This was unexpected

Nope, I'm not pregnant, relax. A couple weeks ago I was really bored and posted the following entry. Now, every guy who gets spammed by this bot and mistakenly cuts and pastes the link it gives them into their GOOGLE search field rather than the URL field seems to end up at my blog. Apparently that entry is the second of three google hits that come up when the link is google searched. If you look to the right at my little map that tracks hits, you will see dozens and dozens all throughout the world that weren't there a few weeks ago. What can I say, I'm famous.

Some of these guys post comments to that entry. My favorite so far is "Anres" who posted a comment as if he were talking to Megan the sexy spam-bot. Apparently the website wasn't accepting his username. Poor fella. Needless to say this whole situation is a very welcome twist to the otherwise boring material I post here.

"Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst."

Does this phrase even make sense? We hear it all the time. I know I've uttered it more than once. But isn't it impossible? Isn't that phrase a contradiction of terms?

Now I'm no linguistics expert, but it seems like English has the luxury of two different words (which have roughly the same meaning) to make this phrase work. In Portuguese (and probably Spanish) the word "esperar" means both "to expect" and "to hope." So in Portuguese, the phrase would be "Esperando o melhor, mas esperando o pior." Obviously, a direct contradiction.

Perhaps a better word would be "wanting" the best, rather than "hoping." I can wrap my mind around that a little easier. But even then, I think the whole expectation of the worst possible outcome can handicap one's ability to avoid that outcome. Imagine you have a big exam coming up. If your mind is consumed with the expectation of failure, you'll have less mental faculties to devote to your studying, and thus you might perform more poorly.

Defensive Pessimism is what psychologists have come up with to describe the chronically pessimistic. A defensive pessimist always expects the worst, so that if it does happen, then hey no biggie: that's what he/she already expected. On the other hand, if something better than the "worst" happens, then the defensive pessimist may see it as a pleasant surprise. I think there's value to such an approach, but not in every situation.

I think the distinguishing factor that determines when defensive pessimism is appropriate is the degree of control you have over the situation. In the case of the upcoming exam, you are in nearly complete control over how you will fare, depending on how much you study. So in that scenario, I don't think defensive pessimism is helpful. To the extent possible, I think it's best to just put the "outcome" out of your mind altogether and focus on the task at hand--studying. This is one reason my friends in law school rarely found me anxious about exams. In my mind, that anxiety isn't going to help me, so why bother?

Now fast forward a bit: you have just finished taking the exam. There's absolutely nothing more you can do that can affect the outcome. Here, I think, you might have a better argument for indulging in a little bit of pessimism. At this point, there's no personal performance you can handicap. The only thing you can change is your state of mind. If you walk out of the exam thinking "I maybe got an average score," then your mind will be insulated from the disappointment that might ensue if you think you aced it, when in fact your performance was average. On the other hand, if you really did ace it, well then what a pleasant surprise. Everyone likes surprises, right?

That's one clear-cut example. In the case of an exam, it's easy to determine when everything you can do has been done and is in the past. Other situations won't be so clear. That's why it's important to do your best to cover all your bases, and do everything you can, before lowering your expectations (i.e. being pessimistic). I can envision this process introducing a whole new array of obsessive-compulsive thinking for the anxiety-prone, so obviously it shouldn't be taken too far. For instance, in a first-date scenario with a person you're very interested in, during the date you want to make sure that you do all the right things to increase the chances of a second date. After the date is when you can go ahead and not expect there to be a second date (defensive pessimism). However, becoming pessimistic before the date is over will probably lead you to do things that will increase the likelihood of that negative outcome.

In Mormon circles, I've heard the phrase "Work like it's all up to you, and pray like it's all up to God." This is the same idea. Even for people who don't believe in God, they might ascribe the nebulous forces of the unknown to "Fate" or the "Universe."

I admit, it's kind of a cognitive trick you have to play on yourself. But to the extent you can do it successfully, in appropriate situations, it may actually insulate you from some unhappiness in life, and possibly generate happiness you wouldn't have experienced otherwise. Happiness is all about your perspective, anyway.

So I was bored one night

And had the following conversation with an automated spam-bot on msn:

Megan says: (12:56:41 AM)
hello..?
Aaron says: (12:56:48 AM)
hi
Megan says: (12:57:03 AM)
Hey I saw you on hi5? i dont remember if we are friends.
Aaron says: (12:57:16 AM)
yeah, we are
Aaron says: (12:57:19 AM)
long time no talk
Megan: (12:57:31 AM)
so whats up with you today?
Megan says: (12:57:45 AM)
yeah im just a lil bored have off of work today
Aaron says: (12:57:48 AM)
horrible, my family was killed in a shark-eating accident
Megan says: (12:58:03 AM)
currently im working for a fashion design company
Aaron says: (12:58:34 AM)
how boring
Megan says: (12:58:48 AM)
im entered in a fashion and talent contest and your rating would mean alot to me
Aaron says: (12:59:04 AM)
no, I think you have terrible fashion sense
Megan says: (12:59:19 AM)
I have a bunch of lingirie to choose from... whats your favorite color? im tryin to decidelol
Aaron says: (12:59:45 AM)
just keep your clothes on, fattie
Megan says: (1:00:00 AM)
hmmm.... lol I think i might be able to do that, go to http://www.myhomecamnetwork.com/swtmegan scroll ALL the way DOWN to the bottom u will see "Friends of Megan", tell me when you get the password page!
Aaron says: (1:00:31 AM)
yeah right! why would I want to see your fat ass in lingerie
Megan says: (1:00:45 AM)
put in the password: myfriend4
Aaron says: (1:01:18 AM)
I'll pass, I don't like viruses on my computer
Megan says: (1:01:33 AM)
yea, fill out your info,first and last name, make sure you put your correct b-day k?
Aaron says: (1:01:51 AM)
why? so you can steal my identity?
Megan says: (1:02:05 AM)
kk, if you entered as our friend, it should say 0.00 at the bottom, if so you are good for our friend's pass
Aaron says: (1:02:28 AM)
no, I'm your enemy, actually. it was your shark that ate my family
Megan says: (1:02:43 AM)
CC is just to verify your age hun,its the sites policy, we had to to do the same thing .. it won't charge, u got the free password
Megan says: (1:03:25 AM)
Where did you go?
Aaron says: (1:03:47 AM)
oh sorry, I was finding an old expired credit card to use
Aaron says: (1:03:58 AM)
if you're not going to charge me, I guess it won't matter
Megan says: (1:04:02 AM)
I just found some booty shorts lol i think im gonna put a skirt on!!!!!!!
Megan says: (1:04:16 AM)
k let me know when you get in so I can invite you directly to my room cam.
Aaron says: (1:04:51 AM)
oh dear, I had no idea they made booty shorts that big
Aaron says: (1:05:02 AM)
you do realize that "booty" is a diminutive term?
Megan says: (1:05:06 AM)
k, you in yet babe?? Don't keep me hot stuff!
Aaron says: (1:05:18 AM)
heck no, I just ate
Megan says: (1:05:20 AM)
sweet k
Megan says: (1:05:33 AM)
when u login click LIVEWEBCAMS k?
Aaron says: (1:06:03 AM)
no, you
Megan says: (1:06:18 AM)
alright, i am in the middle section, its the 3rd one down in that section, the cam name is random so i dont know what it is till i get in
Aaron says: (1:06:51 AM)
yeah I feel sorry for your next victim
Megan says: (1:07:06 AM)
yup
Aaron says: (1:07:12 AM)
yup indeed
Megan says: (1:07:27 AM)
yeah im the one laying on my bed, do you see me?
Megan says: (1:08:09 AM)
...?
Aaron says: (1:08:22 AM)
that poor bed
Megan says: (1:08:37 AM)
k babe talk to me in the chat
Aaron says: (1:08:46 AM)
no thanks
Megan says: (1:09:00 AM)
Whats your username so I can send you an invite?
Megan says: (1:09:42 AM)
...?
Aaron says: (1:10:10 AM)
"sharksatemyfamily"
Megan says: (1:10:25 AM)
My msn lagging out... ill be on my site... the link again is http://www.myhomecamnetwork.com/swtmegan (secret code myfriend4) once you sign up you will see me on the front page
Aaron says: (1:10:58 AM)
about time

Reality TV: anything but real

I still don't know why this whole "Reality TV" thing has gotten so popular. There is little if anything "real" about it.

Let's take the bachelor/bachelorette. They take one man/woman, and then hire a bunch of starving actresses/actors trying to get their break in Hollywood to compete for that person's affection. That's right, I said hire. Hopefully you aren't so naive to think that they're actually doing that for FREE? Of course not. Each of them is getting paid, probably according to how long they are able to stay on the show. Most of them probably have little or no interest in the actual bachelor/bachelorette. Now tell me, where can I find such a scenario that naturally occurs in the REAL world? Nowhere.

To subtract even further from the reality of these shows, you've got cameras everywhere. Do people behave exactly how they would naturally when they're being filmed? What if there were cameras all around your house and office? Would you do anything different?

The only reality TV that ever came close to being real was shows like "Punk'd" and "Boiling Point." These shows relied on hidden cameras, and the "actors" didn't know they were being filmed. Furthermore, any compensation that the actors received was only offered after they were informed that it was a setup.

You know, some of these shows do occasionally have glimmers of reality. Take that ridiculous "Kendra" show, for example. It's all about the life of air-headed Kendra, former girlfriend of Hugh Heifner. I was at a friend's house a while back and she and her sister sat in rapt attention as this bland and boring show went on and on. At one point, it was Kendra, her fiance, and her friend sitting around the table having a really uninteresting conversation about their dog or something. I looked at my friend and her sister, perplexed that they were deriving entertainment from what was on the television. (From a male perspective, the only part of all this I found even remotely interesting was the fact that Kendra got a huge boob job and wasn't wearing a bra.) I thought to myself "I could probably have a more interesting conversation about the federal rules of civil procedure." You know it's bad television when law students (who have a very high tolerance for boring subjects) are bored stiff. So yes, THAT is reality. People sitting around a dinner table discussing topics in which you, an already disinterested third-party, have absolutely no interest. It also makes for horrible television. Which is why I think reality TV sucks.

Another problem with reality TV is that the cattle-like audience that finds a way to be entertained by such drivel might also be misled into thinking that it actually depicts reality. Then you'll get brides-to-be going absolutely crazy because they think that's okay and normal after watching "Bridezilla." Perhaps they don't realize that the producers are paying for the extraordinary antics. I had a roommate who told me that he had a really good relationship with a girl one time, and after a few months, she remarked that they never fought about anything, and wanted to know what was wrong. Seems like she was under the false impression that a normal relationship requires fighting, and if there hasn't been any, then it's not normal. It's false messages like these that reality TV sends to us. I just feel sorry for the people who actually believe them.

Not convinced? See here.
And here.
This too.

(Google is a wonderful thing.)

Is this so wrong?

I think you can tell a lot about a person by their favorite movies, or the movies they tend to watch. It speaks to how they are entertained. I imagine there's a big scientific explanation for what happens in the brain when someone is entertained. As I see it, you're entertained through some combination of empathy and understanding of whatever it is that is entertaining you. As you're watching a comedy flick, you see the exaggerated ridiculousness of the scene, recognize the why and how, and laugh accordingly. In a suspense thriller, you recognize the tension and imagine what the main character must be experiencing, and thus have a vicarious experience through her.

Some movies require more effort on your part in order to empathize with the characters or understand what is going on in the plot. Let's take the Matrix trilogy as an example. Everyone loved the first one. The plot was straightforward and the themes were simple (although if you watch the commentary you'll discover how replete the film was with philosophical nods and references): it's man vs. machine. Good vs. evil. Simple love story. Zero to hero. But then everyone hates the second and third parts of the trilogy. You've still got plenty of action. It's still man vs. machine. You've got the love thing going on. But now it's getting deeper. The producers are trying to communicate more of the history and background to their story. They're building up the "Christ" theme that culminates at the end of the third movie. But come on, people don't want that crap! Stuff like that requires way too much effort, empathy, and understanding. Thus, the connections are not made and people are not entertained.

I had a friend who didn't like the second and third movies. He also loved all the fast & furious movies. Does it mean anything? Am I wrong to make any sort of inference about his I.Q. on that basis? Is it all just a matter of varying interests? Could be.

What about the person who only likes horror films? What does that say about the person? The way I see it, it requires minimal mental faculties to empathize with or understand the entertainment value of a horror film. Horror films provide entertainment in the form of shock and surprise. Anyone can get scared. Even animals feel fear. But animals don't possess higher reasoning capabilities. They also don't crack jokes (as far as I know). So if someone only likes horror films and can't appreciate comedies or other genres, what does that say about them? Am I again wrong to infer that they may not be the sharpest tool in the shed?

I often pride myself on being non-judgmental. This post may make me a hypocrite. But let's face it, we make judgments as to someone's character based on all sorts of things. If someone derives entertainment/pleasure from killing kittens, then most of us would make a negative character judgment of him/her. My personal favorite is whether a person likes "The Office." If someone doesn't like the office, then I feel like I can at least conclude that we have drastically different senses of humor. If I'm feeling evil then I'll further conclude that they're not too bright. The Office, like most humor, is funny because it satirizes and exaggerates familiar, everyday occurrences. But to appreciate satire, one has to make the connection between reality and exaggeration. If you don't make the connection, you don't "get" the humor. It takes some mental effort, sometimes, to make such connections. I think you see where I'm going with this. :)

I'm offended!

There's a saying I heard long ago, I can't remember where, or who said it. It goes something like this: "The only thing stupider than taking offense when it isn't intended is taking offense when it IS intended." It's a little sound bite of wisdom I try to live by (and yes, "stupider" is a word).

Ultimately you are the person who decides whether something or someone is offensive to you. Of course you could say something like "That would be offensive to the average person." Often, you would be right. But since when has "average" been the goal? Average is merely the adjective that most often applies to each of us, as much as our self-serving bias might object; it's not the goal.

Every time you take offense to something, you exhibit weakness. You demonstrate that the person or thing that offended you has power over you. "That person is offensive" is not an entirely accurate statement. Rather: "I am offended by that person." There's a difference. The fact that you are offended might be more of a statement about yourself than it is about the other person.

Does this mean it's okay to go around recklessly or intentionally pissing people off and then blaming it on their weaknesses? Of course not. That makes you worse than a jerk. This is simply a mindset for dealing with the everyday things that people do, whether intentionally or unintentionally, that bother you.

I should also say that this concept isn't a "get out of jail free" card for the socially inept. I'm sure we all know people who speak before they think, not having inherited the gene for tact. While it's important to try to remain unphased by the unfortunate things that proceed from these peoples' mouths, we should also try to make them aware of how their words might affect others. Especially if you are close to these people and have to be around them on a regular basis. Because, come on, it can be pretty embarrassing.

So the next time you find yourself worked up over something, pause and ask whether whatever it is was done intentionally or unintentionally. If intentionally, then realize you have reacted very stupidly. If unintentionally, then take comfort in that you haven't yet hit the rock bottom of stupidity. Either way, the mere act of reflection will probably make it less likely to reoccur.

Pinback

I've been a little crazy about this new band I discovered recently. "Pinback." They're a mellow, indie band, and quite frankly I find their music addictive. I'll post the youtube playlist I created for them. My favorites are probably "Fortress," "Penelope," and "Seville," but really, they're all good. Check them out! Remember to listen to a song at least twice before deciding if you like it or not.



Fortress
Penelope
Seville
Barnes
How We Breathe
Avignon
Tres
Good to Sea
Non Photo Blue

Don't ask me what they're singing about. I've never been one to really pay attention to lyrics. I will either like or hate a song based on its composition, beat, structure, and general tune. Lyrics are just an afterthought, in my mind. This is why I can go years listening to a song and never figure out what they're saying.

Anyway, I better stop before I start making fun of Snoop Dogg's "music." Listen to the links when you've got a minute! Tell me what you think.

I take the "Phone" out of iPhone

I've been on the iPhone bandwagon for a while now. Here is a list of what I use my iPhone for most:

1. Solitaire
2. Maps (checking traffic, getting directions, finding places)
3. Texting
4. Facebook
5. Listening to the radio
6. Making/Receiving phone calls
7. Messing around with themes and apps (I jail-broke it)
8. Crawling the web
9. Playing other games besides solitaire
10. Youtube

If this represents the typical uses of most iPhone owners, then I think they should start calling it something else.

Choose your battles wisely

Case in point:

PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly.

Video here

Here's the thing, PETA. When you choose to make ANY fuss over something so trivial (not to mention ridiculous), you lose credibility on all fronts, even those where your position is valid.

This, ladies and gentleman, is why you should choose your battles wisely.

A rising generation of horrible spellers

The benefits of the internet are many, as are the disadvantages; I shan't attempt to number them all. Let me focus your attention on one aspect of this world I dwell in.

The internet is an information superhighway. Ideas can be shared and propagated to the world with the click of a button. Or, a few buttons, actually, because of this keyboard thing. But what if that idea is a bad one? Or rather, what if that idea is a really good one, but the idiot who came up with it used some variation of "there/their/they're" incorrectly. ("Hey guys! Their giving free slurpees at 7-11 this Thursday!!!") Well, now you've got millions of the idiot's friends of friends of friends forwarding this great idea, bad grammar and all. Then all these millions of friends start coming up with their own great ideas, with little regard to how they're using "you're/your."

If you own an email account, you've also probably been forwarded some kind of outrageous tidbit which may or may not be true. The original genius who revealed this newsworthy masterpiece probably described the event as ridiculous. Except he spelled it "rediculous." All the people who receive that email react in indignant outrage, quickly searching for the forward button to let all their friends and family know just how messed up the world is. Before you know it, millions of people have seen this email. They're also gathering around the water cooler talking about how "rediculous" it is.

We are a spoiled and lazy generation. Spoiled because most internet browsers and word processors immediately alert us to misspelled words. Lazy because we apparently don't care enough to right click on that word with the dotted red line under it to see what's wrong.

It's getting so bad that every time I see a correct usage of "you're," I actually do a double-take, instinctively thinking something must be wrong. Then I realize, "Oh, no that's right." I just see it wrong so often that I get confused when people do it right. Another culprit of this embarrassing development is internet and text messaging shortcuts (e.g. "ur"). "Ur" of course can mean one of three things: your, you're, and you are. Once people start using "ur" for everything, they must forget the correct usages of the above terms, and just go with the easiest one ("your").

Even rediculous bloggers who rant about stupid stuff like this are not immune. On rare occasion, I'm ashamed to admit, I've caught myself slipping up and using some simple contraption incorrectly. If purists like myself aren't even safe from this epidemic, then who is? What does our future hold? Will our newspapers someday read like the warning label of a Chinese firecracker?

Here are the most frequently misspelled words that I encounter. In all honesty I think the incorrect spellings/usages may one day oust the correct words from their rightful place.

• Rediculous (Correct: "This blog is ridiculous.")
• They're/Their/There (I'm not even going to try. If people can't figure this out, our education system is in worse shape than we can possibly imagine.)
• You're/Your/You are (see above)
• Its/It's (Correct: "It's late; you should go." Also: "The blogger reared its ugly head.")
• Then/Than (Correct: "Then she said, 'You're way more ridiculous than my ex.")
• Lose/Loose
• to/too/two (Maybe not so much that last one, but I wouldn't be surprised.)

Got your own favorites? Add them in comments.

My Fashion Advice

Sometimes I'll have girl friends send me links to clothing items they're thinking of purchasing, to see if I think they're cute. I'm always happy to give an opinion (well, maybe not happy to...but I do it anyway), but here is the fundamental problem with asking me these questions--cute clothes don't make a girl look good; cute girls make clothes look good.

From my facebook quotes section: "I'm really not a shallow person: it doesn't matter to me what type of clothes people wear. It's what's underneath those clothes that really counts." -Me

This "quote," which I think I just kind of made up one day (though I doubt it's an original thought), betrays my inherent bias. If I think a girl is attractive, I'm probably going to think she'll look good in just about anything. Because it's true--she will. And while guys may not articulate the above attitude, they all think it. If my friends are attractive (and they are), I'll often just tell them they can save the $300 they're about to spend on that cute summer dress and just throw on a burlap sack. They'll look good in that, too. When a guy says he likes your dress, or your shirt, or your belt (come on, a belt??), what he really means is he thinks you're hot.

This is why models are good looking. An attractive model immediately creates a positive association with the outfit he/she is wearing. The unspoken false message conveyed is that if you buy this dress or shirt, you'll look as good as this model. And we eat it right up. If designers started hiring unattractive people to do their modeling, I have no doubt sales would take a nose dive. Nobody wants to look like THAT guy/girl! So that's another problem with asking my opinion on which dress is best: I'm going to be inclined to favor the outfits worn by the models that I find most attractive.

(The nerdy former psychology major in me wants to do a study that would quantify the effect of attractiveness on people's perceptions of clothing. It wouldn't be hard to set up. It has probably already been done...)

Having said all that, I will agree that some clothing is flattering while some is not (i.e. a burlap sack). However, that person's inherent attractiveness remains largely unaffected. Clothes, like so many other things, represent a "quick fix" in people's minds: "If I wear the most popular and trendy clothes, I will be beautiful!" In reality, there is no shortcut to beauty or attractiveness (or awesomeness); it's a combination of personality, physical appearance, and demeanor, among many other things. And these characteristics are a function of your lifestyle and everyday behavior--they're not things that can be changed like a pair of underwear.

And no, those jeans don't make you look fat. Your butt makes you look fat. Time to hit the stair machine!

Clif Bars

In the aftermath of Costco discontinuing the protein bars I used to buy, I've been searching for a substitute. In short, Clif bars are not it.

To the makers of Clif bars: if you're going to create something that tastes like crap, the least you could do is make it resemble anything BUT crap. Seriously, if I stepped on one of these at the park, I'd probably utter a few of my favorite swears, and then look around for the irresponsible pet owner.

Of course, I guess I should expect as much from the hippies out of Berkeley, where these things are produced. The saddest part is I bought these in bulk at Costco, so now I've got like 50 of them I have to suffer through. I'm getting kind of sick just thinking about it.

I gave Chipotle a second chance, and I regret it

Why? Because I was really hungry and my friend told me that I needed to get the chicken rice bowl--it was "the best." I've heard that one before.

Besides being rather tasteless, another problem with what is served at chipotle is that it's COLD. Let me illustrate. Here is what goes in a chicken rice bowl:

Rice (warm)
Beans (warm)
Chicken (warm)
Salsa (cold)
Sour cream (cold)
Cheese (cold)

I also could have gotten guacamole and lettuce in there too (also cold). The ingredients go in the bowl in that order. Thus you have cold grated cheese sprinkled on top of two other cold items. How is that supposed to melt? Why would I want unmelted cheese in something like this? So after I sat down and kind of mixed this chicken rice bowl a little bit, it became a tasteless, lukewarm mess unfit for Guantanamo. The only reason I ate it all is because I was starving and had just paid six bucks for it.

Their burritos are even worse. In the burrito, you have all the above ingredients, plus maybe cold guacamole, all wrapped in a cold tortilla and then put in foil. Chipotle: serving cold "mexican" food fresh off the grill since '93! If I wanted burrito popsicles, I'd go to costco and buy them in bulk. Oh, I'd also heat them up in the microwave.

Now, consider what goes into a burrito at Cafe Rio:

• A warm tortilla that they just made fresh right in front of your eyes (they have a rotating grill on which they cook the thin sheets of dough).
• Seasoned rice (hot) (and none of this tasteless crap with just some green stuff thrown in there--the rice actually tastes GOOD. What a concept!)
• Beans (hot--you can actually see steam rising from the containers)
• Meat of your choice (hot--same as the beans)
• Cheese (cold, but quickly melts because the other items are kept hot)
  
• Sauce-mild, medium, or hot (all of which are heated)

They have been assembling all this in an aluminum tray. You might be wondering why. Well, at this point, they wrap up the burrito and ask if you want it enchilada style (the correct answer is 'yes'). Then they smother it with sauce and cheese on top, and place it in a little conveyor-oven for about a minute, further HEATING the entire meal, and MELTING the cheese on top of the burrito. After it comes out of the oven, you then have various "cold" side options to be placed in the aluminimum tray with (but not IN) your burrito, such as sour cream, guacamole, lettuce, chunky salsa, etc. Note how these items are not placed in the burrito. That is because the items are COLD, and you want your burrito to be HOT. And it is hot. All the ingredients that went into the burrito were hot, and then if that wasn't enough, they send the thing through the oven.

Now I don't know about you, but when I'm eating mexican food (or "mexican" food, I should say--I know that neither chipotle nor cafe rio serves traditional mexican food), unless I'm eating a salad or dessert, I expect it to be hot. Cold food is what I get when I open my refrigerator and have leftovers (I then heat them up). I don't expect the food I just saw prepared in front of my eyes to be cold the second it's handed to me. Are my expectations unreasonable? Again, this is why I am baffled by Chipotle's popularity. Not only are they getting away with fooling people that the food itself actually tastes good, but they're also serving it to them cold! And the people are eating it up!

I'm truly perplexed that two Chipotle restaurants actually exist in Salt Lake City, because I always presumed that where Cafe Rio and its assorted rip-offs were present, Chipotle could not possibly thrive. Honestly this blows my mind. I'm not saying that Cafe Rio serves the best food on the planet, oh no. What I am saying is that in the world of burritos made in front of your eyes, as is done at both of these places, Cafe Rio serves food that is overwhelmingly better than anything you'll get at Chipotle. And, Cafe Rio has much more variety in their menu. But for all Californians who read this and have still not had the opportunity to experience Cafe Rio, fear not, for salvation is nigh. In 2010 Cafe Rio will be opening a location down in Lake Forest. I know, I know, "Where's Lake Forest?" I'm not entirely sure myself. I know it's way down in south county somewhere. I intend to look it up once 2010 rolls around. Until then, enjoy your Chipotle. I'll be at taco bell.

Just another little rant: sunglasses indoors

I'm sitting here studying in the library, on the second floor, and a student walks by with sunglasses on, presumably going outside. A few minutes later, he passes by again, in the same condition. He is not carrying anything in his arms that would prevent him from removing the sunglasses from his face. I am confused. I was under the impression sunglasses were intended to protect your eyes from the sun and bright reflections while outside.

However, I do recognize that there may be some good reasons for wearing sunglasses indoors. Something else sunglasses do is obscure your face, making you harder to be recognized. Thus, they can be very useful to people such as celebrities and criminals. Celebrities, because they don't want to be mobbed by fans everywhere they go. Criminals, because they don't want to get caught and turned in.

But what about when people who are neither of these wear sunglasses indoors? What's the point? Is this some attempt at looking cool? At remaining aloof and disinterested in the affairs of people so unimportant they don't even deserve eye contact? Or is this a way for you to check out girls without them knowing it? I'm going with all of the above. Therefore, the only explanation I have is that these people are tools. Well here's some advice pal: if you want to look good or tough, hit the gym and lose weight. That'll do a lot more for you than those sunglasses.

(One notable exception to this rule is the people in the Matrix. Everyone seems to like wearing sunglasses there, regardless of where they are in the matrix. There's probably some deeper meaning behind this (the movies are quite deep, actually), of which I am not aware. So I'll refrain from holding the matrix people to the same standard...for now.)

I could care less that people could care less

Ok I don't mean to mince words, but this oft-used expression has always bothered me. People use it incorrectly. Typically, people will use this expression to convey the notion that they really don't care about something or other. For example: "I could care less what people think of me." Now what this literally means is that the person does care what people think of him, even if just a tiny amount, because if he didn't care at all, then the correct expression would be "I couldn't care less what people think of me." The latter version correctly expresses the thought that this person cares so little what people think, that he couldn't possibly care less. Try as hard as he might, he just can't do it. It is beyond his capability to care any less than he cares now. This is how the expression should be used. (This of course assumes that it is impossible to have "negative" caring, if that even makes sense. P.S. It doesn't.)

By saying "I could care less," you're actually selling yourself far short of even the less-emphatic "I don't care." This latter expression actually denotes a lesser degree of caring than the incorrect "I could care less," because it uses a more absolute negative than the former: "do not" as opposed to "less." I think it's safe to assume that, absent any modifier, "I don't care" should be properly understood as "I don't care [at all]" as opposed to "I don't care [much] or [a lot]." On the other hand, "I could care less" is a qualified statement from the get-go. The listener is left wondering, "Well, how much less could you care?" If the listener is at all like me, he's probably stopped paying attention to exactly what you could care less about, and instead is now pondering how much less you might care about it. He'll probably snap out of it in a few seconds and then smile and nod, and then change the subject. If you're lucky, he won't lecture you on your poor mastery of idiomatic expressions and the english language.

But wait, you hypocrite! You just used this expression incorrectly in the subject line to this post! Perhaps you are smugly thinking this to yourself. Well look again. By saying "I could care less that people could care less" I am telling you that there is a lot of non-caring I could do about this subject, compared to the caring that is currently going on here. For example, I could care so much less that I wouldn't have had the desire to write this ridiculous blog about it. See how that works?

Anyway, readers of my blog, I implore you to spread the word. The correct expression is as follows:

"I COULDN'T CARE LESS!"

Win a handmade gift from me!

I'm selling out and doing one of these deals where for the first three people who leave a comment on this post, and post some kind of gift-giving post on their blog, will be entitled to a free homemade gift from me. I have to do it within the next year (and it probably won't get done until after the bar exam, unfortunately). What I create is entirely up to me but I'll try to make it good. ;) So what you do is post something like this on your blog, then come back and comment here. Quick before it's too late!

Not everyone at once now.

Dear Costco

The following is a comment/suggestion I just submitted via Costco's website. Don't judge me.

***

I've been very disappointed in the past few years with my Costco experience. You keep discontinuing the products I like.

First, it was the double-fudge chocolate chip cookies. Your bakeries stopped making these and instead started putting oatmeal raisin cookies in with the chocolate chip and macadamia nut packages. Are you kidding? Is that some effort toward providing a healthier cookie? If I want to buy something healthy, I'm not going anywhere near your bakery. I'll hang out over in produce. The double-fudge chocolate chip cookies were the BEST of the three offered in those packs. Often I wished that they were sold separately so I could buy a box that just had double-fudge in it. Since their discontinuance, I haven't purchased another costco cookie.

Next, there's the protein shakes. Costco used to sell some decent-tasting powder protein shake mixes. They came in big tubs. You stopped selling them and now I'm forced to buy the overpriced stuff at GNC. And I'm talking about the chocolate kind. I just saw the vanilla flavor today. Please, that's just gross. Give me chocolate or give me nothing at all. (At this point I'm probably starting to sound like a woman. I'm not. However, I am hungry, and this hunger fuels my rage.)

Similarly, you have recently discontinued the Premier Nutrition protein bars. Why? These were by FAR the best tasting protein bars I have ever found (and I've tried quite a few). Now I'm stuck with the garbage brand you still carry: "Balance Gold" or something. I even contacted Premier Nutrition directly to see if I could just purchase them from their website. I can, but at a considerably higher price. This is why I pay membership fees: so you can buy in bulk and I don't pay so much. And I'm also not going to pay for ridiculously overpriced protein bars at GNC. Please, I'm in school. Why do you think I shop in a warehouse.

Now, most recently, and perhaps most atrociously, you have apparently discontinued the delicious garlic chicken alfredo thin-crust pizzas that I discovered just a couple months ago. Is this some kind of conspiracy? If I discover more of your best-kept secrets will you stop carrying those, too? Are you secretly monitoring my purchase history and conspiring to make my already-limited food options (remember: I'm a student, and a bachelor--do the math) even more pathetic? These pizzas were just amazing. They taste like something I might buy at California Pizza Kitchen, and they're not big circles of grease, like those Di'Giorno pizzas you sell.

If you're going to discontinue products, why not focus on the nasty stuff instead? How about those Lean Cuisine four-packs? First of all, if you're going to stick four Lean Cuisines together, you should probably get the "best" tasting ones you can find. It's really frustrating to buy a four-pack containing three somewhat palatable lean cuisines, and then a fourth one like squash ravioli that makes you want to puke. That alone defeats the economy of buying them at costco. I would be better off going to a regular supermarket and picking four boxes of poison I can tolerate. Anyway, my point is, Lean Cuisines are pretty nasty. Give them the boot and you'd have room for those pizzas again. Switch the balance gold protein bars of nastiness for the premier ones (which, incidentally, had more protein in them anyway). And for the love of all that is good, BRING BACK THE DOUBLE-FUDGE CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES! You know the kids aren't eating those "healthy" oatmeal raisin ones anyway. They're just getting left in the box and then thrown away after they get too stale. Go ahead, do a test. Put a chocolate one and an oatmeal raisin one in front of a child. Remember how the face of a child says it all? Well that cute, smiling little mug is now covered in chocolate, and it's trying to tell you something. Please listen.

Why is Nirvana still played so much on the radio?

Can someone please answer me this? The band has been dead since 1994. It has sold 50 to 74 millions records, according to wikipedia. This puts it WAY behind other popular, contemporary rock bands that have sold much more music than they have, such as metallica, depeche mode, and guns 'n roses, to name just a very few. But do you hear these bands on rock stations as much as Nirvana? No, you don't. At least, not around here. Why can't we just let them die? They really weren't that talented of a band. Is the ghost of Kurt Cobain haunting the owners of large radio stations, forcing them to play his music incessantly? Are they still played to remind us of the roots of the currently-popular Foo Fighters? I don't know. KROQ (local rock station) ranked them as the #2 band of all time (at least, in terms of what they play apparently) as of Memorial Day 2007. #3 was Sublime, which, incidentally, was my next question. Why is SUBLIME still played so much?? Please. Let these mediocre bands of the past rest in peace. The fans who really care will still buy their cds and keep listening. But if you describe yourself as a rock station that plays "new" music, don't insult my intelligence and play old early 90's hits over and over like they just came out last week. Save it for "90's at noon" or maybe themed weekends where you play old hits. There are so many good bands (note, this does not in any way include the no-talents "Social Distortion") coming out with great music nowadays that you should have more than enough to choose from without resorting to bygones.

I was right!

See the entry two posts down from this one regarding working out with hot girls around. Now this little blurb from my January/February 2009 issue of Men's Health Magazine:

"It starts with boys showing off on the playground, and the performance never ends: When a woman is around, men work out harder. In a new German study, men pushed themselves 12 percent harder and complained less about pain during a bicycle stress test when a female doctor supervised than when a man did. Study author Christian Jung, M.D., says the results could translate to your gym: "Working out with a woman may help you push harder, probably because men are evolutionarily programmed to impress women," he says. Choose your treadmill wisely."

Validation is a wonderful feeling, isn't it? :)

Oh and also: new year's resolutions

I guess my first post for the new year should have been about all the great new year's resolutions I've made! This will be a work in progress.

1. Eat at least 3000 calories per day (at the very least, on the days I work out). I've lost like 10 lbs over the holidays. This is tragic and must stop.
2. Get a 4.0 in at least one of my classes this semester.

. . .

I'm certainly open to suggestions.

You will probably think less of me after reading this

You know what makes an otherwise grueling and painful workout much more bearable? A hot chick.

Let me explain. I don't know of anyone who enjoys the pain associated with lifting weights or working your body hard. That pain is just something you put up with for later benefits, whether it's increased health, a good post-workout sensation, bigger muscles, flatter tummy, whatever. If you don't experience some measure of pain and discomfort while at the gym, then you're doing something wrong. So what better way to distract your mind from such pain than an attractive member of the opposite sex? This has several benefits. First, there's the mere eye candy aspect (but don't stare, you creep). Second, she serves as a distraction. Third, you might complete your sets with better form because you don't want to look like a dork. Fourth, you complete all reps in your set because you don't want to look like a wimp. Fifth, it passes the time faster. I'm going to stop making a numbered list now because it's getting on my nerves. You might also decide to exercise a little longer than you normally would have, because of that person's presence.

Back in social psychology, they taught us that your performance will improve if you are being observed by others, provided that you are comfortable with the task at hand, or already proficient. (Conversely, if you are inexperienced with the particular task, or not confident in your abilities, your performance will worsen in the presence of observers.) I think this is kind of the principle at work here. Generally unpleasant experiences are made much more bearable with the presence of some positive association, whether it be a person, music, feeling, etc. This is also why sometimes I study more effectively when I'm with friends.

So in the end I don't think it's such a bad thing that gyms are "meat markets." That guy who has been following you from station to station for the past half-hour? He's not a creepy stalker. He's just using you to make his workout easier. There, don't you feel better now?