Do you feel the need to defend dead people?

 To help them save face? To defend their poor decisions or bad ideas?

No?

Then why do it for yourself? Whoever made those bad decisions is dead. They no longer exist. All they are is a memory.

First Time Snorkeling

Yesterday I had my first snorkeling experience down off La Jolla shores in San Diego.  The weather was overcast and a little chilly, so I was grateful for the wet suits that were provided.  After we got all geared up and walked down to the beach, the tour guides gave us a little "safety" talk, particularly with reference to lurking bat rays (a type of sting ray) that might be hiding out on the surface as you walk out into the ocean.  Apparently if you step directly on them, it pisses them off and they'll sting you, so what you do is this "ray shuffle," which is basically like the moonwalk with big flippers on.  Walking normally (forward motion) with flippers on is already hard enough outside of the water, and all but impossible in water, so walking backwards already made sense.  The guide assured us that there is only like a 1 in 17 chance of being stung by a bat ray during a dive.  I tried to feel reassured, looking around at our group of 10 or so.

So out we went, without stepping on any bat rays.  The water was really cold.  I was glad for the wet suit, especially mine because it fit quite snugly.  There were a couple of super skinny guys in our group whose wet suits did not fit very well, and they were absolutely miserable.  If a wet suit isn't skin tight, it apparently doesn't do much for you.

We split up a little and started swimming around, heads down in the water.  I got away from the group a bit, and as I was swimming, to my surprise (read: "Holy Sh**!") a bat ray slowly swam beneath me, perpendicular to my direction.  My initial reaction was to stop swimming, become upright, and start treading water, but the goggles make everything appear closer, so it looked like the ray was no more than three feet below me, and I definitely didn't want to kick it.  So instead, I kept swimming and tried not to catch its attention.  (I'm wondering if it even saw me at all, because it seemed to be taking such a leisurely morning swim.)  It was gone in a matter of seconds, and when I came up and signaled to some people, they couldn't hear me and it wouldn't have mattered by then anyway.  Here are some shots of what it looked like (no I didn't take any pictures):

This was my first encounter with any sea creature, so I was a little rattled, but no harm done so I kept swimming.  The tour guides said that the visibility was great that day, but the water seemed pretty murky so I would hate to have been out there on a "bad" day.  The murky water already made it a little creepy, since things could come in and out of visibility relatively quickly.

I swam back over to the group and kept swimming around, seeing some fish down in the "sea grass" or whatever you'd call the stuff we were looking at.  At one point I caught a glimpse of what appeared to be the back half of a long fish with spots on it.  It was swimming away so I only saw it for an instant and didn't think much of it.  Talking to my friend later, we determined it might have been a leopard shark (which was the purpose of this particular snorkeling tour).  After googling leopard sharks, sure enough, that appears to be what I saw:

So all in all, it was a pretty good trip.  We were only out there for maybe 30 minutes tops, but I think I was the only person who saw anything other than sea bass or other little fish.  Guess I lucked out.  But next time I think I'd like to go somewhere tropical where the water is clearer and warmer.

My Personality?

I'm not sure how reliable these personality tests are, but here are my results from a Meyers-Briggs knock-off that I took:

Introverted (I) 73.33% Extroverted (E) 26.67% Sensing (S) 60% Intuitive (N) 40% Thinking (T) 64.52% Feeling (F) 35.48% Perceiving (P) 54.05% Judging (J) 45.95%

Your type is: ISTP

ISTP - "Engineer". Values freedom of action and following interests and impulses. Independent, concise in speech, master of tools. 5.4% of total population.

My Letter to Chipotle

All right, I'm a little embarrassed. And I should probably be more than a little embarrassed. This is my third blog entry about Chipotle. Here are number one and number two. However, for someone who has a history of publicly despising and trashing Chipotle, this latest entry will tell a slightly happier story. The following is a letter I sent to Chipotle via their website.

***

Last night, I visited Chipotle for the first time in years. I had previously sworn I'd never again grace Chipotle with my patronage. Here is why.

It was 2006. I was having a heated debate with a friend in law school about the poor quality of Chipotle's food. I declared it bland, tasteless, dry, and served at room temperature. He vehemently disagreed, and at his insistence, I accompanied him to the nearest store to order the "best" thing on the menu. I obediently mimicked his order, getting the chicken burrito with all sorts of lukewarm-looking fillings stuffed inside. We sat down to eat and I bit into my burrito-flavored otter pop . As expected: bland, dry, and tasteless. I shook my head at my friend as if to say "Is this the best you got?"

Years passed and I lived a happy, Chipotle-free existence. Then I went on a date with a Chipotle-lover. Because I am a gentleman, I acceded to her wishes and we pulled up the online order form. I decided to again go with the chicken burrito, keeping it simple with just rice, beans, and chicken, and cheese. But in the special comments section, I typed the following: "Please add salt/flavor. Make sure burrito is hot." When we got to the store, I watched in grim amusement as the worker handling our order studied the slip in confusion. I could almost hear him thinking, "Give the burrito flavor? How am I supposed to do that?" "Make it hot? I have no microwave and these fillings have been sitting just above room temperature all day!" I had some sympathy for him. He wasn't entirely at fault; he was just working with what the Chipotle gods had given him.

Food in hand, we returned home to eat. One bite into my burrito was all it took to realize that nothing had changed in the past five years. I looked on in despair at the 800-calorie cylindrical piece of cold garbage on my plate. But then I got an idea--my house was equipped with a microwave. Excited now, I put my burrito in and hit the 30-seconds button. Half a minute later, a piping hot burrito emerged. After waiting a minute or two for it to cool (what a refreshing change!), I took another bite. Shock. Surprise. Happiness. Joy. The emotions churned through me as I chewed. Could this be the same burrito? Was my microwave secretly a portal to an alternate reality in which Chipotle makes really good food? No...it couldn't be. The burrito I was now eating had flavor. The heat gave it the impression of being juicier. The cheese had actually melted! I marveled that a mere 30 seconds in the microwave had transformed a tasteless burrito popsicle into something not only edible, but enjoyable.

And thus, Chipotle gods, I offer some humble suggestions. First, keep your fillings HOT! The burrito will have cooled sufficiently by the time your customers start eating, especially for those who like to put sour cream and lettuce (which I understand need to be kept cool) in it, too. Second, if you don't want to keep your fillings hot, then buy small conveyor ovens for your stores. Offer your customers the opportunity to send it through that oven for taste optimization (at a small fee, of course--come on I know you guys like extra revenue streams). Third, if neither 1 nor 2 are feasible, then maybe just put up a sign that says "Put our burritos in the microwave for 30 seconds and prepare for your minds to be blown." Do these things and those lines stretching out the door will start wrapping around city blocks.

Finally, as a separate, somewhat unrelated suggestion, how about some seasoned rice? Enough of the bland white rice with green specks in it. It doesn't taste like anything. Give us the option of seasoned rice of some sort. You know, something that has some flavor in it. Maybe add butter, I don't know. It's not like your customers are counting calories, right? I mean, they're pounding down ~900-calorie burritos for crying out loud.

Please take this feedback seriously! I think it could really go a long way in improving the taste of your food.

Sincerely,

My name.

The difference between boys and girls

I'm sharing this story from the latest book I'm reading: "Seal Team Six: Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper," by Howard Wasdin. This is around page 113. Hilarious.

***

My son, Blake, really liked hanging out with the SEAL Team guys, and they loved him, too, especially after a particular incident when Blake was four years old. One day after work, I returned home to find Laura in the kitchen, out of her mind.

"What's going on?" I asked.

"Little Debbie was over, and they got into Blake's wading pool. Naked!" Little Debbie was a neighbor's six-year-old daughter.

"Oh."

"I called her mama and told her. She thought it was funny. You better talk to him."

So I walked down the hall to his room. Blake was playing Duck Hunt on the Nintendo, shooting flying ducks with his Nintendo Zapper Light Gun.

"Hey, buddy, how was your day?"

"Good," he said.

"What'd you do today?"

"Played."

I left him to his game and returned to Laura in the kitchen. "He's fine. Didn't even bring it up. Must not be such a big deal."

"Oh, no. You have to make him talk about it. He's probably traumatized."

So I returned to Blake's room. A dog on the TV monitor sniffed out the dead ducks in the grass and congratulated Blake.

I became more direct with my questioning. "Did you go swimming today?"

"Yep."

"Well, did anyone go swimming with you?"

"Yep, Debbie went swimming with me."

"Did you and Debbie take y'all's clothes off while you were in the wading pool?"

"Debbie took her bathing suit off, and told me to take my bathing suit off."

"Do you know you're not supposed to let people see your pee-pee?"

"Yes, Mom told me not to let people see my pee-pee."

"Well, did Debbie see your pee-pee?"

"Yep, Debbie saw my pee-pee." He laughed.

Did you see Debbie's pee-pee?"

He stopped playing his game and put down the gun. There was a hint of concern in his voice. "You know what, Dad? Debbie doesn't have a pee-pee." He seemed to feel sorry for her. "She's got a front-butt."

Watches...am I missing something?

I was about to include this little rant in my previous post, but didn't want to get too off topic. I honestly don't understand what the big deal is with watches. Maybe this is just me not understanding jewelry in general. The watch pictured above [2022 update - link no longer good; can't remember what it was] costs around $500,000, I think. I'll quote a little bit from the site I pulled the picture from:

Everybody would definitely be attracted to this timepiece because of its glow and sparkling effect. As you can see, this timepiece is bombarded with baguette diamonds found on the case, dial, and even on the bracelet. Its case is also presented in oval shape giving it additional appeal. Aside from the diamonds, this watch also has sub dials for the seconds and power reserve indicator found on the moon shaped detailing on it along with the star.

If you are looking for a precious timepiece to collect, this Girard Perregaux should definitely be included on your list. With this watch on your wrist, expect to catch everybody’s attention. Wear this at night with your gown for a more glowing and glamorous look.

Did I read that last part right? Isn't this a man's watch? I haven't worn a "gown" since I was 8, and it was actually one of my dad's t-shirts. Maybe it's a lady's watch. I don't know. Needless to say, I can't even comprehend purchasing a watch like this, for that much. I love how the author even tries to talk up its utility: "It has sub dials for the seconds and a power reserve indicator!" Oh good--I'm glad I just spent more money than 95% of the world's population sees in a lifetime on some fancy sub dials. I think the last time I consistently wore a watch was during my mission in Brazil. I didn't have a cell phone (this was 2000-2002) and had a pocket full of appointments. The watch was highly useful, so I used it. Ever since then, I can't say that I've consistently worn a watch for any significant period of time. And when I did, it was when I was going through a phase and thought man jewelry was somehow cool (I confess I occasionally wore a couple rings during this period). In fact right now I'm looking at the above-pictured decent-looking watch that my dad got me for Christmas, and I've worn it maybe twice. It even has buttons on the side, and a tiny digital portion behind the hour/minute hands. If I mash those buttons enough, I can eventually figure out the date, start and stop/reset the stopwatch, accidentally set the date two days off, mess up the clock as I try to fix the date, and finally hurl the damn thing across the room in frustration. In the meantime, I could have checked my email on my iphone and passed a couple levels of Angry Birds. If I were to ever buy a $500,000 watch--no, actually let's not even go that high. If I were to ever buy a watch with a price tag exceeding $1,000, in addition to telling me the time, it should:

1. Measure my heart rate, blood pressure, and blood sugar
2. Count calories
3. Double as my car key
4. Double as my cell phone (or at least link by blue tooth)
5. Be a walkie-talkie
6. Sound an alarm when bad guys are near
7. Have a tazer function
8. Remind me to call my mother
9. Order pizza
10. Tell the future

I could probably go on and on. You get the idea. People need to stop pretending watches are anything more than simple time-keeping devices. If you paid more than $50, then I've got some beautiful ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you, as well.

Getting Your Money's Worth

I didn't purposefully mean to come back to my blog after a two-month absence and write on a topic substantially related to my last post, but that's just how it worked out. I mourn the fact that my blog isn't really funny anymore. Guess I'm getting old and boring. If you want laughs, go here.

Lately I've noticed something about myself---my personality to be specific. I don't know that it's very unique. I'm sure a lot of people [who grew up in the great depression] are also like this. I like to make things last. I like to get my money's worth. While some people like to stay on top of the latest trends and fashions, I try to see how long I can keep wearing a shirt before it's in tatters and/or hopelessly out of style. (Fortunately, t-shirts probably won't go out of style in my lifetime.)

A few principles guide my tastes in this respect. First of all, I'm not one for sacrificing too much utility in order to make something last a long time. For instance, I could probably still be using my old motorola flip phone I got back in 2005 (or something similar). The utility of a smartphone far exceeds any personal preference I have to make an older cell phone last longer. Also, I'm not going to hang on to some old thing that becomes unreasonably expensive to maintain (like an older car).

I'm now sitting in my room looking around for stuff that I've had for a long time. Hey let's make this a little more photographic.



That wrinkled shirt I'm currently wearing...I probably got that in 2003 or so. I am definitely not a skater, but hey it fits well and only has one or two tiny holes. Why not keep it?




I got these sandals in Sao Paolo, Brazil in 2000. They told us about parasites we could get in our feet if we ever walked around barefoot, so we all went out one day and got flip flops. One of the straps came loose once as I was walking at the beach, so I took it to a shoe repair shop and got it fixed. They're as comfortable as ever.


These gym shorts I got back in 2005 or so. They have a tendency to fall down when I'm doing plyometrics (jump training) at home. It's not that I have any special attachment to them; I think I'm just too lazy to go buy some new ones. Also not shown are the comfy/lounge pants I'm wearing. They're cloth on the inside and that semi-waterproof ski material on the outside. I probably got them around the same time or earlier as these shorts. Sweats would probably be a better choice. Again, lazy. (I didn't take a picture because I've decided these pics are pretty lame. Also: lazy.)



This is the oldest item I have in my room that comes to mind. I got these on my 8th birthday and that trusty outer cover has kept them in relatively good condition for the past 20+ years. Items like these get more valuable with age as you go marking them up. You can even look back on what you marked (like during seminary) and chuckle a little bit over what you found interesting or deep back then. In that sense it's a little bit like a journal.

And the device taking all these pictures is my iphone. Still rocking the 3G (over three years old--ancient in electronics age) and milking it for all its worth. As I explained elsewhere, I don't like being manipulated into purchasing new products. Therefore, I have vowed to use this iphone until no longer practical. (When it comes to electronics, I'm typically much more indulgent in getting newer things since it is such a rapidly evolving industry.)

Well that concludes this exciting tour of the old stuff lying around my messy room. I just noticed an unopened bag of cashews lying on some shelves. Wonder how long I'll keep that around. Some might call me "cheap" for being like this, and that is perfectly fine by me. I figure if I can stay equally--or even more--satisfied with older stuff than a person who always must have the latest and greatest, then all the better for me and my wallet. Besides, then I have more money to spend on other people who might want or need newer and/or better stuff.

Needs vs. Wants

‎"The wealthiest person is not who has the most, but who needs the least." -Richard Watts

Needs and wants. Many people conflate the two. They see the stylish new whatever Kim Kardashian is wearing and think "Oh I need to get one of those!" That's an easy one, clearly he/she really meant to say "I want." Given this imprecision in everyday speech, the prefatory quote I listed above should probably be understood to mean that the wealthiest person wants the least. (However, that small change also carries a connotation of being unambitious, so I can see why the author opted for "needs.")

Actual needs are pretty much the same for everyone. Thoreau defined them as food, water, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Five basic needs that all human beings share. After that, however, everything is a question of "wanting." Wants come in all shapes and sizes and will vary from one person to the next. One premise we'll have to agree on is this: one whose wants are met is content/happy. One whose wants are not met is discontent/unhappy. Based on that premise, it should follow that someone with less extravagant wants will be contented more easily, or in other words, find happiness more easily.

Take the following example. Bob and Carl are two men who want a vehicle. Both men have exactly the same job, the same net worth, the same skills, talents, intelligence, and all their other wants are exactly the same. Both men are identical in all respects except for one: Bob would be fine driving a cheap used car, while Carl wants nothing less than a new BMW. Because Bob's wants are less extravagant than Carl's, he is going to have a much easier time having his wants met than Carl will. Bob may only have to spend $10k-$20k on his car, while Carl will have to spend well over $50k. Bob is thus left with much more money to spend on other wants he might have, while Carl is not. Both men ultimately get what they want in terms of a vehicle, but by the time Carl has gotten his BMW, Bob has been able to take his wife on a trip to Europe, pad up his 401k, and save for a rainy day. Bob not only reached contentment sooner and more easily than Carl, but he was also able to satisfy other wants which Carl couldn't.

That illustrates the empowerment that comes by having modest wants. A person with modest wants is still perfectly free to be ambitious and obtain all the fancy things that a "Carl" wants, but his happiness doesn't depend on it. He's not going to get discouraged if his neighbor has something better than him as long as his wants are independent of whatever anyone else has.

The bottom line is that the more aligned one's wants and needs become, the more easily contented one will be. That isn't to say that it's wrong to have wants above and beyond one's basic needs, since needs are pretty easily satisfied. But unreasonably inflated or extravagant wants and expectations are a sure way to unhappiness.

How to Eat Right (no, not really)

I have a confession to make. I often see eating as a chore.

Hear me out. If you consider what I eat, you'd understand why. Here is my typical daily regimen:

-Four scrambled eggs and glass of milk for breakfast
-Two ham & swiss sandwiches for lunch
-Two handfuls of almonds, 40 grams of dark chocolate, and several tangerines for snacking throughout the day
-Large protein shake at night after exercising
-Dinner: either costco chicken bowl, chicken breast with rice, or something nasty and nukeable

Sometimes I feel like an animal, eating out of necessity. I'm in the business of counting calories. I want to gain weight (muscle), but I have trouble disciplining myself to consume the 3500 daily calories or so that I would need to make serious gains.

Now before you cry bloody murder, keep in mind that those 3500 calories have to be quality food. I can't just fill in the gaps with sugary donuts. That would be worthless. On the other hand, I suppose that if I ate tastier (yet still healthy) food, it would be easier to reach that goal? Hmmm, food for tho....nevermind.

One obvious advantage to a diet like mine is economic in nature. I don't spend a lot on food. Pretty much everything I eat during the week comes from the grocery store or costco. I get by on less but I'm still content, and I find that empowering.

Also, consider another benefit. Because my daily fare is so routine and repetitive, when I do switch things up, it is all the more special and unique. So for example, when I go out to eat at a restaurant, the food is that much more exquisite because it stands in such contrast to my regular drill, even if it's just someplace like TGI Friday's. Can someone who eats out daily or even several times a week say the same? The more exposure to any particular stimulus, the less reaction it will elicit, whether positive or negative.

Since this particular blog entry has no discernible structure to it, let me also just say that almonds are really, really delicious. I'm not talking about the roasted or salted or sugared ones. Just the raw kind you can buy in bulk at costco (they're back in the baking goods aisle). I've discovered that the less extra sugar I consume in my diet, the more I enjoy the sugars and flavors of natural food. Do you not like dark chocolate? I used to be the same way. Your taste buds adjust and after a while it's like regular chocolate, except much healthier. Same thing with carrots. Did you know they're actually a sweet vegetable? Stop drinking all that horrible sugary soda and see for yourself. Also: soak them in water to bring out the flavor.

And along the same lines as what I said before--cut most of the sugar out of your regular diet, and those deserts you occasionally indulge in will become all the sweeter and more delicious. It's a win-win: you learn to enjoy the regular flavor in your foods AND dessert tastes better.

And since I'm already rambling, let me also add that our bodies were never meant to handle so much sugar. I read in one of my Mens Health mags that during the Renaissance, the average person's total yearly consumption of sugar (from cane) was something like half a teaspoon. Now you get like 10 teaspoons in a single can of coke. One can of coke and you've had the same amount of sugar someone in the 15th century would have consumed in a period of twenty years. Sugar didn't start becoming so cheap and plentiful until they discovered how to crystallize the juices derived from sugar cane, making shipping from India considerably more manageable. Makes you wonder what everyone looked like back then. Less round, I imagine. Something to think about!

"Everything Happens for a Reason"

I don't like this phrase. Typically you'll hear it after something bad happens to someone, and they'll utter it, shaking their head and staring wistfully off into space. I suppose people say it to make themselves feel better about whatever happened. In reality, it's a worthless statement. Too often, I think it represents a person surrendering power and further externalizing their locus of control.

Of course everything happens for a reason. That's a truism that doesn't even deserve stating. How could anything happen if not for some "reason." Cause and effect. You never get the effect without some cause. The problem I have with this statement is that it often robs people of the introspection they should be experiencing to determine said "reason." The "reason" is often construed as some mysterious unknown, beyond the powers of mortal detection. What people cannot quickly and easily discern is chalked up to "fate" (which is merely a secular version of God). The idea is that there is a "good" reason for this bad thing happening, but that the reason simply isn't visible due to our limited perspective and/or information.

But people should only resort to such external attributions after they have reasonably eliminated all possible "reasons" that are within their control. For example, take a person who gets in a car accident and then afterward cries "Why me?? Oh well, I guess everything happens for a reason." Most likely, the car accident happened because of a driving error. Perhaps the error was the product of habitually poor driving. If the person is quick to look outward for some greater "reason" for the accident, he/she may fail to detect the real reason and accordingly continue his/her poor driving habits. The correct order would be to look inward, first, and then if nothing presents itself, chalk it up to "fate" or "life" or however you choose to describe that which is beyond your control. Alternatively, the person may opt strictly for self-pity, without any attribution whatsoever. Even then, he robs himself of the opportunity for introspection and potential growth.

Similar is the situation of a person recovering from a failed relationship. One option is to wallow in misery, concluding that it just "wasn't meant to be." (That's another phrase that irks me.) Another option is to look inward at what he/she might have done to contribute to the failure. Unless the person can honestly say that he did everything in his power to make it work, then it is premature to start attributing the cause to some mysterious unknown. Naturally, such introspection takes effort and can be uncomfortable. That's why I don't think it happens a lot. But it's the accountable and responsible thing to do, and is necessary for personal change.

Now even though bad things happen because of our own mistakes, that isn't to say that there isn't some greater lesson to be learned from those mistakes at a later point. And for those who believe in God, it might be said that the ultimate "reason" that thing happened was so that we would learn that future lesson. That's fine. My point here is simply that looking forward too quickly for that lesson may cause a person to miss out on detecting the true reason staring them in the face: their own behavior.

In his book "Man's Search for Meaning," Victor Frankl points out that one of the ways people find meaning in their lives is through experiencing unavoidable suffering. If the suffering is avoidable, then of course the solution is to avoid it (to me, this would involve detecting the cause of the suffering and reacting accordingly). If it is unavoidable, however, then that is when a person should start looking outward and transcending himself, to find (or create) the "reason" for the suffering. That reason then becomes a gem of meaning, which makes the suffering bearable. Same principle here.

Most of my friends are girls, and that's not necessarily a bad thing

Sometimes people wonder why I have more girls as friends than guys. I often join them in wonderment. But then I got to thinking, as I am wont to do (also kudos to my friend "olafie" who helped me refine these ideas).

Now, this isn't because I'm simply girl crazy and don't care about the dudes. This also doesn't mean I'm into girly stuff--I cringe just as much as the next guy when I'm dragged into a horrible chick flick. The reasons are pretty simple. Even though I am undeniably male, I don't identify much with things, attitudes, or ideas typically associated with male stereotypes. I think being "macho" is idiotic and a facade for insecurity. I have little interest in sports--professional, college, amateur, or fantasy. Gambling and card games have little appeal to me. When it comes to cars and trucks I don't care so much for brand or looks, but rather for the strict utility of the vehicle (including fun little technological perks). I'm not super outdoorsy. I'm not mechanically-savvy. I can follow instructions but I have no special knack for home repairs, landscaping, construction, etc. In short, there is a lot on which I and my male colleagues differ. However, I do share with (most of) them an attraction to women, an interest in fitness, and basic anatomy.

That's not to say that I actively avoid male friendships; I simply don't go out of my way to make them. Sitting around with the fellas drinking beer and watching the big game/fight just isn't my idea of a good time. Couldn't care less who wins/loses. I don't have a team. I'm impressed by individual feats of incredible human achievement--not who won or lost. I don't understand people who get visibly angry when their team loses, as if it's some insult to their honor or family name. One time I was on a stationary bike at the gym and some guy came up and sat down at the one next to me. He started to chat me up about baseball or something (which, of all sports, I find the least interesting to watch or follow). I smiled and pretended to know a thing or two about what he was talking about, but he quickly realized I was clueless and stopped talking to me. I got the impression he felt like I was a disappointment.

Now for why this isn't necessarily a bad thing, and why it might even be a good thing. Do you know what happens when a bunch of guys get together and are left to their own devices? A lot of stupid crap. That's when the conversations about women become extremely vulgar. That's when fights break out, gangs are formed, crimes are committed, wars are started, etc. Think of every negative thing typically associated with being male, whether it's aggression, stubbornness, ignorance, closed-mindedness, pigheadedness, or what have you. Each of those characteristics becomes multiplied when you stick a bunch of men together and let them do their thing. Let me qualify my statements a bit: of course this isn't ALWAYS the case, but I am confident that such environments are conducive to the exhibition of these and other undesirable characteristics. Men have this thing called "pride" and they can't let it be wounded--no matter what! Well, by avoiding such situations, I feel that I spare myself from a lot of stupid crap I might otherwise do.

Here's a personal example from my life, when I gave in to male peer pressure. During my early college years, I had a close guy friend with whom I would hang out pretty regularly. I didn't know it at the time, but this guy was a huge douche. He was the stereotype of so many things I despised: fast cars, loud music, hats worn sideways, always talking about "hot chicks," etc. One day, I got in a little fender bender that required me to get some body work done on my vehicle. Because I was young and stupid, I listened to this friend as he convinced me to get some custom lights and fenders off ebay at a cheaper price to make my car look more "sick." (I drove a freaking honda civic.) So I did. I also got a cheap and crappy paint job at his persuasion. The lights I got off ebay were horrible and gave me constant problems ever after. My sister has that car now and they probably give her problems, too. He even convinced me to buy some stupid spoiler that I slapped on the back. When I started law school, I realized just how ridiculous it looked, took it off and threw it away.

Guys do stupid things. Just watch the "Jackass" movies if you aren't convinced. Sometimes the stupid stuff is funny, other times it's just dangerous or foolish. I heard on the radio the other day some story about a young Iraqi girl who was kidnapped from her family and shipped off somewhere to basically work as a slave. Finally, she was freed and her family was notified, and her father came to pick her up. At first I thought, "Wow, her father must be so relieved." Wrong. Because of some stupid tribal customs and traditions, if she was raped while in captivity, then she will be killed unless the family can find someone else to blame for it. Her uncle even spits in her face and threatens to slit her throat himself if he finds out she was raped. The reasons were something about bringing dishonor to the tribal name. This story made my blood boil. Right away when you hear something like this you KNOW that some idiot man or group of men came up with the idea. No woman would invent something so perverse, twisted, and unfair, especially when it comes to rape. That has male handiwork written all over it.

Just about every bad guy in every story, whether scriptural, fantasy, or historical, is male. Sure, there are plenty of evil women out there, but I think it's safe to say males come out on top in an evil contest. When is the last time you saw a big group of women hanging out in public places, terrorizing and intimidating others? How many all-women gangs are there? Maybe it's just me, but it seems like when women get together they just gossip or get really (really) silly. I wouldn't want to be part of that, either (nor would they want me there), so I guess I'm stuck in no-man's land. Not interested in all the macho crap that gets a lot of men going, but also disinterested in hanging out with a bunch of women. Maybe this is why I don't have many friends. ;)

Tattoo Advice

Let's see. How do I put this without offending people who have tattoos? It's not that I always dislike them. Some have artistic value. Some are tasteful and meaningful for the people who have them. But I don't see myself ever getting one, and here is why. 

A tattoo is more or less permanent. Sure, you can get it removed with a laser, but that can often result in scarring or discoloration of the skin. So while a tattoo is permanent, the reason for getting one usually isn't. Take the guy up top, for example. Is he always going to be a real die-hard Hulk Hogan fan? Or was that possibly just a phase he went through as a teenager or young adult. How about when he's 80 years old and no one even knows who Hulk Hogan is anymore? His grandchildren probably aren't going to be too thrilled every time gramps takes off his shirt and tells the Hulk Hogan story again. Come on grandpa, that's embarrassing. 

I think there's a principle to be gleaned from this: don't make permanent decisions based on fleeting trends. Linkin Park is a popular rock band. That doesn't mean you need to get a tattoo of it across your back. "Wang Chung" also used to be a famous band. (Who? Exactly.) There's an imbalance with this kind of thinking. Permanent decisions, like tattoos, should be made on equally permanent ideas. So, step #1 if you're considering a tattoo: make sure it relates to some aspect of your life that you don't ever foresee changing, like your love for your mom. (Ah but more on that later.) 

Another reason I wouldn't get a tattoo is because I think it often ends up being a superficial way of attempting to exude some positive characteristic. For instance, many people get tattoos to look "cool," "sexy," or "tough." Personally, I'm far too much of a utilitarian to be impressed by such efforts (but that's just me). In my opinion, if you want to look tough, then BE tough. If you want to look cool, then BE cool. Go to the gym. Learn karate. Look people in the eye and treat them with respect. These are active efforts that develop actual characteristics consistent with coolness, toughness, or what have you. A tattoo strikes me as the lazy man's path to what he perceives as respect. Take our buddy up top again. Despite the impressive muscular figure tattooed on his back, for some reason I remain unconvinced of his toughness. I wonder why. This is why if I ever were to get a tattoo, I would probably cut to the chase and just tattoo muscular contours on my stomach, arms, and chest. Hey, if I want to look "tough," I might as well be efficient about it, right? 

Sometimes, I think people get tattoos to make some kind of statement or take a position on an issue. My question to them is this: is that the best you can do? I mean, unless the tattoo actually functions to prompt you to action in furtherance of that position, what is the point? Take the person who gets a tattoo representing his love for his mother. Now, unless that tattoo actually helps him call his mother more often or otherwise show his love for her, then it's worthless. In fact, I'd say it's worse than if it wasn't there at all, because then it's a testament to his own hypocrisy. My point is that there are probably much better ways to show your support of God, Jesus, your mom, your wife/husband, your kids, your country, mother earth, or whatever it is that tickles your fancy. A tattoo, alone, is meaningless. Unless it inspires you or others to action, then it's just ink on your skin. 

Again, I see tattoos as the lazy or insincere person's path to a false sense of achievement. One act of Christlike service is worth more than all of the crosses and "what would Jesus do?" tattoos you can fit on your body. So even if the principle on which you base your body ink is more or less "permanent," that isn't the only factor. One should honestly ask whether the tattoo represents a hollow statement, or a reminder to DO or BE better. 

Based on my self-proclaimed qualifications of social commentator, I offer people considering tattoos the following advice: 

1. If you're set on getting one, make sure it relates to some part of you that will never be outgrown. Make sure it's permanent. (See above.) 

2. Take care of your skin. Maybe Jesus looks better with a tan, but he won't be looking so great on that leathery carcass you'll be sporting at age 60. 

3. Don't get fat. Or pregnant. Stretch marks will make your tattoo hideous. So either don't get fat, or get the tattoo somewhere you don't anticipate ever accumulating a lot of blubber. 

4. Choose a skilled artist. Seriously dude, if Hulk Hogan saw you at the beach, he'd probably kick your ass for that thing on your back. 

5. Location location location! You don't want to have to wear a sweater every time you go to grandma's house. Be smart. 

6. Use invisible ink. Hey, at least you'll know, right? 

7. Imagine your grandmother/grandfather with an identical tattoo. Does it still seem cool? 

8. Make sure you're not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I don't speak from experience, but word on the street is not a lot of good decisions are made under those conditions. 

9. Definitely not a good first date idea. Chances are you won't be talking to that person a year from now, anyway. 

10. Mandatory one-week wait time between the inception of the idea and potential inking.

[2022 author update. This post was mostly tongue-in-cheek, and I am no longer personally averse to getting a tattoo, but I still believe in points 1-4, 8-10.]

"Don't ask, don't tell," and why it sucks

The senate recently failed to pass a resolution that would have done away with the U.S. military's current policy on homosexual service members in the armed forces. This policy, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ("DADT") purportedly allows closeted homosexuals to freely serve in the military. In essence, the military isn't to "ask" about a service member's sexual orientation, and the service member isn't to "tell" the military about it. Unfortunately, application of the policy often results in unfair outcomes. Let's go over some of the reasons this policy sucks.

Unfair Application

First, think about the spirit and meaning of the phrase "don't ask, don't tell." To me, someone who doesn't "ask" about something is someone who is disinterested in that something. They don't ask because they don't care to know. If I have a policy of not asking my friends about the regularity of their bowel movements, but then someone comes along telling me that my buddy Harold has a nasty case of the runs, I will look at this someone oddly and then tell them to get lost. What I won't do is grill that someone on all the details regarding Harold's alleged diarrhea. I won't call Harold's doctor to see if he's been prescribed anything for it. I won't raid his store receipts for pepto bismol purchases. I won't lurk outside his bathroom with a stethoscope in an attempt to verify the allegation of bowel irregularity. In short, I don't ask. I don't care. Leave me and my friends' bowel movements alone.

Okay, now let's look at the "don't tell" part of it. If my policy is to not tell you about some aspect of my life, then I'm going to keep it to myself. Nothing in the phrase "don't tell" implies that I'm going to discontinue doing the thing that I'm not telling you about. If I have a policy of not telling you about the regularity of my bowel movements, then I'm not going to go to the restroom and come back with a detailed report. This doesn't mean I'll stop having bowel movements. It just means I'm not going to talk about them with you. Does that make sense? If not, then sit down and let me describe my last bowel movement to you until it does.

So put the two components of the phrase together and what do we have? We've got the "not asking" party doing a good job of not caring and performing no act that would approximate an "inquiry" in any form. We've got the "not telling" party continuing on with his life and doing his best not to bring the subject to the attention of the "not asking" party. In ideal circumstances, then, life is good and we all get along like a bunch of care bears.

Unfortunately, ideal circumstances don't exist when it comes to the application of DADT. Instead of the military taking a very passive and disinterested attitude toward the orientation of its members, it actually tends to conduct "witch hunts" and pervasive investigations when allegations of homosexuality of service members are brought to its attention. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an investigation a form of inquiry? When you "inquire" as to something, isn't that another word for "asking?" So wouldn't an investigation be a violation of the military's "don't ask" policy? If so, how is it fair that service members suffer the consequences of the military's violation of its own policy?

"Hey but wait," you might say, "If someone is alleging the service member is homosexual, doesn't that mean they were probably doing something homosexual, and thus by their actions "telling" the military about their orientation?" Well, that depends. If the action was directed at another service member, or especially toward a commanding officer, then I would agree. But if instead they were simply seen entering a gay bar while off duty, or holding their partner's hand at the mall, then no, I don't believe that constitutes "telling" the military anything at all. That is non-assertive behavior. They're not trying to send a message to anyone, particularly their commanding officers. I don't believe DADT was ever supposed to mean "Oh and by "don't tell" what we really mean is stop being homosexual, mmkay?" If that was the case, then the military might as well have banned gays from serving altogether by asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment interview. Rather, I think the common sense understanding is "hey don't talk about it around us--it might make us uncomfortable." So unless the service member is marching through the barracks in a rainbow leotard singing Lady Gaga at the top of his lungs, I say just let him be and move on, business as usual.

Furthermore, the unfairness is compounded when the military conducts such investigative efforts against those who entered the military before DADT was enacted in 1994. One might argue (weakly) that service members entering the military after 1994 should know better than to let their sexual orientation be known, since they are on notice of the policy. But what about those who entered the military before that date? How can it be fair when they are discharged shortly before becoming eligible for retirement benefits, all because their superior officers indirectly got word of their homosexuality? Unfortunately, to date it appears that DADT has simply allowed the military to wield a club of discrimination with impunity.

Hey Macho Marine Man, You Gonna Cry?

Okay here's another thing I think about. Our service members are trained to deal with the harshest and most dangerous of circumstances. Nearly everyone who enlists knows they could be exposed to combat and ultimately lose their life in the service of their country. So honestly, do we really think these types of people can't stomach the fact that some guy in their unit might be gay? Are they worried the guy is going to cop a feel as they're raiding a terrorist hideout in Afghanistan?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it. That's my point. I don't think battle-trained soldiers really care that much. If something like this does bother them, then I would submit that they are not cut out to be soldiers. How can such a one be expected to behave in the line of fire if he's worried about some dude doing a double-take in the shower? Please, if that's the case, grow the hell up.

If, for any reason, a gay service member does start causing problems by inappropriate touching, flirting, or otherwise, then such can and should be reported to a superior. I'm sure the military already has plenty of policies in place designed to deal with sexual harassment. I don't see why those policies couldn't be extended to apply with equal force to same-sex incidents.

An Uncomfortable Double Standard

With DADT in place, a huge double standard currently exists between heterosexual and homosexual service members. Heterosexual service members can talk about their love lives or marital and family relationships openly and without fear of reprisal. The homosexual service member, on the other hand, has to either stay silent on this subject, or lie outright. This can make even the most neutral inquiries stressful moments for gay service members: "Hey, what did you do this weekend?" Should he lie? Should he say it's none of their business? There's some unit cohesion and camaraderie for you! Under DADT, he certainly can't reveal that he spent time with his boyfriend or partner.

Gay service members probably already feel pressured to keep their personal lives under wraps due to the typical stigma that still exists toward homosexuality. DADT simply adds pressure to the situation, escalating a potentially awkward encounter into one that could be disastrous for the service member's career and livelihood. Conveniently, heterosexual service members face no such stigma or consequences.

Military Readiness, Unit Cohesion, and Troop Morale

Proponents of DADT claim that the policy is necessary to maintain military readiness, unit cohesion, troop morale, etc. The problem with these claims is that they're unsupported by any evidence. In fact, studies done in other countries' armed forces where gays are allowed to serve openly have revealed no negative effects on these and related factors. (Here are one, two, three, four, and five additional articles/studies done on the armed forces in other countries.) The Pentagon is currently conducting its own study, to be completed by December, and I fully expect it to return similar results.

LDS Perspective

If you aren't a Mormon, then you probably won't be interested in this part. But if you are, then I will show you how the LDS perspective on homosexuality would also call for a repeal of DADT.

Elder Dalin H. Oaks wrote an article for the Liahona in 1996, in which he stated the following:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

The LDS perspective is that homosexuality is not a condition, but rather a sexual preference or tendency. We believe everyone is born into life with certain strengths and weaknesses. For some, these weaknesses may include a same-gender attraction which interferes with one's desire to pursue and create a traditional family. But as Elder Oaks is careful to point out, we do not consider homosexuality an irreversible "condition." The person who identifies himself as homosexual is not, in our view, forever consigned to that state. Rather, it is a weakness that can be overcome just like any other. Many people who formerly identified themselves as homosexuals, but have since adapted to a life of heterosexuality, stand as a witness to that fact.

In contrast, outside of LDS thought and other religious thought, homosexuality is seen as an irreversible--and often genetic--condition. Many gays declare that they were born that way and there is absolutely no changing it.

Now, DADT, as it is currently enforced, places emphasis on homosexuality as a condition. Absolutely no regard is made on the actual detrimental effects, if any, that a service member's homosexual orientation might have on the furtherance of the military's objectives. Rather, the military simply discharges the homosexual once his orientation is discovered. DADT sends the following message: "If you have this condition and make it known, then we don't want you here." It serves to emphasize the apparent "differences" between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Thus, no emphasis is placed on the service member's actual behavior. This takes the focus off homosexuality as a behavioral pattern and directs it to homosexuality as an irreversible condition, which is contrary to LDS thought.

Now, if we wanted to treat "homosexuality" as a sexual preference or behavioral tendency, rather than a condition, we would immediately repeal DADT (or, at least, apply it responsibly). This sends the following message: "We don't care what your sexual preferences are, as long as they don't hinder our mission or your ability to do your job." This puts less emphasis on how a person identifies himself, and more emphasis on how the person behaves, which is consistent with the principle that Elder Oaks taught in his message. Thus, if the world were to adopt LDS premises on homosexuality, we would expect a swift discontinuance of DADT.

Many members of the church are uncomfortable with all things "gay." In typical knee-jerk style, they automatically oppose the repeal of DADT, perhaps believing that keeping it in place serves some important purpose, and repealing it would be giving credence or support to the other side (the "enemy"). But ironically, we see that by juxtaposing our own belief system onto this debate, we end up siding with gay rights advocates (strange bedfellows indeed). DADT reinforces the notion that homosexuals are irreversibly "different" and should thus be treated differently in the military. In other words, it supports the proposition that homosexuality is a state of being, rather than a choice. Again, this is contrary to LDS thought.

Conclusion

There are plenty of good reasons to do away with DADT, whether you are religious or not. So far, I haven't heard any compelling arguments for keeping it in place.

And what happens if it is repealed? Will thousands of homosexual service members suddenly come bouncing out of the closet? Of course not. Any discomfort caused by inappropriate disclosure of sexual orientation will still exist. Social norms will still be in place discouraging that kind of conversation and behavior. The fact of the matter is homosexuals still face considerable stigma and won't have any incentive to becoming really open about their orientation. But at the same time, they won't be forced to living a secretive, double life, always fearful that if their superiors discover their orientation, they will be automatically discharged and lose their careers. So while they won't be encouraged to disclose their orientation, they also won't be penalized in the event it is discovered. That strikes me as abundantly fair and reasonable.

Update

I went back to the DMV with a check and ordered a new driver's license. I wrote the $25 check while I waited in line (I brought a single check, not my checkbook), only to find out at the counter that I could have opted to renew my license for $31 (something I'm going to have to do in February, anyway).

Oh, and the next day, I found my original driver's license on my scanner, where I had left it after having to scan it for some reason.

Today, I was at the mall and saw an ATM. I approached it and eyed the keypad suspiciously. After swiping my card, I got it right my first try.

I was hoping such moments of forgetfulness wouldn't be happening to me for another 30 years. I'm still trying to figure out the moral of this story. Anger management? Stop losing your mind? Something along those lines.

Early onset of dementia

Recently, more than one friend of mine has remarked on my remarkable memory. They were impressed that I was able to remember obscure details that people don't usually remember. For example, I've come to realize that I'm very good at remembering the height of a person. To me, someone's height is as much a part of their "identity" (in my mind) as their name or their face. So once I know the height, I typically don't forget.

Anyway, these compliments must have gone to my head. In fact, they went to my head with such force that they obliterated certain memory neurons (ironically), causing me to forget some very basic and important details.

Detail #1: Where I left my driver's license

I was flipping through my wallet today and to my surprise discovered that my driver's license was missing. This is odd because I only ever take it out when I need to show it to someone, and even then usually I am able to leave it in the transparent plastic sleeve I keep it in. (This was surprising. At the same time, I was grateful to have been made aware of this in the safety of my own office, and not after being pulled over on the freeway for doing 90 or something.)

I decided it would be most prudent to remedy the problem immediately, so I went to the nearest DMV. This leads me to detail #2...

Detail #2: WTH did I REALLY just forget my PIN?

I go to the DMV. As everyone knows, this is a painful experience. The line was out the building and down the other side. I waited for almost an hour and a half. When my number was finally called, I got up to the window, submitted my paperwork, and then handed the clerk my American Express for the $25 fee. He asked for debit. I hand him my debit card. He hands me the keypad to enter my PIN. Instinctively--and inexplicably--I enter the last four numbers on my Visa CREDIT card. As I set it down, I thought "Why did I just do that? That's not right." Sure enough, transaction didn't go through. The clerk ran my card again and handed back the keypad. I stared at it like I would an object that had just dropped out of space and was beeping at me in some weird alien language. How was I not remembering my PIN? I had just used it at an ATM two weeks earlier with no problem. I could almost visualize the movement my fingers would make on the keypad, but at the same time...I couldn't. Something wasn't right. I shook my head and punched in another guess. DENIED. "You're going to have to come back" were the last words I heard before my eyes turned red, my skin green, and I grew about ten times in size (at least, that's how I felt as I stomped out of there).

How do you just forget your PIN? That's ridiculous. I'm not that old. I'm not on any drugs. I exercise daily. This just isn't right! Chances are I'm going to wake up tomorrow morning and remember it. That's just how these things work, kids.

iWin!

I am an iphone owner. I jumped on this bandwagon back in the Summer of '08 after the 3G model was released. I loved my iphone. We had great times together. After we got together, I stopped getting lost because of its nifty GPS feature. I found shortcuts around traffic jams. I downloaded cool apps that let me listen to music or find restaurants or look up movies. I even used it to record class lectures. My iphone and I were closer than my cabbage patch "buddy and me" ever were.

But then, one dark day, the evil executives at Apple decided to release the new iphone 4. Why does this make them evil, you might ask? Well, instead of just peacefully releasing a new and improved iphone model, they decided to do something else along with it! They decided to release an update for all older model iphones that would install the new iphone's operating system. This new operating system required the upgraded hardware of the iphone 4 in order to run smoothly. On all older models (such as the 3G), it ran so sluggishly that it caused many users to take up swearing as a new hobby.

Why would they do this? What did I ever do to them? All I did was buy their phone, pay my phone bill, and buy an app every now and then. And I'm rewarded with THIS? That's not the type of treatment you would expect from your friendly big brother, Apple, right?? Then, my naive innocence shattered and the truth transformed me into a bitter cynic. They had sabotaged my phone so that I would be forced to buy the new one!

Like any red-blooded American, I became indignant. I furiously posted some kind of half-rant on facebook. Then I started chatting with one of my friends, and she told me that most people have to replace their phones every two years, so this is just Apple's way of making money. She said: they did such a good job on older models that they realized not enough people would want to buy the newer one--already being content with what they had. Well, all this made sense. She made a sound case.

But this didn't mean I had to accept my fate. Oh no--I refuse to fold to such blatant manipulation. Instead, I decided to beat Apple at its own game. Tonight I came home, googled "downgrade iphone," and found a way to install the previous OS onto my phone. It worked, and now my phone is once again speedy and happy. Now, just to spite them, I'm going to see how long I can make this phone last before it absolutely dies and I'm forced to get a new one. That will teach them for trying to bully this consumer into playing their game. Maybe I'll even hack my phone and get all the apps they don't want me to have, while I'm at it. Just try and stop me you big jerks!

Do you hate your job?

If yes, don't immediately blame it on your job. Time for some introspection.

One of my favorite books is called "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl. The author was the creator of "logotherapy," which is a school of psychology that focuses on therapy through meaning. To sum up this concept, Frankl quotes Nietzsche: "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." Frankl describes his experience in a Nazi concentration camp during WWII. Frankl was able to survive because he sought and clung to some meaning or purpose that gave him a reason to live.

Now your job isn't life or death (hopefully), but let's think about it. Do you "hate" your job? If so, why? In my experience, I feel most dissatisfied with my job when I don't understand the reason for my task. If the ultimate goal isn't clear to me, then I get frustrated and am considerably less effective. This is why I try to ask questions and understand the "bigger picture" of whatever I'm doing. The knowledge of how my task fits within a larger project helps me feel more relevant: it's like what I'm doing matters more. Without this understanding, my tendency is to adopt an attitude: "Well, what's the point?" "Screw this." Like I said--less effective.

I think that's the first step. If you're dissatisfied with your job, first try to understand how your involvement fits in to a larger process. Ask your boss questions. Who knows, that in and of itself may show him/her that you are more invested in the work. It could inadvertently score you some brownie points.

But maybe you are already intimately familiar with the purpose of your job, and you still hate it. Maybe you find the whole idea pointless. Maybe you disagree with the ultimate goal. Maybe it doesn't sit well with you for some reason. (Maybe I think my client is in the wrong and I'm uncomfortable defending him/her.) What now? Well, now you have to get creative. You have to look deeper for a sufficient "why" to justify your "how." In the case of the "bad" client, I might think he's in the "wrong," but that doesn't change the fact that he should only be liable as far as the facts dictate. My purpose, then, is to minimize his exposure and make sure he doesn't get stuck for more than he is responsible. Or maybe I'm summarizing a very dull deposition (a deposition is where lawyers sit down with a witness and ask hours upon hours worth of questions--all of it transcribed by a court reporter). I know why I'm doing the summary, but it doesn't change how tedious the process is. In that case, maybe I will start looking at how the lawyer is wording his questions, so that I can detect his technique, style, and methods. Altering my focus makes the task more bearable and also potentially allows me to reap personal benefits that would have otherwise been unavailable to me. It also helps me become much more knowledgeable of the facts of the case, and the strategy of that particular lawyer in trying the case. In short, I have turned a tedious process into a learning experience. I have given it a "why."

The above examples are for lawyers, obviously. That's what I do so that is what dominates my mind. But any occupation will have similar opportunities. Like I said, you have to get creative. Once upon a time I worked the early morning shift at UPS, doing package processing and address correction. It was boring and monotonous. It was also 4:00 a.m. in the morning. To counteract all that, I would try to make personal bests in speed and accuracy. Nerdy? Yeah. Overachiever? Maybe. But--it made the job more bearable, and, dare I say--more enjoyable. And that was the whole point.

So if you don't like your job, don't immediately assume that you need a new one. The problem may lie in your failure to find sufficient meaning in what you do. If you can't do this, then you may find a new job just as dissatisfying.

Blink

I have recently finished reading the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. I feel like I was clumsily on to the gist of this book in a previous post. In that post, I talked about how people are often deliberately dishonest in articulating the reasons for their behavior, which makes them appear crazy or irrational. What I hadn't considered is that perhaps people don't truly know why they do what they do.

One of the main points of "Blink" is that often people don't even consciously realize the reasons for their behavior. One example from the book is an experiment that a psychologist set up where two ropes are attached to the ceiling, a certain distance apart. While the ropes are hanging vertically, it is impossible to hold onto one and also reach the other; they're too far apart. Test subjects were asked to find a way to tie the ropes together. The room was empty except for the ropes. The only solution was to swing one of the ropes, go grab the other, and then catch the swinging rope as it swung back toward the subject. This solution evaded many test subjects until the experimenter would casually walk over to open a window, "accidentally" brushing one of the ropes and setting it into a slight swinging motion. This hint led the subjects to the proper solution. However, when asked how they arrived at that solution, almost all of them said something to the effect of "It just came to me." They didn't consciously realize that the hint came from the experimenter, so their conscious mind came up with the next best explanation.

Another example in the book dealt with how in the past, women were typically excluded from orchestras because of false beliefs about male superiority when it came to playing instruments. However, when orchestras started implementing a screen or curtain between those auditioning and the the conductors, suddenly women started being selected for chairs just as often as men. It goes without saying that the quality of an orchestra depends entirely on its sound. Thus, by eliminating all superfluous information relating to those auditioning (posture, facial expression, physical appearance, gender), conductors were able to make better and unbiased decisions as to who would play in their orchestras. Now if you had asked these conductors to articulate their reasons for accepting or rejecting any particular auditioner prior to the implementation of screened auditions, they probably would have expressed those reasons in terms of performance and sound quality, as would be expected. They wouldn't have referenced any irrelevant information such as appearance or facial expressions, being fully ignorant of the effect of such information on their perceptions. But the reality was that their perceptions were significantly affected by this meaningless information. As the book points out, they were listening with their eyes.

Those are a couple examples from the book. I am also reminded of something similar I observed several years back. Josh, my roommate during college, at one point bought a 1980ish Lincoln Towncar car from his parents because he [I] was tired of [him] bumming rides [from me]. The thing was a freakin' battleship. We called it the pimpmobile because it was anything but. Now Josh also happened to be a good-looking, very athletic volleyball player. He would often tell me: "Aaron, don't knock my car--girls think it is so cool!" (He actually might have used the word "sick," because we were bros back then and got stoked over all sorts of sick stuff.) I would always retort: "No Josh, girls don't like your car. They like you." And that's still my position. If Josh had been an acne-ridden geek weighing out at a buck twenty-five, I don't think girls would have been real thrilled about his set of wheels. It probably would have been just one more nail in his coffin. But I'm pretty sure if I had asked the girls Josh dated what they thought of his car or why they thought it was cool, they would have come up with some semi-plausible reasons. Maybe it was "quaint" or "cute" or reminded them of their grandparents. Who knows. Of course, the real reason would be that they just liked Josh and so who really cares what he drives. That was my point.

Other examples abound, I'm sure. The book is full of them--I'd highly recommend it. What's the take-away from all this? I'm not entirely sure. It seems counterintuitive to attempt a conscious examination of your unconscious mind. I don't know if that's even possible. Over time you might be able to identify certain stereotypes you are susceptible to and try to limit the information you get that would relate to those stereotypes, so that your decisions and judgment remain unclouded--just like the orchestra conductors. My take-away will probably be to conduct impromptu social experiments on my friends and then psychoanalyze them based on the results. Because, you know, I'm evil like that.

An excuse to fail, or an opportunity to succeed?

I think there's an important attitudinal difference that separates the lazy person from the hard worker, the cynic from the optimist. That attitude is expressed in the title of this post. It can be an uncomfortable introspection when applied to various areas of one's life. Are you looking for an excuse to fail? To maintain a dismal status quo? Or, are you eagerly on the lookout for an opportunity to succeed.

When someone spends their energy coming up with an excuse for their predicament, they are necessarily diverting energy that could otherwise be spent coming up with a solution. Invariably, the solution will require doing something differently, which usually means effort, work, and change.

Does the atheist spend more time thinking of excuses that justify the perceived impossibility of knowing any greater power, rather than looking for opportunities to find out what he thinks he cannot know?

Does the chronically unemployed person more readily blame his environment for his lack of employment, rather than getting off the couch and looking for a job?

Does the single person make excuses for not dating, rather than looking for ways to meet people? (Hmm, I don't like that one.)

Does the student who just failed an exam come up with excuses for failure, or an opportunity to learn from mistakes?

This is all just another take on what differentiates optimists from pessimists. I think optimists would be on the lookout for opportunities, while pessimists are content with playing the blame game.

Woah now, calm down everyone

You know something I've noticed? Politicians are often two-faced. One year they're saying one thing, the next they're saying the exact opposite, all depending on what is popular at the time. I find it inexcusable.

But, I do find it understandable. If politicians want to keep their jobs, they have to cater to the wants and desires and moods of their constituents. These constituents are irrational, emotional creatures caught up in whatever flavor of the week the media is feeding them.

Let's take big oil as an example. One concern is dependence on foreign oil. We want less of that, so a politician advocates off-shore drilling. Then a rig blows up down off the coast of Louisiana, and now the masses are in an uproar over off-shore drilling. Now, if the politician wants to stay popular, he'll talk about the evils of off-shore drilling and oil in general. Most likely he'll come off looking two-faced and no doubt be ridiculed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Again, I find stuff like this inexcusable. But if I were a politician, I know I'd probably drive myself crazy trying to please everyone and actually stay in a position where I can actually DO something (theoretically). So none of this surprises me.

But while the doublespeak of politicians is irritating, equally bothersome is the irrational kool-aid that the masses imbibe daily. One oil rig explosion does NOT mean we need to rethink the entire concept of off-shore drilling. I understand it's a big deal. I understand it's an environmental disaster. But it's also the price we pay to continue our way of life. There's a certain measure of danger in any form of energy production. There are costs to it. Oil rigs explode. Coal mines do, too. Semi-trucks hauling oil can also explode. And gas stations a la Zoolander. Nuclear power plants can melt down. People can get electrocuted. Bad stuff happens and things blow up. That's just part of how it all works. The fact that a particular accident happens doesn't mean that we need to rethink the whole concept of oil drilling. Instead, we should learn from our mistakes, establish or enforce stricter safety standards, and maybe invent some better gadgets that will hopefully prevent a repeat.

So Obama and Co., I don't blame you for all of a sudden putting a "hold" on the offshore oil drilling that was being contemplated in the new energy bill. I get it. You're dealing with millions of irrational thinkers that get worked into a frenzy by irresponsible media. What else are you supposed to do?

Am I too cynical? Probably.

Silly little people

I believe that by and large, people tend to behave rationally. However, they aren't always honest about the reasons for their behavior. Thus, they appear crazy, dishonest, or irrational.

We see this happen all the time. For example, often when women get mad, they'll clamp up and start giving their man the silent treatment. "What's the matter, honey?" "Nothing." "No really, what's bothering you?" "I've just got a really bad headache. Now drive." Now of course something is wrong, and it's probably not a headache, but chances are you're going to have to discover on your own that she's mad that you forgot that today was her cat's birthday, and you didn't do anything to celebrate. See? Perfectly rational explanation--she just wouldn't tell you what it was.

But wait, wasn't that "reason" more emotional than rational? Maybe so. But because we're all emotional creatures to some extent, I think "rational" explanations should always account for potentially emotional responses or bases for behavior. Put differently: it's reasonable to expect people to respond emotionally to any given situation. However, this doesn't apply to clinically crazy people. Who knows what they're thinking.

Please stop inviting me to your groups

A little bone to pick with facebook and its users.

Please stop inviting me to all your random groups and fan pages. "1,000,000 for world peace" is a pointless group. Instead, go donate to some charity that actually DOES something.

Also, you don't need to join a club or become a fan of a page called "I love pickles" to communicate the fact that you are a pickle fiend. Facebook created this little section called "about me" (it's under your "info" tab) to store little tidbits of information about you that no one ever reads or cares about. The same goes for everyone joining that "I go out of my way to step on a really crunchy-looking leaf" group. Why? Are you going to get on the discussion board and talk about this amazing leaf you saw and stepped on the other day? Are you going to plan get-togethers with fans in your area and talk and laugh about how much you have in common because of this tiny quirk in your personality? Now if you want to join a group called "Dr. Seuss was a fabulous writer," go right ahead. There you might actually find people with whom you have something in common that is a little more profound than your love of pickles and leaf-stomping. Who knows, maybe you'll even find a date (I have a friend who met her boyfriend/fiance through an online book club).

One last thing--all you opportunists who think facebook is a great way to promote your business, I know what you're doing. You're not only creating fan pages and groups, but you're actually creating PROFILES and trying to add me as your buddy! Not gonna work. Yeah, maybe some of my friends were dumb enough to add you so they can get spammed with your event announcements and new products, but I'm a little less dumb than they are. You'll have to be a really hot chick or sell something really cool (like a slinky that goes upstairs) to catch my eye and possibly get me to hit that "accept" button.

"Dude, relax, people are just having their fun." Yeah, well their "fun" is clogging up my facebook "news" feed like the shower drain in a girls dorm bathroom. For whatever reason, facebook chose to make the main news feed a torrent of useless information that you can in no way filter or control, other than screening people altogether that you don't care to hear about. Because the geniuses at Facebook's command center do pretty much whatever they want, all I can do is complain about it.

How to make enemies, get on everyone's nerves, and generally be shunned

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I feel like I'm a pretty decent arguer. This is kind of the idea, since I am a lawyer and all. I think I've identified a few guidelines to follow if you want to end up on the winning side of an argument more often than not. However, the following is not intended as a license to argue. Only do it if you have to, or if you get paid to do it (like me!).

Choose Your Battles Wisely

When you have the liberty to choose, only fight the battles you know you can win. Don't engage in arguments where your position is indefensible. For example, don't say something like "Men's Health Magazine is only for gym rats and perverts and the articles are written at a grade school level." Because if you say something like that, I will call you ignorant and then proceed to show how ridiculous that position is. You will probably feel dumb and you may even cry a little. Another example: one time President Obama broke out some mad ninja skills and swatted a fly with his hand. Enter the idiots manning the helm at PETA, crying about him swatting that fly. See, PETA, when you choose your battles this unwisely, people have trouble taking you seriously. They get sidetracked from other valid positions you might have (like tough laws on animal cruelty), because you're making a fool of yourself on this one. Lesson learned from PETA? You lose credibility across the board when you choose your battles unwisely.

Also, avoid battles where the stake is inconsequential. If "winning" means nothing, then you still might end up looking like a loser. For example, parents, let's say your child came home an hour after curfew. You could throw a tantrum and ground the kid, and you'd probably be absolutely right--they broke the rules and that might be a justifiable punishment. But chances are you'll still end up looking like the loser in the kid's eyes. Would that be a fight worth going to war over? Doubt it. Choose a more important matter on which to stand ground, like when your kid decides it'd be cool to sell his/her body for cocaine.

Don't have kids? Here's another example. It's your spouse/significant other/roommate's turn to take out the trash. I mean, you've done it like the last FIVE times in a row. Go ahead, scream and scold them for their laziness and neglect. You can even do it nicely, if you want, it doesn't matter. You're absolutely right, it IS their turn. But guaranteed that on the way out to the trash can they're not thinking "Wow, you're right, it was my turn, thanks for reminding me." Take a wild guess what they're thinking.

Qualify Everything You Say

See what I did there? Okay, okay, maybe not everything. But when you don't know what you're talking about, qualified statements are extremely useful in creating the illusion of being "right." Let's take the Men's Health magazine comment. Now, if that person had said something like "A lot of Men's Health readers are gym rats or perverts, and I find many of the articles to be written in an unprofessional manner." See how different that statement is from the one before? Doesn't it sound so intelligent and reasonable? That's because it's much more defensible. No longer are we speaking in absolutes; instead, we've sought the sanctuary of qualifiers, such as "a lot," "I find," and "many." This time we used the disjunctive "or" which is much more noncommittal than the conjunctive "and" used previously. Also, by saying "I find," you've couched your statement in opinion, which again is much more defensible than a bare assertion of fact. I still might argue with you and demand that you back up your qualified statements with some evidence, but you really don't have to: your statement is sufficiently qualified to withstand nearly every attack. So what am I left to do? Fume and mutter under my breath, maybe pace back and forth a bit, but in the end you won't be hearing these triumphant words from my lips: "You were WRONG!" (However, you might hear something like: "You don't know what you're talking about." See below.)

But a couple caveats with qualified statements. First, you can't overuse them. Sooner or later, you've got to take a more concrete stand on the issue. If you don't, then even slower minds will eventually realize that you really don't know anything, and your qualified statements are merely a ruse to hide your lack of knowledge. If you don't have a concrete stand to make, that's when you disengage and retreat before you embarrass yourself and bring further disgrace to your family name.

Also, qualified statements, when left alone, really don't provide much information. Take the second Men's Health comment, for example. It doesn't give you any numbers, statistics, or frame of reference with which to judge the person's opinion. If left alone, it might be a true and defensible statement, but it doesn't really tell you anything. Now if you expand on the statement by describing people you know who are perverts or gym rats, and who read the magazine, then you're getting somewhere. If you define your idea of professional and unprofessional writing, and then show me a few articles that clearly meet your "unprofessional" definition, then you've won. Take home lesson? Qualified statements are wonderful, just be prepared to back them up with something of substance.

Take the Middle Ground

You can know absolutely nothing about a particular topic and still come off sounding very wise and reasonable, as long as you advocate moderation. Let's say your friend has decided to start up some fringe diet like only eating fried snickers bars and kool-aid. Even if you've never had a snickers bar or a sip of kool-aid in your life, you'll be 100% right if you say something like "I'm pretty sure you should still eat other stuff like skittles and root beer. Most diets require a healthy balance." (Oh check out that sick qualifier I used there.)

Not all situations will be so easy. As a general rule, anytime someone takes a position that deviates from moderation and approaches the extreme, you'll hold your own by staying in middle earth, which is the term I use for the land of moderation. (I know, I know. I'm hilarious.) Try it next time a friend or family member tries to sell you some miracle juice or enroll you in their pyramid scheme. You'll feel empowered.

Well, that's all I've got so far. Maybe I'll add more to this list as I think of other points. Who knows, maybe I'll write a book someday and be famous. You can all have an autographed copy.

It's that time again...

The new season of The Bachelor just started. Finally!!!

Okay, I lie. I actually didn't know it had started until a friend just asked me if I was watching it. Of course she knew I wasn't. She knows how I feel about those kind of shows.

But then I got to thinking. Shouldn't I want to watch this show? If television is one way we all escape into fantasy and forget the real world, then The Bachelor should be the #1 most-watched show by men everywhere. It should also be the least-watched show of women everywhere. Why? Because the show depicts a regiment of beautiful women desperately throwing themselves at one lucky guy. Sounds pretty nice, right guys? I'll take it.

But girls? Why do you watch it? Granted, situations like The Bachelor, while rare, do sometimes occur in the real world. But such situations aren't particularly proud moments for the female species. When one guy is being doted on and fawned over by a group of girls vying for his attention, do you think the girls feel very good about themselves? And even if you're a girl just standing back and watching this fantastic scene, do you find it entertaining? Or do you roll your eyes and wish you could dissociate yourself from your pathetic sisters? Don't you girls always insist on how it's the man's job to make the first move--to pursue the woman? If that's the case, why do you obsess over The Bachelor? The show is like a televised slap in the face. It's a contradiction to everything you've been trying to teach your brothers and guy friends for centuries. The message it sends to guys is: "Sit back and keep playing that Xbox, the ladies will come to you." Fortunately for you, the damage probably isn't too great, because guys think the show is stupid and aren't even watching it. (They're playing Xbox.)

Now I can understand girls going crazy over The Bachelorette, because then the situation is reversed: platoon of guys fighting over one girl. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it ladies! Now there's a fantasy land I can see you girls wanting to get lost in. Furthermore, it's probably a better representation of reality because attractive women typically have to sift through a large number of potential suitors.

In sum, I am confused. If any of you would care to enlighten me, I would be most grateful.