Burning CDs

Hey all,
So, lately I've been burning a lot of CDs and I just thought I'd post about the proper way to create and distribute burnt CDs. I've been burning CDs since back in the day when burners cost over 300 dollars and Napster was legal. Keep in mind what I relate here is just opinion, but it's opinion in a sense similar to my opinion that it would have been a good idea to buy Microsoft stock in 1986.

CD creation:

Song 1

When you burn a CD you need to start with a grabber. The first song should be catchy and somewhat recognizable. It should be a song that makes people say "hey I like this song, wonder what else is on this CD." You don't want this song to be your best song. This song should be like a first date: short, fun, shallow, but interesting enough to keep someone around.

Song 2

Song 2 is all about showing the breadth of the CD. You got the fun grabber taken care of, now that you've got some interest you need to show some dimension. You don't want to go all crazy and emo on your listeners or anything, you just wanna show them something a little edgy so they know you're not making some trite, teeny bopper-esque, soda pop swilling, bubble gum chewing, piece of pop trash.

Song 3

This song is meant to be a fun one, perhaps the most exciting of the entire CD. Song 1 grabbed them, song 2 showed some depth, and now song 3 is meant to get back on track and escalate the CD to new levels of supernalacity (new word, tell your friends).
Song 4

In baseball your fourth batter is your best hitter---your cleanup. Similarly, on a CD the fourth song should be the best you have to offer. This is the most important song on the CD. Make sure it's your favorite. This is the song where you just put it out there and say "Yeah, that's right. This CD rocks. You've never heard a CD this good before. You might want to stop listening now... unless you have an extremely high tolerance for awesomeness."

Song 5

Song 5 is kinda introspective, sometimes it's a bit Indy. This is the song that you're not quite sure you understand, it's a little bit out of sync with the rest of the CD...but this is okay cause you've already won their hearts with song 4 so they can take it.

Now, the rest of the songs can be of any particular type and feel all the way up to the last song or two.

The last song should be your conclusion, it should be a little bit slower, but fun enough that people will want to give the CD another listen. Kinda like the closing remarks of a paper, you should use this time to tie your loose ends up. I am of the opinion that the last song should be a bit nostalgic or pensive, but even tempoed and melodic enough that you don't end the CD depressed.

Now that you've made the CD you need to name it. I personally like funny names but I've seen people work other types. You want the title to be descriptive enough that you know what you're getting into, but you should leave some room for the imagination. If you're really struggling for creativity you can just name the CD after the title of song#4. Don't be afraid to pompously label your CD in ways that suggest it's better than all other CDs burnt to date.

CD Dissemination:

Okay, now that you've made the CD you're the lucky owner of the greatest CD ever, but you don't wanna just sit on that joy. It's kinda like missionary work, you've got something beautiful, it must be shared.

Now, here are some warnings.

1) Never give a CD to someone when you don't trust their taste in music. It is a sin to cast pearls before swine.

2) Rarely, if ever, give CDs to someone of the opposite gender. There are 3 main exceptions. 1) you're dating them seriously, 2) it's a greatest hit CD 3) they give you a list of songs they want. The reason you shouldn't give CDs to the opposite gender is they project meaning onto the songs you pick. For example, if you make a CD for a girl and there is a song about not knowing how to express your love she'll think you're trying to tell her you love her but you don't know how. I've learned from sad experience that this is the case. The three exceptions I've listed are exceptions because they are the three instances when a CD can't be misconstrued as a subtle romantic overture....1 because they already know how you feel, 2) because a greatest hits CD is nothing more than a collection of that bands best music so the intent of the CD (to capture the band's greatness) is explicitly stated, and 3) they picked the songs so if there is a subtle statement it's coming from them, not you.

For the most part it's best to just give people greatest hits CDs. I usually burn about 3 extra copies of a greatest hits CD to share with friends that I know enjoy the band.

Okay, I think I'm done writing now. Happy burning!

Wallace and Humor

I'm gonna start this post with a Deep Thought by Jack Handy. Hopefully this quotation will make sense by the end of the post.

"I hope life isn't a big joke, because if it is, I don't get it."

I was introduced to David Foster Wallace about 2 years ago in a writing class, and, I must say, reading his writing is really depressing, not because he writes about sad things, but because he writes so well and so imaginatively that you kick yourself for all the humor and beauty you miss in life.

About a year ago Wallace committed suicide. He shot himself after suffering from depression for years. I usually read one or two of his essays each year (coincidentally around the time he died). This past week I read "Some remarks on Kafka's funniness from which probably not enough has been removed."

Here is a quick paragraph from that essay. Just to prep you a bit, Kafka was a tragically humorous early 20th century German writer. Anyway, here's what Wallace wrote:

And it is this, I think, that makes Kafka's wit inaccessible to children whom our culture has trained to see jokes as entertainment and entertainment as reassurance. It's not that student's don't "get" Kafka's humor but that we've taught them to see humor as something you get--the same way we've told them that a self is something you have. No wonder they cannot appreciate the really central Kafka joke: that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from the horrific struggle. That our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home. It's hard to put into words, up at the blackboard, believe me. You can tell them that maybe it's good they don't "get" Kafka. You can ask them to imagine his stories as all about a kind of door. To envision us approaching and pounding on this door, increasingly hard, pounding and pounding, not just wanting admission but needing it; we don't know what it is but we can feel lit, this total desperation to enter, pounding and ramming and kicking. That, finally, the door opens....and it opens outward--we've been inside what we wanted all along. Das ist komisch.

****

Now I don't really want to talk about Kafka, I'd rather talk about what Wallace saw in Kafka. This part in particular:

It's not that student's don't "get" Kafka's humor but that we've taught them to see humor as something you get--the same way we've told them that a self is something you have. No wonder they cannot appreciate the really central Kafka joke: that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from the horrific struggle.

So, now I want to talk about the central joke of the self that Wallace saw in Kafka's writing. I'll interpret this central joke as being about life rather than strictly interpreting it as self-development (although it could be argued the two are synonymous). I don't know about everyone else but I've often thought my own life as tragically humorous--an interesting mix of joy and suffering with a twist of irony to keep things fresh. I think part of the reason I've always been drawn to writers like Wallace, Kafka, or Shakespeare, is that they carefully capture this sort of humor. However, like Wallace here mentions, it's not the typical humor we're used to with a punch line and a big "a ha!" moment. For, while life often contains this type of "i get it" humor, the type of humor with the sharply percussive punchlines that twist your mind, the big joke of life is generally a more difficult type of humor, the type of humor where you're personally connected to the joke, the "it's always funny when it's someone else" kind of humor where you find out you're the joke; when this happens it takes a special type of maturity and experience to see the humor and laugh at yourself (and often years after the fact).

I think what Kafka and Wallace are pointing out is that our lives are really funny, but they're funny in this painful, personal, sort of way, where the humor is had by seeing the contrasted tragedy and joy intertwined in your experience. Further, I think they're pointing out that the big joke of life is that it's progressively subtle, it's more of a slowly growing comedic escalation, gathering complexity each day you live. And, since there's no laugh track,we usually laugh at the wrong times, or, even worse, not at all (we usually laugh years later through epistemic distance, which is really sad cause we don't see the humor when we need it most). But, I guess that's part of the joke as well.

So, I guess my main point is that life is funny, but it's not the humor that's easy to laugh at. Also, no one is as uniquely qualified to see the humor in your life as you are. So enjoy it, cause your life is one great inside joke.

Opening Car Doors

My earliest memory of door opening etiquette goes back to when I was 12 or so. I was shopping with my mom and she said "girls appreciate it when you open the door for them." That was relatively subtle, I should have known she meant that I should open the door for her and that I should develop the habit of opening doors for all girls, but I just thought to myself, "Mom, you're not a girl, you're a Mom (sorry Mom if you're reading)."

I forgot about door opening for a year or two and then it came up again when I started dating in high school. In high school when I was on a date I'd always feel a bit stupid opening the door for a girl. I wasn't sure if I should open the door when we arrived at the car, but not when we left the car (make her just sit there while I walk around?), if I should open the door every time we entered or just when I picked her up. I really didn't know what to do in a cramped space, I mean, sometimes, like if you're really close to another car or a wall, it's really hard to get in there. In those cases if you want to open the door you gotta squeeze past (when you're bigger) open the door backward, let her in, and then squeeze back out. Now, I know this rarely happens but it does happen so it's just another thing to account for.

My adolescent brain (granted, my overthinking adolescent brain) finally came up with this rule (which I still stand by): open the door every time she enters the car, but let her leave the car on her own, if it is too awkward to open the door just apologize and let her get it. I settled on this stance cause it seemed pretty stupid to me to make the girl wait for you to walk around so she can get out of the car. I mean, that's not chivalry, that's just inconvenience for everyone. The one great exception to this rule is if you're wearing a tux. If you're wearing a tux it's a highly formal setting and you should walk around (and besides, she's probably wearing something so ungainly that she could use your help).

Now that I knew how to open the door I had to figure out why and when. I never really faced then "when" issue until after my mission.

When I came home from my mission I dated as much as I could (that post-mission dating fervor). I decided then that my door opening policy would be to open car doors for girls I'm attracted to. I reasoned that opening the door for a girl is a romantic gesture, a way of expressing interest, so I'd only open doors when I wanted to express interest. The problem with that is it's misleading. If a guy is a gentlemen only to get a girl's interest, but then discontinues being gentlemen once he wins the girl over, it's really unfair to the girl. It's like selling an inferior product with shiny packaging. So, I decided not to open the car door for girls at all cause I couldn't see myself doing something that inconvenient years down the road (neither can most men...think about it, how many married men open the car door for their wives?).


When I made this decision I felt like a martyr. I knew I'd annoy girls, I knew they'd think I wasn't a gentleman, but deep down I was thinking "at least I'm honest, at least I'm consistent--what you see is what you get." I took this attitude on dates for about a year...eventually a girl complained about it.

After she complained I sat down and thought about reasons to open the door for girls. This is what I came up with:

Initially you open the door for a girl because it is now (regardless of what it used to mean) a social convention used to express respect and gratitude for women. The obvious follow up question to this is "why don't women similarly open doors for men to express respect and gratitude?" My answer to that is that men and women both have social conventions intended to show respect and gratitude for the other gender's company. Men have more direct gestures (such as door opening), women, on the other hand, have more indirect gestures (subtle compliments and such). So, women don't open doors for men because they convey the same message through other means.

Also, one reason for door opening that's often missed is it shows a girl (at some minute level) that you're concerned with her safety. Which, when you think about it, is really important-- a girl going on a date with a guy is showing a large amount of trust. I mean, guys are usually much stronger than girls...if a guy wanted to hurt a girl he could. On a first date the girl doesn't know whether she's on a date with Charles Manson or (now I'm throwing up a little) Edward Cullen. Opening the door for her lets her know that you're trying to care for her...basically putting concerns to rest and placing you on the Edward Cullen side of things.

The final reason to open doors (once in a relationship) is to renew the relationship. Once things get serious you may not feel the freshness and excitement you originally did, but you should want to feel that way. So, I guess opening the door then becomes something of a ritual of remembrance. I think that thinking about door opening as a ritual is fair because rituals (on the whole) are impractical and often ridiculous practices made significant only because they represent something sacred or significant. Door opening squares nicely with this definition: it is impractical, and often ridiculous, but it signifies something sacred and significant: your relationship. So, simply put, my last reason to open doors is it allows guys to reiterate the importance of, and their commitment to, the relationship.

And now I'll just conclude by saying you should always open the door for every girl because, if you agree with the initial purpose of door opening (as a respectful gesture of kindness and caring), to not open the door for a girl is an insult.

Now I'll end this post by sharing the experience that made me think of it writing about door opening in the first place. About three weeks ago I was walking into the BYU library and I tried to hold open the door for the girl behind me. She just stood there annoyed, waiting for me to let it close, so I removed my hand. She then opened the door herself and looked at me like she made some huge point. As she walked through she said "I can get the door for myself thank you very much." I was annoyed (which usually leads to me saying something insulting (in this instance I almost said "I'm sorry sir, I thought you were a woman, I was just trying to be polite"), but I bit my tongue.

Well, I think I better stop now. I can't imagine many people still being interested in something as simple as door opening for as long as I've discussed it. Hope you all have a great day.

Random Facts

I just thought I'd pass on some useless information.

Random Fact 1:
The word bonfire is rooted in two different words: bone and fire. They called it a bone-fire because they were burning witches and they needed the fire hot enough to burn the bones--hence: bonfire.

--Professor DeWitt of the English Language Department.

Random Fact 2:
Many people often wonder (well at least I did) about the alternate spellings: night and nite. Both spellings are correct. However, "nite" is the preferred spelling when you are referring to entertainment and night is the preferred spelling for everything else. There is some argument as to why this is the case but it is commonly believed that the "nite" spelling is used in entertainment because it's easier to make neon signs with that spelling.

--Webster English Usage Guide

Polygamy in the Millennial Star

Hey everyone,
Right now I'm kinda bored, sitting in the depths of the BYU library. I'm trying to focus on reading the Millennial Star. Honestly, it's pretty boring...but I'm finding some stuff on polygamy that's kinda interesting.

This first article was written 1853 and it's about providing female equality through polygamy:

It is high time that something was done for woman; she is treated bad enough in Christian England. We wonder the English women do not rise and assert their "right" like their American sisters. No reasonable man, knowing the cowardly manner in which many English women are treated, could blame them if they were to agitate the subject of "woman's rights."

But what are woman's rights? Ah! that's the great question before the nations--that's the grand problem for them to solve. More vital and eternal interests hinge upon it than most people are aware of.

In the first place, all good women (and we do not want to say there are any bad ones) have a right to good husbands; for woman was created expressly to be a helpmate for man--apart from him she is little more than a cipher. When a woman has this right secured to her, all other rights will be easily disposed of. If all the women in a nation were united to good and godly husbands, those women would find all their other rights come along naturally enough.

Wives are cheap in England--any man can obtain one; consequently, they are not prized as they should be. When you have made good behavior an essential condition of a man's obtaining a wife , then punish with severity (what if we say with death?) all departures from chastity...this will be the way to put an end to all cowardly assaults of savage men upon women. This is the Lord's remedy, and it is the only effectual one.

"But stay," says one; "your remedy would necessarily introduce the system of a plurality of wives, and that would be abominably blasphemous!" Ah! if we had but thought, we might have known that, in the remedy we propose, there is too much Bible for ungodly Christendom. It is too much like the practice of Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses, and other righteous faithful men.

You know the disease that is preying on the vitals of the people, we have prescribed the remedy--the only real remedy.

--Millennial Star vol. 15 pg. 267-78

********************

So, that's pretty crazy huh? Basically, the editor said that the only way to insure rights for women is for them to get married to good men, and since good men are in short supply, good men need to be polygamous.

Here is another one published Saturday, August 20, 1853:

How many hundreds of thousands of women there are, who, in consequence of having no opportunities of marriage, yield themselves up to a life of profligacy, and become notoriously immoral and unvirtuous. If these same females had not been deprived of the rights which all should enjoy under our glorious Constitution, they might have united themselves to some virtuous, good men, and been happy as their second or third wives, and thus been saved from the temptations and evils into which they have fallen. Look at the misery and wretchedness of thousands of females in almost every city in America and Europe, inquire into the causes of their shameful and criminal course of life, and it will be found that, in nine cases out of ten, they were driven to that state of degradation for the want of a protector--a husband in whom they could centre (sic) their affections, and on whom they could rely for a support.

Because of the vast numbers of unvirtuous females with which the nations are cursed, many young men neglect marriage, and seek to gratify their sexual propensitites by unlawful and sinful connexions (sic). If no public female prostitutes existed, or if they rarely could be found, the natural consequences would be, that young men, instead of abandoning themseleves to prostitution, would seek to unite themselves in honourable marriage with the partners of their choice.

Young men abandon themselves to vice and immorrtality in proportion to the amount of temptation and evil influnces with which they are surrounded. Diminsh the causes, and the effects are diminished also.

Allow plurality and it will be seldome the case that a female will yield to prostitution. The army of degraded females, receiving little or no accession to their numbers, would soon be diminished and eventually destroyed by their own folly and wickedneess, and thus, the causes of temptation, having in a great degree ceased, young men would walk in a more healthy atmosphere, and not be constantly allured as they are now from the paths of virtue.

Millennnial Star, vol 15. pg. 553-554.

*******

So, once again, marry off women, you have less prostitution, less prostitution, you have greater morality among men.

It's really strange reading this stuff. It's nice to get history without a historian getting in the way. I'm sure this is a long post by now so I'll stop. Hope y'all have a great day.

Philosophy of Dating--Provo (but applicable elsewhere)

Okay, so I've made it sort of a rule that if a topic comes up at least 3 times in one week I'll blog about it, and because of this, today's topic is dating. As I write please keep in mind that these are just my silly opinions and that on the whole I am entirely unqualified to write on the matter. However, since blogs are all about feebly shouting unsubstantiated opinions into cyberspace, I said to myself "why not?" So, here I am posting my meager opinions on dating. Since I've promised shorter posts I'll only discuss one thing in this installment: why people don't date much. If this discussion garners enough feedback I'll return to it and bring up other topics. I'm just writing on why people don't date cause that's what was mentioned three times (the three times rule is inviolate). Anyway, here goes.

As a whole I enjoy dating. I mean, what's not to like. I like eating out (I really hate to cook), I like to talk to people (specifically girls (who think so very differently)) and see what makes them tick, I like fun date activities (I pick what we do after all). Really, dating should be a blast, and generally it is. The only limitations to dating should be finding a date and cost. Let's discuss these limitations.

In Provo cost shouldn't be too much of an issue. In Provo it's almost as if the general authorities are in collusion with the local merchants and subsidizing dating costs to increase marriage statistics. Here it's possible to go on a date with a meal and some sort of activity for less than 5 dollars (believe me I've done it). Now, guys might be saying at this point "won't she be offended by the cheap date" my response to this is "if she is offended by how cheap the date is take that as a warning and jump ship." Honestly, with rare exceptions, I think most girls size up their date within the first few minutes of meeting them. After their initial decision what you spend on them won't make much of a difference. There are exceptions of course, but they are rare.

I think what really happens is the girl sizes the guy up and then uses the rest of the date to substantiate that opinion. For example, if you take a girl on a 5 dollar date and she likes you then your cheap date was "creative" and shows "financial acumen," and all the dumb things you said were "misunderstood." On the flip side if she doesn't like you then the 5 dollar date shows that you're "cheap" that you "must not think I'm worth much," and everything you said was "boring." Now, if you're really charismatic I think it might be possible to change an initial impression. Unfortunately, I'll need someone with charisma to let me know if this is true. Long story short, in Provo it's doubtful that money is holding you back--that's just an excuse.

As for finding someone to date. If you're a young single Mormon and you think that there isn't anyone around then either your standards are too high or you're blind. Now, I admit that it's hard to meet people outside your ward if you're not in some sort of extracurricular activity, but that doesn't mean the people aren't around, it just means you don't know them. Now, I recognize that it's harder for girls cause they usually are asked out. But just because you're responsive doesn't mean you have no control. Here are a few things to do and a few things not to do.

What not to do:

If you want to get asked out separate yourself from the herd. Girls always travel in groups. Often they're giggling. If a guy wants to ask one of the girls in the group out he has to approach all of you (while you're giggling/laughing so he feels like he's interrupting) and single one girl out somehow. Now, he doesn't want to ask her out in front of her friends cause that makes everything he does fodder--if he does that everything he says will be analyzed in minute detail later. So he has to separate you from the group and ask you out alone. This usually scares guys off so they just walk away and rationalize that they werern't that interested anyway. I guess put simply, if there is a guy you want to ask you out, then separate from your friends for a bit and make yourself approachable. However, if you don't want to get asked out, stick to the group.

What to do:

If you want to get asked out by a specific guy then you need to basically do 2 things: compliment and then direct. Step one: the compliment. Try to make it something personal. If you compliment something that they do instead of something they are a guy might not realize you're interested. For example, if a girl tells me "you're good at the guitar." I think "well yeah I guess I am" (sorry if that sounds prideful) and think nothing of it. After all, a guy could tell me the same thing and I wouldn't think twice about it. But, on the other hand if a girl says "you look nice tonight, I like that shirt" that definitely comes across as a personal compliment (which works well, the looking nice is personal, the shirt is objective...that way the guy feels good about himself and your directness is diffused by complimenting the shirt too). And using the "guy test" if a guy told me that I look nice and he likes my shirt we'd both be uncomfortable. I guess the rule is you should give a compliment that, if given by one guy to another guy, would make both guys uncomfortable. When you do this you're emphasizing the qualities that will make him feel confident asking you out. When you do this you empower him. This leads to step 2. Once he's empowered he needs direction.

All you need to do now that the guy feels confident (he looks nice after all) is inform him of some interst of yours. It can be anything you find interesting and that you think he finds interesting. Whether it's hiking, rock climbing, or some restaurant you've always wanted to go to. Just let make some comment about how it seems interesting and you'd like to go.

Now at this point if you're alone, you've complimented him, and you've given him an idea of what you'd like to do, if he doesn't ask you out he's either not interested at all or he's stupid. Either way, it's best to move on. At this point you can say you've done all you can (other than asking him out directly).

But I think I'm gonna end this tangent now (shorter posts and all). Besides, I feel really uncomfortable trying to explain how a girl should get asked out by a guy...that is all kinds of weird. I just know it has worked on me, I've seen it work on other guys, and it makes sense.

So, to put it all together. There are two main restrictions to dating--getting a date and the cost. In Provo cost isn't much of an issue. As for getting a date, you need to just lighten up and ask if you're a guy. Don't put so much importance on finding the perfect girl. You're not the perfect guy after all. Just ask people out and see what happens. I've done a date a week for a really long time. Some of the dates have been pretty pathetic (I'm sorry if you're reading this and you were one of those dates) but some have been great.

I think that what makes for really awkward dates is not dating enough. That is why I date weekly. I realize that some of those dates are pointless but they keep me dating. We all have a certain amount of awkwardness in us that comes out on dates. When you date weekly you distribute that awkwardness around Provo. When you go on a date every 4 months and you only ask a girl out when you're reallly interestd in her, that lucky girl gets the benefit of 4 months of pent up awkwardness. You'll have two strikes against you, your idealized interest and your bottled crazy.

Dating, like anything else, is done well when you enjoy it and you do it consistently. Because of this, I humbly submit that guys should try to date regularly. Ask girls out to have a good time, not because you've prayed about her and you think she's the future mother of your children. I think people in Provo are so hung up on marriage that they forget that friendship and the enjoyment of another's company come first. Provites have such high expectations, they're so busy wondering if the next date will be "the one," that they scare off (rightly) anyone worth marrying.

Don't open yourself up too fast, don't share everything all at once. Don't let your desire for closeness circumvent the natural process of getting to know someone. Certainly you should date to get married, but just keep in mind, dating is not only about finding the person to marry , it's also about finding the KIND of person to marry. In a way it's research. You need to find out what works and what doesn't. The more you date the better your eventual decision will be.

So date a lot, have fun, remember that intimacy (regardless off what I hear so frequently around here) isn't a gift you give someone, it's something you earn together through time and experience.

Well, I'm tired of writing. I got a lot more to say but this post is longer than I intended already. Sorry for the lack cohesion. I'll go back and edit this later.

My Talented Sisters (and Dad)

My dad just sent me a recording he made with my sister, Karynne. I thought I'd post it here. It's a Miley Cyrus song called "The Climb." Here it is:

The Climb


And while I'm posting music, here's another file from my other sister, Katie, singing with her husband Stu-Dawg. The song is called "Lucky" and it's by Jason M-something-or-other. As with the first song, my dad did all the instrumentation and recording.

Lucky