Time Capsules

If you're not interested in kid-things (and I promise my blog won't have too many of them), you'll probably be bored with this post.  So you've been warned.

So my son has always wanted to bury a time capsule and actually buried a "virtual time capsule" into Nickelodeon Magazine's cyber earth this past spring, to be unearthed (i.e. emailed back to him) in spring 2009.  I thought the purpose of a time capsule was supposed to be more than a year, so you could really reminisce good :) but I guess a year is pretty long for a kid.

I did start freaking out lately about the fact that he is now 8, which means high school graduation and college are only 10 years away, which means I am way behind on my savings plan for him, but that got me thinking... wouldn't it be cool to bury a time capsule now, and open it after high school graduation in ten years?

So Max has filled a bag with stuff, including one of his handmade comic books, a list of his favorite things, and photos.  We have invited all the subdivision kids who are in his grade to do the same and we'll be burying them in a time capsule tomorrow morning (while it's still June) and unearthing it, you guessed it, in 10 years, sometime after graduation.

I think it will be fun and interesting.  What do you think?

Sex and Marriage

Sex is good. Marriage is good. God created them both, no? And God created men, too, and created (most of) them to be visually stimulated. Fine, good, I can live with that. I am not so naive to think that not taking care of myself is not going to have serious ramifications on my Christ-esteem (the way I esteem myself as a joint heir princess in God's kingdom), and therefore on my relationships with my family. And, if I were married, on my relationship with my husband.

BUT if I hear, one more time, a misogynistic remark from well-meaning folks (who are not always from the Christian perspective; my atheist neighbor seems to think the same way) about my single state, I will scream.

Here is my favorite of the lovely sentiments I have received in the last six years and why you should NEVER say it to the divorcee (or at least this divorcee).

"Don't worry... you're so pretty; you'll definitely get married again."
First of all, if that were true, then the world would not be full of single beauties or of stories of Ethan Hawke-types cheating on their Uma Thurman-wives! Second, just because I was married once doesn't mean I can't be happy again until I am remarried... there is a reason I got divorced, you know, even if it wasn't my choice at the time. Oh, and third, if you catch me on a negative day (certainly more opt to have happened closer to the break-up than six years later, but still could happen now and again), you'll have me wondering if my looks are all I have going for me; I must be a stupid, humorless wench if I don't have a boyfriend and I'm as pretty as everyone says I am (which I still have a hard time believing, anyway, based on 22 years of not being told it... maybe when I'm 44, I'll finally believe I'm attractive). Just like a young girl, my worth should be found in my abilities and personality, my goodness, kindness, godliness, sense of humor, intelligence, and the list goes on. Those crow's feet, on the other hand, are not retracting, but hopefully everything above is improving with age. I was raised to believe sex and attraction are important elements in marriage, but I can't believe people would actually think I can attract (and keep) a man based on my looks alone! Are they insane?

And my second favorite...

"I know this guy..."
Here's the thing. If I asked you, great. But if I didn't, you probably should not set me up because you probably are not intimate enough with me to know what I want. And no, I'm not TOO picky. I'm not. But I do know what I want, and if that means I don't get married again, that means I don't get married again. If he's not a Christian who's intelligent with a good job, I'm NOT interested (if he is, feel free to break this rule!). Why? Because I know myself and I need someone who can motivate me spiritually and intellectually, and I'm German, for goodness sake, so a lazy-donkey will drive me crazy.

So now you know. And you can do with it what you will.

Chuck E. Cheese and alcohol

You saw that I mentioned hosting Max's party next year at the overpriced (for pizza that is made on cardboard crust), overstimulating, overcrowded restaurant of rodentry, no?

But I'm not quite sure now, as the town of (thank goodness I live in the city of) Brookfield, WI has decided that CEC corp. should not be able to renew their liquor license, as police were called to said establishment 81 times in 2007 through May of 2008 (something similar happened in 2007 to another CEC in the city of Milwaukee... and things have improved there since they got rid of the alcohol). Perhaps the Brookfield CEC voluntarily decided not to renew their license; I honestly don't remember; the paper is at my boss's house, and www.brookfieldnow.com has not yet posted the article.

I'm just not sure I want to have Max's party there if I can't down a beer or 12 and get into a full-on chick fight with another mom whose 5-year-old guest inadvertently stops at my table for a minute or two and takes a piece of cake because she thinks it's for the party she's attending. If a kids' restaurant is going to stop serving alcohol, does that mean they're going to stop serving martinis at the PTO meetings as well?!

On a more serious note, though I never quite understood WHY CEC sold and served alcohol, the adults should be a little more responsible, right? Drinking so much that it's not legal to drive your kids home, drinking so much that you're getting in fights at a child's birthday party, etc., etc.; it's more than a little ridiculous. And regardless of whether alcohol is served or not, no one needs to be fighting or dealing drugs anywhere; hello!

The last time I went to CEC, in April, I made the mistake of going on a Saturday night. I have no idea what I was thinking. Max came back to the table in tears because a big kid had made him swipe his token card on a game before Max would be "allowed" to play himself (I wish Max was half as obedient with me as he is with strangers). I was livid, but since Max couldn't remember what the kid looked like, and the restaurant was so crowded I would have had to wait 20 minutes to talk to a worker, we left.

I apparently have quite the short memory, because I put "Chuck E. Cheese gift card" onto Max's wishlist for his birthday. Grandma and Grandpa gave him $25. We'll be using it on a weekday, and going to dinner at 4PM, or lunch, if I can take a day off, and this will hopefully be July 1 or later, when there is no longer any liquor served. I think that will be the last of the business we give them. We shall see.

If CEC wants to keep their restaurants going ANYWHERE, they need to do the following: 1) stop serving alcohol, and 2) limit the amount of people inside (I have a hard time believing the place is not breaking fire codes on a regular basis on Friday and Saturday nights, at least in Brookfield), and if the individual restaurants do have issues like the one in Brookfield is having, they need to beef up their own security (which they have on weekends). The Town of Brookfield should not have to be responsible for CEC's poor management skills. I'm also appalled by the fact that when the head honchos from Texas CEC headquarters flew up here to discuss matters with the Town of Brookfield, CEC wanted to have a casual, private meeting at a coffeehouse. Yes, that's the perfect way for a municipality to discuss a community issue. The TOB wisely declined, saying this was town business and needed to be conducted on town property and could not be a private meeting. CEC declined to meet with them (another reason I cannot give them my business... hello, judiciary ethics, anyone?).

Attached is the latest posted article from the Brookfield News (the meeting discussed never happened, per CEC's issues over where to meet). http://www.brookfieldnow.com/story/index.aspx?id=760536

There was another story today that will be posted tomorrow, I would assume. Otherwise www.jsonline.com has LOADS of juicy CEC stories.

Personality Changes?

So it's been a good 14 years since I last took the famed Myers-Briggs personality test, as far as I remember. Because I don't have anything better to do (you know, like read the Bible and good literature, spend time with Max, my family and friends, exercise, etc.) I took it again on Facebook and the results: INFJ, whereas they used to be ENFP.

The I (introvert) instead of E (extrovert), I understood. While I am outgoing and friendly, I knew enough to know in psycho-babble that is not the same as being extroverted. Extroverts are those who are energized by people while introverts need time to themselves for energy. Introverts are more comfortable with a few, intimate relationships while extroverts like to meet and make as many types of "friends" as possible (though I wonder what kind of intimacy these friendships hone, if any).

The P to J, I was a little wary of... p is for perceiver and j is for judger. I would like to think of myself as aware of others' feelings (my definition of perceptive) and fairly non-judgmental, believing people should have freedom in their life's choices (though I am also a strong advocate of personal responsibility and the interests of those around you when making said choices). I did look it up, though, and I am perceptive by my definition in that I am still an F (feeler) versus T for thinker. The biggest thing for a judger is she looks at things from a futuristic perspective rather than a perceiver who looks at things from a "here and now" perspective.

WHOA! Now I have no idea how I ever scored a P in the first place... I was, literally, the girl who told everyone I handed my yearbook to in high school that they better not swear in their note to me, because my kids would read it someday.

But it is still interesting to me that I wasn't always an "I." Even as a kid, I needed time to myself, but I think maybe I could have gone either way in college, I guess.

The big question here that I'm wondering is, "Can personality really change, and if so, is it always due to major circumstances?" Considering I had some major life-hauling experiences in college (the first year and part of the second I did not have a single true friend there) and thereafter (hello, divorce and single-parenthood!), I totally get why my personality has "changed" and maybe this is who I truly am and always was, and I just didn't accept that and so "cheated" on the survey freshman year in college, which I really don't think I did, but who knows? Or maybe, is it possible, to have a circumstantial personality? Like, I work with a talkaholic boss and am on the phone and emails all day, then I go home to my parents and son and we are a family of yappers and so, of course, I'm emotionally exhausted from all these conversations and the me-time and God-time renew me but if I didn't have to be the emotional caretaker for others then I would be more into lots of people... I know for a fact when I first moved to NJ and then later when I first had Max I CRAVED adult interaction with someone more than just my husband because I was used to having many people to rely on, not just one, and that is just the opposite of now, where I have many people to rely on, but need alone time more than anything else... And because my life did NOT turn out the way I had planned, I'm always hoping and looking toward the future with careful consideration but not necessarily living in the moment unless I've thought that moment through very carefully, esp. when it comes to my son's future, but once I can take a breather, like when I'm 60 and he's 35, I will be able to be a "P" then?

What are your thoughts?

What's the problem with Susan Pevensie? (contains Narnia and HP spoilers; be warned)

So there are numerous blogs, articles, and message boards regarding "The Problem of Susan," not to mention a very interested (R-rated!) short story with that very title, by Neil Gaiman, that you can read here: http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/archives/2396-The-Problem-of-Susan,-by-Neil-Gaiman.html (which, I have to tell you I haven't checked out the anthology to see if this is the entire story, because it's QUITE short).

The problem of Susan is that Lewis "kills her off," or rather, he doesn't. Rowling has the same problem in HP when beloved characters are killed off systematically, because, hello, there's a huge war of good versus evil that climaxes in Book 4 after 20-some years. If people from the good side, or even innocent bystanders, didn't become casualties, it wouldn't be a very realistic good vs. evil saga, now would it (because you know, wizardry, dragons, unicorns, mail delivered by owls, and a magic boarding school are all so realistic, she says, with her tongue in her cheek). Some of us heartless types were sad when Sirius, Dumbledore, Hedwig, Dobby, Fred and Colin went away, but we were secretly relieved the trio and Ginny survived so after all that teenage angst they could finally (get married and) have mad monkey sex, which was heavily alluded to since the beginning (and yes, I was a huge Harry/Ginny shipper since Book 1 and Ron/Hermione maybe Book 2, but this post is not to be about arguing ships) and Rowling herself said "What's life without a little romance?" after someone asked, between books 5 and 6, if Harry would have any more, after the disastrous relationship that was Cho Chang.

Lewis, on the other hand, leaves Susan on earth while her parents go to earth's heaven and Prof. Kirke, Aunt Polly, her brothers, sister, cousin, and cousin's schoolmate all go to Narnia's heaven, leaving some to believe she was not allowed to come because, as Jill (?) says, she's "interested in nothing more than lipstick and nylons and invitations these days." Rowling, whom I admire greatly, said she had a huge problem with Lewis doing this to Susan, that he wrote it that Susan had become irreligious because she had discovered sex.

Having been years since I had read some of Lewis's great non-fiction works, I thought "Yeah, what the heck WAS that about." I myself had issues with it because I've always been one who enjoys fashion and makeup, and there was a group of people at Cedarville that I really enjoyed conversing with (the Inklings of Cedarville in the mid-90's, if you were) that also disdained such things. I have some serious issues with that: because I enjoy beauty, that means I'm not intelligent? I don't think so... see, these people (both men and women, btw) were missing the bigger picture: we all have our frivolities. I mean, technically, writing songs, or drinking coffee, or smoking cigarettes, aren't exactly practical, intelligent things to do, are they? So enjoy your frivolities and let me enjoy mine. We can still read the same lit and discuss religion and philosophy. So when I reread that about Susan during/ after (?) college, I was like "Not Lewis, too! Maybe these dumbasses got their ideas from him!"

But let's see: the Pevensies have beautiful clothes and ride glorious horses (LWW), Caspian and Ramandu's (sp?) daughter get hitched and have at least Rilian, if not more kids (VDT). Ramandu's daughter's beauty and dress are discussed at length. Susan is pondering marriage (HHB) and is admired in all the lands for her beauty (VDT and HHB). Aravis and Cor/Shasta get married and have a kid (HHB). Helen and Frank become the first Queen and King of Narnia, and when Aslan transforms them they are wearing royal clothing, and then their descendants rule Narnia and Archenland.

So sex and romantic love are not necessarily the issue, nor is clothing. Of course, there is Peter's comment that his sister Susan is no longer a friend of Narnia. And Eustace (?) says she thinks of Narnia as a game they all played as children. Aha! So Susan no longer believes, and if you look at what Lewis says later in an interview or letter (I don't remember which) something to the effect that she has her entire life to repent and then make it to Narnia. He states very clearly that she did NOT die with the others.

To Neil Gaiman, this doesn't seem to be enough. I'm not sure that it is to me, either. Doesn't Lewis himself say through Aslan "Once a King or Queen of Narnia, always a King or Queen of Narnia"? It is actually Peter who condemns Susan "out of Narnia," and if I remember correctly, this is before any of them realize they're dead. Aslan never says anything about Susan. So I actually hope that what Lewis meant to say was not that Susan needed to repent, but rather, to remember, and believe again.

What do you think?