials, movies, and TV shows. I remember how a year or two ago I watched a movie from the 1980s that was rated “R.” I don’t even remember what movie it was, but I do remember thinking that that particular movie was not as bad (in terms of profanity and sexual content) as most PG-13 movies today. This is certainly not true across the board, but I think you get my point.

Now, I am not trying to claim too much about the wide use of the word naked. It is not signaling the impending apocalypse or anything like that. I would just point to it as one example of this need for some (advertising, media) to play to our more base emotions. And, I wouldn’t even say that I’m looking at the word naked as pornographic, per se, but rather as a provocative word that has a “naughty” connotation. Yes, I know it has other definitions, but I would submit that at least one large demographic in our society—I’ll call them “males”—almost immediately think of one, and only one, definition of the word.

So there you have it (dare I say it?)—the naked truth about yet another thing I think about on the way to work. And by the way, I ordered the chicken nachos and a soda. No naked food for me.

Duck, duck, goose

I was reading recently of an American Christian who was on a mission trip in Africa. He particularly loved interacting with the children in the country he was in, and expressed his joy over being able to teach them some games. For instance, he and his cohorts taught the children how to play “Duck, duck, goose.” He recalled how the children were initially bewildered, though, because they did not know what a duck or a goose was. They had never seen such animals! So, the teachers had to change the names of the animals to ones familiar to the children. Then it made sense to them and they all proceeded to have fun. The American telling the story cited this as an example of the need to place things in their proper cultural context. In other words, when a missionary goes to another land to preach the gospel, not every “Americanism” will be understood, just as these children did not understand “Duck, duck, goose.”

It was at this point that I put my book down and began to think. Something dawned on me. I thought, “Wait a minute.” I’m an American, and I don’t even understand “Duck, duck, goose.” I’ve never actually seen a duck waddling around a circle of other ducks (and geese?), tapping each one on the head until he arrived at his “victim.” I’ve never seen one chasing another one around said circle. Heck, I’ve never even seen a duck chasing a goose, or a goose chasing a duck for that matter. Do they play together or even hang out together? I don’t know. In fact, I’m embarrassed to say that I’m not 100% sure of the difference between ducks and geese in the first place. Are they related somehow, in a hen/rooster kind of way? I don’t think so. I think I can tell them apart, but sometimes it’s kind of hard to differentiate them. There are a bunch of ducks that roam around my neighborhood all the time, but it wouldn’t shock me if someone told me that they were actually geese.

Well, I’m flummoxed. And what’s more, I’m humbled. I am quick to point out how kids today (i.e. my students over at the community college) don’t know a lot of “common knowledge” type questions, yet here I am struggling over ducks, geese, and a children’s game. I guess I’ll have to do a little research in my copious free time.

Christianese 101

In most areas of life, people tend to have their own specific language—or perhaps “jargon” is a better word. When I am at work, I speak in a certain way, use certain terms and phrases, etc., that my family and friends might not understand. And I have found that church is no exception. As Christians, we tend to have our own pet terms and ways of expressing ourselves. I have noticed many of these in the area of prayer.

The first silly expression, in my opinion, is when someone “covets our prayers,” as in,

Sunday School teacher: “Does anyone have any prayer requests this morning?”

Nancy: “Oh yes. Hal and I covet your prayers for Hal’s aunt who is in the hospital with pneumonia.”

Like me, you’ve probably heard this kind of thing dozens of times. But, I’ll admit, sometimes it’s hard for me to maintain the seriousness of the moment as I internally contemplate the inevitable conundrum here, namely, that the Bible clearly states that “Thou shalt not covet,” yet people are coveting my prayers. There seems to be some sort of unspoken exception to this commandment when it comes to other people’s prayers. It doesn’t make sense to me, though. Nevertheless, I don’t think there is any way to put a halt to this minor inconsistency in our “Christianese.” Unless, of course, you want to be the one to start a campaign against it. Here’s an idea: Just try following up with a prayer request like, “Please pray for Nancy and Hal as they struggle with the sin of covetousness in their lives,” and see how far you get.

Another term we Christians love to use with respect to prayer requests is “traveling mercies.” “Ted and Janet ask you all to pray for traveling mercies as they head up to Blacksburg to visit their son, then to New Orleans to see Janet’s blind niece.” Now, I really have no problem with the term “traveling mercies” because I think it’s a good idea to ask God to mercifully take care of us when we go on long trips. I just chuckle that the expression is used exclusively in this context. Why don’t we ever ask for “relationship mercies” or “healing mercies” or “material provision mercies”? Just wonderin’. I think that if I requested any of these other mercies, people would think it odd, and some might even think I was trying to be a smart aleck (who, me?).

Lastly, I’ll mention the standard language that a pastor uses during the closing prayer of a sermon. You’ve heard it many times. You know, when he says, “Now I want every head bowed, and every eye closed. Nobody looking around.” Then after the invitation, he has people raise their hands, acknowledging each one, one by one—again, with "every head bowed, every eye closed, and nobody looking around." I understand the importance of prayer, and the seriousness of that particular moment. But at the same time, it’s true that every time we pray, it’s a very serious matter, because we are communicating with God.

I wonder if there are any pastors out there who give a similar prayer when saying grace at the Thanksgiving dinner table with twenty-five of their family members present . . . “Now I want every head bowed, and every eye closed, no looking around. If you are truly thankful for what you have, and are truly thankful for the hands that prepared this turkey, I want you to quickly raise your hand then put it down again—with nobody looking around, nobody smelling the food. Just raise your hand so I can see it . . . Yes, here at the head table, I see a hand. Yes, over by Aunt Sally, I see your hand. Over there at the kids table, yes. Nobody looking around, every head bowed. Yes, over there by the stuffing, I see your hand . . .”—and so on. Just wonderin’.

Television commercials and “Punch Buggy”

My boys are big sports fans. Nary a day goes by when they are not watching football, college basketball, hockey, you name it. My younger son reminds me of myself at his age—he is a fount of trivial sports knowledge and a true sports junkie at the age of eight. In fact, I remember one night about a year ago marveling about his sudden infatuation with professional lacrosse, which was showing on television. Anything is interesting at bedtime, right?

I have no real qualms about my sons liking sports, although I think it is important not to overdo it. There is one thing, though, that bothers me quite a bit. That is, while I don’t mind them watching sports on TV, I have grown increasingly concerned (and disgusted) over the content of commercials. Any more, they seem to be almost constantly laden with sexual and crude innuendos, off-color humor, mature subject matter (i.e. the inundation of Viagra ads), and graphic pictures (i.e. ads for horror movies, which I’ve especially noticed lately). This downward spiral has been going on for quite some time, I realize that. But I have come to a point where I ask, why should my son have to be exposed to this type of material at such a young age when all he is doing is trying to watch an otherwise appropriate sporting event? And for that matter, why should I have to be exposed to it?

So, for the last few years, in our house, we have started something new. When we watch TV—sports or otherwise—we mute the commercials. We just don’t listen to them. And while this in theory does not shield us from disturbing or inappropriate visual images, I have noticed that muting the TV tends to take our focus away from it altogether. All in all, I have found it to be a significant step in the right direction.

Despite my best efforts, however, there are periods when I forget, or the family gets lazy about it, and we don’t mute the television during commercials. Usually, though, after hearing some of the typical fare, I am reminded that we need to start “muting” again.

This reminds me—there is something that has been bothering me that I need to get off of my chest. During one of these lapses, I saw a commercial or two for Volkswagen. The theme of the ads is that various people are playing “punch buggy”—you know, the old game from our childhood where you punch someone in the arm when you see a Volkswagen Beetle and say “(red/blue/green/etc.) punch buggy.” I know there are different variations of punch buggy, but the game is centered around the Beetle, a.k.a the "buggy." The problem is, these ads (at least the ones I saw) are not for the Beetle, but for some other Volkswagen product—an SUV, a sedan, or some such.

After about the second time I saw this, I found myself getting kind of riled up and on the verge of screaming in protest at the television, “Wait just a minute! ‘Punch buggy’ is only for BUGGIES! It’s not for any old Volkswagen automobile! All of America knows that. DOESN’T VOLKSWAGEN KNOW ITS OWN GAME?” How dare they tarnish the honor of one of America’s great travel games in an effort to sell their other products! Shame on them!

Okay, it probably sounds silly to you, but thanks for letting me vent on this critically important topic. I feel unburdened now. And just to be clear, this is my only gripe with the Volkswagen ads, that is, they are not inappropriate in the ways I have described above.

At any rate, I believe it’s time to redouble my efforts at muting commercials.

--------------------

P.S.
Wouldn’t you know it—these commercials have got us playing ‘punch buggy’ on car trips lately. We count any Beetle as fair game, though in almost all cases, we see the newer model Beetles that have come out in the last decade or so. The other day, however, I saw one of the classic 60s-era Beetles, and dutifully punched my eight year old (don’t take that out of context, please). My wife and I laughed as he wildly protested, “That’s not a buggy!” Naturally, we had to explain that once upon a time there was an older model of buggy . . . you just don’t see too many of them anymore. It’s comments like that that make a guy feel middle-aged.

Am I asking too much?

Consider the following brief quiz:

1. Who is on the ten dollar bill?

2. What is the first line of the Erie Canal Song?

3. What state is Vice President Biden from?

4. Complete the saying, “To the victor goes the ________.”

5. What is the length of one term for a United States senator?

Did you get them all right? Did you think the questions were difficult? In my estimation, these questions should be pretty easy. Maybe the Erie Canal Song is a little tougher, because that song is slowly slipping out of our national memory (as is the case with many of the songs of our heritage, but that’s another subject for another day).

Over the past few semesters, in the course of lecturing in my American History class at the local community college, I have asked these questions to my class. In each case, I was met with silence. Nobody knew the answers. Zero students in a class of about twenty-five. I wasn’t surprised that everybody didn’t know the answers. But I was dumbfounded that nobody knew.

It’s not that I think my students are stupid or incapable of learning. I honestly don’t think that’s the case. I try to take a little time to get to know my students, and all of them are capable of learning at a high level.

Why, then, do the students, a majority of whom are in their late teens or twenties, not know these things? As I recall—and I’m trying to be as honest as possible here—when I was a teenager, such facts were commonly known, or at least more commonly known. Vice President Mondale was from Minnesota. Vice President Bush was from Texas (that’s more obvious now since he and his son served as President). Ulysses S. Grant is on the fifty dollar bill, and Benjamin Franklin is on the one hundred.

The next question, naturally, is that if this is in fact a valid observation, then why is it that young people today don’t know these things? The answer to this question is no doubt the subject of many books and journal articles. In my view, there are some deep-seated problems not only in our educational system, but in our culture in general that contribute to this problem (a loaded statement, I know . . . perhaps I can address it in more detail sometime).

I notice this phenomenon not only in my teaching, but in many other areas of life. The problem rears its head in matters ranging from common knowledge, to historical facts, to bad grammar. For instance, I recently ran across two Facebook pages, established by American youths. One explained that what parents view as “back talk” is really just “kids explaining why their wrong” (how about “why THEY’RE wrong”). As for the other one, I don’t recall the specific subject, only that everyone would “want to be apart of this.” Hmmm. I could see myself being a part of something. I could see myself being apart from something. But how do I be “apart of” something?

It’s as if the movie “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” is coming to life . . . Teacher: “Who was Joan of Arc?” Ted: “Uh, Noah’s wife?” . . . Teacher: “It seems to me the only thing you’ve learned is that Caesar was a ‘salad dressing dude.’”

So here I am ranting. It just seems like many things that used to be common knowledge no longer are, that poor grammar and spelling are ruling the day, etc., etc. And it seems to me that the average fifteen, or eighteen, or twenty-two year old ought to know better.

Am I asking too much?

(Quiz answers: 1. Alexander Hamilton; 2. “I got a mule and her name is Sal, fifteen miles on the Erie Canal”; 3. Delaware; 4. spoils; 5. six years)

Beads of dew on the tomatoes? Get real!

Have you ever found yourself daydreaming about being in a totally different line of work, one that nobody would ever think that you would pursue? For me, I often wonder what it would be like to be a food photographer. It’s pure fantasy, since I have no experience in the field of photography and can’t take a good picture to save my life. Nevertheless, when I see food commercials on television, I am taken in by the artistry, the keen attention to detail, and quite frankly, the unreality of it all.

Take hamburgers for instance. The typical Wendy’s or Hardee’s commercial depicts a piping hot burger, steam flowing off of the just-cooked patty. The patty is topped, of course, with the freshest of vegetables heaped high—so fresh, in fact, that, if you look closely, you will find that there are drops of dew still on the slice of tomato. Drops of dew still on the tomato? Are you kidding me? By the way, in many instances this is because all of the vegetables have just splashed through a makeshift fresh waterfall in slow motion (on their own volition, no less). All this is topped with a glistening, freshly baked bun. It looks awesome, but really, when is the last time you bought a burger that looked anything like this in a fast food restaurant?

The other thing I notice is that the burger is always filmed in extreme close-up, giving us the impression that it is big enough to feed one of the figures on Mount Rushmore. This is particularly funny when fast food places are advertising their “Value” or “Dollar” menus. “The new double bacon cheese deluxe bacon bacon burger for only a buck,” they say, while we see a mouth-watering burger that looks like it could feed a family of six. When we get to the restaurant, however, we find out exactly what a dollar buys us. Nevertheless, the photography is outstanding and impresses me.

Another area that fascinates me about food photography is the category that I call, “That will really make a mess, won’t it?” A good example is almost any beer commercial. They depict the frothy head of beer overflowing out of the glass, spilling out all over the sides. It looks great, but now you have sort of a mess on your hands. Sticky glass, sticky table, and sticky hands that smell like beer. How attractive.

My favorite example of the “That will really make a mess” category, though, is Red Lobster. The next time you see a Red Lobster commercial, notice how a person is depicted delicately taking a piping hot, steaming chunk of succulent lobster out of its shell, then forcefully immersing it into a small bowl of melted butter. As the person does this, the butter goes flying out of the bowl in all directions in semi-slow motion. Of course, the commercial cuts to the next scene before we can see the consequences of the aesthetically pleasing butter splash. I have often had the urge to try this myself when I am at a seafood restaurant, but I know I’d get in big trouble. Butter would get all over the table, on my wife’s dress, in our beverages, on the floor, and possibly onto the people sitting nearby. But boy would it be cool.

I could go on and on, because there are so many good examples of this (like maybe the Rembrandt-like application of garlic sauce to the pizza crust in a recent Domino’s commercial). You get the picture. So if you’re ever wondering what I would do if I had to do it all over again, just think of the fabulous, fantastic world of food photography.

News report: Super Bowl LXXXV (April 2, 2051)

** Sports section: Wednesday, March 29, 2051 **

This Sunday marks the 85th Super Bowl, pitting the AFC Champion Miami Dolphins against the EFC Champion Madrid Caballeros. The game will be played in the fourth brand new Cowboy’s Stadium in Arlington, Texas (USA), which holds just over 225,000 seats. As always, a sellout is expected, and it should be a gala event.

The Dolphins advanced to the Super Bowl (their eleventh appearance in team history) by defeating the CFC Champion Toronto Argonauts, 32-17 in a March 18th semi-final. The Caballeros are making their first trip to the Super Bowl, after edging the NFC Champion Los Angeles Seahawks 27-24 in the other semi-final. The Dolphins are seven point favorites.

Here are some of the top story lines as we head into Sunday’s epic gridiron clash.

This is the first time that the Super Bowl will be played in April, which has been lauded with acclaim by the League despite a few murmurs of protest that the season "is just getting to be too long." The big game is being pushed into April as a result of the new, expanded, 12-week play-off format, which was agreed to back in 2045 when the Canadian Football Conference (CFC) and European Union Football Conference (EFC) joined the NFL. League officials noted that similar concerns were raised when the Super Bowl was first played in February (in 2002), and in March (in 2034). “Quite frankly,” quipped NFL Commissioner LeBron Remington, “our goal is to some day see the Super Bowl played in July or even August, with only a short break in-between seasons. Let’s face it, NFL football is the most important thing in America on Sundays, so why not give people what they want each and every Sunday of the year?”

In a related story, there has been some mild criticism over the fact that the Super Bowl is being played on Easter Sunday. In an interview last week, Commissioner Remington defended the league’s decision, even extending an olive branch to concerned persons of faith. He said, “Perhaps this is an area where the NFL could work in tandem with the religious community. After all, when you get right down to it, what is the real meaning of Easter anyway? Isn’t it that everyone is happy and that children get candy? These are core values that the NFL shares with people of faith. Maybe for the time being we could just join forces, seeing as we are so closely aligned in terms of seeking the best in personkind. We could call the combined holiday ‘Super Bowl Sunday,’ and everybody could take Monday off!”

The game will be broadcast live worldwide on all sixteen of ESPN’s extended family of round-the-clock sports networks. In addition, the University of California at Berkeley will beam the game into outer space. This is part of a $680 million project funded by the 2050 BESP (Bi-annual Economic Stimulus Package). Dr. Philip Rogers, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Department at Berkeley, noted that while the project will create no jobs, and that it is almost certain that no extraterrestrial life will see the Super Bowl, the project will allow the university to apply for increased funding in the 2052 BESP.

As always, the anticipation surrounding the Super Bowl commercials is just as great as the anticipation for the game itself. Of note, for the first time in seven years, this Sunday there will be a Super Bowl commercial with no nudity. The ad is for Hardee’s new Thickburger, cheese fries, and malt liquor combo meals. Hardee’s Vice President Lebron Williamson tried to downplay any controversy, saying, “There may be no nudity, but the ad does contain three sexual innuendos, so we are not departing from the mainstream too much. There’s certainly no need for Hardee’s to get Tebowed for airing some supposed ‘ultra-conservative’ commercial, or anything like that.”

As usual, the Pro-Bowl (the NFL’s annual all-star game) was played last Sunday (March 25th), a week prior to the Super Bowl. Many in the media jokingly dubbed this as “Palm Super Bowl Sunday,” an obvious reference to the game being played on Palm Sunday, but also because of the latest tradition of fans tossing NFL throwback uniforms onto the field for the players to step on as they emerge from the locker rooms. What was unusual about this year’s contest was that two Super Bowl players played in the Pro Bowl game. (Note: Ever since the Pro Bowl was moved to the week before the Super Bowl way back in 2010, most selectees from Super Bowl teams sit the game out, not wanting to risk injury.) The two players who participated are Dolphins outside linebacker Lebron Lee-Harrison and Caballeros wide receiver Chaz QuatroCincoSeis. When asked if his Pro Bowl appearance would make him too tired to play in the Super Bowl, QuatroCincoSeis pulled out a Sharpie pen and began to write illegible chicken scratch all over the reporter’s shirt. Then he pulled out a fifty dollar bill, ripped it in half, threw it in the air, and left the room, unleashing a stream of expletives on his way.

And finally, this year’s halftime concert is certain to be a classic. For the first time in almost twenty years, ‘N Sync will perform live together with their original lead singer, Justin Timberlake. Timberlake, who turned seventy earlier this year, jokes that there will be no “wardrobe malfunctions” during the show—a reference to his then-controversial halftime performance with the late Janet Jackson in 2004 (when Timberlake was twenty-three!). Yes, I know it’s hard to believe, but there really was a time when that sort of thing was deemed controversial. Also, for obvious reasons, Timberlake vows to make no references to his rumored romantic relationship with his old friend, sixty-nine year old Britney Spears-Alexander-Federline-Johnson-James-O’Donnell-DiCaprio-Madonna-Beckham-Smith-QuatroCincoSeis.

More fun with squares

Since I blogged about squares a few weeks ago, I got to thinking a little more about perfect squares, as well as the comments posted on that entry. I am coming more and more to the conclusion that numerical patterns are “beautiful” in a sense, or at least reveal some aspect of the intelligent design of God. Here’s a quick example of what I mean.

You will recall that I made three observations about perfect squares while trying to fall asleep one night. First, if you keep adding consecutive odd numbers, you will arrive at successive squares. Observe:

1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16 (4 squared)
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 25 (5 squared)
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 11 = 36 (6 squared)

Second, I observed that the last digits of perfect squares follow a pattern that repeats with every ten numbers. Observe the last digit of the squares of the numbers 0 through 10. Do you see the symmetry?

0, 1, 4, 9, 6, 5, 6, 9, 4, 1, 0

Third, I observed that the last two digits of perfect squares follow a pattern that repeats with every 50 numbers. You will recall that I listed the squares of 20 through 30 to illustrate the pattern and symmetry of the last two digits (centered around 25 squared, or 625):

400, 441, 484, 529, 576, 625, 676, 729, 784, 841, 900

But all this got me to thinking. If the last digits follow a pattern, and the last two digits follow a pattern, then do the last three digits also follow a pattern? How about the last four? If so, we might find that there are really an infinite number of patterns associated with the last digits of squares. And, I would add, we might also start to see where the allegations of beauty and intelligent design originate.

Well, lo and behold, I deduced that there is in fact a similar pattern with the last three digits of perfect squares. The pattern repeats every 500 numbers, and thus the symmetry is centered around the square of 250. I’ll spare you the details of how I figured this out, but you can test it by looking at the squares of any two numbers that are “symmetrical” to 250. For instance:

274 squared (274 is 24 more than 250) = 75,076
226 squared (226 is 24 less than 250) = 51,076

And to make a long story short, from here, one can further deduce that the last four digits of squares repeat (every 5,000 numbers centered around 2,500 squared), the last five digits (every 50,000 numbers centered around 25,000 squared), and so on, and so on ad infinitum (until infinity). You have to admit that this is at least a little bit cool. Just to satisfy any lingering curiosity, let me give you one more example to show the symmetrical pattern of the last five digits of perfect squares (again, centered on 25,000 squared):

27,842 squared (2,842 more than 25,000) = 775,176,964
22,158 squared (2,842 less than 25,000) = 490,976,964

And alas, the last five digits are the same.

I have not done a lot of reading on the ancient Greek philosophers, many of whom were accomplished mathematicians (like Pythagoras). I wonder if this is the kind of stuff that they observed in their study of numbers that led them to contemplate the nature and essence of the universe—and made them renowned philosophers.

Fun with squares

Well, I was sick yesterday, and as I was lying in bed trying to get some rest, I started thinking about squares. Don’t ask me why, I just did.

Nevertheless, did you realize that if you start with 0, and continue to add consecutive odd numbers, each sum will be the next square? This is what I mean:

0 = 0 x 0 (0 squared)

0 + 1 = 1 (1 squared)

0 + 1 + 3 = 4 (2 squared)

0 + 1 + 3 + 5 = 9 (3 squared)

0 + 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16 (4 squared)

0 + 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 25 (5 squared)

And so on, and so on.

While contemplating this, I chanced on another observation about squares. That is, the last digit of squares follows a repeating pattern. Let me demonstrate by first listing all the squares from 0 to 20:

0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, 144, 169, 196, 225, 256, 289, 324, 361, 400

You will notice that for each group of ten numbers (0-10, 10-20), the last digits follow a symmetrical pattern:

0 to 100 (10 squared): 0, 1, 4, 9, 6, 5, 6, 9, 4, 1, 0

100 to 400 (20 squared): 0, 1, 4, 9, 6, 5, 6, 9, 4, 1, 0

Obviously, this pattern continues forever and ever.

Then, as an alternative to counting sheep, I mentally continued on from 400, adding consecutive odd numbers in my head to derive each successive square: 441, 484, 529, 576, 625, and so on.

This led me to another observation. Just like a pattern exists with the last digit of a square, so also a pattern exists with the last two digits of a square. In this case, the pattern repeats every 50 numbers, and is also symmetrical. Now, instead of listing all the squares from 0 to 50, let me demonstrate by taking just the squares from 20 to 30:

400, 441, 484, 529, 576, 625, 676, 729, 784, 841, 900

Do you see how the last two digits follow a symmetrical pattern centered at 625 (25 squared)?

So even though I didn’t list all the squares, you can pick out any two “symmetrical” numbers between 0 and 50 as a check. Take 12 and 38 for instance. According to this pattern, they should have the same last two digits. And alas, it is so. Twelve squared is 144, and 38 squared is 1444.

Going one step further, since this pattern repeats with each 50 numbers, one can see that 12 squared, 38 squared, 62 squared, and 88 squared all end in “44.” Do you follow?

At this point, my head started to hurt worse than when I laid down. So while I believe that there is probably no end to the fun one could have by thinking about squares, I reluctantly decided to stop for the time being. It’s not the best activity to undertake when you are sick and trying to sleep.

“Express” lanes

As the holiday shopping season descends upon us, I got to thinking about one of my biggest pet peeves. (Yes, I have pet peeves. No, I am not proud of them all.) The pet peeve is this: I can’t stand it when I am in the “express lane” at a store, and someone in front of me has more than the maximum allowable items.

I am one of those people who finds himself discreetly trying to count the number of items that the people in front of me have. And believe me, if anyone is even one item over the limit, I feel that I have the right to be bent out of shape for the remainder of the day.

Now, I suppose there could be debate over what exactly constitutes an “item.” And I have yet to see any instructions at any Wal-Mart or grocery store informing the public of how they define an item. Maybe such instructions are out there, but I have not seen them. The way I account it, generally, is that an item is a self-contained unit. A six-pack of Pepsi is one item. A bag of apples from the produce department is one item. However, six separate cans of Campbell’s Chunky Beef Sirloin soup are six items. I think this is reasonable.

But alas, I am convinced that people will always abuse the system, and get in the “20 items or less” line when they have twenty-six. And I have found that it is not very constructive to say anything about it. I recall a conversation I once had with a check-out lady at Wal-Mart. I had stood in line patiently, and the person directly in front of me had exceeded the limit by at least a dozen items. As I stood waiting, I had the typical battle going on inside my head, which could be depicted by the “Angel Dave” and “Devil Dave” popping up on either side of my head.

Angel Dave: Don’t worry about it, Dave, it will be alright.
Devil Dave: Are you just gonna stand here and let this happen? Say something! Be a man!
Angel Dave: Let it go, let it go. There might be a good explanation for this.
Devil Dave: This happens every time. Stop being taken advantage of, and speak up!
Angel Dave: Be patient, it’s no big deal. Let it go.

But when I got up to the register, it was Devil Dave’s turn. However, I vowed not to be nasty. So when the young lady started ringing up my stuff, I softly said (in the nicest tone possible, I promise), “You know, that person that was in front of me was way over the twenty item limit.”

Her response surprised me. “Yes, I know.”

I thought to myself, “You know? Then why didn’t you do anything about it?” Even at this point “Angel Dave” was telling me to shut up and forget the whole thing. But I continued. Again, in as pleasant a tone as I could muster, I said, “Well, if you knew he was over the limit, why didn’t you say something to him?”

She said, “Oh, I couldn’t do that.”

Now I was curious. After a brief pause, I said, “I’m just curious. Why couldn’t you say something to him? He was way over the limit and the sign clearly says ’20 items or less.’”

She said, “Well, what would I say to him?”

Trying not to sound too sarcastic, I replied, “Well, you could say to him something like, ‘Sir, you have too many items for this lane. I’m going to have to ask you to go to another line.’”

She said, “But then he would have to put all his stuff back in the cart and go to another line.”

My mind processed this for about two-and-a-half seconds. Yes, it would be disruptive and take a little time to turn back the offender. Yes, it might be a little uncomfortable for the Wal-Mart employee to enforce the policy. But I am certainly willing to endure the time it takes if it means that in the long run we rid the world of express lane violators.

I said, “But if you tell him to . . . never mind.”

I realized it wasn’t worth it. She didn’t get it. For a brief moment I thought of the scene from City Slickers (funny movie) where, as they drive the cattle through the plains, Billy Crystal’s character is trying to explain to Daniel Stern’s character how to tape something on a VCR for about the umpteenth time. Bruno Kirby’s character finally can’t take it anymore, and says “Shut up! Just shut up! He doesn't get it! He'll never get it! It's been four hours! The cows can tape something by now!”

“Angel Dave” was right, and I didn’t listen. I am not going to change this egregious affront to society. At least not on my own. So as the holiday season approaches, I pledge to do my best to be patient and understanding to those who for some reason feel that the rules of express lanes do not apply to them.

How many sportscasters does it take to change a light bulb?

Okay, at the risk of beating a dead horse . . . I’ll share this, and then I’ll shut up about the subject for a good while. I promise. I just thought this was funny.

Every year our Sunday School class does an outing to the local Cinema Café to watch Monday Night Football on the big screen. It’s a lot of fun to get together, eat some food that is not-so-good for you, socialize, and yell for whichever team you want. But you have to get there early—the theater fills up quickly.

Well, since we got there early, I saw (off and on) about forty-five minutes of ESPN’s “Monday Night Countdown” (it runs for an hour and a half in all). I typically don’t watch Monday Night Football anymore, let alone the pre-game coverage. After a bit, what really caught my attention was that every time I looked at the big screen of the theater, there seemed to be a different group of commentators breaking down the big game for us. So I decided to count them.

First, there was the team at the ESPN studios in Connecticut. They gave us that perfect blend of technical minutiae and mindless trivia, from how Denver uses the split-nickel-blitz-zone-double-deep pass coverage, to how Pittsburgh’s Ben Roethlisberger chose his uniform number. They are:

1. Chris Berman
2. Tom Jackson
3. Mike Ditka
4. Keyshawn Johnson
5. Cris Carter (yes, he spells it “Cris”)

Then, coverage was handed off to another team, seated at a carefully constructed broadcast area somewhere on the floor of Invesco Field in Denver. I’m not sure how their purpose was any different from the guys in the studio. They are:

6. Stuart Scott
7. Matt Millen
8. Steve Young

From there, we were sent up to the broadcast booth for a few words of greeting, stage-setting, and brief analysis from the play-by-play announcers:

9. Mike Tirico
10. Ron Jaworski
11. Jon Gruden

Then it was back to the ESPN studios for more banter. Staying in the studio, Berman kicked us over to a pair of analysts. I couldn’t really tell, but it seemed they were either providing some further vital information that we all needed to know, or a human interest vignette.

12. Chris Mortensen
13. Some other guy

Then it was getting close to kick-off. So, it was only natural to check in with our beautiful sideline reporters for the game (one for each team), because, really, who wants to just look at a bunch of unattractive, hulky ex-football player dudes all night:

14. Suzy Kolber
15. Michelle Tafoya

Then finally back to the play-by-play guys for the kick-off.

That’s fifteen, count ‘em, fifteen people preparing us for a Monday Night Football game! That’s a lot more people than many of our presidents have hired to write their speeches—you know, those inconsequential orations like the State of the Union, executive orders, proclamations, and the like. That’s way more people than it took to get the first airplane to fly. That’s the same number as the seats on the United Nations Security Council.

Fifteen people are there to make sure I know that if Pittsburgh’s offense keeps driving the ball down the field and scoring like this, and if their defense keeps stopping Denver, then they stand a good chance of winning the game.

A thousand boring meetings

I was in a meeting this week at work, and to be frank, it was kind of boring. As my mind wandered, I mused that I must have sat through a thousand boring meetings in my life. But then I started to give this idea some more thought.

First of all, I go to a lot of meetings. Seems I always have. It would not be a stretch for me to say that, on average, I attend at least one boring meeting a week (maybe I get bored too easily?). And if I attend one boring meeting per week, that would equate to about fifty boring meetings a year. Therefore, in the past twenty years (the bulk of my adult life), without too much exaggeration, I think I can say that I have indeed been in a thousand boring meetings.

My cardinal rule for boring meetings is this: Do not fall asleep! It’s just a conviction I have, and I really do everything in my power not to doze off in meetings. It could lead to any number of embarrassing situations, not to mention it is not courteous to the speaker. So on the bright side, I rarely snooze through meetings. However, the bad news is that I often find myself playing all sorts of mental games to keep my mind occupied and awake—and unfortunately I end up not paying attention.

In particular, over the years I have concocted many mental games or puzzles, normally based on letters of the alphabet, words, or patterns of words on the overhead powerpoint slides typically presented at meetings. Here is an example of a game that I am currently working.

Simply stated, the “game” is to answer this question: What (English) word can you find that contains the highest number of consecutive letters in it? I mean “consecutive” in an alphabetical sense, i.e. l, m, n, o, p.

For example, the word “like” has two consecutive letters in it: k and l. The word “mopping” has four: m, n, o, and p. To date, I have found two words that contain six consecutive letters (I’m not going to tell you what they are right now).

So, for a prize, can you be the first to come up with a word with six (or more) consecutive letters that is different from the two that I have in my head right now? [You have my pledge of honesty in the disclosure of my answers.]

The only caveat I have is that basic Scrabble rules apply. It has to be a real, normal English word that you can find in the dictionary. No “forced” words are permitted. For instance, if something is sort of outstanding, one might say it is “outstandingish.” I would not consider that a word.