Paul's Blog

I can't remember if I have mentioned it or not, but my good friend Paul has a blog and its good. Everyone should go check it out.

http://trivialtidbits.blogspot.com/

Paul is one of those smart types who actually knows how to write, so his posts are actually coherent and well thought out. I urge everyone to visit it and comment on his blog, and don't forget to mention who sent ya!

Harry 7 revisted

Okay, several months ago I wrote my predictions on Harry Potter 7, and I thought that I'd go through and see how close I was. By the way, as far as my thoughts on the book, I absolutely loved it, I'm trying to decide if it is my favorite of the series or not. I have a hard time choosing. Anyway, here are my predictions and my commentary on how accurate they were.

Warning: Here be major spoilers.

Q: Deathly Hallows? WTF?
A: Has to do with the ministry of magic, that's all I'll say.

Uh.... I was kind of right. Okay, not really.

Q: Does Harry die?
A: Sort of.

This one I totally called. Death and resurrection are necessary components for this type of story. Saw the whole mostly dead thing coming from a mile away. That said, the King's Cross chapter is probably my favorite of the entire series as Harry finally got to have the heart to heart that he'd been longing for since the beginning of the story with the only real Father Figure he'd ever had. Plus, the line at the end of the chapter about it being in his head, probably one of the best things ever written.

Q: Is he alive at the end?
A: Yes.

Booyakasha! Can I call them or what. Seriously, did you ever think he would die? What kind of message would that send to children. Far more powerful was the fact that he was willing to die for his friends, and the underlying message that there are things worse than death, and that some things are worth dying for.

Q: Does You-know-who die?
A: Yeah

Well, it was either Harry or Voldemort, who would you have bet on?

Q: Does Harry kill him?
A: No.

True, Big V's own spell killed him.

Q: Ron and Hermione?
A: Still kicking.

Q: Ron and Hemione, do they, you know?
A: Married.

Right on both counts

Q: Harry and Ginny?
A: Also Married. BTW, Ginny turns out to be very important.

Very important, she marries Harry.

Q: Does Harry go back to Hogwarts?
A: Yes.

I didn't say as a student.

Q: Do we get to meet Aberforth Dumbledore?
A: Let's just say that Aberforth, like most people nicknamed Abby, defines the phrase "Bad Mother (expletive)."

Okay, not so much. But he came through in the end.

Q: Does Neville die?
A: Yep, sorry Neville, we hardly knew thee.

Okay, I was wrong. Darn you, Neville. I'd rather have Fred than you.

Q: Does Snape die?
A: Yes

Who called it?

Q: Did Dumbledore order Snape to kill him?
A: Affirmative.

I am clairvoyant.

Q: Did Dumbledore make the right decision trusting Snape?
A: Dumbledore is rarely wrong.

Never doubt Albus

Q: Lupin, does he die?
A: Yes.

I really wanted him to live, and once he had a kid I thought he'd make it, but this guess was right.

Q: Wormtail?
A: Mucho Dead.

You knew that raitor was going to get it.

Q: What happens to Draco Malfoy?
A: Draco's actions will surprise you. Turns out he may have been worth saving. He's left alive at the end.

Once again, I'm brilliant.

Q: Was the ending good? Anti-climactic? More disappointing than a Lemony Snickett novel?
A: Deeply satisfying. All sugar bowls are fully explained, so to speak.

I maintain that this was the best ending to a series since Return of the King.

Q: What is the seventh Horcrux?
A: Don't you mean who?

Q: Was it Harry?
A: Nope, someone who has already died.

Half right. I didn't know you could unintentionally create a horcrux. Forgiveness please.

So, not too bad, mostly right. Thanks again for a great series, J.K. Rowling, I look forward to whatever you do next.

Harry Potter 7

Okay guys, Saturday is Harry Potter 7, if you haven't posted predicitons on what happens then I am demanding that you do so immediately, either in your blog or in the comments section here. Predicitons should include who dies, who lives, whether Snape is evil, and who, if anyone, comes back from the dead, as well as any other relevant events you think might occur in book 7

Update: For some reason, I'm having technical difficulties. This post is not appearing on the blog page when I post it, but people tell me it can still be viewed. This just adds to my theory that my parents internet sucks. Anyway, post them predictions.

Live Earth

Some thoughts on live earth.

I admit it, I watched live earth. My verdict: three or four good performances and a lot of hypocrisy. I think like most people, I really couldn't care less about the political message behind live earth. I just watched it because there were a couple of good bands, but I'm not going to change my behavior because of it. I think it is stupid to think that it made any difference at all. Trying to get a bunch of idiot kids to stop polluting is largely ineffective and a waste of time. Assuming for a moment that climate change is real (it probably is, it's just overstated), the people at live earth were entirely the wrong audience. If everyone there suddenly decided to go green it still wouldn't make any difference. In fact, it wouldn't even begin to offset the pollution caused by hypocritical "enlightened" rock stars as they jet around the earth and live extravagant lifestyles. The fact is, that if you want people to go green, you have to create some incentive for them. People will naturally pollute less if you make it cheaper for them to do so. Otherwise, you can't blame them for polluting. So, let's have fewer concerts and let's work on making a car that doesn't pollute.

As far as the show itself, most of the acts absolutely sucked. I'd never heard of half of the acts, and if I've never heard of a band, they are REALLY flying below the radar. Most of the acts were pop acts that represent everything that people who really like music tend to hate. The non-teeny bopper acts weren't that cool, either. Sorry Al Gore, but just seeing Metallica on stage made me want to burn down a rainforest and eat a california condor. They haven't been cool since they decided to start suing their fans for having the audacity to want to hear their music. There's a special corner in Hell waiting for you, Lars Ulrich, sponsored by Napster.

Likewise, there is nothing impressive about a Madonna concert. Madonna hasn't been musically relevant for years. These days, she's more famous for being Madonna than for any music she's made. Why would anyone want to hear her sing? Also, how much of the ozone layer has been seared off by her flying back and forth to Africa to kidnap little bush children. By the way, when did african orphans become the beanie babies of the rich? Collect one from every disadvantaged country!

Fall Out Boy was there, and established themselves as the least photogenic band since Gwar. Talk about hopping on the bandwagon of rock excess. Moderation guys. Lead singer and guitarist both need to cut a few pounds, and Pete Wentz needs to be treated for tattoo addiction. If one were to judge, you'd think that showers were not required for playing at this show. The songs were good, but I seriously was so distracted by how bad these guys all looked that I hardly noticed the music. I'm begging you guy to get rehab.

As far as bright spots on the line up, there was John Mayer, who is a good enough guitarist that even shows that he phones in are worth watching, did some pretty good stuff. The Grandparents of the Beastie Boys were there and played a show. These guys have not found a way to age gracefully. MCA needs hair dye, badly. Meanwhile, Ad Rock and Mike D are still trying to look like teenagers and it's not happening. Sorry guys, but the 40 year olds on 90210 were more convincing teenagers than you guys.

Foo Fighters showed up and actually did a good job. Dave Grohl was probably the best showman there (more on that in a second) and I think it would be hard for them to play a bad show. Hero and Everlong were true standouts, However, these songs just showed how truly awful the rest of the bands were by comparison.

The most important event of the evening didn't seem to get any press. Yusuf Islam came out and played some of his former hits. Cat F---ing Stevens! That's right, he finally decided that Allah was cool with him playing music. Again, having someone that awesome just illuminated how dreadful everyone else on the bill was.

Ultimately, aside from being a tremendously pretentious failure, the most notable thing about live aid was the bands that didn't show up and play. U2, Radiohead, REM, Coldplay, Green Day, pretty much anyone who is both good AND who enjoyed mainstream success opted not to show up. Where were these guys? You'd think that any of them would have done a benefit concert for global warming. Likewise, where were all of the buzzworthy indie acts and more recent successes like Arctic Monkeys, The Fray, Bright Eyes, The Shins, The Killers, the Strokes, etc? Damien Rice was there, but let's face it, after his last album he'd be lucky to be invited to play at Borders, he wasn't going to turn down this gig. Where were the big name reunions? Led Zeppelin, Simon and Garfunkel, Rage Against the Machine, Cream, Genesis, ABBA, Wings, there are tons of bands who probably could have been convinced to reunite for a worthy cause and bring some publicity to the show. None of that happened. Dude, Gore, I will promise that every car I buy from here on out will be a hybrid, I will recycle everything, and I will install solar panels on my house, and urge all of my friends and family to do the same if you can convince Pink Floyd to reunite and play a set.

So basically, Live Earth was an uncompelling music festival, where the self-congratulating assembled to hear mostly dreadful music with the occasional flash of inspiration. Most of the really good activist bands skipped the show, there were no noteworthy reunions, and no performances by A list indie bands or hot contemporary bands (aside from the donut binged Fall Out Boy). Perhaps this show was the perfect metaphor for modern environmentalism. Bloated, hypocritical, largely unappealing and lacking in substance. Desperate to be taken seriously, but unable to muster many supporters with the street cred to generate widespread interest and intense consensus necessary to bring about change. If your purpose was to change the world Mr. Gore, you failed. If your purpose was to put on a good rock show, you failed miserably.

Dating Myths

Yesterday, we got the "You guys aren't dating enough" speech in priesthood. I'm not going to comment on that, as I'm not going to criticize my church leaders. However, there are certain things that I've heard since I returned from a mission that I don't believe and refuse to accept as truth without any kind of evidence. Here are some of the popular myth's about dating.

Myth #1: Brigham Young said, "Any young man over the age of 25 who isn't married is a menace to society."

Fact: Brigham Young never said this, or anything like it. The closest thing to that statement is one of President Young's Counselor's statement that every man over the age of 18 should take ANOTHER wife, if he was able to. Even if President Young did say that, the context in which he made the statement was completely different. If you didn't like the girl you married, you didn't have to worry about divorce, you just kept dating and found another one. Just try suggesting that in the church today. The fact is, marriage and dating were very different in the age of polygamy. Divorce was also not as big a deal. Brigham Young himself was divorced several times. Often the case was that a brother had taken a wife so she could have claim on him for support, and she found somebody else that she fell in love with, so the original husband granted a divorce so she could remarry, and no hard feelings were had.

In the interest of full disclosure, some of the bretheren have stated that while Pres. Young's statement is of dubious authenticity, they agree with the sentiment. Basically, they don't want people putting off marriage to focus on worldly ambitions. However, a number of general authorities have been married past the age of 25. There is nothing wrong with waiting and marrying the right person in the right place at the right time, as long as you aren't actively avoiding it.

Myth #2: There are tons of attractive girls in the ward who aren't getting asked out.

Fact: Really? Who? Do you have proof of this? I'm not saying this is never true, but I've never seen it. Every time this gets said I ask for a list of these girls who aren't getting asked out and I have never received one. Furthermore, I've heard girls say that they don't get asked out when I know for a fact that they do. When pressed on it, they say, "Oh that wasn't a date, we just went as friends." Uh, did the guy know that? I'm guessing he counted it as a date.

Adding to my doubt is the fact that cute is a highly subjective term. Sorry, but there is no universal standard of cute, aside from Halle Berry. Different people are attracted to different things, and girls that one guy finds cute, are not necessarily going to be attractive to another guy. That is not a comment on the girls, just simply an observation that guys are individualistic in their tastes and desires.

Myth #3: If only the brethren could associate more with the girls in the ward, they would ask more of them out.

Fact: This may be partially true. Sometimes activities are helpful to get to know girls in the ward so that you can avoid the awkwardness of just asking out someone you've never met. However, in many instances, guys know the girls in the ward and have decided that they don't want to date them. A lot of times, girls have met all the guys in the ward and have decided that they don't want to date those losers either! Both of these attitudes are fine. It's okay not to want to date the people in your ward. In fact, it is often a good idea not to, for reasons which will be addressed below. The idea that more ward activities will somehow make people spontaneously develop an attraction to each other is just silly. It's not like they don't know where to find each other. If they wanted to go out, they'd generally go up and ask them out.

Myth #4 Dating in your ward is a good idea.

Fact: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Yeah, right. Okay, dating in your ward is fine, and there is nothing wrong with it, provided that both you and the person you are dating are mature human beings who are capable of behaving like adults should anything happen. However, realize that if anything should go wrong, you are probably going to have to move wards, probably to another side of town. If you do date someone in the ward, realize that you are dating in a fishbowl, your relationship is on display and everyone in the ward is going to scrutinize it. If there is a breakup and it goes badly, the guy is going to trash talk the girl to the whole Elders' Quorum, and the girl is going to badmouth the dude to the whole relief society, and in the court of public opinion you are often guilty until proven innocent and there are no appeals. Worse still, if you have mutual friends, then they feel like they have to pick sides. You run the risk of not just losing a girlfriend/boyfriend, you may lose your entire group of friends. I'm not saying this is always the case, I'm saying it can be, and you should watch out.

Myth #5: Dating is cheap.

Fact: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Are you serious? Anyone who says that and means it has not been on a first date in years. It is true that there are several low cost dates that one can have. Generally, these don't work as first dates. The dollar movie from redbox and a bag of popcorn doesn't usually fly for a first date. Likewise, the other cheap stuff generally works best with people you are already dating (such as running or going to the gym, going for a walk, etc). True, you can sometimes get away with a hike, or mooch off your friend who owns a rafting company, or go to a fireside (does that count as a real date? I vote no) etc, but most of the time, you are going to have to spend money on a first date. You are probably going to do something like dinner and bowling, or playing pool, or some kind of activity like that. All total, that date is going to cost you at least $30 not including gas. You go on one first date a week, and that is $120 you are spending a month on first dates. Some would say the solution is "well, go on more second dates." Ha! Thank you snide observer who is clearly out of touch with the realities of dating. Thanks to the leadership hammering the sisters with the "You should never say no to a first date" mentality, girls will always give you a "courtesy date" even when they find you about as attractive as pig vomit. So the girl happily says yes, lets you blow your money one her, fakes that she had a good time, and then when she turns you down for a second date you are shocked and feel stupid, and have to go out on yet another first date with a girl who probably isn't interested in you. Much less painful, girls, would be, "Thank you, but I'm kind of busy that weekend." If a girl really is busy that weekend, and would like to go out another time, then she should say "can we go out another time?" If she's not interested, she shouldn't say that. Unless the guy is an idiot (sadly, many are) then he'll get the message. Girls, if he doesn't get the message, it is okay to say that you are totally not into him. He forced you to say it, and he needs to hear it. If you really want to let him down easy, suggest a girl that you know likes him, but only if there really is someone who likes him. Not every frog is capable of turning into a prince, and maybe saying no will get the guy to think about making some changes to make himself more attractive.

Bottom line, it is not doing the guy a favor to let him spend his money on you when you don't like him. It's patronizing and cruel. This isn't young womens and the guy isn't a 16 year old priest. Grow up, turn him down, and let him ask out someone who actually likes him.