iTunes doesn't sell music

Kelly and I just drove past FYE and they’re running a sale where all CD’s are $9.99.

“About time,” I say, pointing the sign out to Kelly.  “They’re finally as cheap as iTunes.”

Kelly sees the sign and says, “$9.99?!  We should go in there.”

“Why?  It’s the same price as iTunes.”

“Yeah,” reveals my brilliant and beautiful wife, “but at least you own a CD, instead of iTunes just letting you borrow it.”

Dramatic?  Perhaps.  But think about what it really means for you to “buy” a song from iTunes.

When you buy a song on iTunes you can play it in iTunes or on your iPod.  You can’t play it on your Zune or Xbox or Nomad.  You can’t play it on your phone unless it’s an iPhone.  You can’t play it in WinAmp or Windows Media Player or any program on Linux.  Basically you can only use it where and how Apple Computer, Inc. says that you can use it.  You can use it only on their devices and software.

It isn’t your song.  It’s their song.  You didn’t buy it from them at all.  You just rented it.  If you’re really nice and do what you’re told they might let you use it sometime.

Worst Place

I think I just gave the worst sacrament meeting talk that's ever been given. Well, maybe not the very worst ever, because at least I didn't say that Jesus couldn't do anything himself because he didn't have a body. I guess mine was the second worst ever. I'm trying to look on the bright side, though. Kelly suggests that maybe this experience will help me be more empathetic towards other people who look like bumbling idiots at the pulpit, but I think that the real silver lining is that the bishopric will think twice before asking me to speak again.

Punk Rock isn't just for Anarchists anymore

I just found out that Michale Graves, famous as one of the singers for punk band the Misfits, is a conservative and a Republican. I also found this video from the Daily Show where they make fun of... pretty much everyone.

A Hidden Lesson in Every Commercial

I just saw this commercial tonight. Notice the difference between the bad car salesman and the good one. You can watch it multiple times if you need to. This test is open-book.

Did you see the difference? Do you see what TV is teaching us? Moustaches are shifty.

"Most Improved" and other burning instead of beauty

Last week I saw an advertisement for a permanent make-up company in Salt Lake, and I was going to write a post about it, but I got lazy and didn't do it. This week I found a new catalyst in that the young women in my ward are having a presentation on make-up as part of their weekly activity night.

Before I get into the particulars of my catalysts, let me just explain why I have a problem with make-up. I know there's a lot of potential issues with make-up or even with fashion in general, especially when you try to reconcile it with religion, but I think the thing that sets make-up apart from other fashions is how intertwined it becomes with a woman's self-esteem. If it were treated the same way as picking a belt or a pair of shoes, then I don't think I would care. But it's not treated the same. It becomes such a part of a woman's identity that she is convinced that she is not pretty without it, and she's uncomfortable being seen in public until after she has her face painted.

Cultural traditions are complicated and I know there's probably a lot of factors that have gone into making and keeping make-up so connected to self-esteem as it is. I don't know what's to blame for that, but I do see that the make-up companies realize this connection and that they prey on women because of it, taking advantage of self-esteem issues to sell their products. You could probably make an example out of any number of advertising campaigns, but one that is particularly obvious to me is Mary Kay. When they have their little make-up parties to sell the product in women's homes, they actually vote on who is the "most improved" because of the new make-up.

I don't really know what my ward's agenda is with this activity for the young women or how they're going to present it. I think it's entirely possible that they're going to have a very tasteful presentation and try to teach the girls to be moderate in how they wear their make-up. Even that, though, I think is potentially damaging to the young women.

I've seen those reality shows where they give a woman a make-over, which usually involves teaching her how to properly use her make-up. I haven't seen a lot of these shows, but every one that I have seen tells the woman to be more moderate and more sparing in how she applies her make-up. That's fine. The problem is that even this approach (or especially this approach?) teaches the woman that this is the way that her face is meant to be painted. The make-over teaches her what clothes are in style, and maybe what is flattering to her out of that style, but with the make-up it teaches her what matches her, as though it is something permanent that her face needs and not something that changes with the seasons and her moods like other fashions. It teaches her that this is the right look for her features and complexion. Even if the end result is that she wears less make-up than before, it still emphasizes the idea that there is a correct look for this particular woman and that it is only achievable through the application of make-up.

So regardless of the intent, I'd just be afraid that by teaching the young women to use make-up, you're really just teaching them that they need make-up.

Maybe it's an extension of that idea that there is a single correct look for a woman's face and that make-up achieves it that has led our society to the idea of permanent make-up. Anything permanent and unchangeable makes me nervous and I think the fact that there are women who are willing to have their make-up permanently attached just emphasizes how much the industry has convinced them of their inadequacy without it.

There is an additional thing that bothers me about permanent make-up. I'm sure that Salt Lake has more ads for tattoo removal than for tattoo parlors, but permanent make-up has no problem fitting in with all of the other ads for permanently changing a person's body to fit some arbitrary image of beauty. The part of this that really bothers me is that some of the same people who have religious reasons for thinking that tattoos are immoral can think that permanent make-up is just fine. You do realize that they are the same thing, right? The only difference is the shape of the tattoo that you're getting, but it's still a tattoo. I think the women who find themselves in favor of permanent make-up but against traditional tattoos have forgotten why they are against tattoos in the first place. It's so easy to be swept up in a cultural stereotype, but before long we forget our values and just start thinking that the definition of our religion is the same as our niche in that culture.

I guess it makes sense that the cultural associations blur the lines between make-up and tattoos for some women. After all, it's only because of cultural associations that permanent make-up could ever have an appeal in the first place. Women have been taught that they don't look good without it, and that they should always wear it whenever they are visible to anyone else, so it seems like an inconsequential step to have it permanently attached. Societal pressures have already permanently inked the make-up to our identity, so why not to skin?

Star Trek

I just got back from watching the new Star Trek movie. I liked it a lot. I was pretty worried about some things that they could do to screw it up, but I thought they did everything very well. I especially thought that they did a great job keeping the characters true to how they were written originally.

Fire Creek unleashed

A long time ago in a valley far far away, I got to be an extra in a movie called Fire Creek. Some of my friends went with: Roy, Becca, and of course Tyler, who got the imaginary crap beat out of him.

Despite it having been 4 years ago this month, they finally decided to release it. I don't know if we're still in it or if they cut that scene or if they just had to start over because they took so long making it, but I want to go see it just in case.

Pants of the Future

I think I've figured out why everyone in Star Trek and other sci-fi shows wear clothes that look like pajamas. I think it's because our species is so impressed by David Bowie that the future just has to emulate his clothing from the Labyrinth.

Observations

This morning I shaved my beard into a moustache. When I got to work and my boss called me into his office to help him with something, he looked at me a little bit puzzled, and then asked if I'd gotten a haircut. I grinned and said yes. I did, in fact, get a haircut yesterday.

Then Garrett looked up from what he was doing (also helping Jon) and laughed, pointing out that it was Moustache May.

Jon looked at me again, this time noticing the moustache, but still confused as to what was new. "Oh, yeah, you had a full beard yesterday. I knew something was different but I couldn't figure out what it was."

This might not be that funny on its own, but I mostly like it because I predicted that exact response last night.

Swine Flu Cured

I think I know how to cure swine flu. I think I remember the news saying that you can't sick from eating pig meat products. That's good news. We're entirely safe eating pork, bacon, ham, etc. All we need to do is eat all of the pigs, and soon the disease will be no more. So, for the sake of humanity's future, eat more bacon.

Not a turn-friendly zone

What does San Francisco have against left turns? It seems like every street we'd cross while we were there prohibited left-hand turns. I understand the ones that are one-way streets, and I appreciate the sign helping me not get killed by an oncoming bus. But what about all of the other streets? What's their excuse? It's like this city just has something against ambi-turners. You'd think that a city that's so accepting of people swinging both ways would be more tolerant of those of us who like to turn both ways.

Star Trek censorship

Do you think in the Clean Flicks' version of Star Trek they change his name to William Crappedner?

Worlds Collide

Last week we had dinner with some newly-made friends and the subject of politics came up. We found out what each other's viewpoint was, and then when we realized that they were opposite of each other, we simply moved on to other topics and we continued to have a good time hanging out and talking.

I have some other friends that I also disagree with on politics, but I still enjoy discussing the subject with them because we can see each other's point of view and disagree without becoming disagreeable, and overall I think we both grow from discussing alternate view points.

I'm not bringing up this difference to say that one way is better than another. I don't need to discuss every subject with every friend that I have. It doesn't matter if it's because we wouldn't disagree in a friendly way or if it's just because we have different passions and the same subjects don't appeal to both my friend and me. My point in bringing this up is that I can choose what to talk about with my friends based on their interests, their passions, and the situation; not just based on my own passions and interests. I think that choice is a good thing.

That brings me to problem I've been feeling about my blog. My blog doesn't give me that same choice as a regular conversation does. My blog isn't individual. In my blog I don't just write to one person and so it's not custom-tailored to how I best communicate with anyone. My blog is written generally to everyone, whether I know them or not, whether they hate me or not. I'm writing simultaneously to my mom and my boss, to the kid that's hated me since the 5th grade and to the friend that lives too far away to in person very often, to my best friend and to the stranger that doesn't know me at all but hates me anyway. Not that those people necessarily read my blog, but they can read it just as easily as someone that I specifically target with any post that I write.

I realize that this is the nature of blogs and of the Internet in general, and for most of my blog's lifespan there's been no problem with that. The most that I've ever had to censor myself with it was to be sure that any references to my crushes were sufficiently disguised that I wouldn't cause myself any public embarrassment. Most of my posts are just silly and stupid, and the worst thing that can happen about someone unexpected reading them is that they won't think I'm as funny as I think I am.

Maybe my life is just different than it once was and that's why my blog has become different, too. If nothing else, my current crush is well-known and she's happy to have me publicly confess it. Maybe the only thing that's really changed is the frequency and passion in recent political discussions. Or maybe nothing's changed at all, and it's just the fact that I'm a multi-faceted person, and that sometimes I want to write about something that I feel more deeply than a burrito. (I mean that metaphorically. I feel burritos all of the way down.)

I think that if I were to have my way then I'd just write about everything that I think and feel, regardless of how personal or controversial or humorous the subject is or isn't. I'd just write open and honestly about myself and all of my facets and not worry about how my reader might judge me. Sometimes that's been fine for me, but I don't know if I'm brave enough to really open myself up to every person that might wander across my blog. I'm afraid of how I might limit my life by doing that. I've realized recently that I can't be open about every facet of myself with every person that I'm friends with. Some people simply aren't comfortable with all of my facets, and unfortunately relationships change or get ruined when they're forced to see me from a point of view that they hadn't previously.

So here I am, at the end of this post, not knowing what to do with my blog and my friends. It'd be nice if I could just separate my digital persona from my real-life image so that I could still use my blog as an outlet for all of my multi-faceted thoughts, or maybe I could separate all of my facets into separate identities and blogs that wouldn't have to collide or interfere with each other. (I could keep just my food-related blogs tied to my real identity, since anyone that looks at me will know that I like food.) I'm afraid it's probably too late for any kind of separation like that for the people that already know me and read my blog, and instead I just feel sad to feel that I've already ruined both my blog and some relationships.

Or maybe I should stop taking the oxycodone so that I can stop feeling so melodramatic about the whole stupid thing.

(I should probably point out that the oxycodone is a joke for the sake of anyone that might think that I'm addicted to painkillers, but the fact that I'd have to point that out just makes me feel like I'm talking in circles.)

The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius

I listened to the Forrest Gump soundtrack the other day and I've had the Age of Aquarius song stuck in my head. While I was trying to find a place to listen to the song today, I read a little bit about it. Apparently it's from some hippie musical called Hair, and then was later released as a pop song by the 5th Dimension. And, contrary to popular references (including my own three sentences ago) the song is just called "Aquarius", not "Age of Aquarius". Whatever, right?

Here's the interesting thing: Apparently there is some discord among astrologers about when the age of Aquarius really begins, but the first lines of the song lyrics give their own measurement for when it begins: "When the Moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars". According to Wikipedia this alignment will really happen on Feb. 14, 2009.

So, whatever the heck the age of Aquarius is, it starts on this week on Valentine's day. Weird, huh?

A Bad Week for Poetry

I'm not an expert on poetry or anything, but I do like poetry. I even took a poetry class in high school (that I've mostly forgotten). I just want it understood that I'm not a poetry-hater before I say what needs to be said.

About that poetry after Obama's speech on Tuesday: it sucked.

Ok, I don't really know if the poem itself sucked, because it was so boring that I have no idea what the heck the poem was even about. It might be a perfectly good and thought-provoking poem when read on paper. I don't really know. Either the poem sucked, or the delivery sucked, but something definitely sucked.

Wouldn't you be trying to get some kind of message across in a political poem? Well what good is your message if no one can stand listening to you read it? Did the author really need to give a two-second-long pause between every word of the poem? She should have just had Captain Kirk read it. At least his uncomfortably-long-pauses are spaced out enough to make it seem dramatic. Seriously, I couldn't even pay attention to her long enough to hear a whole sentence, let alone to understand what the poem was about. If they really needed that poem to be read after Obama's speech then they should have just typed it into a Speak & Spell and I think it'd be easier to understand.

Sorry about my last post. I've been informed that it doesn't make any sense. I still like it, though, so I'm not changing it. Instead, I'll just offer my apologies to anyone whose IQ was lowered because of reading it, and I'll try to give you a serious related post to try and make up some of those lost brain cells.

I'm not very far into Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", but I have noticed something about the way he explains some of the more controversial scientific ideas (such as the big bang). He never insults or discredits religious ideas because of scientific discovery. He is especially courteous and careful about it, trying to be clear that science does not discredit religion, but just adds new understanding.

Take the following excerpt for instance. Hawking has just explained that we can observe that the universe is expanding. From that we know that the universe was once closer together than it is now, and from that we can deduce that there was once a time when the universe was "all at exactly the same place". Now the big bang (when the universe started expanding from being all in exactly the same place) is often treated as being at odds with the idea of divine creation, but Hawking doesn't explain it that way at all.

One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!

I'm very impressed that Hawking doesn't try to say that the big bang discredits the creation, and even offers an explanation of how they can both be true.

One of the reasons that this is so thought-provoking to me is because I realize that the scientific community seems to be much more considerate of the religious community than we are of them. Hawking (himself an atheist) is very careful not to discredit the religious views of his readers, but it seems common to me that religious people are eager to discredit science as "just a theory" and to disbelieve the whole of scientific discovery rather than figure out how to reconcile their beliefs with the new knowledge that mankind is developing.

Science is bunk

I've started reading "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. In the first chapter he describes the goals of science and scientific theory. Unfortunately, I think he's wrong about a crucial assumption. Here's (a misrepresentation of) an excerpt from the book:

The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the [construction on I-80]. However, the approach most scientists actually follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how [the construction on I-80] changes with time. (If we know what [I-80] is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time.) Second, there is the question of the initial state of [I-80]. Some people feel that science should be concerned only with the first part; they regard the question of the initial [creation of I-80] as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They would say that [the government], being omnipotent, could have started the [I-80] any way that [they] wanted. That may be so, but in that case [they] also could have made [the construction] develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that [they] chose to make [the construction move along] in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state [of I-80].

See? Sure, he starts off reasonable enough, but did you see how he thinks that the construction moves along in some way that actually makes sense? Sorry, Stephen, but if the construction is really done "in a completely arbitrary way", then science can't hope to discover any laws to understand it nor to predict when (if ever) it will be completed.

Ok, maybe Stephen Hawking wasn't really talking about the construction on I-80, but if science can't even make sense of the construction, there's no way it can describe the whole universe.