Did any of you HTML nerds notice how I got the cent sign in that entry a couple ones back? I thought it was kinda cool how that came out. I didn't use the Unicode symbol. There's actually a ¢ code, and that's what I used. Random trick for those losers who still use pico. Like me.

So we were in LA last weekend and there was traffic on the 5 (SN. I think SoCal people say highway names differently. Maybe I'm wrong. But up here we just say the numbers, don't we? Is it just me? Like we'll say, take 101 south to 87, go south on 87, exit Curtner. But in SoCal it's "the". The 101. The 5. The 405. Just a feeling I have, maybe I'm wrong.) on both Saturday and Sunday.

I dunno, I'm just philosophically opposed to that. I can deal with the traffic, no big whoop. It's just the fact that there is traffic that I'm against. On a Sunday afternoon? That's just not right. Think of the children. The children!

This random group took out a full page ad in the Merc, advocating a gas tax of 96¢ per gallon (implemented over 10 years). The money would go back to the public in some way. But they feel strongly about reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

I liked that. Just, they have a practical understanding of things. When it comes to energy conservation, just asking people to change their habits Barbra Streisand style isn't going to make any lasting difference. It's all economics. The only way people will use less gas is if gas is more expensive. So if using less gas is a worthy goal (I think it is), we need prices to go up. I dunno, I'm just in favor of that.

On a somewhat related note, dunno if you read the Bogle speech but Warren Buffett was advocating a 100% tax on short term capital gains. Super extreme. I've been thinking about it, and I think I agree with it. Just, one of the problem with the modern market is that many people don't invest, they speculate, and that has definite negative consequences. I dunno, it's an interesting idea at least.

Note - Jackass: The Movie. Not a good date flick.

I have never seen a firefly.

More thoughts on Chicago (the movie), maybe spoilers. Caveat emptor.

I think I said before how I thought Chicago was amoral. I think I've changed my thinking. I think it's *immoral*. Just, the people who get treated the worst are exclusively good people. The husband is just a good guy, and he's treated like crap. And the one innocent girl gets hung.

I know it's not a message movie, it's razzle-dazzle. But still, there is a message. And what is it? That being good is #1 irrelevant and #2 disadvantageous? I dunno. I'm just a caveman, this world frightens and confuses me, but such unrelenting cynicism is hard for me to find entertaining, the more I think about it. But I think I'm alone on this; doesn't seem to bother anyone else.

Why is it that Christians are so desperate to get married? I think most of us know fellow Christians who like met someone, got engaged, and got married in the course of like a few months or something. It seems like we're more desperate than the world to get married.

And I find that odd. Obviously I'm not immune to it because I wanted pretty badly to marry Jieun. But I dunno. You would think that Christians would be more secure being single than the world, since we have Christ. But it kind of seems like the opposite is true. Maybe it's because modern Christianity puts so much emphasis on marriage as the foundation for society? Focus on the family?

I dunno. Just something randomly on my mind.

Dave can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I don't think they use yuh-buh in Korea anymore. It's an old person's term. At least, the young Korean people I've interacted with have laughed when I've used it towards Jieun. You know what they use. At least wives. Oppa (big brother). I dunno, I find that disturbing.

Who's this Ali G guy? There was an article about him in Newsweek that was hilarious. Apparently he gets famous political figures to appear on his show, not realizing that he's a comedian. So the interactions are hilarious. Like,

"I's here wit my main man Gov. Dick Thornburgh, former attorney general. Him is here to explain about the law. So, when is it legal to murder someone?"

"Never," the stunned Thornburgh answers.

"What if they call your mum a ho? Is it all right to murder them then?" Ali G persists.

"You can't use as a defense any kind of verbal provocation," Thornburgh explains patiently.

"What if they say your mum is a ho and I know 'cause I done it with her?" Ali G retorts. "Surely then you can pop a cap in their a**."

Thornburgh pauses. "It's a terrible thing to say," he allows. "But you can't take another's life for slander."

"Then what if they say it about your nan?"

Ali G: Is Disneyland a member of the U.N.?

Boutros Boutros-Ghali: No, because it's not an independent state.

AG: Which is the funniest language? It's French, innit? What was the one language that when the delegate got up to speak, you was like, "Hee hee hee"?

BBG: I'm not allowed to do this. I am the secretary-general.

Fareed Zakaria wrote the cover story for Newsweek this week. About why the world hates America. Required reading as far as i'm concerned.

He said something very true a few weeks ago. The UN actions about Iraq weren't really about Iraq, on which, at least fundamentally, most countries are in agreement. What it was really about is the U.S. The world is afraid of the U.S. His story says something interesting, how other countries have faced terrorism before. But when it hit the U.S. on 9/11, it saw an almost unimaginable response. The world was required to change its priorities. That kind of power must be awing.

I dunno, it's just a really interesting article. Anyway, he said something else a few weeks ago that really resonated with me also. A lot of people say the U.S. should be able to do whatever it wants. But the truth is, the U.S. really can do whatever it wants. It would benefit everyone to recognize that. Like he writes about France and Germany, "They have split Europe, weakened NATO and diminished the Security Council - all to prevent action against Saddam Hussein. A world with fewer rules and restraints is one in which America will do just fine. It is the rest of the world that benefits most from these institutions."

And he says of the U.S, that the Bush administration has been "eager to prove that is has freedom of action. But it's obvious that Washington has total freedom. That's why it would be wiser not to mention it every few days. When your power is so obvious and overwhelming, you need to show no that you can act along but that you want to act with others." I dunno, I think he's right.

And so it begins. I feel slightly ill about it. You know what I feel like. I feel like the lead violinist on the Titanic, after they play Nearer My God To Thee, he says to the others, "Good luck." No clue why I feel that way. It's not like I'm really in danger. It's just a new world I guess.

Everyone else has posted this but it's so valuable I will too: read this blog from a guy (I believe an Iraqi) in Iraq. It's crazy.

I've said this countless times but the "worship" trend is out of control. Prime example: John Tesh Worship. What the... Isn't that one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Another in my series of things I don't understand. Like I keep saying, I have no idea how to hear from God, what that really means. So when I pray for things, I don't do it with the expectation of it resolving anything. I just do it because I feel like it's wrong to decide things without it, if that makes any sense. Just like, if there's a big decision to make, I feel wrong about not praying about it before acting. So I'll pray not really for guidance but more so I can just say to myself that I prayed about it.

I think that's slowly changing. Still no clue what it means to hear God's voice. But I dunno, I feel like things are falling into place. Is that His voice? Maybe. We'll see I guess.

I've been struggling to find a theme for this year. Dunno why I need one. And yes, I know it's March already. But I still feel odd when I write "03" on the dates.

So for a while my theme was, this is the year I'm going to grow up. Like stop screwing around. Little things like shaving when I need to, dressing neatly, it all adds up.

I think I have a new theme. I dunno, going through Mark at church I think the biggest impression that it's made on me is how radical the gospel message is about dying to yourself. Giving up all your personal "rights". Giving up your ambitions, possessions and status. And that our ambition should be serving and maybe suffering. I dunno, it's radical and being a Christian for a long time sometimes I forget that. Anyway, that's my theme for this year. Dying to myself.

We sang a song on Sunday that I liked a lot; I'm not in the praise loop so it's probably old to everyone but yeah, it expressed a lot of how I'm feeling well. So, even though posting lyrics tend to be pretty boring here it is.

I respect everyone's right to protest, but I do think it's too easy to do over here. Being liberal where everyone's liberal isn't really that courageous. So you know who I do respect. The Dixie Chicks. They said some antiwar stuff in a place where that's really hard to do, in an atmosphere that's very against what they're saying, and caught a bunch of flak for it. That takes guts. Do I agree with them? No. But to make a stand where it's hard to do so, I respect that.

One interesting thing as I was reading Newsweek this week. Basically everyone who knows takes it for granted that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. And as such is violating the U.N. yadda yadda yadda. The question is just whether this is worth going to war for. But as for whether he actually has WMD, no one really even disputes it.

So one thing that bothers me about Friends is that there's no growth. What I mean is, what kind of losers hang out with the exact same group of people pretty much exlusively for 10 years? Neither making new close friends or losing touch with old ones? Is anyone like this? Should they be? I dunno, when I see it now I see a bunch of old people (some are kinda wrinkly now) doing essentially the exact same thing that they did a decade ago and I dunno, people like that in real life I call losers.

One thing I do respect about Friends. They've never pulled a Brian Bonsall, Raven Simone, or Ashley Johnson (who played Chrissy Seaver, a character who grows 5 years in one offseason). Yeah, they added a baby, but it's not the same as the child actor thing. Once that's there, it's done. So they've got that going for them, which is nice.

Simon asked me recently who I would be if I could be anyone in the world. And that's a hard question for me to answer. Just because, given my life verse and stuff like that, the person I would want to be like most is likely someone most people have never heard of. Someone who quietly makes a difference, not someone who's well known.

If it were someone well known though, I wouldn't want to be like a Christian singer or something. I dunno, I'd much much rather want to be known for being a good man, whatever that means, than for being a Christian. In Survivor terms, I'd much rather want to be Rodger, whom everyone recognized to be a good guy, than Joanna, who got in people's faces (and on their nerves) by being "Christian."

So anyway, my answer to him was John Bogle. He was like, who? Business people know who he is. He was a pioneer of index funds. But anyway, I admire him a lot. He's made a solid difference in his field based on his principles and values. And for that, he's well respected by everyone. He doesn't flaunt his faith, but it clearly influences him and comes out in subtle ways. That's pretty much who I want to be. Apply my Christian values to my field, make a difference in doing that, be known as good, and personally influence people towards Jesus.

Anyway, he recently gave a great speech about recent economic events and pretty much indicts the modern U.S. capitalist system. He makes some interesting points. That in right capitalism, self-interest demands virtue. And that the failure of the modern system is that owners capitalism has been replaced by managers' capitalism. It's very interesting, worth a read. John will like it because he starts with the gospel of Matthew. Dave will like it because he ends with Tocqueville.

Anyway, my investment principles are pretty much completely influenced by Bogle. Heck, even my fantasy football strategies are based on his ideas. Maybe my NCAA Tournament picks... we'll see.

It's strange to me how my tastes change. When I was growing up I hated Japanese food. Now it's my favorite. Hated spinach and broccoli. Now those are two of my favorite vegetables. Strange.

I think the first time I had Thai food and remembered it was maybe junior year of college. I hated it. The coconut milk. Now I have Thai all the time and love it, especially the coconut milk. Odd.

So I wonder what cuisine I'm going to get into next. There's actually a lot I haven't had. Like, I've only had Indian food 4 times in my life, the first time 2 years ago. Which is odd because one of my closest friends in school from 1st grade to 12th was Indian. But he was vegetarian so we weren't exactly clamoring to eat at his place. Actually, I think that's what it is. Because of him I didn't realize there was Indian food with meat.

I think I'm going to try getting into Greek food. I used to hate it. Just too much lamb and yogurt. But now I love lamb so maybe I'll love it. We'll see we'll see.

So I watched When We Were Kings, this documentary about the Ali-Foreman fight. I think it won the Academy Award. Very interesting. You know, I actually never understood the Muhammed Ali thing. Everyone loves him and says how great he was and whatever but I just know that by proxy. When I think of Ali all I know is the silent, tremoring man. Didn't really understand the hype. I think I kind of get it now. He was incredibly charismatic. I just never saw it until now. I wish I could see more of him in his prime.

It was also fascinating seeing what George Foreman was like. Bizarre. He was this terse, reserved, highly dislikable punk. After the fight he went into depression for 2 years and basically reformed his personality. The contrast between what each was like then - Foreman so quiet and aloof, Ali energetic and engaging - and my perception of them based on how they are now is striking to me.

Dunno why but I like boxing documentaries. The two I've seen at least. This one and On The Ropes. Dunno what it is. Something about it is pure, it's just one person against another person; maybe that's what it is. Not that anyone cares.

Dunno about you but the adventures of Igor have me on the edge of my seat.

Pastor gave another convicted sermon I think. Basically that if you're putting trust in anything for comfort or security besides Jesus, it keeps you from the kingdom of God. It honestly made me reconsider my 401(k). That's really not absurd. I think I wrote this before, but I once did research on the Christian views of money, in particular saving for retirement. Only the prosperity gospel people (who are absurd) are fine with it. The rest either say don't do it at all, or only do it to give more, not to be secure. Even Christian financial counselor Larry whatever his name is shares the 2nd view. Not that everyone should do it. But that if you do do it, do it a certain way. I dunno, good to think about, at least.

You know what I was convicted about. I think I'm at a place where I'm fine with money, with not having it. It's not a big deal to me. But what the sermon helped me realize is that I haven't given up status. Like, it doesn't bother me that my classmates are doctors, lawyers, venture capitalists, whatever, who make more than me. What bothers me is that they've attained a certain status that I haven't. I think what I wanted was to somehow prove to the world that I'm "better" than them, whether that means another degree, a position, or whatever. Then I'd be fine being completely poor. Because I'd have this quiet confidence in having proved my status, my worth.

I dunno, I think I have to give that up. It's just another thing in which I want to put security in besides Jesus, I think. I dunno, I have a ways to go. I think I'm just scratching the surface of what it means to die to yourself.

I find my parents' generation amusing in certain ways. Just, the divide in terms of culture and expectation is interesting to me. Like there's this one guy my parents' generation who makes a big show of doing the dishes... once a week. Whereas with our generation sharing equally in household duties is expected, right? Whether the division is outside/inside or cooking/cleaning or whatever, I think we all understand guys are supposed to share in the duties in some way when both people are working. It just makes sense. So yeah, our parents generation I find slightly amusing.

Did anyone read that Newsweek article on black women? It was absolutely fascinating. There's this huge trend now where black women are upwardly mobile, even more so than men. The problem is that they're so far surpassing black men (for whom jail is a startling big problem) that they have difficulty getting married. Something like 40% of black women age 40, I'm getting the numbers all wrong, but something like that have never been married, vs. 10% for white women. It's crazy.

Anyway, one thing they pointed to was that it's difficult on both sides when a woman marries a "less powerful" man. Something like this came up recently in discussion and I was surprised that women who are career oriented and want to succeed still want to marry someone "higher" than them, whether that means status or money. I'm not sure about that. Er, I just don't think that's sustainable. I dunno, I just wonder where this will all lead. When we keep moving towards equality in all areas but insist on inequalities in status for marriage, I dunno, something's gotta give. Not sure what I'm saying, just wondering what the future's gonna look like, like our children's generation.

Perfect love casts out fear, Simon.

Simon's right, I meant 2^20 megabytes. WHOOPS! (Maybe 3 people will understand that.) Anyway, my point was, it surprised me because the *technical* (e.g. IEEE) standard for a megabyte is 1,000,000 bytes. Surprising because again, maybe I'm wrong, but very few computer related things use this as the measure. Again, if you make a file that's exactly 1,000,000 bytes, Windows will say it's less than 1 GB. I find that discrepancy odd. Of course, if we were to tell all the things wrong with Microsoft software I suppose the world would not fit all the books that need to be written. Hey, I got to slam Simon after all! Woo!

How much is a megabyte? Most people would probably say 1 million bytes. Nerdy people would probably say 2^10 bytes, or 1,048,576 bytes. You know what I found out recently? The first is correct. At least according to the SI standards. That page says IEEE has adopted this standard also. 2^10 bytes (which I believe Windows uses as a megabyte) is a mebibyte. You learn something new every day.

So I saw two movies that take place in Chicago recently. My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Chicago. MBFGW was fine, not great. Jieun also thought it was fine not great. One thing I did like though. I think maybe John wrote something like this before, but this and the Sopranos helped me realize how a lot of the Asian American experience isn't unique to Asian Americans but is true of the second generations of many races. Just like the feeling of being in between two cultures, not feeling fully comfortable all the time in "American" society, maybe being embarrassed a bit by one's family, different stuff like that. I dunno, that's just interesting to me.

Chicago I was very entertained by but the more I think about it, the less I "like" it. What it is is it's so unrelentingly cynical. That just kind of depresses me. So I'd give it 3 stars. 4 stars for quality and such minus 1 star for how it made me feel. Like the opposite of my deep movie thing. Does that make any sense? Oh well, it's my rating system, sucks for you.

The rest of this might be a spoiler so might want to skip. Anyway yeah, so unrelentingly cynical. Like, the only good person in the entire film is the biggest loser in the film. Nothing good happens to him. Everything's a show, notoriety pays, morality is elusive and irrelevant. I dunno, that just kinda depressed me. Is this really what Chicago is like? I mean, the atmosphere? There's a couple lines, one where Queen Latifah says that murder is entertainment in this town, another where Gere is summing up the amoral nature of the town and says, "That's Chicago!" At that point I was just thinking, is that really Chicago? If so, remind me to never live there.

Maybe the movie was making a statement about modern times, and that's fine. But still, so unrelenting. Geez.

I can't remember if I wrote this before but I'm against the space shuttle. Not against space exploration in general, but pretty much against manned space missions. There's just no real justification for it. I think people before were saying how people against the shuttle ignore the side scientific benefits we get from it. That somehow the research trickles down to help society in general. I don't buy that. Frosh year of high school I did Oxford debate and the national topic was on space exploration. Anyway, when we did our research we basically found out that essentially nothing of value has really come from space research. At best (and even this is highly arguable), there are things that have been inspired by space research. But any scientific advances came from work independent of the space program and would have been much more cost effective were it completely independent.

I dunno if I'm articulating myself clearly. But yeah, the scientific benefit trickle down theory is basically wishful thinking. I'm more than willing to be wrong on this. Just give me the research. At the time, there just wasn't any real basis for this belief. Hmm, Straight Dope seems to suggest the same. But anyway.

So yeah, given the enormous cost (in dollars) and risk (in human lives) of the shuttle, I don't think it's worth it. Especially if the benefit is based more on wishful thinking than documented advances. So I'm all about unmanned missions. I still believe in basic research, and unmanned projects would both cost less and be less risky. I dunno, just my thoughts.

You know why I think I didn't like Korean girls for a really long time. I guess it's pretty obvious. But I don't think I had a single female Korean classmate until Stanford. Is that not crazy? The same year I mean. I can only think of Grace Choi who was a year older when I was in a combo class in elementary. But I don't think anyone else, no one in junior high, and then I went to Bell. I dunno, I guess that's kind of unusual.

Here's my question. If you hated those shows so much, how come you know so much about them? You remember more than I do. And I have an excuse - I had a sister, and only 1 TV in the house. If not for her I never would have watched Full House, Family Matters, etc. But in a house full of guys, what's your excuse? I just don't get it is all.

Don't be hating on Perfect Strangers. I'm not saying it was a great TV show, but I liked it. It was unquestionably the best show on TGIF for a long time. Which isn't much, but it's something.

I spent some time downloading classic TV theme songs and I'm ashamed that I ever forgot the Perfect Strangers theme. It's a good one. Better than Silver Spoons and Diffrent Strokes, I think. You've got to hear the long versions of the Family Ties, Growing Pains and Cheers themes by the way. Bizarro. Especially the Cheers theme, which includes the line "And your husband wants to be a girl." Uh... right.

Am I being a fogey by saying this? But I think we had the best cartoons when we were kids. G.I. Joe, Transformers, Thundercats, He-Man, etc. Even our translated anime was better. We had Star Blazers, Voltron, and Robotech. Kids today are stuck with Dragonball Z and Pokemon. There's really no comparison. The only new cartoons I wish we had when we were younger are X-Men and Batman. But even like X-Men, the animation doesn't compare to I think G.I.Joe. I dunno, I haven't kept up with cartoons but I think our age was a golden era.

There were a few shows though I don't understand who watched. 3 stick out in my mind: The Littles, the Bugs Bunny show (both on ABC Saturday mornings) and Land Of The Lost. The Littles was just boring, one of those shows they showed late Sat. morning. Bugs Bunny was just like the same 12 cartoons recycled for 20 years. Boring. Land Of The Lost was this live action show my sister insisted on watching. Absolutely boring.

Also boring were pretty much every girls cartoon ever made. No clue why that is. Like He-Man - interesting, She-Ra - boring. Sometimes my sister would rent the Care-Bears and Strawberry Shortcake videos. They literally could not be more boring. I mean that. It's just not possible. Why are girls cartoons so boring? I think it affects them permanently, their sense of standards. So that when they grow up, it causes stuff like Maid In Manhattan and Sweet Home Alabama to appear. My theory.

Just want to clear up a misconception. Once in a while I'll be in a conversation about food and cheese and someone will say how they like Feta. Then I'll say I like goat cheese. Maybe 50% of the time they'll say, "Feta is goat cheese."

Actually, it's not. Feta is usually crumbly, goat cheese is soft, like a soft cream cheese. And they taste pretty different. And while Feta *can* be made from goat's milk it most often isn't. FoodTV entry about Feta says it's usually made from cow's milk now. Nicer ones I've seen are often sheep milk. At any rate, it's not the same as goat cheese.

Is it random that goat cheese is my favorite? I dunno, I just like it. For me, it's a critical part of a spinach salad. Maya in SF did it nicely, putting the goat cheese in a little deep fried croquette on the top of the salad. Nice. I actually remember when I was introduced to goat cheese. In high school my great-aunt visited and me, my mom, her and my uncle ate at Chez Panisse cafe. I had this pizza there which included goat cheese and it was delicious.

I like all cheeses but I think my second favorite cheese is a really good cheddar. Preferably not dyed orange. Favorite on sandwiches is swiss. I like blue cheeses also. But not a huge fan of feta. Weird, huh? Random entry.

I remember the theme song to Family Matters, a show I hated. But I cannot remember the theme to Perfect Strangers, a show I liked.

This whole Iraq thing fascinates me. Zakaria said something that convinced me in Newsweek a few weeks back, that at this point the U.S. must go to war. Otherwise, the lesson for everyone will be that if you confront the U.S., it will back down, and this has disastrous consequences.

It's just odd because it seems like it's getting harder and harder to actually start the war. It's an odd situation. Here's something I don't understand. So Iraq decides to dismantle some of its missiles. Scott needles Bush over this, like, what is he going to do now? Which makes no sense. If it's taken this long for Iraq to do this, it's clear that they haven't been fully cooperating with weapons inspectors and U.N. resolutions. It's almost like proof that they haven't been complying. Which would help justify a war. But oddly, them doing this is seen as cause for not going to war. I dunno, very interesting.

On a different note, Jieun had this interesting question recently. How many members of PETA are pro-choice? It's just, a lot of them are so into respecting all life and stuff, that to be pro-choice seems somewhat inconsistent. I dunno, it's interesting is all.

It's crazy how much I dislike Arizona basketball. I was watching the game today and I could hear their stupid fans they brought to Maples. Anger. I even hate the fonts they use for the names on their jerseys. Argh.

What they need to do is take the series to its logical conclusion. I Could Sing "I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever" Forever Vol 1.

Has anyone heard of a movie called Gone? I was Googling "Left Behind" and it came up as a sponsored link, which describes it as a "hard-core Christian" movie about the apocalypse.

So I check out the site, and find out it starts Dirk and Joel from the origial Survivor! What the? Is Joel even Christian? Now I'm seriously intrigued. Dunno if I'm intrigued enough to buy it, but yeah. Fascinating.

I think "I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever" is becoming the next Shout To The Lord. Not in terms of the songs themselves, but as names of products. A while ago Worship Together comes out with the second CD in their "Revival Generation" series and they call it I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever. Fine and dandy.

Then the same company comes out with another compilation, a 2 CD set, also called I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever. Huh? OK, whatever, it's a new type of compilation so why not. But then they come out with another 2 CD compilation, a sequel I guess, and they call it I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever 2. Huh? Why not use a new name like they did with the last series? But whatever.

Then of course they come out with I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever Kids. No Christian theme is complete without the kids' version. Shout To The Lord Kids, Prayer of Jabez Kids... Left Behind Kids isn't just a product, it's a whole theme. It's insane. When are we gonna get The Call Kids? Or Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God Kids? Just wondering.

Anyway, so now Worship Together comes out with *another* compilation CD. A brand new compilation series. And of course it's called I Could Sing Of Your Love Forever. Talk about confusing. I dunno, they're taking the theme of the song to a whole new level. Wow.

They're going crazy with releasing TV series on DVD. Six Feet Under came out, CSI coming out, now I hear they're releasing Cheers. When are they coming out with full seasons of the Wonder Years? Just the first 2 seasons. I dunno, those 2 seasons really impacted me, I think. I was reading a transcript of the 3rd episode and it moved me to tears. Not sure why. I just loved that show. First 2 seasons.

So a pet peeve. I'm super not into "authenticity". I mean as it regards to food and whatever. I could care less. So don't tell me, oh, this food *actually* came from wherever. You can play that game forever. Pasta *actually* came to Italy from China. Tomatoes *actually* came from the New World. So like spaghetti in marinara isn't *really* from Italy? Ridiculous. I could care less where it came from, I just care what it's like now.

And like there are endless arguments on ba.food about how there are no "authentic" Mexican restaurants anywhere in the Bay Area. Or no "authentic" Italian restaurants. Cry me a river. Who cares about authentic? I just care about good. Authentic is important only as it relates to good. But on its own, I care less. So like how this place in Sunnyvale, Il Postale, calls themselves an Italian-American restaurant. That's cool, almost saying that being "true" Italian doesn't matter. I like that. Not enough to have actually gone there, but I applaud the sign.

What I don't like is mixing terms though. Is that inconsistent? Maybe, I dunno. Not talking about fusion food. I'm fine with that, even if it's a little overdone. I mean like terms. Worst example: PF Chang's China Bistro. China Bistro? What does that mean? Anger. I dunno, maybe I'm overreacting. I just have a lot against PF Chang's. You know what PF stands for right? Paul Fleming. The owner. I think Chang is just a consultant or something. Bruce - I know you like to be called that - you must stop teaching our secrets to the enemy!

Let me qualify my last post. I do know a couple of Indian Americans with American names. Interestingly, they're Christian. Heather and Roy. Weird.

I don't understand who reads Maxim. Isn't it just pure trash? Playboy-lite? Who the heck would read that? What's the appeal? I mean, I guess I get the appeal. Just for me, the shame would be greater. I dunno, I have enough shame reading Esquire, but at least that has good writing. Maxim et al... I dunno.

Also, Henry subscribed me to Esquire. Not sure why.

You know what I find interesting. None of the Indians I've known have ever had American names. Except for like Jay which is also an Indian name. But yeah, they all have Indian first names. Unlike East Asian Americans, who frequently give their kids American first names. Why East Asians and not Indians?

This came to mind this weekend when we played basketball with some people and one of the guys there, Indian, introduced himself as "Mark". And that just kind of took me by surprise and I realized it's because I've never met an Indian American with an American name before.

Is this related to how Indians view culture and stuff? Maybe they're more concerned with preserving culture and less concerned with penetrating American culture than East Asians? That's probably completely wrong. I'm just wondering, because I know there are East Asian American representatives, there's an East Asian American governor, an East Asian American on the cabinet. I just realized I have no awareness of the penetration of Indian Americans in politics. Maybe they haven't penetrated as much? Why? Is it purely a numbers thing? I dunno.

And do Indians identify themselves as being Asian American? In high school our Asian club included Indians but it was a bit awkward, I thought. Like, our sweatshirt had anime characters on it. Is that representative of Indian culture at all? What exactly is representative of all of Asia? I dunno, it's hard to find anything.

My claim: it's curry. I've said it before, but curry is the one commonality in all of Asia. No matter where you go in Asia, you'll find some form of curry. That's what we should have put on our T-shirt.

Random.

More on my love hate thing with TV.

I think, and obviously this isn't completely up to me, but I think I don't ever want a TV in my bedroom. I know, there isn't a person alive anymore who doesn't have this but I don't think I want it. What it is is this. To me, a TV is disruptive. For other people it's not. They can just have it on in the background, no big whoop. But for me, it takes my attention. Again, the whole, if a group is eating and the TV is on, I don't talk. I watch the TV. It's disruptive for me. And the last place I want to be disrupted is the bedroom. I'm not being dirty here. I just mean the bedroom represents our alone space. I dunno if that makes sense.

I also think I don't want more than 1 TV in the house. I just believe that when you only have 1 TV, kids are forced to learn to compromise. I'm not saying it's the only way it happens. But it is a good way. I dunno, we'll see what happens I guess.

I think I get this Friends thing now. Only after marrying Jieun does it kind of make sense to me. But yeah, I used to be like Dave, like I had seen just a handful of episodes, and every one of them was terrible. Boring and not funny at all.

But I was clearly missing something I think. I dunno, I think historically, it's rare that the very most popular shows on TV are bad. They're usually good quality. You get your fluke bad shows that are popular like Joe Millionaire or whatever but these are never the *most* popular shows and in any case they don't endure. The ones that do, like Cosby Show, Cheers, Seinfeld, whatever, they tend to be relatively quality shows. I'm making all this up, of course.

The point is, there must be something to Friends that I didn't get and I think I get it now. The key I think is this - you have to know the characters for it to be funny. It's only really funny in that context. The other thing about the show I think is that there are a handful of episodes that are legitimately good on their own and that kind of cements the other episodes I think. Another thing I think is, and I'm not positive about this, but I think there were a few seasons that just totally sucked. But those seasons aren't representative, just like those bad seasons of Simpsons. I dunno, it's just what I think about it now.

Anyway, yeah, being married to Jieun I've now "seen" a lot of episodes via osmosis and I think I "get" it now. So I can watch it now and it's all good in the hood. It's fine, I laugh. What I still don't get though is male fans of Friends. I think it's one thing to be male and like Friends. But to be a fan? I dunno, that's just a little odd to me. But that's just me.

I also just wanted to say Dave, that when you made your "if you like Friends I question our friendship comment", you completely enraged Jieun. It was a beautiful sight to see. It's always good to see people mad at Dave. SN. I was rereading some old entries a while ago and I think it's a mark our respect for one another that when either of Dave, me or Henry got hooked up at least one of the others was just stunned that any girl would take us. That is love.

If you think Norah Jones is more talented than John Mayer you're either ignorant (meaning you haven't listened to their albums) or smoking crack. Possibly both. Norah Jones has a far better voice, but that's the only advantage she has. It's entirely possible Mayer knows more about jazz than she does.

Anyway, Mayer pisses me off because I think he's an arrogant jerk but he's so undeniably talented it's depressing. Me and Jieun watched his concert DVD over the weekend and my reaction was exactly like that of the Sports Guy watching him at the Grammies - pure jealousy. I dunno, just Jieun was enjoying it a bit too much. Anyway yeah, again, I hate him for it but he's a guitar god. Incredible acoustic work, like he has a folk background, but then amazing electric chops. The guy covers Stevie Ray Vaughan and Jimi Hendrix. And he's in his early 20s. It's deeply depressing. But yeah, if you're a guitar player, his concert DVD is pretty great.

Am I the only one still thoroughly entertained by Survivor? I dunno, this whole guys vs. girls thing is really interesting to me. I love the way it's played out so far. Very entertaining.

I think the whole "reality TV" name is a misnomer. At least for Survivor, I don't think they ever claimed to be "reality". I dunno, what I realized for myself is that for me, it's not really about the game or it being "real" or whatever. The only "reality" part to it that I like is that it's real people, and the game is just a context to see how the relationships pan out. That's what I find interesting.

Anyway, I'm angry because they chose the most unintelligent and lazy Asian American to be on the show. Even Jieun said he's a disgrace to the race. By race I mean the human race. I dunno, I'm especially angry because he essentially took my spot. There's no way I'd be let on Survivor after him. An Asian guy from Houston named Daniel whose favorite team is the Rockets. I'll never be let on now.

Another great sermon this Sunday. One insight that was so true of me - Christians (me) don't practice repentance. We practice sin management. Our idea of repentance is being sorry for it and trying not to again. But our pastor reminded us, that's not how it's presented in the Bible. The whole cutting off your hand/eye/foot thing. That's radical. Means changing the things you do, see, go to if it leads you to sin. I dunno, his "sin management" line just really hit me. That's 100% what I do. I dunno, I think this another one of those I'm sad I've been Christian so long things. I think I start to forget how radical the gospel is. But yeah, the approach to repentance in the Bible is far more radical than I've been treating it, I think.

OK, so a couple people have told be about B2K, some black boy band, so I guess it exists. How come everyone from LA knows about this group? Never heard of them in my life. Anyway, I still have the same question. How come every group with young white guys is automatically called a boy band but not black groups? Can you think of a single vocal group of young white males that wasn't called a boy band? You probably can but you get my point. Black group called a boy band is an exception, just like white group not being called one. It's just weird.

So another basic Christian thing that I don't understand - baptism. Maybe it's because I was raised Southern Baptist. But I always understood it as just being a symbol, a public declaration of your faith. So we were pretty casual about it, like there wasn't an urgency to get baptized because it's not like baptism saves you. I still believe that. But then I don't understand Scripture. If it's just a symbol, why is it so urgent in the Bible? It's so important that it's mentioned in the Great Commission. He doesn't say go and make disciples of all men, observing Communion with them or anything like that. Baptism is key.

And in Acts, when people are converted, there's an urgency to getting baptized. They don't wait until the next church meeting or whatever. They pretty much do it immediately, wherever they are, even if there's no one else around, like with the Ethiopian. But that doesn't jive with the public declaration idea of baptism. I dunno, I just think I don't understand baptism. There's a clear sense of urgency with it in Scripture but nowadays we (I) don't get that sense at all, it's almost (just almost) extraneous, something we do when we get around to it, but not critical. Pretty fundamental thing to not get but yeah, the way it is in Scripture confuses me.

How come there's no such thing as a black boy band? If there's a vocal group with young white males, they're called (derisively by some) a boy band. 'N Sync, Backstreet Boys, whoever. But like, a group with young black males aren't, are they? All I can think of is Boys II Men. Maybe Jodeci? I dunno, that's just weird to me.

I have a really hard time separating the spiritual from the emotional. I know I've said this before. But I must be the least spiritually aware person I know. I dunno, I just have a hard time distinguishing when something is spiritually good. I guess I'm talking most about praise times. I'm very sensitive to how it went emotionally. But I have a really hard time evaluating how things went spiritually. Don't even know how you do that. Another one of those basic things I never really learned I guess.

The only Craig David song I know is 7 days. Not a fan. I saw the video once and I thought it was strange - he was black, but he seemed kind of awkward, like not soulful at all physically. Is it just me? I dunno, that barber shop scene, he's just awkward. The disconnect between his voice and his movements was just odd to me.

I'm 100% against Sting and his background vocal on his own song thing. Haven't heard the song but I'm still super against it. Remember when Puff Daddy's I'll Be Missing You came out? I hated that song. Yeah, I know people like it. Just, for me, it destroys what's good about the song. The song's all about melancholy and soul. It's got this staccato guitar riff, but it's overlaid over moody background sound and overlaid with Sting's smooth vibrato-free voice. Just pure soul there. Not black soul, but soul nonetheless.

Puff Daddy took the riff and made it *more* percussive, with more percussive drums and using rap, which is by inherently percussive. And then uses Faith Evans (it was her, right?)' harsh voice on the chorus. Just, the song isn't smooth at all anymore. I dunno, I just hated it.

So it enraged me when on some music awards show he appears doing background vocals to the Puff Daddy version. Argh! He sold himself out to a terrible version of his song! I dunno, I was just disappointed is all. I disowned the Puff Daddy thing and I guess I hoped he had also.

I think in general I like recorded covers 50% of the time (it's totally different if it's live). I'm not a huge fan of Sixpence's Don't Dream It's Over cover. It's all right, just not particularly interesting compared to the original. Don't like Counting Crows' cover of Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi either. Almost too different musically. And they change a critical line I think, from "Big Yellow Taxi carried off my old man" to "Big Yellow Taxi took my girlfriend away" or something like that. What the? Just weird.

You know what cover I love. Shaggy's Angel. It's a cover of some 60s song I've never heard. But the bold thing is, it uses the bass line from Steve Miller Band's The Joker. It covers two songs in one! I dunno, I just thought that was interesting. Ever since I heard that I've dreamt of covering two songs in one someday myself. I actually want to mix the Mission Impossible theme with this one famous jazz song, is it Take Five by Dave Brubeck? You would know if it you heard it. They're both in 5/4 and they actually kinda fit together. Someday.

Dunno if you read my dad's page but his latest one is pretty bold. The church discourages people who are already Christians from joining. I dunno, it's just bold I think.

Anyway, one thing he said cut me to the quick. He says that people who have been Christians for a long time can often be negative forces. They already have their established ideas of what churches should be like. So when their strongly held notions conflict with a church's policies, they express negativity, which confuses new believers and dampens everyone's enthusiasm. I dunno, I think that's true of me. Partly because my dad says it's true. Whenever I complain about church he says how he feels sorry for the pastors of the churches I go to. Because I know too much.

I dunno, it's just made me think about knowledge in general and I think there's something screwed up with me. I don't think I take knowledge the right way. Knowledge should build up others right? Someone edify and benefit the body. But I think for me, in many - perhaps most - ways, knowledge puffs up. The knowledge I gain I use to be judgmental. I'm so judgmental it's insane. And it's all founded on Scripture or other knowledge or whatever, but there's something screwed up with that I think.

I just think I need like a radically different mindset when it comes to knowledge because I'm clearly using it wrong. I dunno, I think it comes down to teachability. I guess that's the quality I want most for myself right now. Teachability. Sometimes people seem teachable, but it's kinda superficial, like they're teachable in things they ask opinions for, but with other things, if they believe they've already thought about it, there's basically no way you could ever change the way they think. I'm like that I think. So yeah, I just want to be teachable, not just in my self-recognized shortcomings but in all parts of my life.

Have you ever heard U2's song Salome? It's on the best of 1990-2000 B-Sides. It's actually really interesting. Christian or not, they're pretty Scripturally aware. I'm impressed.

I can't remember the last time I saw a commercial for breakfast cereal. Definitely years ago, not sure how many years. Random thing I was thinking yesterday.

I kind of hate TV, which is weird because growing up I used to watch like 4 hours minimum a day. It's insane when I think about it. But I watched a *lot* of TV. College was good for me because you basically watch no TV at all. No time and no access. So you learn to live without it.

So I hate TV because it makes me a zombie. So I'm all for watching with a purpose, like if Survivor is on (the only TV show I watch regularly, and even with that I missed most of last season) or watching a DVD. But I hate just having it on. I think Jieun's different with this. Like if she's cooking or whatever, she likes to have the TV on, not that she's really watching it, but just to kind of have it on. For some reason, I'm not like that at all. Just not my thing having the TV on with no one really watching it.

I hate most when the TV is on while we're eating together. And again, it's because of what it does to me. I become a zombie. Which tends to impede social interaction. We had the TV on the other week at small group, and they had some NBA All-Star weekend stuff going on, truly inane and boring, but it had my full attention. I barely spoke to anyone. I dunno, TVs distract me. I can't not focus on the TV if it's on. So depending on the situation, I much prefer that it not be.

I frequently wonder how the early settlers of Houston survived without electricity and air conditioning. Seriously, Houston is an absurd city. Literally everything is air conditioned. Life in Houston is about scurrying from your air conditioned car to the air conditioned buildings. The annoying thing is in most places they set the temperature so low that you have to wear at least long sleeves. But if it's a long walk from the parking lot to the office you sweat like mad in said long sleeves. Only to promptly freeze when you enter the building. And it's apparently like this 9 months of the year.

AC is everywhere because it's so necessary. So I have no idea how/why Houston was ever settled. How did they survive? Were they nocturnal? It's still crazy hot at night so that's not much help. I dunno, I just wonder.

Check this out. The February 11 entry. Somehow, this random person ended up finding my picture by the Whitney High School sign. Never met her, no clue how the heck she found my page. Anyway, she ridicules me for looking like a dork which is good, because that was my whole point. To look like a dork by the Whitney high school sign. My wife's alma mater. It amuses me.

It's just crazy to me how not only she found my page, but I found hers. Long story, but it involves Lisa Tahk. Random. And more random - found out she's the daugher of the pastor who spoke at my engagement thingy. Is that not random? I dunno, I thought it was weird.

They sell kimchee at Costco. Argh. The last thing this country needs is kimchee in bulk.

Is Valentine's Day not ridiculous now? Sure, I understand the candy and the flowers and whatever. But like, Valentine's Day car tuneup specials? I guess that's kind of romantic, taking car of your loved one's car. But heart-shaped Noah's Bagels? I dunno, would this really make any girl swoon? Maybe it does. Then I know even less about women than I thought.

I think I've said this before but I want my children to be average looking growing up. There are no rules to this, but I think in general, like 70% of the time, when they're too good looking they get too confident about their looks. But if they're too ugly they get too insecure. Being average or slightly below average is the sweet spot as far as character goes, I think. Again, maybe 70% of the time, and only as it relates to their self-image. So lots of exceptions, but I'd rather bet on the average.

After their formative years I think how they look matters a lot less as far as self-image goes. Like for me, I think I'll always think of myself as this super skinny awkward guy because that's who I was growing up. So anyway, the sweet spot is when a kid is lower-mid / mid in looks growing up but becomes hot. My model for this is Jieun, who was kinda funny looking growing up but is hot now. So she has strength of inner character and outer beauty - best of both worlds.

But actually, now that I think about some good looking kids that have grown up, most of them are pretty good character wise, even as it relates to their looks. Hmm, maybe my theory is completely out of whack. Oh well, I stand by it. Love of the game.

So when I was growing up, when there were seagulls on the playground that was a sign to me that a storm was either coming or going. If not raining, gonna rain soon; if raining, gonna end soon. I'm just wondering if this is based in reality or if I just made this up. First, if anyone else ever thought this besides me, and second, if it's at all true.

I'm super against Annika Sorenstam playing in PGA Events. I dunno, it has to do with one of my life philosophies, that life isn't fair. You'd think that's obvious. But a lot of the time people act and make rules as if life were fair, wishful thinking I guess. But trying to apply "fairness" when things are inherently unfair just doesn't make sense. It's the same result as when applying logical inference on a set of inconsistent propositions. You arrive at absurdity.

She's very good, could possibly be competitive in the PGA. Doesn't mean she should. If you do that then just get rid of the LPGA because that's not fair, right? Also against girls playing football or baseball. Yeah it's not fair that they can't play, but life isn't fair - guys and girls have inherent physical differences. Besides which it's no less fair than having women only sports like softball and field hockey.

I dunno, I suppose it's obvious but just how I feel about it. Men and women have different physical characteristics. Just recognize that and deal with it. Or otherwise, be consistent about it.

Fareed Zakaria wrote an interesting article in Newsweek a few weeks ago about Iraq. He's in favor of war with them, by the way. One thing he pointed out was, yes, there are significant risks, dangers, and other negatives if we were to go to war. What anti-war people seem to not even realize is that there are potential benefits also. Besides the cynical oil price thing. I dunno, it's all about cost-benefit analysis, and if you refuse to take into account everything, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion about it.

Anyway, the one thing he said that I found really interesting was this - how else are things going to change? Yes, a possible danger is that it will inflame the Arab world. The thing is, the Arab world is pretty inflamed already and there's very little reason for them to be this way. Al Qaeda grew during the Clinton administration - what was the U.S. doing to make them so angry? Weren't particularly "imperialistic." Some would argue we were *too* isolationist in situations like Kosovo. It's really just Isreal, but didn't the U.S. try to broker some deal between Israel and Palestine? Can't remember. At any rate, U.S. supporting Israel hardly justifies the level of anger towards the U.S.

The point is, what do people propose the U.S. do to make things better? The pre-G.W. status quo clearly isn't a solution. Al Qaeda kind of bears witness to that. So to not propose doing anything different is clearly the wrong thing, one criticism I have of the anti-war camp. So what? End sanctions against certain countries? Most of the bombers were from Saudi Arabia, whom we have no sanctions against (I think). Support a Palestinian state? Didn't we try to broker this already? Pull out troops? But in retrospect, wasn't a key fault of Clinton's the fact that he didn't take out what was going in Afghanistan earlier? Was leaving Afghanistan alone the right thing to do? So these solutions just seem like things we've already done in the past and it didn't work, so it just seems naive to think it will work in the future.

So Zakaria's point I believe is that real progress in the Arab world will require regime change (I think including Saudi Arabia) to more open and democratic societies. So for him, even recognizing the risks of going after Iraq now, he'd rather take his chances with that than with anything else. And I think that's somewhat compelling, even if I haven't articulated it very well.

As for me, I think I have the same opinion on both war with Iraq and ending taxes on stock dividends. I think they're both good ideas, but bad timing. War because again, it just sets a dangerous precedent. Not just pre-emptive but pre-pre-emptive. Worrisome to me. With the tax thing, I read some more about it and I think it would have a real salutatory effect on the economy. But it's a long term thing and the short term concerns and cuts should go elsewhere. I think Greenspan said as much. Anyway, my take, even though no one cares.

Some random facts about me.

• I have never had a car with power locks or power windows. First car, 1982 Datsun Sentra. Second car, a red Corolla so barebones it didn't even have a dashboard clock. Current car, a '91 Corolla, still no power locks or windows. The driver side window knob actually fell off so opening the window is an incredible hassle.

• I have never owned a cell phone.

• The only acoustic guitar I've ever bought cost less than $100. Made in Korea. I think it's a Hohner? Something like that. Paul Jung actually gave me the Epiphone I have now.

• The last time I had my own room, vacations excepted, was high school. I dunno, I think that's kind of crazy. Never my own room in an apt. Or a room in a 2 room double. Since high school.

Honestly, I just don't get poetry. It's one of my shortcomings I guess. But yeah, I don't have the sophistication or whatever to appreciate it. The problem for me is, I can't really distinguish what's good and what's bad. Like with music, it's easy for me to tell what is and what isn't a well crafted song. The quality is immediately apparent. Same with say writing. Pretty obvious what is and what isn't good writing.

With poetry, I can't tell at all. It's a little better with like sonnets or whatever, poems with a fixed structure because you can better judge the effort, seeing how expressive and creative they are within the structure. Doing that well takes effort. But with like most modern poetry, it's whatever structure people want, so it's hard for me to judge the effort put into it. So again, hard for me to tell what's good and bad. I dunno, I could rattle off a poem.

touching the clouds
he stands
towering

alone.

carrying the hopes of the peoples
a multitude looks to him
he surveys the strange land
the land considers him
always watching
never alone
always alone

they know all of him
they know nothing


Yao Ming rules

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I find it fascinating how animals communicate. Isn't that amazing? How is it possible without words? How does mating happen? Like, what does a female gnu look for in a male gnu? Is there like a gnu equivalent of being a good listener? Maybe they want a gnu that will really pay attention to their horn scratchings? I dunno, it just amazes me. I'm easily amazed like that.

Actually, you know what amazes me? I saw these 512 MB compact flash cards on sale for like $90. That just astounds me. How can they have that much memory for so small for so cheap? I remember my high school computer, top of the line, had 4 MB of RAM and a 200 MB hard drive. State of the art. And pricy. Now they have cheap fast memory that's small enough to fit in the 5th pocket of your jeans that no one ever uses. It totally amazes me.

Geez, I'm sounding like our parents. I remember seeing my dad's programming books. He used Fortran. With punch cards.

Chomsky is actually known primarily as a linguist. Not sure how known he is for his ideas on language acquisition but I'd say it was one of the primary things he's known for. Of course nowadays he's known for his cuckoo political philosophies.

Ooh. here's a random Korean article. Seems to deal with ESL, not sure, too academic for me. Anyway, mentions Chomsky a lot. Here's a sentence near the end: "No one would dare to deny the influence of Chomsky in the fields of linguistics and language acquisition." Wow. Not even dare? Spice.

So you know Don Knuth is a very well respected Computer Scientist from Stanford. He actually invented or pioneered a lot of fields in Computer Science. Anyway, he's a Christian which I always thought was cool. But I was talking to a coworker who had read a recent book by him and his perspective was different. He thought Knuth had apparently gone over the deep end with that religion stuff. I dunno, that made me kind of sad. I guess it doesn't go over too well with non-Christians.

I've got insomnia right now. Usually happens when I'm nervous or feeling guilty. Given that my life is dominated by guilt it's kind of shocking that I don't get insomnia more. But anyway.

There's this 2 year old at church, let's call him Ryan. He's got a fairly pronounced bowl haircut. Anyway, this guy draws a simple picture of a face with a huge bowl cut, shows it to Ryan, and asks him, "who's this?" And Ryan responds, "Wyan." Absolutely hilarious. I guess you have to see the picture to understand. Anyway, the guy later draws the same picture again, kind of bigger, and again asks him, "who's this?" And he responds, "Big Wyan."

I dunno, that absolutely amazed me. I just find kids fascinating. What's going through their heads? What's their basis of communication and friendship? Watching kids play is the most interesting thing for me. Just, how the heck are they interacting?

Anyway, Ryan's response just amazes me. Like, it takes a lot of cognitive understanding to respond like that. One, he needs to recognize what the picture represents. Two, he needs to have a conception of what he himself looks like. That's a big deal, right? Self awareness? Not just self awareness but self... conception? Dunno how to phrase it. And then he needs to put it together. I dunno, that just absolutely fascinates me.

I think that's why I like playing with kids so much. I'm a regular Piaget I guess. I just find the way kids think and interact fascinating. "Big Wyan." That killed me.

Another thing. What is it that kids like about being read stories? This same kid had me read him a bunch of stories. Do they just like the pictures? Or do the words matter? He brought me this one book that had way too many words so I started out literally just saying "blah blah blah" while turning the pages. Eventually I just made stuff up. But yeah, he was still interested. So what interests them? Why do they need to be read to at all? Why not just look at the pictures? Fascinating.

Uh, isn't Chomsky a super influential linguist? And didn't he have particular ideas about language acquisition? So doesn't that make sense for a language school? Am I missing something?

That article on how the space shuttle is outdated mentioned how until recently it still used 8086 chips. I actually learned there's a reason for this in one of my classes, where the professor worked at NASA Ames. I think he did some Mars stuff. Anyway, given the cost of each launch and the cost of the experiments and whatever, they need to minimize as much as possible the chance of failure. So they use old processors where the behavior is pretty much exactly known. You remember that big hullabaloo with the Intel chip that had a defect. Using something like that would have been a multi-billion dollar setback for NASA had they used it. Anyway, he said that's why they use old processors, because they know almost exactly how it will perform, I'm assuming not just calculation wise but power wise and temperature wise too. Random context.

For me at least, yesterday every conversation I had included the shuttle disaster. I dunno, it seemed to be on a lot of people's minds.

Dave told a story once about how he was mentioning something to John and he just blew it off then he mentioned it dealt with Jesus and John immediately got interested and excited about. Jieun's the same way with Asian American race issues. I dunno, it's pretty funny.

You know, Jieun really should have just took a bunch of languages in college. Why not? She's good at it and she loves it. Her inspiration is Henry David Thoreau, who apparently took a bunch of language classes during college. But yeah, she should have, in retrospect. Our perspective was just handcuffed by the Korean practicality mindset.

You know one random thing I like about marriage? It's being able to ask her where my stuff is, and her knowing. And no, not because she puts everything away. It's just, I dunno, it feels really intimate, that our lives and living are so entwined that we know where each others' stuff is. For some reason, I like that feeling. Random.

Am I the only one that has backup underwear? You know, underwear you wouldn't normally wear but are sometimes forced to as an emergency reserve? I'm just curious.

I was talking to someone with really strong smoker's breath. I was keeping my distance but still, the smell was overpowering, just amazing. Anyway, it made me wonder. If I can smell that from so far away, I'm obviously breathing some of his exhale. But then, does that mean I'm always inhaling exhale, I just don't always smell it? I guess it's obvious that I do, but I mean, I just always assumed like 3 feet was sufficient distance to avoid colds and stuff. But I was definitely 3 feet away from this guy but still getting smoker's breath. At what reasonable distance do you minimize exhale inhalation? Random thought.

And is smoker's breath bad for you? I suppose not right? It's not like second hand smoke. It's like 4th hand smell. But it does smell awful. I dunno how smokers ever kiss. I can't take it.

It amazes me how much Europeans drink and smoke. This one guy doesn't have cigarettes but paper and tobacco. So he makes his own every smoke. I dunno, that's kind of cool. If I smoked, I'd do that.

You remember when Marc Bulger started doing well this year some people started saying, hmm, maybe it's not that Kurt Warner was so good at all, that it wasn't the quarterback but the system. This made no sense to me. If it really is all about the system, how do you explain Warner doing poorly at the beginning of the season? Did something go wrong with the "system"? Then why did they do well again immediately when Bulger came in? The "system" changed immediately?

I dunno, to me, when Warner started doing bad and Bulger did well that was proof that the quarterback does matter. If it's just about the system, you'd get similar results no matter who was in there, and that's obviously not what happened.

Another football note - looks like Gruden was right. When he was here he got some flack for being too conservative, in particular for running so much when the had so many passing weapons. As soon as he left, the Raiders opened up the passing. But Gruden was right - you can't ever be a one dimensional team, no matter how good you are on that dimension, because if a team takes that away from you you're totally screwed. That was actually the same mistake Martz made last year, right? Insisting on just passing, ignoring his best weapon Faulk. You have to mix it up, just to keep defenses on their toes.

So the reason I hate Skip Bayless is because he seems to always take the contrary position just for the sake of it. I don't care that he's obnoxious and arrogant. It just bothers me because I think he's wrong. The first article he wrote for the Merc was on how they shouldn't have canceled sporting events after 9/11 because he wants to watch football. Idiot. And all year he's been insisting how the Raiders got the better end of the Gruden deal and as recently as 3 weeks ago he was calling Gruden the most overrated coach in football.

Oops. I dunno, it's clear that the last 2 games the Bucs came in with a superior game plan, superior coaching, on both offense and defense. Overrated huh? Idiot. That's also where I disagree with Al Davis. His whole mantra is "just win" but his problem is he doesn't realize that the NFL, especially now in the salary cap era, is dominated by coaching. He still thinks it's purely a players' game, that the coach is relatively insignificant. I think he's wrong. I dunno, he got to the Super Bowl by having an insane payroll this year but he's not gonna be able to get back without great coaching.

Random football thoughts.

Did you realize that Moses' father married his (the father's) aunt? Exodus 6:20. Weird.

Caribbean. CARE-ih-bee-en or ca-RIB-ee-en? Which one is it? No clue.

One of these days I'm gonna get around to explaining why I like my favorite movies. But I think it's fairly clear that a key thing for me is that it impact me with some sort of message I can take home. The impact and take home thing is key. Like I guess American Beauty had some sort of message about suburbian malaise or whatever. Didn't connect with me at all. Nothing I can take away from it. So does nothing for me.

I came away with something from Adaptation. I dunno, parts of it really moved me on a thinking level. I think I need to watch it again.

Most recently I've been thinking more and more about Fight Club. I only saw it once but I loved it when I saw it. I just resonated strongly with the central conceit (which maybe I'm misrepresenting since I just saw it once). Just that a lot of us are living in this empty materialism that's hollow and leaves us unfeeling. He responds in anarchy, I have a different take, but still, I totally buy that main premise.

There's a line from the movie: "the things you own end up owning you." 100% agree. I dunno, I get depressed at myself and others because it almost seems like all we do in life is figure out ways to get stuff (cheap). The more we get, the more there is to get. It's like getting stuff is our calling. I just got this home theater system and I like it but it depresses me. Just the time I spent researching and everything. And the upgrades never end. Need to get better cable, better speakers, better everything. I dunno, just the endless pursuit of materialism gets me down, even while I'm in the midst of doing it.

I guess that's the part I don't understand about myself. I feel very strongly about the emptiness of materialism but I still do it. Get all these things and worse, obsess about getting things. And I believe in the goodness and necessity of suffering while I simultaneously pursue... not success, but worse: comfort. I think what it is is I don't know any better what to do. What it means to live a life sold out for Jesus without being a pastor or missionary. Maybe I just don't have a strong enough sense of calling. I dunno. Maybe I should buy Os' book.

Anyway, if you hear me talking about upgrading my speakers - shoot me.

You know how I used to keep myself in check. I told Adrian about this once. But I said to myself, I will not buy anything unless I would have no problem if I were to lose it. It affected both what I chose to buy and my attitude towards them once I had them. But yeah, I thought that's how I could distance myself from being too attached to things, and is incidentally the reason I never bought a guitar or a new car. Wasn't sure I'd be fine if I lost them.

The problem now is I'm making too much money. Which is to say I'm making money. So now I could buy a $2000 guitar and it's not a huge deal if I lose it. I mean, it would be bad, but no big whoop because I could eventually buy another one, you know? It wouldn't be like before I was working where if I were to lose it I would not be able to replace it for years. I wouldn't have been able to deal with that. But now with an income a whole lot of things are replaceable. So my test still keeps me from being too attached to things, but it doesn't stop me from buying things anymore, if that makes sense.

I dunno, I just need to know what the right balance is, how much is OK. Because unchecked consumerism makes me ill.

I read this stupid commentary recently saying how like all reality TV shows are, maybe not misogynistic but at least anti-flattering to women. It points out as examples Joe Millionaire and Meet My Parents (dunno the exact women) where women degrade themselves over a man, and the Bachelorette, which has as its central conceit the idea that a woman needs to find a man.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. How can shows where guys choose a girl and a girl choose a guy both be more anti-female? Huh? How is the Bachelorette about women needing men but not so for the Bachelor? How is women competing for a man degrading to women but not men competing for a woman degrading for men? I dunno, just seems inconsistent. You can say it's degrading to everyone involved. But with the examples chosen, how can you say that women are shown in a particularly bad light?

I actually do think women come off worse in those shows but not for the reason the columnist gives. Maybe some other time.

There was a part of Harry Potter that wasn't clear - the tension between Ron and Hermione. You know, at the end of Chamber of Secrets (the movie), there's this odd scene where when she comes back she hugs Harry and then has this strange interaction with Ron. Didn't understand that at all, and Jieun explained there's some tension between them or something like that. I didn't get that from the movie at all.

I've asked before and I'll ask again. What's the difference between canadian bacon and ham? And do they just call it bacon in Canada? Then what do they call ham? And our bacon for that matter. American bacon? Confusing. But wait a second, in Kamloops I distinctly remember getting a BLT sandwich at McDonalds for breakfast. And it was normal bacon. So bacon must mean bacon. So then do they call it canadian bacon also? Kind of like American cheese? I'm babbling.

Speaking of which, Mark Cuban was complaining the other day about online voting for the All-Star game, how they had it in Chinese for the benefit of players like Yao, but not in languages like German, in which case Nowitski would have benefited. He said (with some merit) that if they're going to have some languages, they should have all languages. Among the languages he says they should have (in addition to German): Canadian. Hilarious.

I don't buy the double taxation argument for a second. You know, Bush wants to get rid of taxes on stock dividends in large part because it's double taxation. In my opinion, that's ridiculous. We frequently get double taxed all the time. Like, we get taxed on our income, then when we spend it, we get taxed again in sales tax. Or other taxes.

There's nothing inherently wrong with double taxation at all. It's just all about the proper allocation of taxes, which things to tax at what rates to get the necessary revenue to run the government. If taxing both companies on earnings and investors on dividends is an appropriate allocation of taxes, then it's perfectly fine. It might be that reducing or getting rid of taxes on dividends is reasonable. But if it is, it's for reasons of best allocation. That double taxation is inherently wrong - I think that's a ridiculous argument.

I think I have a screwed up view of service. In the spiritual sense. So I've been helping out with praise at church recently. SN. I like calling it praise, not worship. Have I ever explained this? I know a lot of people are the opposite, they like to call it worship. Reason being, it's not just singing or whatever, it should encompass more that that, should be worship. So call it such. And I fully agree with that. I just think, I dunno, the greater danger nowadays seems to be that people think that worship is *only* the singing time part. And that's not right. I dunno, just every part of the service is worship right? The sermon, the offering, whatever. It should all be worship. That's understood. So just call the parts what they are. So I'm all about calling it praise, not worship, because praise is worship, but worship is not just praise, if that makes sense.

Whoa, digression. Anyway, yeah, helping at church and the worship pastor frequently asks me afterwards if it was "fun". The first few times he asked me that I was caught off guard. I had no idea what fun had to do with anything.

Actually, I'll go further than that. We probably all agree that doing something motivated solely by our personal pleasure is wrong, that it's not spiritual service. But in my mind, I thought/think that spiritual service must *necessarily* not be fun. That if it's fun at all, there must be something wrong.

I dunno if that makes sense, but I think that's how my mindset has been. So I always felt kind of guilty if I "enjoyed" playing on Sundays. I think I equated sincerity with joylessness. So my attitude regarding serving has always been kind of martyr-esque. That I must do it, and that it must necessarily - to be true service - not be fun. I think there's something messed up about that. But I think that's the attitude I've had.

I think I said before how Jieun always plays with the kids at church and how that was a little frightening. Just, she seems to like them *too* much. Anyway, I had a startling realization this weekend. *I* play with the kids all the time also. Someone made a comment about that and I'm like, hmm, he's right. Maybe it's time to have kids.

Isn't it crazy how that's even an option? Life hurtles forward. It's crazy.

I'm guessing people use "passion" as a synonym for "zeal", for which there's ever so slightly more Biblical basis. But still, not as big as you might expect.

There's a serious lack of good sports nicknames nowadays. Jim Rome had Refrigerator Perry on this morning and I was reminded of that, as he talked about himself and Sweetness. Those are nicknames. None of this TMac or JWill or whatever. What happened to names like Air Jordan or The Mailman or The Admiral? I dunno, we could use good nicknames. Thank God for Stevie Franchise and the Ming Dynasty.

Do you know how to pronounce "piquant"? All my life I thought it was like pie-kwent. I just recently found out it's really "pee-kant". Who knew?

Speaking of which, there are a bunch of words I don't know how to pronounce because I hear people say it differently. A sampling:

• "scenario". Is it se-nair-io or se-nahr-io? People say both. I say the first.

• "Chianti". Is it key-ante or key-ahnte? I think it's the first but the famous scene in Silence of the Lambs confuses me. He says it like the first, but almost like he's ridiculing a Southern accent so I'm not sure if he's serious. I've been confused ever since.

• "Nguyen". Is it new-yen or win or what? There were tons of Ngs, Ngos, and Nguyens at my junior high and I always learned it the first way but all the sportscasters say Dat Nguyen like win. I'm assuming they're idiots, but not sure. SN. There was once this Korean short track skater named Lee Joon Ho and the American sportscaster kept pronouncing it lee-yon-ho. Yon ho??? Why make a special effort to pronounce it wrong? Why? Don't even get me started on Hyundai.

• "Beijing". Jieun always gets mad at me because I pronounce it bay-zhing. zh instead of j on the ing. Kind of goes against my thing above but still, isn't that how most Americans say it? I dunno.

• "Hakeem Olajuwon". I've never quite figured out whether he added the H to be silent, or if you're supposed to pronounce it. Most people say it so fast I could never figure it out.

• "Antawn Jamison". Is it an-ton or an-twon? I swear I've heard it both ways.

• "Porsche". Is it "porsh" or "por-sha"? I heard this radio ad say it the second way but I think most people I know say it the first way. I dunno, I say "porsh 911" not "por-sha 911" but I guess that's wrong. Just sounds odd.

• "Jaguar". I'm not really serious about this. Everyone says it like "jag-war". Except the radio ads in which this guy with a snooty English accent says it "jag-oo-er". It could not sound more pretentious. Seriously, if anyone said that in real life I would immediately give them a wedgie. It's the only correct response.

I have a lot to learn about encouraging women. I read this article eons ago about a women's basketball coach, he was saying how the best way to motivate women is different from the best way to motivate men. He was saying for basketball the best thing to do with men at times is just yell at them. Whereas for women, yelling won't work as well, you have to do different things.

I think there's some truth in that. I think for guys, sometimes the best thing is just to yell at them. Like when we're lifting, to motivate someone you just basically yell at them to push them to go more than they want. That's male motivation. Or like, Dave once sent me this e-mail once basically saying I was flat out wrong. Had to do with awkwardness on the phone and other social awkwardness, how when I talked about it I was resigning myself to it instead of working on it and how that was wrong. I dunno, that was just the right thing to say to me, just confront me, and it stuck with me. I still recognize certain limitations I have but I don't resign myself to them. It's a subtle thing I guess, but crucial.

But with girls, I don't think that works, the confrontational / yelling style. I'm still learning what the best way is. But I sure as heck don't have a grasp on it now.

I'm not sure what the point of drinking is. I remember a drinker saying once how, if you're not going to get buzzed, they didn't understand why you would drink at all. I guess I'm not sure either. I don't think I've ever gotten buzzed. I don't even know what that means. I've gotten really drowsy before, but it wasn't like a pleasant feeling or anything. So if I'm not going to get buzzed, why drink at all? What's the point of it?

I have come to appreciate certain drinks with food. Like, I can see now how wine nicely compliments a good meal. And I like a nice mild Japanese beer with sushi. It just goes well together, so that makes sense to me. But the social drinking part, like at company events, why I drink I have no clue. I don't want to ever get buzzed, so I rarely if ever have more than one. But then why drink at all? I have no clue. I guess to reduce my risk of heart attack.

I think you're missing the point. In saying that chickens don't have nuggets they're saying Chicken McNuggets don't come from a part of a chicken but is like reconstituted chicken, an amalgamation of different chicken parts. As opposed to their own chicken, which is real chicken meat that comes from real chicken parts.

Kinda (no, very) nerdy, but Salon has a great article on Sun, Microsoft and Java.

So I'm sure you heard what that outgoing Illinois governor did, basically taking everyone out of Death Row. I'm 100% against that. Not that I'm pro death penalty. I think I'm against it. It's just an irrevocable action with a fallible system, which makes me nervous. SN. I once saw this exhibit that consisted of painted plates, each plate representing the final meal of a death row inmate. Absolutely fascinating. It was just very telling of the class most death row inmates belong to. They didn't want stuff like filet mignon or anything like that. It was by and large common food like fried chicken, mashed potatoes, junk food, stuff like that. Very interesting.

Anyway, I think I'm anti death penalty but still 100% against what the governor did. It's just the wrong way to do it, a complete abuse of power. If doing something like this is OK, what's to stop someone from doing the same with a position I'm against? Just to be absurd, what if some outgoing governor thinks murder is OK and all of a sudden commutes the sentences of all murderers in the state? You just can't do that, because it violates accountability and the right channels. It's just a wrong thing to do. I dunno, my opinion.

Happy MLK Jr. B-Day. Yesterday. Not that I had the day off or anything.

Maybe this is wrong but I'm against the MLK holiday. Not that I don't respect MLK Jr. or anything. He was a great - though flawed - man. It's just, I dunno, I think it should be civil rights day, or something like that, which might incorporate a celebration of MLK Jr. but not just that. Because I mean, does MLK represent all minorities? Do Latinos see him as a groundbreaker for them? Should we celebrate Cesar Chavez or someone else? Dunno if you read this but Latinos are now the largest minority group in the U.S. - more than blacks. So don't they deserve a holiday for a leader they relate to? How about other minority groups?

So I just say cut it off now and have a single civil rights day or minority rights day or whatever. Remember how we used to celebrate both Washington and Lincoln's B-days with holidays but now we just have a President's Day? Do the same thing. I dunno, just my feeling on it.

I'd give Adaptation 4 stars. It's a solid 3 star movie that gets my 1 star deep movie bonus. A lot of interesting ideas there; I think I need to see it again. It really resonated with me because I'd been thinking a lot recently about stuff it dealt with, things like life purpose and meaning and stuff like that. But yeah, way way better than Being John Malkovich, I think.

I'd give Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes - Vanilla Sky was based on it) 4 stars also. Lots of interesting issues going on. Very absorbing.

Some people find thought pages kind of arrogant, as if it's at all important what they have to say. I dunno, for me it's the complete opposite. Dave says this all the time but the great thing about web pages is that there's zero imposition on people. People can read it whatever, but if they're bored or anything, they don't have to finish. Or even read it in the first place. There's no other medium like that. In a face to face or phone conversation, you have to listen to what they say, there's no choice. Can you imagine cutting off someone mid-conversation and just saying, "I'm sorry, you're boring me. I'd like to stop now."? Or having a "Back" button for conversation? Even with e-mail, there's some obligation to read what they wrote, because it was addressed to you. But with web pages, zero obligation, zero imposition. I like that.

I've said this time and time again but I continually realize how my personality is suited for engineering. Any time there's a company function it strikes me anew. Just, it's where I mesh best socially and personality wise. I dunno, I think it takes certain types of personalities to do certain jobs well. Like, sales are by their own confession a different breed. I could never do sales. But I'm perfect for engineering.

I dunno, I just find it interesting because going into school, engineering was the last thing on my mind. Didn't take any engineering related courses at all frosh year, except I guess Math 43. So I'm wondering, was I deluded? Would I have meshed well personality wise with what I was planning to do (medicine)? Is there an optimal medicine personality? Or was I destined to be an engineer? And what does that mean for my future? Am I destined / doomed to engineering in perpetuity? Or am I suited personality wise for something else?

I dunno, I just keep thinking about my future and all these questions keep coming up in my mind. We'll see, we'll see.

Someone else mentioned the breast implant thing being about confidence but that just begs the question to me. They feel more confident because they feel more attractive, right? I mean, if they were living completely alone somewhere with no human contact, they would care less about their breasts. So the confidence thing has something to do with their appearance, how they look to people.

So my question remains, is it that they feel better about their appearance to guys or to girls? Or both? What's the primary factor working there? Again, in light of the girls dress for girls thing, I have no clue.

I do think it's shocking realizing how competitive women are though. Men are competitive also but in straightforward, visible ways, like with sports or video games or whatever. I almost feel like men created those things so they could have some clear rules and regulations with their competitiveness. But with women, it's more below the surface. Maybe they're not more competitive than men, but that subversiveness makes it more shocking to me. I dunno, just how I feel.

I'm with you on Chili's, Appleby's and Bennigans, but against you on Macaroni Grill. I've only been there 3 times over maybe 7 years, but it's always been pretty serviceable, maybe even tasty, which is more than can be said for the other places. I remember growing up thinking Chili's was pretty good. Has it gotten worse or did I just remember wrong?

You know what amazes me? Curry. Just the fact that every culture from Japan to India has curry in their cuisine, and it's all slightly different. Japan and Korea has one way, China uses powder instead of the blocks, Thailand has their coconut milk ways and India their ways. I just find that fascinating.

OK, so we all know women dress in large part for other women, not for men. So my question is, who do they get breast implants for? Newsweek was saying how breast implants are growing in popularity again, mentioning the irresistable allure of a larger bust. What is the allure? Who are they trying to impress? I'd think men, but is it anything like with clothes? Is it a competition thing with other women? And if it's for men, isn't that depressing? Just that it matters that much to women what men think of their breasts? I guess it goes both ways though, that it's depressing that breasts matter so much to men.

It does go both ways. I dunno, someone was once saying how men are dumb and women are evil, because they control men by being attractive and stuff. I disagree with that. It's just a matter of perspective, right? Why can't you say men are evil and women are dumb because they cave in to doing what men find attractive, like getting breast implants? Isn't that men manipulating women to do what they want? I dunno, it just goes both ways, I think. Both men and women are dumb, and men and women are evil.

Reading Henry's trip thoughts (SN - what a life, huh? Ski trips in Canada, tropical vacations. Not a bad life if you can get it) amuses me - I think all of us act the same taking trips with other people as we do on our road trips. Just act like dorks. The only difference is when it's other people no one's amused at all.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's *not* clear from the movie. OK, so he makes a ring to rule them all. Why? Why does he need a ring to rule them all? Doesn't make sense to me. He's powerful enough to rule them all, so just do it.

And Frodo being the right one to take it, I dunno, maybe just me but it's not obvious from the movie either. Because he's not portrayed as more immune to temptation at all. He's portrayed as pretty weak. Nor are hobbits portrayed as having high tolerance for temptation, really. Yeah, all those other characters were tempted by the ring, but so was Bilbo in the beginning. Not particularly different. And worse, Frodo doesn't seem to have real strong noble qualities, as opposed to say elf guy. I dunno, just the movie alone confused me is all I'm saying.

Plus the dwarf's comic relief got old to me. Just me. Not that Harry Potter was perfect in this regard. About the 743rd time Ron Weesly makes that face of his I wanted to stab a straw through my eye.

So here's something about Star Wars that doesn't make sense to me. In episodes 1 and 2 the Jedi keep talking about the one prophesied to bring balance to the Force. So, I have no idea what balance to the Force means, or why it's a good thing. In light of future events, it seems like the way Anakin brings balance is by killing off a bunch of good Jedi and making the dark side more powerful. That's balance? That's a good thing? Huh?

It seems to me there's a good side to the Force and there's a dark side to the Force. Why would you want balance to the Force? Wouldn't you want imbalance? As much of the good side as possible and as little of the dark side? I dunno, this whole balance to the Force thing confuses me.

Another thing I've mentioned before. During their Jedi training they always say they have to keep their emotions in check. The thing is, when they go mad with rage, that's when they get super dope. Like, Obi-Won kills Maul in a rage after his master is killed. Luke defeats Vader and cuts off his hand in a rage after the Emperor threatens to pursue his sister (who once kissed him full on the mouth... ewww). When they *don't* keep their emotions in check, they seem to do better. So what's up with the wack advice? Or is it that if you don't control your emotions you'll fall to the dark side? But then, doesn't that imply that the dark side is stronger? Confusing is all.

So a lot of girls dream about their wedding day from the time they're kids. My question is, why is that? And how come guys don't do the same thing? Dream about their weddings? The weddings I've seen, I'd say the groom's feelings about the wedding are about standards, not dreams. A lot of guys don't even have standards and could care less. But women, it's something a lot of them think about even before it's a real possiblity. Why?

It can't be that it's because the wedding day is the bride's day; I'd argue that it's the reverse, that it's the bride's day because they dream about it for so long. But as to why they do that and guys don't, I'm not entirely certain.

Sorry, gonna pick up on Caedmon's Call again. Just respond to Henry's 2 points.

First, it's patently unfair to use Rich Mullins as the standard for lyrics - he was one of the best lyricists around, Christian or otherwise. Of course Caedmon's Call's lyrics don't measure up to Rich Mullins. Whose does? Sting doesn't measure up to that standard and he's a great lyricist. You can say you don't like the lyrics, whatever, matter of taste. But to use Rich Mullins as a reference point - ridiculous.

As for their songs having no justification of their own - fool. Caedmon's Call started getting big on the strength of their two independent CDs, which are largely just guitar and vocals. Again, just a matter of taste. But the point is, the thing that made them popular was their music at its barest, not production.

But whatever, that you don't like them is no biggie, many don't. But for me, 40 Acres is one of my favorite albums. Kinda countryish rock, like the stuff you'd hear on Austin City Limits.

Yeah, the Harry being the heir of Slytherin was pretty clear in the movie. Probably more pronounced in the book but still clear enough. That was one of the surprising things - you keep guessing who might be involved with the Chamber of Secrets and the movie keeps surprising you.

As an aside, I think people confuse a good script with good dialogue. Dialogue is a crucial part of a script. But there's more to it, like story structure, pacing and all that. Titanic, I think, had a brilliant script. Unfortunately, it had pretty bad dialogue.

Also, I disliked Fong Sai Yuk for the same reason Wong liked it - it just spanned too many genres. It was an emotional roller coaster - too much for me.

I guess I'm not alone in my Harry Potter / Lord of the Rings rankings. Roger Ebert gave The Chamber of Secrets 4 stars; he gave The Two Towers 3 stars.

I also don't understand why we have armpit hair. Or more accurately, I don't understand scientists' explanations for why we have armpit hair. It's often surmised that it's so that pheromones can collect there. Which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as this would offer a reproductive advantage. The only thing is, it's ludicrous. The smell that collects in your armpit is supposed to be attractive? Are you mad? It's foul and repulsive. I think I read that the Egyptians were the first to shave their armpits because they found it reduced body odor. And it's true. I dunno, I guess you can say armpit hair is for pheromones but is there any evidence to support that? It just seems to go against common sense.

I was entertained by Joe Millionaire. I dunno, he just seems like a nice guy. And it's just interesting to me how much money matters to women. It's insane. Can't really say that's wrong though, I mean, they're not Christian or anything. Is this a fair generalization? Men are primarily attracted by good looks. Women are primarily attracted by security. I dunno, it's a gross simplification, it's just what I think.

I've always wondered how dentistry worked in the old days. Or just health care in general. So like, with wisdom teeth, what did they do in primitive cultures? Just leave them in or deal with the excruciating pain? Or pull it out? How? Pliers? It just baffles me. I think I read somewhere that wisdom teeth is not a problem for some people, or that maybe it's our advanced nutrition that makes it a problem. But whatever, I still want to know how they dealt with tooth issues in primitive days.

Or health issues. I dunno, I just look around me and the vast majority of the people I know have dealt with some kind of health issue that would have incapacitated them had they not fixed them. Like a couple people had testicular torsion. How did they deal with that in primitive times? Did they just have to grin and bear it? Or did they die? What? Or people that have torn ligaments or broken bones are whatever. Did they just heal funny? Were they able to hunt ever again? How did that work?

When I read the Bible it just amazes me that the characters ever reached adult age. Just, even a minor problem like wisdom teeth would have wiped me out. If I were a Bible character I'd be a guy who comes to Jesus to heal the excruciating chronic tooth pain he's suffered since his teens.

I dunno, am I the only one who ever thinks about this? I remember once I went to boy scout camp and I had terrible chapped lips and there was basically nothing I could do about it, and it drove me mad. And that's such an inconsequential malady. What did ancient cultures do? I think I read somewhere that the Japanese used to take the oil from behind their ears for their chapped lips. So I guess people had remedies for stuff. I just frequently wonder what those remedies were.

Anyway, I'm convinced that many (most?) people when they talk about evolution have no idea what they're talking about. With wisdom teeth, they often say it's a problem because our jaws have evolved smaller. Is that really true? Evolution involves the dominance of traits that offer a reproductive survival advantage. That's the key to evolution. Things just don't change among an entire species randomly, or at least, if it does, that process isn't explained by evolution. It's about a reproductive advantage.

How does having a smaller jaw offer a reproductive advantage? Could it be that there's something else at work, again, maybe nutrition or something, that's totally separate from evolution? I mean, would you say that NFL players are evolving bigger and faster? No, you'd say that they're paying more attention to nutrition, exercise, and possibly steroids, so the physique of modern players is much different than that of players past. But it's not evolution.

My point is, I think a lot of times people don't understand really what evolution is about, so they say that if something changed it must have "evolved," assuming that must be true instead of showing how the data fits in that framework. And it may very well be that there's evidence that supports that smaller jaws is the result of evolution. The point is, many people don't really know and when they talk about evolution, they have no idea what they're talking about.

I forgot to mention why I thought the Yanjing Beer ads in the Compaq Center were for China, not America. And that is, the majority of the ads were in Chinese.

What a football weekend. 2 nailbiters in the games I cared about most, and both teams won improbable victories! Took 5 years off my life but it was worth it.

You know, it's true. Does anyone know the name of the actor that played Mr. Belding in Saved By The Bell? I can rattle off the names of all the cast members, even random facts like Dustin Diamond (Screech) is from San Jose. But no clue what Mr. Belding's name is.

So here's one thing I don't get about Islam. And I know virtually nothing about Islam so it might be completely uninformed. But it's been said a lot that a reward for the faithful in Islam is a bunch of virgins in heaven who provide sexual delight. Again, maybe misrepresenting it, but that's just the impression people give about it.

What I don't get is if you present something as good in heaven, something to strive for, how the heck people are supposed to refrain from it down here. If the promise is sexual whatever, won't people want that down here? Shouldn't they, if it's something used to motivate? So won't like sexual promiscuity be a problem? Or is it not a bad thing in Islam? I dunno. Just the disconnect between offering something as a reward in heaven but saying it's not good on earth, I don't get how that works.

It's not just with Islam. Like in Christianity, there are passages and songs that talk about having a gold mansion in heaven with silver lining. I dunno, maybe that's supposed to be symbolic, but I have no idea. At the very least, the songs don't make it clear at all. And I don't get how that works, how we're supposed to want gold and silver in heaven but not want it down here. How it's good up there but not good down here. How does that work? Riches keep us from God down here, but how does it not do the same up there? What makes it different? I dunno, it's just weird to me, is all. I dunno how you can really get people to reject riches down here if you're offering it up there as motivation, unless you explain that it's qualitatively different, and more crucially, what that qualitative difference is. I dunno, just how I feel about it.

I'm philosophically opposed to PETA. I dunno, just a random rant that I've probably had before. For a couple reasons. But for one, they're the worst example of a group that just forces their views on others. I know maybe Christianity has a bad rap for stuff like this, imposing its views on others, and it's done some questionable things in the past. But nowadays, at its heart, it's just a message that we want people to hear, and the hearers are free to accept or reject.

PETA is much worse than this. It's not enough that they make their views known, but no one else is allowed to have a differing view at all. Am I overstating it? I dunno, the extremism of some of their ads is just ridiculous. Just completely intolerant and imposing.

What bothers me more is that their stance is, in my view, ridiculous. Animals should be afforded rights that, among other things, means not using animals for food? Are they aware that animals use other animals for food? Is this an animal right that should be protected or not? And if so, why should humans not be afforded the same right? It just makes no philosophical sense.

Anyway, I think Henry used this term, but I think they're like limo liberals. You know, people whose relatively affluent lifestyle affords them the luxury of being able to take their stands. Like I loved how Dave Barry pointed out the ridiculousness of Barbra Streisand offering us energy conservation advice from her massive estate. I think it's similar with PETA. It's only possible in countries like the U.S. because we're so advanced and so far removed in our daily lives from having to get food and stuff like that. Hmm, maybe not. Like I guess a lot of India is vegetarian. But I still bet they defend their homes from animals and whatever. I dunno.

Another Rockets note, not that anyone cares. But they have ads for Yanjing Beer all over the Compaq Center. My guess is they're for China, not America. For the Chinese people watching the broadcasts.

Happy New Year everyone. This is morbid but the past couple years when New Years comes I just feel grateful for being alive, that there wasn't any violence or anything. Sign of the times we live in I guess. Or something screwed up with my mind.

This year our EM rented out Malibu Grand Prix. They used to rent out a bowling alley but it's gotten too big; too many people there. Like I think total the youth group retreat they just had was a couple hundred people. Maybe that includes counselors? Not sure. But still, what are that many Koreans doing in Houston? It's insane. Anyway, everything was free (after paying $10), arcade games, food, bumper boats, batting cages, go carts. Pretty good.

So one weird thing I've noticed about high schoolers these days is that they like speaking Korean, like it's a mark of being cool. Bizarre. Another random thing about Houston is that for some odd reason a lot of the Bemani games are the Korean versions. Like at Malibu they had the Korean DDR, with Korean songs and whatever. And at Tilt in Memorial City Mall they had Percussion Freaks (Korean version of Drum Mania) also with Korean songs and stuff. Random.

I've been saying this over and over but I'm realizing again as I start 2003 as a married man that I can't screw around anymore. Not so much with the little stuff, just more, I think my mom's kind of right, I need to start having a plan for my life. I dunno how much longer my holding pattern style of living is gonna cut it. I guess we'll see. 2003 will be an interesting year.

No babies though.