Jane Austen's lingo

Kelly and I watched Emma the other day (because we like Clueless and we knew that it was a modern day take on the same Jane Austen book). I don't understand the way these people talk. Several times during the movie I had to pause it so that Kelly could explain to me what a character had just said. Once as she was translating she realized that she didn't understand what they had said, either, so we had to rewind and try again. It was still fun to watch the movie, but mostly because we liked trying to figure out how all of the characters from the two movies matched up. I missed Murray, though.

Holy War

Several weeks ago our Sunday School class broke out into one of its frequent arguments between the kids that support BYU and those that support U of U. (It might actually be the kids whose parents support those schools, but I guess it's normal for loyalty to span generations.) One of our students claimed that BYU shouldn't even be allowed to have that name because Brigham Young founded the University of Utah and not BYU.

I did some research on his claim and thought I'd share it since we're rapidly approaching the climax of Rivalry Week. I discovered not only that Brigham Young had founded both schools, but that they were once part of the same school: the University of Deseret.

In 1850 Brigham Young founded a school called the University of Deseret. I guess he didn't do so well managing it because it only lasted two years before going out of business. Meanwhile other schools were being established in the territory, including a school that was built in Provo in 1862.

In 1867 the University of Deseret reopened, though I assume Brigham was no longer in charge because he was promoting his own goals to open a new school in Draper. The school in Draper didn't pan out, but the University of Deseret did well enough to start expanding, and in 1869 it bought the Provo school and made it part of the University.

Brigham Young continued with his own goal to open a school, and in 1875 he succeeded by purchasing the Provo campus from the University of Deseret. Brigham himself (not the Church) owned the newly purchased school, and named it the Brigham Young Academy.

In 1896 (some years after Brigham's death) the LDS Church acquired Brigham Young Academy, and in 1903 it was split into two separate schools: Brigham Young High School and Brigham Young University. Meanwhile the University of Deseret changed its name to the University of Utah in 1894 (paralleling the change in the name of the territory that was on the brink of becoming a state).

According to legend the rivalry between the two schools started at their very first sporting competition. It was a baseball game in 1895. It was a tie game and there was a brawl after it was over. The rest is history.

New Xbox Experience

Microsoft released a pretty big update for the Xbox this week. It's basically the Xbox's equivalent of Windows Vista: no new functionality, but everything looks shinier.

The most obvious change is the addition of avatars. They let you create little digital characters for your profile. Basically the same thing as the Nintendo Mii, except that the Xbox versions don't look as much like Lego toys. I'd be a little worried that the introduction of these characters would cheese-up my otherwise adult gaming console, but it doesn't really change anything. There are no changes to existing games and only a few games can use the avatars, and only one of those can do anything with the avatar besides display it. So, really, while the avatar is fun to create, the only functional change that it offers is to give more personality to the old gamer profile icons.

The other noticeable change is the menu system. It's all shiny and bright, and after seeing the avatars you might think that the lighter feel of the menus is another Wii rip-off, but I think it's more similar to the Cover Flow interface that Apple has been putting on their new i-products (tunes and pods and phones). Basically the menu looks like a bunch of individual pages that you flip through. Besides the look of the menu, the menu system has gotten a lot bigger. It scrolls horizontally and vertically, so basically there's just tons of menu options. There are a couple places where the new navigation makes it easier to find things (like that there's finally a separation of full games from trials and demos in the Arcade menu). For the most part, though, the menu options are the same the new layout just gives Microsoft more real estate to throw in advertisements.

Something that actually does upset me about the new interface is that the skins for the dashboard are basically useless now. The old skins still exist, but the new interface just uses them for a background image instead of skinning all of the menus. I probably wouldn't care about that if it weren't for the fact that I had a special edition theme that came with my special edition Halo Xbox. So now I just have a special edition desktop image that anyone could probably get just by downloading a screenshot off the Internet and using that for their background image. It kind of takes the "special" out of the edition.

So, while the update is mostly just visual, there actually are two features that I'm excited about. One is that Netflix now has their own Xbox app, so you can watch the streamable portion of the Netflix library right on your Xbox. If that ends up as nice as I'm hoping then it might make me switch teams away from Blockbuster.

The second new feature that I'm excited about is the Community Games section. It's pretty empty right now, but basically this is a new area that will let individuals share their homebrew games with the rest of the Xbox world. Even if no good games surface out of the community, I think it's awesome and encouraging that it's even an option now.

If you're not an Xbox player you probably don't care about most of this (and if you are then you've probably already drawn your own conclusions), but I just thought I'd share my review while the system is still new enough for a fresh perspective. Even though the avatars are the most prominent change, don't be fooled and think that the Xbox has turned into the Nintendo Wii. Most of the changes are just cosmetic, and probably more ripped off from Apple than Nintendo anyway. If you don't like the cosmetic changes then you can find comfort in the fact that once you pop your game disk in the console is just the same as it always was.

Bluetooth

Ok, I understand that it's a pretty cool technology to be able to have these wireless devices. I even think a wireless hands-free headset is a good idea. But that's not really the problem is it? If you're on the phone, fine, but if you're not actually talking on the phone, take the stupid thing out of your ear. Don't you know that you look like a moron? I don't walk around holding a phone up to my ear all day long just in case I get a phone call, so take your stupid phone out of your ear when you're not using it.

Where did this tradition come from anyway? Did the inventor of these headsets tell everyone that it would be cool if they just wore them all day long? Because that was a lie. It's not cool. You don't look cool and we're not impressed by you. It's not like driving around in your Porsche to show off that you're successful. It's more like wearing a high-tech pocket protector. So seriously. Just stop it.

Unique Experiences and Circumstances

The Church made a press release about Proposition 8 the day after the election, mostly in defense of itself and attacks made against it for getting involved politically. This paragraph towards the end struck me:

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

What impresses me most is that the Church gives its members flexibility about this issue. It acknowledges that not all members would support the amendment and it seems to be fine with that. Instead of demanding that Church members support the amendment, it grants Church members their varying influences on their votes, and only asks mutual understanding and acceptance, not conformity.

While it would have been nice to have this kind of statement before the election while the debates were actually going on, I'm really glad for it now. Although (as the article states) the debate on the issue is not over, I hope that moving forward this will allow Latter-Day Saints to discuss the topic more openly and respectfully, without accusing each other of wrong doing simply because their politics "are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances."

Election Day

You know what I'm most excited for today? For it to all be over. It's just gotten way too stressful and I'm eager to get back to where I can complain about the government and not worry about my voice being heard. Think how relaxing it will be when we can just rely on the government to make the wrong decisions without all of us needing to stress and argue about our own political decisions.

Plus then I can get back to writing and thinking about more important things, like food and video games.

In My Defense

I've gotten some mixed responses to my last blog post (and by that I mean varying degrees of opposition), both on the post itself and from friends that prefer to talk more privately about the matter. I think that my views could use a little clarification.

First let me just point out that my post was not intended to challenge the doctrines of my Church nor of other religions. It was intended to challenge the idea that traditional families are in some kind of danger because of same-sex marriage. Frankly, I think that even opponents of same-sex marriage realize that these are bogus claims, but that they are more comfortable with unsupportable secular claims than with reasoning of a more personal nature (even if the personal or spiritual reasons make more sense). If people more readily admitted that their motives for opposing same-sex marriage were religious then I think that would have been a different blog post. (If you'd like to debate the validity of the secular arguments then I'm happy to hear your opinions, but please make your comments on my other post, as that's not the point of this one.) My point here is that I wasn't meaning to challenge anyone's religious or spiritual views (just their political reasoning).

As for the religious part of this issue, I hope that my friends will recognize the complexity of the situation before they become too worried or angry over my political views. I believe in my Church's teachings regarding families and their eternal nature. In fact, those teachings are very important to me in my personal life. A lot of the joy I get from living my religion is centered around the idea of eternal families. I don't discount that there are differences between men and women or that these are important to our eternal development. I love that my Church believes in both a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother, and I think that it shows the complimentary nature of men and women. I hope that my LDS friends will understand that I don't disregard the revelations about families, marriage, or sexuality. However, there are other revelations (that I also believe in) that are related to my political views on this subject. My Church's doctrine regarding government (D&C 134, the Articles of Faith, and parts of the Book of Mormon) supports the idea that the government should allow its citizens to believe as they will and to live their lives according to their beliefs. While it's easy to use those teachings to defend our own religious freedom, I think that we need to grant that same freedom to people that believe differently than we do (whether religious or not). I don't think that the religious freedom of others should be contingent on whether or not I or anyone else agrees with their beliefs.

Adding to complexity of the issue is the fact that my Church has expressly supported California's Proposition 8 and asked its members to do likewise. I know that this official statement is the whole deciding factor for a lot of Mormons. However, since the Church has also expressly stated that it is to be politically neutral, this departure from its policy only adds to my internal turmoil on the issue. I know that this is not the first time that the Church has laid aside their political neutrality (and maybe this neutrality isn't meant to be permanent anyway), but it is very rare. As far as I know, same-sex marriage is the only issue that has caused the Church to abandon its neutrality since I've been old enough to vote (or at the least since I've been old enough to be concerned about my vote). I can imagine that for some of my friends this is further reason to go with the flow, but I think the abnormality of the situation (not to mention the apparent contradictions with our beliefs on government) requires that we give this additional thought and concern, not that we shut off our brains on the issue.

I know that same-sex marriage is a sensitive subject for a lot of people, and I appreciate everyone that has given this issue thoughtful (and even prayerful) consideration, even if that leads them to different conclusions than me. I hope that they'll give me the same courtesy, even if my conclusions are different than theirs. I don't mind if you think that I am mixed up or mistaken about how I reconcile all of the components of this issue. In fact, if you feel that way I'd probably appreciate hearing your thoughts on the subject, especially if you're willing to share your spiritual motives.

However, that is not an invitation to insult my faith or my dedication to my religion. I want to be very clear about this. I love my religion and my Church, and I have not departed from my faith or testimony. I hope that by being explicit about this I've prevented anyone from drawing the wrong conclusion accidentally. If you disagree with me, whether about politics or religion or something else, that is fine and I'm open to the discussion, and usually I'm even open to changing my view if you convince me that I'm mistaken about my current position. Please be respectful as you disagree with me. Like you, I'm not always right, but I am honestly trying to do the right thing. Don't insult my motives because you disagree with my conclusions.

Traditional Families in Danger

I originally posted this on my friend Starla's blog, but I wanted to repost it on my own because I think it's an important thing to discuss. Starla had written that Proposition 8 in California will affect our families and children, and she posted a link to this video. The following is from my comment on that blog post.

One thing I don't understand... is exactly how this proposition affects heterosexual and/or "Judeo-Christian" families.

As far as the family in the video, I don't see what the big deal is about the book that was sent home. It seemed like it is introducing the idea that some people's families are different, not that homosexuality is OK. I don't think teaching children to be tolerant of other people's lives is something that we need to be afraid of.

Still, I do think it's ridiculous that the school administration wouldn't acknowledge these parents' right to choose how to introduce this topic to their child, and I think (at least from what the video showed) that the father was completely justified in his rebellion against the administration.

However, the issue with the school administration does seem like a separate issue from gay marriage itself. Couldn't this same scenario have come up regarding sex education or the teaching of evolution in a science class? Some parents have objections to their children being taught these issues in public schools and want to opt their children out of it. If an individual school decides not to inform parents or give them the opportunity to opt out their children, then isn't that an issue that needs to be taken up on a local level with the school? It doesn't mean that we need to make sex education illegal, but that we need to see that parents are given control over what their children are taught. If the school and/or school board won't accommodate that for whatever reason, there are still private schooling options for parents that want their children taught in a religious way.

I think it's fine that religions have their own way of viewing homosexuality and same-sex marriage and that the state doesn't have any right to change the way religions approach the issue, but also don't think religions have the right to impose their views of homosexuality on people that aren't of their faith. If these same-sex marriage ammendments really do negatively impact heterosexual families then I think it's something we should all be aware of, but so far I haven't seen anyone give an explanation of why traditional families need to be concerned.

I'm reposting this because I really would like to see a discussion about the effects on traditional families. I don't mean any disrespect to Starla or my own church or anyone else that is opposing same-sex marriage in the political forum, but I would like to hear your opinions about how traditional families are affected by these ammendments.

Nobody Panic

So, President Bush gave a speech this week about how to fix the economy.

Good evening. This is an extraordinary period for America's economy.

Good start. "Extraordinary" doesn't sound bad at all.

We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis...

...our entire economy is in danger.

...the gears of the American financial system began grinding to a halt.

...the situation becoming more precarious by the day...

...our country could experience a long and painful recession.

Ok, ok, I get it. He means extraordinarily bad. No need to harp on it.

The government's top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic...

Why wait for Congress to cause a panic by inaction when a doomsday speech can do it now?

First, how did our economy reach this point? ... Easy credit... led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford...

So, basically the economy is messed up because some banks made some "bad decisions" lending money to people who couldn't pay it back.

So I've proposed that the federal government reduce the risk posed by these troubled assets, and supply urgently-needed money so banks and other financial institutions can avoid collapse and resume lending.

Great idea. We just need to give those banks that made bad loans a bunch of money so that they can keep making those loans. That should fix the economy in no time.

Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised.

Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances.

Right, we only need the best system ever when things are good, not to help us out of a crisis.

The government is the one institution with the patience and resources to buy these assets at their current low prices and hold them until markets return to normal.

...the one institution that doesn't mind putting their money behind a bunch of companies that have shown their prowess at losing their own money.

Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line...

I mean, that doesn't mind put taxpayer money behind those companies.

Denver in a nutshell

This video has everything that you ever need to know about Denver. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they're a communist.

NBC needs to shut up

We're watching the women's individual all-around gymnastics right now, and the announcers on NBC have some serious bias. They complain and harp on every little mistake that the Chinese girls make and they sit silent when the Chinese do well, but they ignore any mistakes that the Americans make and complain like crazy if they don't get perfect scores. Don't get me wrong, I hope the American girls do well, too, but I expect the journalists to keep it to themselves a little more.

Bloggenting

As you may know, it's been quite a while since I've written a blog. I realize that I'm failing the blog community, and that many people are likely depressed and lonely waiting for the next words of wisdom to flow from my keyboard.

Despite the cause for disappointment in my lack of posts I want all of my many readers to know that I have been struggling to make a contribution to the digital community in another form: commenting.

Every blogger knows that the key to blogging is in the comments. After all, if it weren't for the comments from our readers telling us how great and/or stupid we are, then why would we blog at all? If it weren't for the comments, why not just write our ideas in journals like our ancestors did? I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that humankind has evolved past that method of expression.

So, lest anyone think that I am no longer a contributing member of the blogciety, just remember that I'm here every second I have to waste, reading and judging your blog posts, and commenting on them. You couldn't do this without me.

Chicago radio

We were in Chicago a few weeks ago for Stefroni's wedding, and everything was really wonderful. But that's not what I'm posting about.

Chicago's a big city, right? Well, as you would expect from a big city, there are a lot of radio stations. You can't go more than two clicks on the dial without getting a new station. I'd say there's about 800 FM radio stations around Chicagoland.

The part that surprised me is that only about 5 of those stations are devoted to popular music. I don't mean popular music as in Brittany Spears and the Backstreet Boys, I mean mainstream music, including country and rap and everything. So, between these 5 radio stations they pretty much need to play all of the music that normal people would listen to. The other 795 stations in the area are split pretty evenly between Mexican rachero music and talk radio.

Now if I had just 5 quality radio stations to choose from in an area that'd be plenty. The problem is, I don't want to listen to just any mix of mainstream crap. I need a rock station. Kelly and I spent all weekend scanning the spectrum for any semplance of rock, and the oldies station was the only one we could find.

So, in conclusion, Chicago radio stations suck.

Saving lives, one marathon at a time

Ronnie showed me this article today.  Y'all should be thanking me.

The Story of Marathon

Last week I looked up the legend on which the marathon event is based. This is the account in Wikipedia:

The name marathon comes from the legend of Pheidippides, a Greek soldier, who was sent from the town of Marathon to Athens to announce that the Persians had been defeated in the Battle of Marathon. It is said that he ran the entire distance without stopping and burst into the Senate, exclaiming ['We have won'] before collapsing and dying of heartattack.

Any of this strike you as a surprise? I'd heard the basic idea of this story before: that some guy ran from Marathon to Athens, which is the same distance as the race named after the city. But no one ever mentioned that it killed him to run it. That should probably be in some kind of disclaimer.

Mr. Rogers' birthday

I stumbled across this post today while working on a blog for one of our clients. Apparently it's Mr. Rogers' birthday tomorrow. The video almost made me cry.

I'm ready to admit it

Around November Annie suggested that we get some friends together and start training for the Salt Lake City Marathon. I'd been running for exercise (dogs notwithstanding), but a few laps of the park are a long way from the 26 miles of a marathon. I can't just run a marathon. I'm no Ryan Daniels, after all. So, naturally I thought Annie was crazy. She insisted that we could start training even if we couldn't yet run very far. After Jason showed me a training schedule and I realized that the first few runs were actually doable, I agreed that I would try training for it.

And so, for the past few months, the three of us have been training. Until recently I was a little bit embarrassed about it. It seemed like saying that I was training for a marathon would be like saying that I was going to run for president of United States. Seriously, if I saw me and if I told me that I was running a marathon, I'd be like, who does this guy think he is?

So, on Saturday of last week we ran 18 miles, our longest so far and second longest of our training. It was brutal, but I finished. I feel like now I've finally reached the point where I can say that I'm training for a marathon and not be embarrassed about it, like maybe I can actually do this thing.

As a side note, this training has made me a big fan of leash laws. If one of the presidential candidates would make that their platform then I'd definitely vote for them.