I don't like saying "we're" pregnant. I think I get the sentiment, that it's a team effort, and I want to be a part of it as much as I can. But let's be honest. Jieun is bearing the lion's share of the burden. She's the one that's pregnant. I'll help in every way I can, but she deserves most of the credit for the work. Not me. Indeed, some people have argued that I deserve the blame (including Jieun, in her weaker moments).
So yeah, Jieun deserves the credit. "We're" not pregnant. Jieun is.
Comments []Another Rich Mullins song that is dear to my heart, Growing Young (username: guest, passwd: [my wife's maiden name]) that no one will read through.
I've gone so far from my home
I've seen the world and I have known
So many secrets
I wish now I did not know
'Cause they have crept into my heart
They have left it cold and dark
And bleeding,
Bleeding and falling apart
And everybody used to tell me big boys don't cry
Well I've been around enough to know that that was the lie
That held back the tears in the eyes of a thousand prodigal sons
Well we are children no more, we have sinned and grown old
And our Father still waits and He watches down the road
To see the crying boys come running back to His arms
And be growing young
Growing young
I've seen silver turn to dross
Seen the very best there ever was
And I'll tell you, it ain't worth what it costs
And I remember my father's house
What I wouldn't give right now
Just to see him and hear him tell me that he loves me so much
And everybody used to tell me big boys don't cry
Well I've been around enough to know that that was the lie
That held back the tears in the eyes of a thousand prodigal sons
Well we are children no more, we have sinned and grown old
And our Father still waits and He watches down the road
To see the crying boys come running back to His arms
And when I thought that I was all alone
It was your voice I heard calling me back home
And I wonder now Lord
What it was that made me wait so long
And what kept You waiting for me all that time
Was Your love stronger than my foolish pride
Will You take me back now, take me back and let me be Your child
'Cause I've been broken now, I've been saved
I've learned to cry, and I've learned how to pray
And I'm learning, I'm learning even I can be changed
And everybody used to tell me big boys don't cry
Well I've been around enough to know that that was the lie
That held back the tears in the eyes of a thousand prodigal sons
Well we are children no more, we have sinned and grown old
And our Father still waits and He watches down the road
To see the crying boys come running back to His arms
And be growing young
Growing young
Growing young
This song regularly reduces me to tears. I'm not totally sure what it is. Partly, the way it gives the perspective of the prodigal son story. It's one of the most amazing stories in Scripture. The truth is, we're all prodigal sons, every one of us. For me personally, I always go through cyclic periods in my life where I deeply resonate with the story.
I think that at every single stage of my life, I go through a period of confusion where I see what everyone else in my life stage is coveting and pursuing and I find myself desiring the same things and getting jealous of those who have it. It always takes me some time to refind my joy, usually after a cynical time. Happened in high school, happened in college, and I'm realizing I'm coming out of a similar time now, post college. I think I'm just starting to remember again, in my heart, not just my mind, that the things of this world - money, power, fame - don't offer much. Even people who have it and seem to be happy are missing out on so much more. And it's a really sweet realization.
So anyway, in a sense, the prodigal son story is a recurring theme in my life, in terms of heart desire, not just a one time deal, and during the tail ends of those cycles like I think I'm in now, it always gets me right in the gut, in a good way. Even reading these lyrics now, dang, it hits me like a tidal wave. Destroys me.
Another thing I love about the song is the angle it takes on the prodigal son, how spiritual maturity is the exact opposite of worldly maturity. That's one of those paradoxes that kill me. Wordly maturity calls for us to become increasingly independent. But spiritual maturity calls for us to be increasingly dependent. Like the prodigal son, spiritual restoration requires us to give up our adult independence and go back to being children of our father. It requires us to, in the words of the song, grow young. That's such a great phrase.
As I get older, I kind of realize how hard that is to do. How do I continue to gain independence from my earthly parents, be my own man, and grow in leading my own family, things I am rightly called to do, and simultaneously give up independence and self-leadership and rely solely on my father? For me at least, I sometimes find the more I do of the first the harder it is to the second. It's something I'm still learning.
So yeah, it's crazy how much I relate to the sentiment of this song. Kills me. Definite kleenex song for me.
Comments []You know what I found interesting about Montreal. It felt more French than American. Not just the language, but like the cuisine, the atmosphere, other stuffs. To me, that's interesting. That in many ways, language plays a more important role in culture than geographical proximity.
As Henry mentioned, on the trip we happened across Joseph Smith's birthplace. There was no sign on the highway; we just happened to exit to get gas or food (I forget) and we happened to see a sign there on the offroad. Amazing timing, because I had just the week prior finished reading Jon Krakauer's Under The Banner Of Heaven, which deals with Mormon Fundamentalism, so I was extremely interested in seeing the founder's birthplace.
I've said many times how it makes no sense to teach Western history without including religion, in particular Christianity, because it was such a driving factor in so many historical events. It's talking about what occurred in the past without providing any framework or motivation for those events at all. The parallel would be teaching evolution without explaining natural selection. It's intellectually dishonest.
Well now that I've read about it, I believe that, for similar reasons, American history should include at least something about the Mormons. It is the quintessential American religion. Not just founded in the U.S; it has many qualities that are fundamentally American. And it's hugely influential. Did you know there are more Mormons in America than Presbyterians or Episcopalians? That there are more Mormons worldwide than there are Jews? Madness.
It's also absurd. You really have to read about the founding stories of Mormonism sometime. Completely ridiculous. So are the actual tenets of the religion, for that matter. The thing is, the author of that book makes the claim that they are no more ridiculous than the founding stories of any other big religion - they just have the advantage of being founded a long time ago.
I've been thinking about that a ton. Is that true? Are the founding stories of Christianity really as absurd as those of Mormonism? I obviously think not, but it's interesting what agnostics think.
Anyway, the book also brings up a fascinating legal issue. So a primary focus of the book is this trial involving these two brothers who, convinced that they're heard the voice of God, murder a woman and her infant child. Actually, that's a fascinating issue in itself, the hearing God's voice thing. One fundamental (I think) problem with Mormonism is that Joseph Smith built his religion on the claim that he received new, unique revelations from God, and that others could also. That just opens up a can of worms, with people constantly splitting from the LDS church claiming they've heard new unique revelations from God. Actually, that book I borrowed from Eddie a while ago, the History of Christian Theology said it's a problem in Christianity also. In history, Christianity has constantly had to deal with people who claim they've received words from God that usually say the old rules don't apply to them. It's a constantly recurring theme. But anyway.
So yeah, these brothers kill the mother and child in a truly gruesome way. Their defense lawyer argues that they are clearly insane, because they claim to hear the voice of God. A higher court agrees with them, arguing essentially that claiming to communicate with God is, in itself, proof of insanity.
The prosecution argues that that can't be right. The majority of people in the U.S. claim to be Christians, and Christianity tells us that we can communicate with God. By that legal logic, the majority of people in the U.S. are insane. Which is legally absurd.
The interesting question for me is, where should the legal line be drawn between a crazy person who says they're hearing from God, and a "normal" person who hears from God? I have my own Christian standards, foremost among them conformity to Scripture, but I can't figure out a good legal one. Those brothers actually had consistent, clear worldviews. The only thing out of whack (and it's a biggie) was their conviction that God told them to murder those 2 people. I think they're crazy, but I can't come up with a good legal basis for it.
Anyway, it's a fascinating and disturbing read, fairly recommended. Although it makes you just want to ask every Mormon you know about all the odd strange things about their religion. I haven't even gotten to the secret handshakes and special underwear. Or why they use "thee" and "thou" when they pray. Some other time.
Comments []Posted some new pics recently, Grandma's 80th Birthday in Oregon, Tahiti Honeymoon, and Las Vegas 2002.
Kind of random why I'm posting those old pics, but I just discovered I get a free Pro account at Flickr so I'm using it more. Since I'm a geek, I used their API to make a (crappy) Perl script which generates thumbnail pages in the same style as the pics on my site, but hosted on Flickr. Not that anyone cares. Except Henry, who can stop whining about server space.
Comments []Ebert wrote something recently that made me think: "Those who interpret natural disasters as messages from God almost always think God is sending a message that agrees with their own philosophy. God never seems to send messages that causes them to wonder if they are wrong."
This rebuked me. I think I kind of agree. While there are notable exceptions (like Franklin Graham and his work after Hurricane Katrina), it seems like after disasters, the most vocal Christians go on and on about God's punishment and how sinful everyone else is, the wickedness of society and whatever. And while there may be merit to that, maybe instead Christians should respond to disaster with self-reflection and a spirit of repentance. God knows I have a lot to repent for. Like self-centeredness and lack of concern for the poor and needy.
I think Os Guinness told this story right? Some English newspaper asked its readers to say what is wrong with the world, and G.K. Chesterton wrote in a response that said "Me". I love that attitude.
Comments []I have no idea what blogs are for, but my personal philosophy is that it's for getting to know a person slightly better. In pursuit of that, I think I'm going to periodically post mp3s of songs I love, their lyrics, and why I love them. I believe strongly that the songs people like say a lot about them. So you can listen to a song I like, read the lyrics, see why I like it, and you've learned a little bit about me. Alternatively, you can just click "back" or press "alt-left arrow" and leave the page. That's the beauty of the web - no one is forced to read anything.
OK first song, The Howling (username: guest, passwd: [my wife's maiden name]) by Rich Mullins.
I can see the iron horses' tracks
Pressed in the mud from the weight of all that steam and steel
But the wind don't blow where you want it to go
No the wind just goes where it will and you follow
I can feel the breath of winter
Driving this snow across these newly-whited plains
Takes my breath from me and it leaves me falling
Then it picks me up again in its own strength
And I can hear the wild wind howling
And I can feel it in my bones
And I know that the howling will take me home
I can see some traveller's footprints
There's a little bit of blood in every step he made
I wonder what kind of burden he's bearing
That has cut him so deeply every step along the long long way
In the west I see an evening
This scarlet thread stretched beneath the gathering dark
Red as the blood on the hands of the Savior
And rich as the mercy that flowed from His broken heart
And I can hear the wild wind howling
And I can feel it in my bones
And I know that the howling will take me home
These men of violence they have made this a world full of wars
Oh God break Your silence and let Your justice shine forth
Show some mercy Oh Lord
'Cause I can see a people dispossessed
Broken and brave in the face of so much fear
Driven from their homes by the greed of a nation
Whose treaties were as good as litter
Along the trail of their tears
I can see the Covenant colors
The sun and the rain have woven against the blue of the sky
And I know if we live we will live by His promise
I know He who made it
I'm sure that He would not lie
And I can hear the wild wind howling
And I can feel it in my bones
And I know that the howling will take me home
I love this song for so many reasons. One, the passion in his singing. He's not the greatest singer in the world, but he packs so much emotion into his voice it almost drives me to tears.
Two, the poetry of these lyrics is insane. "I can see the iron horses' tracks / Pressed in the mud from the weight of all that steam and steel". "I can feel the breath of winter / Driving this snow across these newly-whited plains". "In the west I see an evening / This scarlet thread stretched beneath the gathering dark". That's a level of poetry I could not approach in a thousand years.
What I love most about this song is the passion for the Lord to bring His justice upon the earth, to see Jesus return. I love that. I need to remember that sometimes. Oftentimes. It's so easy to get caught up in my personal life. But there's more to my Christian life than whether I did my quiet time today. There's a social justice aspect that I want - need - to have. When I think about what's going on with Hurricane Katrina (and potentially Rita) and all the need that's out there, all those self-involved things I spend so much time thinking about, like getting a raise, or buying a house someday, seem ridiculously insignificant in comparison. I wish I had the passionate desire for God's justice in this song. I want to care about these things as much as I do about my self-absorbed desires.
By the way, if you look at snopes.com there seem to be tons of mostly untrue hoaxes going around about the allegedly bad behavior of Katrina refugees. That just pisses me off. The rumors part. To me, it's the same attitude the Pharisees had towards the sick and crippled in Jesus' day - blaming them for their own state stemming from a desire to feel better than them. These emails seem to suggest that these "bad" refugees don't deserve any help. And that just enrages me.
I know there are more experienced people out there who have more legitimate reasons for why certain people (like some homeless) are to blame for their own condition. But I dunno, it just seems to me that Jesus reached out to even these types of people, like tax-collectors and prostitutes, who really created their own situations. It seems to me that we're called to love them regardless, although maybe sometimes with tough love. I don't know what tough love is, but I don't think neglecting hurricane refugees, regardless of what we might assume about their character, is it.
Anyway, I want hunger for God's justice in the world the way this song does. And that's why it resonates with me so deeply. Passion.
Comments []Hurricane Rita is bearing down on Houston and it's freaking me out, and I'm not even there. Sister says it's madness. Traffic is insane, bro-in-law had to go to 5 gas stations to fill up a single tank, grocery stores are full of people, she couldn't find a cart to use, shelves are bare, there's no water to be found anywhere. Crazy.
Comments []Long boring rambling entry that absolutely no one will get through.
I've mentioned this before, but I actually don't listen to music a ton, which is kind of ironic. Reason is, when I do, I get totally encompassed by it. I mean totally; it's hard for me to concentrate on anything else. Without even realizing it, I find myself thinking through chord changes and absentmindedly air fingering piano chords (relative ones; I don't have perfect pitch). So there's not really anything like background music in my life. There's foreground music, and if I want to accomplish anything else, I have to turn the music off.
But every once in a while I gorge on music, like this evening, when I decided to rip all my Out Of The Grey CDs and I decided to listen to them while doing it. And wow, it was like meeting up with an old friend. Out Of The Grey is my favorite band. The fact that they're not more popular angers me to no end. Worse, I can understand objectively why they aren't, why they don't appeal to everyone. And that enrages me even more. Just, as good as their music is to me, I feel like there's even still so much more potential in the music. Argh. Anyway, I feel so strongly about them that if anyone ever wants an OOTG CD, I will buy it for them. I'm 100% serious.
Anyway, the feelings OOTG evokes in me are totally complex, because it's kind of like the soundtrack of my formative years. You know how that is, right? You associate music with times in your life when you listened to it. Well I listened to OOTG a ton throughout the 90s. So whenever I listen to them I'm flooded with all the emotions of those times in my life: youthful exuberance, the feeling of unlimited young potential, the first stirrings of love, bitter heartbreaks, depression, camaraderie, loneliness - everything wrapped up a big mushed up ball of emotion. It's crazy how powerful the music is for me.
The other thing is, I think listening to a lot of OOTG makes me a better man. I mean that. They really write incredible lyrics that, when I meditate on it, feels like something akin to prayer. See, that's something that people who aren't into Christian music at all can never understand. Try as you might, you'll never find deep meaning in lyrics like "Ma ma se, ma ma sa, ma ma coo sa." I've tried. But after a couple hours listening to OOTG, I feel like God is calling me to be a more passionate Christian. That's the unique power of good Christian music.
Like, here's the lyrics to one song I was digging tonight, from their latest (maybe last) album, 6.1 (xangaers take note: I'm actually going to explain them instead of randomly posting lyrics with no context or rationale whatsoever):
Made in the image of more than a man
Wonderfully, fearfully made, I
Eternity living inside of me
And still the days go by
But I try
I'm living this life out of the ordinary
I'm opening wide for the extraordinary
And it's all just a dream that you'll slowly reveal
But you promised you're making me real
And now hope is the difference for all who believe
And the hope gives me strength where I stand
The difference is coming alive in me as all the days go by
How the time flies by
I'm living this life out of the ordinary
I'm opening wide for the extraordinary time
I'm learning to love
Out of the ordinary now
And I know it's a dream that you slowly reveal
And I know that you're drawing me near
And isn't it right and isn't it good
How your love makes me real
Didn't it all go by so fast!
Song totally struck me tonight. Just, we were meant for extraordinary lives. But despite that, time still just seems to fly by without much extraordinariness to it. I'm freaking almost 30 now. What the heck happened? What happened to the years of my life? Did I live my life out of the ordinary? Quite the contrary, I feel like many times I willingly pursued and continue to pursue the ordinary. In terms of career, how I spend my time, what motivates me, what I want. I want what everyone else wants rather than the extraordinary. How boring.
But like the song says, the thing about the Christian life is that it's about hope, not regret, and that message really resonates with me. Doesn't matter where we think we are now or what we wished we had done. We can open ourselves to extraordinary things God has for us. Very encouraging.
The last song on that album also resonated with me. Since no one's reading by this point anyway, I'll type those lyrics out also.
I'm on this journey to the Holy Land
My heart is searching for a sacred romance
Following the echoes of a love song long ago
I watch for my returning hero
All these diversions and distractions
Leave my desires unsatisfied
Because he set eternity inside my heart
I'll be restless 'til I'm resting in his arms
I'm gonna keep searching
I gotta keep hoping
'Cause I want everything, I want everything
I'm never gonna settle
'Cause I want better, I want everything
I want everything he promised me
You've given me a heart for the journey
You've given me a part in this story of yours
I'm a new creation, I can't stay the same
I have an exception someday things will change
I'm gonna keep searching
Gotta keep hoping
'Cause I want everything, I want everything
Never gonna settle
'Cause I want better, I want everything
I want everything you promised me
I want holy, I want lovely, I want grace
I want passion, I want poetry and coffee
Oh, I want everything
Dang, totally speaks to me. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said this, right? That our problem isn't that we want too much but that we settle for too little. We pursue the trifling things of this world when infinite joy is being offered. I feel like I settle every single day. Settle for a boring, "normal" life, settle for filling up time with diversions and distractions, when none of these things give me what I know I fundamentally want and need - purpose and passion.
So yeah, I want to be more greedy, if that's the right word. I want holy, I want passion. I want spiritual gifting. I want to hear God. I want everything. Great song. I'm telling you, OOTG makes me a more passionate Christian.
Starts with B. Ends with G. Rhymes with "snoring".
Comments []I'm sick. It sucks. Jieun, the pregnant vomiting woman, is taking care of me. Not good times for either of us.
Comments []The Transporter 2, on the other hand, was a fantastically entertaining movie. Lee would love it - there's essentially no character development, and the flimsiest excuse of a plot. The rest is just action; pure ridiculous action. One scene involves the hero, an ordinary man, dodging bullets as they come at him. And that was one of the more realistic scenes. I was very entertained. But also confused; how come I never heard of the original movie? Has anyone?
My problem with So You Think You Can Dance (SN. Darn you, Ted. Really. Darn you.) is I don't buy the fundamental premise of the show, which judges them in large part on their versatility. That's just not fair. Someone who's trained in whatever lyrical jazz is (besides weirdo and boring) can do hip-hop, but someone who taught themselves hip-hop can't go in the other direction. And maybe that's fine, but then what's the point of even having hip-hop peeps on the show? They can't win. So why even bother? I have the same problem with the Apprentice. He insists on having people on the show without a college education, even dividing up teams along those lines last season, but one of the last screening processes is interviews with executives, in which the non-educated peeps never have a chance. So why even bother pretending that they do? End the charade or change the show.
Anyway, watching SYTYCD brings back memories of... never. I've never been into dance. I think my dance peak was 7th grade square dancing. And I have more scars related to dancing than joys.
Have I ever shared my worst dancing scar? So before we went to Viennese the first time, Jieun and I went to all the pre-dance events, including the lesson nights. One such night in Roble we were practicing the Viennese Waltz, which is, at least for me, a difficult, dizzying dance. We were slowly getting it, but I wasn't the best Waltz lead.
So there's no exclusivity at these practice things, but I dunno, I think it's somewhat uncouth to cut in on someone's Viennese date, right? Because during a break in the action, this guy comes in and asks Jieun for the next dance. He was one of Those Guys. You know who I'm talking about (or maybe you don't). But a good dancer, goes to every single social dance event at school, all his friends do also, and is only cool within that loser dance subculture. (Note - I'm not talking about friends like, say, Andy or Sophia, who are into dance but also good people, well-adjusted, and have lives outside of dance. I'm talking about the loser dance crowd.)
Obviously, I'm being ridiculously harsh. Maybe he's a standup guy who gives time and money to charity and nurses starving cats to health in his free time. What I do know is, he took Jieun out on the floor, since I couldn't really say no. And, maybe I'm wrong, but when the male lead is really good, and the female decent enough, they can dance really well. So they did. From the sidelines, I proceeded to watch them dance a beautiful waltz, complete with little flourishes well led by him. And on each turn, I saw on Jieun's face a look of pure joy, the look of someone reaching a new level in dance, a look that she had never had dancing with me. When the song finished, he bowed, then returned her to me, so we could struggle through more waltzes. He gave to her an indelible memory of what waltz can be, and never will be with me. Thanks a lot, jerk. What the heck is that? Why you gotta go around and ruin everything for mediocre dancers by emphasizing to their dates how much they suck? I'm not even joking, that scarred me, remembering the look on her face and knowing I can't provide that. Not a good feeling.
We never found out his name, so I started calling him "Fred", for Fred Astaire. (What I really should have called him I can't say out loud or here; this is a family blog.) And to this day, if you mention "Fred" and "Viennese Waltz", I start foaming at the mouth and reach for my machete. Not good dance times. Bad dance times.
And that's pretty much my dance life in a nutshell.
Comments []If you pick up the latest San Jose magazine, be sure to browse through the article on educators of the year, where you'll see a full page picture and spread featuring Jieun. Very cool. Jieun is becoming quite the media darling, with quotes in the NYTimes, feature in San Jose magazine. I'm just along for the ride.
Comments []I'm sorry, but 40 Year-Old Virgin sucked. Uncomfortably crude, and just plain unfunny to boot. Ebert gave it 3.5 stars? He must have been smoking the crack pipe while watching. Waste of time and money.
Comments []To clarify, I'm not saying it's OK for men to disrespect their wives in public. Far from it. But it's usually clear to everyone that that's never OK. Whereas women disrespecting men sometimes gets the OK under as a ha ha type thing. I'm against.
Couple food recommendations.
While in New York my cousins introduced me to this Japanese HiChew fruit candy. It's delicious. Like a cross between Starburst and gum. Jieun and I love it. We found out they sell it at Galleria Market so we get it regularly. We recently went through 4 packs in a day. Good stuff.
Also, I finally got to try Uncle Frank's BBQ, and it's the best barbecue I've had in the Bay Area. Louisiana-style, whatever that means. Only tried the brisket but it was moist, fatty, and delicious. Good sauce too, although the hot sauce is HOT.
Just a few negatives though. The smoked flavor was a little subtle and concentrated in the fat, but that's a tiny quibble. It's good stuff. But it is slightly pricy. I know, it's lame to compare to Houston but it's a good $3 to $4 more. But what can you do. The other thing is, this place is ghetto. Hard to find, and the only thing marking it is a sign that says "Uncle Frank's Deep Fried Food", something like that, not even bbq. Look inside, all you see is a narrow bar with a sign, no one under 21 allowed. Shady. It's only when you go to the very back that you see where they serve food. But again - worth it. That's some fine barbecue.
Comments []I heard this great K-Love spot while driving around on Sunday where this husband and wife are talking and he pronounces salmon like "sall-mon" and the wife starts ridiculing him, like "sall-mon? Isn't it supposed to be sa-mon? What, was 3rd grade like the hardest year of your life or something?"
Then a female voiceover comes on explaining how destructive it is when women do this. Men often want respect more than they want love. Women try and give men love the way they want to be loved themselves, but what men really need is respect. Especially in public. So when women belittle or disrespect men it destroys them.
I highly applaud this radio spot. Way to go, K-Love. Clap clap clap. Because it is 100% true. Men absolutely need respect from their wives. I sometimes hear wives say, well, how can I respect my husband if he doesn't merit it? And there's some validity to that. I just think that wives shouldn't *disrespect* their husbands. Like with belittling or mocking. That's more than just not respecting, it's actively disrespecting. And it's destructive.
And it can be subtle how that happens; I don't think people are always aware of it. I was talking about someone with this lately who brought up something interesting: it's kind of like race issues. Minority races can make fun of the race in power, but not the reverse. Similarly, there's kind of this subtle culture where it's OK for wives to make fun of their husbands in public, saying how e.g. they can't take care of themselves or just subtly treating them like children. Whereas the reverse is decidedly not OK.
I'm against this. Not because it's unfair, I could care less about that. It's just, women need to know the effect this has. One, on their men. It's totally demoralizing and emasculating. Two, on other people. It sets a *culture* where it's OK for everyone to belittle men, treat them like children. And that's a culture in which it's impossible for men to lead. Impossible.
I don't want to be super thin-skinned about this. It's obviously OK to joke around. It's just, given how much men need respect, everything, including joking, needs to be in a culture of respect. And better to err on joking too little than joking too much. I feel very strongly about this.
Comments []More things that annoy me.
I think I've mentioned this before. But it drives me crazy when people (primarily in Christian music, even more so in worship music) sing "you" like "yew" instead of "yoo". What the heck is that? I mean, really.
At work, there's a roasted sandwich station with 3 choices that rotate weekly, and they always name them with random, utterly unhelpful names. This week's theme is baseball players, so the choices are "Ty Cobb", "Sammy Sosa", and "Willy Mays".
This annoyed me. Why on earth these 3 players? What's the connection? Why honor Ty Cobb with a sandwich, a guy who by all accounts was a huge jerk? Why the *heck* honor Sammy Sosa, a man who probably used steroids and conveniently forgets English when questioned? Mays is really the only one worth honoring, and then they go out and misspell his name. Sigh.
Comments []Fareed Zakaria says something interesting in The Future Of Freedom, talking about how democracy as a thought system has essentially won throughout the world. Even in Iraq, while Saddam was in power, they had "elections"; in the last one Saddam garnered 100% of the vote. When clearly non-democratic institutions imitate democratic systems to boost their legitimacy, you know democracy has won.
In America, it's won not just politically but also socially. In the arts, what used to matter most for an artist, what made one important, was who liked you. The right, important patrons. Nowadays, it's all about how many people like you. Pure popularity; pure democracy. That's probably why critics are becoming more and more irrelevant. Like movie critics. People don't really care what critics think about movies anymore.
And I'm not sure that's a particularly bad thing. The problem with critics is that once you become knowledgeable about the technical details of any field, you start valuing things that most people don't. Like, I read movie critics who go buck wild whenever directors use long, unbroken takes. BORING. I mean, it's technically interesting. But to me, and to most casual movie-goers, it's irrelevant.
I strongly believe that art is fundamentally about emotion. All that technical stuff is a means, not an ends, and it's a means to emotional connection. And I feel like art critics frequently miss the forest for the trees, valuing technique over connection, which is why they're so frequently at odds with popular opinion. I don't think the masses are always right. But I do think that what the masses value in art (emotional connection) is fundamentally more important than what critics frequently value.
So in music, and especially with worship, I sometimes have to remind myself to not get too caught up in the details, or value the wrong things, things that most people would not care about. Because that's not what really matters.
That said, I still find myself highly entertained in music by creative things. One technique I find very entertaining is non-standard meters. For the uninformed like Henry, meter is how you group beats in music. Most songs have 4 beats per measure (4/4). You see 6 beats a lot nowadays also (6/8), sometimes 3. What I love is super irregular (like 5 or 7 beats) or shifting meters.
That's part of the reason that I love Sting so much - he plays around with meter a lot. Starting with Ten Summoner's Tales, like with Love Is Stronger Than Justice (7 beats in the verses) and Seven Days (5 beats). In Mercury Falling, he has You Belong To Me (5 beats), and the *brilliant* I Hung My Head (9 funky beats). It's genius.
Actually, tons of artists do shifting meter, probably most as some point, though not as much or as interestingly to me as Sting. Like Stairway To Heaven has all that funky stuff going on before the solo. Metallica on some songs. U2 goes from 6/8 to 4/4 in Where The Streets Have No Name, which is really interesting. In Christian music, not so much, although Michael W. Smith in his really early 80s albums would do that with like Blessed Is He Who Comes In The Name Of The Lord and Could He Be. Steven Curtis Chapman has interesting stuff on More Than Words on More To This Life and Next 5 Minutes on Speechless. It's even more rare in worship music, but Chris Tomlin skips a random beat in Famous One, and Matt Redman uses weird meter in Lord, Let Your Glory Fall and Breathing The Breath, which is awesome.
The problem with irregular meters is that when people do it, you usually notice it - it sounds strange. Like, I talked with people about this once, and they hated Next 5 Minutes, probably because (though they might not be conscious of it) of the funky meter. So what's really brilliant to me is when people use strange meters and it doesn't sound strange. Dave Brubeck's Take Five and the Mission Impossible Theme are both brilliant for this reason. They're in 5/4 (and thus nearly impossible to bob your head to - try it) but feel normal.
Anyway, the funky numbers thing extends beyond beats and also to measures. Just like beats, you tend to group measures together in regular numbers. Usually groups of 4, sometimes 2. You rarely see things deviate from that without feeling odd.
That's why the Beetles' Yesterday is an amazing song. It's melodic, memorable, flows musically, just feels right. But if you count the measures in the verses, there are 7. A totally irregular number. But the song feels completely right. Amazing.
All that to say in part why Yesterday is a brilliant song. Egad.
Comments []Today's random fact (via the Sports Guy) is in honor of the Chois, to bring together two of their passions: The numbers in Lost (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) are all numbers that have been retired by the New York Yankees. In order: Gehrig, Berra/Dickey, Munson, Whitey Ford, Mattingly and Jackie Robinson.
Couple days ago I experienced one of the most thrilling events of my life. Korea's Pride-esque.
So I've ditched My Utmost. Sorry, Oswald, nothing personal. I just needed a bit more Scripture than the daily verse snippets there in this season of my life. Ted let me borrow For The Love Of God, and it's been pretty good so I've been using that. Although Carson's picture on the inside cover includes one of the worst moustaches in the history of civilization. I'm not even joking. Apparently his wisdom and discernment doesn't extend to his facial hair.
Anyway, he had a really fascinating commentary a few weeks back on Samson. The Scripture describes Samson as being "filled with the Spirit of God", I think is how it's put, when he does a lot of the amazing things he does. At the same time, he has glaring moral failings: pursuing prostitutes, selling out for a woman, general rage issues. Carson's claim is that this shows us that being filled with the Spirit in your ministry does not automatically make you immune to moral temptations.
I've been thinking about that a ton. Because upon reflection, I've believed otherwise. That if you're filled with the Spirit in any area, you're necessarily morally pure. So when public figures are revealed to have moral failings, I immediately doubt the sincerity of their ministry, even their faith. Like Jimmy Swaggart, Bill Clinton, whoever. It's just how I think.
But maybe, like Samson, it is possible to have a legitimate Spirit filled ministry but still mess up morally. I dunno, that's kind of both encouraging and sobering. Encouraging that all these peoples' ministries weren't necessarily false or not of God. Sobering that I guess we can never stop having to worry about stuff like that.
Comments []In honor of my miscellany loving audience (whoever they are), I'll be posting random facts from time to time, a la the mini Harper's Index in the Sunday Merc. A starter:
A driving pet peeve.
It annoys me when drivers, instead of maintaining a steady pressure on the accelerator, constantly accelerate and ease off the gas, accelerate and ease off the gas. Argh. The worst part is, it makes me seasick. Seems like first generation Asians are the worst at this. I won't name specific relatives, but yeah, it's insane. They accelerate/decelerate so much it feels like I'm sailing on the S.S. Dramamine. Just so you know, it is possible to maintain a steady speed while driving a car. There's a place between acceleration and letting go of the gas. Go there.
Similarly, I don't get it when drivers accelerate until they get really close to the car in front of them and then brake. Then do it again! Argh! Why not just maintain a constant distance from the car in front of you? What's the point of accelerating to get close if you're just going to brake again? Huh? Huh?
Comments []I don't know why I find this clip so funny, but I do.
Comments []The other thing I did while in the ER until 2:30 AM was read Hornby's latest, A Long Way Down. As with most of the books I read nowadays, it was provided by Henry.
I've actually only read High Fidelity by Hornby prior to this book, and I completely loved it. Totally hilarious. But I've written what I loved most about it before, right? Most books, the narrator, when (s)he makes observations about life, serve as a mouthpiece for the author. Which is natural, of course. But yeah, the narrator is generally just the author's mouthpiece.
What I loved about High Fidelity is that the narrator made observations about life that had hints of truth and insight, but they actually changed and grew in the book. When does that happen? A narrator having insights, then adapting to equal but different insights? I dunno, I thought that was interesting. But I'm not much of a reader, so what do I know. Jieun the one that reads the "important" books. In recent months she's gone through like Tess of the D'urbervilles (sp? SN. I have yet to hear Jieun pronounce the title of this book without a faux English accent), The Kite Runner, A Thousand Sorrows, now East of Eden. My main pleasure reading has been Rurouni Kenshin manga (which, by the way, are excellent, but that's a separate post). My next book purchases will probably be those hardcover, complete Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes anthologies. So yeah, I know nothing about literature.
Anyway, I loved A Long Way Down until the end, where I think it kind of ran out of steam. But there were some passages I loved. A couple:
The trouble with my generation is that we all think we're f***ing geniuses. Making something isn't good enough for us, and neither is selling something, or teaching something, or even just doing something; we have to be something. It's our inalienable right, as citizens of the twenty-first century. If Christina Aguilera or Britney or some American Idol jerk can be something, then why can't I? Where's mine, huh? ... talent is never enough to make us happy, is it? I mean, it should be, because talent is a gift, and you should thank God for it, but I didn't. It just pissed me off because I wasn't being paid for it, and it didn't get me on the cover of Rolling Stone.Absofreaking true. None of us are content doing something. We have to be something. Why? No clue. Some byproduct of this age where think we can instantly get everything we want.
It's music rage, which is like road rage, only more righteous. When you get road rage, a tiny part of you knows you're being a jerk, but when you get music rage, you're carrying out the will of God, and God wants these people dead.Great quote. And yes, I know it's properly "quotation", not "quote". Who cares. I believe in music rage, not grammer rage.
Comments []
I'm so gratified that Minho read the banana article. It really is interesting, and I'm glad someone appreciated it.
Joe sent me another article on a possible cause of autism. As you may or may not know, I'm fascinated with that subject. And it's an intriguing article.
Comments []The Merc had this editorial the other day criticizing Intelligent Design, saying, without a hint of irony, that it can't be treated as serious science because it can't be verified or refuted, a fundamental aspect of science.
I don't know much about Intelligent Design so can't say I'm a huge fan or critic either way. And personally, maybe I'm naive or uninformed, but I'm not that bothered with evolution. Is that heretical? I'm more concerned with evolutionism, which in my mind is distinct. Not that I'm unaware of the shortcomings of evolution. For example, that some of the examples of evolution in high school textbooks (e.g. colors of moths in England) isn't evolution at all (on a macrolevel, the evolution of new species) but variation and adaptation within a species (microevolution, which no one disputes). Or that we haven't actually seen evolution happen, a new species develop.
And that's the thing I found ironic about the editorial. One of the foremost criticisms of evolution is exactly what the editorial points out about Intelligent Design - it can't be verified. It's an interpretation of fossil records or how things are now. But there is literally no way to verify or refute it, since we haven't actually seen it happen before our eyes.
I do think there's a reason why the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution over something else, and there's something in that. But based on the scientific principle of being able to refute/verify a theory alone, it's not really different from Intelligent Design, I think. Maybe I'm wrong.
Actually, Andy Crouch had a really interesting column in this month's Christianity Today related to this. Saying how, evolution was initially presented as a viewpoint opposed to religion, hence the religious opposition to it. He was saying one unfortunate effect was that it's caused religious folks to be untrusting of science in general. He points specifically to environmental issues. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activity is contributing to global warming. Yet religious conservatives frequently cling to the extreme minority skeptical view (like Henry espouses) that human activity is not contributing to global warming. His argument is that Christians are called to care a lot about the environment, about global warming. It's like a version of Pascal's wager. And frankly, I agree.
Comments []Unlike Henry, I actually loved Freakonomics. Highly recommended. For the benefit of my reading audience, I'll just highlight some interesting statistics from the book, sans context and explanation. You can (and should) read it yourself for the full story.
I was talking to Ted about this, but I don't think I explained myself well. So my dad dislikes people who have been Christians all their lives. He's written about this publicly, so it's not a secret or anything, and I think it's OK to repeat here. His problem is, they're wholly unteachable. They think they know everything already, so they can't be taught, when the truth is, they are frequently spiritually immature. Also, they have really strong opinions about the "right" way to do things, and are critical and uncooperative of anything else.
My problems is that I am a lifelong church-goer; worse, a pastor's son. So I'm supersensitive about not being one of those people, who think they know the right way to do everything, need to meddle in all church affairs, and are critical when the church doesn't do things their way.
So I'm always torn at meetings about how much to say. I just really really don't want to be one of those people. If I am to err, I would much rather err on not saying enough and being supportive of whatever happens. The reason it's a struggle is, truth be told, I actually do have strong opinions of how things should be done. Like everyone else, I think my opinions are right. But it might not be right, it might just be what I'm used to or what I've been taught. And I can never distinguish that of my opinions; what's really "right" and what's just acculturation (is that a word?). So I generally dislike talking in meetings.
Interesting to no one.
Comments []Some thoughts accumulated while in the ER at night for 6 hours: (You like that kisoo@leland-esque intro? And no, I'm not going to explain.)
I hate hospitals, I realized. Mostly because they're full of sick people. It would be much more amenable if they mixed in well with sick people. I also happen to believe that the world would be a better place if instead of sticking poor people all together in ghettos and huge projects, if they spread them out geographically. Problem is, even sick/poor people don't want to be around other sick/poor people. So why would well/unpoor people be willing to do this? They wouldn't.
Anyway, this heartburn thing has helped me understand just a tiny bit why Dave hates (or at least hated) doctors so much. Can't say I fully relate or understand, but I'm getting a hint of it. And it has to do with the Helmet Head effect, something Dave wrote about much better before than I will now, but whatever, I'll recap anyway.
So Helmet Head is a classic SNL skit on SNL with Rob Lowe where he plays this ex-soldier who years ago put on a helmet than found he couldn't get it off, so he goes around everywhere with this helmet stuck on his head. Wherever he goes, people suggest ways for him to get his helmet off, which of course, he's tried, and it drives him bonkers. Like someone suggests using butter. Which drives him crazy. "Butter? Don't you think that's one of the first things I tried???"
So yeah, it's the same effect: tons of people have given me advice on what to do about my heartburn. And honestly, it hasn't annoyed me at all, because I know they're concerned and trying to help. They wouldn't be saying anything if they didn't care. So thanks. But believe you me, I've researched like crazy and any potential remedy you can think of, I've tried. I mean that. Name a remedy. I've almost certainly tried it at one point, short of surgery. And nothing has worked.
The thing about doctors is, many of them (not all) have this attitude where they assume they know exactly what's wrong and exactly what to do and relay that as if they know more than what my own doctors have already told me and all the research I've done. And that's just annoying. I already know what they're saying and I know it doesn't work on me. So that attitude, "I know the problem, this is what fixes it" just grates. Maybe I'm being too harsh. It could be that that's what they're supposed to do, to give patients hope. But when I *know* their advice doesn't work, it doesn't feel hopeful. Just once I kind of want to meet a doctor that says, "I have no idea what's wrong with you nor how to help you." Yeah, it doesn't feel helpful, but at least it would be honest, which is relieving in some sort of way.
But whatever. It's actually been a lot better, as soon as I *stopped* taking Prilosec. And no, it's not that I haven't been producing *enough* acid because I've tried the vinegar thing and the digestive enzymes thing and those weren't working either. I also stopped using my Sonicare toothbrush around the same time, and I'm not taking any chances by using it again. It's still always there, but much more manageable. The only thing that seems to consistently kill me is citrus. A while back I ate a kumquat and it darn near incapacitated me. So if you ever get really upset at me, force feed me an orange or something.
Comments []Like bananas? Enjoy them while you can. There's a strong possibility the bananas we eat will go extinct. That article is fascinating. Bananas from decades ago were different from the ones we eat now. Bigger and better tasting, supposedly. They went extinct. Weird. Who knew the banana world was so complex.
Comments []It seems nowadays that it's a worse sin to be judgmental of bad behavior than to do the bad behavior itself. And maybe this is good and proper. After all, Jesus was harsher on self-righteous judges than on "sinners". But still, sometimes I'd like to let out things that bother me.
For example. I hate swearing. Is that OK? Am I allowed to feel that way without being called a judgmental, grace-less jerk? I'm not saying salvation is at stake, I'm not saying you're a worse Christian for doing it, or less holy, or that God loves you less. I just don't like it, it's as simple as that, and would rather people not do it. Just like I don't like kimchee. It's a matter of personal taste.
OK, maybe it's a little more than personal taste. My thing is this. Even the pagan world thinks that swearing is bad. They'll do it, but they don't want you doing the same in front of their kids. Or they wouldn't say that stuff to their parents. Everyone does it, but there's the understanding that it's definitely not a good thing, and probably at least a little bad.
So given that even the world knows it's not good, shouldn't Christians at least care a tiny little bit about it? Not that we're not Christian if we do swear, it's just, as Christians, shouldn't we in general at least care about trying to do what's good?
But whatever, actually it's not a huge deal. I mean that. Everyone lets fly the occassional expletive and no big whoop, who cares. The thing that does bother me is when fellow Christians go out of their way to cuss, as if to prove a point or something. That just totally sucks. There's no grace, no love in that. If it slips, fine. But don't do it to make a point. Why would you want to do that?
But of course, I'm a Pharisee so what do I know.
Comments []This is so outdated it's not even funny (SN. I've always hated this phrase. "Not even funny". What's that mean? If it was just a bit less extreme then it would be funny? Things that are not funny are inherently hyperbolic? I don't get it.
SSN. Another thing that makes no sense to me: the lyrics to Gwen Stefani's Rich Girl. Every time I hear it I go bonkers. The lyrics include "If I was a rich girl, na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na, see, I'd have all the money in the world, if I was a wealthy girl."
Someone explain these lyrics to me. I think it's the "see" part that enrages me. As if she's explaining something to us. Thing is, taken at face value, it's not even true. If she was rich/wealthy, she *wouldn't* necessarily have all the money in the world. She'd just have a lot of money. If it's meant to be symbolic, then it's *obvious*, definitionally true. Rich people by definition have a lot of money. So why is she telling us to "see" that she'd have money if she were rich? Huh? Rage. When I record my parody album, I'm doing this song, with lyrics "If I was a green man, na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na, see, green would be the color of my skin, if I was a green man.")
So yeah, it happened months ago, but I think the most recent season of The Amazing Race should be required viewing for married couples. Reason being, the show makes it really clear which qualities make a partnership work and which don't. Doesn't matter if they're married, friends, straight, gay, family, Christian, or whatever. The qualities of the good teams were the same. And I think you can draw marriage principles from it.
I've long believed that the truest mark of your character isn't how you behave in comfortable situations with lots of preparation, but what you do under pressure, in the spur of the moment, under fire. I'm not exactly sure why I feel this way, but I do. I feel like the show reveals the true nature of relationships, as they're under pressure and fire.
Anyway, some things I feel like I learned:
If anyone gets a chance to attend corporate training with IDE0 I highly recommend it. Lots of insight, I think, but it would all be corporate gobbledygook so I'll skip it.
So I was in this situation recently where we had to go around and do this introduce yourself thing and one of the questions was, describe your ideal Sunday. Obviously, being a follower of Christ, my ideal Sunday includes church. Thing is, I had a strong suspicion the guy I was talking to was gay. I also know (maybe I'm wrong) that many gays/lesbians really dislike the church, and they view people associated with the church as judgmental.
I'm never quite sure what to do in situations like this. On one hand, I want to be upfront about my faith. On the other hand, the point of being upfront about one's faith isn't just about making a stand, it's about making a positive stand for one's faith. So I'm ultrasensitive in situations like this where he might think I'm judging him and be immediately distrustful of me. I'd much rather just display Jesus' love and eventually work in that I don't think anyone is inherently better than anyone else, we're all sinners. We all need Jesus. And that the church is for sinners.
As it was, I blurted out something tired and trite about rest and brunch and something or other. So he doesn't think of me as judgmental. He just thinks of me as boring.
Comments []So we watched Mean Girls the other night. Decently amusing, although too much voiceover. For some reason, I feel like the voiceover works in Clueless, but is like a crutch in Mean Girls. Maybe it's because in Clueless, the narration serves in large part as a commentary on teen culture, whereas Mean Girls depends on it to just explain and drive plot. I dunno.
Anyway, there was this deleted scene on the DVD that killed me. Lindsay Lohan is shopping with her mom, and they have this conversation, and while they talk, subtitles appear indicating what they really mean:
Lindsey: These are on sale! (I want these!)Mom: These are well made. (You must stay a baby forever.)
Lindsey: Those are hideous. (Everyone will know I'm a virgin and a loser!)
Mom: I don't think those are appropriate. (Those shoes will make you pregnant.)
Dad (walking in): Who wants ice cream? (Who wants ice cream?)
That is SO true. It frequently comes up that Jieun doesn't really mean what she says, and that seems to be a characteristic female thing. I don't get it at all. Why use English language words to be indirect and say stuff you don't actually really mean in a potentially confusing way when instead, you could just say what you mean and avoid any miscommunication? But whatever, that's how women are I guess. Anyway, totally killed me.
Comments []We played Settlers this evening with the Mighty Hurs. I won, and Ben actually applauded my strategy, which was flattering.
But anyway, as with all groups, they play slightly different and I have questions about this. For example, some people allow futures trading. Meaning, give a resource for a promise of a future resource.
I'm against this; I think it violates the spirit of the game. In the rules, I believe it states somewhere that you can give away cards for free if it's advantageous to do so, like if you have too many cards in your hand. To me, futures trading kind of dampens this principle of being situationally screwed and forced to give stuff away.
Philosophically, I dunno, I just believe that trading should reflect what everyone has and doesn't have at that moment in time. I like that situational element. It makes it less predictable and more fun. Futures trading dampens that, and to me, that's less fun.
I've also seen several groups play with robber bribing. Giving cards to prevent the robber being placed somewhere, or giving cards to entice someone to play a soldier. I'm against this also. None of these are explicitly against the rules, but I feel like their against the spirit of the rules, or the framer's intent. But that's just me.
Another thing. Girls playing games are strange to me. Near the end of the game, Ben was actively getting everyone to gang up on me, and Linnea felt all bad about it. I'm against this. The feeling bad part. People *should* gang up on the whoever's in the lead. I'm against just letting anyone win without doing something about it, even if it's me. To me, winning isn't as sweet if you know that people weren't really trying their fullest to stop you. But girls have this hangup about trying to take someone down. I dunno, that's weird to me. Maybe it's because women take more things personally whereas men distinguish between game competition and real life? Except for Ray Allen and Bruce Bowen.
Comments []I don't think Michelle Wie is attractive. I'm kind of surprised to hear that people do.
Comments []Alan Greenspan supports a return to the gold standard. Or at least he used to until fairly recently. Wow.
Comments []I've incorporated my recap of the New York thang into the pics. Boring, as always.
Comments []We also watched Spellbound last night, that documentary on spelling bee kids. Yeah, I know, that came out forever ago. What can I say, we're behind the times.
It was entertaining enough. My favorite kid by far was this home schooled Indian kid. His parents, who seemed to be first generation Indians, talked about the godlessness of society; they had a clip from their church, some big white church in St. Louis; and the kid's advice for success in spelling bees was: 1) Trust in Jesus. 2) Honor your father and mother. 3) Study hard. Awesome.
Comments []We tasted our first grapple last night. That's that apple that's supposed to taste like a grape. Pretty disappointing. It definitely smells like a grape, but it tastes just like an ordinary apple. Can't say I'm a fan.
Comments []The more I think about, the more I'm compelled by what Arnold had to say. For example, he's proposed a redistricting of California. What's happened is that the legislature has been given the power to redistrict, so that, in a rare show of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans came together and redistricted in such a way that it ensured that there would be no competition for the districts they represent. It hardened everything along party lines, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to do so. This page shows one absurd example, a district that is 200 miles long and only 100 yards wide in places.
Why is this bad? As Arnold says, it's reversed the process - instead of voters choosing their legislators, legislators are choosing their voters. And by making most districts heavily weighted towards one or the other party, it encourages extremism on both sides. Were districts more competitive, those elected would likely be more centrist (and reasonable) as Arnold sees himself.
His plan is not for the governor to have redistricting power, but to put in in the hands of a panel of retired judges who have never held public office, with certain other requirements in regards to their political affiliations, who are selected by the legislature and have no personal political stake.
I think it's a great idea, and I can't see any negatives about it. It's definitely not unfair. It's definitely not partisan. I dunno, I'm highly in favor.
Comments []You know what I think a fundamental problem with Democrats is. They believe that more power should be given to the people. The problem is, the majority of people are against many positions that Democrats espouse. We see this all the time in California, like when voters voted against services for illegal immigrants (Prop 187) and eliminated affirmative action (Prop 209). There's other stuff also, and I think that's why Schwarzenegger is so eager to bypass the largely Democratic state Senate and go directly to the people through special elections.
So in my opinion, Democrats need to decide whether they want to give more power to the people or adjust their party positions, because they are at odds. Personally, I'm more in favor of the latter. I have no problem with elitism. I *want* my leaders to be elites, people who are smarter and wiser than the general population. Preferably smarter and more informed than me. Let the people choose but don't let them decide. Why reduce policy to tyranny of the masses?
On another random political note, I came across an interesting point while reading about Sandra Day O'Connor about affirmative action that made me wonder, what's the point of affirmative action? I'm not particularly for or against it, but I think it's fair to ask about whether it's working or not. Unless the point of it is reparations, which is perfectly valid. But that's not what most people say it is. And some studies (so I've read - don't quote me on this) indicate that the gap between whites and blacks has increased in the past few decades, when affirmative action has been in place. If that's true, why do people assume the solution to the gap is more affirmative action? Is there any evidence that it's worked? Is it perhaps worth thinking about different solutions if this one isn't working? I dunno.
But I don't know any details so I might be completely wrong.
Comments []Gov. Schwarzenegger spoke at work today. His English is a fascinating mix; both articulate and sprinkled with random errors. But he exudes confidence, thinks fast on his feet, and I personally found him fairly compelling. His speech had a lot more policy and a lot less fluff than I expected.
One theme he repeated that I completely agree with is that California is a broken system that needs significant rehauling. 100% agree. I'm pretty much against everything California does. But I'm not going to explain.
Comments []This thing is strangely fascinating. You can use your mouse to drag her.
Comments []We had dinner with Joe, Grace, and Janice one night and an interesting theory came up during the conversation: despite the crazy numbers of people in general and singles in particular, it's harder to get into a relationship in NYC than it is elsewhere. The reason being, in New York, you can get whatever you want, whenever you want. Any time you feel like anything, with just a little bit of effort, you can get it. It's consumer heaven.
It was thought by some that this seeps its way into the subconscious of the people, with the result that when people meet other people, they can't help but think somewhere in the recesses of their minds that there is someone better out there. In a place where you can find the perfect pizza, the perfect bagel, or perfect whatever, you can't help but subconsciously feel that you can similarly find the perfect mate, and be just a bit less willing to work at something that seems less than perfect.
I found that absolutely fascinating. I know New York pretty much not at all so I can't really say if it's true, but my suspicion is that it is. Not that everyone goes around thinking they can do better. Just that the consumer-friendliness of the place seeps into the subconsciousness.
At any rate, there's definitely truth to that in American society in general, and not just related to relationships. It's so easy here to get what we want, and advertisers tell us that we should get what we want when we want it; even that we *deserve* it. It's no wonder why lasting marriages and Christianity are so culturally unpopular. Both are defined in large part by what you give, not what you get. Not the most ad-friendly message.
Comments []I pretty much hated Eats, Shoots and Leaves and only finished reading it because my stubbornness for finishing books is just a step below Henry's (who lent me the book). I knew it was about punctuation, but I figured that a book that popular must in some way transcend the subject, like how Moneyball is about more than just baseball but competing systems of thought, and how Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story is about way more than Kung-Fu. But it doesn't. It's just about punctuation. A subject I'm interested in about as much as quilting.
Here are my particular problems with the book. First of all, when it comes to punctuation (and grammar, for that matter), I'm an ultra-pragmatist. To me, it only matters if it affects comprehension. And actually, many times it does. But not always, and ultimately, comprehension and communication are the only things that matter. It should be a tool, not a rule, especially since language is so malleable and the rules change all the time.
The author acknowledges this, makes pretty much the same point herself. Then she violates it by making a bunch of normative claims that really have no basis other than personal preference. I'm against that.
My other problem with the book is that it's based on English rules of punctuation, which differ from the American English rules enough that I came away from the book more confused about what's proper and what's not. So the book has actually hurt my punctuation skills. Good job!
Comments []