We had orientation on Monday and a couple of the interns there were 18 years old. That's kind of depressing. I'm too young to be 10 years older than a coworker of any kind. I think they should pass legislation permanently limiting full time work to people born on or before 1985. That's reasonable, right? If you weren't born by the time Back To The Future came out, how can you possibly be a competent worker? If it turns out to have a negative effect on the economy, they can repeal it after I die.

I don't understand lingerie, specifically Victoria's Secret. I've been told that women dress for other women, not men, which was surprising at first but I accept that. I had assumed that they dress up to show off to men mostly because men pretty much only dress up for women. I'm basing this in part on my all-male Jesuit high school experience. In 4 years, I don't think I ever saw a guy there dress well. Come to think of it, not even the ones who turned out to be gay, which is odd. Anyway, in a lot of men's clothes ads there's a woman standing next to the guy, because that's the point. Remove women from the equation, and men would dress (and live) like slobs I think.

So yeah, assumed women are the same, but I've heard they dress for other women, not men, which explains why in women's clothing ads, there's nary a man to be found. Maybe also that's why all the female high schools in the area all had uniforms, to avoid problems or something.

But then, I don't get what lingerie is for. Victoria's Secret sells the image of "sexy". But it can't be that women are trying to be sexy in front of other women, since presumably women don't generally see other women in lingerie. If it's for men, it would seem VS is just for hooked up women, and even then, only for special occasions. But then it wouldn't be that big a chain, right? And in any case, females seem to go there for everyday stuff. And if that's the case, why does it matter being sexy? Why does VS sell that image so much? Who are women trying to be sexy for?

My hunch based on what I've heard is that women want to be sexy for themselves, not other women, not men. And that's strange to me.

And at what age did things change so that men wore boxers more than briefs? I know for a fact from junior high PE that everyone wore briefs then. Nowadays people seem to think I'm odd for sticking with my tighty whiteys. When is the transition supposed to happen? I missed the memo.

I love this picture because it exactly depicts the image I have in my head when I think of Bennett: cute, smiling, and drooling. Actually, that describes most of the younger Baylight kids. And some of the adults.

I'm actually getting worried (with some good reason) that I'm becoming the creepy guy to the kids at church. I'm sure you had people like that in your childhood, adults who just gave you the heebie-jeebies. Young and Dong are funcles; I'm more like disturbuncle or creepuncle. Last night Cindy was watching my efforts with Ashley and *she* was getting creeped out. Not good times. Maybe I should just cut my losses and forget gaining kids' affection, just ignore them and leave them to Jieun.

Joonho was saying that with kids, for them to like you, you need to go all out, no abandon. I've kind of written about this before, but that gets to the heart of who I am. I don't think I've ever in my life given myself all out with no abandon to anything. With every single thing I've ever done I've always left myself a safety, some kind of backup or something in case things didn't work out. Even spiritually, complete abandon is something I'm still striving for, not yet fully achieved. So yeah, giving myself up completely to anything, even just playing with kids, is not something that comes easily for me.

I'm old.

I decided I wanted to spend my last free day on Wednesday with Jieun at Great America, somewhat in an attempt to regain my lost youth. Age wise, we were totally out of place. Park was filled with [Jr.] High schoolers awkwardly interacting with the opposite sex and parents taking their kids, nothing in between. I love watching awkward teenagers, especially boys trying to be cool in front of girls. Amuses me to no end.

Anyway, our age made us stick out enough. But besides that, I dunno, I'm slowing down. We started off with that ride where it's just a bunch of swings in a big circle, it slowly rises and spins more rapidly. A nice easy ride. Thing is, I was surprisingly winded after it. It was embarrassing.

We rode something else then this new ride Invertigo, something like that, where the seats are back to back, so you go forwards in one direction, then return in a backwards position. I nearly blacked out, and afterwards, while the kids immediately run off to the next ride, Jieun and I need to pause to regain our bearings. In fact, we take a break by doing another old person thing - watching a show. I used to hate it when my parents would want to waste our time at an amusement park with shows. Now I'm them. It's sad.

Thing is, we enjoyed it. Only because we were in it, I think. It's this Magic of the Movies thing where they take people in the audience and do random things like make sound effects. We were picked to demonstrate the green screen. We went up in front of the green screen and were inserted into scenes from Titanic, with a big bow prop, Jieun with a red wig, fan blowing her hair, her doing the "I'm flying" thing and me yelling "I'm king of the world!" I dunno, it was fun.

It was also nice seeing the hot dog place I worked at summer of '95. They've branched out - they sell corndogs now also. But it's largely the same. Still next to the burger place and the nacho place with cheese that turns a distressing shade of red when it dries on your shirt. Good times. I dunno, the whole day, I wanted to go up to all the employees in the park, put my hand on their shoulder and say, "I understand."

At any rate, Jieun's a saint, she's always game for these random whims I have, like this Great America thing or going to SF for oysters or whatever. Very supportive. I don't think women realize how much men want to be supported. Just my opinion. But yeah, there's a reason why like in Proverbs it repeatedly warns against a quarrelsome wife. Nothing destroys a man's sense of being a man more than an overly critical wife. Just decimates them. Everyone should have a wife like Jieun.

Two random useful sites.

I stopped using gel, since according to Queer Eye that's so 1990s, and got myself some pomade. I have no idea how to use it. How much do I use? Doesn't say on the thing. Do I apply it evenly everywhere? Just roots? Everywhere but roots? I dunno, I think I'm doing it wrong. I don't even know if pomade is the proper successor to gel, like Keith used hair clay or something like that I think, maybe that's the in thing now, who knows. Fairly clueless about all this stuff.

Just watched Harry Potter and I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. I think I like it. But I admire it more than I actually like it. Like, it was really well crafted, has lots of cool shots, I like how they frequently have stuff going on in the background, but somehow the whole seems less than the sum of its parts.

Anyway, it makes me think about film criticism because it seems like the vast majority of critics love the 3rd movie way more than the first 2. Ebert is among the only exceptions. I'm just not sure why the critics feel this way. Personally, I liked the 2nd movie better. It's not complex, but there's a sense of wonder to it, interesting little twists, and fortune cookie wisdom. What I think is, critics watch so many movies that they value movies that are different, that show more complexity and ambiguity. That's really important to them.

Actually, pastor made a good point in his sermon today. He was saying how in the 80s, there was a strong sense of good and evil. With the Olympics, there was a subtext of bad guys (athletes from Communist countries) vs. good guys (Western democracy), kind of depicted in Miracle. In movies and in TV shows there was a strong clear line between the good and the bad.

Nowadays, critics especially but people in general seem to value ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity. That's somehow more compelling or entertaining than black and white moral lines. He mentioned the X-Files as a typical modern show, where it's not at all clear who is good, who is bad. Lots of shows have the same kind of ambiguity. Like the Sopranos. The Shield. 24 even. Moral ambiguity is critically praised.

I dunno, I feel the same way also sometimes, valuing complexity when it comes to character. I like how the X-Men movies show different mutant responses to persecution. What I wish was that they showed a little more complexity on the human side. Singer and his whole gay subtext thing is fine, but it's like it's so strong that he makes it impossible for a human against the mutants to be anything but evil. I wish there were a human character that was against the mutants because he realized that power corrupts, so humans depending on the good will of mutants like Professor X would be foolish - the natural tendency of those with unchecked power is to abuse it, not be benevolent. So the survival of humans naturally depends on humans checking the power of mutants. That would be more complex and interesting to me than all the humans just having blind fear of mutants. But that doesn't fit with the gay subtext so it will never happen.

Anyway, yeah, moral complexity interests me also. The danger, as our pastor pointed out, is in valuing moral ambiguity to the point of saying there is no right and wrong at all. In the 80s we probably laid things out too simply in terms of black and white; real life is more complicated than that. But the fact remains that there is a right and wrong, so it's a little dangerous to value moral complexity too much, I think. I dunno.

Boring.

I actually have no problem with "upper crust" sports fans. Most people in the U.S. would probably consider me and most of the people who read this page spoiled, privileged, upper crusters, with some merit, but I don't think that makes anyone less true a sports fan. Nor do I think the "drunks" (as JR says) are necessarily true sports fans either.

To me it's all about passion, that's what I respect, that's all that matters. So like, I respect Jack Nicholson as a sports fan. He's ultra rich and sits courtside, but he's clearly passionate and I'm down with that. What I'm against are people who go just because it's the hip thing to do. Like celebs who go and don't watch the game. Or the entire Pac Bell crowd. I have no problems with them being corporate types, it just bothers me that they're not true sports fans, and all of a sudden with this new ballpark they get "into" it and get all the choice seats without paying their dues and without having previously really cared about sports. That bugs me.

But if they're authentic passionate sports fans, even if the arena's filled with corporate types, I'm down with that. As if anyone cares.

One of those weirdo self-reflectional entries that bore everyone but the writer. Warning.

I don't think it's possible to understand who I am without knowing that I'm fundamentally insecure. I dunno, that might be surprising to whoever, but yeah, it pervades a lot of who I am. From like, my love language (words of affirmation) to why I do a lot of what I do, it's related to that. I think as I've grown in my faith and in my personality I've become a lot less so, but it's still there in the core of who I am and it still manifests itself in random ways.

We had a (to me) fascinating conversation with a friend from church who at one point in her life was an Olympic caliber synchronized swimmer. It's insane the time required of them, up until high school it's hours of practice every day, then in high school they basically practice all day, they quit school and are all home educated. She didn't jive with that so quit frosh year of high school.

Her teammates went on to win the gold medal in Atlanta so we asked if she had any regrets, and she had none, because they all turned out to be losers. They're all like in Las Vegas, working in O (that Cirque du Soleil show) or as sketchy dancers. What use is a gold medal if you end up a loser in life?

I dunno, that was interesting to me. We honor people who completely devote themselves to something but there's a flip side to that; sometimes that singleminded devotion leaves them uncapable of functioning normally elsewhere in life. I think balance is to be valued more than that.

More NBA notes that no one cares about.

That song they're using on ABC really annoys me. The one that goes "Let's get it started." If they used it on the pregame show, that would be fine. But they use it all throughout the broadcast. What exactly do they want to get started during the middle of the game? The 3rd quarter? Let's get the free throws started? Lets get the inbounds pass with 4 minutes left started? I dunno, it annoys me.

I liked that one year they used Lenny Kravitz' Dig In because I'm a mild LK fan - simple, easy to play, mindless, catchy pop-rock. That's nice sometimes. Britney Spears got flak for a comment she made once about how anyone can write an esoteric artsy song but writing good pop is hard. Musically naïve, but she kind of has a point; it's not easy writing something catchy. Like, I find ABC's Monday Night Football music (not the intro) way catchier than Fox's Football stuff. The NBA on NBC theme song is Nobel caliber catchy. (SN. Adrian's mentioned this before, but what's a John Tesh concert like? Do you sing along with "da da da"s? I'd want to if I heard the NBA on NBC theme in concert.) Anyway, LK writes fluffy catchy hooks that I dig sometimes.

Another thing Jesus wouldn't do, Derek: flop.

I really shouldn't talk about Laker fans being annoying, though, since I'm among the most annoying Laker-haters I know. I once watched a game with Adrian and was being incredibly annoying the whole time, calling every time Shaq touched the ball a flagrant charge, every miss by the opponents a foul, heckling the entire time. Mildly amusing the first time. By the 2nd quarter, totally annoying. 4th quarter, Adrian stopped talking and got really quiet. Whoops. Went too far.

Jack Ramsey on the radio broadcast made an interesting point answering a question about whether Phil Jackson is being outcoached. He said, he doesn't think so; sometimes the issue isn't about the coaching but how well players implement what the coaches want. Interesting idea. Yeah, a good coach gets his players to listen, but it can only so far. I think that's maybe what happened in Philly with AI and Larry Brown, AI just stopped listening, which is why Larry wanted to trade him. I think I've read that Phil Jackson is tired of Kobe's act also. Which is why it's been smart to harass Kobe so much, he's gonna try to create his own shot regardless of coaching or whatever. Doesn't seem like he's that great at creating for his teammates.

Anyway, has Scott Kim ever talked to Paul Lee? I want to sit in on that conversation. I'm thinking it will result in an ever-increasing hyperbole loop with no theoretical limit.

I realized why I hate the Lakers. I didn't always. I liked Showtime. I remember rooting for them against the Bulls that one Finals when Jordan did his completely unnecessary switch hands in midair layup, I think it was Elden Campbell's rookie year. And it's not because they're good. I'm not necessarily bothered by good teams. I don't remember hating the Bulls. Don't hate the Patriots or whoever. So it's not that.

The reason I hate the Lakers is because of Laker fans. What it is is, Dave Barry wrote this once about Celtic fans in the 80s, but it fits for Laker fans today - they produce 95% of the world's smug. It's not all of them, just enough to spoil the whole barrel. When they win, they're all like, "In your face!" and "Booyah" and whatever. No class. And then they wonder why there are so many Laker haters. Look in a mirror, bub. It's not jealousy, it's annoyance.

So that's why I hate the Lakers. The fans. Although there are a few good nonannoying Laker fans, like Adrian, Wong and Eddie. I think that's the complete list.

For the record, I think that's why I hate the Yankees also, or at least among the bigger reasons. Go to an A's / Yankees game at the Net sometime. It's insane how condescending and smug the Yankee fans are. Rage.

No offense to the other Hyun brothers, they're all cool and everything, but I still like Drew best. Maybe it's a loyalty thing, I dunno. Wong might be more impartial. But they're all great guys.

My favorite memory of Drew was in East Asia when he was teaching some students American slang.

"In America, we don't say hello, we say, 'what up?' Try it."

(Heavily accented English) "What up?"

"Right. And if you're friends, you say, 'What up dawg?'"

"What up dawg?"

"And if you're really close, you say, 'What up home skillet?'"

"What up home skillet?"

I can't remember if I wrote about this before, but I think the single most valuable lesson I've learned from Baylight is the concept of seasons. (Unbelievably, even Californians can know something about seasons.) I'm not even sure if it's been explicit, but yeah, it seems they're big on there being seasons in life, church, ministry, whatever, so you shouldn't be doing the exact same thing all the time.

I find that really freeing. I dunno, my problem has often been that I believed that if something was good, it should be done all the time. Thing is, no matter how much I do, there are always tons of other good things that I could be doing. And that always made me feel guilty and guilt somewhat paralyzes me. I think I'm only recently grasping that it's not necessary to do everything all the time.

The key is like boundaries, I think. The focus of boundaries shouldn't be doing something for yourself, it's ultimately about how you can better serve others. With seasons, it can't be a license to not do anything at all, it's gotta be about how you can be more effective overall. And for me, knowing that I don't have to be doing right now other things I could be doing is helping me be more effective in general, I think.

Boring.

It's insane how much I want the Lakers to lose. First thing I'm doing if they do is reposting all the smug comments Laker "fans" have posted on their various thought pages. I can't believe they'd root for a coach who sold his soul for championships (apparently a decent haircut wasn't included in the deal), a selfish adulterer whose own teammates hate him, and a bunch of lazy players who can't be bothered to try. Even Derek Fisher and his What Would Jesus Do bracelet annoys me. I'll tell you what Jesus wouldn't do, he wouldn't go 3 for 15 in the first 2 games of the NBA Finals. Probably have more assists also. Dunno about steals.

Scott's comment on Larry Brown got me thinking. I think when a coach is really good, his particular shortcomings are more apparent than for a mediocre or bad coach. Because, come on, Larry Brown is a great coach, his record speaks for itself. His teams do better when he comes and worse when he leaves. Do that long enough and you can't chalk it up to coincidence.

But I find myself doing the same thing with Montgomery. Concentrating on his legitimate shortcomings, like the fact that his offense is too rigid, that he was too stubborn against using a zone for so long and his adamant refusal to use timeouts to kill momentum. I find myself thinking, he's not that great a coach. But that's ridiculous, he's demonstrably a great coach.

Maybe that's true with more than coaching? That with excellent people, their fewer faults become more apparent so you appreciate them less than you should? I dunno.

SN, Slate's "coverage" of Reagan's death was so blatantly one-sided it sickened me. If you only read that site you'd think Reagan singlehandedly plunged this country into ruin. You can legitimately quibble with his policy, but you can't deny that he was an effective President. Even the Merc granted that. But Slate, nothing. Ridiculous.

I've been reminded again recently that for guys, sometimes you just need to talk with other guys. As much as I love Jieun and she's my best friend and I want to talk about everything with her, there are times when I just need to talk to another guy. And I have no problem with that. Men and women are just different, that's how it's supposed to be.

I remember a friend was once having doubts about a person he was dating, saying how he can't talk to her like he does his guy friends. I dunno, I think that's fine. I think there are slightly different characteristics you want in a friend versus a mate. One thing I love about Jieun is that she's feminine. I sure as heck don't value that in friendship. So yeah, personally, I don't think your mate should be exactly like your same gender friends.

I think that bothers Jieun sometimes, that I'm not like Karen. But someone just like Karen is gonna be a girl, and unfortunately, I'm a man.

I'm definitely not normal, and I realize that, but every time I'm confronted with that fact it still surprises me a little. Makes me realize how steeped in the subculture I am.

Two recent examples. I dunno, in Silicon Valley, I think it's "cool" or at least good to be a nerd. Someone calls you a nerd, it's a compliment. Nerd just means smart. When the people upstairs call the downstairs engineers nerds, they're saying we're smarter than they are. All in all, a positive thing.

So I got surprised recently when someone didn't take it that way and was indignant when he was called a nerd. To me, makes no sense, why wouldn't you want to be complimented. But in normal society, I guess being called a nerd I guess is a putdown, means you're overly intellectual or something, not socially competent, not balanced. But yeah, that this person was so vehemently against being a nerd, I was surprised.

The other thing is, I dunno, I think in the Christian subculture we value openness and honesty, and that's a good thing. I've gotten so used to it that I just assumed that everyone values that. But they don't. Especially outside the Christian subculture, some people aren't open and don't see why they need to be. I think I understand that, but it always surprises me when I see it.

It's no secret that Jieun and I have different tastes in certain things. Personally, I find her preferences weird (she likes cold dry biscuits over hot moist ones, cold unglazed Krispy Kreme over hot glazed) but it's not really, just everyone has different likes and dislikes. She said something this weekend though that was just over the top. We're on a Southwest flight choosing a seat and I suggest one that looks like it has more legroom. She replies that she doesn't like more legroom. She prefers less legroom. She likes being cramped.

That's my wife. I love her.

So Jieun's bro teaches at I guess not the most priviliged school in the world. He teaches among other things some sort of economics class and he had them do a project where they tracked their income and expenses for a month. Anyway, this one guy, I guess really comfortable with him, lists among his expense headings drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. It's simultaneously hilarious and sad.

For most of my life, I haven't worn clothes that fit me. When I was really young, my parents would often get me clothes that were slightly big so I would grow into them. Starting from late elementary school I got super self-conscious about my skinniness so I wore overly baggy clothes. When skinny guys wear clothes they're supposed to wear, they look really skinny. If you wear clothes big enough, you just look baggy, and that's what I did.

It's only within the past 2 years that I've come to grips with what size I actually am: a solid medium. So now I buy as such, but I still have tons of XL T-shirts in the closet. And cheapo me sure as heck isn't gonna just throw them away. Oh well.

I'm buying pants that fit better also. My preference actually runs a bit tighter than Jieun prefers. That's Keith rubbing off on me. Darn Keith.

The only thing is with underwear. I wear tighty whiteys and when I wear the "right" size I find it ridiculously tight. Not to get super crude, but yeah, it puts my fertility at risk. The underwear size that seems to fit me best is always one size over. Doesn't matter what brand it is, it's always the case. I dunno if that's just me or all guys.

Hey you in the red minivan on Central and Fair Oaks. If you're gonna drive like that, take that Jesus fish off your bumper. I never understood those anyway. You can never make a good impression. People aren't impressed by the witness of a good driver. Almost by definition, good driving is ignored. You only notice bad driving. So the fish on cars can only make a bad impression. I dunno.

Whoa. I just got a 90 on expert in Minesweeper. Yes, I still play Minesweeper. I know it's sad. What's sadder is how happy I am right now. You don't understand how unattainable I thought this was. I feel like giving a victory speech. I'd like to thank the Academy and all the little people who made this possible.

At work we had a pizza/drink tasting. A combination blind taste test and a contest to see who could correctly identify the most pizzas/drinks. One interesting result, Sunnyvale municipal water got higher taste marks than Dasani. Dasani sucks. Anyway, I got 2nd place on the pizza tasting and honestly I'm pissed at myself that I didn't do better. I know nothing about wine or chocolate or whatever but I know my pizza.

My top pizza rankings for the Bay Area: Zachary's, Pizza Chicago, Amici's, Pizza Antica, Applewood. Although I'm not as big an Applewood fan as other people.

I have no idea why I have a maniacal need to rank everything. Actually, I kinda do. In cognitive psych (a great class) we learned that people intuitively see patterns in the world where there are none. Like, see trends that aren't really there, group things together that have no natural grouping, stuff like that. Even constellations are kind of like this, creating patterns where there are none. I think it's a way of making sense of what's actually chaotic, maybe to give a feeling of control.

This is all just out of my butt, but I think that's key for males, a feeling of control. That's why we make lists, to give order to an unstructured world, and are into stuff like video games and sports, where rules are clearly defined and there's order to chaos. If we can order and define things, we're more in control. People in sports are even more susceptible to this pattern finding thing, so they's extremely superstitious or believe in things like clutch hitting (statistically, there's no such thing) or whatever.

Women I think don't need this as much. So they're less into lists, less into sports, stuff like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my guess. I'm guessing it's because historically women were the primary childwatchers so they know that chaos is the way of the universe.

I dunno, I'm still into my Matrix Reloaded control is an illusion and a spiritual hindrance thing but this bores everyone but me, so whatever.

Did anyone else catch Wheel this week? College Week. I saw the tail end of the Bay Area match and a girl from Stanford beat out another girl from USF and this totally nerdy Asian guy from Cal. That was satisfying. She won a car also. Go Stanford education! Who would have thought that reading and writing would pay off?

So truth be told, Jieun and I are not naturally clean people. I think our place is tidy enough and relatively clean, but I wouldn't say it comes naturally to us, it's like a constant battle against our slob nature. OK, my slob nature much more than Jieun's, but you know, we're Biblically one, so.

We're nowhere near as bad as Eric's place though. Talk about ghetto. You have to hear him talk about their insect situation sometime. They had a problem with it for a while, but it eventually tapered off. His theory is that the insect population grew like crazy, until they grew so numerous that they started attacking each other, until they reached what they have now, an uneasy insect peace. Disturbing.

Speaking of disturbing, we went to a Mexican restaurant last night and there was a single restroom, shared by employees and customers. I went, and there were no paper towels. That disturbs me. I mean, if you're washing your hands, you notice right away that there are no paper towels, so you'd replace them quick, right? If no one noticed, I guess no one's washing their hands. Authentic Mexican food.

I was watching a bit of SNL a while back, with a woman from Will and Grace hosting. Anyway, during the Weekend Update segment they had this "Native-American comedian". The whole gag was, he tells jokes that aren't funny. Problem is, the SNL audience is so conditioned to laugh at unfunny stuff that they were laughing hard anyway.

Made me sad. Is SNL funny at all anymore? I don't watch really, so no clue.

The staple/tape method didn't work on the headliner on my car. It's been sagging again, to the point where it hits my head as I drive. Really annoying. Anyway, this afternoon I tried stapling it directly, and that's doing surprisingly well, dunno why I didn't try that sooner. We'll see how long it lasts.

My goal for the car is to drive it until 2011, make it last 20 years. I think I've got a shot. The engine really is in good shape. There's a problem with the starter right now I think, some mornings I have to try 20 times before the engine starts, but besides that and all the cosmetic issues, it's doing well. And it still gets 30 MPG which is pretty good. Lets me defy these piddling gas price raises.

So I'd been toying recently with the idea of buying a mobile home. You know what housing prices are like around here. Or maybe you don't. In a word, insane. Anyway, rent angers me. It's just throwing money away. So I figured, might as well just buy something and at least not throw money away in rent. Anyway, there's a mobile home community right near our apartment complex so we checked it out. There's one for sale at $45,000. That's insane. I could just borrow a little money from my parents and buy that straight up, no mortgage at all. All the money we'd save.

The only thing is the "trailer trash" stigma. But I dunno, that kind of makes me angry also. Just, why should I be ashamed to live there? It's not like I'm a better person than those people. It's just by the grace of God that I have anything I have, so I'm against any stigma that assumes I'm better than someone else. I have no idea if that makes sense.

But I did some more research and it turns out mobile homes depreciate with time instead of rising in value so it might not be a wise idea financially. Anyway.

If you can see this, dannychai.com has successfully moved. Test.

We watched Human Nature last weekend. Interesting movie. You would never believe it's from the same writer and director of Eternal Sunshine. The movies are totally different in tone and look.

A brief synopsis without giving any plot details away. Involves a guy raised in a rigid environment who grows up to be a scientist who devotes his time to teaching mice table manners. Dates a woman who has a condition that gives her copious amounts of body hair all over, which she regularly electrolyzes and shaves. Has a French lab assistant, they collectively train a man who's been raised in the woods by his father as an ape.

I dunno, it's absurd, but maybe you can see some of the questions being asked, namely, are we just at heart animals who want sex that mask what we really are by covering ourselves up with culture? Whether that culture is social grace, French, body hair removal or whatever? Is culture just the covering up of our animal nature? What is human nature? I dunno, interesting ideas.

Wasn't the best movie in the world, but it's definitely interesting. I think I'm a Charlie Kaufman fan. His scripts are all thought provoking, which is highly unusual nowadays. Of the ones I've seen, I'd rank them (from most to least liked) Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine, Being John Malkovich, then Human Nature. As if anyone cares.

When I have kids, I'm not introducing them to "good" food pretty much ever. I want it to be like it was for me when I was growing up. Denny's is a treat, Sizzler even more special, and Red Lobster a rare treasure. There's no way I'm letting them develop expensive tastes for stuff like sushi when they're young. I'll let them discover it themselves in college. I read on the web about parents who take their kids to places like Masa's and French Laundry. That's absolutely ridiculous to me.

Have you read Fast Food Nation? So one thing fast food places do is advertise really heavily to kids in such a way that when you grow up, when you think of these places, you feel nostalgia and it makes you want to go there, kind of take you back to your childhood in a way. Just associating fast food with good childhood feelings. It's true for me. I think of McDonald's breakfast as being a post soccer game Saturday morning treat, and I get nostalgic for a Sausage McMuffin with Egg and hash browns even today. It's fairly sinister.

So Jieun wants that for our kids, we don't treat McDonald's as being a treat. I have no idea how we're going to pull that off. "Darn, we have to eat at McDonald's. Sorry kids." Will that work? I dunno. But yeah, we must break the cycle of fast food nostalgia. I dunno.

As a side note, it seems like the men of Baylight end up going to the Boardwalk a decent amount, but for my money, I like St. John's Bar and Grill on Lawrence a whole lot better. Better food, and their daily specials can be a pretty good deal. I'm a fan.

My dad defines hate as wishing someone/something weren't around, or more strongly, wishing they didn't exist. Murder then is the practical application of hate, wishing someone didn't exist, and doing something about it. It's an interesting definition.

Anyway, I hate the sponges we use for washing dishes. Hate. SN. I have never been able to figure out how to keep sponges from smelling mildewy and gross. When I dry them out after washing, they smell gross. Leave them wet, they smell gross. I just try to thoroughly wash them with water and detergent before starting on the dishes, I don't know what else to do.

So our sponges are soft on one side and rough on the other, so they give the appearance that the rough side can be used for scrubbing stuck on food and whatever. Thing is, that side always just falls apart. It's not useful at all. I used to think the sponges were just old, but then we opened up a new one and the rough side immediately started falling off. I was inexpressibly angry. As Satan masquerades as being an angel of light, so do these sponges masquerade as being useful when they're actually completely useless. At least the "scrubbing" side. Rage.

I've written about this before, right? Why I say like Friends and Britney Spears are satanic. What I mean is, I don't think Satan works in a way that's in your face. I think he's way more subtle than that, from the Garden until now.

The reason I say Friends is satanic is because it's not in your face evil. It just subtly degrades your moral standards. And I think that's much more in line with how Satan actually works. Friends has totally pushed the boundaries in terms of sexual content and casual attitudes on stuff like porn and done it in the 8 PM hour, traditionally the family hour. Even the editor of Newsweek, hardly a conservative publication, mentioned his qualms about the sexual content of Friends while watching with his kids in that Friends issue they had a while back.

And it's been effective. Most Christians who watch don't think all that sexual stuff is a big deal, or even defend it. And that's how Satan works. Subtly affecting mindsets, even Christians, to think that those kinds of attitudes on sex are no big deal.

Some argue that Friends is a reflection of culture, not a shaper of it. And that Friends isn't alone in degrading morals. Both somewhat true. But Friends reflects the morality of just a segment of people, and it affects everyone. Like, again, subtly affecting the attitudes of Christians so they think it's no big deal. And it's not unique among TV shows, it's just, it's pushed the limits of 8 PM a ton and since it's so popular it deserves particular attention. But it's not unique. I think the Apprentice is evil also, with its message of money is everything.

Whatever, I'm not saying it's not entertaining to most and don't watch it. I'm just saying in today's culture, you have to be vigilant about maintaining your sense of morals. But whatever, just how I feel.

If you want to know the truth, I think I'm deeply misunderstood when it comes to kids. Jieun's partly right, partly wrong about this.

First of all, I'm not that devastated when kids don't like me. If it really bothered me that much I'd change how I act with them but I pretty much don't. The thing is, and this is bad, but my primary motivation is amusing myself. And I'm amused by the absurd. I think I already wrote about talking with Elaney and Everett a long time ago about Finding and Eating Nemo. Pretty awful. I've talked multiple times with Ashley about what she wants to be when she grows up, whether she'd prefer to be an accountant, sanitation engineer, or Secretary of the Interior. I dunno, that amuses me. But of course kids don't "get" my humor.

Here's the other thing. Jieun's right, babies are babies, so adults need to adapt to them. But something about that, I don't like. I just feel like, even with kids, I have to be me, and take it or leave it, I'm not going to change who I am just to get affection.

So like, I'm fairly certain that most kids like it when you're physical with them, swinging them around, throwing them, stuff like that. That's how Young gets kids to like him and it's why kids are naturally drawn to physical looking guys like George. I dunno, I'm just not generally a physical type guy. Don't like swinging around the girls, and even of the boys, I pretty much only like throwing around Adoniah and Nathan.

What I do like is witty banter. Which is largely unappreciated by the kids. Whatever, their loss. They'll come to appreciate it someday, if not in this life, then the next.

I dunno, I've tried being more physical and doing the Dave "secret" thing with kids like Ashley but in the end I always end up reverting to absurd verbal humor because that's what amuses me and that's who I am. C'est la vie.

I resonated with Vanderpool's April 26th entry. The part about which life is successful. It's always bothered me that many Christians (me included) often seem to value the same things as the world in terms of success and respect. Like admiring most famous Christians, Christians who have achieved worldly success, even if that meant sacrificing things like time with family and whatever, more than maybe nameless people who chose to put their family first over their careers.

I think I was most bothered by this in high school. It drove me crazy that at church, we valued the same thing in "leaders" as the world did. Like self-confidence, personal charisma, stuff like that. I reacted so violently to it that since then, I've always said that if I'm going to be a leader, I'm never basing it on either self-confidence or charisma, I'm doing the exact opposite. Maybe that's wrong, I dunno, but it's how I've felt.

I dunno, it could be said that the church could learn a thing or two about good leadership and organization from the world, and there's merit to that. I just think you can do that without valuing the same things the world does in terms of success and leadership. But maybe I'm wrong.

For Jieun, the impression I get is that Friends is less about entertainment and more about loyalty. She had some people come over last night and she basically categorized them. The loyal ones (her) who accept the show no matter what are Friends. People who like the show but didn't like the last episode are Acquaintances. Everyone else are Enemies. It goes without saying that I'm an Enemy.

I don't hate the show. It doesn't torture me to watch it. I'm just not involved with the characters at all, and could care less what happens to them. I wish they had been bold in the last show. Minho was saying how the last episode of Cheers was a good one, there's some self awareness that goes on, where Sam realizes the real love of his life is the bar. There's virtually no self awareness in Friends at all. Ross and Rachel realize they love each other? Didn't that happen 10 years ago? Do any of the characters experience growth ever?

I guess the same could be said of Seinfeld, but Seinfeld in general was more clever, funny, and had more guts. Like the last episode. It was awful, but undeniably gutsy. But whatever, I don't really watch sitcoms anymore. It's all about reality TV, like Survivor, Apprentice, and Iron Chef.

Speaking of which, this season of Survivor has turned out to be less entertaining than I anticipated. It's a great idea in concept, but in practice, when they've all been on the show prior, they know to be wary and they ended up kicking off all the dangerous but interesting characters early. Now it's just attrition. You need more people naive to the game on the show. Spices things up more.

We watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind last night and I actually loved it. I'm gonna say 4 stars. An interesting engrossing movie.

The rest of this entry has spoilers.

I dunno, it just made me think about a lot of interesting things. The end is fascinating to me. They know, although they can't remember it, that it ended badly. Does that mean it will end badly again? Are we doomed to repeat the same things over and over again, even if we don't know it? If we are, does that mean we shouldn't do anything? I dunno, I just kind of liked how they embraced going into it, even though they knew bad things might happen. I'm not even sure why.

I dunno, memory fascinates me. I read a few reviews and they were saying how without memory, you have nothing. And the movie kind of plays with that, how, as he's losing he's memory, he's not just forgetting her, he's losing a part of who he is. I think there's a line, maybe misinterpreting, but he says during the process, they're not erasing her from me, they're erasing me from her. Not sure what that means, but interesting.

Thing is, the movie points to the opposite also. Even after their memories have been erased, Mary and Clem are still drawn to the same men. Makes it seem like there was more than just circumstance the first time around, that there's something fundamental about them that makes them come together. Which suggests that there's more to us than just our memories.

I dunno, I could talk about memory forever, it's just a fascinating topic philosophically, but yeah, interesting movie. No one cares.

Here's a difference between Jieun and me when it comes to travel. I'm all about, you know, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I like the local stuff, the stuff you don't see here. Jieun finds comfort in familiarity. Like, she was excited at seeing the Gap in France. Le Gap? I dunno if we're like that with all things, but at least as far as travel goes.

Anyway, what I loved most about Paris was the food. I think my two favorite cuisines are Japanese, then French. Jieun and I were actually figuring out our top 5 rankings. Mine's constantly in flux, but I think it's Japanese, French, Korean, Thai, then Chinese. Maybe Italian over Chinese. Or American.

SN. We also discussed whether there's such thing as "American" cuisine. I said yes. Not in America, where it's just, I dunno, food, but I imagined that in other countries, there must be "American" restaurants like we have Mexican restaurants, right? They don't have "Mexican" restaurants in Mexico, just restaurants. Jieun said there's no such thing as American cuisine period. So in England, we asked someone random if there's a thing as American food, and they had no idea what I was talking about. Fast food could be American, they guessed. So, I guess I'm wrong, but that's odd to me. Anyway, I'd put barbecue, whatever "cuisine" that is, as one of my top ones.

Anyway, what I like about both French and Japanese food is they pay attention to detail. I was amazed in France that it didn't matter where we went, even cheapo places, the food was good. Like that sidewalk crepe Jieun posted a picture of, cheap and delicious. We went to a random Denny's like place and I got a Croque Madame and it was shockingly delicious. A delicious ham and cheese sandwich with a fried egg on top. Cheap, good stuff. And of course the more expensive food was great.

I love getting pizza in different places also. It's just interesting peoples' takes on pizza. Like the one summer I was in Korea, I liked how they use corn. I dunno, it's interesting and different. In France, I got the first pizza listed under "classic" pizzas on the menu. It came with chopped beef, dollops of goat cheese, some type of green vegetable, and an egg, sunny side up, right in the middle. Surprisingly delicious.

I just watched the first two episodes of Iron Chef America but I actually liked it. I dunno, I just like cooking I think. It's nowhere near as good as the original. Chairman Kaga and his theatrics are vital. They've relegated the Chairman to a background role, he doesn't even have a name. There's no announcer to add interplay with the food "expert" so it's not as conversational. Very little interaction with judges.

The part I like least is the floor guy. He makes huge mistakes that show he knows nothing about food. Like when Alton corrects him on the pronunciation of basil. And he's such a bad interviewer it's comical. Here's an interview he does with Morimoto, in its entirety:

Floor guy: Chef Morimoto, are you happy?

Morimoto: YES!

Floor guy: Congratulations, thank you very much.

Brain teaser. Not that hard, but whatever.

You have a camel and 3000 bananas. You want to end up at a city 1000 miles away with as many bananas as possible. The problem is, the camel can only carry up to 1000 bananas at a time, no more. Also, for every mile the camel walks, it needs to eat 1 banana, regardless of how much its carrying. You cannot carry any bananas.

So, what is the maximum number of bananas you can end up at the city with? If you just start with 1000 and go all the way there, you'll end up with 0 bananas, since the camel will have eaten 1 banana for every one of the 1000 miles. So what's the max you can end up with?

Death penalty.

Pastor pointed out something really interesting last Saturday. We were talking about what it means for man to be made in the image of God, the respect we therefore need to have for all people. The question came up about the death penalty, where that fits in with respecting others as the image of God.

Pastor pointed us to an interesting verse, Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." That verse is absolutely fascinating. But the idea is, because man is made in the image of God and worthy of respect, if you kill another man, you're worthy of the greatest punishment, death. Murderers deserve death because life is so important.

I dunno, it sounds oxymoronic but it kind of makes sense, and in any case, it's written as a direct command of God, which carries a little bit of weight. I have no idea where that fits in with the new covenant, no more eye for an eye stuff but it's just interesting to me that respecting men as the image of God and the death penalty are philosophically compatible.

That said, I'm against the death penalty. Not for philosophical reasons though, just practical ones. It's well known that there's a huge racial imbalance on death row. Not just in absolute terms, but in relative terms, i.e. percentage of murder convictions that lead to death penalty for each race. Which is somewhat troubling. What bothers me most though is the statistics on the number of false conviction on death row, like the ones overturned by new DNA evidence, whatever. It's totally frightening. Given the rate of error, I have no idea how to defend a penalty as irrevocable as death.

I drank too much in Europe. Which really isn't a lot, didn't get drunk, but still, too much for a light drinker like myself. The problem is that I'm cheap, and wine is free in a lot of places. Like on the Air France flight over (Air France is awesome, btw. Each seat has its own LCD screen on which you can play games and watch a variety of movies. In coach!), on the chunnel train, as parts of various meals. And my principle is, if it's free, I take it.

Which is the wrong mentality. The proper mindset is, free stuff means opportunity, not obligation. Which I forget sometimes.

I dunno, I think people forget the same's true of education also. Going to college doesn't mean you're obligated to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer, go to business school or whatever. You go to school for greater opportunity. You're obligated to use your education well, but that doesn't mean status or money. I dunno, I just think sometimes people feel, I went to college, so now I must do this, I must make money, I must become "successful", I can't do something different or I'm wasting my education. And that's missing the boat.

Says me, the prototypical engineer. Sigh.

So I like good food, and many times, I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The quality matters to me. Like sushi. Lots of people are fine with Miyake or Sushi Lovers. I can't stand the stuff. Or steak. Why someone would ever get a steak at Chili's is beyond me. Good steak is worth paying for. To me.

Other things though, other people are passionate about and I could care less. Here are some of them.

My pastor is fond of saying the following: Intimacy leads to conflict, and conflict, well handled, leads to more intimacy.

I've been thinking about that a lot. Is that true? There's just interesting (to me) implications if it is. If there's conflict in a relationship, there may or may not be intimacy, you don't necessarily know whether intimacy was the cause. Like, casual enemies conflict a lot, doesn't mean they're intimate. But if intimacy necessarily leads to conflict, then a lack of conflict necessarily means there's a lack of intimacy.

Which is kinda counterintuitive to me. I naturally tend to think a relationship is "better" if there's less conflict. But the goal of a relationship should be intimacy, not "peace", so the absence of any conflict at all must then be a bad thing, an indication of lack of intimacy.

I dunno, I'm still thinking things through, but I think I'm realizing a lot of things about myself. Like I've realized that I define a lot of things in a negative sense rather than a positive. In other words, in my mind, a relationship is good if there's an absence of certain things, like no conflict, no burden, etc. The less those things are there, the better the relationship is. Which I think is kinda screwed up. It should really be measured in terms of the presence of things, like intimacy, trust, whatever.

So like, I'm super conflict averse, because in my mind, one measure of a relationship is the level of conflict. But I think that's fundamentally flawed thinking. The real measure is the presence of intimacy, of which conflict is both a necessary result and means, so my avoiding conflict at all costs is in certain cases counterproductive, not helpful.

I think that's at least partly why I'm bad at keeping in touch also. To me, no conflict = good, so as long as we're not fighting or whatever, all my relationships are hunky dory great, no need to do more.

Anyway, yeah, interesting realizations going on.

The Merc Sunday had a front-page article on how home prices in the Bay Area continue to rise dramatically. Then yesterday, I get notice from our apartment complex saying that our lease is up soon, and they're offering a new one at a reduced rate. 2nd year in a row rent's gone down.

I took zero economics classes in college so I know nothing, but I don't see how these two things, falling rents with rising home prices, are sustainable. There's got to be a real estate bubble in the Bay Area, right? But what will pop it? No clue.

Travel tip of the day: when flying out of a city with more than one airport, make sure you know which one you're flying out of. Blasted Gatwick Airport. Rage.

For related reasons, we ended up going to church in, of all places, Atlanta on Sunday. Atlanta seems nice, although we saw almost none of it. Spent most of the time in a really Korean area, Doraville? Something like that. Anyway, it feels a lot like Houston, except the city is way way cooler and there's more stuff to do. But in terms of layout and weather and stuff, very Houstony.

So the church we went to is one of those hardcore Reformed churches. Just very proud about being Reformed. They do part of the Westminster catechism (or confession, dunno what it is) during the service, pastor asking the question and congregation responding. The sermon was on infant baptism. I dunno, just hardcore.

Personally, I don't jive with that hardcoreness. Just, the impression I get (I'm not saying they feel this way, it's just how it comes across to me) is that they're more passionate about being Reformed than about God. The sermon was a pure defense of infant baptism. Which is interesting, whatever, just odd for a sermon. Is there any application for me? Any way to make me love God more? I dunno, odd sermon is all.

But at least they're passionate about something. Better that than passionless existing, which is me a lot of the time.

I cannot overstate how difficult it is to shop for shoes when you know you have no taste. The shoes that other people find stylish I find ugly. The shoes I like, other people find ugly. So I know I must get shoes I find ugly. Problem is, half the shoes I find ugly are legitimately ugly, and half are stylish. I have no way of figuring out which is which. It's stressful, to be honest.

It's crazy how much the tastes of gay men matter to me when it comes to this. Matters almost as much as Jieun's. We were shopping and one salesman was clearly gay, and I was actively courting and valuing his opinion on each shoe. Why does it matter to me so much? No clue.

Come to think of it, watching Queer Eye and even America's Next Top Model, it's crazy how much influence gays have on fashion in general. I wonder whether it's a chicken and egg thing. Do gays like it because it's fashionable? Or is it fashionable because gay men like it?

Two interesting theories.

Why watch Celine Dion when you can watch William Hung? I saw him "in concert" last night at halftime of the Warriors / Rockets game. Truly bizarre. On the one hand, everyone is essentially laughing at him. On the other hand, they genuinely like him. It's a strange combination.

He sang two songs, his "hit" She Bangs and Can You Feel The Love Tonight. Forget what I said about him at least singing in tune. Yikes. He had serious rhythm issues also. However, it was insane how much the crowd was into it. When the chorus came up, everyone was yelling "She Bangs!". That's passion. That's energy. From a better man than myself.

As for the game, it sucked. After 3 quarters, score was 81-68 Golden State. When they score 100 points, everyone gets a free chili dog. So my hopes were for Rockets win (first choice, possible but not likely), or at least free chili dogs (given the score, likely). Final score: 97-90, Warriors win. No chili dog. Worst case scenario.

So here's a phenomenon I find odd. Person makes a terrible public impression. Group related to the person rallies around the person, instead of distancing themselves. Someone explain that to me.

What I mean is like, so on The Apprentice, Omarosa made the worst impression ever. Everyone on the show hates her. Probably most viewers hate her also. But from what I've read, the black community has rallied behind her. She got a standing ovation at some event recently. Huh? Why would you want to identify with someone who made such an awful impression? Wouldn't you want to distance yourself?

Same thing happened in Survivor: Australia with Kimmie. She was a totally bizarro vegetarian who came across as annoying, illogical, and obnoxious, especially in regards to her vegetarianness. An awful impression. After the show, PETA promptly makes her a spokeswoman. Huh? How on earth does that further your cause? She made people really dislike vegetarians, and that's the impression you're going for?

I dunno, to me it just shows that a lot of times, people care more about making a stand than convincing other people. They want to preach to the choir, not convince the undecided. And that's stupid. PETA will never bring people into their cause with Kimmie. She just reinforces the already rigid views of PETAites. If anything, she'll turn people away.

I guess my point is, I used to think only Christians were stupid like that. You know, with stuff like the Alabama Ten Commandments thing. Doing things just to make a stand, preaching to the converted, turning off the undecided. But it's not just Christians, it's lots of groups. And that's odd to me.

Pastor made some interesting points on Sunday, kinda relevant to that is it OK to buy a nice car thing I was writing about before. It's obviously true that buying a nice car is in itself OK. Freedom in Christ. What's wrong though, wrong in the sense of anti-Biblical, is what some people say about it, that's it's purely a personal thing. A choice needs to be made, but it's decidedly not personal. The Scriptures tell us that as Christians, we're called to willingly limit our freedom for the sake of other people. So the question isn't am I OK with it, but is it loving to others. I like that.

Another good point: the word "stumble" is misused a lot in some Christian circles. If I understand it right, stumbling someone doesn't mean possibly causing someone to be tempted. It's much stronger, it means leading them towards a path that would cause them to reject Christ. Reading the relevant passages in the NT, I think that's right. So like, Henry buying a $200 car cover he never uses isn't stumbling. It's just a waste.

I'm an uncle.

I refuse to make fun of William Hung. First of all, at least in the She Bangs clip, he wasn't *that* bad. At the very least, he was in tune, which was better than most of the awful contestants, better than a lot of people I know. And he dances better than me.

The thing is, for me, it's lame to laugh at him while I sit on me lazy arse. He's took a chance and actually pursued something he wanted. Me, I think and talk a lot about things I want to but end up just doing nothing, and that's lame. If you want something, you can't be afraid to fail. Actually doing something, even if you fail, takes guts. Doing nothing and laughing at people who fail is gutless. So yeah, I respect William Hung. He's more a man than I.