The Social Universe

Last night I went to ward prayer. That's something they do in singles wards throughout Utah. It's basically a chance for young people to get together on Sunday night and socialize (which for singles wards usually means flirting and planning one's date for the upcoming week).

Anyway, since this was the first ward prayer of the new school year it was very well attended, and all the guys were in top form.

What is top form? Well, the guys were running around and forming small flocks around the pretty girls. Those pretty girls were each like a nexus or hub....actually, while both those similes work, I think I'm gonna change course and say they're like little suns...

Alright...prepare yourself for a long and drawn out simile/metaphor.

These very attractive girls are like suns. The orbitals around them are guys (planets).

Okay, and now that that image is in place we need to account for all the less fortunate women who, sadly, lack the physical endowments necessary to generate social gravitational pull.

These unfortunate women are moons. They cannot attract (physically or gravitationally), so they are relegated to orbitals themselves: around the men. So, these women orbit the men (planets) who in turn orbit the suns (pretty girls). Lunar girls can do nothing but reflect the light from their more fortunate sisters.

This sounds a bit convoluted, but, sadly, it's quite accurate.

I noticed this cause I spent a good portion of this past ward prayer watching people closely cause I needed to find a few people to help me in my calling. To better watch for potential aides, I sat on the porch (which is elevated) so I could get a feel for everyone's conversation. As I sat up there, I had this realization: a social gathering is a mini universe.

It really was quite funny. I enjoyed the epiphany so much I decided I needed to share it here.

Imagine with me....Little clusters of people, all of them centered on a highly attractive object (albeit aesthetic rather than gravitational). Each system somewhat discreet, but all sharing a similar form. I was surprised I'd never noticed it before.

So, now that you can envision the situation, let's focus on the conversations taking place therein.

The one thing all these conversations had in common was how hard the guys were working at being funny.

A cluster of guys would surround a girl and sorta corner her. Upon doing so, they'd feign interest in every uninteresting detail of her life. As the girl would speak the guys would savor her every word and try to come up with clever witticisms that coincided with whatever she'd said.

The most successful guys were those who could come up with the most material based on her limited character exposition.

These witty fellows were rewarded for their efforts with her interest. Once a guy has interest, he takes on the role of conversation lead....until he says something stupid, loses control, spins out, and the girl loses interest. When she loses interest, she becomes neutral. At this time other guys can once again vie for her patronage.

Honestly, when you watch these situations closely it makes you feel bad. It makes guys look like a bunch of wolves fighting for scraps, pushing each other out of the way, trying to be the center of attention...

It's sorta sad how a pretty girl can turn the best of men into a complete moron.

What's really sad is how a pretty girl can turn a complete moron and turn him into....well, whatever is lower than a complete moron.

To wit: last night there was a guy (a complete moron) who had cornered a cute little blonde girl.

Whatever can be said for this guy, he does have a talent for immediately finding the prettiest girl in a room and making her feel uncomfortable. He's a very awkward fellow, and often very inappropriate. If he had some special talent at math or something I'd say he has asperger's syndrome.

Anyway, this chap had cornered a girl.

(by the way, if I was still on the solar system metaphor this guy would be a black hole).

When I saw him corner her I decided to play white night and step in. All I heard was the last end of his pick up line, but it went something like this: "I bet it's hard for you to get things done cause you're always hearing (he then did a very loud cat call))."

She looked very uncomfortable, perhaps even scared (he's sorta a heavy fellow with yellow teeth and a smile that makes you want to call child services).

I asked if I could join the conversation.

She looked grateful.

He looked threatened.

I asked what they were talking about. He repeated his clever cat call joke.

When I didn't laugh he said "You needed to be there."

I said "I'm not sure I'd like that."

I asked him about his life and sorta forced him into a conversation with me. She took that opportunity to escape the conversation and go form a solar system somewhere else. As she left she whispered "thank you."

This of course was an extreme example of the degenerative effect a woman can have upon a guy's discourse (actually a very extreme example cause it was the degeneration of a degenerate), but it does highlight the issue: pretty girls bring out the most competitive and insincere in men.

(Although, to be fair, women also bring out the very best in men: they inspire them to new heights of creativity, caring, etc.....unfortunately, these uplifting influences usually manifest themselves after marriage. Until then, guys are a relatively depraved lot, fighting and snapping at each other, ravenously pursuing whatever girl will give them the time of day.....it's not a very flattering description, but it is often deserved)

Okay, so now that I've stated my case (probably stronger than is deserved) I must now admit that there are some exceptions...some men behave like gentlemen.

Also, it is sorta unfair to characterize all men as I have--not all guys use wit (or at least try to use wit) to differentiate themselves. Here are some exceptions:

Some men just get really loud and talk over everyone else (usually dumb guys...but hey, it's effective).

Some guys are just so good looking that they let the women come to them.

And some guys (perhaps the most effective of the bunch) play in a band.

Anyway, hope this description wasn't too offensive.

Please excuse any exaggeration you find offensive as either a failed attempt at comedy, or the cynicism that naturally follows from spending nearly a decade in marriage-hungry singles wards.

Next time I'll try to be more participatory and have a better attitude.

Have a sunny day.

Church

My last Sunday at Church before I came home was sorta interesting. It was interesting mostly cause of a certain speaker. Here's what happened:

A sorta awkward looking guy stood up to the pulpit, grabbed it firmly with both hands, and said, "Hi, today I' going to speak on the Word of Wisdom, and just so you know....I'm a chemistry major, but I'll try to keep it at your level."

First off, that's sorta condescending, but I coulda put up with that. What bothered me was how he approached his topic.

(info: for those not in the know, the Word of Wisdom is the blanket term for all the commandments regarding proper diet: both what you should eat and what you shouldn't. It came as a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1833, and it is recorded in the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants (Mormon scriptures)).

Anyway, back to my complaint about this guys approach. Well, what he did was he explained the Word of Wisdom from a purely physical perspective (demonstrating his vast knowledge of chemistry and kindly sharing his remarkable mind with all of us less fortunate folks).

Now, I agree that the Word of Wisdom has a physical dimension (it is after all about what you should eat)....but my problem with this guy was that the Word of Wisdom (while insightful regarding our physical needs) is not really a law focused on our physical health. That is just an added perk. The heart of the Word of Wisdom is spiritual health (more particularly: how physical health affects spiritual health).

So, while there are some studies that show that Mormons live slightly longer than the average, that's the wrong approach to take. A talk on the Word of Wisdom shouldn't focus on the chemistry involved or death statistics. What a talk on the Word of Wisdom should focus on is how following the Word of Wisdom unlocks spiritual potential.

Frankly, I don't want to have faith that is only effective when it agrees with science. That's the message that underlied this guy's talk and it's flat out wrong...while he was skimming through his chemistry notes he was oblivious to the real reason we follow the Word of Wisdom: God said to. What this speaker said was, "Science says this, and since that coincides with the Word of Wisdom, we should follow the Word of Wisdom."

This sort of talk is a great way to develop mediocre faith. What's the point in having faith if it's limited to what you can prove (actually, that's sorta by definition not faith).

I think there is a trend to say "Hey! Science agrees with a commandment. Hooray!" And while it often does, that shouldn't be why the commandment is followed.... because there are times when the two are at odds, and often, the friction of their struggle ignites the spark of real faith. If you try to substantiate all faith claims through reason you'll head down a slippery slope that will lead to a very limited worldview.....cause everyone has (and uses) faith. Even an atheistic scientist has faith; it's just faith pointing in the wrong direction.

What do I mean? Well, look at the scientific method. It never leads to truth, it just gives you what is most likely, and it proves what is most likely through trial and error...but there is no end to this method. A proposition gets more and more likely every time it is tested and yields the expected results....but this doesn't give certainty. The gap between what is extremely likely and scientific fact is bridged by faith. We don't call it faith (cause for most that's a bad word), but it's faith alright; scientific hypothesis is the post-modern equivalent of a heartfelt prayer: both are a reaching out beyond the limits of what is known with the hope (or faith) that there will be a positive response showing one is heading in the right direction.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think that the laws of our universe will ever be at odds with a commandment from God. Actually, I think God understands the universe pretty darn well...so, I can only imagine that they'll always be in sync. So, it's not a matter of whether or not God will contradict the rules of the universe...the question is whether he'll contradict our understanding of the laws of the universe.

Reason can only be as strong as its premises, and our premises are derived from observation and testing. We make mistakes. Right now in every mind on this planet there are impostors; there are little ideas posing as truth that just aren't so. Part of learning is figuring out which ones don't belong and getting rid of 'em.

So, when the commandments of God coincide we should be excited for our understanding of science, cause it shows we're on track. What we shouldn't do is say "well, now that that's supported I can believe."

And that's what this guy's talk was all about.

After his talk was over he came and spoke with a friend of mine and I was introduced to him. Everyone congratulated him on his talk. When it was my turn to say something I said "Thanks for speaking"( I felt it was a sorta safe response cause it didn't convey my feelings about what he'd said).

He was a sorta arrogant fellow and he wanted more so he said "Well, did you think it was a good talk?"

Now, I know that courtesy requires certain things from us, and usually I try to respect the demands of propriety, but this guy was pushy (and he sorta rubbed me the wrong way), so I said, "Well, I know this isn't gonna start us off on the right foot...but I would given your talk differently."

He was sorta taken back by my response. He asked, "What would you do differently?"

I said "Well, what's the harm in saying 'We follow the Word of Wisdom because God told us to.' I know that doesn't sound as impressive, and it's not really the way people like to hear things...science is way sexier, but that's the truth. I'm pretty sure if God hadn't said anything on the matter, regardless of the scientific data both for and against, I'd probably drink--at least a little. Also, all the scientists out there that drink and smoke sorta demonstrate that scientific knowledge isn't the intellectual parent of the Word of Wisdom. So, I guess what I'm saying is that since your topic was 'why we follow the Wisdom' you should probably have spoken on that. Maybe as a sidenote you could have said that the Word of Wisdom also coincides with scientific understanding."

I don't think we're going to be friends.

Anyway, if you've made it this far I'm impressed. I probably should let the subject die. I guess it's just something that I'm sorta annoyed with these days.

I think what we need to do is realize that religious truth and science (for us) are sorta like a venn diagram. In the farthest circle to the left we have religious propositions. In the circle to the right we have scientific propositions. And in the middle there is the overlap. I think for us this is the way it's gonna be until we can clear out all those impostors in our mind that I wrote about earlier. I think for God there is no venn diagram...it's just one big circle containing all true propositions...cause for him the circles perfectly overlap. Sadly, for us, we gotta work through the muck see if we can get them to merge; some people have more overlap than others.

So, when you're speaking of the propositions in the religious circle, it's best to speak religiously. Science can peak over your shoulder if it wants, but it shouldn't be a backseat driver...cause in the realm of faith (the section removed completely from science due to the limitations of our understanding) science really doesn't have much to say.

Anyway, that's what's been on my mind. I wrote this really fast and I'm sure it's riddled with mistakes. Please be kind.

Delinquent

Hey everyone,
Sorry for not posting much. I guess lately I haven't felt much like blogging.

Anyway, I'm back in Provo now. The drive wasn't so bad this time. I listened to a book on CD, listened to the Wicked soundtrack for the first time, and rocked out to classic tunes from the 90s. The only thing that made the trip eventful was I was pulled over by a cop right outside of St. George, Utah.

I don't know how many people know the drive, but there is a period of time where you wind through a bunch of rocky cliffs (it's actually quite pretty)...well, at the windy part the speed limit is 55 miles per hour.

So, I slowed down through the windy part because years ago I got a ticket there (I took them at a regular speed and the officer did not approve of this choice).

Oh, and a little backhistory: I don't know if anyone else does this, but when I am on a long drive I usually pick a pacer car. This car is a car that is traveling at about the speed I like to go (usually a few mph faster than you're supposed to go but not fast enough to get a ticket).

Well, on this drive I had a pacer car...it was a BMW that sorta looked like a Rav4.

As we drove through the windy part where I got a ticket all those many years ago I slowed down (once bitten twice shy and all), but my pacer car friend kept going at the usual speed (oh, I remember when I was so young).

Needless to say, when I made it out of the windy mountains my pacer car was way ahead.

Now, I'm sorta sentimental, and I wanted my pacer car back (it's good to have one: if you're going too fast the radar usually dings the person you're following and they get the ticket).

So, I sped up to find my friend and continue our journey together.

Well, right as I speed up to catch up to the BMW I look to my left and see a police car. And since I was trying to catch up to someone who was going just slightly above the speed-limit I was of necessity going faster than someone just going slightly above the speed-limit.

When I passed the cop I immediately got into the right lane, got behind another car, and slowed down to a crawl (I'm sure my car looked like it was moping and repentant).I tried to make it look like I was just passing a slow driver. Well, the cop pulled out of his spot...and I got sorta nervous.

He stayed in the left lane for a while while and I stayed in the right, and I thought maybe he just coincidentally pulled out...but then he pulled into the right lane. His lights weren't on so I thought maybe I was in the clear.

I began to get my hopes up, but kept snailing it along to just be safe. I kept furtively looking over into the rear-view mirror watching the cop's lights, wondering if they'd turn on and declare my sentence.

After far longer than normal (maybe the policeman was contemplating whether to give me a ticket) his lights went on and he pulled me over.

He came up to the passenger side door and asked for all my info which I readily gave to him. He told me I was going a little fast and that there was construction up ahead so I really needed to slow done.

He asked me where I was heading. I told him I was making the drive from California to Provo. I looked at his CTR ring and I began to hope. Maybe he'd think I was a poor and pathetic student driving back to BYU (66 percent of that is true). He winced when I told him where I was driving from (obviously he knew how annoying that drive can be). He commiserated with me for a sec., took my license back to his car, and looked up my info.

I guess my record is pretty clean cause when he came back he didn't shoot at me or anything. He just gave me my license and said "Watch your speed."

I told him I would watch my speed, and I drove off feeling like a convict with a presidential pardon.

Sadly, I never found my pacer car again. I had to do the rest of the drive alone. I found a Mustang to drive along with for a while, but it just wasn't the same. Oh well.

So, anyway, now I'm back in Utah. In some ways it's good to be back, but in others I kinda wish I was still at home.

Here's just a sample as to why: on the drive to Utah I received a call at around 11PM and was told that the person who was supposed to teach in Elder's Quorum had moved out of the ward and that the person in charge of planning our lessons hadn't found a replacement....and since the person who didn't check into the matter was going to be out of town, and since it was a bit too late to ask anyone else to do it...it fell upon me to give the lesson. I skimmed the chapter once and then gave a lesson for 45 minutes. Realistically I never prepare much anyway, but it's the principle of the whole thing. Anyway, when I got that call I thought to myself "Yep, I'm back."

Well, that's where I'm at now. Back in Utah, and I really gotta get back into studying the GRE. I need to go to the dentist too (I was told I need to get an on-lay cause I grind my teeth at night really bad and I've cracked one of my molars along the biting surface).

funfact: when you grind your teeth during your sleep you can bite down with up to 8 times more than your regular bite strength (my dentist told me this, but I didn't clarify if this meant that you are 8 times stronger than your maximum waking bite strength (I would sorta like super strength while I sleep) or if he meant 8 times harder than you normally bite).

It was actually sorta funny, when I bit down he noticed that I have extremely overdeveloped muscles just below my temples and along my jaw. When he had me bite down he said "oh yeah, judging by that bite you definitely grind your teeth, a lot." But, he also noted that there isn't much wear on the biting surface so I probably clench rather than grind.

I guess I'm angry when I sleep or something. Maybe I just have a recurring dream that I'm a rock-grinder.

Well, that's about it. I hope you're all doing well. I'll try to post more regularly again.

Babies (With Pictures)

Well, I've been home for a few days now, and I've spent a good deal of that time playing with my niece...so, I've been thinking about babies.

It's really sad: it's so feminizing for a guy to say they've been thinking about babies. I really can't imagine myself hanging out with the boys and saying "let's talk about babies for a while, aren't they so cute!" Oh well, I guess I'll have to find some other avenue to project my masculinity.

Anyway, back to the main point, we really have a clear division of labor as far as babies are concerned. For example: on Sunday my whole family gathered together. In one room all the women gathered together, cooing and prodding my niece. In the other room all the guys gathered together, and had testosterone time.

In the woman's room they all took turns spewing adjectives about the baby. And of course to do this, they all raised their voices a few registers (because as everyone knows, babies only communicate in frequencies dogs can't even hear).

In the man's room the guys talked about manly things like shaving, video games, and not asking for directions.

I'm not quite sure why it's not cool for guys to like babies. They're so crazy and small. Babies are really lucky that for some reason tiny equates to cute. Their hands are amazing (they're like real person hands but fat and smaller (disclaimer: babies are real people...sorta)).

Baby feet are just silly-cute. Clothing designers caught on to the cuteness of baby feet are and they've made all sorts of ridiculous furry things to put on them. Babies got bunny shoes, ladybug shoes, shoe shoes, little paw shoes....I really think the majority of creative people in this world work for the baby-clothing design firms.

Another cool thing about babies: their expressions. Only a newborn can set a room in motion with a smile.

What gets me is that I find babies really cute, but if I ever try to describe them it's hard to justify their cuteness. The smallness is cute, but let's look at the rest of them......

1) They're bald: that's not attractive by any standard. My little niece has such fine hair that wherever she lays down she goes bald. Also, she has cradle cap so the top of her head needs to be scrubbed...which results in a look remarkably similar to the traditional horseshoe shape of male pattern baldness... somehow she pulls this off.

2) They're fat: I don't get this. Fatness is a bad thing, everyone talks about how it's disgusting, but with babies, the fatter they are the cuter they are.

3) They can't talk and they cry all the time: When regular people cry their face crumbles. They really can't look attractive.... they got snot on their face, it gets all puffy and red....but baby tears are cute. They inspire us to gush and reach out to them with love. When an adult cries you expect them to leave the room.

As for talking, they just can't do that. They just sit there and coo and gargle and blow bubbles that glide down their face. I find this cute, but I for the life of me can't figure out why.

4) They can't control their bowels: Okay, so their poo doesn't stink yet, but it's still disgusting. They poop so often, it's like they're rabbits or ferrets or something. An adult with the bowel frequency and control of a newborn would (justifiably) have no friends.

So, these are the major complaints I have about babies. I would complain about how they require feeding every 3 hours, day and night, but I've never had to wake up to feed a baby in the middle of the night so I don't feel qualified to make this complaint.

I guess the real amazing thing is that with all these faults babies are still wonderful. They're so peaceful, helpless (the perfect underdog), they're so trusting, they smell fresh (usually)...I guess we're lucky that all these qualities are enough to tip the scale and ensure the perpetuation of our species.

Oh, I almost forgot, a really great thing about babies is getting to play with them. You can take their hands and put them in funny poses (my niece plays an awesome air guitar). You can talk to them like they're a regular person and they don't interrupt (my niece has had quite a few lectures on topics ranging from the economy to pirates). You can sing them ridiculous songs and make up lyrics as you go without fear of looking stupid (a frustrating thing about this is that sometimes the song is quite good and the imparitiality of the baby means your genius goes unappreciated).

But when it all comes down to it, I think one of the best things about babies is how they bring a person's soul to the surface. When a baby is around you see the sorta love a person has, what they're capable of. I mean, we all sorta hold back when we love, probably cause we're afraid to get hurt. But when you have a baby around you can love as intensely as you want and you'll always feel rewarded and safe. It's sorta like taking a car to a closed track and flooring it to see what's under the hood. Babies let you really explore how deeply and purely you can love. I think this is why so many people love having babies...it changes them because they get to experience (often for the first time) the intensity of love that is the standard (standard here meaning our self-imposed maximum capacity to love) by which we should love everyone else.

Well, that's what I've been thinking about. My niece is pretty awesome. She's very cute, and she's so well behaved. She hasn't cried once since she's been here. Also, she's got some awesome clothes. She really can rock the ladybug sleepers...not many people can.

I guess this wasn't a very masculine post. I probably better go have a manly talk with someone. Anyone want to talk about explosives?

p.s. I didn't proofread this, sorry for all the mistakes.



Picture 1: Mommy and happy baby. Summer loves to rock the headband.



Here's Nick. I've known him since I was 6. He's really good with babies, but it looks really strange when he holds Summer cause he's kind of enormous...and she's pretty small.







Here is the picture where she looks like a little pink Sith Lord...very scary.



Here's Summer with Uncle Tim.

English

Today I am going to ramble about English a little bit.

Okay, first off, here are some crazy words.

Omphaloskepsis: this fancy word means "to contemplate one's navel."

So, if you're ever thinking about your navel, now you got a word for it.

Other fun words are:

Pulveratricious: this word means covered in dust.

widdiful: someone who deserves hanging.

nudiustertian: the day before yesterday.

limerance: an attempt to study love scientifically

Oh, and here is a really long word. It was the longest word in the first Oxford English Dictionary:

floccinaucinihilipilification: to judge that something has no value.

This is actually a sorta funny word. It was originally a joke, but it caught on. Some person took 4 words in Latin that meant nothing. The first word "flocci" this word comes from flouccus which means a tuft of lambs hair (which was used to mean nothing). "Nauci" means worthless. Nihil means "nothing." "Pili" means hair, which is also abstracted to mean little or nothing.

Some person took all these latin words that meant worthless and nothing and then strung them together, and then they placed the suffix "ification" at the end to make it a noun describing the act of making something worthless.

I dare you to use that word in a sentence.

Speaking of words, here is a complaint: the words data and media.

Today I read something where the person wrote "the data are private."

That just sounds stupid to me. Now, I realize that data is plural and datum is singular, but the meaning of the word "data" has changed over the years.

The problem is that data is rarely used as singular because data is such a nebulous term. What would be the smallest unit of data (which we would call "datum"). It's hard to say. A bit? A byte? A kilobyte?

I think it would be best to classify data as a collective or mass noun. I recently read online that some people have a problem with this; they think that data can't be a collective noun because collective nouns are always singular. And, while this is true, I don't think we use the word datum frequently enough (or with enough clarity) to split the word making the plural verb form necessary. Basically, what we'd be doing is making a hideous sentence like "the data are confidential" correct so we could make room for a word we don't even use: datum. I don't think it's worth it, and luckily, most grammar guides agree with me.

You can say "the data are saved," but if you do you should lose your friends. That is just so pretentious sounding, and I can only imagine the kind of person who would say that would be someone you wouldn't want to talk to.

Well, that's my rant for today. I hope you all have a wonderful day.

Oh, and another cool thing: many people know that there is a tendency to get sad during the wintertime when the sun is hidden and it's sorta gloomy. Well, there is a name for that problem; it's called "seasonal affective disorder." The cool thing is that the acronym for this is S.A.D. Isn't that a cool name? I appreciate diagnosticians with a sense of humor.

Anyway, that's all I got. I might get driving today to go to CA to see my niece, Summer. She's supposed to be the bee's knees. I can't wait to meet her.

American Graffiti

Last night I couldn't sleep so I decided to watch American Graffiti. It's a DVD that I found under a bunch of junk as I was cleaning out the apartment yesterday (yeah, I spent over 8 hours cleaning the apartment; I figure I'm the only one that lives here right now so I might as well make it clean).

I've always heard about this movie but I never knew anything about it other than that it was directed by George Lucas and that Harrison Ford was in it (and I only know this because of a comment Lucas made about casting Ford as Han Solo).

For those who haven't seen it, the movie is basically a film set in the post World War II financial boom; it's about the social scene among young folks (film was supposed to set in 1962).

I know the film was supposed to be nostalgic, but for me it was sort of depressing.

Why was it depressing?

Well, because everyone was so good to each other back then and I wish it was that way now (if this movie is to believed....and this movie was praised for its realism so imagine it's at least somewhat accurate).

Here are the things that stuck out in my mind:

1) The main activity in the movie is picking up girls with nice cars. The film takes place in Modesto, California. What happens is young guys in tricked out cars drive up to girls (who are either in a car or walking along the sidewalk) and say something like "Hey Babe! Wanna go for a ride?"

When I first saw them do this my thought was "Oh no! Don't get into the car! I didn't know this was a slasher film! She's gonna get killed! Don't trust him! Run! Run!"

But, she smiles, gets in the car, and they spend a pleasant evening together.

2) The main tough guy in the film is John Milner. He's got "the fastest car in the valley." He is feared and respected, but he's harmless. He gets tricked into taking care of an early adolescent girl for the evening, and rather than dropping her off anywhere and going on his way, he makes the best of things and tries to give her an enjoyable evening. He puts up with her prattle and even gives her a keepsake to remember him by. He was totally justified in dropping her off the moment she got annoying, but he put up with it.

If I had compare a film from my generation with Graffiti, the best match would probably be The Fast and the Furious. John's character is basically the character Vin Diesel played. Now, imagine a lighthearted trick where a pretty girl doesn't want to spend time with Vin Diesel so she tricks Vin into taking care of her little sister for the night (trusting a strange man). Then imagine Vin trying to make the most out of getting duped. The modern revision would have him throwing the girl out the window, chasing down that previous girl, and shooting her tires or something.

3) Central locations. In Chino Hills people don't hang out (or the cops break them up....groups bring trouble, drugs, and in general, tomfoolery).

Well, in this movie (and many others that depict a similar time) they have a central diner (usually a person's name is the title....like "Stan's" or "Mel's"). People goes to the diner and they see all their friends there because that's where everyone goes to hang out. Then, together, they decide to go see a movie at the drive-in or go drive up to the mountains or something.

I see the diner location hang out in a lot of films and I'm beginning to believe they might have actually existed...and that seems cool. If the movies are to be believed (always a risky proposition) people would gather together and there wasn't much posturing or bickering...just a lot of people looking for a good time.

I think part of why this sort of social networking was possible was that people drew together because they were disconnected. By this I mean that today we have social networking sites and cell phones. We can reach a friend anywhere in the country in seconds and plan something. Back then they had the land line in their homes (which parents might monitor) and that's it....so they had a social gathering spot. This sort of gathering is way better than instant messaging, texting, or writing on someone's Facebook wall. This was people gathering together face to face to have/plan a good time...and they had to do this cause there was no other way. So, now (counter intuitively) , all the technology that connects us in a way divides us. It makes it possible to settle for inferior forms of communication.

Well, I'm tired of typing. These were just some thoughts I had this morning. I realize that the early 60s weren't as wonderful as they were in this film. There were definitely bad things about this time that weren't depicted: i.e. racism, The Cold War, The Vietnam War (3 years into it in 1962), but overall it seems like America was generally optimistic; times were tough but we believed in America and our ability to pull through....nothing like the cynicism rampant today.

Honestly, it seems like the 60s was a big party, and my generation got stuck with the hangover.

But hey, we got the iPhone.

Today

Hello everyone,

Today has been a pretty productive day. I woke up and began my day by studying the GRE. I have a GRE study book and I went through the verbal section today. The vocabulary section is so much fun.

After studying I went to get a haircut. I haven't had one in a while and my hair was getting pretty long. Some people said they preferred it long, but it's not very comfortable....so now it's comfortable.

Actually, I haven't seen a lot of the people who read this blog in a long time and I haven't taken a picture of myself in a long time.... so I'll include a picture at the end of this post that I took right before I went to get my haircut (the smirk was accidental....and I realize my hair still wasn't very long, but it was very long for someone who usually takes clippers to their head every 2 weeks).

Anyway, I had a sorta funny experience while getting my haircut.

This is what happened:

The lady who cut my hair was the same ladywho cut my hair last time. My first and only haircut at her salon was 4 months ago and she didn't remember me. As she put that plastic hair sheet thingy around my neck she started her smalltalk.

Now, I don't know if all hair stylists have a small-talk course as part of their beauty school training, but it would make sense if they did cause they all say the same things. And the funny thing is no matter how you respond they seem to go to the next already memorized question without addressing your response. I guess this is for the best cause I'd much rather have them focusing on their job rather than entertaining me with their facility at spinning an interesting web of dialogue.

Anyway, after a minute or so of having the exact same conversation as last time I started playing around a bit. Cause, you see, every question was the same as last time, and last time after I'd answered a question I'd always ended my response with, "well, that's me, how about you?" I guess people often do that cause she had memorized answers for those questions too (you can tell they were memorized cause they were too concise and she said them with no expression...like someone does when they're reciting).

Well, my memory for dialogue is pretty good when I want it to be, and I had even more incentive to remember what she'd said because I thought it was odd that she'd memorized her answers... I tend to remember odd things.

So, I decided to have some fun with this and see if I could re-create our last conversation. I just needed to play my part the same as last time.

She was, of course, on top of her game and she started our conversation the same way she did 4 months ago. She said, "So, what do you do for fun?"

I responded as before, "Well, for fun I study, and for work I go on long bike rides."

So far so good, that was exactly what I'd said last time. She continued on with her memorized questioning and said "oh that's nice so are you in school?"

Now, at this point I knew we were doing pretty well and that our conversation has been almost word for word identical with our last one. I was pretty excited at how well we were doing and I kept it going. I responded as before and said I was about to graduate (not true anymore, but necessary to duplicate our last conversation). She said the same thing as before once again "oh, that's nice, so what do you study?"

She's good! I responded the same as before and told her I study Philosophy.

At this point I got sorta bored of the game and decided to try branching out. Instead of recreating our old conversation I decided it would be better to try predicting the conversation. As I mentioned earlier I had responded to all her questions with questions...and I still remembered her answers....so our conversation went like this:

(me to her) "so what do you do for fun?"
She started to answer but I said, "No let me guess, you like to hike, go for bike rides with your husband, and on Wednesdays you go dancing at the place down on the corner."

She took a step back and looked at me shocked. I not only said what her answer was last time, but I did it in the same order. She knew I had had this conversation with her before and she laughed. That was the first genuine thing she'd done the entire time.... the first action that wasn't scripted. Now we were finally getting somewhere. She said, "We've had this conversation before?"

I told her we had. She said "well, what else do you remember?"

I might have sounded creepy, but I just spewed all the details I could remember. I told her she had 4 kids....that as of 4 months ago the oldest was 7, that she had been cutting hair for 14 years, and that her favorite musician was Bryan Adams, and that the rest of our conversation 4 months ago was her telling me about a Bryan Adams concert she'd gone to when she was younger.

(the whole scene was very much like a scene from one of my favorite movies: Groundhog Day...I guess it's the closest I'll ever get).

It's a good thing she was an older lady because I think that freed me from her suspecting me of hitting on her.

After I responded I noticed that I had pretty much gone through all the questions on her smalltalk list. So, she just got quiet and finished cutting my hair. The whole thing was pretty strange.

I guess I'm just bad at first impressions.

I guess I'm even worse at second first impressions.

Anyway, that's my haircut story. She'll probably remember me next time.

Hope you all have a great day.

P.S. Oh, and here's the pre-haircut almost hippie picture: