Bill Shatner

I know you've all often wondered about how cool William Shatner is. Well, here is a video that puts it all in perspective for you. This is him performing Rocket Man. Honestly, I can't tell if he's serious or crazy--either way this makes me smile every time. Man, 1978 was cool. That unfiltered cigarette must make the surgeon general cry.

Rocketman

Also, if you can still handle more here is another actor's career low--this time David Hasselhoff. I just can't imagine what he was thinking when he made this video. From what I've heard, that crazy freaky looking thing at 1:50 is a character from a popular German television show. If you can figure out why Davie felt the need to bite into a fish and spit it out at 3:09 you're smarter than me. Anyway, hope you enjoy this. I really don't understand why we let the Hoff out of our country when he goes and behaves like this.

Don't Hassle the Hoff

Values

Today I thought I'd write about "values." Rather than talking about what I value I just thought I'd write about what it means to value something. I had a talk about this with one of my professors over a year ago and it was a really fun discussion. Basically we came up with this: values are for people who don't want to justify their opinions.

We hear people talk about values all the time. Values are in the news, values are brought up in political discussions, values are mentioned in child rearing and the list could go on. The thing that all discussions of value have in common is that they are subjective. Think about it, if someone says they value something I can't tell them they don't value it. They aren't making a claim about the thing they value, they are only making a claim regarding their relationship to what they value, namely, that they value it.

This makes speaking in terms of values very misleading. When you say you value something it sounds like you're making a profound and deliberate statement regarding what you value, but in reality, you're only giving the pretense of a substantial position. Values have nothing to do with right and wrong. Hitler valued racial purity, Jeffrey Dahmer valued a good meal, and Voldemort valued power (just read the first Harry Potter book), but these values would be considered bad by most.

I think that people are staring to speak in terms of values because they want to skirt the issue of what they really think and feel. They don't want to subject their opinions to the strict scrutiny of the truth, they don't want to speak about whether something is right or wrong, they don't want to offend anyone or put forth the effort required for a substantial position. What they do want is to look like they have something to say, sound well informed, mimic agreement, or sound intelligent.

Oh, and on that note, (running with the idea of how values "mimic agreement") why do you think politicians constantly talk about "good old-fashioned values"? What are these values? Well, because they're talking about values, they're not obligated to say. These vague values could refer to anything from slavery to making a good car. When someone says "good old fashioned values" I think of American Industry, or people knowing their neighbor, but someone else might think of something entirely different. Basically, speaking about good old fashioned values is letting them say "I believe in X where X= whatever you think is important." This lets them make everyone feel like they're on their side without even taking a side. This really gets on my nerves. Speaking in terms of values is just posturing.

I hope we all can take an approach to life where we see right and wrong. We don't have to be pretentious or offensive, we just need to be aware that some decisions are better than others and that not all opinions are equal.

Now please keep in mind that I'm not saying we shouldn't have values. Of course we should. Values are important, even necessary, for any thinking person. I am just afraid of, and writing against, how discussing important matters in terms of what we value leads to a relativist approach to truth.

Well...you know what? Forget it. How about this: I value meaningful discussion, I value discussions that focus on right and wrong, and I value not opining in terms of values... see how much easier that is?

Mr. Farrakhan

Okay, so here is Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the radical group"The Muslim Nation." He's speaking on the atonement. This talk was given during the Million Man March in Washington D.C.at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. Now, you may think I'm making fun of this guy by posting this link. To all of you who think this I just wanna say....well, yeah, you're probably right, I am kinda making fun of him, but this guy is nuts and he's the funny kind of "taking myself too seriously" nuts so it's okay to laugh at him. Anyway, without further ado, here is Minister Louis Farrakhan's brilliant explanation of the atonement.

Atonement

For those of you who want to hear an extended version of that talk with commentary by Kevin and Bean here ya go.

Extended

Works of Love

I just thought I'd quickly share the first paragraph of Kierkegaard's conclusion for the Works of Love. I read this passage in a Kierkegaard class once, the professor read it aloud and cried by the end of it. It's way more beautiful in the context of the entire book but this little bit carries the gist of it all.

***
In this book we have endeavored "man times and in many ways" to praise love. As we thank God that we have succeeded in completing the book in the way we wished, we shall now conclude by introducing the Apostle John, who says, "Beloved, let us love one another." These words, which have apostolic authority, also have, if you consider them, an intermediate tone or an intermediate mood in connection with the contrasts in love itself. The basis of this is that they are by one who was perfected in love. You do not hear the rigorousness of duty in these words; the apostle does not say, "you shall love one another"; but neither do you hear the vehemence of poet-passion and of inclination. There is something transfigured and beatific in these words, but there is also a sadness that is agitated over life and mitigated by the eternal. It is as if the apostle said, "Dear me, what is all this that would hinder you in loving, what is all this that you can win by self-love! The commandment is that you shall love, but ah, if you will understand yourself and life, then it seems that it should not be commanded, because to love people is the only thing worth living for, and without this love you are not really living. Moreover, to love people is the only blessed comfort both here and in the next world; and to love people is the only true sign that you are a Christian"--truly, a profession of faith is not enough either.

***

Every time I read through Works of Love I get something different out of it. This last time I thought about the relationship between depression and love. I think the question we should ask ourselves when life gets rough is whether or not we're loving enough. Sadness and depression are inherently selfish. You cannot be depressed without also focusing, nearly to exclusion of all else, on yourself. Depression is then, by extension, a form of self-love (Kierkegaard defines self-love as self-preferment). So, if you're down, trying doing something nice for someone, find "the only blessed comfort both here and in the next world." It is really hard to be depressed and actively love someone at the same time. Anyway, just a thought.

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.