Love of the game. Cockadoodle doo.

One (Person) I Want To See Right Now

Two Things I Want To Do Right Now

1. Stretch out my jeans. My sister got me these trendier type jeans and they're tighter than what I'm used to. Not the best of times right now for my little friends.

Merry Christmas everyone. I'm writing just to say that it snowed yesterday in Houston. Legitimate snow, enough to form a layer on cars and stick on the ground in places. In Houston! The heck? Just a few days ago it was in the 70s. Crazy. God is a God of miracles. I was pretty freaking excited. I've never in my life seen snow on Christmas Eve. Never expected to in Houston.

Three Things I Do Everyday

Four Of My Favorite Items In The Room

4. The Jerusalem Bible. A particular translation of the Bible. It's the version we used at my Catholic high school and I'm grateful for it because it introduced me to interpretations different from the traditional evangelical ones I had heard growing up - very eye opening. Like you should read how it translates the story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. Anyway, I still identify most closely with evangelical doctrine, but being introduced to different ideas (even different books that aren't in Protestant Bibles) was a growing experience. Perspective is always good.

3. Family photos. My favorite is a large family portrait from high school where I've got rabbi glasses on, my sister has her eyes closed, and my dad is wearing a hideous tie. Why we chose to blow this picture up I have no clue.

2. Comic book collection. I just went through the closet and found it. I can't believe my mom kept this. Anyway, I was into comics for a while when I was a kid, strictly a Marvel man. Started off with the G.I. Joe comics, then moved to X-Men, then a bunch of other ones. I used to draw comic book characters also, but I suck at drawing now. Wonder how much money I can get by selling it. Not much, probably.

1. Clarinet. Is it really a favorite item? No, but whatever. I played clarinet from 6th through 8th grade. I was fairly good, got to CMEA section, but stopped playing when I got to high school - Bellarmine at the time didn't have much of a music program. Random fact - I never used a reed harder than a Van Doren 2 1/2.

Five Things I'm Afraid Of

5. Heights. When I went to the Grand Canyon with Marshall, I couldn't get like 5 feet from the rim without getting frightened. I basically had to crawl on my stomach to even approach it.

4. Large bugs. I'm totally a wuss, I can't like stomp on a cockroach, I kind of have to bat it out the door. Same with like big moths, I kind of wave stuff at it and ease it away rather than just smashing it like a normal virile male.

3. Public speaking. Any time I have to speak in front of more than like 5 people my knees start shaking and my voice starts quivering. It even happens to me in small group. Just not a public person.

2. My mom. Not afraid of my dad. Under the right circumstances, deathly afraid of my mom.

1. Kimchee.

Six Things I Believe In

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

5. The children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. I'm sorry, but this lyric bothers me, because it presents something obvious as being a belief. The children are our future? Duh. Who else is it gonna be? The geriatrics? The children are our future... way to go out on a limb, Whitney. I belive that 2 + 2 = 4. I'm wild and crazy like that.

4. I believe in absolute truth. This is completely independent from religion. I just believe that philosophically and logically, there is such thing as absolute truth, therefore it's sensible to talk of such things as right as wrong, to say that society or the world is getting better or worse, that different ideas can be more and less meritorious.

3. There are intelligent and informed critics of Christianity, and there are unintelligent and uninformed critics of Christianity, and the vast majority of critics belong to the second camp. I strongly believe that philosophically, Christianity provides the only rational explanation to a lot of conundrums. Like, some people have problems with predestination and judgment. It's somewhat valid. The problem is, the same issue exists in secular philosophy. I've been meaning to write about this for a long time, maybe I will someday. But modern science and law tells us that we are firmly not in control, that there is no free will. Doesn't matter if you believe in nature or nurture, either way you believe that your behavior is out of your hands, the inevitable result of either genetics or childhood environmental influence. This is true of a lot of issues: there are conundrums in Christianity, but they are mirrored by parallel conundrums in secular philosophy, and the unintelligent critic fails to recognize this, seeing it as a weakness of Christianity as opposed to a fact of life.

I also get annoyed when critics say stuff like how Christians have always held back progress, they were supposedly Hitler's biggest supporters, yadda yadda yadda. Totally ignorant. Forget the fact that evangelicals in Germany were the Nazis' greatest opponents (like, to the extreme, Bonhoeffer and the confessing church). Or that the abolishion of slavery was led by evangelicals. Also civil rights in the 60s. Evangelicals today are perhaps the most significant force moving to act for AIDS relief in Africa. Unintelligent. Uninformed. Wait, which list am I doing again?

2. Assuming a certain baseline level of ability, ambition and drive are more important in achieving worldly success than intelligence. I have little drive and almost no ambition, so I will therefore not achieve worldly success.

1. "This too shall pass". The great universal truth that applies to just everything in life, and to not recognize this is to be in denial. Whether it's something I'm going through, the Republican majority in the Federal government, the Bay Area housing bubble, the postmodern world's fascination with relativism, the very existence of the United States, whatever, it will eventually be gone. So it's best to keep a loose grip on things. Not wise to put your faith in trust in something that will not last forever.

Seven Ways To Annoy Me Meow.

7. Leave the TV on while not watching it. Drives me crazy. Partly because I'm sensitive to noise. Also because I associate the TV with being lazy. Just having it on for no purpose makes me feel ill. I feel quite strongly about this. Argh!

6. Talk during a movie. What especially bothers me is the type of talking that speculates on what's going to happen. "He's going to die!!!" "They're going to shoot her!!!" "He's a dead person!!!" Drives me absolutefully bonkers. Argh!

5. Sing worship songs wrong. I understand when you just don't know any better. But some people seem to go out of their way to sing and play things wrong, it's actually more difficult to play it that wrong way than the right way. Argh!

4. Rebates. I hate this system, it's a bunch of work and frequently a scam, but like every piece of consumer hardware/software you buy nowadays has a rebate involved. Argh!

3. People who dismiss other ideas as stupid without understanding them. Like in CS, when we learn about an algorithm and people question whether it's right. Rage. You're not showing you're smart, you're showing you're stupid. Or in philosophy/theology, when ideas are just dismissed as dumb without taking the time to understand it. Often reveals the uneducatedness of the person rather than the weakness of the idea. Old school baseball people who dismiss Billyball also annoys me. Argh!

2. Illogical games / game shows. I hate Cranium because #1 the questions are way to easy and #2 the board setup is ridiculous. Makes me angry. Illogical game shows that make me angry are like Street Smarts, in which contestants need to guess which random people will answer questions correctly. They don't know these people. Know nothing about them. There's absolutely zero logic involved. They might as well call the show "Game Show Winner Chosen At Random". This is entertaining? Argh!

1. Areacentrism. So yes, different areas of the country are better for certain things. LA has great Korean food. Texas great BBQ and meat. Chicago pizza. Indiana pierogis. Etc. But like, when people think one place is the be all and end all for everything under the sun, I dunno, annoying. I still can't get over the comment Dave heard at KCPC, some socal person saying the weeds there are nothing like the weeds in LA. Get some freaking perspective. Argh!

Eight Things I Want To Do Before I Die

8. Produce a CD. Not like on a label or anything, just make my own CD. Actually, my real ambition is to play all the instruments on it myself. Someday.

7. These are things I want to do, not plan to do, right? I want to write a book. It can be anything. A technical O'Reilly book. Something else. But that would be kind of cool.

6. Play in a band. A church worship team is kind of a band, but yeah, I mean something different, a band with gigs and stuff like that. Joe has said I should just do it and he's right, I dunno what's stopping me.

5. Eat at a Michelin 3 star restaurant. Just once in my life. I'll have to save and brush up on my etiquette but it would be cool. Not gonna happen until my future kids are moved out though, I think.

4. Visit Machu Picchu and Prague. People who have been to a bunch of places around the world all seem to say those 2 are among the very coolest.

3. See someone I've helped bring to Christ get baptized. Sadly, I don't think I've seen this yet.

2. Skydive.

1. Have one of my kids grow up to be a missionary. Some people think this is kind of lame. Why want your kids to be missionaries, why not just be one yourself? Excellent point, one I've thought about a lot. I just can't escape the fact that I don't feel called. Maybe I'm being prepared, I dunno, we'll see. But yeah, if it were solely up to me, I would raise my kids with the single minded purpose of becoming missionaries. Who happen to be members of a rock band.

Nine Ways To Win My Heart

9. I find holiness attractive, and that's always been disturbing to me. I like to keep worship and romance as separate as possible. You know how some couples are very touchy feely in worship, like hugging or whatever. I virtually eliminate body contact. I just don't like mixing up romantic feelings with God worship. Despite that, I can't get around the fact that I find a heart for God a romantically attractive quality. Drives me nutters, but that's how it is.

8. Physical attractiveness. All guys care about looks, maybe it "shouldn't" be that way but unfortunately it is. Thing is, what guys are into is totally variable so it's not a problem. Even for the same guy. Like, when I first met Jieun I didn't think she was all that. Now I think she's hotter than Hades. In Latin, she would be called vulpes. How did that change happen? No clue.

7. Quirkiness. I find normalcy boring to tears. Quirkiness adds spice to life, makes life colorful and fun. It's very important to me.

6. Musical. In a lot of ways, I think of life as music, so if I were with someone who weren't musical, in a sense we wouldn't be able to relate about life.

5. Good at languages. This is a retrospect thing, nothing I valued at all beforehand. But yeah, whenever I hear Jieun speaking Korean / Japanese / Spanish / Chinese I get a little tingle. It's awesome.

4. Feminine. This means a few things. One, not a tomboy, but into girly things that I can't get into for the life of me. Not overdoing it, but you know, being a girl. I like that. The other thing this means to me is, I dunno, just different from me. Some guys want girls who are just like them. I dunno. I value differences. It's the differences that I find attractive. I can't imagine anything more unattractive than a woman who had the personality of me. Yerks. Male / female differences: good. Attractive.

3. Not materialistic. Just a personal thing I find attractive.

2. Not evil. I don't even know how to go about explaining this. But guys know what I mean. And yeah, since I myself am evil, I need this for balance.

1. Good at cooking, cleaning, washing the dishes, and with good childbearing hips. Just kidding!

10 Random Things About Me

10. This is well known, but in 7th and 8th grade I was in a junior high school jazz band that won the national jazz festival both years. I played piano. I have not played jazz piano since, so don't ask me to play jazz. I honestly can't.

9. I have dated 4 girls in my life. 2 in junior high, 2 in college. Anyone who knows what I looked like in junior high and in college finds this absolutely unbelievable. Quite frankly, I don't blame them. I'm 100% serious, many of my close friends and my family are relieved that I got married at all, much less married to someone of Jieun's caliber. Anyway, the ethnicities of my girlfriends were, in order, Filipino, Caucasian, Chinese, and Korean. I'm all about equal opportunity.

8. My Korean is horrible. That's neither surprising nor random. The weird thing is, up until the age of about 3 or 4, I only spoke Korean, despite being born in the U.S. Apparently when my parents put me in preschool, I didn't talk to any of the other kids, didn't interact with any of them, even during group time (I'd sit by myself in the corner) because I didn't understand them. This was part of the reason my parents decided to speak to us in English. According to my mom, my first English words were, with the teacher while waiting for my mom to pick me up, "I'm hungry".

7. I take a dump on average 3 times a day. These aren't express dumps either, but nice leisurely ones, mostly because I like to read on the toilet. It just feels... safe. In the morning the sports section, afternoon Newsweek (at work), in the evening miscellaneous.

6. As Vanderpool might say, I'm a cheapa**. My love for McDonald's $1 menu is well documented. I clip newspaper coupons every week. But it's getting a little out of control. I started saving empty plastic bottles instead of putting them in our apartment recycling bins so I can redeem them and get cash at recycling centers myself. But I'm finding the effort/reward ratio of that is way out of whack so no more of that.

5. I pick at my fingernails. I don't bite at them, but pick at them, so they're in awful shape and really short. This has had 2 dire ramifications. One, the wedding pics that have closeups of our hands are an unmitigated disaster. Jieun will rue those pictures until the day she dies. Two, my nails are so short that I can't do big bends on electric guitar. You know what a bend is. When you bend the string so it slides up a note. Think the very first note on the intro to Wonderful Tonight by Eric Clapton. I can't do that because my nails are too dang small. I dunno how to explain this but yeah, it sucks.

4. My closest friends in elementary school were an Indian Hindu and a Japanese Buddhist. We called ourselves the 3 Burritos. I was in Cub Scouts but the Den Mother moved away and the replacement was terrible so my Indian friend and I ended up joining the Japanese friend's troop which met at the Buddhist temple in downtown San Jose. So for a couple years I was in a Buddhist Boy Scout troop. Very interesting experience.

3. At one point in my childhood I used to think that Japanese girls were the most attractive ethnicity. I think in retrospect I was heavily influenced by Tamlyn Tomita in The Karate Kid, Part II. And for that I am not ashamed.

2. I developed lactose intolerance when I was around 15 or so. All of a sudden, I started getting diarrhea and severe intestinal gas every single freaking painful day. This is not right, I thought. Egad. Went to the doctor, suggested I might be intolerant, since it develops later for some, and my dad is intolerant. So I stopped drinking milk. Daily diarrhea disappeared. I was glad. As were the people around me.

1. I have a subscription to Men's Fitness, but I hide it from guests because it's embarrassing having magazines with buff topless men and headlines screaming "Awesome Abs in 30 Days" on the cover sitting around. What happened was, I tried to subscribe to Entertainment Weekly through Best Deal Magazines but EW pulled out of the promotion, so they offered me a refund plus a subscription to one of a small list of magazines. Of that list, Men's Fitness was the best choice. But yeah, kinda embarrassing.

Apparently people cheered outside the courthouse when the jury's recommendation of the death penalty for Scott Peterson was announced. That's disturbing to me. I can understand a desire for justice, in which the news would give some sort of grim satisfaction. But cheering? That just seems bloodthirsty, morbid, and twisted to me. Of course, I'm against the death penalty. But literally cheering for a man's death just feels wrong to me.

Since no one cares, some reviews of stuff I've been watching over the past few weeks. I don't watch that many movies nowadays.

Ocean's 12 was shockingly boring. Wow. 1.5 stars.

Bourne Supremacy - I liked it a lot. Nothing deep about it, just a very entertaining movie, well executed, well acted. 3.5 stars.

The Incredibles - great movie, 3.5 stars. I told someone my ranking for this movie and they're like, why only 3.5 stars? I dunno, I'm not into the all or nothing mentality, 4 stars or none. I really liked TI. But that doesn't make it a 4 star movie. I dunno, for me, to reach a 4 star level, it has to be perfectly entertaining. Like Singin' In The Rain. There was nothing wrong with TI, it just wasn't perfectly entertaining. To reach 5 star status, it needs to have some life changing profundity, like Shawshank or Dragon: The Bruce Lee story, in addition to being a great movie. I didn't find anything profound about TI. Maybe something about how making everyone special actually rewards mediocrity. But I dunno, that has limited applicability to my life.

SN. We watched this with Jieun's family and her dad didn't understand a word of the movie. I understand the feeling. We also watched this Korean comedy involving some loser and his guardian angel. Did not understand a thing. Apparently there were homoerotic undertones. If it's in Korean, there's no way I'm picking up on undertones. Or overtones. Or anything beyond a 2 year old's vocabulary and the phrase "in Jesus' name."

SSN. Some adult was surprised at how I knew a Korean prayer was ending. I dunno. Anyone who was raised in a Korean church, no matter how bad their Korean is, picks up this skill. After years of training, we all develop a Pavlovian response so when we hear (in Korean) "in Jesus' name" we immmediately wake up and say Amen. Or at least I do.

The Pianist - 3 stars. Good movie, but slightly frustrating. Jieun kept asking, what's the point of this movie? And I'm not sure. It's just a story of something that happened, nothing more. I think I read somewhere that Polanski himself survived the Holocaust in part due to chance and luck so he was resistant to making a movie like many others where the protagonists survive due to their noble characters or determination. That he wanted to show that chance and luck play a large part in survival. I dunno, that's kind of interesting.

Anyway, I spent most of the movie pissed off at the capacity of man to do evil. You know what bothers me though. When people just write off Hitler, Nazis as pure evil. I mean, they are evil. But there was this TV movie recently that kind of dared to explore Hitler's humanity and there was this huge outcry about it, how dare you consider Hitler human, he was evil. But the fact is he was human, and the greatest mistake we can make is to write him off as an inhuman, single anomaly. Better to think about how we can avoid another Hitler than assume that no one as evil will ever come about again. Man's capacity for evil is nearly unlimited.

OK, that's not depressing.

Favorite sports related song: Welcome To The Jungle by Guns 'N Roses. Sports related meaning songs they play at sporting events. This song just pumps you up. The interesting thing about this song is that, most of the time in the electric guitar effects chain, they put delay after the distortion. In this song, they put delay before the distortion, which is different, although you have no idea what I'm talking about and frankly don't care.

My runner up song would be Unbelievable by EMF. Fantastic song by a group I know absolutely nothing about. How they can exude so much energy with the singer whisper-singing the whole song is a mystery to me.

We Will Rock You is just too overdone. Yeah! is big nowadays but I can't get into it. I don't feel pumped up hearing that song. I feel like I'm a robot.

People have said that I should have wanted Cal in a BCS bowl, because that means a huge payout divided equally among all the members of the Pac-10, of which Stanford is a part. Eminently logical. And ridiculous. Logic is inherently at odds with sports fanaticism. That's the great thing about sports. Even when your team sucks, you can still hate another team. So like, when the Yankees lost, sports fans around the world, just a fraction of whom were actually Red Sox fans, could rejoice, bonded in the common brotherhood of hate.

Seriously though, was it not crazy how happy everyone everywhere was when the Yankees lost? It was like the last scene in Return of the Jedi. The ghosts of Yoda, Obi-Wan and Anakin could have appeared on the infield, serenely looking over the festivities and it would not have been out of place.

Favorite Goo Goo Dolls song: Iris. Exactly zero people care. Good song though. Thing about Goo Goo Dolls is, I can only really like their music, because I can't understand a word they're singing. There are maybe 3 lines out of all their songs where I'm certain what they're saying. "Why don't you slide." "I don't want the world to see me." "I won't tell no one your name." The rest is a garbled mess. Can anyone decipher the vocals to the chorus of Black Balloon without consulting lyrics? Impossible.

If you're keeping count (you're not), that's the second song from the City Of Angels soundtrack that has an artist fave of mine, the other being Uninvited. That soundtrack also has Angel, probably my favorite Sarah McLachlan song. Two things I love about that song. One, how the recording can pack so much mood and emotion into just (essentially) piano and voice. The piano in Angel is a study in taste. Doesn't overplay, each sparse note and chord is emotive and perfect, it feels like piano drenched in mood syrup. It's also a fascinating study on the interplay of piano and voice in driving rhythm without stepping on each others toes. The other thing I love about the song is the way she kind of hiccups the notes on "fly away". That's just awesome. Must be a chest voice / head voice thing or something, there's no way a male could do that. Great song.

Interestingly, both Iris and Angel are in 6/8. By interesting, I mean: boring.

Believe it or not, there are people out there that don't believe that human activity contributes to global warming. That the earth has been warming for decades is irrefutable. The question is whether human activity is a significant contributing factor, and some people, particularly certain conservatives, argue against this.

More favorite songs.

My favorite Alanis Morissette song: Uninvited. Am I an Alanis fan? Not really. But I can still have a favorite song by her. Anyway, I totally love this song, the droning piano part, the way the chords fit around it, the way it builds from sparseness to layers upon layers of sound, the exotic guitars, the way the lyrics and melody fit together in kind of weirdo ways, putting the accent on weird syllables all throughout the song. Only thing I don't like is the slightly disturbing lyrics. But besides that, it's an incredible song.

My favorite Madonna song: Beautiful Stranger. Kind of random. But I love the retro vibe to it, almost Beatles-esque. I especially love the retro sound of the drums, very cool. The song structure is also very interesting. First section, lines 2 and 4 rhyme. Second, 1 and 2 rhyme, 4th line rhymes with lines 2 and 4 from the first section. Third section, 1 and 3 rhyme and 2 and 4 rhyme. The song is divided into standard 4 line sections, but the rhyme/melody schemes of the lines keep getting switched up, and that's a really interesting effect.

They rebroadcast the Ashlee Simpson fiasco SNL over the weekend. Busted. I understand the brouhaha, but people realize that bands augment their performances all the time, right? Even U2. Like you'll hear that arpeggiated keyboard part that starts out With Or Without You in concert, but there's no keyboard in sight. They augment Elevation also, like the Edge doesn't always play that guitar riff on the second part of the verse. I once sought out live performances of Puddle Of Mudd doing Blurry so I could learn the cool harmonic thing that starts off the song, but they don't play it live - you hear it, but they're not playing it. Everyone augments their performances. I read an article that said Val Halen used to finger-sync their keyboard solos. That's weird.

Blurry is another song I love. The harmonic part is very cool. The chord progression is also kind of interesting. The guitars just play C D E power chords over and over, so the melody kind of differentiates the chords, and they switch around the last chord from E minor to E major throughout the song. That's cool.

Is it wrong that I'm happy that Cal's not in the Rose Bowl? Oh well, I'm happy. I'm not into the 2nd place Pac-10 team playing in the Rose anyway. You should have to earn your way in. But whatever, Stanford sucks so who really cares anyway.

For no particular reason, my 5 favorite U2 songs. In honor of Dave, the number of songs on my top 5 list is not equal to 5. The cool thing would be to list obscure songs, to say like I love Salome from their Zoo TV Tour promo CD. But all the ones I like are all fairly well known. C'est la vie.

1. Pride (In The Name Of Love) - My fave, the quintessential U2 song. Simple but interesting chords (the same 4 chords pretty much the entire song. Two of those are E and A, open strings on the bass, and often in concert Adam Clayton takes his left hand completely off the bass while picking his lines as if to emphasize how easy the song is. That kills me.), quintessential the Edge (his name is the Edge, not Edge, so I'm sticking with it no matter how grammatically awful it sounds) guitar delay, anthemic vocals, pseudo religious, somewhat bombastic, and ultimately indecipherable lyrics.

   I mean, seriously, what is this song about? Jesus? MLK Jr.? What do they have to do with pride? And what the heck does pride have to do with the name of love? Absolutely no clue. But dang, I love this song. Passion and energy. If I recall correctly, the tempos are totally different on the Unforgettable Fire and Rattle and Hum versions. I think I prefer the Unforgettable Fire version.

2. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For - More anthemic psuedo religious vocals. I love this song because it communicates such longing. I also like it because it uses less is more guitar wise, just sparse delayed guitars. Good stuffs.

3. Elevation - I'm not exactly sure why I like this song so much, it just has this energy. Seriously, I'm shocked it wasn't more popular than it was. It didn't even make their 2nd best of album. But I dunno, I love it. Like I mentioned, you have to see their performace of this song on SNL with Val Kilmer. Incredible energy. People were about to jump out of the balcony.

4. Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me - I just find this song really interesting and captivating. It's off the Batman Forever soundtrack. (Also has Kiss From A Rose by Seal, another great song.) I love the vibe of this song, kind of exotic and swirling. Another song I don't think gets enough respect.

5. One - Something about this song feels healing to me. I've heard the story of how this song came about and it's pretty interesting. Something about Bono wanted them to record this album in Berlin to catpure the vibe of the times in that city, and things were going very very badly, then one session they come up with this song and it kind of brings them together. That comes through in the song, I think.

6. All I Want Is You - Adrian I think doesn't understand why I like this song. But it's a great melody, and most importantly, it's an understated U2 song, which is a nice contrast to their normal anthemic style. Something about that resonates with me. So many of their songs are so overwhelming and bombastic, this is a nice song that's almost conversational. It doesn't fit on the Reality Bites soundtrack though. A great soundtrack.

7. Where The Streets Have No Name - An amazing song, it's like the perfect introductory song to basically anything in life. Start with silence, then sweeping keyboard, then a moody delayed electric playing in 6/8, then doing a brilliant transition to energetic 4/4. Is it possible to hear this song and by the end not be totally up? That's impressive. In concert it's also a fascinating study on the musical power of U2. Larry Mullen Jr. and Adam Clayton pretty much define "driving", and that's evident in this song, so the Edge in the chorus just needs to add sparse stuff for flavor. It's not easy for bass and drums to carry a song by itself without feeling totally empty, so the interplay with them and the Edge's playing is educational.

It sucks being a female, especially a Korean one, what with all the expectations and such. I can't pretend to relate, just empathize. But yeah, not easy. When I'm at Jieun's pretty much nothing is expected of me, because whatever, I'm a guy. When Jieun comes to Houston, even if we've been up till the wee hours playing Dr. Mario or whatever, she has to make her appearance early in the morning. But she's a trooper, with that and all the other expectations. Expectations suck. Plus that whole pregnancy thing. I feel for you women. But at least you'll never have to experience slamming your genitals into a steering wheel at high speed.

I'm against being true to yourself. In a sense. I think there's a difference between attitude, the inner heart, and action, the outer presentation. And I think being true to yourself applies to the first, but I'm not sure Biblically how much it applies to the second.

A couple friends had a fascinating discussion about serving the homeless. The question was whether it made sense to help everyone, even those who were directly responsible for their own state, like drug users. Each side had really interesting things to say.

Anyway, my take is, there needs to be a distinction between attitude and action. My opinion is, we need to be compassionate to everyone in our hearts. Since it's only by grace we are where we are. But I don't think that translates to blindly helping everyone. For one thing, that might not be what's best for them long term. Sometimes, love must be tough. For another, while we probably shouldn't ignore anyone, I think Scripture is clear in emphasizing helping those who are helpless for reasons beyond their control, summed up in the phrase "the fatherless and the widow". Do a search and that phrase comes up tons of times in the Bible. It's crazy.

Anyway, I'd draw a distinction with being true to yourself in heart and in deed also. Sure, be true to yourself in heart. Knock yourself out. Although that doesn't mean being true to just how you are, but your identity in Christ. But in action, I think being true to yourself is anti-Biblical. Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 9:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Paul keeps saying he acts like someone he's definitely not for the sake of the gospel. Being someone you're not in action for the sake of a greater cause isn't a bad thing. It's a good, noble thing. Looking at the rest of Scripture, I'm fairly certain you won't find anywhere it telling you to stand up for your rights, to fight for who you are. And I'm positive it says repeatedly and consistently to lay down your rights, even those that are justified, for the sake of others.

So that's my take. We should learn to be true to ourselves, comfortable with who we are, in our own self-identity, our identity in Christ. Without that, we're lost. But in terms of how we deal with others, I'd say Scripture is clear that we should lay down who we are for the sake of others.

One of my favorite passages of Scripture is from 1 Kings 19:11-13.

The Lord said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by."

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.

It's a fascinating passage to me. For one thing, it speaks against the attitude of bigger is better, which is a big temptation in worship sometimes I think. And it's just interesting how God doesn't always speak to us through powerful events, that sometimes He chooses to speak to us through a whisper. We wait to hear God through big things when He may already be speaking to us through smaller things, maybe. I dunno. But this passage has long been one I've thought a lot about.

Ebert repudiated his earlier thing about Canada being more violent than the U.S, it was based on flawed statistics. So Sinclair is the exception, not the rule. Just kidding. He's not violent, but he is tough. Yesterday I saw him repeatedly kick a pit bull. I am not making this up.

Hazel and Phinnaeus?? Cuckoo.

Jieun said something to me recently that made me happy. The gist of it was, she realizes that I'm a simple person. And I am! Hearing her say that makes me happy because it feels like she truly knows me. I have no idea why people attribute complexity to me where there is none. I think maybe people assume intelligence requires complexity, that complexity is a necessary sign of that. But it's not. Complexity is just a sign of complexity, nothing more.

I read about this effect in film that directors often use. If you make an actor display a neutral expression, and then pull the camera in tight to the face and hold it, audiences attribute complex thoughts, motives, and feelings to the face even though there's none. This effect was used most extremely in Cast Away, where lots of people felt as if Wilson displayed emotion and feeling when it's nothing more than Zemeckis filming a close-up of a volleyball. It's an interesting effect. Anyway, rest assured - that blank stare on my face is not a sign of something deep or ponderous behind it. It's just a blank stare. If I'm thinking or feeling something, you'll most likely know it. I'm simple like that.

I got a spam recently with the title "What would happen if you died tomorrow?" I was somewhat excited about getting a Christian spam. But no, it was about life insurance.

It being Thanksgiving, it's good to reflect on what I'm thankful for. So in our small group we've been sharing our testimonies, and I've been reminded how good it is to be a Christian. In a sense, I kind of admire non-Christians, because I have no idea how they can live without any sort of unartificial sense of purpose or meaning. I would not be able to do it.

It's also amazing to me how God uses imperfect people and situations to do His work. I dunno, I feel like things have been happening recently, and it's just humbling how it happens, how God chooses to work through frail vessels such as ourselves. I dunno, this probably makes no sense to anyone, but I'm thankful.

This is petty, but it makes me sad that Cal football is doing well. I miss the days when they we beat up on them year after year. I miss the days of Tom Holmoe (also Todd Bozeman with basketball) when Cal both sucked and committed NCAA violations. Good times. Great times.

After a promising first half, Reds imploded. 49ers are perhaps the worst team in the league. Stanford and Ohio State football suck. Rockets are below .500. Not a good sports year for me.

It's the beginning of Dungenness crab season in the Bay Area, when the crabs are best. Anyone know how to steam a live crab? Anyone wanna try?

I think I've written about this before, but an older folk at KCPC once complained to me about about how Stanford peeps are overanalytical in the sense that they won't do anything unless they fully understand why it's being done. Always asking stuff like what's the point, what's the purpose. If those things aren't answered, they won't get on board.

I dunno how accurate a characterization that is, but I think it's somewhat true of me. Anyway, I'm not totally sure what the point of having kids is, don't take it for granted that everyone in general (or us specifically) should have kids. What's the poing of having kids? If it's just for our own happiness or desire to leave a legacy, I dunno, that's ultimately pointless I think. I'm not sure the Genesis command to be fruitful and multiply still applies, since Paul counsels us not to get married, a clear contradiction of the earlier command.

The only real compelling reason I can think of for having kids is something I heard in Perspectives, that raising Christian children is a way to grow the Kingdom of God. That I buy. And if that's true, it affects I think what I want to do with my kids.

For one thing, I dunno if I want to send my kids to a "good" college, whatever that means. I'm not sure I want them to go to anything but a Christian college period. Reason being, I'm not sure what message is sent to children when their parents push them inordinately towards academic success. I mean, what's the point? And what's the outcome of that pushing? Even with myself, I felt pressure growing up to do the church thing, but not to let it interfere with my real focus, school, "success"; that whole thing.

And I dunno, when parents send that message to kids all their lives, it gets through. It depresses me when I see people our age living nominally Christian lives, but in reality living for and having as their first priority the success their parents pushed for them since birth, and fitting church in where there's space. That's just depressing. And going to a competitive school just reemphasizes that I think, the push to achieve worldly success. I remember a couple friends saying how when they went through the Stanford reunion book, which outlines what everyone from our class is doing now, they felt like losers. Why would they? I dunno, something about the environment makes you equate worth with "success".

Anyway, there's no way I'm sending that message to my kids. I mean, do well in school, whatever, have a decent job, those are all fine things. But ultimately there are way more important things - namely, the kingdom of God - and I want to make that clear not just in my words but in my priorities for them. And I don't want them to get caught up in the success prioritization that happens at some colleges. I can achieve all these things if I insist that they go to a Christian college.

The thing is, Jieun is 100% against me on this, and since I trust Jieun with our kids way more than I trust myself, they'll probably end up going to secular colleges. We'll see.

re: moving to Canada. Did you know Canada's crime rate is nearly double that of the U.S.? I could scarcely believe it, but someone wrote to Ebert with these stats from official publications: For the year 2003, per 100,000 population, Canada had 8,530 crimes, and the U.S. 4,267. For crimes of violence, 958 vs. 523. For property crimes, 4,275 vs. 3,744. I find that shocking.

Long boring entry, but tangentially related to kids, which everyone always asks about, so maybe you'll stick around. Doubtful.

No, not about to have any, but definitely thinking about it and when the right time is, because there's no real reason not to and what with my niece and Karen and whatnot, it's on our minds. You know, literally every married couple we know told us to travel before we had kids. "You'll never get the chance again" they said. Do it now while you still can.

I took that to heart. Maybe too much I think. Like, I basically wanted to travel every single chance we got, working around Jieun's school vacations. So we went to Europe and Korea this summer. Also ended up going to Seattle, Chicago and Telluride this year. I had wanted to go somewhere for Thanksgiving also, maybe Hawaii. Just wanted to take every opportunity we possibly could to go somewhere.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it had become an idol in my life, something I was irrationally overvaluing. So much so that if I found out Jieun were pregnant, I think I would have been disappointed at how it would disrupt our travel hopes. And there's something deeply wrong with that. At the very least, runs counter to the Biblcal notion that kids are a blessing.

My favorite band is Out of the Grey. I think some people find that odd and random, and it sort of is. But there's something about music that can completely capture the feelings of a time and place, so that whenever you you hear it you feel the person you were, a time that was. Out of the Grey is that for me. Not for a specific time in my life. I dunno what it is, but something about how their music is and when I started listening to them is such that now, listening to them evokes this overwhelming sense of mood. In a good way.

Anyway, they also have a great ability to pen a thought and they wrote this one song I love, So We Never Got To Paris. (It really is a fantastic song, both musically and lyrically. Unfortunately, pretty much the rest of that album is relatively sucky.) Anyway, the lyrics:

So We Never Got To Paris

Young lovers, without much
Save each other, isn't that enough
Paint the future, a little day by day
Making plans with no regard for what might come our way

This cup fills up so quickly
There's so much on our plate
Between the living and the learning
Some things must wait

So we never got to Paris
And found the café of our dreams
But our table holds a whole world of memories
No, we never went to Venice
And strolled the streets alone
But we built our worlds together and we got the best of both

There's still wonder in our eyes
But we see each other in a different light
Yet the future isn't always clear
Now the question is where do we go from here

This cup fills up so quickly
There's too much on our plate
Between the living and the dying
Some things must wait

So we never got to Paris
And found the café of our dreams
But our table holds a whole world of memories
No, we never went to Venice
And strolled the streets alone
But we built our worlds together and we got the best of both

This cup fills up so quickly
There's too much on our plate
Between the living and the dying
Some things must wait

So we never got to Paris
And found the café of our dreams
But our table holds a whole wide world of memories
No, we never went to Venice
And strolled the streets alone
But we built our worlds together and we got the best

We may never get to Paris
And find the café of our dreams
But our table still will hold a world of memories
If we never get to Venice
And roam the streets alone
We'll hold our worlds together and we'll keep the best of both

There's so many lines I love in this song. "Between the living and the dying / Some things must wait". They don't travel the world, but their "table holds a whole wide world of memories". "We built our worlds together and we got the best of both" (worlds). Great lines.

Anyway, the message is pretty clear. They had always dreamed of going to Paris, but it never happened because life got in the way. But that's OK. They didn't get memories of Paris, but they got memories of life together, and that was more than enough. A poetic love song.

And that speaks to me now. You know, if Jieun and I never get to travel again, I think that's OK. Don't get me wrong. Traveling's a great thing. Everyone that can do it should take advantage of the opportunity. I would love to travel more. But yeah, there are more important things in life. I guess what I'm saying is, travel is no longer a reason for us not to have kids anymore. Not being able to travel anymore is really not that big a deal.

Not that we're about to have kids.

SN. They actually did end up going to Paris. A family field-trip, as they homeschool their kids. Which is another fascinating (not) topic for another time.

Britney Spears has a greatest hits album. That in itself is absurd already. Even more absurd: the name of the album is My Prerogative. That's right, the title track of her greatest hits album is not even her own hit, it's Bobby Brown's. What the heck? Even more absurd: I'm thinking of buying it. The DVD/CD combo.

My Prerogative brings back memories though. I think that was the theme of our 8th grade graduation dance, the only dance I've gone to in my entire life. That or Every Little Step. My date, R@qu3l B3tt3nc0urt, was a full foot taller than me. Awkward.

Pastor Mike gave a great sermon on Sunday about money. The gist being, what we do with money reflects how we view God. If we see God as demanding and taking, we tend to be greedy, wanting to keep as much as we can for ourselves. If we see God as giving, we tend to be generous and giving. We shouldn't just do the right things with our money, we should worship God in the right way. It was interesting. And challenging.

My goal with money has long been, be stingy with myself, be generous with others. But that's really hard. When I'm super stingy and cheap with myself, it's really difficult to not be similarly stingy and ungiving to others. When I'm super generous to others, it's hard not to be similarly self-indulgent. I don't know how possible the goal is, but it's still my goal.

In related news, we just got this new American Express / Costco cobranded credit card and I'm fairly excited about it. You get 3% off all restaurants. Even take-out. 3%! 2% off all travel related expenses. 1% off everything else. No annual fee. Incredible.

You have not lived until you've heard Ernie Johnson and Kenny Smith's commentary on the Slam Dunk Contest in NBA Live 2005. Absofreaking hilarious. I was playing with Minho and I could barely breathe, I was laughing so hard. Good times.

You know, the Baylight husbands are a really good group of guys. I've noticed that the vast majority of them, when they talk to their wives on the phone, switch to Soft Mode, which is pretty much what it sounds, with overwhelming tenderness and care. It's really rather moving.

I of course never do this. It's not that I don't love Jieun. Far from it. It's just that my masculinity is so overwhelming that for me, Soft Mode is a theoretical impossibility.

Dave, the reason people were bringing up the most votes in history thing is because it is somewhat notable - the current record holder was Reagan, and that was 2 decades ago. That's a really long time. So yeah, it's not a huge deal, but I wouldn't say they're idiots either. Of course, those people probably aren't mentioning the person in second place all time in terms of number of votes in an election: John F. Kerry.

One thing Friedman said that I absolutely agree with is that it takes time to accurately judge the effects of an action. He was speaking specifically about Iraq. It's currently a disaster and things need to change, no question. But as to whether it was a mistake to go in the first place, he's not willing to say yet. That's something you can only judge after 5, 10, 20 or more years, definitely not 2. Making premature judgments is foolish. (Unless you think the war was really about WMDs (which is reasonable since that's what Bush and Blair said it was about), but it really wasn't.)

Anyway, I 100% agree with that. You need patience to take the long view to accurately judge things, and we're way too quick to make presumptive assessments. Like with the last election, the media so eager to crown a winner. Happens in sports all the time. Like with football now, tons of people are saying the Chargers were stupid to draft Phil Rivers (currently warming the bench) instead of Roethlisberger (currently undefeated as a starter). Rivers may end up being a bust. Roethlisberger may end up being the next Dan Marino. But there's no way you can tell after half of a single season. Need time to tell. But everyone loves making quick snap judgments.

I suppose it's a natural human tendency. Like in the Bible they do it all the time. In Exodus they start griping almost as soon as they leave. But yeah, I think premature judgments are something we need to actively combat. Not easy though.

Let me say up front that I didn't vote for Bush. That said, here are things that piss me off about some (not all) Democrats.

One, they're incredibly arrogant and condescending, it's sickening. They assume that everyone believes what they do, so it's just a matter of getting out the vote. Anything that indicates majority support contrary to their positions is chicanery by their opponents. Like Michael Moore sent out thousands of people with cameras to Florida and Ohio to make sure there's no voter intimidation or whatever. The implicit assumption being, if the people have their say, it will clearly go the Democrats' way. Any other result must be tampering. As it turns out, both states voted for Bush. Whoops. There was a greater voter turnout this election... and most of them voted for Bush. Whoops.

I was listening to KGO this morning and it was ridiculous. Some still wouldn't concede even after Kerry had, but whatever, that's just hope which I can understand. But in the face of a loss and no evidence of any trickery by their opponents, they go out and belittle everyone that voted for Bush, essentially calling them idiots, saying middle America is just a bunch of stupid backwards yokels. People that disagree with them can't possibly have have thoughtful reasons for doing so. They must be idiots. Incredibly arrogant, elitist, and belittling. And this attitude from a party that represents itself as a party for the people. Way to be for the people. By arrogantly belittling the majority of the people in this country. Nice attitude.

Democrats honestly believe that anyone that votes Republican is either stupid or evil. Right now stupid is the prevailing attitude, and the snobbery pisses me off. In Hollywood it's evil. Has there been an even semi-favorable portrayal of Republican on TV/movies in the last 20 years? In The American President, Richard Dreyfuss is evil. In The Contender, Gary Oldman is at best naive, at worst evil. West Wing takes cheap potshots all the time. Every Republican on TV and Film is not just misguided, but evil.

With that kind of attitude it's no wonder Democrats do poorly. If the only you cannot see your opponents as anything but stupid or evil, you are unable to engage in meaningful debate, because the argument will ultimately always come down to, we're right, they are stupid or evil. That's not a thoughtful conversation, it's dismissal. And you can't convince the undecided with dismissal.

Anyway, yeah, the arrogance just pisses me off. If I hear another comment about stupid middle America is or how evil Republicans are I'll go crazy. If you're gonna be a party for the people, how about having some respect for people? Geez.

Every time I talk to my or Jieun's parents, I end up feeling like a failure. With my mom I'm not making enough money. With my dad I'm not influencing enough people. With Jieun's mom I'm not a pastor yet. Never do I get the feeling that they're proud of what I'm doing, of who I am. Maybe they're right. I find myself a lot of the time wishing to God I was more ambitious than I am, that I was driven to be a surgeon, CEO, or something like that, to fulfill the vague notions of potential other people seem to have for me. But any time I pursue a path that requires that kind of ambition and drive it grates at my inner being with such violent force that I can't help but feel that it's contrary to my fundamental nature, that God simply made me without that kind of ambition, and I need to accept that, not combat it. Is that true? Or is it just an excuse? I dunno. But it gets really tiring feeling like you're a failure in the eyes of people that matter to you. Especially when you feel feel helpless for it to be any other way.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the Merc endorse Steve Poizner, a Republican running for an Assembly seat. Usually the Merc goes down the line Democrat, so a little balance is refreshing. Of course, they had to be backhanded about it, noting in the endorsement that he wouldn't be a "typical" Republican. Hilarious.

It's also fascinating seeing who different newspapers around the country endorsed for President. Just a good reminder that there is more to the world than the liberal Bay Area, thank God.

Do people outside of California realize that Arnold's been a pretty good governor? Gets high approval ratings and favorable reviews from the media. He's a consummate politician, knowing which battles to fight and when you need to compromise. Like with the whole foie gras ban I'm livid about, he thinks it's absolutely ridiculous and a waste of time, but he signed it anyway, probably in part because it was a pet bill of the Democratic Assembly Speaker, John Burton. He's pointed to as an example of why this proposition for open primaries should be passed - he would not be governor otherwise (way too centrist to have won a normal Republican primary in California, where Republicans are too stupid to realize that in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, compromise is necessary). And he called our apartment yesterday! OK, it was just a recording, but Jieun was fairly excited.

There's a trick you do when interviewing someone or talking to a reference. What it is is, you ask about their weaknesses or mistakes they've made. Based on their answers to this question, you can tell whether they're truly self-aware, analytical and honest, or whether they've just prepared a script. Their response to this question tells a lot about how much you can trust what else they've said. A very useful question.

It's applicable in a lot of things. Like with political discussions. Not to say I dismiss partisan arguments out of hand. It's just, I value much more the opinions of people who are able to look at both sides, see the weaknesses even in the sides they support. People who are a little too party line, or who can't even articulate an opposing viewpoint, merit less consideration.

Which brings me to another thing I don't like about Bush. He was asked a while back what mistakes he's made as President, and he was totally taken aback and didn't know what to say. His response was something like, he knows he's made mistakes, but he can't come up with anything at the moment. Asked the same question a week or two ago, he had more to say, but still nothing substantive.

Which says something to me. I don't think he's being dishonest. I just think he's pathologically unable to engage in self-awareness and critical analysis skills. And that's a big worry to me; those are qualities you'd think are essential in an effective leader.

There are other things that bother me also. As JR has said, there's a difference between education and intelligence, a difference also between intelligence and wisdom. Of those things, the only thing I'm confident about in George W. is his education. And it's one thing to not be intelligent, but he almost seems to glory in ignorance, like bragging about his bad grades in speeches (albeit jokingly) and his boasting about not reading newspapers. Call me an elitist, but I like my leaders of the free world to be intelligent and informed. But that's just me.

Does anyone else watch Lost? It's an interesting series. Most recent episode focused on the Koreans. It's weird because they pretty much speak only Korean, and it's rarely subtitled, so you feel like you're in on a secret or something. Other weird thing is, if they're just gonna speak Korean, why did they get a non-native speaker for the husband? He's not nearly as bad as me, but he's clearly not native. I guess it makes no difference to 99% of all viewers.

For balance should I say what I don't like about Kerry? Basically, there's nothing about him to like, nothing appealing. He's not particularly charismatic. Don't jive with his views. Seems more ambitious than principled, more calculating than sincere. I was actually surprised that he won the nomination, I don't really see what the draw is. I actually find John Edwards - a trial lawyer for goodness sake - much more appealing. Egad.

So Jieun and I voted this week. All the experts have said there may be problems in CA with the new touch screen voting and they recommended voting by absentee ballots so we did.

In other news, you know why I'm glad the Red Sox won? Besides the fact that they beat the Yankees, which is always a cause for celebration. I'm glad because hopefully they'll finally stop their whining about the curse and 1918 and going lifetimes without seeing their team win. What a bunch of whiners. The Cubs and White Sox haven't won a World Series since before the Red Sox last won, and you don't hear them whining nearly as much. Hopefully now Red Sox fans will just shut up.

In other other news, the Sports Guy reported this, but apparently Jack Nicholson is both a Lakers fan and a Yankees fan. I'm pretty sure this means he has no soul.

Back to why I dislike Bush. In a nutshell: because of Bush, the world hates us more.

That opinion is predicated on two things: that the world hates us more and that it's Bush's fault. The former point is unquestionable. All the polls and statistics show this, that people think less positively of the U.S. now than say 4 years ago nearly across the board. Colloquially, we went to Paris, London, and Korea this year and in every place, we encountered anti-U.S. sentiment (or more accurately, anti-Bush sentiment). And this is a very very bad thing.

As to whether Bush is responsible, I think he is. Although I actually don't think it's fundamentally related to Iraq.

I think Alias is my favorite TV show. It's absolutely ridiculous, over the top (too much for a lot of people), and possibly heretical, but I dunno, I find it really entertaining. Quite a few people said season 3 wasn't that great, but I think it's awesome. Better than season 2. Me and my plebeian tastes.

I pretty much entirely agree with Dave's comment. The goal with moral laws is to determine the principles that constitute legimitate reasons. That's pretty much my point. That's what we need to be talking about in regards to moral laws, that makes sense, and I buy that. Just, people don't always do this, and I cannot accept the argument that is sometimes made, not by anyone in particular, just that it's made, that the government should not - can not - tell people what to do. By definition, laws must tell people what to do. It's an absurd argument.

To be clear though, I have no theoretical problem with government forcing people to act in ways contrary to their beliefs. Thiefs believe stealing is legitimate. Certain Satanists believe human sacrifice is legitimate. Laws that prevent them from acting according to their beliefs are good and right. So there's nothing inherently wrong with government forcing people people to act in accordance with a particular moral perspective in a way they don't believe. In fact it's necessary. The question is just whether particular laws have legitimate reasons.

I'm not saying I know the answers, ask me about these issues and I'll honestly tell you I don't know. I just think we need to ask the right questions. Talking about whether the reasons behind moral laws are legitimate, like Dave says, is valid. Let's talk about that. But arguing that, in terms of moral laws, that government should let people do what they want is, in my opinion, both logically absurd and anti-Scriptural. I dunno.

More politics. Boring.

First of all, like I said, Democrats just like Republicans force their moral beliefs upon other people, not just in things like environment. Again, in example, they want to force religious groups to support reproductive rights for their employees, even if it runs counter to the group's beliefs. There's no freedom in that stance at all. So if your justification is moral libertarianism, there's no basis for favoring either Democrats or Republicans.

Second of all, I have no idea why people associate moral laws with "forcing" people to believe something. That's a logically inconsistent view, fails to make a distinction between faith and moral law.

Of course I'm against anything that legislates faith. Even remotely so, like, I'm still against the Alabama 10 Commandments thing I think. But there's a difference between that and moral laws. Just about every law involves some sort of belief system. So like, you can't argue that it's wrong to have laws against abortion because it's wrong to "force" people into certain beliefs in that regard. On that basis, you can't defend laws against murder, or burglary, or speeding, or anything, since those laws are all based on belief systems that say those things are bad. And who are we to impose those belief systems on people who disagree? If we are not to have laws that impose "beliefs", we cannot have any laws. (Note: I'm not saying it's logically inconsistent to support abortion. Just the argument that we shouldn't "force" people to believe things.)

Unless the basis is some sort of majority rules, which is deeply troubling. I.e., the vast majority of people think murder is wrong, so it's OK to legislate against murder, but with say stem cell research, there's no clear majority opinion, so we shouldn't legislate anything. The logical conclusion of this view is if a certain percentage of people were to come to believe that murder under any circumstances were OK, then it would be suddenly be wrong to legislate against murder. And I'm sorry, but I have to believe that it's right and good to have laws against murder, that it's independent of culture and opinion, and that any society that has laws against murder is a better one.

Anyway, the other problem with the "don't force people to believe" thing is that this attitude puts one squarely on the wrong side of social progress in history. I'm talking about stuff like slavery and civil rights. If you read your history books, things changed because a minority insisted on making law what they knew to be right despite being in the minority. Courts imposed laws guaranteeing civil rights for minorities, and it made this country a better place. Virtually all progress in stuff like this occurred because of the active minority pursuing legal change. Had they not pursued legal change and just waited for people to come around, we might still be waiting.

So yeah, I'm fairly against the don't impose your belief view in regards to law not related to matters of faith, because I think it's both logically inconsistent and socially regressive. Just my opinion.

So apparently Curt Schilling is an outspoken Christian, listens to a lot of sports talk radio, posts to web bulletin boards and is a hardcore gamer (he formed a company so that these board games he liked would continue to be supported - that's hardcore). That pretty much makes him my hero. The baseball thing is just a plus.

Do you think familial relations are recognizable? What I mean is, so like, I like kids, but it's insane how much I love my niece. All I can attribute it to is something primal in me that recognizes common blood. Ellie's other uncle also feels extremely strongly about her. I think it's a blood thing.

And my sister says Ellie was particularly good with Paul when he went to visit. My mom also tells me that when I was an infant, my greatuncle came to visit and I was unusually sociable with him, and him particularly affectionate with me. She also attributed that to somehow recognizing common blood.

Anyway, it's an interesting phenomenon, I'm not sure I thought about it much until I met Ellie but yeah, there might be something to it. Can't wait to see what happens with our own kids.

I don't get what gmail counts as a conversation and what it doesn't. Seems semi random to me.

So I played softball two Sundays ago for the first time in a year. It's a sign of my unconditioned state that any time I play sports, which is pretty rare, the day after, random body parts are sore. This time, my sides are sore. Huh? What an utterly random body part to get sore. How odd. After basketball my butt is frequently sore. It's odd.

My problem with pretty much all sports is that I was never taught proper form, and form is critical in sports. I'm hacking away with all my might and barely hitting the ball 10 feet past 2nd base. Meanwhile Chris, who's got a similar build to me, maybe skinnier, is effortlessly hitting balls deep into the outfield. It's all about form.

So like, I never in my life learned to keep my feet still, to shift my weight from back foot to front foot, to keep my arms up before I swing. I was so bad that Dong ran in urgently from the outfield to give me tips. I can make contact, but my form is so bad my swing is fighting itself and I have no power.

Same is true in basketball. Never taught form so my shot is all over the place. Also swimming. I took intermediate swimming at Stanford and some of them are effortless gliding with just a few long strokes. I'm flailing like a madman and going half as fast. Actually another reason I was slower was because I was stubborn and the only guy in the class not wearing Speedos, but a trunk style swimsuit. That's just a bridge I am not yet ready to cross.

Also volleyball. To let you in on an embarrassing secret, I have never in my entire life successfully served a volleyball. Ever. I last stopped trying in elementary school. Sometimes people play and I bow out for the reason of protecting my pianist hands but that's B.S., the true reason is deep seated shame.

So yeah, that's why I suck at sports, I know no form. And form is critical. With proper form, it's feels almost effortless. With bad form, doesn't matter how hard you try, you will not do well.

Is there a life principle in there? Probably not. Just a realization why I'm not very good at sports.

If you think that Democrats don't force their moral imperatives on others, you're absolutely delusional. CA just passed a bill sponsored by Speaker John Burton (D) that bans the production of foie gras in the state. Backed by various celebrities. Whether you think the production of foie gras is good or not you cannot argue that this is not an example of Democrats forcing their moral views upon others. They do it all the time.

There's also that controversy about how religious groups are forced to pay for certain contraceptive procedures for their employees that they morally disagree with. Again, Democrats wanting to force their moral views, here, in regards to reproductive rights.

And of course there are moral issues that both Democrats and Republicans are comfortable "forcing" upon people in regards to stuff like prostitution, incest, gambling, drug use, etc., even when they're between mutually consenting adults and don't "hurt" anyone. Point is, Democrats certainly force their moral views upon people all the time, to deny that is to deny reality. So the choice between Rep./Dem. is not a question of whether government should "force" its moral views or not. It's just a question of which moral views should be forced.

I guess I just toe the line more towards government involvement on the issues I think are significant rather than no involvement. The government is likely to make mistakes in its moral judgment. But left to make their own moral decisions, I think society is *certain* to go the wrong way. I suppose I'm more cynical than Dave is on this. And this is actually a recent development, I used to think keep the government the heck out and just focus on winning souls, but recent readings have made me reconsider. Maybe I'll switch again, I'm open. But yeah, my concern is that leaving everyone to their own moral devices will harm society, and even worse, that it's rubbing off on Christians, the idea that everyone's sense of morality is equally valid.

And Biblically, I don't think people making their own moral decisions is a value. I'm actually very inclined to say (though not certain) that it's anti-Biblical. When the phrase "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" is used in Scripture, it's a description of something bad. And I'm not sure if Scripture says that individuals are capable of making their own moral choices. It might in fact say the opposite. So convince me why civil "liberties" as it applies to individual moral decision making is a Bibical value, because that's important to me. Civil rights certainly are. But people deciding for themselves what is moral I'm inclined to think is anti-Biblical. Although I'm willing to hear how I'm wrong.

I think I've angered everyone now, everyone thinks I'm wrong about everything. And I probably am. Don't worry, I change my views a lot the more I read and think, because I definitely don't have all the answers.

Maybe I should segue a bit so I can equally alienate everyone and talk about one reason why I'm not a Democrat, nor do I think I can ever in good faith call myself a Democrat. Maybe I'll change though. Who knows.

It worries me when Christians say they can't even understand why evangelical Christians tend to vote Republican. It's even more strange when they say Christians vote for Bush just because he's Christian. That's completely missing the boat. Evangelical Christians have tended to vote Republican for a while now. It's not just massive coincidence, there's a reason for it. And that reason is (I think at least), Christians believe that Republicans more closely espouse certain Christian values in regards to moral issues. It is 100% valid to disagree with that. But at least understand where they're coming from.

My particular problem with Democrats, which is fairly fundamental, is not their stance on moral issues like abortion, stem cell research, marriage, religious nonprofits and whatever. God knows all those things are complex, and anyone who says otherwise is either callous or dull. I'm confused about all those things. And I respect people who disagree. What bothers me about Democrats is not their stance, but the attitude behind that stance, and that attitude is, issues like this aren't even worth discussing because moral issues just don't matter.

To address Bobby's comments, here's why I don't like about Bush, in two (long, probably boring) parts.

I should say up front that I'm actually a registered Republican. So I obviously believe you can be intelligently informed and Republican, although I'm not totally certain where I lie politically anymore. It's difficult being a conservative in the Bay Area. You're shunned in work conversation, embarrassed to have your differently colored sample ballot as you go to the polls. There's just not a lot of tolerance for that around here. Anyway, I mention that just to say I'm not just blindly against Republicans, just bothered by this administration for (hopefully) substantive reasons.

One big problem I have is with his economic policy. I think it's disastrous and will have long term effects on our economy. The administration has been pursuing a policy of running huge deficits, and as a fiscal conservative, I'm against that. The rationale is also nonsensical. Pre-bubble bursting, the argument was that it's bad to run a surplus because it keeps money out of the economy, so we need tax cuts. Post bubble, we need tax cuts to spur the economy. So when don't we need tax cuts? There's a flaw somewhere in the reasoning.

(SN. The same thinking has been used with the Iraq insurgents. Before, there was less resistance, which was said to be a sign that we're winning. When insurgency increased, it showed they were getting desperate, another sign that we're winning. What isn't a sign that we're winning? Bay Area realtors say the same thing with buying a house. When mortgage rates are dropping, it's a good time to buy because rates are getting lower. When they're rising, we should buy now before rates get too high. When isn't it the right time to buy? I can't accept reasoning like that.)

Deficits are long term harmful to the economy, and as a fiscal conservative, I'm very bothered by that. I'm also bothered by the size of government: revenue cuts haven't been matched by spending cuts. They've cut things from the federal budget, but it's a game, they cut necessary things in a way that requires states to handle them, often in a less efficient way. It seems like the federal government is spending less, but cumulatively, government is spending more.

Plus, there have been massive increases to military spending, so the size of government isn't actually being reduced. All this to say, we're spending way more than we're collecting, which will have adverse consequences, and maintaining big government.

There are also lots of little side things with things like inheritance taxes and stock dividends that I disagree with not as being bad economics but as being bad policy. Like cutting taxes on dividends would probably have a good effect on the economy. But the distribution of the benefit is tilted so heavily towards the rich that it's socially unjust. I'm doing an awful job explaining this. But yeah, not a good thing.

I've read enough to know that Presidents actually have only a marginal effect on the economy so I give Clinton and Bush neither significant credit nor blame for the economy being good/bad. I can only measure what they actually control, and Bush's economic policy worries me a great deal.

It's not just me. I'm definitely not an expert. Like I say all the time, I've taken one econ class in my life, in high school. So I depend on the opinions of people much more knowledgeable. And many hugely influential people in the financial world, people you think would be Republicans, are anti-Bush, like Warren Buffett and George Soros. As well as most of the economic writers I respect (like Sloan and Samuelson in Newsweek). When nearly all people I respect have problems with Bush's economic policy, that's significant to me. A sign that there's something wrong.

Wait, people don't think I'm a Bush fan, do they? I'm really not. I don't think it's possible to be intelligently informed and a Bush fan. (Although it is possible to be intelligently informed and prefer Bush over Kerry.) I think the best you can do is be like a friend of mine who doesn't think Bush is a good president but is voting for him in the hope that in his second term, he will somehow be better. Hope against reason if you ask me.

Like a lot of people it seems, I dislike both candidates. But I can't bring myself to not vote. I've been big on voting the past few years, even for the obscure local elections that no one comes out for. So it would offend my civic pride to not vote in this one. But who to vote for, no clue yet.

I'll be angry if there's an I-5 World Series. Just because people in L.A. don't get into sports unless/until teams are doing well, then suddenly they're fans. I find it ridiculous that they don't have a football team, far and away the most popular sport in America today and they don't even care about it. What kind of fans are that.

On the other hand, I'd kind of like to see what happens. They're all bandwagoners. Bandwagoned the Dodgers when they were good, bandwagoned the Angels a few years back. If both teams made it who would they bandwagon? That would be fascinating.

I've noticed the guys at church using the word "jerk" a lot more. I'm wondering why that is. Personally, I picked it up from Minho, who says it a lot, not to describe other people, but in a self-flagellating way. I was using it hardcore during this one session of Halo. Playing Halo with Kenneth is about the most frustrating experience ever. The game has a full array of weapons to choose from and he goes around fisting you to death. Humiliating, infuriating. Anyway, I was throwing around "jerk" liberally that time and maybe it rubbed off, I dunno. I just think the way lingo spreads is interesting.

Seriously, my niece is the cutest baby ever.

I finally bought poker chips last weekend, at a computer store, of all places. For some reason, various computer stores in the Bay Area have started to sell chips. This particular store had a huge sale last weekend and I snagged 500 11.5g chips with an aluminum case, 2 decks of cards and 4 dice for $60. Not a bad deal.

This is the third computer store super sale I've been to and like the others, it was an absolute madhouse. People throwing merchandise around, yelling and screaming, pushing and shoving. One sale I saw an overweight white woman nearly get into fisticuffs with an Indian FOB over cutting in line. Just utter chaos.

It's one thing to see normal people get angry. But when you see nerd rage, like you often do at sales like these, it's truly frightening. I think it's the juxtaposition of the geeky exterior with unbridled fury that makes it so jarring and scary. Life experience has taught me: don't get in the way of an old Korean woman at a Korean church buffet and don't get in the way of an angry nerd at a computer super sale. You will regret it.