Survey Info

Here's some information regarding the Romney Sibling Cool Points in addition to that posted by Rebekah in her blog, Monkey City (see the link under "Related Blogs"). This ought to help in making a more well-informed decision.

Miles: Author of this blog, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking, member of the ISU intramural B league basketball championship team, Sunbeams teacher.

Celeste: The essence of sweetness, she oozes righteousness, eats charitable service and craps kindness. Recently led the NCAA bracket challenge.

Rebekah: Oppressed law student with little tolerance for incompetence and losing. Despite a broken throwing hand, she quarterbacked her football team to victory after victory.

Jared: New father, dedicated Biology student, disciplines the mentally handicapped, once ate poop from the tires of a three-wheeler because he thought it was chocolate.

Jen: When not cutting hair and nursing the baby, she leads her warrior into battle against the WofW horde.

Jacob: Source of drama--makes out with girls while he has mono, steals ice cream sandwiches from the freezer at work, only calls people when he needs favors.

Benjamin: Screams "Hallelujah!" from the shower, has to "reject" women that don't meet his standards, writes books that begin with "I Benjamin, having been born of goodly parents..."

Sarah: Social butterfly and Celeste's only rival in the "sweetness" category.

Rachel: Dance, dance revolutionary and new geology enthusiast.

Mary: Boys, boys, boys...

James: His email address is DragonWolfFalcon...do you really need anymore information?

The Impossible Argument

Many online news articles provide an option underneath the body of the article where users can make comments. I know I shouldn't read them because they are never enlightening, but I do. I suppose it's that "watching a train wreck" mentality.

Recently, after reading part of an article on the evolution of mankind, I yielded to the temptation to read the comments. If a user decides to comment, it's usually because he or she feels very strongly about the subject. And so passionate, biased comments were made on both sides. I was extremely frustrated by a comment made by an advocate for creationism. Her "proof" against evolution (and her tone implied that she believed she had discovered indisputable evidence that would forever define the argument) was "then how come people aren't evolving into other animals and how come more animals aren't turning into people?"

My hand reflexively shot up to strike my forehead. Why does this lady have to be on my team? You cannot contribute to a discussion if you don't have some understanding of both sides of the argument! Fortunately, there are plenty of idiots playing for the evolutionists, too.

But is this really a question that can be answered intellectually? There are brilliant people on both sides of the argument and there are ignoramouses on both sides of the argument.

This is how I see it. God created all of us and God loves all of us. He loves the smart ones and He loves the not-so-smart ones. He did not set life up to be a puzzle--as if everyone who is smart enough will figure out that God lives, and everyone too stupid to figure that out will burn in Hell. What a ridiculous concept! No, it's a matter of faith. If we are willing to listen to the Spirit, we will receive a testimony of Christ--whether we are smart or not. And because it is so important to our spiritual progression that we learn to listen to the Spirit, God set things up so that religion cannot be proven intellectually. If you don't believe me, read the Bible. Paul teaches that we must learn spiritual things spiritually and not by the wisdom of man. Does this mean that we should spurn science? Absolutely not. It just means that the existence of God will not be proven scientifically until God decides it is time. If science and religion do not seem to mesh, then either the scientists got it wrong (which the scientists themselves will tell you happens all the time) or we didn't understand revealed truth. A belief in God does not disprove evolution and belief in evolution does not disprove the existence of God. Learn what you can about both.

As for those of you that still insist on arguing, here's my advice: If you failed remedial 8th grade science, pipe down and let the smart ones handle it.

Moses, Strike a Pose!

I had a chance to sit down and watch the second half of "The Ten Commandments" yesterday. I hadn't seen the movie for some time, and it's funny how your perspective can change in just a few years. It has always been one of my favorites and I still enjoyed it, but some of its flaws (or charms?) where much more apparent. For example, Moses' beard at the very end of the movie looks like the cotton ball Santa Claus beards that we made in first grade. And I couldn't help but notice all the dramatic poses. It would have been hilarious to see Cecil B. Demille directing the actors to stand in awkward, dramatic poses straight from a Michaelangelo painting. The best example is when the Red Sea is coming down on Pharaoh's soldiers. There's a great shot of three Israelite women with their hair blowing in the wind and their arms held up very femininely for no reason. The negative space is filled perfectly, with the middle woman higher and the other two staggered one higher than the other in a medal podium arrangement. I couldn't help but laugh. And everyone speaks as if they're in an unrevised poem. "Can a man choose from the stars in the heavens?" "All of your gold cannot wipe that mark from your door, Dathan. Or from my heart." But the thing that stood out the most was the way Moses kept rubbing everything in Pharoah's face. When Pharaoh finally lets the Hebrews go and sits sullenly mourning his son, Moses decides that this is the appropriate time to give a poetic speech. I wonder if a lot of the stereotypes that go along with being a prophet come from that movie.

March MADness

Every year is the same. I get excited for the NCAA tournament and spend a couple of hours researching the teams, reading what the experts are predicting, and carefully making picks only to watch my bracket go down in flames and some girl that doesn't know the "board" from the "paint" take first place. In speaking with other college basketball fans, I've realized that this is a common-place occurence. The less one knows about basketball, the greater chance he or she (probably she) has of winning the pool. While I don't know that I'll ever fully understand why, I've come up with some theories.

1. Team Loyalty

No matter how well I know that BYU is going to lose in the first round like they do every year, I cannot bring myself to make that prediction. In fact, I have a difficult time predicting a BYU loss in the final four! Could it be that others suffer from the same problem? Loyalty to their team drives them to make picks that they otherwise would not have made? And this doesn't just affect the games that BYU plays in or would have played in. I'm also picking the teams that BYU played during the season to win their games. Meanwhile, Ms. Ooh-Look-at-Me-I'm-in-First-Place doesn't care who wins and is not plagued by that handicap.

2. Top Seed Pickers

If you have never seen either team play, what's the only clue that you have as to which team will win? Well, let's see. This team is ranked higher than that team, so they must be better. Unfortunatley, most of the time that's the way it turns out. The best evidence for this theory is the fact that in the final four, when the top seed-pickers have to choose between four #1 seed teams, they fall apart. They have no idea who to pick and the rest of us start to catch up.

3. Predicting the Upset

Real basketball fans (in other words, those of us that are naive enough to think we can actually predict who's going to win because we're so basketball savvy and smart) pride themselves on predicting upsets. Everyone is going to pick #4 over #13, so if I pick #13 and they win...that'll be something. It's too tempting. And we always pick the wrong #13 and they get blown out even though the experts raved about how underrated they were.

4. The Basketball Gods

Lounging in his Lay-Z-Boy in front of a giant plasma TV atop Mount Olympus is the god of basketball. He despises pathetic mortals like myself that attempt to predict NCAA tournament winners. And so he guides last-second desperation shots through the basket to send San Diego and Western Kentucky into the second round. And he wants more fans for the game of basketball, so he inspires clueless people who don't care about the game to make those picks so they get a kick out of winning and start to enjoy the game.

Russian Roulette Floozy-Style

The CDC recently published a study on STDs. Apparently, 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 14 and 19 has an STD. Huh? Say that again. Yeah, that's right. 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD! I'm talking about syphilis! HIV! Gonorrhea! Genital herpes! Genital warts! Chlamydia! Trichomoniasis! 1 in 4!

Alright, so if I'm a teenage boy with testosterone surging through my veins, drooling at every skirt that prances by (okay, not every skirt--even teenage boys have some standards), I'm taking a step back. Whoah! 1 in 4! No matter how violently my hormones are raging, I do NOT want giant lesions on my genitals. Ooh, but she looks so good. What are my chances of getting away with this?

Well, math is not my forte, but I'm pretty sure 1 in 4 means there's a 25% chance she's got an STD. If I succumb to my base urges, I've got a 75% chance of hooking up with an STD-free "woman of loose morals." When my brain is overwhelmed by my gonads that doesn't sound so bad. Well, along comes girl #2. Now I've got a 56% chance of getting away with it. Well, like we dated for like all of junior year and then she totally turned into a [expletive]. So I hooked up with girl #3. Now I've got a 42% chance of STD-free lovin'. In other words, after 3 girls there's a larger probability that I slept with a girl that has an STD than there is that I haven't. 4 girls? 31%. 5 girls? 23%.

Let's think about 1 more factor. The 1 in 4 statistic includes girls with high morals. Take them out of the equation and just leave the floozies and they've got a much higher rate of STDs. And the fact that this girl is willing to sleep with a teenage boy means her standards are preeeeetty low. That makes her a floozy and my odds just got a whole lot worse.

So if I'm a teenage boy...I'm keeping my pants on.

Sunbeam Quotes

Sunbeams?!? You want me to teach the Sunbeams?!? I was less than enthusiastic about my new position as a Sunday school teacher for 3-year olds. Looking through the teacher's manual did nothing to improve my outlook. Lesson titles included "I Am Grateful for Flowers" and "I Am Grateful for Water." Singing "Hello, Hello" and "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam" all day is not my ideal Sunday School experience. But where intellectual stimulation is absent, comedy is abundant. The Sunbeams' blatant honesty and naivete have provided some priceless laughs. Here are a few examples.

Little twirly-skirt-princess-dress-up-girly-girl Jenika approaches another Sunbeam's dad and pokes him in his pot belly.
"You're a fatty! He he he he he!"

Wyatt: Oh, no! Is this a church movie?
Celeste: Yes, we're going to learn about Heavenly Father and Jesus.
Wyatt: I hate church movies! Why can't we watch Zorro? I love Zorro way more than church.

Celeste: Wyatt, we don't throw chairs.
Wyatt: But I'm so angry!
Celeste: I know, but that doesn't make it okay to throw chairs.
Wyatt: But I'm soooooo angry!

Miles (holding up picture of Jesus): Does anyone know who this is?
Asha: Me! Me! Me!
Miles: Okay, Asha, tell everyone who this is.
Asha: [Silence.]
Miles: Do you know who this is?
Asha: [Silence.]
Miles: Do you need some help?
Asha: [Silence and blank stare.]

Miles: And then Pharoah KILLED all the babies!
Sunbeams: [Wide-eyed silence.]
Celeste: Honey...

Humor Diagnosis

Diagnostic tests are evaluated using two criteria--sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity refers to the ability of a test to find what it is looking for. Specificity is the ability of a test to distinguish what it's looking for from other findings that might give similar results. For example, a test for strep throat with a high sensitivity will almost always come back positive when strep throat is present. If it has a high specificity it will almost never come back positive when strep throat is absent. But a test with a high sensitivity and low specificity may come back positive even when the patient does not have strep throat.

It occurred to me that every time someone contemplates saying something funny, they must run their own internal diagnostic test. If they conclude that what they have to say is sufficiently funny, they will make the joke. However, the sensitivity and/or specificity of certain people's humor indicators is/are a bit low.

Case Study 1: JDR is a 24 year old male presenting with extremely high humor sensitivity and somewhat low specificity. Each time a thought strikes him as having potential humor value, the result of his internal humor indicator comes back positive. As a result, a funny thought never passes through his brain that doesn't make it to his mouth. On the other hand, too many false positives lead to an outpouring of failed jokes and minor embarrasment.

Case Study 2: JKR is a 26 year old male presenting with somewhat low humor sensitivity and normal specificity. He almost never tells an unsuccessful joke. The downside--he doesn't get as many laughs as JDR.