Go With Your Ethical Gut!

In an interesting article titled Why Your Gut Is More Ethical Than Your Brain the authors examine the role of ethics in industry. They begin by saying:

It's believed that to live ethically, we must engage our reason, which reins in the whims and follies of emotion. Ethics, then, is heavy on Spock and light on Sally Struthers. But what if unethical behavior is actually spurred, rather than prevented, by reason?

The piece goes on to report about a series of experiments that tested the decisions of participants to cheat or be fair.
The results looked like this:

• Some were encouraged to think rationally about the situation and to ignore their emotions. Equipped with this advice, the great majority (69%) analyzed the situation and con-cluded that they should screw their partners.
• Others were primed to "make decisions based on gut feelings." Their guts were pretty trustworthy: Only 27% lied.

They say most people do not think that our guts are good criteria for living though..

There's a twist: Even though the study shows that we would be treated better by people who trust their feelings, we're leery of them. When people were given a choice to interact with a rational decision-making partner or a gut-trusting one, 75% chose the rational partner.

Isn't it interesting how our brainy rationalizations seem to trump our gut? I wonder what it is about our brains that make us feel so safe? And what is it about our gut that makes us uncomfortable? I think that it might involve our desire to be in control of our lives. Dr Matthew Eliott puts it this way:

We think our job is to control our feelings ... we are uncomfortable when people feel deeply. In our desire to distance ourselves from feelings, we do great damage to souls and our own ability to feel love and compassion.

I think that we find our conscience in our gut. When we go with our gut we go with our moral center. I think that is why our gut will always be more ethical than our brains.

What do you think? Are you most comfortable living from your brain or your gut?

Sidekicks and Second Bananas

Last night I watched Kevin Eubanks' last time (after 18 years) of playing sidekick to Jay Leno on the Tonight Show. It reminded me of all of the great folks that have had supporting roles in television. Here is my short list of memorable second bananas:

• Ed Norton played flawlessly by Art Carney on "The Honeymooners". Who can forget that sewer worker buddy to Ralph Cramden's bus driver?
• Ethel Mertz performed by Vivien Vance on "I Love Lucy" and "The Lucy Show". That scene of Ethel and Lucy on the candy assembly line is so iconic.
• Barney Fife played so well by Don Knotts on "The Andy Griffith Show". I still remember that deputy who was allowed only one bullet for his gun by Sheriff Andy Taylor.
• Ed McMahon costarring on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. I think Ed invented the sidekick role for talk shows. Who can forget the antics of Ed and Johnny?
• Niles Crane played so fussily by David Hyde Pierce on Frasier. The banter between he and his brother was some of the best in television.
• George Costanza, Cosmo Kramer and Elaine Benes of Seinfeld. These characters played hilariously by Jason Alexander, Michael Richards and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss took second bananas to a different stratosphere.

I left the list short so that you can add some of your favorite second bananas.

---

Islam, Christianity and Extremism

---

A few nights ago I couldn't sleep and found myself watching the Tavis Smiley show on our local PBS TV station. I cannot remember who his first guest was.. kind of forgetable - not so with his second guest. Here is his introduction:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former member of the Dutch parliament and the founder of the AHA Foundation. She is also the author of the international best seller "Infidel." Her latest is called "Nomad: From Islam to America, a Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations."

The interview that followed was as compelling of an interview about Islam that I have heard in a while. Here are a few things that this courageous woman said about Islam and jihad:

And when I say "Islam" I'm talking about Islam as a theology and as a political theory. Islam has different aspects. It has a spiritual aspect but it also has a political and a social aspect. The spiritual aspect of praying and fasting, I have no problems with that. The political and social aspects have to do with concepts such as jihad - waging a holy war to either persuade people to become Muslim or to kill them.

The social aspect has to do with the treatment of women, and given the fact that we are now living in a world that is fast globalizing - people are coming from all different parts of the world, living here; people are leaving here and going elsewhere - I think it's very, very important to note that not only are people moving but ideas are also moving.

So people with ideas who feel that they should introduce Sharia law, a theocracy based on Islam such as Iran, such as what the Taliban have attempted in Afghanistan, that these people with these ideas, resources, convictions, can sometimes be successful.

What I tried to do with the book as an individual who grew up with Islam and I was once myself - considered myself a member of the Muslim brotherhood, I want to say that these ideas are really not only dangerous but a lot of people are subscribing to them.
...
I don't ever want to make the impression that all Muslims are potential terrorists or potential jihadists. But there is a movement that wants to have Islamic Sharia or Islamic war introduced, through persuasion sometimes, without using violence, and sometimes by using violence. The society that they're aspiring to is a society that is modeled around a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The point I want to make in this book is the majority of Muslims don't even read the Qur'an. They've just been told what is in there is good, it's God's word, it's perfect. The majority of Muslims don't know what Muhammad exactly said.

So these people who are coming to them are building - the agents of radical Islam, the agents of jihad, the agents of Sharia are just building on the fact that most Muslims have only been told the Qur'an is great, Muhammad is infallible, and then radicalizing them. It's very important for us to realize that.
...
Right now there's no competition. There isn't a competing propaganda. We talk about it only in terms of national security. We talk about military means, we talk about what the FBI can do, but we don't talk about what you and I can do. Why can't we just reach out to Muslim-Americans living here and say, "Hey, do you really believe in practicing what is in chapter 4, verse 34 of the Qur'an - "Beat the disobedient wife?" I'll tell you most Muslims don't want to beat their wives and don't want to compel them to do that.

But with that justification, with that narrative, with that propaganda, more and more men are finding a reason to justify to themselves something that is truly abominably wrong.

Here is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said about Christianity:

I'm not a Christian. I would like to introduce to them critical thinking and the enlightenment and secular thought. But I've also met, through my last years here, a number of Christians, and I've realized that their concept of God differs very much from that of Islam. I've had people who've read "Infidel" and who write to me saying, "I just cannot be, I just can't fathom being an atheist. I can't. There is a force out there, it's a good force. I don't want to be with Allah or Muhammad, but I just need a different kind of -" and most of them convert to Christianity.
...
Like all human individuals, I am a bundle of contradictions. I was very much, after I had written "Infidel," very much on the side of people who say all religions are the same and all religions are inherently evil. But again, what I learned from the enlightenment is when the fact change, change your mind, and the evidence I'm seeing - and this is what I admire about some Christians, not all of them. I'm not blind to extremist Christianity.

But what I admire about Christians today is - and I would like it for the Muslims too - is that many of them have come to grapple with their faith, have come to acknowledge that there are things in the bible and things that the institution, that different churches have done that are hostile to humanity, that are hostile to gay people, hostile to women, have justified slavery, for instance.

They have come not only to grapple with it and to understand it and to acknowledge that it's all in there, but they've also learned to distance themselves from that. That's what I admire about moderate Christians. I say in the book right now we cannot speak of moderate Muslims because they still cling to the absolute idea that everything in the Qur'an is the true word of God and cannot be changed by human beings, and that the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, left a moral guidance behind and all we can do is follow it, not question it.

Here is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali opined concerning extremists:

Well, I think you and I disagree, not so much on is there extremism in Christianity - I fully acknowledge that. There are people who want to take the bible and use passages from the bible as justification for violent behavior. I'm not denying that in the least. But mainstream Christians in the 21st century are more like you.

I'm an atheist, I'm not a Christian, but they are more like you - accepting of other religions and tolerant. The latest example, "South Park," where Jesus Christ was made fun of, watching pornography, people, Christians, maybe have been annoyed by it but the producers of "South Park" were not threatened by Christians.

They were not threatened by Buddhists. They showed Buddha snorting cocaine. Muhammad, whose picture wasn't shown, there was a line saying "censored" and he was imagined to be in a Teddy bear, some of the followers of Muhammad got very angry. A few of them posted threats about the producers, and this is very mild.

There are today - I don't want to say, and it's been established, not all Muslims are terrorists, we must emphasize that, but almost all terrorist activities that take place today in our time are done and justified in the name of Islam.

Now to acknowledge that, the point I'm trying to make is is it possible, is it imaginable, that we can compete with the radical jihadists for the hearts and minds of young men like Faisal Shahzad or like Nidal Malik Hasan, and I believe we can, before they get to that stage.

And here is her answer to the question of why she continues to speak out as her life is threatened every day and security guards accompany her everywhere she goes:

I ask myself that question every day, and I think it's worth fighting those who intimidate me. Those who threaten, those who try to kill people who disagree with them, I think it's worth it. I think it's worth continuing to fight.

I encourage you to view or read the entire interview here. I know that I was very impressed by this very intelligent woman and her quest to inform the West about the religion that she was raised in. She is someone we should all pay attention to.

---

Art Linkletter, 1912-2010

This dear television icon passed away at his home in California yesterday. I will always remember him as the wonderful gentleman who interviewed children.. a segment from his "People are Funny" show that became known as "Kids Say the Darnedest Things". To honor Mr Linkletter I give you some of those darnedest things:

Have you ever been in love?
No, but I've been in like.

My father's a schoolteacher.
That's a fine profession. Does he like it?
He only has one thing to complain about.
What's that?
The kids.

What did your mommy tell you not to say?
My mother told me not to tell any of the family secrets, like the time she dyed her hair blonde and it came out purple.

Any brothers or sisters?
No.
Would you like some?
Sure, I'm lonesome.
What does your mother say when you ask for one?
She just groans.

(Little girl, asked about her pets): I used to have a duck but it ran away. Then I had a turtle, but my father stepped on it. Then I had three goldfish, but my sister put water softener in their bowl and they softened to death.

What would you like to be?
A stewardess.
What if a plane was in danger over the Rocky Mountains?
I'd put parachutes on everybody and if there wasn't any parachutes I'd sew up sheets into parachutes real fast and put in extra pillows so if the sheets ripped on the way down, they could always land on the pillows.

You can find other kid stories here. Please join me in praying for the Linkletter family.

2,500 calories and 85 grams of fat

This just in from Kelly George at Atlanta Healthy Trends Examiner is this article titled
Worst restaurant meals revealed. Here are the winners.. I mean.. losers:

• California Pizza Kitchen Tostada Pizza with Grilled Steak. With 1,680 calories,32 grams of saturated fat, and 3,300 mg of sodium. It’s equal to eating a Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pepperoni Pizza topped with six Taco Bell Crunchy beef Tacos.
• Five Guys Bacon Cheeseburger. It has 920 calories and 30 grams of saturated fat. A large order of French fries at Five Guys has 1,460 calories, that’s equal to three large orders of fries at McDonald’s.
• P.F. Chang’s Double Pan-Fried Noodles Combo. The dish contains 1,820 calories and 7,690 milligrams of sodium.
• The Cheesecake Factory Pasta Carbonara with Chicken. 2,500 calories and 85 grams of saturated fat are in this meal.
• The Cheesecake Factory Chocolate Tower Truffle Cake. One serving has 1,670 calories and 48 grams of artery-clogging saturated fat. It’s equal to eating 14 Hostess Ho Ho’s.
• Chevy's Crab Shrimp Quesadilla. This “appetizer” has 1,790 calories and 63 grams of saturated fat.
• Bob Evans' Cinnamon Cream Stacked Stuffed Hotcakes. This breakfast is 1,380 calories and 34 grams of saturated fat. You could eat two country-fried steaks and four eggs for about the same.
• Outback Steakhouse New Zealand Rack of Lamb. The lamb alone has 1,300 calories and 60 grams of saturated fat, add the sides and it is 80 grams of saturated fat.

The article says that "the standard recommended daily caloric intake for an adult is around 2,000 calories, with less than 20 grams of saturated fat." Some of those entrés are simply gross. I sometimes wonder if people really understand what they are eating.

Explaining Us to Ourselves

I will start with full disclosure - I have never seen one episode.. or even a part of an episode.. of the recently completed TV show called "Lost". That said, I will say that I was aware that this past Sunday night wrapped up about six season of the show. The reason I mention this is because of this thought shared at this site:

"Ultimately, 'Lost' was a show for the anxious, uncertain, post-Sept. 11 nation we have become. We've had to accept ambiguity as a fact of life, and we seek answers and closure, though none may be forthcoming. We're leery and skeptical about science but riddled with doubt about faith. To the extent that 'Lost' was about the journey and not the destination, about the drive to solve riddles rather than the solutions themselves, it was the show that best explained us to ourselves."

Looking at the title for season five (in the image) it seems apparent that some sort of destiny theme must have run through the show. That said, I am not sure that I am compelled to go out and rent season one of the show and get immersed in all things Lost.. but a few things did intrigue me about what was shared above:

1. That the show's appeal (in part anyway) might have something to do with connecting the viewer with their own anxious feelings of uncertainty. Reflecting a bit.. I do think that life is that way.. the older I get the more I understand that.. life is so much less predictable than it was when I was younger.. much younger.
2. People these days are less certain about things that scientists and preachers tell them. Really? Who can blame them? When I was young I believed that medical science was going to heal cancer. I thought space travel would be much more commonplace by the year 2001. And didn't we all get a bit more cynical when the immorality of televangelists and priests was exposed? 
3. I have come to believe that life is about the journey and the way that we live our lives is very important. Often I have found that the journey is about confronting fears and embracing the courage to change. Sometimes it simply involves doing what God asks me to do.. even if it is difficult or makes me feel uncomfortable.

I liked the phrase "explained us to ourselves". Life is that way sometimes.. if we slow down enough we can almost observe life as it is happening and can come away with a new understanding of why we are the way we are and why we do the things we do. I guess it is all part of this inner journey of the heart that we all are on.

Does Time Heal All Wounds?

The title of this blog post,"Does Time Heal All Wounds?", from The Center for Grief Recovery, caught my attention. Here are a few thoughts from the piece:

• We can all look back at certain hard or painful situations in life and laugh now about them. But the main point is time is just a concept we use to measure minutes, days, hours, months, years. Time is not a healer. The passage of time may take the edge off of acute pain, but it does not heal pain.
• On the other hand, time can be used well for healing purposes. When time is used well, in terms of healing wounds, then it is because we do something specific with and within it. We take time and shape it in order to do inner work. It is inner work coupled with courage and honesty that heals all wounds

I suggest that you take a few minutes and read the whole post if you are interested in a brief treatment of the nature of grief and inner healing.

On a personal level I have found sharing and writing to be a vehicle for grieving. When my first wife Ellen passed away I joined a grief recovery group. This group provided me an outlet for my pain and a place to share with others who were also grieving. On the first night me met the leader of the group told us that we would either step into our pain or we would walk around it for a long time. Grieving is hard but necessary work.

After the group was over I began a long process of writing my thoughts down in a short ten chapter booklet I called "An Eye for Redemption". In it I walked through the grieving process I saw in the biblical book of Job and I related it to my life experiences. The experience of writing and sharing my pain was very healing.. I can remember crying at times as I would write.. there seemed to be a deep level of inner healing taking place.

It was from this writing experience that my first blog was born.. and of course I called it An Eye for Redemption. On it I have tried to share about the redemptive power of God in the midst of our pain and how He has used pain to shape me in amazing ways. I do not write there as much as I used to but feel free to browse the archives for my writings on varied topics.

In retrospect I have to say that time may not heal all wounds but time is definitely needed to do the difficult things that heal those wounds. What activities and resources have you found helpful in dealing with grief, pain and the healing of wounds?

Political Free Agency

The subtitle of this book "The Future of Working for Yourself" creates a different image of work than the one I had when I worked at Ma Bell for 27 years. My image changed though when I retired in 1998 and worked as a consultant (i.e. for myself) for the following seven years. For the first time I felt both the insecurity and the freedom that comes from a self-employment of sorts.

Recently heard someone describe the anti-incumbent primary winners as "free agents". I am not sure what he meant by that.

It did get me to pondering what it means to be a "free agent". Here is one definition:

In professional sports, a free agent is a player whose contract with a team has expired and who is thus eligible to sign with another club or franchise.

In that vein their are several types of free agents:

1. Unrestricted free agent: Player without a team.
   
2. Restricted free agent: Player is free to solicit offers from other teams but their team can keep them by matching an offer.
3. Undrafted free agent: Player eligible for the Draft but not selected.

So I am wondering how these types of free agents would map to our current cadre of political candidates. Seems that most of these agents might fit into #2.. they might say that they are free but, in reality, they are indebted to some "party" - GOP, DEM or TEA. Some of these candidates fit into the third category.. they are untested and their allegiances are unknown.. they might be dangerous in a political sense.

Yet I do think that there are some that truly fit into #1.. truly independent people who will stay true to themselves and their constituencies. Granted, in this day where a lot of money is needed to get elected, it does seem that no candidate is a true free agent. To get elected these days one needs support from all sorts of special interests. Maybe no one is a true free agent? What do you think?

Digital Lynch Mob

This morning I heard this term, "Digital Lynch Mob", from a political TV pundit. It got me to wondering where it came from.. so I googled it and found this 2006 Washington Post op-ed piece with the same name. In it columnist Richard Cohen bemoans the thousand of emails he gets when he writes on something that folks disagree with. Here is a clip from him:

It seemed that most of my correspondents had been egged on to write me by various blogs. In response, they smartly assembled into a digital lynch mob and went roaring after me. If I did not like Colbert, I must like Bush. If I write for The Post, I must be a mainstream media warmonger. If I was over a certain age -- which I am -- I am simply out of it, wherever "it" may be. All in all, I was -- I am, and I guess I remain -- the worthy object of ignorant, false and downright idiotic vituperation.

Sadly I think that most of us have been part of one of these mobs. I know that I sometimes have written some ignorant stuff here on my blog and have been corrected by nice people in the comments section. This stuff reminds me of this Pierre Beaumarchais quote that I recently posted on Facebook:

"It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them."

Such is the dilemma that we bloggers face: Do we, like some investigative reporters, spend days researching issues then publish our thoughts when they are ready for prime time? Or do we, in a conversational mode, present our views and solicit ideas from others in the Blogosphere? I tend to do the latter.

Even though I understand it I do not like the term "Digital Lynch Mob" because of the picture it paints of the Blogosphere.. and granted I do not spend great amounts of time reading political blogs like Politico or Huffington Post.. the little I have read in places like those I don't see a much of a mob mentality.

Maybe the real mob mentality is more about those viral email messages that regularly show up in our email in-boxes. It does seem that these folks are not interested in dialog. Seems like I never hear from most that I reply to with a counter-view.. and any reference to Snopes.com is pretty much ignored.. and yes I have read the stuff about the Snopes bias.. I also use TruthOrFiction.com.

What comes to your mind when you hear the term "Digital Lynch Mob"? Emails? Blogs?

Another Health Insurance Horror Story

I think that this note, from a gal in a NMO online group that Ann and I belong to, accurately describes the what happens when health insurance companies run the show:

My insurance initially denied my first rituxan treatment (despite verbally confirming they WOULD pay). I went without rituxan for 3 years after that and I feel it was the biggest mistake I have made. My neuro did not advocate for me and I (stupidly) did not advocate for him to advocate for me (does that make sense?). Finally, after a really bad episode that landed me paralyzed from waist down, I decided to fight.

I asked my neuro to write a pointed and explicit letter detailing why I needed the drug and what would happen if I didn't get it, I wrote a letter detailing the same thing and how I had run out of options, I gathered info papers on NMO from the web (from doctors with respected credentials) showing that rituxan is effective for treatment of NMO, and my husband contacted the insurance liason from his company who acted as an advocate between us and the insurance company.

Believe me, I was ready to go to court-- that is how strongly I felt about it. Fortunately, they approved the request right away after receiving all that info. Please don't give up too soon. I just wish I hadn't--it has cost me a lot of mobility.

BTW, the insurance companies do not pay $20K for the infusions (that's what they want you to pay). The insurance companies negotiate a rate that is much less than that (still more than you would want/be able to pay). In my case, the rituxan (that they wouldn't pay for) was actually cheaper than the IVIG treatments they would pay for. Now doesn't that make sense?

A few lessons that we can glean from her experience:

1. Insurance companies do not have our best interests in mind.
2. We are responsible for our own treatment.
3. Doctors are often reactive and not proactive with insurance.
4. Bad stuff can happen if we cede treatment options to insurance companies.
5. We need to vigorously fight claim denials.
6. Computer programs routinely reject claims based on inaccurate information.
7. Share information with other people.. it may really help.

I hope that things will get better after some of the new health care reforms are actualized but I think that these lessons may be even more important in the future.

Do you have any insurance company stories? Ever been denied coverage?

eGrandPrix: Electric Motorcycle Racing

According to this ZDNet article describing a different kind of race:

The eGrandPrix is open to any zero-carbon-emissions motorcycle including other alternative power sources such as hydrogen or solar. So far, though, the entries in the circuit have only been electric bikes.
...
Durng the 11-lap race at Infineon Raceway, most of the electric bikes will hit top speeds of around 100 mph.
...
One of the main challenges in electric motorcycle racing, says driver John Wild, is stuffing enough battery power into the bike frame. The frames that most teams are using were designed for traditional bikes, and fitting in all the batteries while maintaining proper weight distribution and aerodynamics can be challenging.

I kind of understand how manufacturers can throw a bunch of batteries in a car and somehow get it to work. I am not seeing batteries on these motorcycles though. Must be a whole different kind of battery.. maybe a bunch of D cells.. nobody uses them for flashlights anymore. I wonder if these bikes will be sold for street use?

Don't Judge My Misplaced Words & Personal Failings!

Does it ever surprise anyone these days when a politician lies or cheats? There are a few examples in the news this week of politicians who seem to have been caught lying and cheating.

Consider recent democratic primary winner Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal who once told crowds that he served in Vietnam and was on the Harvard swim team. As it turns out he did neither and confessed:

"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. I take full responsibility."
...
"But I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."

Also consider "family values" republican congressman from Indiana, Mark Souder, who had an affair (I think we used to call it adultery) with a part time member of his staff and resigned from congress. He offered these words:

"I wish I could have been a better example. I sinned against God, my wife and my family by having a mutual relationship with a part-time member of my staff."
...
"In the poisonous environment of Washington D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. I am resigning rather than to put my family through the painful, drawn-out process."

Did you notice the similarities in these "apologies"? There seems to be an admission of guilt followed by a "don't judge me" attitude. Well.. I am not one to judge.. but I do wonder if either one of these guys is really sorry about what they did or just sorry they got caught.

I now remove my judicial robe and yield the bench to you. How judge ye?

Lessons from an Eccentric TV Doctor

One of my favorite TV characters is Gregory House.. that doctor genius played impeccably by Hugh Laurie. This season ended last night with another great installment.. the whole season has been about House's efforts to stay clean from a prescription drug addiction.. the season opener was a compelling story about a man in pain getting free from the grip of drugs. These past few weeks have been replete with observations about this past season of getting free.. here are a few of House's recent observations:

• "I followed all of the rules and I am not happy." - House tells his counselor that he is done with their meetings.. after months of therapy he feels no better than he did when they began. Man, can I ever relate to this one.  It reminds me that life is not about following rules and sometimes getting healthy involves some tough living. I think that happiness is seldom found when it is the object of our search.
• "I did everything right and she still died." - House is devastated.. he cared.. he used all of his medical genius to save an innocent victim.. and she died. Again, I can so relate. Reminded me of how I prayed for my first wife for years hoping and believing that she would be healed.. but she died. Life is not a formula.. religious or otherwise.. life is something that confounds the rules.. bad stuff happens even when we do everything right.. even when we believe and pray.

In the end Doctor House is faced with a tough decision.. he is in physical pain.. he has stayed free of that nasty Vicodin all year.. he is hurting.. he feels stuck.. he is ready to chuck it all and go back to a life of addiction.. and out of nowhere love wins the day - something else that I can personally relate to.

i-Fairy Pastor

Do you ever wonder where our high-tech world is heading? Look no farther than this Reuters article titled "I do" goes high-tech with Japan robot priest.. it may be just the ticket for those folks that are unhappy with the "institutional" church. Consider these outtakes from the article:

The groom looked dashing, his bride resplendent in white, but all eyes in this Japanese wedding were on the priest, a four-foot tall robot with colorful, flashing eyes called i-Fairy.

The robot is usually used in museum and exhibitions to direct visitors, but with the help of a flower headpiece, and a new programme, it pronounced Satoko Inoue and Tomohiro Shibata man and wife at a Sunday ceremony.
...
The bride, Inoue, works for the company that makes the i-Fairy, and her husband, Shibata, is a client.

"It's true that robots are what caused us to first begin going out, and as suggested by my wife, we decided that we wanted to try this sort of wedding," Shibata said after making his vows.

After saying "I do," the bride said that she wanted to use her wedding to show people that robots can easily fit into their daily lives.

"I always felt that robots would become more integrated into people's everyday lives. This cute robot is part of my company, I decided that I would love to have it at my ceremony," Inoue said.

I have to say that this is just plain weird.. first because Japan allowed the i-Fairy to officiate the wedding and secondly (and more importantly) that the couple wanted it to.

As a person who has done a bit of premarital counseling I believe that marriage is something not to be taken likely. I do hope that this couple somehow found a way to involve people in their marital preparations.. and I do hope that they will not one day need an i-Fairy lawyer.